This is another article on the remarkable 2013-2014 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury.
Three of the Grand Jury’s six timely reports were chosen to highlight herein because of their special relevance to the Barbary Coast neighborhood. Affordable Housing and Sea Level Rise were discussed earlier. Now, the subject is the historic Port of San Francisco.
The Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations about the Port received considerable attention when the Port report was published last summer.
The Jury described the significant 1968 transfer of the Port from the State to the City as a “Pig in a Poke.” Jury members named their intensive investigation “The Port of San Francisco – Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars.”
THE ISSUE ACCORDING TO THE JURY
“The Port of San Francisco is facing daunting challenges to fulfill Public Trust obligations. The Port’s piers, all of which were built over a hundred years ago, are deteriorating and many capital improvements have been deferred for decades.
“The recent trend of the Port has been to negotiate selling or encumbering precious Port property and signing agreements to forgo tax benefits in exchange for massive funding from private developers.
“The Jury investigated whether there are other options for the use and development of Port property that better meets the desires and needs of the City’s residents.
“Of equal concern is whether there is sufficient public input in determining the best ways to meet Public Trust requirements.”
SUMMARY
Still on Page 1, the Jury began a Summary of its report with a paragraph about the Port’s “nearly two-decades-old Waterfront Land Use Plan.”
It stated, “The time has come to revisit the Plan,” adding “additional focus on maritime roles and ensuring that the public is fully engaged in the process of setting guidelines for the Port’s future.”
Coincidentally, soon after the Jury study was reported in June 2014, the Port brought out its own weighty, spiral-bound “1997-2014 Review, Port of San Francisco – Waterfront Land Use Plan – Draft for Public Review.”
That was followed in these pages last November 25th by the BCNA reaction to the Port’s August publication, conveying neighborhood concerns.
The BCNA article is still available on the Barbary Coast News under the title, “BCNA News: “Group Sends Comments on Waterfront Land Use Plan,” introduced by BCNA President Bob Harrer.
CHANGE DRIVEN BY POLITICAL AGENDAS
“The Jury has found that the Port is making substantial progress in some areas, but is hamstrung by operational burdens placed by other City entities, primarily the Planning Department and the Mayor’s office.
“Over the past years, the Port also has not maintained the past level of outreach to the general public, instead relying more heavily on the City’s officials to guide decisions.”
Following references to the need for adhering to the Public Trust and increasing outreach to the general public, the Jury made a strong pitch for reform of the powerful five-member Port Commission, with all members traditionally being appointees of the Mayor.
A NEW PORT COMMISSION
The Jury called for a Charter amendment to change the appointment of Commissioners. Its recommendation is that two appointments would be made by the Board of Supervisors while the Mayor would continue to appoint three members.
The Jury pointed out that mayoral appointments “do not involve a public application process or consideration of any candidate not named by the mayor,” whereas Supervisors’ appointments “undergo a more public process of applications, hearings and votes before taking office.”
Port Commission candidates also would be required to disclose publicly their financial interests in advance of Board consideration, for a review of potential conflicts of interest.
The Jury further stated that the charter change as recommended would allow for “greater citizen involvement and discussion of the Port’s future.”
Also cited was the “system of sharing authority between the Mayor and the Board currently in use for the Planning Commission, the Board of Permit Appeals and the Building Inspector Commission, among others.”
MARITIME ROLE CAN BE INCREASED
The Jury noted that, in fiscal year 2012-13, only 6 percent of the Port’s revenue came from cargo services with another 2 percent from “Other Maritime.”
It pointed out that “Most revenue (85%) comes from commercial and industrial, parking, fishing, cruise, harbor services, and ship repair.”
That is the bottom line for today’s article on the 2013-2014 Civil Grand Jury’s exhaustive 53-page report on the Port of San Francisco.
This look at the report on the Port will finish soon with a final article and excerpts explaining the “Pig in a Poke” reference, “Current Challenges,” even “Notable Accomplishments,” as well as brief accounts of “Recent Proposals,” including the controversial 8 Washington Street proposal, “Funding Options,” a bit of background material and interesting local history.
Copyright © Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association 2015