CFAH

8 Washinton Revised Rendering: North

In just under an hour at 4pm, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear the appeals and either uphold or overturn the Planning Commission’s approvals for the 8 Washington Street development. Feel free to plug in and comment during the hearings.

Bonus points for breaking the Board’s news as well as best quotes.

UPDATE: A plugged-in Steven Aiello reports at 12:58AM:

[Environmental Impact Report approval] upheld 8-3
[Conditional Use Authorization approval] upheld 8-3

The 8 Washington Street development has been approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by CH

    Come on Board, restore my faith that San Francisco isn’t stuck in the past and still ruled by NIMBYs on the north side of town. Now is the time for this development, before the bubble pops…

  2. Posted by futurist

    Please board, approve this great project immediately and get it built.

  3. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    Is this website the only place you find YIMBYs? My impression is the review process is it is dominated by oppositions. NIMBY are way more passionated to persistently voice their opposition. There maybe many people who find the project agreeable but a seldom motivated to make a comment to the official.
    If every YIMBY make a comment, could it tip the balance and least raise the bar for the opposition?

  4. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Please let us know how it goes.

  5. Posted by Lance

    I actually play tennis at this club, and there are many members who are opposed to the development. With that said, I personally think it’s underutilized space as it currently stands, and the city could make a lot more tax money by developing it. I do wish Western Athletic (the owners) would do more to wind-protect and/or resurface their other outdoor courts in the city though, as they aren’t nearly as nice as these. The carpet courts at the main Bay Club are a mess, and the roof at SFTC is so windy that it’s almost unplayable.
    I will keep you posted on what I hear, as I’m pretty sure I’ll get some sort of email update tonight.

  6. Posted by WH

    If you have the time and patience you can watch it live here: http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=6

  7. Posted by Theo

    Bravo to CalSTRS for investing in condos no retired teacher can afford. Bravo to CalSTRS for investing in condos only their CEO and Director of Investment can afford.

  8. Posted by chill

    @Theo – The purpose of CalSTRS is to manage the pension funds for teachers all over California, not to provide them with housing. Not to say that CalSTRS is not cognizant of indirect impacts from potential investments that may negatively affect teachers, but the longer that projects they invest in are delayed, the more danger the teachers’ pension funds are put in. In short, California teachers have their pension funds invested in this project. The more exactions, the less financial benefit to them,

  9. Posted by Steven Aiello

    EIR upheld 8-3
    CU upheld 8-3
    8 Washington is BOS approved.
    Congratulations to the project team and the Port!
    Kudos to the Board!

  10. Posted by Theo

    @chill – Despite CalSTRS’ $64.5 billion shortfall in finding of the amount of income needed to pay current benefits owed for service performed, I feel that generally that have invested reasonably. I praise them for their active use of proxies in a quest for diversity on boards of directors and to bring under control the salaries of their investee CEOs.
    But I do not think that 8 Washing was or is a good investment for CalSTRS. I believe that the units will take years to be sold. A good number of condos will have really ugly views – such as straight into the garbage collection area of the Gateway. These may never be sold at market price.
    The retail spaces in the project will be as shuttered as the retail spaces currently are in the Gateway and Golden Gateway Commons.
    I believe that the parking garage will be underutilized from the get-go. I say this because the current 105 space parking lot is mostly empty every day except for two hours on sunny Saturday mornings because of the market.
    But let’s get back to CalSTRS. If CalsSTRS and the Port are really trying to save the piers, why don’t they invest in project that’s actually on the piers?

  11. Posted by SocketSite

    As a plugged-in reader first reported late last night (or early this morning), San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors have upheld the approvals for the development by votes of 8 to 3. Votes on the financial terms of the development deal for the Port owned Seawall property are scheduled for this morning.
    Project construction, including demolition, site and foundation work, construction of the parking garage, and construction of the buildings will take an estimated 27 to 29 months with the project sponsors planning on breaking ground by the end of the year.

  12. Posted by lol

    The dynamics in the BoS has definitely changed since Daly and the other angry guy are out.
    Has Napoleon gone to Saint Helena, or is it just a temporary exodus to Elba?
    Congrats to the developers. We need more density where it’s appropriate.

  13. Posted by lyqwyd

    Woo hoo!!!

  14. Posted by Anna

    I was beginning to wonder if Chiu was going to pull off another ‘bird-safe building’ type maneuver that killed 555 Washington:
    https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/04/plannings_555_washington_eir_certification_reversed.html
    While it would have been nice to have had this built before the America’s Cup, better late than never!

  15. Posted by snark17

    Thank goodness. I like this development. And down with NIMBYs.

  16. Posted by Sahran

    I love how the one percenters were claiming that this project only appeals to the one percenters while completely ignoring the nearly $11M in general funds this project will bring to SF. I do hope most of those funds end up in the general fund and not in the hands of the Port.

  17. Posted by Rob

    I’m happy to see underutilized land being developed. It’ll be great to have more amenities to bring people down to that area to spend time, money and enjoy the waterfront more effectively.
    My wife came across an article from the 30s about the Golden Gate Bridge… which apparently received just as much early opposition… stating that it wouldn’t be used, and it would become the blight of the city if it were to be built. Kind of funny to see how it worked out in the end.

  18. Posted by Rob

    Let’s be clear, I am not comparing this project to the Golden Gate Bridge.

  19. Posted by Live Smart

    I find it surprising that Supervisor David Chiu had aligned himself with Occupiers to protest this development especially when he comes up for re-election this year. Does he think standing with the losing side will help him win?

  20. Posted by Dolores Guerrero

    Anyone know which supervisors voted against?

  21. Posted by gellan

    @Dolores Guerrero
    Chiu, Campos, and Avalos. Surprising, right?!

  22. Posted by futurist

    Great news! Great project!
    Let’s keep the momentum going and build more,and build up.

  23. Posted by Dolores Guerrero

    @gellan
    Thanks! No, no surprises. I live in Campos’ district, so I’ll go ahead and waste the time to send him an email telling him my thoughts on his vote.

  24. Posted by anon

    Let the lawsuits begin!
    I favor the decision but wonder how long this will be held up in the courts. A BOS-approved residential apartment project near me has been moved to the back burner for a couple of years now due to a neighborhood lawsuit. And there is no end in sight.

  25. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Check out SPUR Wai Tip, they are a great group that is in favor of well planned growth and since they pull together a coalition of developers, city planners, environmentalists and union members, they can often help swing the vote in close projects.
    Can this be the beginning of the end for the NIMBYs and their malevolent influence on City politics? I sure hope so.

  26. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Developers voluntarily reduce parking garage capacity by 20%. Still nearly a 2:1 parking ratio though: http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/06/06/supervisors-get-8-washington-project-for-final-vote-tuesday/

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles