San Francisco Port Maps Out Plan for Future : Economy: The underused facility calls for large investments in cargo container and fish-handling capabilities.

The Port of San Francisco, criticized in years past for sloppy management and bungled opportunities, on Thursday released a long-awaited strategic plan calling for hefty investments in its money-losing cargo container facilities and outmoded fish-handling facilities.

Unveiled at a news conference in the historic waterfront Ferry Building by Executive Director Michael P. Huerta, the plan calls on port officials to devise policies for using port land in a “balanced and diverse” way and to develop innovative methods to finance projects.

The plan marks the first time in the port’s 127-year history that it has formally stated its goals and how it intends to systematically identify ways to revitalize its 7.5 miles of picturesque, but underused, waterfront.

Prepared over nine months at a cost of $200,000 by the port and Cresap, a San Francisco-based management consulting firm, the plan makes clear that the port faces rough sailing.

It outlines spending needs of more than $150 million, mostly for cargo container facilities, yet notes that the port has available at most $33 million. Under state law, the port must run itself as a business. It receives no subsidies from the city and is operating this year on a break-even budget of about $35 million.

“When capital requirements are factored in, the port finds itself in a tenuous financial position,” the report said.

For years, the port has been embroiled in controversy over whether its future lies primarily in tourism or commerce--”quiche or cargo.”

Many city residents favor fishing and shipping over what they view as tacky commercial developments, such as Pier 39, a collection of shops and eateries frequented by tourists. But traditional maritime uses tend to raise less revenue for the port.

The strategic plan makes it clear that port officials believe that the two can successfully coexist.

“I think the port’s problem is it really hasn’t understood its role,” said Christopher Martin, co-chair of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee for Fisherman’s Wharf, one of many groups that participated with Cresap in developing the strategic plan. “It has had a catch-as-catch-can approach.”

Once the dominant West Coast port, San Francisco was long ago eclipsed by Los Angeles, Long Beach, Seattle, Tacoma and Oakland.

While under state control in the 1960s, San Francisco’s port made what many consider to have been its biggest blunder: failing to recognize that cargo containers would revolutionize shipping. The port decided not to convert its narrow finger piers to the large open storage areas needed for containers or to invest in the large cranes needed to hoist containers off ships.

At the same time, Oakland was becoming a leader in containerization and quickly passed San Francisco by. It now handles nearly 90% of the Bay Area’s container traffic.

But West Coast ports in general experienced a slowdown in shipping last year after nearly a decade of torrid growth in Pacific Rim trade. And the Bay Area’s share of total West Coast container traffic, which reached 27% in 1980, slipped last year to a new low of 16.4%.

As a result, some fear that San Francisco’s newly stated intent to pursue more container shipping business could prove ill-fated. In recent years, the port has invested tens of millions of dollars in two container facilities along the waterfront’s southern end. Yet those facilities are operating at only 70% of capacity--and at a loss, officials acknowledged.

Moreover, some observers say, San Francisco’s location puts it at a disadvantage. Container cargo coming into San Francisco must be moved by truck over bridges or by rail down the peninsula and inland, adding to the time and expense.

Huerta, 33, a Riverside native who took his post in January, 1989, has been negotiating for months to get Southern Pacific, the city’s sole rail carrier, to deepen two rail tunnels that would enable carriers to haul double-stacked container cars from the city’s southern waterfront through the Sierra and into the Midwest. That project would cost at least $11 million.

While acknowledging that he backs some hotel and other commercial development, Huerta said Thursday that traditional port activities should be emphasized.

“Tradition is very important in San Francisco, as everyone knows,” Huerta said.

“The issue is balance,” he said. “That’s really central to everything we’re doing.”

Huerta is fully aware that many previous non-maritime development efforts have gotten hung up on the shoals of controversy over environmental and community concerns.

In 1986, for example, Mayor Dianne Feinstein backed a proposal to erect a hotel on Pier 45, site of most of the city’s fish-handling facilities. Angry that the city would displace fishermen, the public killed the idea.

Huerta found himself in the middle of a set-to late last year over a proposal to build a hotel and marina on the decrepit Piers 24-26, at the base of the Bay Bridge just south of the Ferry Building. Although Huerta and the Port Commission approved the plan, opponents have threatened to put together a ballot measure to let voters decide on the issue of hotels on the waterfront.

Even an idea that in theory would have widespread public support can face heavy opposition. The port’s $20-million plan for a seafood center that would upgrade fish-handling facilities on quake-damaged Pier 45 and increase the number of fishing berths has encountered opposition from swimmers and rowers who fear that the stepped-up activity will degrade the adjacent pristine waters that they use.