Giants-backed Mission Rock revised proposal outlines 3.5 million sq ft, housing and parks; staff, Giants to finish term sheet

The Port of San Francisco Commission on a regular meeting day received an informational presentation on the revised proposal for Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 48 (often referred to in the presentation as Sewell Lot 337), a mixed-use development led by Sewell 337 Associates, LLC, a joint venture that includes the San Francisco Giants.

Phil Williamson, project manager for the Lot 337 development, told commissioners the exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) envisions a two-phase process: up to 30 months to reach agreement on a project plan and financial terms, followed by up to three years to complete entitlements and permitting. Williamson said staff and the Giants are working toward a term sheet for commission consideration later this year. He corrected an earlier count in the presentation, saying that when benchmark #1 is included the project team has met 6 of 12 Phase 1 benchmarks.

Jack Baer, senior vice president of the San Francisco Giants, said the revised proposal is based on extensive due diligence in geotechnical, environmental, structural, transportation and marine engineering. Baer described the program as roughly 3,500,000 square feet of built space with roughly 1.3—to—1.7 million square feet of office, 650 to 1,000 residential units (planned as rental), about 125,000 square feet of retail, more than 8 acres of public open space and a refurbished Pier 48 intended for dining, events and potential manufacturing uses.

Baer said the development concept emphasizes pedestrian-oriented streets, smaller block sizes, and concentrated, locally oriented retail around two major parks: China Basin Park and a 1.5-acre Mission Rock Square. He said the project would provide public-trust uses including ferry and water-taxi berthing, habitat areas and active water recreation where appropriate.

On economics, Baer estimated approximately 7,200 on-site jobs and roughly 10,000 off-site jobs tied to office development. He said the proponents are negotiating economics and declined to present final financial terms now, but stated a projected development cost of about $1.6 billion and estimated $1.6 billion in tax increment over the life of the project that could be used for port and city priorities.

Commissioners pressed the team on operational details. Asked about day-game parking, Baer said the site currently has space for roughly 3,200 cars while a typical game can draw 9,000 or more cars; the development team expects pricing, incentives and neighborhood surveys to help manage weekday, daytime game conflicts. On transit, Baer said the project would link to the Muni T-line stop, be within walking distance of Caltrain, could include ferry or water taxi services and could benefit if any future high-speed rail stop is located nearby.

Baer said the residential product is planned as rental housing given the ground-lease context (citing a 75-year ground lease possibility under SB 815) and market conditions, though the team will continue to coordinate with port staff and the city on affordable housing policy and possible fee-in-lieu arrangements.

Williamson and Baer emphasized continued community outreach to advisory groups (Central Waterfront Advisory Group, Mission Bay Citizens Advisory Committee, Potrero Hill stakeholders) and engagement with regulatory agencies such as the State Lands Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. They said a comprehensive term sheet will be prepared for port commission review later this year; staff and members of the development team remained available to answer follow-up questions.

The presentation was informational only; no action or approval of project terms was requested at this meeting.