Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pier 38 Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port reviews short‑ and long‑term options for Pier 38 reuse; bulkhead re‑occupancy seen as near‑term path
Summary
Staff outlined three reuse strategies for Pier 38: a Port‑led public works project, a master developer, or a master‑tenant approach focused on re‑occupying the Bulkhead Building. Staff estimated bulkhead re‑occupancy at $2–6 million and a full pier seismic upgrade at tens of millions of dollars.
At an informational presentation Sept. 11 the Port staff laid out options for reusing Pier 38 and re‑tenanting the Bulkhead Building, emphasizing a tradeoff between speed to re‑occupy and a comprehensive long‑term plan.
John Dull presented three approaches: (1) a Port‑funded public‑works project in which the Port acts as developer and funds the bulkhead and pier repairs; (2) a master‑developer approach selected through competitive selection to plan and execute a long‑term redevelopment; and (3) a master‑tenant option to advance bulkhead re‑occupancy using private capital while leaving long‑term reuse of the remaining pier to future action.
Jonathan Stern, who has prior experience with Pier 38, told the commission the bulkhead footprint is about 20,000 square feet across two levels and that staff estimates re‑occupancy costs for the bulkhead itself in the range of $2 million to $6 million. He said a full pier seismic upgrade could add roughly $20 million–$30 million in cost, and any comprehensive redevelopment would require a lengthy environmental review and entitlement process.
Curtis Lind, representing former tenants, urged the Port to honor prior assurances that tenants would be able to return, saying that tenants have not seen those commitments realized. Commissioners asked technical questions about how much of the shed behind the bulkhead could be used for parking without triggering seismic upgrade thresholds. Staff said some shed areas could be used but that full reuse of the shed would likely require triggering the larger, more expensive seismic work.
Commissioners discussed whether a single developer should be selected to avoid coordination and management conflicts; staff recommended that a single developer is preferable but left the solicitation structure open to Commission input. The Port will incorporate Commission feedback as it develops a draft RFP for a future action item.
