by Greg Chiampou, Committee Co-Chair
WHOSE WATERFRONT?
The Port of San Francisco holds monthly public Advisory Committee and Port Commission meetings, addressing Port land use, leasing, and development projects—topics that can spark spirited public reactions, as they should.
While not comprising a comprehensive list, these are several “heated” topics from recent Port meetings and panels.
Proposed Fisherman’s Wharf Revitalization Plan
On October 8, the Port Commission approved a nonbinding term sheet for Fisherman’s Wharf Revitalized LLC’s (FWR) proposed mixed-use project at Pier 45 Sheds A and C and Seawall Lots 300/301(aka the “Triangle” parking lot). This document outlined the project’s deal structure, including lease terms, funding, and the amounts dedicated to infrastructure investment.
The project’s developer, FWR, envisions creating several new entertainment, event, dining, and public spaces across the five-acre site. This $548 million project would be the largest investment at the Wharf since 1978’s Pier 39 development. Seawall and infrastructure improvements are projected to be major cost components, as shown in “Sources and Use of Funds for the Wharf Redevelopment at Pier 45 and SWL 300/301” below.
Now that the Commission has approved the term sheet, the Port and FWR will next seek the Board of Supervisors’ endorsement of this nonbinding term sheet and a finding of fiscal feasibility, the Port stating that these steps will be carried out within the next 12 months.
The Commission meeting’s official agenda and the public audience’s unofficial one seemed to be at odds: Attendees expected to address—and spoke up about—FWR’s project concept itself, whereas the Commission’s agenda called for voting on the term sheet, which audience members had not seen previously.
So, let’s break this down.
The Port Commission, the Port, and the developers had previously (and privately) already discussed, vetted, and negotiated this nonbinding term sheet by the time of the public session. At the meeting, the Port highlighted, for the Commission’s benefit, several of the term sheet’s key financial assumptions and requirements, as well as the Port’s strategic goals for redeveloping the Wharf. Of most interest to the public was the new disclosure of the project’s expected funding.
Sources and Use of Funds for the Wharf Redevelopment at Pier 45 and SWL 300/301.
Source: 10/8/24 San Francisco Port Commission meeting.
| SOURCE | Source Amount | USE | Use Amount | |
| Equity | $294,800,000 | Pier 45 | $401,500,000 | |
| Debt | $239,100,000 | SWL 300/301 | $ 82,600,000 | |
| CFD/IFD* | $ 36,600,000 | Other | $ 64,000,000 | |
| Other/Credit | $ (22,500,000) | |||
| TOTALS | $548,000,000 | TOTALS | $548,000,000 |
‘*Public debt
The presenters stated that of the $401.5 million to be invested in Pier 45, $147 million would be for infrastructure improvements. And, $39 million in infrastructure improvements would be part of the projected $82.6 million to be invested in seawall lots 300/301. By comparison, it would cost an inflation adjusted $632 million in today’s dollars to build Oracle (Pac Bell) Park (source: Wikipedia).
Approximately 12 citizens, the majority of whom were critical of the FWR project as currently envisioned, then addressed the Commission. Those in opposition identified their ties to the Wharf’s fishing industry and/or ownership of nearby businesses. All cited the project’s prospective negative impacts on the existing commercial fishing community, particularly the development’s plans for Pier 45 (e.g., moving, cramping, and inconveniencing existing fishing equipment storage and staging spaces, congesting their work areas with mall traffic and an ‘event space,’ impeding fish wholesaler traffic, and forcing them to conduct daily operations in an ‘amusement park’ atmosphere). Several speakers speculated on the possible demise of the Wharf’s commercial fishing, and others questioned whether the proposed project could ever break even given the high hurdle imposed by servicing more than $250 million in debt obligations.
Two citizens affiliated with local businesses spoke in favor of the project. While expressing empathy for the fishing community’s shared concerns, they focused on the urgent need for boosting the Pier 45 Wharf area’s commercial viability and tourism, obtaining funds for needed infrastructure improvements, and creating additional public benefits.
The Port’s stated project’s goals for this area of the Wharf include “to promote the fishing industry, its Fisherman’s wharf and…preserve the fishing industry and the fishing at the site.” As negotiations proceed, the FWR sponsors and Port will need to prove more support for the Wharf’s fishing industry so that it does not fade away or leave.
THD’s Waterfront Committee has been following FWR’s evolving design proposal for the past two years. (See Waterfront Reports in The Semaphore Winter 2024 and Summer 2024.) We recently met with the FWR sponsors, offering several significant concerns about the current proposal: the project design’s potential negative impact on the Wharf’s fishing industries, the inclusion of a ‘short-term apartment rental’ facility on the waterfront, and the plan to rebuild an expanded former Shed C as an event space, among other concerns.
The Commission responded to the meeting’s audience by emphasizing that it was approving a nonbinding term sheet, not the FWR project’s final development plan or design. The Commission encouraged audience members to contact their elected Supervisors with their concerns and comments about the project. The term sheet was approved 4:1.
BCDC Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Proposed Changes
The San Francisco Bay’s shoreline accounts for one-third of the state’s entire coastline but is projected to shoulder two-thirds of the state’s potential economic damage from sea level rise (SLR) risks.
That’s according to the newly released Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan draft (bayadapt.org) from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The plan aims to encourage a collective approach to SLR planning across the nine-county Bay region, rather than a county-by-county process.
BCDC is a powerful authority. Formed in 1965 by the state legislature to protect the Bay Area’s estuary coastline, BCDC has the mandate to approve, reject, or modify permitting in its jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay, 100 feet inland of the shoreline, the Suisan Marsh, and many other waterways throughout the nine-county Bay Area.
In developing the Adaptation Plan document, BCDC’s aim is to provide “a region-wide plan for the Bay shoreline that guides the creation of coordinated, locally planned sea level rise adaptation actions that work together to achieve regional goals.” In addition, the draft Plan provides “guidelines and standards that must be used in subregional shoreline [SLR] adaptation plans as required by SB 272”.
THD applauds BCDC’s spearheading a regional, collective approach to SLR planning and resilience. Everyone knows that rising sea water must go somewhere, and it would be self-defeating for one Bay Area city to erect, say, a tall seawall while the neighboring town’s newly developed estuary is then overloaded by runoff from the wall. BCDC is well positioned to support (and enforce) a regionally coordinated approach to SLR resilience planning, which is most certainly needed.
Proposed Amendments to BCDC’s “San Francisco Bay Plan”
There are laws, rules, and regulations, and then there are also amendments!
BCDC, in partnership with the Port, is proposing to loosen the state’s McAteer-Petris Act’s restrictions on waterfront development at the Wharf and the Exploratorium via two amendments to the Plan. Originally devised in 1968 in response to the McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC’s plan is a comprehensive (and voluminous) guide for assessing or approving new development on the Bay and its shoreline.
The two proposed amendments are: 1) Allow the Port and the Exploratorium to set aside its original obligations to remove pre-existing landfill, and, in exchange, the Exploratorium will implement SLR public education programming; and (2) Loosen the McAteer-Petris Act’s “50%” regulation at Fisherman’s Wharf.
As background, the state’s 1965 McAteer-Petris Act sought to protect and reclaim California’s waterfront from over-commercialization and landfill. Among the Act’s requirements are that any reconstructed or replacement piers can only be replaced with piers that are half the original size, with the other 50% of the space either being removed or dedicated to public benefit and access purposes. BCDC and the Port are looking to loosen the 50% rule for “Special Areas” of the Port’s Wharf waterfront.
BCDC and the Port maintain that rehabilitating and repairing some of the dilapidated Wharf piers and pilings is often economically infeasible if the McAteer-Petris Act’s 50% restrictions are enforced. For example, the pilings and landfill underneath the former Alioto’s restaurant need repair, yet the “50% rule” would significantly reduce that area’s future commercial space and thereby prevent attracting the amount of capital needed for repairs.
There is a different rationale for the amendment to loosen the McAteer-Petris Act’s restrictions at the Exploratorium. As part of its original 2013 permitting, the Exploratorium received an exception to the McAteer-Petris Act’s regulations. It did not have to remove the deck and pilings that form the “valley” between its location at Pier 15 and Pier 17, nor eliminate non-historic additions to the sheds at those piers. This exception was originally negotiated by BCDC and the Port, and, as part of the negotiation, the Port was required to conduct fill removal at a different location. The Port now wants relief from this fill removal obligation and requests the amendment.
Audiences at both the Port’s Northern and Fisherman’s Wharf Advisory Committee meetings did not object to either proposed amendment. But they pointed out that SLR programming might ordinarily be considered part of the Exploratorium’s core responsibility and not as a bargaining chip. Furthermore, attendees were left with the understanding that future repair of existing Wharf piers and landfill would maintain their current commercial space size (not be enlarged just because the “50% rule” was loosened).
Embarcadero Enhancement Pedestrian Safety and Bikeway Paths
What is the SFMTA’s (and, as well, the Port’s) concomitant responsibility to ensure pedestrian safety protocols when it rolls out more and expanded bikeway paths?
The SFMTA, in partnership with the San Francisco Port, recently presented one of its latest “Embarcadero Enhancement” program initiatives: Doubling the length of the two-way protected bikeway path, extending it from Folsom to Harrison Streets and now on to Brannan Street on the Embarcadero’s waterside. This protected bikeway extension requires the trade-off of narrowing the Embarcadero’s existing street median (where Muni operates) and removing 15 palm trees to make room for the pathway enhancements.
SFMTA states that the existing width of vehicle lanes and the promenade will be preserved and replacement palms will be planted in the bikeway’s buffer zone, but that 14 to19 metered parking spaces will be affected.
Protecting bikers or ‘wheelers’ on city streets is needed, no question, particularly since the recent proliferation of many types of ‘wheelers.’ (‘Wheelers’ is a general term encompassing bicycles as well as all types of electric bikes, motorized skateboards, and scooters but excluding automobiles.) Attendees at a recent Advisory Committee meeting were concerned that expanding bikeway paths for wheelers should not come at the potential expense of pedestrian (or driver) safety.
The City’s “Vision Zero” program has identified the central Embarcadero roadway and environs as among the City’s most dangerous pedestrian and traffic zones. Multiple Advisory Committee attendees responded to the expanded Embarcadero bikeway path plan by sharing their experiences with near-misses and intimidation from aggressive ‘wheelers’ on the Embarcadero’s roadway and sidewalks, whether from motorized wheeler scofflaws operating on the Embarcadero promenade (despite an existing bikeway path) or while trying to cross at a “Walk” light.
SFMTA says it is aware of safety issues for non-wheelers on the Embarcadero, but it cannot realistically police wheeler traffic. SFMTA deploys engineering solutions when feasible, including raised waiting platforms at key pedestrian crossings such as at the Ferry Building, and implements striped crosswalks and traffic signage. Increasing both the number and size of the city’s bikeway paths fits the SFMTA’s stated intentions to support multi-modal forms of transportation.
San Francisco has long been a city that experiments with new transportation modes— from the historical novelty of cable cars scaling our city’s steep curving hills to the City’s recent testing grounds for driverless ride-hail vehicles. With the recent proliferation of both the number and types of wheelers, can San Francisco instill a more respectful and safer “urban wheeler” culture, as observed in foreign cities like Copenhagen?
These four topics have a common thread: The Bay’s seawall and its immediate environs. The Port’s Advisory Committee and Commission meetings are open to the public, both in-person and online. (See sfport.com/calendar.) We hope you will join us at these meetings and help prevent any “tragedy of the commons.” Let us know of your interests at Waterfront@THD.org.
