A watered down version of Phil Ting’s Assembly Bill 1273 which could help clear the way for the proposed Warriors Arena to be built upon San Francisco’s Pier 30-32 was signed into law by Governor Brown on Friday.

The amended legislation will require the project to undergo CEQA review and gives the State Lands Commission the final say on whether the proposed project complies with the public trust doctrine governing waterfront development.

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) which had formally opposed the bill as it was originally drafted appears to be ok with the revised legislation.

49 thoughts on “Governor Brown Signs Bill For Warriors Arena Development”
  1. After the tragic stabbing of a Giants fan last week after a fight between non-neighborhood residents I think it is time for San Francisco to decide what they want more, more stabbings resulting from pro-sports ‘fans’ or a residential neighborhood.
    For the last 10-15 years it’s been a transit first high density residential neighborhood…

  2. Observer – it was a Dodgers fan who was stabbed, not a Giants fan. Violence happens in all corners of San Francisco; it’s one of the risks of living in a major urban city.

  3. What does anyone propose we do with this huge pier? I never hear alternatives, just “no.” I’m a total nimby, but I try to be a constructive nimby.
    Personally I just think pretty much all of our waterfront except in the Presidio is ugly compared to what it could be. Think: Chicago.

  4. “What does anyone propose we do with this huge pier?”
    How about…remove it?
    Wow. That was difficult.
    Let the beauty of the bay fill that spot.
    That isn’t my backyard so, no I’m not a NIMBY.

  5. Looking at this rendering and seeing what appears to be a ramp slicing its way up to the top, I can’t help but think how cool an accessible green roof park would be at this location. Open to the public of course. Won’t happen of course.

  6. project will be great for the embarcadero, south Beach and SF in general
    Yeah, along with the awesome f’ed-up traffic it’s going to bring YEAR ROUND with baseball season and now basketball. As if The Embarcadero/downtown traffic isn’t already one f’ed-up bloody mess already.

  7. Fishchum – you are correct it was a Dodgers fan. Point I was trying to make was, the crime and death were a result of visitors to the neighborhood! rather than neighborhood population. The Giants are good neighbors and I get bad things happen in a big city. As a neighborhood 100+ days of sports events with large inflows into the neighborhood we might be maxed out, adding another 100+ days of events with the Warriors stadium is not going to enhancement current neighborhood quality of live.
    Here are some alternate suggestions for what to do with the Piers.
    1. Build Chelesa Piers like venue with more mixed sport use
    2. Build on Seawall lot 330 and tear down the piers
    3. Rezone site similar to Pier 70 and develop as mixed use site

  8. @Mike, its my understanding that it will cost the city roughly $40 million to remove the pier. Probably out of the question without support from some major benefactor.

  9. @Mike. You and Pffftt can pay for the removal of the pier. and employ all those that will be employed by construction of the arena and workers at the events each year. And match the tax revenue all of that will bring in and more. Yep, @Mike YOU pay for that. Build this magnificent arena ASAP

  10. Observor, it is an arena, not a stadium. Less than half as many people as a stadium. Not 100 days a year. Your other ideas are pipe dreams no one has the incentive to pay for.

  11. Truth, the arena is proposed to be used 200+ days a year (basketball, concerts, other events). If you include days of set-up and take-down for events, it is basically 365 days a year.
    If the arena does not get built on the pier, other uses *will* be found for it. Look at the Exploratorium. 5 years ago, no one had any idea that it would be moved there.
    Anyway, right now I would say chances are 50/50 it gets built in that location.

  12. I think this is a poor location for a sports stadium. San Francisco has never had a basketball stadium, and we did just fine. Why have one now that will only attract crime and traffic to what is otherwise a peaceful residential area?
    I think a higher utilization for the space would be a public park of some sort, perhaps a food forest, especially since the urban farm near Hayes Valley is being kicked out. I don’t know if that will fare well near the bay, but it’s a thought.

  13. “peaceful residential area”?? Seriously? This is practically downtown San Francisco. This isn’t a proposal to drop a 20,000 seat arena in the middle of Muir Woods, for crying out loud.
    Look, here’s the deal – if anyone has a better solution for the pier (and more importantly, where the $$ will come from to fund it) I’d love to hear it.

  14. “food forest”
    this is the most amazing thing I have ever heard.
    Leave it to SF to out-TWEE itself with such abandon!

  15. “a higher utilization for the space would be a public park of some sort”
    This plan IS a public park of some sort. Less than half the pier is for the arena. The rest is public open space.
    I’m ambivalent about the plan, I agree it’s a weird place for an arena, but saying it won’t do anything but be a crime magnet with no benefit to the general public seems a clearly false exaggeration.

  16. Well, maybe a food forest is not the best idea, I admit. I don’t know if the foods would thrive. What about a new school for the children of the residents of South Beach? Or perhaps even a specialized school, such as one that focuses on technology or the fine arts. You cannot deny that this would be a stunning campus, and a far better use for the citizens of the city than a stadium.
    The point of the matter is that there are already outrageously inappropriate uses of the waterfront for what should be a residential area. One stadium already, and several bars and bowling alleys that keep neighbors up at night, and congest traffic (some driving drunk). SF is not Las Vegas, we need to put a stop to this madness, and I am happy that many are opposing this monstrosity. Keep this in Oakland, where it belongs.

  17. You cannot deny that this would be…a far better use for the citizens of the city than a stadium.
    Um, yes, I can definitely deny that.
    I’m baffled at why you think a waterfront area “should” be a residential area. When has the waterfront of SF been a residential area? It was an industrial area most recently, and I’m waiting for your explanation on why it “should” only be considered to convert from industrial to residential, when the vast majority has long been going the commercial route.

  18. Not only do the neighbors oppose the new arena, they also object to bars! This is hilarious. As if bars and people driving at night are somehow a “Las Vegas” thing. Perhaps you don’t have realistic expectations of your neighborhood or city.

  19. “Why have one now that will only attract crime and traffic to what is otherwise a peaceful residential area?”
    you mean like Occupy wall street?
    on top of the food forest, can we build a yoga stadium? that would really bring in the revenue

  20. @James – I know my city, better than most it seems. San Francisco is supposed to be a human scale city, where you can walk to your local neighborhood bakery, wine shop, grocery, etc. And know your neighbors as well. If you are going to do bars and things like that, they should be neighborhood places where all can feel comfortable hanging out.
    There is a reason why we were (I say were, because the charm is quickly eroding) called the Paris of the West. It is because San Francisco offers a unique lifestyle for this country that matches the European lifestyle. South of Market is riddled with nightclubs, bars, and trendy eateries, and the neighbors are fed up. Where is the charm?? I do not live here, but many of my friends do, and all you can hear about is how this city does not care about keeping San Francisco the way it needs to be. We will be very sad when our nation’s “Grand Old Gal” is completely gone, replaced by corporate greed.

  21. @Hawkins…It appears as though you have overlooked or are unaware of the fact that SF was known as the Barbary Coast for much longer than the “Paris of the west”. Bars, nightclubs or such has always been a part of the fabric of SF and hopefully continue to do so.

  22. @ig1975: By that logic, we might as well devolve to cro-magnon men and live in caves. Something respectable, quaint, and inviting developed out of chaos, and we need to take a stand to preserve that way of life. I am fine with bars as long as they are low-key and are intended to be neighboring “watering holes”, not exclusive destinations for the 1% to talk IPOs over $15 beers. SOMA could have been a family friendly community, and indeed many moved here to lead a relaxed lifestyle. Now they are forced to live in a frat boy’s paradise. AT&T is one thing, the Warriors Arena is the straw that will break the proverbial camel’s back. It is disgusting that you all can’t see the poisonous results until it is too late. One sports park, with its thousands of drunken, violent fans isn’t enough??

  23. Paris of the west? Sounds like something that the chamber of commerce or tourist board came up with in the 1960s.
    The City should be happy just to be known as the San Francisco of California. No need to compare or emulate anything else. The city and region is already world famous.

  24. “I am fine with bars as long as they are low-key and are intended to be neighboring “watering holes”, not exclusive destinations for the 1% to talk IPOs over $15 beers.”
    – Thanks for letting us know what kind of businesses can set up shop. Will you be giving us your approval/disapproval for other merchants or just bars? BTW, I can’t think of a single place that’ll charge $15 for a beer. Even in AT&T Park a premium beer is $10.50, and everyone pretty much agrees that’s highway robbery.
    “many moved here to lead a relaxed lifestyle.”
    – Uh, who exactly? even prior to AT&T Park South Beach and SoMa wouldn’t fit this description. If anyone moved into South Beach in the last 13 years for a “relaxed lifestyle” they should be furious with whomever it is that some them such a misleading bill of goods.

  25. “Something respectable, quaint, and inviting developed out of chaos, ”
    You must live in a different city. I love it here, but these are not the words i would use to describe it. WE are more known for drugs, love, hippies, raves, folsom street fair, pride parade, alternative lifestyle, a lot of homeless people, tech, biotech and maybe good coffee.. These are great things for some, and not for others. but doesnt really sound like you are living in reality.
    Basketball is a large international sport, which is also quite popular in France. i for one love paris without the french people. sometimes i feel that way about SF, especially during the tourist months.
    sounds like you want to lvie in the past. you cant stop progress

  26. How about they pay for the SFUSD school at mission bay and we call it a deal. We can call it ‘drunks for kids’

  27. The momentum is building against the Nimbys who have no realistic funding ideas to remove the hideous piers.
    I live smack in the neighborhood and I love the idea of this project. I walk or take the streetcar/Bart to where I need to go and I don’t care about the hyped concerns about traffic.
    If people from out of the area want to drive and get stuck in traffic during city events, that is their problem. Maybe they will learn to take the great public transportation that serves this area instead. The Nimbys do not represent everyone in this neighborhood.

  28. SFlocal12. You are so right. I’m a SoMa resident and live three blocks away. The NiMBYs are simply extortionists doing the typical SF thing: try to block something until someone gives you money. Clearly, this is a great project that someone else is building for us — instead of the redundant or ludicrous ideas for the piers that would be 100% funded by taxpayers. In addition to the Warriors, I can’t wait to watch a college basketball game there. Or walk to a concert instead of driving to San Jose. Like 8 Washington, THIS project gives us public areas where they currently don’t exist. And jobs. And tax revenue. And more.

  29. Even though a new Warriors stadium will look amazing on SF’s waterfront, this location is maybe the last place where the city needs a multi-functional stadium that attracts people from everywhere. And not only because of major traffic issues.
    A stadium that attracts 20.000 fans each home game, but also offers more than just basketball, can activate areas that need it because they are not discovered or unknown. And the proposed location is already ‘on the mental map’ of many.
    I’d rather see the stadium, if it has to be moved to SF, find its new location where you want people to get more familiar with. And what area you want to activate.
    Pier 80 would be great: close to the ambitious development of Pier 70, near public transport, Dogpatch/Potrero Hill neighborhoods, access to the freeway, and Bay View can profit from it and be not so isolated from the rest of the city.
    More challenging perhaps, but also more interesting for the city as a whole.

  30. For those of you concerned about congestion and transportation (all forms), the CAC Transportation Subcommittee will be meeting tomorrow, the 3rd from 6:30pm to 8:30pm in the Port of San Francisco’s Pier 1 Bayside conference room.
    I plan to go and have gone to this meeting in the past. To date, I haven’t been too impressed with the information shared; hence my concern about congestion in the general area surrounding the arena.
    Here’s agenda item #2, “Goals and Criteria for Reviewing Piers 30-32 and Seawall Lot 330 Transportation Strategies.”

  31. Not all Nimbys are extortionists – that is a ridiculous comment. This is the same as arguing that nothing anywhere should ever be opposed. I’m pro development and disagree with typical “nimbyism” 90% of the time. But I oppose this project.
    This is a democracy, and that is messy. Opposition should not be dismissed with derision.
    Moreover, often forgotten: due to its pier location all traffic will approach from one side, not 4. Large volume uses should be inland.
    Put the arena and its minimum wage jobs somewhere else, create

  32. ^Sorry Frank C, but we live in a representative democracy, not simply a democracy. That means that we elect folks to make decisions for us, then you vote them out if you disagree. NIMBYs like yourself are trying to circumvent this process.

  33. ^Sorry Frank C, but we live in a representative democracy, not simply a democracy. That means that we elect folks to make decisions for us, then you vote them out if you disagree. NIMBYs like yourself are trying to circumvent this process.

  34. You know all the nimby stuff aside will it look anything like the eye porn? That’s my question. I doubt it.
    Given these guys have done everything to cut corners and to avoid public scrutiny it only makes sense they will end up building some cheap tilt up structure because a really well designed arena will cost too much.
    Material cost like structural steel have sky rocketed by 110% lately. By the time they get through the permit process labor rates will have jumped along with shortages of skilled workers.
    By the time they break ground on the project the skilled workers will be busy building new hospitals around the bay area. The local hire law will be tossed out the window and only out of town skilled workers will end up benefiting from the construction jobs.
    Focus on the design and scrutinize the materials that go into the project. Don’t allow the owners to build some piece of crap on our waterfront.
    The eye porn is designed to whoo the unsuspecting into believing this will be a iconic structure…I wouldn’t bet on that, given how the owners have sidestepped every watch dog organization in there way.
    IMHO It’s going be cheap and ugly. And I can’t wait to hear the howls from all the cheer leaders once this thing opens it’s doors. By the time the owners are through castrating the watchdogs there won’t be any one left to ensure the city gets a top notch project.

  35. ^Gotta love the “hand wringing from the standpoint of a future reality I’m prognosticating by reading the the tea leaves in my navel” move. Throw in a couple buzzwords, a dubious statistic, and a dis or two like “cheer leaders.” A Tipsteresque classic maneuver.

  36. anon, this democracy is not very representative. If you were correct, then I imagine you would confess to being happy about all legislation that passes. You would believe that the best policy outcomes always happen because legislators deliberate in good faith, without oversized influence by very wealthy parties that benefit from bad parties.
    Did the financial industry’s wealth have anything to do with the relatively toothless regulation post-crisis? Or should we accept the result as the best outcome?
    Real estate developers have ridiculous power. I often agree and want to see 100,000 more housing units in SF, and I think a lot of zoning is bad.
    But a project like this concentrates its spillover effects in one area. That is not representative.
    Let’s put it to a ballot initiative. Would you think that was not democratic? Or do you always just like what you like and angrily dismiss people who disagree?

  37. @Frank C – not sure why you think that I would always approve of something? Of course not! I disagree with folks that I voted for all of the time. And if I disagree enough, I vote for someone else next time. Elections have consequences, and actions while elected have consequences on the next election.
    I’m not big on ballot initiatives, unless we want to go full Switzerland-style direct democracy. The current use of ballot initiatives puts far too much control into the hands of the wealthy and well-connected.

Leave a Reply

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