501 Beale (www.SocketSite.com)
Pier 30-32 was granted to the City and County of San Francisco by the state in trust “for purposes of commerce, navigation, and fisheries, and subject to specified terms and conditions relating to the operation of the Port of San Francisco.”
While the use of Pier 30-32 for a cruise ship terminal was authorized and written into law, the terminal was built upon Pier 27 instead. And as it stands, an arena upon Pier 30-32 is not a legally authorized use.
Introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting, Assembly Bill 1273 (a.k.a. the Pier 30-32 Revitalization Act) will be considered by the Assembly Local Government Committee in Sacramento on Wednesday.
As proposed, AB 1273 would revise the existing authorization to develop Pier 30-32 for use as a cruise ship terminal and authorize the Port Commission to approve the development of Pier 30-32 as a multipurpose venue (i.e., the proposed Warriors Arena) instead.

From the Assembly’s early analysis of the bill:

The bill asserts that the [proposed Warriors Arena] is consistent with the common law public trust. The challenge with this assertion is that the common law Public Trust Doctrine, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, places limitations on the Legislature’s authority to use trust lands for non-trust purposes.

A basketball arena, which is a major feature of the project, is not a traditional public trust use—it does not involve water related commerce, navigation, or fishing. However, there are examples of non-trust uses on public trust lands that have been deemed legitimate by the courts because they are incidental to and accommodate other trust uses.

Additionally, the courts have recognized that the public trust doctrine is flexible to address changing public needs related to public trust lands.

Opponents fear the bill is simply a means by which to bypass the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. As always, we’ll keep you posted (up) and plugged-in.
The Pier 30-32 Revitalization Act: AB-1273 [ca.gov]
The Design For The Warriors San Francisco Arena On Piers 30-32 [SocketSite]
Pier 27 Terminal Rendered And Ready For Fiscal Feasibility Vote [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by James

    This new bill sounds kind of fishy to me. Phil Ting is still wet behind the ears, probably out of his depth. But maybe the tide is turning in his favor.

  2. Posted by curmudgeon

    lo. How is it incidental to, or include, other trust uses? I’ve always wondered when this shoe would drop. And I’ve always assumed BCDC would rather just see this pier drop into the bay. We shall see….

  3. Posted by Rememberme

    It should be interesting to see how the legislation addresses the Cruise ship question for the eastern edge of the pier.
    Piers 30-32 is acknowledged as the only deep water birth left in the inventory the Port birthing large ships in need of a 1000 foot pier.
    I wonder how the Longshoreman feel about loosing a pier to out of town Hollywood billionaires?
    Which is ancillary use, an arena or a Cruise ship for trust uses according to the state lands doctrine?

  4. Posted by Ugh

    How much is it going to suck to live at the Watermark?! Lol
    Warriors, GO AWAY!!! Erh, just stay right where you are!!!

  5. Posted by Anon

    Whatever. The new Warriors owners are fantastic, and this will be great for SF. Build it + death to NIMBYism small mindedness.

  6. Posted by Anti-NIMBY

    Just build it already! Better this, than a crumbling pier. :)
    I don’t usually comment on these things but I’m pretty sure most people favor this arena going in (just by asking around). The comments never seem to reflect what the people really think. So, on behalf of most people, I would like to say: NIMBYs are selfish and annoying. And, apparently, have nothing else to do but comment on these posts.

  7. Posted by K&L

    I live at the Watermark and really hope this gets built. I’m tired of looking out my window at that crumbling old pier and concrete parking lot. Let’s do something useful with this area and an arena with public use space around it sounds like a great idea. Build it!

  8. Posted by Grace

    This bill is intended to silence any and all who may stand in the way of this development. The port commission, the environmental impact review and the neighborhood impact. Do we reall want to remove all reviews to development on our waterfront?

  9. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Not all opponents of this arena in this location is a NIMBY. I want the arena but the location is completely wrong.
    First, it’s an already very congested location – this is going to make the area less attractive, not more.
    Second, with all the talk of how the Giants ballpark has been a success story of transforming a blighted area into a booming one, why not follow that example and put the Warriors arena on the site of the Potrero power station? It would still be a dramatic waterfront location, it would provide a lift to the planned Pier 70 project and the Dogpatch and Bayview neighborhoods. Plus, at that location it would be served by the [T-Third], Caltrain AND a freeway.

  10. Posted by rabbits

    Most of the Warriors fan base, which is one of the best in the league, is in the East Bay. Having a BART accessible arena is critical if this is to appear less of a slap in the face to them. This location works perfectly for them, and for 99% of San Franciscans (that % may not be an exaggeration).
    I think any site within a half mile of the first 4 BART stops would be fine, but this site is the most dramatic and most underutilized. Build it so we can stop hearing people cry about losing a pier and experiencing “traffic!” in the middle of a city.

  11. Posted by cbf

    “First, it’s an already very congested location” -formidable doer of the nasty
    Not really. It’s busy, but the embarcadero is capable of handling lots of traffic. If it can handle Giants games already, then it can handle warriors games and concerts, which attract fewer fans and occur less frequently.
    “Second, with all the talk of how the Giants ballpark has been a success story of transforming a blighted area into a booming one, why not follow that example and put the Warriors arena on the site of the Potrero power station? It would still be a dramatic waterfront location, it would provide a lift to the planned Pier 70 project and the Dogpatch and Bayview neighborhoods. Plus, at that location it would be served by the [T-Third], Caltrain AND a freeway.” -formidable doer of the nasty
    Pier 30-32 is a blighted area. It’s a dilapidated old pier that is only used for parking. And pier 30-32 is muc better situated in terms of transit access. It also is served by the T, as well as the N, is mere blocks from the free way off ramp, caltrain, and is within walking distance of BART, and ferries (unlike Pier 70). Pier 30-32 is right on the downtown waterfront, in the center of activity, while pier 70 is farther off and in an industrial area with worse transit access. How does pier 70 sound like a better idea?

  12. Posted by anon

    Kind of amazing (in a disgusting way) how politicians like will just bend over for money. And it’s sad to me that billionaires can attempt to rewrite laws for their own benefit.
    AB 1273 allows the Port of San Francisco to unilaterally approve any development of Pier 30-32, even if a project fails to meet public trust requirements under the Bay Plan, the Special Area Plan and “any other applicable statute.” This guts BCDC and State Lands Commission oversight jurisdiction and eliminates the public’s right to participate in local land use decisions.
    This bill intends to grease the way for the proposed Warrior Stadium despite its conflicts with many existing waterfront plans, transit policies, height limits, and the public trust doctrine.

  13. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    OK, so we’ve established that cbf has no idea what traffic is like on the Embarcadero, nor what or where Pier 70 is. Anyone else?

  14. Posted by anon

    cbf, I’ve passed by pier 30-32 literally thousands and thousands of times. What you will notice about it is that unless you are many stories up in a highrise looking down on the pier, it is basically invisible. It does not obstruct views of the east bay, treasure island, the bay bridge, etc.
    Building 14-story high structures on a pier sets a terrible precident for San Francisco, the bay area, and California. If this project is built it means that deep pocketed developers can do whatever they want, and that laws and zoning are meaningless. We might as well just abandon zoning so we can have a Houston-like urban environment.
    Anyway, it’s going to be an interesting battle. A lot of powerful parties are lined up both sides.

  15. Posted by Fishchum

    For all of you who would like to see this arena “somewhere else”, may I remind you that life is not simply a game of Sim City? You can’t just plop an arena down somewhere because you think that location is “better” or “makes more sense”.

  16. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Fishchum, it seems that comment applies equally well – if not better – to those who want an arena built on a crumbling pier. Hey, maybe we can build it on a giant barge so it can be in Oakland some days and in SF on others? Makes just as much sense.

  17. Posted by Fishchum

    Formidable – No, actually, it doesn’t apply. The pier is available, and the Warriors owners are negotiating with the Port and the City to build an arena.
    The parking lot across from AT&T Park? It’s leased by the Giants, and they already have plans that don’t include the Warriors. All the whining in the world about how it’s a “much better option” isn’t going to change that.

  18. Posted by Grace

    To anti-nimby and anon: don’t understand why you discount point of view of the people who live near these proposed venues. Perhaps they have valid concerns about local development when it comes to traffic patterns, etc. that those of us who do not live there have no visibility to on a daily basis.

  19. Posted by Grace

    Some have suggested the bill grahm civic auditorium as a potential location for the warriors new stadium. I find this interesting as it is on Bart and muni lines and is in an area SF has been trying to improve for decades. Worth an explore?

  20. Posted by James

    You can discuss other places to build an arena, but that’s putting the cart before the horse. The real impetus for this project was the same as when they tried to get America’s Cup to develop it: how to rehab the old piers? Put the Warriors wherever you want, but what is the city to do with the piers? That’s why they’re looking for someone– anyone– who’s willing to redevelop them (for a decent ROI, of course).

  21. Posted by rabbits

    Grace – thank you for suggesting an interesting and valid alternative, rather than just offering Candlestick park or some other far flung location. I’m sure there are not fewer than a half dozen similar sites north and south of Market street along the BART/Muni corridor, but the piers option, as James points out, seems to kill 2 birds with one stone. A problem for the Warriors and the City gets solved there. Not sure if Bill Graham rises to that level of problem with the City yet.

  22. Posted by anon

    Some have suggested the bill grahm civic auditorium as a potential location for the warriors new stadium. I find this interesting as it is on Bart and muni lines and is in an area SF has been trying to improve for decades. Worth an explore?
    The site isn’t large enough, by quite a gigantic margin. Who is suggesting that we explore it? Should we also look at other spots that are clearly too small to have an arena built on them? lol lol.

  23. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Fishchum, who’s talking about the Giants parking lot? Well, except for the Giants who proposed it years ago.
    My suggestion is Potrero Point on the site of the defunct generating station. I don’t know if it has a Pier number, if it does it would be between 70 and 80. It’s at the end 23rd Street. There are big plans to redevelop Pier 70 and Dogpatch is sprawling. Before any arena can be completed (4-6 years) this will be a bustling neighborhood.

  24. Posted by anon

    ^Traffic for an arena in that area would be a nightmare, because nearly everyone would have to drive.
    I think it should be obvious that an arena has to be within walking distance of BART, period.

  25. Posted by lyqwyd

    It makes much more sense to put it on an abandoned pier in the heart of the city with ample transit access, than an abandoned power station in the middle of nowhere with very inconvenient access.
    To propose an alternative you should be proposing a location that is better, not worse, than the existing proposal.

  26. Posted by cbf

    “OK, so we’ve established that cbf has no idea what traffic is like on the Embarcadero, nor what or where Pier 70 is. Anyone else?” -formidable doer of the nasty
    You’ve gotta be kidding me. Pier 70 is indeed industrial. It consists of/is surrounded by dry docks, abandoned piers, storage tanks, a decommissioned power plant, and warehouses. I’m thinking you’re the one who has no idea what or where pier 70 is. Check out google maps, smart guy, because it’s quite obvious you’ve never actually been there yourself.
    Here, I’ll help you out with a link: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=70+Pier,+SF,+CA&hl=en&ll=37.760373,-122.383995&spn=0.011128,0.022724&sll=37.716291,-122.433108&sspn=0.356319,0.727158&oq=pier+70,+sf&t=h&hnear=70+Pier,+San+Francisco,+California+94107&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.760373,-122.383995&panoid=szXvRCA092G7e2CKfgyl-Q&cbp=12,307.73,,0,1.44
    What is that, if not industrial? You think that’s a better location for an arena than a spot in the middle of the downtown waterfront that has much better transit access? Hilarious.
    As for the embarcadero, yeah it has lots of traffic. But it’s not too often that it’s completely congested, with things gridlocked and brought to a standstill. It can easily handle the additional traffic brought on by a new arena.

  27. Posted by Just built it there

    Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50
    Still under Port jurisdiction. Close to 20th street which will have millions spent in Muni improvements sooner rather than later. Closer to Cal Train. Less infrastructure cost to build on. Better iconic waterfront location. Better traffic control. Parking provided in the new seawall lot 337 project….and I could go on and on.
    Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…

  28. Posted by anon

    ^No BART access, no arena. Period.

  29. Posted by Just build it

    @anon
    Learn to think outside the box…..water taxi to Ferry building to Embarcadero station.
    Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…Pier 50…

  30. Posted by anon

    Any site lacking direct BART access is a crazy site.

  31. Posted by Anon

    ^ like AT and T, right? What lousy urban planning that turned out to be. (End sarcasm)
    People can BART to Embarcadero and catch light rail, or walk, from there. Clearly.

  32. Posted by anon

    AT&T Park is a 10 minute walk to BART. In other words, direct access. I didn’t say that it had to be across the street. Pier 50 is not within walking distance of BART.

  33. Posted by Anon

    Oh, you were talking at the “Pier 50″ NIMBY. My bad.

  34. Posted by noe mom

    Doesn’t anybody care about Oakland, for Christssake??? But seriously why should SF take something (i.e. economy) from Oakland when we have everything already? Oracle is packed every night there is a game. Their fan base probably is mostly EastBay. It is accessible to BART already. They can have concerts there. The SF arena is proposing a 500 car parking garage; they have all those parking lots in Oakland.
    Why not the “no project in SF” solution to this issue. OH yes, that is right, Mayor Ed Lee needs a legacy! Why not a great open space as a legacy, modeled on say the High Line in New York City. Adaptive resuse. Not just the neighbors but everyone will miss the open expanse on the s Embarcadero south of the Ferry Building if a 14 story structure is plopped down on those piers. Very sad.

  35. Posted by anon

    ^Um, we’ll actually get to use some open space on the piers if this happens, rather than walking by a decaying dump of toxic materials.

  36. Posted by Anon

    All of this “their fan base is East Bay” talk is nonsense. Being in SF will open up the large, more lucrative Peninsula fan base all the more. The area that the sports teams play in SUCKS. There’s no arguing that point. And Oakland can’t get out if its own way to save its economic life. Last, yes, SF will get piers revitalized on the cheap plus public waterfront parkland.

  37. Posted by sfjhawk

    ” . . . everyone will miss the open expanse on the Embarcadero south of the Ferry Building if a 14 story structure is plopped down on those piers. Very sad.”
    Living in Noe, I’m guessing one hasn’t had to look at the dilapidating piers (aka “open expanse”) over the past 15 years (tenure I’ve been in the city, last 6 in soma near this pier). Very sad, indeed.

  38. Posted by Rillion

    I won’t miss the open expanse on the Embarcardero south of the Ferry Building if this is built. And I am not concerned about Oakland’s economy. Did Oakland worry about our economy when the Warriors moved there from The City? This project has my vote and I hope the Warriors go back to being the San Francisco Warriors, golden state is a silly name.

  39. Posted by Dan

    “SF will get piers revitalized on the cheap”
    Not so cheap– SF will be on the hook for $130 million dollars, to be paid back at 13% interest to the Warriors.

  40. Posted by noe mom

    When I said “open expanse” I was talking about the Bay, East Bay hills and sky all visible at the site. Plus the breezes off the bay. I think a real open space should be put there…a park. Adaptive reuse, like the high line in NYC. A park that ties us to the Bay. There is not a lot of useable open space in that quadrant. I did not know about the $130 million. Something truly public could be done for that, without giving it back to Mr. Lacob to hire an aging LeBron James in 2018 or 2019.

  41. Posted by Anon

    That’s cheap. Thirteen percent is peanuts for a development deal. No commercial developer on planet earth would touch such a small return. You’d need one with a vested interest, like the case in point.

  42. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I fully expect the Warriors to get additional consideration; for example, leveraging The City’s borrowing power at lower-than-commercial rates via conduit bond issuance or something like that to finance construction or remediation.

  43. Posted by Grace

    I keep hearing about “aging pier”. At one public meeting I attended with supervisors several developers challenged the $100 million dollar figure and said the piers could be repaired or torn down for under $20 million. Why don’t we just take the pier down and have open water?
    Warriors are getting a great deal from the city…why is that? Mayor Lee’s development support exceeds that of Willie Brown.

  44. Posted by Dan

    “That’s cheap. Thirteen percent is peanuts for a development deal. No commercial developer on planet earth would touch such a small return.”
    Thirteen percent is a great return when the money is not at risk. The thirteen percent is guaranteed by the City. I wish SF would guarantee a 13% return on my investments.

  45. Posted by anon

    Warriors are getting a great deal from the city…why is that? Mayor Lee’s development support exceeds that of Willie Brown.
    Because the citizens want it?

  46. Posted by Anon

    I figured the response would be “my portfolio ….” Apples and oranges. That’s the way it is, Dan. Municipalities famously renege on deals. Cities run out of money, timeframes get extended, etc etc. this is only a deal a vested interest would ever consider.

  47. Posted by Alai

    Why don’t we just take the pier down and have open water?
    If you haven’t noticed, there’s quite a lot of open water around there already. A little variety is nice, too.

  48. Posted by the end

    The Giants are 30 games into their season and the Warriors are still playing. The NBA’s second season is scheduled by TV networks who will cheerfully overlap with Giants home dates if that gives one more minute of Kobe or Lebron in prime time.

  49. Posted by spencer

    this is very exciting. as one of many people who are put to sleep by basesball, and with no hockey or basketball close by, its good to get some fast sports in this city. the stadium looks amazing. can we change the required word to “warriors”, instead of “Giants”, at least while the playoffs are going on.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *