Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 8 Washington Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
8 Washington approvals pass after lengthy debate; supervisors reject several amendments to increase community benefits
Summary
After extended debate and multiple failed amendments, the Board of Supervisors approved several items enabling the 8 Washington Street development—zoning, a public trust exchange and related resolutions and financing—despite disagreements over estimated city benefits and developer returns.
The Board of Supervisors on June 12 approved a package of items (files related to 8 Washington) that would enable a private residential and mixed-use development that included significant height and bulk increases, a parking garage and transfer of certain Port parcels.
President David Chiu summarized committee findings and flagged a significant discrepancy between Port and city analyst estimates of the project's financial benefit to the city: the Port estimated roughly $145 million in city benefits; the Budget and Legislative Analyst put the net present value at about $96.3 million, approximately $48.6 million less. Budget analysts objected to counting certain items the Port had included as benefits (for example, revenues that would in practice be offset by departmental costs, and private amenities the developer claimed as public benefit).
Supervisor Chiu led multiple amendment efforts aimed at extracting more community benefit; key proposals included removing a $5 million city reimbursement for open-space construction, increasing affordable-housing funding by $14 million and a smaller $2 million increment, and changing the timing of a proposed transfer fee so it would apply on the first sale rather than the second. Each of those amendments failed on roll call: - Motion to remove $5 million reimbursement was defeated (5 ayes, 6 noes). - Motion to add $14 million to affordable housing was defeated (4 ayes, 7 noes). - A smaller $2 million affordable-housing increase also failed (5 ayes, 6 noes). - Amendment to require the transfer fee to apply on the first sale (rather than subsequent sales) failed (3 ayes, 8 noes).
Board debate included extensive questioning of Port staff about whether any third-party analysis of developer returns had been performed; Port staff said no independent new analysis was provided to the board beyond prior appraisals and earlier pro forma submissions. Port staff described the transaction as negotiated primarily on a land-valuation basis and said the Port had obtained compensation it considered fair for the parcel in question — roughly $96 million in citywide public benefits under a land-owner analysis versus the Port’s higher figure when including additional items.
Other points during debate: supervisors and analysts discussed parking reductions, the value of recreations uses and reciprocal club memberships during construction, infrastructure financing district (IFD) allocations, and how the Port counted certain private amenities. Several supervisors noted the project creates relatively few for-sale units (34 inclusionary units) compared with the size of the entitlement requests.
At roll call on the underlying package (resolution(s) and ordinances related to the 8 Washington project) the items were adopted: 8 ayes, 3 noes.
Ending: The approvals permit the Port and developer to move forward under the terms described in the packets and the development agreement; opponents signaled intent to continue scrutiny including potential signature efforts and litigation. Questions remain about the distribution of benefits, independent evaluation of developer returns, and the choice to structure certain benefits as reimbursements from city funds.
