Reject the Mills mall

THIS REALLY SHOULDN'T be complicated: State law, and the local law governing development on the San Francisco waterfront (Prop. H), explicitly state that port land is to be used for maritime and recreational purposes, not for commercial office development. And the project that Mills Corp., a southern California shopping mall developer, has proposed for Piers 27-31 is, by any honest definition, a commercial office and retail project. As Steven T. Jones reported last week, Mills's own 2003 annual report describes the project as "an attractive entertainment, dining, shopping, and office center." (A year later, the word "recreation" was added to the list.)

The project involves 164,700 square feet of office space, as well as restaurants and shops. The main "recreation" value would be a new YMCA and some open space (unless, of course, you count what Mills calls "recreational retail"). And it's not clear exactly how the YMCA is going to pay for itself: Mills has agreed to front $30 million for the construction costs, but the Y has to pay that back – and thus far hasn't raised a penny for the project. Meanwhile, the project sponsor's own economic report shows that the development only makes financial sense if the office space can be leased for $35 a square foot – more than most premium downtown office buildings are getting these days.

A new study paid for by the developer concludes that the project will pump $127 million into the local economy, but it's full of fairly obvious holes. For starters, the mall will almost certainly damage other businesses on the northern waterfront – not because of competition but because a shopping center with a 415-car garage will jam up traffic on the Embarcadero so badly that even tourists won't be able to get to Fisherman's Wharf. And while the company has promised to buy a few new F-line trains, it's not offering any money to actually run them. (That's one reason why Walk San Francisco and the Bicycle Coalition, which both promote waterfront recreation, are against this project; it's going to make walking or biking along the waterfront much more dangerous.)

For all of this, Mills gets steep rent discounts on port-owned land (a subsidy worth $2 million) and another $20 million in federal tax credits (which were going to be shared with the city but are now going right into the developer's pocket.)

The only reason this project even exists is that former mayor Willie Brown rammed it through on behalf of the lobbyists who worked for the developers. It makes no economic sense, no sense as a part of the city's long-term waterfront planning – and doesn't even come close to abiding by well-established local policy and state law.

The supervisors, fortunately, have the ability to reject the project. Under powerful legislation sponsored by Sup. Aaron Peskin, the board must sign off on any big developments by officially affirming that the city has the resources to support the project over time. This one is a money-sink and an environmental disaster. The board should vote it down and tell the port to go back to the drawing board and find a better use for the immensely valuable land on the piers.