on democracy doing its job. i believe that this is the democratic process, and good business. >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm jim chapel, representing spur, the san francisco planning and research association, and our almost 6,000 member families. a super majority of you voted your conscience and approved eight washington when it first came before you. i salute you for that. and to the three of you who voted against it, while i may disagree with your reasoning, i respect your decision and presume you too voted your conscience. frankly, that should have been the end of it, at least as far as this body is concerned.

not only has eight washington been seven years in the making, but it reflects several decades worth of planning on the northern waterfront. it went through a rigorous public review process, including a special neighborhood planning study. it was approved unanimously by the port commission. it was approved by the planning commission 4-2. it was approved by the board 8-3. eight washington endured a long tough entitlement process and it won, fair and square. along the way it garnered the support of the chronicle, the examiner, spur, the chamber of commerce, the labor council, surrounding businesses, and many surrounding neighborhoods and neighborhood groups. why? because it's a great project. and let's be honest. nothing about the merits of this project has changed since then. eight washington will revitalize a horribly underutilized stretch

of the waterfront currently cut off from the rest of the city. the only thing that's changed is a group of people have forced this onto the ballot. this is disturbing to have a referendum on a a planning and zoning matter. we know how difficult it is to have a residential project from this city and to let a group of people stop a project is very serious, and this will have an effect not only on market rate... >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. and again let me ask if there are members of the public that wish to speak, please line up. >> i am not one of the well-healed people. i got signatures on the ballot, and i didn't pay for them, no one paid me for them. i went out and i got them. you all are being asked to uphold referendum causes. the referendum causes have been

on the books for california for nearly 100 years. it is incredibly hard to use. with this referendum there has been no citizen referendum qualified for the ballot in at least 50 years, and that's all i can go back in the records. there was one that qualified by the real estate industry to appeal a rent control. but other than that, no one has gone to the ballot. you have to get your signatures in 29 days. you have to get enormous amount of signatures. if it was so easy, there would have been multiple referendum. but a 250-page -- two-sided petition, was over -- was 540 pages. i carried them. it was a ream of paper per petition. these were hard signatures to

gather. and you are being asked to let the people decide. we do not have a policy of having to have 800,000 people sign to say there should be a vote. we got the number of signatures that the law requires, and it was hard. and i didn't get a cent, and i didn't -- i paid money to get signatures. i've paid into the campaign. and it's discouraging if the people's will is thwarted by the board. the board can do one thing. they can reverse your decision and go back through the process. thank you very much. it was -- do not -- on the referendum process. >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, you have heard a number of people state to you very clearly about the process. this is a united states of

america, and it's true that the supreme court declared corporations persons. and if you don't agree about that, they're going to turn it around. but this is a process. not mentioned in the deliberations are the first people of this land, the -- not mentioned in this process are the people that really need to be helped. if you look at these condominiums going like 3 million to 10 million, i suppose you supervisors are -- eligible to go stay in this condominiums. so the first time around, when you voted the majority of you all voted, that was on you. just like when we came here and

told you what was good for another area in the bayview, and you all favored the rogue developer called -- at that time we collected 33,000 signatures. and after getting the certification, we had our city attorney nullify them. this is a process. and like the first speaker said, who has served our city well, she said let's do the right thing. now, let me mention about california pacific medical center. they had a group called -- or whatever. and just a couple of days ago, they stopped all action. and i'm saying this because promises are made about jobs, internship, this, that, and the other. promises are just made -- lives over there and not -- thank you very much. >> president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker.

>> -- on the left, david elliott lewis. welcome back from your well-earned break. you know, i have mixed feelings about this project, eight washington. but -- and i'm sure it would be wonderful for the representatives who live there, probably part time condo owners who use it as a second home but if you look at how the city benefits from this, the benefits are less clear. the people who live there won't be there full time. it will be a huge structure, and will set a bad precedent for height on the waterfront. i really don't think it's a neighborhood-friendly project. and i also think there's class issues at stake here too. and clearly this is a project for the 1%. and are they entitled to housing? yes. but are they entitled to housing at the expense of the rest of us? that's the question at stake. i'm sure it caught you off guard to see this referendum come so fast, and 30,000 plus signatures

gathered to put it on the ballot. and i can't imagine how you must feel. but, you know, i think we need to give the people a chance to vote on it, since we have so many signatures gathered. let the city decide and however it turns out, go with it. thank you for your time and consideration. >> president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak at this hearing? at this time, colleagues, this hearing has been heard and is filed. and item 23 is in the hands of the board. >> president chiu. >> president chiu: thank you, colleagues, and to members of the public, i want to thank the community that has come back again to talk about this project. i'm frankly sorry that we're here. i'm sorry that we weren't able to resolve this before this

date. as you've heard though, i also want to thank the community that is here, the coalition that has worked to bring this vote to us for tremendous accomplishment. for the first time in a generation, san franciscans are going to place a referendum on the ballot. utilizing our constitutional and democratic right to referendum. now the developer in this project repeatedly disparaged the community that was involved here, in fact told all of us privately and publicly that there are only a handful of local members opposed to eight washington. i think the coalition did an amazing job of collecting 31,297 signatures in 29 days. i don't think 31,000 voters in 29 days is a handful of local neighbors. now there was a suggestion today that these 31,000 folks represent most of the opponents of this project and colleagues, today, we have a chance, i

believe, to vote with the majority of san francisco, as i think some of you read, there was a recent survey by david binder that asked a question that will be put to voters, should this city raise height limits on the waterfront from 84 to 136 feet to build eight washington. over 2-1 oppose this project. that's a 30% margin. it's not even close. in fact, colleagues, in some districts, and i'm not even referring to my own, the no votes are actually much higher. we're talking about margins of 50%. colleagues, today, though, in addition to voting with the majority of san franciscans, we also have a chance to save the city million to 2 million dollars related to the election. you may wonder why. in fact you may wonder why i have a box here. you may wonder what this booklet is. there was a reference made to the 540 pages that were asked of the volunteer signature

gatherers that they had to carry. colleagues you remember i had asked us to pass an amendment so that the signature gatherers wouldn't have to lug around this book. but they did. and there were 525 of these books that filled 65 of these boxes to deliver to the department of elections, over 31,000 signatures. i was told by our deputy city attorney that this is going to have to be reprinted in the handbook. if you add these additional 500 plus pages, we're roughly talking about a million and a half to 2 million dollars of additional costs for the election in november 2013 when we already know that two times as many san franciscans oppose this project than actually support this project. now let's talk about the substance. and i'm not going to rehash what

you've already heard, the fact we know there's a community recreational community that is going to be destroyed, the fact we're building luxury condos when we don't need it, we have way more parking we need in one of the most dense and traffic friendly areas in the city. but the campaign that has started has been talking about the fact that we do not want a wall on the waterfront. by that we refer to two things. first of all to the project itself. the fact that this eight washington project is 80 feet higher than the old embarcadero freeway, due to the 62% height bonus that mr. snelgrove is receiving. this project is almost a football field long, due to the 200% bulk bonus. but i think more importantly, this issue is about the precedence of this height increase and the fact that we are going to be starting to build a wall on the waterfront and you ask is that true, we're just talking about one project.

as referenced by some of the speakers there are many projects in the pipeline. let me take one as an example, 75 howard street. currently an eight story garage. it's zoned at 200 feet. the most recent and revised proposal is for 356 foot, 175 luxury condo project. it's zoned 156 feet higher than the current zoning, 300 feet higher than the old embarcadero freeway. now, getting back to the initial comments made by our former city attorney, louise renne is the wall along our waterfront what we want for the future of our city. 50 years ago the fontana towers started epic battles between the developer and neighborhoods. these battles were resolved by agreements in height that we have in place today and those agreements are being ripped apart with the votes we have cast. earlier this summer i think that

this board of supervisors sent the wrong message to san francisco about what we ought to stand for. and colleagues, i ask you to support the democratic process and send the right message about what we stand for, the fact that we do not, at san franciscans stand for walls on the waterfront, ask you to vote yes. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues. any other comments? supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i'll be voting today as i voted before, to support this good and smart project. i stand by my vote. i did not vote for this project simply because it would create jobs. i didn't vote for it simply because it would give the port money. and i certainly department vote for it for any kind of side deal. i voted for this project because it is a good and appropriate

project. the facts today are exactly what they were several months ago, when eight members of this board voted to support eight washington. so what's changed since then? well, opponents of the project have gathered 31,000 signatures. we don't know from the department of elections how many were valid. we were simply informed that at least 19,000 and some odd, the minimum required, are valid. we know that there were at least that many. there was somewhere between 19,000 and 31,000. we know from campaigns you don't ever achieve 100% validity. i tip my hat to opponents for running this campaign and gathering these signatures. this has been alluded to and this is a critique of the ballot measures in california that you can collect signatures for just

about anything. we've seen on the ballot proposal through signatures to create the alcatraz peace center, to ban circumcision and name the sewer plant after george bush. we've seen pg am e and the insurance industry put on ballot measures that were nothing short of power grabs. so the fact that the signatures were gathered does not change my view on this project. and what i will also say is that the signature gathering campaign -- and this is not a criticism of the opposite, because this is how campaigns are run -- provided one side of this project into the airport at without providing the other sired. i spoke to both signature gatherers and various people who had spoken to signature

gatherers, and what i learned, and what i heard was that there was talk of spot zoning without mentioning that these buildings will be shorter than most of the buildings around them, including the embarcadero center, and that there is a step-down to the embarcadero. there was talk about the elimination of recreational space without mentioning that this is a private club, and that the pools will be improved, and that a new public park will be created. that wasn't mentioned. there was talk of housing for the 1% without mentioning that over $10 million in affordable housing fees will be generated. and that part of the opposition are two mega real estate conglomerates, boston properties and equity office. they're not the only opposite and i know that this was a coalition but those are two of the opponents and that certainly was not mentioned. there was a talk of a wall on the waterfront, without

mentioning the current status of the green fence on the waterfront, without mentioning that this project, love it or hate it, will create retail and walkable space along the embarcadero. once this goes to the ballot, there will be a campaign, and the two sides will get to present both sides of the argument, the opponents will get to argue their case, the supporters will get to argue their case, and the voters will make a decision, just as this board made a decision after hearing both sides. however, the voters decide that matter, i will respect that judgment, and it will be the will of the voters, after having heard both sides and not just one side. but a signature gathering campaign that presents one side without the other does not show that this is somehow the will of the voters. the will of the voters will be expressed when this goes to the ballot, not because a successful signature gathering campaign

occurred. i stand by my vote and i'll be voting today against the repeal. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. and it's interesting to see how these lawyers keep talking about the same issue, but let me just add this point. i wasn't going to say anything about this vote today, but i do want to respectfully disagree with something that supervisor terms of the substance of this project, haven't changed since the last vote. but i do want to acknowledge how unusual it is to have these numbers -- this number of signatures collected. the fact is that we have had a number of projects here, at the board of supervisors, including quite frankly projects that i in some respects believe are far more important in terms of what

they represented to the city, and the parkmerced project being, you know, a key project that i wish that -- had gone the other way. and collecting signatures on that project was not something that was successful. so it is very unusual that these so many signatures have been collected. and i don't think that it's necessarily accurate to minimize the importance of that because i do think that collecting signatures in the short period of time, during which these signatures were collected, was a pretty significant thing. and, you know, i don't know i tt it necessarily reflects exactly where the public is, but i don't think that it's something that is -- you know, that is usual. it's something that doesn't happen very often. in fact, as we heard, it's something that at least, from what we know, hasn't happened in a number of decades.

so i think that is something that has to be recognized. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: colleagues, over the past several weeks, i have been cajoled, pressured, and forewarned of dire electoral consequences if i did not change my vote on this project. to say the least, this experience has been anything but pleasant. i sort of felt like a school girl being bullied on the playground but i think maybe i succumbed to that type of bullying and pressure when i was eight. but at 51, it's a different story and i just don't feel like responding and basing my votes based on fear. so i can't be fearful of the consequences of not changing my vote today, but i plan to remain steadfast in my commitment to

stay the course. i view this as a commitment to my progressive ideology, and my experience observing the planning processes here in the city for the past few years, and so i feel comfortable with my vote on this project. i don't think it's a perfect project, but i think on balance, it doesn't -- i believe that there are projects that have been approved by this board in the past, like rincon hill, like trinity plaza, that, you know, may have even more severe impacts, but on balance, the community benefits that were exacted in those projects balance and mitigate the impacts that the projects have on the city. so that's why i'm comfortable supporting this project.

i'm also joined by three other progressive colleagues on the board, supervisors mar, cohen and kim, who i believe also share similar values and concerns about low income communities here in it san francisco. part of -- some of the -- what's being granted through this project is $11 million that is going towards affordable housing. currently, with dissolution of redevelopment, i do believe that we have very few resources for obtaining funding for affordable housing. and sadly, we rely on development to fund development. and in this instance, with $11 million hopefully we'll see senior housing, or -- and other affordable housing leveraged through the development of this project. in addition, as the carpenters

and sheet metal workers know, i'm very critical of many projects. i didn't support the parkmerced project because i thought the impacts on the city were far too great. but also that referendum measure was not funded by the same people that are funding the wall on the waterfront campaign. boston properties is one of them. i believe that equity office properties is another. i do believe that the campaign was somewhat misleading in that it led many members of the public to believe that there was a wall on the waterfront that was going to be created. but let's not lose sight of the fact that the eight washington development, which steps up from 48 feet in height along the embarcadero to a maximum of 130 feet height at the rear of the sight fits the scale of the buildings in the area. in fact, it is lower than the nearest residential building, which the golden gateway

apartments which stands at 250 feet high, and is certainly much lower than the boston properties embarcadero office building, which starts at 550 feet. so i think that once the debate is out there, people can weigh both sides, some folks will still decide that this is not a project they support. i think it is comparable to other projects that, as i mentioned earlier, were supported by this board. again, parkmerced was mostly a bunch of advocates. i believe it was the tenants union and others, was not funded heavily. it was a truly a grassroots campaign, and sadly the signatures to prevent the destruction of 1500 units of rent controlled housing were not gathered. but, you know, that being said, when you look at projects even like treasure island, i think the impacts are much greater

than the impacts of this proje project. so, again, it will be up to the members of the public, when this measure is finally placed before the voters. i think on balance, as i mentioned, i don't think it has the impacts that other projects that we have seen supported before have had. and my only concern, i think, is raised because part of my support for the project is the fact that it is guaranteeing union jobs and not all projects guarantee those types of jobs which i still believe represents the best-paid jobs for workers along with the best benefit package usually. but i do have some concerns when i hear women, the young woman that spoke to us, raised issues about underrepresentation of women at some of these sites. so that's a conversation i'd like to have with the trades. but i think, again, do i think it's a perfect project?

no. but i haven't heard anything compelling enough to make me want to change my vote today. >> president chiu: thank you, supervisor. supervisor else bernard. >> supervisor elsbernd: i would like to address this issue of the number of signatures changing our minds, a little experience in that regard. i remind you two years ago i appreciate the 31,000, i remember two years and two months ago i showed up at the department of elections with 79,000 signatures opinion admittedly i had six weeks to collect them not 29 days but 79,000 signatures and did something that had not been done in generations. no one had done that in well over 30 years as well as i could do my research. i recall with many of you sitting here making the exact same argument to you. you voted against it but then 80,000 citizens up and said they wanted to support the muni

measure. and i also remember showing you polls that showed a poll 2-1. i remember many of you telling me sorry, i still can't support it. i learned a lesson. number of signatures don't necessarily move the dial. maybe some people's positions have changed and you want to use that argument today even though you rejected it two years ago, i suggest we leave that argument off the table and the vote today should be on the merits of the project. two months ago scales of justice, positives of this project outweighed the -- there are this project hasn't changed. i will be keeping my vote the same. >> president chiu: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i also will be keeping my vote consistent from my previous vote but i will reveal, like others, that this has been a very difficult decision for many different reasons. i have nothing but respect for the many residents of the golden gateway and the many neighborhoods that really worked

hard to gather those signatures, and to really speak up for their neighborhoods. so i have nothing but respect for them. i also understand there are concerns in other neighborhoods about the concern of upzoning and the precedence that sites especially with projects in the pipeline coming to the waterfront, and also issues of the views as well, that some have raised. the vote's also tough because i and others have advocated for reducing significantly the parking spaces for raising the in lieu affordable housing fee to 25% which is significant. i know children and families will be playing in the pacific park and children's playground or jackson commons that will eliminate the fence and kind of the dead end so there is more access to the waterfront or the swimming pool access for many children of many neighborhoods or the 55 cent parking fee that