Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Station 35 Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port and Fire Department outline 50-year MOU for new floating Fire Station 35
Summary
Port staff presented a proposed 50-year memorandum of understanding with the San Francisco Fire Department to support a new floating Fire Station 35 on the Embarcadero, including a deferred rent structure and public-access areas; the Port plans to use existing rent credits and bond funds to cover early project costs.
The Port of San Francisco on Wednesday briefed the Fire Commission on a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the San Francisco Fire Department that would govern construction and long-term occupancy of a new floating Fire Station 35.
Jamie Hurley of the Port said the MOU was developed jointly by the Port, the Fire Department and Public Works, and ties to a two-year construction program for a floating station adjacent to the historic Fire Station 35. “This is really a collaborative effort by 3, sister agencies here at City of San Francisco,” Hurley said.
Why it matters: Hurley described both operational benefits and public-facing features: a ramp connecting the float to the landmarked historic firehouse, new public-access observation space required by the BCDC permit, and expanded berthing capacity for fire boats, rescue boats and personal watercraft to improve maritime response.
Key terms and financing: The MOU would carry a 50-year term aligned with the facility—s design life. Hurley said the agreement provides for monthly rent to the Port after occupancy of about $14,000 and that the Port will apply roughly $1.6 million in unamortized rent credits from an existing Pier 26 agreement plus about $800,000—1,000,000 in credits for substructure work. Hurley said that accounting ‘‘works out to around 15 years where those things will even out completely,’' meaning the Port does not expect to collect net rent for roughly 15 years.
Permits and environmental review: Hurley told commissioners the project relies on a mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMMRP) and listed the primary regulatory permits: BCDC, U.S. Army Corps and the regional water quality control board. He said the Port had recently secured the BCDC permit and would be subject to the CEQA-mandated conditions.
Questions from the commission: Commissioners focused on how the Port calculates market-rate rent and what the department will pay long term. When asked how market rent is set, Hurley described a Port schedule of parameter rates by property type and said negotiators applied lower building rates and reduced submerged-land rates in places, noting the water parcel rate used in negotiation was cut to about $0.10 per square foot in this instance. Commissioner Ken Cleveland asked whether the Port—s rates take account of services the Fire Department provides; Hurley said the Port also collects fees through work orders for fireboat staffing and maintenance but still requires separate rent.
Costs and operations: Assistant Deputy Chief Tony Rivera said he did not have final demolition estimates for Pier 22, the shed pier and Pier 24 but referenced a prior assessment and described a roughly $1 million quote to repair a northern section of the existing pier. Rivera and Hurley said demolition and most in-water construction work will be paid with funds identified in the transcript as EASER 2014 bond money; Hurley noted the Port itself was not contributing direct capital to the project costs.
Next steps: Hurley said the Port Commission was scheduled to consider the MOU as a consent item the following Tuesday and that the in-water construction window opens June 1, creating schedule pressure to begin demolition and related work.
Commission response: Chief Janine Nicholson and several commissioners voiced support for moving forward while flagging future uncertainties over a market-rate adjustment that the Port sets every 10 years. Vice President Francie Covington said she considered it “a very good MOU” and urged timely coordination on outstanding exhibits and schedules.
What the Fire Commission did: The item was presented for discussion only; commissioners debated whether to offer a formal endorsement but the City Attorney—s guidance and CEQA concerns led members to avoid a formal vote that could delay Port action. The Port expects to treat the matter as a consent calendar item at the Port Commission meeting.
The Port and SFFD officials said they would provide follow-up exhibits and construction details to the Fire Commission staff. The Port expects construction activities to be scheduled to use the June 1 in-water window.
