The Port of San Francisco Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars

Recent activities at the Port have been strongly influenced by the Mayor’s office. These included the promotion of the 8 Washington Street project, most aspects of the 34th America’s Cup races, a “legacy project” at Pier 30-32, and an underutilized cruise ship terminal at Pier 27. The Port Commission readily gave approvals with minimal public input. All other commissions dealing with land use decisions, including Planning, Building Inspection, and Board of Permit Appeals, are not appointed solely by the mayor. Section 12 of the Burton Act specifies that all five Harbor Commissioners be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board. (cid:1) Recommendation 1: The Port Commission should be restructured to reflect more public interest. The Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek necessary changes in state law to allow a charter amendment to be submitted to the public for revision of the current five-member Port Commission appointed by the Mayor to a Port Commission with three mayoral appointees and two by the Board of Supervisors. We recommend that this change be put before the voters in 2015. Waterfront Land Use

The Port is primarily a land bank and real estate management company; only 25% of revenue is from maritime activities. Annual revenues of $82 million are not sufficient to meet the needs for infrastructure repair. Today the Port has a policy of attempting to repair all existing piers and related structures. (cid:1) Recommendation 2a: Costs and benefits to repair and maintain these piers should be evaluated and weighed against the cost and benefits of not doing so. It may be possible that the sacrifice of some piers will reduce maintenance costs, thereby freeing monies for repair of more significant structures and create more open space. (cid:1) Recommendation 2b: Other sources of revenue should be expanded. Maritime and industrial use in the Southern Waterfront has great potential. The Port is actively pursuing growth in this area and should continue to improve infrastructure and search for new tenants.

The waterfront is one of the most desirable areas in the City. Proposed projects receive only limited public input by Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) whose members are selected by the Port. The Planning Department and Mayor’s Office have a great deal of authority to influence the selection of development projects. Citizens at large are made aware of these projects only after the Port has published an RFP. The public is not made aware of possible alternate uses that 28 may have been considered during the early stages of project planning. (cid:1) Recommendation 3: Proposed variances from the Plan should receive increased public scrutiny prior to the issuance of an RFP.

The priority of the Port for development is to create an income stream for capital improvements rather than a determination of how best to enhance the quality of life for the residents of the City. Port revitalization has been enhanced in the past by adherence to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Developments have provided local business opportunities, mixed housing where appropriate, stronger public transit options, maintenance of height and bulk limits, and preservation of view corridors. Some uses, however, both current and proposed, of Port land do not conform to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Zoning and height limits have been changed by the Planning Department and the Mayor’s Office. There is a lack of transparency in development proposals, particularly in regard to input from the Mayor’s Office and active involvement of former Mayoral staff advocating on behalf of developers, giving rise to concerns that an agreement had been reached prior to public input. (cid:1) Recommendation 4a: The Port should immediately begin an assessment and update of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, to be renamed the Waterfront Maritime and Land Use Plan to meet current and future requirements for Port development. This should be completed and adopted in a relatively short time span of one to two years. (cid:1) Recommendation 4b The Port should ensure that changes or variances to the existing Waterfront Land Use Plan or the City’s General Plan should have extensive public input before implementation. Transportation

Further development along the waterfront will add new transportation requirements. Transportation along the waterfront does not meet current needs. Portions of the Embarcadero are closed during cruise ship arrivals and events at AT&T Park. Emergency vehicles sometimes use the light rail right of way to circumvent traffic even when there is no major activity on the Embarcadero. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency master plan does not directly address development on Port lands. (cid:1) Recommendation 5: SFMTA should incorporate current and future transit needs, taking into consideration not only increased capacity requirements from individual projects, but the cumulative effect of multiple projects added to existing passenger loads. SFMTA must address reliability and increased capacity that will be required for all modes of transportation, especially the T-Line and motor coach lines connecting to the Pier 70 site. The VETAG system should be maintained to operate at maximum efficiency. Cruise Ship Terminal

When it becomes operational, the Cruise Ship Terminal at Pier 27 is projected to be severely underutilized. This is because federal law, namely the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886, prohibits foreign-flagged passenger ships from calling on two U.S. ports without an intervening foreign port. This Act greatly restricts the use of the newly built Cruise Ship Terminal. The Port estimates that the use of the terminal would increase from the current 50 visits per year to 150 visits if the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 were amended or the Port were granted an exemption for a pilot program. It is also estimated that there is between $750,000 and $1 million economic benefit to the City from each docking. This includes ship provisioning, tourism, berthing fees and tugboats. (cid:1) Recommendation 6: The City should immediately begin lobbying for modifications to the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 to allow foreign-flagged vessels easier access to the City as a pilot program. This lobbying effort should be in conjunction with other U.S. passenger port destinations including those in Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Pier 30-32

Under the 2012 GSW proposal, the Port would not have received rent from the leasing of Pier 30-32 to GSW for the next 66 years. Property tax revenue associated with the IFD that was to be established would have been used to repay the IFD bond for the next 30 years. In contrast, if the Port simply sells Seawall Lot 330 to a third party for development, all of the property tax resulting from said development would go into the City’s General Fund. Furthermore, the Warriors’ arena project conformed neither to the guidelines set forth in the SF Waterfront Special Area Plan (issued by BCDC) nor to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. (cid:1) Recommendation 7: The Port should consider alternatives to fund the cost of rehabilitating Piers 30-32. The sale of Seawall Lot 330 could supply a large portion of $68 M needed to strengthen the substructure for light use. The Jury recommends that the Port actively investigate alternative light uses for Piers 30-32. In addition to general park usage, sports fields for soccer, tennis, basketball, or other sports could be provided. Temporary venues for entertainment companies such as Teatro ZinZanni, Cirque de Soleil, and Cavalia would also not require an extensive substructure. Although not light use, the Port might also consider placement of a major marine research institute to fully utilize the unique characteristics of this site. America’s Cup

The 34th America’s Cup was a major monetary loss to the City’s taxpayers to the tune of about $6 million and a major loss to the Port of about $5.5 million in unreimbursed Port expenditures. The City and the Port subsidized the America’s Cup at taxpayers’ expense. The City received no direct revenue from the 34th America’s Cup event in the form of revenue sharing or venue rent. In negotiating event and/or development agreements at the waterfront, the City and Port do not seek to make a profit from the deal but is simply looking to recover its costs and break even. (cid:1) Recommendation 8a: All major events at the Port, like the America's Cup, must be approved by the Port Commission and the Board of Supervisors. (cid:1) Recommendation 8b: Prior to approval, the City should require a validated cost proposal using fair market rental rates, revenue sharing with the Port, marquee billing for the City, full post-event accounting, and posting of all event financials on the Port website within one month after completion of the event. Said report shall include an itemization of: o The amount and source of all revenue generated by the event. o The amount, payor, and payee of each cost incurred for the event. o The name of each event cancelled, if any, as a result of the approval of the event and the amount of revenue lost as a result of the cancellation. Pier 70

The Port does not have an official policy governing the process for proposed development projects. Many projects are moved ahead with minimal community input, often in the form of a quick review by the CAC and Planning Department then forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The Pier 70 Master Plan was developed with significant community outreach to both the general public and affected neighborhood associations. The Plan represents a balance of community needs and the requirement of the developer to obtain a reasonable return on investment. (cid:1) Recommendation 9a: The Port should ensure ongoing community input be maintained until an acceptable compromise is reached on the final plans. (cid:1) Recommendation 9b: The Jury neither supports nor opposes the development of Pier 70 but we strongly endorse the extensive public outreach and community input as part of the design and development process of 31 the Pier 70 Master Plan. We recommend that the Port follow this model as a template for all major developments on Port lands. Mission Rock

Although the development of Pier 48 and Seawall Lot 337, also known as Mission Rock, began in 2007, there has been insufficient information and involvement for community groups, neighborhood and merchants’ associations, and residents potentially affected by this project. (cid:1) Recommendation 10: The Jury recommends increased publicity and outreach so that an acceptable compromise can be reached on the scope of this development. Financing of Capital Improvements

Although State Law does not require voter approval for the issuance of Port IFD Bonds, voter approval yields greater public awareness of the costs of proposed Port developments. (cid:1) Recommendation 11: The Jury recommends that the Port Commission work with the Board of Supervisors to place a referendum before the voters that asks for approval to issue IFD Bonds. Such a referendum should specifically state the total amount of bonded indebtedness that the Port seeks to incur through IFD Bonds, the specific sources of funds for IFD Bond repayment, and the length of time required to discharge any IFD Bond debt. XIRTAM ESNOPSER ESNOPSER SNOITADNEMMOCER SGNIDNIF DERIUQER :1 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) ?snoisiceD gnikaM si ohW fo draoB erom tcelfer ot derutcurtser eb dluohs noissimmoC troP ehT :1 gnidniF srosivrepuS fo draoB eht taht sdnemmocer yruJ ehT .tseretni cilbup yb decneulfni ylgnorts neeb evah troP eht ta seitivitca tneceR a wolla ot wal etats ni segnahc yrassecen kees srosivrepuS 8 eht fo noitomorp eht dedulcni esehT .eciffo s’royaM eht noisiver rof cilbup eht ot dettimbus eb ot tnemdnema retrahc s’aciremA ht43 eht fo stcepsa tsom ,tcejorp teertS notgnihsaW eht yb detnioppa noissimmoC troP rebmem-evif tnerruc eht fo na dna ,23-03 reiP ta ”tcejorp ycagel“ a ,secar puC seetnioppa laroyam eerht htiw noissimmoC troP a ot royaM troP ehT .72 reiP ta lanimret pihs esiurc deziliturednu siht taht dnemmocer eW .srosivrepuS fo draoB eht yb owt dna .tupni cilbup laminim htiw slavorppa evag ylidaer noissimmoC .5102 ni sretov eht erofeb tup eb egnahc ,snoisiced esu dnal htiw gnilaed snoissimmoc rehto llA timreP fo draoB dna ,noitcepsnI gnidliuB ,gninnalP gnidulcni fo 21 noitceS .royam eht yb ylelos detnioppa ton era ,slaeppA robraH evif lla taht seificeps tcA notruB eht dna royaM eht yb detnioppa eb srenoissimmoC .draoB eht yb demrifnoc naS fo troP :a2 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) esU dnaL tnorfretaW ocsicnarF eb dluohs sreip eseht niatniam dna riaper ot stifeneb dna stsoC :2 gnidniF ton fo stifeneb dna tsoc eht tsniaga dehgiew dna detaulave tnemeganam etatse laer dna knab dnal a yliramirp si troP ehT sreip emos fo ecifircas eht taht elbissop eb yam tI .os gniod .seitivitca emitiram morf si eunever fo %52 ylno ;ynapmoc rof seinom gnieerf ybereht ,stsoc ecnanetniam ecuder lliw eht teem ot tneiciffus ton era noillim 28$ fo seunever launnA nepo erom etaerc dna serutcurts tnacifingis erom fo riaper fo ycilop a sah troP eht yadoT .riaper erutcurtsarfni rof sdeen .ecaps serutcurts detaler dna sreip gnitsixe lla riaper ot gnitpmetta :b2 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) dna emitiraM .dednapxe eb dluohs eunever fo secruos rehtO .laitnetop taerg sah tnorfretaW nrehtuoS eht ni esu lairtsudni dluohs dna aera siht ni htworg gniusrup ylevitca si troP ehT 33 ESNOPSER SNOITADNEMMOCER SGNIDNIF DERIUQER .stnanet wen rof hcraes dna erutcurtsarfni evorpmi ot eunitnoc naS fo troP :3 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) :3 gnidniF ocsicnarF desaercni eviecer dluohs nalP eht morf secnairav desoporP .ytiC eht ni saera elbarised tsom eht fo eno si tnorfretaw ehT .PFR na fo ecnaussi eht ot roirp yniturcs cilbup nezitiC yb tupni cilbup detimil ylno eviecer stcejorp desoporP yb detceles era srebmem esohw )CAC( seettimmoC yrosivdA gninnalP a evah eciffO s’royaM dna tnemtrapeD gninnalP ehT .troP eht tnemtrapeD fo noitceles eht ecneulfni ot ytirohtua fo laed taerg fo erawa edam era egral ta snezitiC .stcejorp tnempoleved ehT .PFR na dehsilbup sah troP eht retfa ylno stcejorp eseht yam taht sesu etanretla elbissop fo erawa edam ton si cilbup tcejorp fo segats ylrae eht gnirud deredisnoc neeb evah .gninnalp naS fo troP )a4( :a4 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) :4 gnidniF ocsicnarF etadpu dna tnemssessa na nigeb yletaidemmi dluohs troP ehT emocni na etaerc ot si tnempoleved rof troP eht fo ytiroirp ehT eht demaner eb ot ,nalP esU dnaL tnorfretaW eht fo fo noitanimreted a naht rehtar stnemevorpmi latipac rof maerts dna tnerruc teem ot nalP esU dnaL dna emitiraM tnorfretaW eht fo stnediser eht rof efil fo ytilauq eht ecnahne ot tseb woh eb dluohs sihT .tnempoleved troP rof stnemeriuqer erutuf yb tsap eht ni decnahne neeb sah noitazilativer troP .ytiC ot eno fo naps emit trohs ylevitaler a ni detpoda dna detelpmoc stnempoleveD .nalP esU dnaL tnorfretaW eht ot ecnerehda .sraey owt gnisuoh dexim ,seitinutroppo ssenisub lacol dedivorp evah b4 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) ecnanetniam ,snoitpo tisnart cilbup regnorts ,etairporppa erehw eht ot secnairav ro segnahc taht erusne dluohs troP ehT .srodirroc weiv fo noitavreserp dna ,stimil klub dna thgieh fo naS fo troP )b4( nalP lareneG s’ytiC eht ro nalP esU dnaL tnorfretaW gnitsixe dnal troP fo ,desoporp dna tnerruc htob ,revewoh ,sesu emoS ocsicnarF .noitatnemelpmi erofeb tupni cilbup evisnetxe evah dluohs dna gninoZ .nalP esU dnaL tnorfretaW eht ot mrofnoc ton od tnemtrapeD gninnalP eht yb degnahc neeb evah stimil thgieh gninnalP ni ycnerapsnart fo kcal a si erehT .eciffO s’royaM eht dna tnemtrapeD eht morf tupni ot drager ni ylralucitrap ,slasoporp tnempoleved laroyaM remrof fo tnemevlovni evitca dna eciffO s’royaM ot esir gnivig ,srepoleved fo flaheb no gnitacovda ffats fo draoB cilbup ot roirp dehcaer neeb dah tnemeerga na taht snrecnoc srosivrepuS .tupni 43 ESNOPSER SNOITADNEMMOCER SGNIDNIF DERIUQER naS fo troP :5 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) noitatropsnarT ocsicnarF ,sdeen tisnart erutuf dna tnerruc etaroprocni dluohs ATMFS :5 gnidniF yticapac desaercni ylno ton noitaredisnoc otni gnikat wen dda lliw tnorfretaw eht gnola tnempoleved rehtruF ocsicnarF naS evitalumuc eht tub ,stcejorp laudividni morf stnemeriuqer eht gnola noitatropsnarT .stnemeriuqer noitatropsnart lapicinuM .sdaol regnessap gnitsixe ot dedda stcejorp elpitlum fo tceffe eht fo snoitroP .sdeen tnerruc teem ton seod tnorfretaw noitatropsnarT taht yticapac desaercni dna ytilibailer sserdda tsum ATMFS stneve dna slavirra pihs esiurc gnirud desolc era oredacrabmE ytirohtuA eht yllaicepse ,noitatropsnart fo sedom lla rof deriuqer eb lliw thgil eht esu semitemos selcihev ycnegremE .kraP T&TA ta .etis 07 reiP eht ot gnitcennoc senil hcaoc rotom dna eniL-T on si ereht nehw neve ciffart tnevmucric ot yaw fo thgir liar ta etarepo ot deniatniam eb dluohs metsys GATEV ehT lapicinuM ocsicnarF naS .oredacrabmE eht no ytivitca rojam .ycneiciffe mumixam sserdda yltcerid ton seod nalp retsam ycnegA noitatropsnarT .sdnal troP no tnempoleved naS fo troP :6 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) lanimreT pihS esiurC ocsicnarF snoitacifidom rof gniybbol nigeb yletaidemmi dluohs ytiC ehT :6 gnidniF -ngierof wolla ot 6881 fo tcA secivreS lesseV regnessaP eht ot ta lanimreT pihS esiurC eht ,lanoitarepo semoceb ti nehW royaM .margorp tolip a sa ytiC eht ot ssecca reisae slessev deggalf si sihT .deziliturednu ylereves eb ot detcejorp si 72 reiP .S.U rehto htiw noitcnujnoc ni eb dluohs troffe gniybbol sihT secivreS lesseV regnessaP eht yleman ,wal laredef esuaceb fo draoB ,iiawaH ,aksalA ni esoht gnidulcni snoitanitsed trop regnessap morf spihs regnessap deggalf-ngierof stibihorp ,6881 fo tcA srosivrepuS .notgnihsaW dna ,nogerO .trop ngierof gninevretni na tuohtiw strop .S.U owt no gnillac pihS esiurC tliub ylwen eht fo esu eht stcirtser yltaerg tcA sihT lanimret eht fo esu eht taht setamitse troP ehT .lanimreT stisiv 051 ot raey rep stisiv 05 tnerruc eht morf esaercni dluow ro dednema erew 6881 fo tcA secivreS lesseV regnessaP eht fi si tI .margorp tolip a rof noitpmexe na detnarg erew troP eht noillim 1$ dna 000,057$ neewteb si ereht taht detamitse osla sedulcni sihT .gnikcod hcae morf ytiC eht ot tifeneb cimonoce .staobgut dna seef gnihtreb ,msiruot ,gninoisivorp pihs naS fo troP :7 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) 23-03 reiP ocsicnarF :7 gnidniF fo tsoc eht dnuf ot sevitanretla redisnoc dluohs troP ehT evah ton dluow troP eht ,lasoporp WSG 2102 eht rednU dluoc 033 toL llawaeS fo elas ehT .23-03 sreiP gnitatilibaher rof WSG ot 23-03 reiP fo gnisael eht morf tner deviecer eht nehtgnerts ot dedeen M 86$ fo noitrop egral a ylppus 53 ESNOPSER SNOITADNEMMOCER SGNIDNIF DERIUQER troP eht taht sdnemmocer yruJ ehT .esu thgil rof erutcurtsbus htiw detaicossa eunever xat ytreporP .sraey 66 txen eht nI .23-03 sreiP rof sesu thgil evitanretla etagitsevni ylevitca desu neeb evah dluow dehsilbatse eb ot saw taht DFI eht ,sinnet ,reccos rof sdleif strops ,egasu krap lareneg ot noitidda .sraey 03 txen eht rof dnob DFI eht yaper ot .dedivorp eb dluoc strops rehto ro ,llabteksab ortaeT sa hcus seinapmoc tnemniatretne rof seunev yraropmeT a ot 033 toL llawaeS slles ylpmis troP eht fi ,tsartnoc nI eriuqer ton osla dluow ailavaC dna ,lieloS ed euqriC ,innaZniZ xat ytreporp eht fo lla ,tnempoleved rof ytrap driht eht ,esu thgil ton hguohtlA .erutcurtsbus evisnetxe na eht otni og dluow tnempoleved dias morf gnitluser hcraeser eniram rojam a fo tnemecalp redisnoc osla thgim troP .dnuF lareneG s’ytiC .etis siht fo scitsiretcarahc euqinu eht ezilitu ylluf ot etutitsni ot rehtien demrofnoc tcejorp anera ’sroirraW eht ,eromrehtruF nalP aerA laicepS tnorfretaW FS eht ni htrof tes senilediug eht .nalP esU dnaL tnorfretaW eht ot ron )CDCB yb deussi( naS fo troP :a8 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) puC s’aciremA ocsicnarF eb tsum ,puC s'aciremA eht ekil ,troP eht ta stneve rojam llA :8 gnidniF fo draoB eht dna noissimmoC troP eht yb devorppa eht ot ssol yratenom rojam a saw puC s’aciremA ht43 ehT fo draoB .srosivrepuS rojam a dna noillim 6$ tuoba fo enut eht ot sreyapxat s’ytiC srosivrepuS :b8 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) troP desrubmiernu ni noillim 5.5$ tuoba fo troP eht ot ssol tsoc detadilav a eriuqer dluohs ytiC eht ,lavorppa ot roirP s’aciremA eht dezidisbus troP eht dna ytiC ehT .serutidnepxe royaM htiw gnirahs eunever ,setar latner tekram riaf gnisu lasoporp tcerid on deviecer ytiC ehT .esnepxe ’sreyapxat ta puC tneve-tsop lluf ,ytiC eht rof gnillib eeuqram ,troP eht fo mrof eht ni tneve puC s’aciremA ht43 eht morf eunever troP eht no slaicnanif tneve lla fo gnitsop dna ,gnitnuocca ro/dna tneve gnitaitogen nI .tner eunev ro gnirahs eunever diaS .tneve eht fo noitelpmoc retfa htnom eno nihtiw etisbew troP dna ytiC eht ,tnorfretaw eht ta stnemeerga tnempoleved :fo noitazimeti na edulcni llahs troper ylpmis si tub laed eht morf tiforp a ekam ot kees ton seod eunever lla fo ecruos dna tnuoma ehT o .neve kaerb dna stsoc sti revocer ot gnikool .tneve eht yb detareneg tsoc hcae fo eeyap dna ,royap ,tnuoma ehT o .tneve eht rof derrucni a sa ,yna fi ,dellecnac tneve hcae fo eman ehT o eht dna tneve eht fo lavorppa eht fo tluser fo tluser a sa tsol eunever fo tnuoma .noitallecnac eht 63 ESNOPSER SNOITADNEMMOCER SGNIDNIF DERIUQER naS fo troP 07 reiP ocsicnarF :a9 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) :9 gnidniF eb tupni ytinummoc gniogno erusne dluohs troP ehT eht gninrevog ycilop laiciffo na evah ton seod troP ehT gninnalP eht no dehcaer si esimorpmoc elbatpecca na litnu deniatniam era stcejorp ynaM .stcejorp tnempoleved desoporp rof ssecorp tnemtrapeD .snalp lanif mrof eht ni netfo ,tupni ytinummoc laminim htiw daeha devom neht tnemtrapeD gninnalP dna CAC eht yb weiver kciuq a fo fo tnemtrapeD :b9 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) .lavorppa lanif rof srosivrepuS fo draoB eht ot dedrawrof skroW cilbuP reiP fo tnempoleved eht sesoppo ron stroppus rehtien yruJ ehT dna hcaertuo cilbup evisnetxe eht esrodne ylgnorts ew tub 07 tnacifingis htiw depoleved saw nalP retsaM 07 reiP ehT dna noitaerceR tnempoleved dna ngised eht fo trap sa tupni ytinummoc detceffa dna cilbup lareneg eht htob ot hcaertuo ytinummoc tnemtrapeD skraP eht taht dnemmocer eW .nalP retsaM 07 reiP eht fo ssecorp fo ecnalab a stneserper nalP ehT .snoitaicossa doohrobhgien rojam lla rof etalpmet a sa ledom siht wollof troP ot repoleved eht fo tnemeriuqer eht dna sdeen ytinummoc .sdnal troP no stnempoleved .tnemtsevni no nruter elbanosaer a niatbo naS fo troP :01 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) kcoR noissiM ocsicnarF taht os hcaertuo dna yticilbup desaercni sdnemmocer yruJ ehT :01 gnidniF siht fo epocs eht no dehcaer eb nac esimorpmoc elbatpecca na ,733 toL llawaeS dna 84 reiP fo tnempoleved eht hguohtlA gninnalP .tnempoleved neeb sah ereht ,7002 ni nageb ,kcoR noissiM sa nwonk osla tnemtrapeD ytinummoc rof tnemevlovni dna noitamrofni tneiciffusni dna ,snoitaicossa ’stnahcrem dna doohrobhgien ,spuorg .tcejorp siht yb detceffa yllaitnetop stnediser naS fo troP :11 noitadnemmoceR (cid:1) stnemevorpmI latipaC fo gnicnaniF ocsicnarF eht htiw krow noissimmoC troP eht taht sdnemmocer yruJ ehT :11 gnidniF sretov eht erofeb mudnerefer a ecalp ot srosivrepuS fo draoB eht rof lavorppa retov eriuqer ton seod waL etatS hguohtlA fo draoB mudnerefer a hcuS .sdnoB DFI eussi ot lavorppa rof sksa taht retaerg sdleiy lavorppa retov ,sdnoB DFI troP fo ecnaussi srosivrepuS dednob fo tnuoma latot eht etats yllacificeps dluohs .stnempoleved troP desoporp fo stsoc eht fo ssenerawa cilbup ,sdnoB DFI hguorht rucni ot skees troP eht taht ssendetbedni eht dna ,tnemyaper dnoB DFI rof sdnuf fo secruos cificeps eht .tbed dnoB DFI yna egrahcsid ot deriuqer emit fo htgnel 73 METHODOLOGY The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury’s investigation of the Port of San Francisco was conducted spanning a period of six months. We interviewed twenty-four individuals representing many City departments, including the Port of San Francisco, the Office of the Mayor, San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, Planning Department, Recreation and Parks and Board of Supervisors. In addition, individuals and representatives of other entities were interviewed, including neighborhood associations, trade unions, BCDC, ABAG, Forest City, Orton Development, and other experts in the history and finances of the Port of San Francisco. The Jury reviewed more than 175 documents, reports, web pages, and minutes. Port facilities and sites currently being considered for development were inspected. The Jury learned that some plans propose changes that potentially impact the waterfront decades into the future as a result of agreements that can extend as long as 50 to 66 years. The Port is a complex entity and does not readily lend itself to an in-depth study within the time constraints of the term of this year’s Civil Grand Jury. There are many operational and financial aspects that are beyond the scope of this report. Our biggest challenge was to analyze the massive amount of information we acquired and then to focus our efforts on those areas that would have the greatest impact for the citizens of San Francisco, whom we represent. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bay Area Council Institute -- 2014 Outlook Conference “The Economic Impact of the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco”, May 13, 2013 http://www.bayareacouncil.org/press-releases/bay-area-council-economic-institute-releases- americas-cup-economic-impact-study/ Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst, Policy Analysis Report, February 10, 2014, http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=47894 Brown, Peter H. America's Waterfront Revival: Port Authorities and Urban Redevelopment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. The Burton Act, Reflecting All Amendments Through May 1994, http://sfport.com/ftp/uploadedfiles/about_us/divisions/planning_development/projects/Burton%2 0Act.pdf Caltrans Freight Planning Fact Sheet 7/12, http://dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ogm/ships/Fact_Sheets/Port_of_San_Francisco_Fact_Sheet_0730 12.pdf Golden State Warriors Piers 30-32 Development, April 7, 2014 http://www.sfport.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=7880 Institutes of Justinian 2.1.1., The Public Trust Doctrine, California State Lands Commission, http://www.slc.ca.gov/policy_statements/public_trust/public_trust_doctrine.pdf Mayor Gavin Newsom Announces Third Steet Light Rail To Begin Service January 13, States News Service, May 2, 2007. Retrieved via LexisNexis, January 12, 2014. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Proposed Cordell Bank & Gulf of the Farallones Expansion, http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/expansion_cbgf.html Pier 70 Preferred Master Plan” April 2010, http://sfport.com/ftp/uploadedfiles/about_us/divisions/planning_development/southern_waterfro nt/pier70masterplan_intro-overview.pdf Port Commission, “Independent Auditor’s Report, Management’s Discussion and Analyusis and Financial Statements For the Years Ended June 30, 2013 and 2012” Port of San Francisco, “Cargo Statistics”, CY 2004 – CY 2013 http://www.sfport.com/index.aspx?page=164 Port of San Francisco 2014-2023 Ten-Year Capital Plan http://sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3463 39 Port of San Francisco “Pier 70 Preferred Master Plan” April 2010, http://sfport.com/ftp/uploadedfiles/about_us/divisions/planning_development/southern_waterfro nt/pier70masterplan_intro-overview.pdf Port of San Francisco, Land Use & Environment » Projects » Pier 70 Area » Pier 70 Implementation, September 2012, http://www.sfport.com/index.aspx?page=2130 Port of San Francisco, Parks & Open Space, http://www.sfport.com/index.aspx?page=60 Port of San Francisco, Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 http://www.sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5664 Port of San Francisco, Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 http://www.sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7803 Port of San Francisco, Biennial Operating Budget, FY 2012-2013 & FY 2013-2014 http://www.sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5813 Port of San Francisco, Five Year Financial Plan FY 2013-2014 – FY 2017-2018 http://www.sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5815 Director’s Recommendation re: Ten-Year Capital Plan 2015-2024 Executive Summary, http://www.sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7314 , full text available at http://www.sf-port.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7887 Rubin, Jasper “The Decline of the Port – A look at the transformation of the Port of San Francisco”, November 1, 1999, pub. SPUR http://www.spur.org/publications/article/1999-11-01/decline-port Rubin, Jasper. A Negotiated Landscape: The Transformation of San Francisco's Waterfront since 1950 Center for American Places at Columbia College Chicago : Distributed by the University of Chicago Press, 2011. San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office report entitled “Analysis of the Impact of the 34th America’s Cup to the City” http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=47894 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury 1995-1996, “Port of San Francisco, ” pub. June 1996 SFMTA, 1 “Discover the T-Third,” http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mroutes/documents/T3- Manual_v6na.pdf. Retrieved via the Internet Archive WayBack Machine, January 12, 2014. San Jose Mercury News, September 23, 2013, http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_24158014/san-franciscogiants-ghostly-sellout-streak- still-intact 40 Seawall Lot 337 (SWL 337) & Pier 48, March 12, 2013 Port Commission Meeting, http://www.sfport.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5629 Smith, Jonathan and Alan Pendleton, “City and the Environment Symposium: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: Challenge and Response After 30 Years” Golden Gate University Law Review 28 (1998) 269 SocketSite, March 28, 2014 http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/03/six_key_issues_for_the_proposed_warriors_arena_t o_be_re.html “Term Sheet Between the City and County of San Francisco, Acting by and through the San Francisco Port Commission and Seawall Lot 337 Associates, LLC” http://sfport.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=5508 Waterfront Design & Access ‎www.sf-port.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/about_us/divisions/planning_development/WDesAcc.pdf Young, Eric “America’s Cup spurred just $364 million in spending ---a fraction of initial estimate” San Francisco Business Times, 10 December 2013 41 GLOSSARY ABAG–Association of Bay Area Governments BCDC–Bay Conservation and Development Commission – California state agency that is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay and to the encouragement of the Bay's responsible use CAC–Citizens Advisory Committee, appointed by the Port of San Francisco for evaluation and