The State of California has agreed to drop its legal challenge of San Francisco’s Proposition B, the voter-approved “No Wall on the Waterfront” measure which maintains existing height limits for waterfront property under the control of the Port of San Francisco unless a specific up-zoning is approved by the public on a project-by-project basis, as has already occurred for the redevelopment of Pier 70 and the Giants’ massive Mission Rock site as pictured (and rendered) above.

As part of its settlement with the State, the City has agreed that the approval of future developments upon Port land will be conditioned upon written documentation of the project’s consistency with the public trust and overall benefit to the people of California.

At the same time, the State Lands Commission has agreed not to challenge the validity of Proposition B as it has been applied to the aforementioned Pier 70 and Mission Rock projects, to partner with the Port to seek state funding for the projected $1.6 billion needed to upgrade San Francisco’s seawall, and to facilitate the placement of affordable housing on trust lands where housing is permitted.

“This agreement protects the will of San Francisco voters,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. “It ends this lawsuit while ensuring that voters continue to have their voices heard when it comes to the use, access and enjoyment of San Francisco’s waterfront. The waterfront is part of who we are as a city. We will continue to be good stewards of that legacy as we shape our future. Together, we will ensure that San Francisco’s waterfront remains vibrant and welcoming to residents and visitors alike.”

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    I mean, I understand the Prob B perspective, but it’s clearly designed to be more of a mitigating control than a constructive avenue for protecting the “pristine” shorelines of the Bay. I definitely don’t want to see the waterfront overdeveloped (especially with private campuses or corporate HQs) but there needs to be some incentive to activate and integrate the shore into the urban fabric.

  2. Posted by Notcom

    Wasn’t this the same suit the LA Times flagged as a potential problem for Gavin Newsom, Chair of the SLC?

    How fortunate for his gubernatorial hopes that it’s being settled…quietly and before the election begins in earnest.

  3. Posted by mike smith

    This is great news! Now we need to stop Supervisor Wiener from Passing SB 827 which would completely destroy SF and the waterfront.

    • Posted by Pablito

      While I think SB 827 as written is overly broad in its provisions of radius and “transit rich” – I think the the State of CA needs to pass something like SB827.
      If it fails in the legislature I expect a more narrowly tailored but similar proposition would pass at the ballot box.

    • Posted by Mark

      I think Wiener wants to tie this in with his master subway plan. You see, if you’re riding underground all day you won’t notice what’s developing along the waterfront.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      Pretty terrible joke, or maybe just abject ignorance, on your part. But hey, you got yours, right? Why should anyone else ever have an opportunity to live or buy in SF in the future?

    • Posted by Kraus

      Nonsense. A full-strength SB-827 (along with its companion SB-828) is needed if we’re serious about address the housing crisis. We have 40+ years of NIMBY-constrained underproduction with regard to housing creation.

      Following their passage, we can advance an “SB-829” that requires all jurisdictions participate in the creation of a more efficient and integrated regional public transportation network.

      The era of local balkanization when it comes to something as fundamental as adequate housing creation is over.

  4. Posted by Jon

    San Francisco voters always know what’s best for everyone else anyway…

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      They may or may not know what’s best for everyone else, but I trust them to be closer to knowing what’s best for San Francisco residents than politicians in Sacramento know what’s best for San Francisco residents.

  5. Posted by mike smith

    Whichever way you slice it, SB 827 is poorly written and far over reaching. It will not pass and Wiener should amend it or he will ultimately pay the political price of his failure.

    This is not about the haves / have nots. This is about planning/ good design/ waterfront for all and can’t be a vast bill for all of CA to disregard each town / cities planning code and master plan.

    Let’s hope this bill is killed off quickly.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      Weiner has said explicitly all over that place that it’s a draft that is intended to be debated and amended significantly.

    • Posted by Justin

      it will pass. people are sick of all the NIMBYs.

  6. Posted by another anon

    Newsom is hilariously pathetic. He started the lawsuit, just got totally crushed and is now trying to rack this major defeat as a personal victory.

    “Common sense prevailed and I’m pleased that hard working and dedicated staff have agreed on a settlement solution that I’ve long called for,” Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, chair of the State Lands Commission, said in a statement.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Yes, thank God he’s out of harm’s way in the relative obscurity of the Lt Gov’s office and destined to remai…oh wait 🙁

  7. Posted by Tim E

    A different take, but anyone agree that San Fran’s only chance to find funds for rebuilding the sea wall, which will be a far bigger project then what Seattle had to do, is most likely be from more development not less and the water front is where it will have to happen? Think something far bigger then the transbay transit center.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *