Organized Labor

The Board of Supervisors voted April 20 to reject the environmental impact report (EIR) for 555 Washington, a proposed 430-foot condominium tower. Although the rejection was based on technical issues in the document, effectively it was a rejection of the project itself. The vote was unanimous, with Supervisor Sophie Maxwell absent.

Just before this vote, though, the Board voted 6-4 not to postpone consideration of the EIR. Although Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi under later questioning characterized this vote as “procedural,” it was much more. It foreordained the results of the later vote, and while that later vote rejected the project, the 6-4 vote against continuance rejected the Building Trades, and not just us, but Labor generally.

555 Washington was always freighted with challenges to acceptance. Its design was striking. Narrowing as it rose and appearing to twist – a “torqued tower” in architectural parlance, a “corkscrew” to opponents – it had strong admirers and detractors. Admirers felt it complemented the equally striking Transamerica pyramid on the same block; detractors felt it detracted from it. Tom Radulovich of Livable Cities justly criticized its parking provisions. Its location close to Telegraph Hill, near whose hypervigilant Dwellers no new building of any consequence has risen for many years (the Chinatown-North Beach Campus of City College will be the first exception), was itself a challenge.

Most importantly, it rose 430 feet in a place zoned for 200. Planners and the architect, Jeff Heller, reasoned that to squeeze the square footage available to them in a wide 200-foot building narrower and upward would result in fewer shadow and wind impacts on nearby streets. No doubt they also saw pricing advantages for upper units. The only views from Telegraph Hill blocked would be of downtown high rises. Shadowing of two parks to the east, often cited in early opposition, was inconsequential, and was judged so by the Recreation and Parks Commission. The tower was literally overshadowed by the far higher Pyramid.

Practical and financial considerations be damned: Telegraph Hill saw the overtopping of zoned height by a factor of more than two as an unforgivable affront. No matter that the project was south of Washington Street, long-recognized northern boundary for high rises. No matter that Jackson Square, the project’s immediate neighbors, supported it. No matter that Telegraph Hill had recently killed a hotel proposed within existing height limits at Broadway and the Embarcadero by getting them reduced. No matter that the Hill was trying at that very moment to lower height limits at 8 Washington to kill another project proposed within them. Zoned height limits were suddenly sacrosanct, unalterable, the wisdom of ages past handed down to us on parchment scrolls.

The culture of the Board of Supervisors in an era of district elections says – usually – that other members of the Board will defer to the Supervisor whose district an issue most directly concerns. That the district in this case was Board President David Chiu’s meant even greater deference. Early on I told the developers that they would have to reach an understanding with Chiu. Both to me and to Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius Chiu later said he’d told the developers this understanding would have to be reached before the project came before the Planning Commission. If this is true, the developers were unrealistic in not dealing with Chiu well before coming to the Board.

At the same time, to have set an arbitrary limit on when a deal could be reached, to have said, It doesn’t matter if you agree to perfect the project if it is after this deadline I impose, was to ignore the benefits a deal could bring. One such benefit was Trades employment in a time of desperate need.

And so I asked Chiu before the hearing to accept a continuance so a deal could be worked out.

Tim Paulson, Executive Director of the Labor Council, asked Chiu to accept a continuance.

Mike Casey of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 2, President of the Labor Council, asked Chiu to accept a continuance.

Before the hearing the developers signaled they were ready to deal.

Chiu said it was too late.

So saying, he condemned more of our brothers and sisters to lose homes, health care, even families.

Chiu and the other “Progressives” on the Board may never have thought through the ways in which development can be made to serve the City. They may never have questioned half-truths or even untruths about us they’ve been fed – we don’t live in the City, we are not diverse, we don’t care about the quality of development or its impact on communities. As much as they may claim to be pro-union or pro-worker, they may never have given much time and reflection to understanding what this truly means.

But ... will they ever? And how can we wait?