pier 70 Project Area Aerial

The proposed ballot measure to increase Pier 70’s building height limits from 40 feet to 90 feet and help clear the way for Forest City’s development of up to 1,000 new units of housing, two million square feet of commercial space, and 400,000 square feet of retail, cultural and maker uses has qualified for the November ballot.

Required by way of Proposition B, San Francisco’s Waterfront Height Limit Right to Vote Act which the State is suing to invalidate, the Pier 70 Development Site Height Limit Increase initiative would permit Forest City to build up to nine stories high on the Port’s Pier 70 site.

The development of Pier 70’s Waterfront District is currently slated to begin in 2016 and would stretch until 2030. The redevelopment of Pier 70’s Historic Core, a separate six acre project, is already underway.

12 thoughts on “Measure To Increase Heights For Pier 70 Project Qualifies For Ballot”
  1. 90 feet seems like a fair compromise, they had originally wanted much taller. And it isn’t the entire site, only a few buildings scattered in the mixed-height development. I live in Dogpatch and look forward to this being finished so people can walk by the Bay and enjoy the views and ambiance. Actually, it’s too bad it has to face the nimby public on a ballot.

  2. Sorry, but I don’t have faith in SF voters any more. They’ll look at this, not understand the location or care about the details, they’ll think “evil greedy developers ruining SF waterfront to make a quick buck”, and the measure will lose by 95% of the vote.

    1. Exactly how I think it will go. People wanted to be able to vote, not to carefully consider each project’s benefits and impacts, but to be able to say NO to everything.

  3. My understanding is that Forest City has the buy-in of the surrounding, potentially “impacted” communities (Dogpatch, Potrero Hill) through community efforts and input (and might I add “impact” is relative…additional traffic for Dogpatch which is actually a plus imo and “views” “ruined” for Potrero Hill people, which is so idiotic don’t get me started). This whole process should have stopped there. Someone from Corona Heights or Exelsior or Outer Richmond should not be able to vote on this project’s future. But Prop B.

  4. I’m going to disagree with anon and circe. I think if you have consensus among the left and the far-left (moderates and progressives, in SF-speak), so the project is endorsed by the far-lefty supes and (dare I hope?) the Guardian, it will pass in a landslide.

    1. Nobody reads the guardian anymore….it’s so thin you can pick your teeth with it. The old, irrelevant, hippy editor finally moved into this century with some blog that is only read by a small number of angry, bitter lefties. Thankfully they lost a lot of their power.

  5. Mickey,

    The developers have already received buy-in from the left and far-left neighbors around it. This was done by extensive years long outreach efforts, hearing community input, town hall meetings, advertising/PR, compromising already, etc etc.

    That was the effort made to appeal to the actual neighbors in order not to be slammed down publicly by highly political residents in Potrero Hill. Now, how is Related going to attempt to receive the same buy-in from the left/far left throughout the remainder of the city? The remainder of the city will only be hearing about a massive 1,000 unit residential development on the waterfront. They won’t know what’s already gone into the design and proposal, the fight and the compromise. They won’t know reason.

    It’s almost more than an uphill battle for a developer to receive the buy-in of the entire city via ballot. Vote by ballot is not the same as an overly listened to public. It’s actually one thing for Telegraph Hill Dwellers or Nob Hill or residents of the Four Seasons (notice how it’s generally wealthy people who are the biggest NIMBYs) to use CEQA and the hefty SF democratic process to railroad through a failure for the developer for something in and around their neighborhoods. That’s frustrating enough, but smart developers such as Related can overcome those obstacles.

    What’s too much is putting this to a general vote. I’m not sure it’s possible to overcome widespread emotional anti-development sentiment in this city via vote. How does one “campaign” for a large-scale 1,000 unit development in that environment? It’s certainly not difficult, at all, to rally the troops far and wide (like down in Park Merced or residents of Fontana Towers or residents of Park Presidio or of Visitacion Valley) to vote against it.

    So to you, you can see that there’s reason in this development, and you are here on this site following some of the specifics. You are not the average SF person that will be voting on this.

    It’s actually almost an insult to residents of Dogpatch and Potrero Hill who have taken part in this lengthy planning process with the developer to have even a potential for all of their community input sessions gone to waste by general vote of similar NIMBYs with no familiarity with the developer/development. Maybe at some point NIMBYs who have devoted their time to actually compromise and get what they want from a developer will be frustrated to have their efforts and time wasted by this general vote ballot measure, Prop B. Thoughts?

    1. Correct Simms
      It won’t matter that the project’s neighbors have already vetted it and agreed.
      SF voters will see this as their first opportunity after Prop B to send a message to “evil greedy developers”, to show them who’s in charge now.
      City planning is a process, with public input, with compromises. Voting is not a process, it’s a simple yes or no by an ignorant, emotional public who doesn’t care about the details.
      Most SF voter couldn’t even find this neighborhood on a map, let alone ever even been there, and it won’t matter.

    2. But if they offer an absurd amount of BMR units you may get more buy in from lefty anti development crowd 😉

  6. I live on Potrero Hill and my views will be VASTLY improved by this project. For cryin’ out loud, right now the site is dominated by dilapidated factory buildings and a couple of repair docks. A giant paper mache turd would be an improvement.

Leave a Reply

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