WATERFRONT WARRIORS
Waterfront Warriors – Another Mayor Meddles with the Port
San Francisco Tomorrow’s long relationship with the waterfront has been marked by frequent battles to preserve it for maritime access, public enjoyment and environmental restoration. The Port of San Francisco has been an irresistible temptation for Mayors from Alioto to Lee. It combines waterfront property with breathtaking views and a real estate portfolio that the Port struggles to maintain in good condition. More importantly, the Port is an enterprise agency – it doesn’t receive General Fund dollars; in fact, it pays various City Departments market rates for services rendered. That means that a mayor can push for development on public property and include a variety of perks with limited consequences. The Port may lose revenue, as they did when Pier 39 was given a sweetheart rent deal when it opened in the 70s, but if it doesn’t impact the City’s bottom line, does it matter?
We hoped to address the tug-of-war between the public waterfront and private development through the passage of Proposition H in 1990, which required the Port to develop a plan for the use of the piers. Unfortunately that plan, adopted in 1997, has never been revisited, and is not a functional guide for Port land uses.
Mayor Lee has now proposed his “legacy” project; a 17,000-seat entertainment venue on Piers 30-32, a 13-acre expanse of derelict piers that was supposed to become our next cruise terminal. It is so valueless to the Port that it hasn’t been included in the 10-year Capital Plan since the Cruise terminal development was abandoned a decade ago. But the “Warriors” arena (the Warriors, will, in fact, use the facility for less than a quarter of the expected 200 annual events) has brought those piers back into play. It’s clearly not a public trust use and, at an estimated 135’, it’s a height-buster – the first serious proposal since the US Steel building proposal in the 70s to break the 40-foot height limit on the water side of the Embarcadero. Since the grand unveiling of the proposal (the fanfare did not include any notification of or referral to local neighbors), the City and Port have made efforts to gussy up the project by adding maritime activities – fire station, berthing, small boat launch. The project also includes a significant retail component, housed in two new buildings at the Embarcadero, and about 500 parking spaces. The City, Port and developer are also, thanks to freshman Assemblymember Phil Ting and Assembly Bill 1273, taking a legislative end-run around public trust law to seek an exemption for the project.
It’s not unprecedented or even unusual for a Mayor to propose a development on Port property with no thought of the public trust. What is unusual is that the Port, instead of the usual submarket rental rate – is paying $120 million in subsidies to advance the project. The money will come several sources; the establishment of an infrastructure finance district (similar to a redevelopment district) that will repay bonds with funds generated by the development and diverted from the General Fund; from the gift to the developer of Seawall Lot 330 at Brannan and the Embarcadero (which generates more than $1 million per year in parking revenue for the Port); and the developer, who will loan the money to the Port and be repaid by the Port through rent credits, which will accrue interest at a rate of 13% annually. By comparison, the Giants stadium (which was built in existing fill, not piers) which generates annual revenue of over a million to the Port, cost the Port $12-$15 million for site clearance and relocation of assets. SFT made a big mistake in supporting the state legislation to create an infrastructure finance district so that funds could be generated to rehabilitate the Port’s historic properties.
The neighborhood is up in arms over this proposal, with at least three new neighborhood organizations created to fight it. A big reason is the gridlock in the South Beach neighborhood and the failure of the City to address the issue. For years, the city has been using our Transit First policy to approve highrise development without making the investments needed to make the policy real. Every neighborhood has experienced this disconnect. South Beach is actually looking at a reduction in transit when the “T” line moves over to Fourth St. as part of the Central Subway project.
This proposal is typical of what we’ve come to expect from this administration – a no-limits development policy that ignores community priorities like open space, views, functional transit and historic preservation. The Mayor, Supervisors, and Port Commission are supposed to safeguard the public trust and our public lands. Are we expected to applaud a development that privatizes the waterfront, allows highrises to be built over the water, impacts the public’s ability to enjoy the City’s major asset (its water views), and diverts funds from maintenance of the Port’s historic properties?
What’s happening? AB 1273 would allow the legislature to grant public trust approval to this project. The Developer is presenting its revised project design at a May 6 meeting of the arena Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) created to review the project. Because of the fast-track environmental review for this project, there is no opportunity for the public to comment on the revised design.
