Cgj Year Report Title Recommendation Department Required to Respond 2014 Recommendation Response 2014 Response Text

Board of Supervisors partially disagrees The Board of Supervisors cannot speak to the specific level or nature of influence as it is not privy to all the interactions between the Mayor’s Office and the Port, though the Mayor’s Office does Trust and Private Dollars Recent activities at the Port have been strongly influenced by the Mayor’s office. influence many activities at the Port and throughout the City. It is difficult to assess “minimal public input” but, based on available evidence, the Board believes the Port Commission has These included the promotion of the 8 Washington Street project, most aspects followed the same practices as every other City agency with respect to public comment, open meetings, etc. There are several other commissions that deal with land use decisions and are of the 34th America’s Cup races, a “legacy project” at Pier 30-32, and an appointed by the Mayor, including: the Public Utilities Commission, Recreation and Park Commission, Airport Commission, Fire commission, and Municipal Transportation Agency Board. The underutilized cruise ship terminal at Pier 27. The Port Commission readily gave Port like any other Commission did its due diligence in trying to obtain public comment. 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. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Disagree The Port has one of the most diverse maritime portfolios of any port on the West Coast. The Port’s facilities handle cargo, cruise ships, ship repair, ferries, excursions, fishing & fish processing Trust and Private Dollars The Port is primarily a land bank and real estate management company; only industries, boat and yacht harbors, harbor services such as tug and barge, bar pilots, and historic vessels. The Port’s Pier 80 is the only breakbulk and project cargo facility in San Francisco Bay. 25% of revenue is from maritime activities. Annual revenues of $82 million are The Port also manages Foreign Trade Zone No. 3 covering 7 Bay Area counties. Additionally, the Port is home to 85+ acres of open space and park lands. On a land basis, maritime use and open not sufficient to meet the needs for infrastructure repair. Today the Port has a space/park activities account for 43% of the Port’s asset portfolio while commercial real estate accounts for 57%. Maritime operations typically require large, low density footprints and are policy of attempting to repair all existing piers and related structures limited to ground level. Port parks and open space areas also are limited to the ground level. By contrast commercial real estate operations are high density uses and can be implemented in multi-story facilities, such as the Ferry Building. As such, they generate a higher return per square foot than either maritime operations or parks and open space. Maritime activities often generate lower revenues than commercial real estate activities and logically would represent a smaller proportion of the Port’s overall revenues. Open space and park activities do not generate any income and therefore are not captured in the Port’s revenues. It is disingenuous to measure the Port’s value and contributions simply on a revenue basis. However, the Port agrees that Port facilities, especially Port berths, be utilized first for maritime purposes. To that end, the Port adopted its Maritime Industry Preservation Policy in 2011 which guides Port staff, tenants and developers in the importance of maintaining the Port’s long-held maritime assets for current and future maritime activity in accordance with the City’s long maritime history, the Port’s core maritime mission, the Public Trust doctrine and the Burton Act. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Disagree The Port and the public have expended tremendous effort and investment to make this one of the most renowned waterfronts in the world, while still operating as working port. The Port has Trust and Private Dollars The waterfront is one of the most desirable areas in the City. Proposed projects sought public participation for almost 100 years beginning in 1918 when the Port established receive only limited public input by Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) whose its first citizen’s advisory committee. Today that has expanded to 6 advisory groups providing public input on projects and operations in (1) Fisherman’s Wharf, (2) Northeast Waterfront & Ferry members are selected by the Port. The Planning Department and Mayor’s Office Building, (3) Central Waterfront, (4) Southern Waterfront areas, and Portwide through the (5) Maritime Commerce Advisory Committee and (6) Waterfront Design Advisory Committee. A Piers have a great deal of authority to influence the selection of development projects. 30-32 Citizens Advisory Committee existed until April 2014. In the last 8 years, 400+ public meetings have been Citizens at large are made aware of these projects only after the Port has held by the Port or the Board of Supervisors: published an RFP. The public is not made aware of possible alternate uses that SWL 322-1 11 may have been considered during the early stages of project Crane Cove Park 40 planning. Pier 27 Cruise Terminal 43 Exploratorium 50 Piers 30-32 50 SWL 337 50 SWL 351 82 Pier 70 88 TOTAL 414 All advisory committee meetings are public meetings. Notices are sent to 1,500 interested citizens who have requested to be informed of and follow these meetings. This high level of interest and opportunity for public participation is in addition to public meetings held by the Port Commission, Planning Commission, BCDC and Board of Supervisors required for major Port development projects and non-maritime leases. The Port carries out additional public outreach with neighborhood groups and other stakeholders through presentations, workshops, surveys and solicitation of comments through the Port website for major community planning projects, such as the Blue Greenway, Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70. Development concepts for most Port sites are discussed in Port advisory committee and Port Commission meetings before the developer selection process. Projects that emerge as sole source opportunities approved by the Board of Supervisors (such as the Exploratorium and the International Museum of Women) also are subject to review and discussion at Port advisory committee and other public meetings. The Port hosted 50 public meetings on behalf of the Exploratorium project. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Disagree The overarching priority of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, and therefore the Port, is to reunite San Francisco with its waterfront. The success of the Port and its partners in meeting this priority is Trust and Private Dollars The priority of the Port for development is to create an income stream for capital clear: more than 24 million people visited the waterfront in 2013 for employment, transportation, education, exploration, entertainment, recreation or simply to engage passively with the Bay. improvements rather than a determination of how best to enhance the quality of In the past 17 years, since adoption of the Waterfront Land Use Plan, the Port has realized more than $1.6 billion of investments from both public and private dollars. These investments have life for the residents of the City. Port revitalization has been enhanced in the past enhanced the quality of life for residents of the City and the greater Bay Area, as well as garnered the City even greater international acclaim. Specifically, the following improvements have been by adherence to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Developments have provided realized as a result of the Waterfront Land Use Plan and public input, creating more value to the citizens of San Francisco than at any other time in the past century: local business opportunities, mixed housing where appropriate, stronger public ~More than 63 acres of waterfront open space, including 20 new parks; 19 prized Port historic resources have been fully or partially rehabilitated consistent with federal or local historic transit options, maintenance of height and bulk limits, and preservation of view standards, to meet modern seismic standards allowing the public to enter and enjoy these resources; 7 derelict piers and wharves have been removed from the Bay (removal of Pier 64 is in corridors. Some uses, however, both current and proposed, of Port land do not progress); Up to 6.3 million square feet of new residential conform to the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Zoning and height limits have been and commercial development and 22 new acres of waterfront open space are being planned jointly with the community for Seawall Lot 337 changed by the Planning Department and the Mayor’s Office. There is a lack of and Pier 70, to transform the Port’s central and southern waterfront. The Waterfront Land Use Plan anticipated the need for public-private development partners to improve Port facilities in transparency in development proposals, particularly in regard to input from the addition to public funds. The Port’s 10-Year Capital Plan has advanced a more sophisticated understanding of Port capital needs that now supports a strategic approach to improve Port facilities. Mayor’s Office and active involvement of former Mayoral staff advocating on While the Port does strive to pursue behalf of developers, giving rise to concerns that an agreement had been projects that do not have to be subsidized, there is no stated priority for development. The development projects the Port has pursued have reached prior to public input. been effective means to repair Port properties and deliver public benefits, as well as Port revenue. All major development projects, whether or not the Office of Economic & Workforce Development has been involved, are thoroughly vetted in public meetings over many years before they may be approved by the Port Commission, Planning Commission, BCDC and Board of Supervisors. Multi-phase developments such as proposed for Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70, undergo extra public planning process before soliciting development partners. In both cases, meetings were held to discuss the scale of adjacent development in Mission Bay and Dogpatch respectively and the potential for height increases. From the outset, the public knew that both of these projects would require amendments to the Waterfront Land Use Plan, City zoning and possible other Planning Commission controls. The Port’s planning and community engagement efforts are framed specifically to maximize transparency. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

SF Municipal Transportation Authority Wholly Disagree While SFMTA acknowledges that future growth along the waterfront will add new demands on the transportation network, SFMTA wholly disagrees with the statements that transportation Trust and Private Dollars Further development along the waterfront will add new transportation along the waterfront does not meet current needs and that SFMTA is not addressing development on Port lands. While the waterfront transportation network does at times experience service requirements. Transportation along the waterfront does not meet current needs. challenges, especially during the AM and PM peak periods, the SFMTA meets that challenge every day by serving thousands of trips by transit, bicycle, pedestrian, paratransit, taxi and auto. In Portions of the Embarcadero are closed during cruise ship arrivals and events at planning for all local transportation modes and parking throughout the waterfront transportation network, within a very dense urban environment that has limited capacity on its streets, SFMTA AT&T Park. Emergency vehicles sometimes use the light transportation planners must strive to be as efficient and resourceful in the use of space as possible, resulting in coordinating actions such as allowing emergency vehicles to use the exclusive rail right of way to circumvent traffic even when there is no major activity on the transit right of ways on the Embarcadero, redirecting traffic around cruise ship arrivals, or adding supplemental Muni services during large events. With regard to the statement “San Francisco Embarcadero. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency master plan does Municipal Transportation Agency master plan does not directly address development on Port lands,” it is important to note that SFMTA does not, per se, maintain a “master plan” for the San not directly address development on Port lands. Francisco transportation network. As standard practice, the Agency works internally with Agency divisions, and externally with city departments, the Port, regional transportation agencies (e.g. BART, Caltrain, WETA), and community stakeholders to coordinate their transportation plans with planned growth throughout the city. These include the San Francisco General Plan, the San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan, and the Waterfront Land Use Plan, maintained respectively by the San Francisco Planning Department, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and the Port. With regard to coordinating transportation planning with development on Port lands, over the past two years, the SFTMA has been working directly with the Port, other public agencies (e.g., Planning, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Office of Community Infrastructure and Investment, BART, Caltrain, WETA), project sponsors and community stakeholders on the Waterfront Transportation Assessment (the “Assessment”) to identify needs and develop concepts for transportation improvements that specifically focus on areas of future development on Port properties, including Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70. Phase 1 of the Assessment was completed in late 2013, and resulted in several dozen transportation strategies that may be enlisted to supplement current services, to advance planned services, and/or to support the transportation demands of future developments on both city and Port properties. The referenced transportation strategies are located at: (http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/131107_Posted%20DRAFT_Matrix%20wNarrative.pdf). Phase 2 of the Waterfront Transportation Assessment will take shape as Port property development proposals are refined over the next several years, and will help to move “transportation strategies” into “transportation solutions” that will accompany those projects 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Partially Agree Trust and Private Dollars 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. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Partially Agree The Port Waterfront Land Use Plan designates Piers 30-32 and Seawall Lot 330 as a mixed use development opportunity site, and allows maritime, commercial, public assembly and Trust and Private Dollars Under the 2012 GSW proposal, the Port would not have received rent from the entertainment and public open space uses at Piers 30-32, but a sports facility would have required a leasing of Pier 30-32 to GSW for the next 66 years. Property tax revenue Waterfront Land Use Plan amendment. The housing and hotel mixed uses proposed on Seawall Lot 330 by the Golden State Warriors (GSW) are associated with the IFD that was to be established would have been used to allowed in the Waterfront Land Use Plan. The public process provides the public forum for considering whether the merits of a project support repay the IFD bond for the next 30 years. In contrast, if the Port simply sells an amendment to the Waterfront Land Use Plan, which included for review and

Port of San Francisco Partially Agree The Port and the City did invest money into the hosting of the America’s Cup (Event). Much of this investment was offset by revenues generated by the Event itself and from fundraising by the Trust and Private Dollars The 34th America’s Cup was a major monetary loss to the City’s taxpayers to the America’s Cup Organizing Committee. As reported quarterly to the Port Commission throughout 2013, 87% of the money invested by the Port to support the Event was invested into Port tune of about $6 million and a major loss to the Port of about $5.5 million in infrastructure and facilities to increase their useful life by as much as 30 years. The benefits of these investments far outlive the duration of the Event and will accrue to a new generation of unreimbursed Port expenditures. The City and the Port subsidized the America’s residents and visitors along the waterfront. Significant investments included rebuilding of the apron at Pier 19 for public access, removal of Piers 36 and Pier ½, and structural repairs to critical Cup at taxpayers’ expense. The City received no direct revenue from the 34th marginal wharves (i.e., the deck structures that connect the piers to the upland shore area). For the Event itself, more than 1 million people attended the Event over the course of two summers, America’s Cup event in the form of revenue sharing or venue rent. In negotiating and it was televised repeatedly in 130 countries worldwide, bringing significant attention and acclaim to San Francisco and the Bay as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefit. event and/or development agreements at the waterfront, the City and Port does not seek to make a profit from the deal but is simply looking to recover its costs and break even. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Partially Disagree The Port DOES have an official policy for proposed development projects. The Waterfront Land Use Plan, adopted and implemented by the Port Trust and Private Dollars The Port does not have an official policy governing the process for proposed Commission, calls for an extensive public review process prior to the leasing and development of port property. The Port has established advisory committees in each waterfront subarea to hold development projects. Many projects are moved ahead with minimal community public meetings and provide regular public forums for the review process. Over the 17 year period the Waterfront Land Use Plan has been implemented, Port staff has always worked closely input, often in the form of a quick review by the CAC and Planning Department with the affected communities and key stakeholders. During this time, a handful of unsolicited proposals have been made to the Port, such as the Exploratorium project, and Port staff has then worked to incorporate them into the public review process outlined in the Waterfront Land Use Plan. In the case of the Exploratorium, this resulted in 50 public meetings on the project. Often forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The Pier 70 Master Plan such proposals have an early Board of Supervisors hearing to address appropriateness of the project and sole source waivers. While occasionally projects commence at different starting points was developed with significant community outreach to both the general public along the process continuum, all projects ultimately adhere to the process prior to final project adoption. 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. 2013-14 The Port of SF. Caught Between Public

Port of San Francisco Disagree This project has been the subject of more than 50 public meetings during the past 7½ years. The Port has engaged in an extensive and robust public process in planning the Seawall Lot 337 and Trust and Private Dollars Although the development of Pier 48 and Seawall Lot 337,also known as Mission Pier 48 sites. This process began in January 2007 and is still ongoing, 7½ years later. This process included: 1) an 18-month planning phase in which Port staff and Commissioners directly solicited Rock, began in 2007, there has been insufficient information and involvement for planning and use ideas from neighbors and stakeholders; 2) an 8-month RFQ phase when the Port solicited development concepts and engaged in public review and dialogue about the community groups, neighborhood and merchants’ associations, and residents submittals; 3) a 13-month RFP phase when the Port received development proposals and solicited public comments; and 4) a 5-year project predevelopment phase which is still ongoing and potentially affected by this project. includes public input through outreach to neighborhood groups, regular updates to the Port’s advisory groups, as well as public hearings at the Port Commission and Board of Supervisors. This process has utilized many innovative techniques to solicit public input including: 1) direct involvement of Port Commission members in the community planning process, 2) a prominent and representative public Advisory Panel, 3) a 2-step solicitation process that included numerous public meetings with recordation of public comments, and 4) graphic recordation of comments from the public. This process has resulted in a stable development proposal that still responds to public input from the 2007 planning process. The public outreach conducted for this project is described in more detail below. SWL 337 Planning Process Overview •The Port Commission established a Committee of two Commissioners to convene a series of public meetings to address the planning and development of SWL 337. This Committee presided over 7 public workshops during 2007. The full Port Commission held 2 additional public hearings prior to the Port Commission’s authorization to issue an RFQ. RFQ & RFP Process • In October 2007, the San Francisco Port Commission initiated a two‐phase developer solicitation process for SWL 337. The Port Commission also created a public advisory panel, to lead public review of the developer submittals, and make

Port of San Francisco Disagree State Law allows the formation of Infrastructure Financing Districts on Port property to enable funding of new infrastructure and the uniquely high costs of developing the waterfront. Property Trust and Private Dollars Although State Law does not require voter approval for the issuance of Port IFD tax increment financing is a standard form of publicly financing for publicly-owned improvements. In most states that use this form of financing, voter approval is not required, because IFDs do Bonds, voter approval yields greater public awareness of the costs of proposed not increase taxes. Instead, they leverage planned private investment in order to produce higher property taxes without increasing tax rates IFDs on Port property can fund improvements to Port developments. address sea level rise, to remediate historic contamination of Port property, to install piles and fix the seawall, and to rehabilitate historic resources. Pursuant to the adopted Board of Supervisors policy for Port property, the Board may form IFDs on Port property to address capital needs identified in the Port's 10-Year Capital Plan, which is developed through the City's formal capital planning process – itself a very public process. Port IFDs are repaid through new property tax increment generated from Port property. In most cases, without the use of IFD tax increment, many areas of the Port are too expensive to redevelop and thus no new taxes would be generated. Major planned Port development at Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 70 already faces a requirement for a public vote to establish required heights. Since IFDs cannot be formed until after CEQA is complete, the Civil Grand Jury's