Prop B the local ballot measure that will force a public vote for all waterfront height-limit exemptions which passed in the June election that no one voted in might just be illegal under California law according to a new complaint filed by the California State Lands Commission. The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Tuesday, asks for a court order to block enforcement of the measure and seeks to prove that a local measure dictating uses of state-controlled port property is invalid.
Members of the California State Lands Commission include Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, State Controller John Chiang, and Finance Director Michael Cohen. The suit states that while the waterfront is managed by The City's Port Commission, the California Legislature has ultimate authority over the property, as the Examiner reports. And it sounds like this is a way for Newsom and the pro-development gang to lash back, legally, against former mayor Art Agnos and the No Wall on the Waterfront brigade.
Per the Business Times:
The lands to which Prop. B applies were granted by the state to the city under the Burton Act of 1968, the suit said, and must be managed by the San Francisco Port Authority "for the benefit of all the people of California and not for the benefit of the citizens of the City.""Proposition B is invalid because it specifically targets state-owned tide and submerged lands over which the Legislature has expressly precluded the right of local initiative," the complaint said.
Jennifer Lucchesi, executive officer of the Sacramento-based California State Lands Commission, told the Business Times that "a local initiative that seeks to interfere with or control state property is not an appropriate use of the local initiative process."
Prop B arose in the wake of the November municipal election in which voters shot down two measures in order to block a specific development along the waterfront known as 8 Washington, which had been granted a height-limit exemption by the Board of Supervisors. The original suit was brought by a coalition of concerned neighbors and partly funded by a wealthy Telegraph Hill couple, Richard and Barbara Stewart. With Agnos's help, it led to the broader Prop B, which was primarily intended to block a condo tower proposed as part of the now relocated Warriors Arena project. At stake now with the measure are a couple of other pending projects, including the Giants' enormous mixed-use development next to AT&T Park that would encompass 27 acres, and Forest City's enormous Pier 70 project near the Dogpatch. Forest City has gone ahead and put their own measure on the November ballot that would allow their project to go forward despite height-limit variances.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera has responded to the new suit in a statement saying that the state commission "seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid." And, he sys, "That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere." Herrera says he plans to "aggressively" defend Prop B.
Tim Colen of the pro-development Housing Action Coalition tells the Examiner, "We've always been convinced that Prop. B was illegal, and we hope that it will be tried now on its merits, which it never has been before." Colen was a plaintiff in an earlier lawsuit challenging Prop B that was dismissed in court.
Break out the popcorn, all you who care about waterfront development issues.
