Letter to the editor:

Mills project - fabulous for SF waterfront?

Dear Editor,

The Mills project [May-June Yodeler, page 11] is not a mall, nor is it a "mega mall" . . . it is a mixed use development of retail, office, parking, indoor recreation, outdoor recreation, a maritime YMCA, an America True sailing center, and - the largest component of all - 367,625 sq. feet of free public open space. The author was using "mall" or "mega mall" in a pejorative manner.

The Port of San Francisco has pursued a historic district nomination for the historic piers of San Francisco including piers 29 and 31. To provide for the restoration of these two historic piers, $75,000,000 will be needed. The Port does not have the funds to accomplish the seismic retrofit or the historic restoration. However, a private developer can receive a 20% tax credit for accomplishing the two, and this can be a powerful and positive motivation, as happened with the fabulous Ferry Building.

So, what the public ought to focus on in the Mills Project is the cost of the restoration and seismic upgrade, the uses that are proposed, the impact on the neighborhood, the City and the Bay, and the benefits to the Port and the City in terms of revenue and jobs. The results of that analysis should be the Program for piers 27, 29, 31.

[Signed]
M. Toby Levine, Chair, Northeast Waterfront Advisory Group; Member, Waterfront Landuse Advisory Board

Editor's response.

The term "mixed-use" typically is used for developments combining residential and commercial uses. The Mills project would not contain residences and would provide none of the benefits usually associated with the term "mixed-use".

The Mills proposal does indeed include a few amenities, but they in no way justify construction of a gigantic commercial complex on the city's shoreline in an area designated by voters for recreation and open space. Further, many of the claimed benefits would be of "mixed" value.

• The recreational component of the project would be just a little more than a quarter of the programmed space. Further, the maritime YMCA and sailing center would be adjacent to a Combined Sewage Overflow Structure, which discharges untreated and potentially hazardous sewage several times a year into the area where the water recreation would be happening.
• The seismic retrofit of the historic piers is of some value, but these piers aren't even in the top 10 of the Port's 30 piers needing seismic work. Turning the piers into a mall is preservation only in the loosest sense.
• The "free" public open space isn't quite free, since the city would be paying for it with $2.1 million in rent credits.
• The benefits in revenue and jobs should be balanced against the thirty-some existing businesses that would need to be evicted from the project site. These businesses pay the Port more than $2 million per year in rent - more than the guaranteed rent from the Mills project. The city would get an additional share of revenue if Mills makes enough profits - but a smaller share than usual for a project of this sort.

We could indeed finance all sorts of wonderful projects through building mega-developments on the shoreline, a couple skyscrapers in Golden Gate Park, and a luxury hotel at the Grand Canyon - but this is the wrong way to preserve our special places.

We do agree on the need to focus on the uses that Mills has proposed - and their overall harmful impacts on the neighborhood, the city, and the Bay.