The Port, along with Telegraph Hill Dwellers and Barbary Coast Neighborhood
Association, will be co-sponsoring a public forum to review proposed State legislation relating to lifting public trust land use restrictions from 11 “Seawall Lots” under the Port’s jurisdiction and control.
The 11 lots stretch from Lot A just south of AT&T Park to the parking lot across from Pier 35 (Embarcadero and Bay). And while most of the lots are currently used for parking, proposed legislation would open up the door for development of the lots by private developers (think residential, retail, etc.).
The forum is scheduled for this evening (5/14/07) from 5:30 – 7:30 pm and will be held in the Port’s Bayside conference rooms on Pier 1 (Embarcadero at Washington). And as Frederick Allardyce (President of the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association) notes, “This is an opportunity…to learn about how the City works in creating new neighborhoods and how the public can impact the future of San Francisco.”
This is so overdue. I hope the city has the juice to get this sensible legislation through.
Juice needed. The possibilities for our waterfront. Boston inspires.
http://www.hughpearman.com/2006/32.html
Let’s make sure what has already been promised happens first – do something with the Brannan Street Wharf besides fence it off as dangerous.
By the way … I wish I could attend this Port meeting, but the new Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association is having its first public meeting (at least first meeting I am aware of) at the same time over at the One Rincon Hill sales office on Harrison Street. See the RHNA web site – http://www.RinconHillNeighbors.org for info. on where to RSVP and stuff like that if you’re a Rincon Hill/Transbay area resident. I hope to see you there! 🙂
Being able to develop property for higher uses than parking will generate revenues that can assist those problematic decaying wharf projects (see Jamie..above). So I’d say let’s not require what’s promised to happen first…but require that at least a portion of the proceeds of these projects be used to complete some of the most important public benefit projects.
The Port desperately needs revenue, and sits on a tremendous amount of property that could and should be developed (sensitively), if only State and local laws were less restrictive.
Its about time that they expedite the development of the piers. I personally don’t care if the Bryant Street Pier becomes a cruise terminal or not, so long as it is developed with shops, restaurants and a park.
Has anybody ever been to Barcelona, Spain? I really like what they did with one of their piers. They turned it into a building that houses many restaurants and nightclubs. I think this would be great for SF. Since these piers are away from other housing areas, we wouldn’t have noise complaints from residents and we would do a lot to make these areas more of an attraction.
Anything in or around Telegraph Hill ain’t happening until Herr Peskin is out of power. He and his THD cronies will ensure no development would occur to block their pristine views.
Usually Named is probably right. Nothing will happen near telegraph hill, but i am sure they will push for things in south beach
Wayne is right on … they basically said that they need to make $20 million or so a year as compared to the $4 million they currently make from the uses of the various sea wall lots.
They want to go for the big revenues – and that means doing something with seawall 330 (yeah, the Watermark spot’s remaining parking lot) and Parking Lot A on 3rd Street where commuters and Giants ball game folks currently park (along with the occasional Cirque du Soleil tent event).
So, these buttholes go to Telegraph Hill looking for support for changes that will mainly happen in South Beach and Mission Bay. Nice runaround kids! Who trusts the Port Commission now, I ask??
I didn’t hear any of them say … Hey, maybe we can cut operational costs. Maybe $40 million a year to preserve all of these ports is a little much …. hmmm.
My opinion? The Watermark parking lot would make a great park/ open space … maybe I’d forgive the Port for their involvement with the Rincon Park Restaurant eyesore. When a public agency is desperate for money, watch out …
Jamie,
the port is in a really tough place. They don’t have any REAL port activities (it nearly all moved to Oakland years ago) and yet they have a whole bunch of infrastructure that they need to maintain somehow. About all the Port actual imports and exports is trash and gravel. Pretty pathetic.
Add in years of misguided political leadership that pined to wrest the mantle back from Oakland (why do we have ANY dry dock facilities at all?). The result? A sorry mess. The ONLY way the Port can make any money is real estate…both development and management.
The Port by state charter controls a whole swath of SF waterfront. The state mandates only certain uses of these properties (essentially, everything is supposed to be “maritime related”, waterfront condos don’t cut bait). San Francisco voters in their infinite wisdom limited land uses even further..saying no hotels, for instance. So the port has crumbling piers and buildings, and virtually no market for much of their property. I’m not that close to the agency, but I don’t think anyone has ever accused them of outlandish operating costs…they’re pretty damned poor.
There’s really not an easy way out of this without state relief. The port could just throw in the towel, but then what? The land is still all bound by the public trust, and the city can’t step in and do anything about that on its own.
I’m sorry, but proposing a park for the seawall lot next to the watermark is not helpful given this situation. For a start, there is ample parkland nearby…not only Rincon Park (even with the restaurants), but also the park next to South Beach Marina. And the eventual piers redevelopment will inlude extensive public access. What the seawall lots need is development.That’s not only a “need” for the port coffers, but also a need in urban design terms. Those misbegotten parking lots stick out like sore thumbs.
I, for one, would be very happy to see the Port abolished at the state level, but ONLY if the state also allowed rational development of waterfront propoerty. The current situation is ridiculous, to say the least.
What I don’t get is why people at Telegraph Hill are so opposed to this. If we’re talking about low-rises (shops, restaurants, etc), it won’t do anything to destroy their views. It’ll just take away these ugly parking lots and replace them with more attractive buildings and closer amenities for them. Keep in mind that there are already much taller buildings nearby (think Levi’s plaza and those condos nearby).
Folks at the meeting did not totally rule out the Port figuring out ways of increasing their recurring annual income. However, it seemed clear that the folks at the meeting does not trust the Port Commission at all.
TO say that there is plenty of park space near and around Rincon Hill and South Beach is ridiculous.
Maybe we have too many piers and we need to reduce the number of piers – it sounds like most of them have all been let go for so long without maintenance that the substructures are no longer safe (see the one near Brannan Street for a good example).
SFhighrise asks:
“What I don’t get is why people at Telegraph Hill are so opposed to this.”
They are vehemently opposed to ANY development that might be remotely seen from Telegraph Hill. If you look up NIMBY in the dictionary, you’ll find pictures of Peskin and the THD leadership (which includes his wife, by the way).
Funny how these guys are trying to make Telegraph Hill into Pleasanton with views.