S.F. supervisors debate future of historical warehouse

Nearly six years after officials from the Port of San Francisco concluded that a dilapidated wooden shed on Fisherman’s Wharf should be demolished due to safety reasons, the debate rages on over whether the 1919 structure should be saved.

The vacant waterfront warehouse has been unoccupied for about six years. Its owner, the Port, declared it unsafe and ordered tenants to leave in 2000. At the crux of the debate is whether the building can be saved and whether it would cost the estimated $15 to $17 million. Demolishing it would cost around $1.5 million. Others are worried about toxics in the soil underneath.

The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to continue the so-called Wharf J-10 building matter until this week. It marked the second time in as many weeks the supervisors decided to revisit the controversial issue amid environmental concerns and worries that a historically significant building may be lost. Supervisors have yet to vote on the environmental impact report, which lays options for the shed’s future.

“We’re trying to see whether or not they (the Port) can offer some other alternatives or historical resources,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said. “We’re waiting for them to come up with some suggestions.”

Peskin said there are numerous possibilities for saving the 24,000-square-foot wooden warehouse at the water’s edge at Hyde Street.

“Taking it apart or fixing it” are options, Peskin said. “It’s one of the last remaining old Fisherman’s Wharf buildings.”

The environmental impact report, which the Planning Commission approved in June, is being appealed to the Board of Supervisors by David Cincotta of the Alioto-Lazio Fish Co. The family business that once occupied the warehouse sued the Port and won a $3 million judgment in 2001. The 60-year-old fish company accused the Port of negligent maintenance of the property and for breach of the company’s longtime lease. The business was evicted with three days notice in 2000.

Angela Cincotta, a spokeswoman for the fish company, fears that contaminated soil under the building may present health and environmental concerns if the building is demolished. Petroleum seeped into the ground from nearby fuel handling facilities that Mobil once operated starting in the 1920s.

“They have not completed the contamination study,” Cincotta said. “I want to make sure no one’s going to get hurt.”

mcarroll@examiner.com

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

BART study: Ending paper tickets would ‘disproportionately’ impact low-income riders, people of color

When BART eventually eliminates its magnetic-stripe paper tickets from use, it will… Continue reading

Police efforts to stem 49ers revelry in Mission District spark backlash

SFPD preparing for potential bonfires, vandalism on Super Bowl Sunday

First transitional housing project for homeless transgender residents opens in Chinatown

Project gives gender non-conforming a safe, supportive space to rebuild their lives

SF e-scooters burst into flames in Golden Gate Park, ex-contractor reveals

Photographs obtained Wednesday by the San Francisco Examiner show the charred remains of at least two Skip e-scooters

SF politico who authored vape ban takes money from JUUL lobbyist, returns it after media call

Supervisor Shamann Walton made national news after he proverbially smoked e-cigarette company… Continue reading

Most Read