Its being built too close to a sewer line with great risks to the sewer line. Height, bulk, sewer risk, precedent. And then to on top of it in prop b which is written by the developer the developer he gets special rules to approve his project. If this isnt enough to vote no on b and c i think it is mr. Barb theres been some confusion regarding prop b and c why walls prop b was added later. Proposition c only asked for the approval the height. We thought it was critical that the voter be able to see what the whole project was with all the benefits. As to the height only a small frooshg of the height 85 percent is much lower than those allotted on the waterfront. If you look at the model youll see the project is very modest in its heights which are the buildings around it are larger. This is the same project that did board of supervisors approved is to have a special clearance to assure whatever planning views is the same as what the voters are approved thats why were urging yes o. J. On
To be large enough to pay for the costs as theyre due and thus, the cities total payroll costs cant go over 10 percent. They must allow the payment and theyre limited to no more than 10 percent of the cities account or the governor and the trust board passed it. They would allow only if the agrees fund account or twothirds of the agencies Funding Board and the trust board productive. A yes vote means you want to change the charter from the Health Care Trust funneled only under specified circumstances a no vote i dont want to make those changes. Im here with supervisor marking feral and he proponent of preparing thanks. Having me. Id like to start with supervisor farrell why do you believe this prop a is important i started working on this when our city controller said we have a 4. 4 blindfolds liability. Number one we have retirees who worked long and a hard tossed the city of San Francisco and workers that are feasor full. Thats something we want to avoid and fight against we want to
Benefit for people walking along and enjoying the embarcadero why are you against it. Were using a no vote on prop b and c. Number one it changes the height all along this particle of the waterfront to almost double the size the freeway that was torn down. It also is bulky as a favorable field so instead of opening up the waterfront as argue walking along the waterfront a lot of your views of acquit r coit tower will be restricted. Number 3 it increases the heights along the waterfront because theres 3 other particles along the north waterfront. F it destroys the tense club its been use that i thousands of san franciscans for years and its being built too close to a sewer line with great risks to the sewer line. Height, bulk, sewer risk, precedent. And then to on top of it in prop b which is written by the developer the developer he gets special rules to approve his project. If this isnt enough to vote no on b and c i think it is mr. Barb theres been some confusion regarding prop b and
Buildings with a total of 1 hundred 21 to nine hundred 41 units and there the building from 84 feet up to 1 hundred and 36 feet. A privately owned a height of 6 stories along embarcadero and payment for the housing fund a public park and open spaces and sidewalks on at least 20 percent of the site and new case to the waterfront and ground floor retail and cafes and under gown car and bicycle parking and increased revenue to the port and city. If you vote yes open prop b you want to approve the 8 Development Site if you vicinity no on prop b i dont want to approve the washington Street Development project. Im here with alec the proponent of propose b and c ambassador were also joined by on opponent of the measure id like to a start with mr. Barb why are you for this as opposed to. Im for the proposition because i cared about the San Francisco project using the waterfront i see this as an opportunity to open up the waterfront by opening up streets that were closed in the dark redevelopme
Its not something we can really bet on with Health Care Costs and benefit costs rising at the, you know, 3 and 44 percent. Salaries rising at 3 and 4 percent rather. Its far greater than the pace of inflation and greater than the contributions so we have a little bit of time level overview left are supervisor farrell when i started working on prop a it was important in San Francisco. I made sure we assaulted with our labor and all communities. Im proud to say we have the support of every member of the board of supervisors and the Democratic Party here in San Francisco and the Republican Party in San Francisco. Swms the Harvey Milk Club and every single every elected official in is no. This is building on prop c we passed in 2011 and if we can pass prop b well pass at the ballot and something we should be product u proud of thank you, mr. Murphy. There are promises and there are commitments. One of the pieces of language on the ballot is about candle lights and the our promises for the