Here’s an intriguing idea for Piers 30-32


Earlier this year, the Golden State Warriors abandoned its bid to construct a basketball arena and performance venue at Piers 30-32 along San Francisco’s waterfront, a proposal Mayor Ed Lee once championed as his “legacy project.”

The Warriors moved its ambitious project to a site in Mission Bay, to the great relief of a group of waterfront activists who viewed it as an inappropriate choice for the unique and historic 7.5-mile stretch of city waterfront that falls under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco.

Nevertheless, that shift did send the Port back to the drawing board with the problem it's encountered numerous times before: What to do with Piers 30-32, which span a 13-acre slab of crumbling concrete currently in use as a parking lot just a stone’s throw from the Bay Bridge.

In a recent Bay Guardian editorial, we called for a public process to consider the future use of that waterfront pier. Could it be turned into open space? Removed? Converted to a different use?

Turns out, others have been contemplating the same question. The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, a volunteer body tasked with investigating civic matters, introduced a new idea when it issued a report on the operations of the Port of San Francisco.

Titled, "The Port of San Francisco: Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars," the Civil Grand Jury report raised a few incisive questions, going so far as to suggest that the Port operates with undue influence from the Mayor’s Office, and that its governing commission ought to be restructured to resolve that. We are going to drill down more on these issues in a different post, after we’ve had a chance to interview a spokesperson from the Port.

But for now, here’s the Civil Grand Jury's line on Piers 30-32: Why not look into using it as the site of a marine research institute?

From the report:

“Our suggestion is to investigate the possibility of building a Marine Research Institute on the pier. The project lead could be an educational institution such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution or Scripps Institute of Oceanography (UC San Diego), a conservation group such as Cousteau Society, Greenpeace, or Ocean Conservancy, or even  government based groups such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

“With close proximity to the Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries to the west and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the east, a San Francisco Bay location presents a unique opportunity for marine and estuary study.

“The Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuaries today cover about 1800 square miles, but the proposed addition by NOAA will add an additional 2,000 square miles extending north.

“Funding could be derived not only from the sources mentioned above, but it may be possible to get donations from charitable foundations, such as Ford Foundation or Paul Getty Trust, and supplement large contributions by forming a coalition of the dozens of smaller advocacy and conservation groups—a form of crowd-funding on a large scale.”

A waterfront research institute that could aid scientists in studying the effects of climate change on ocean ecosystems? It couldn’t be farther from the sexy, spaceship-shaped sports arena previously proposed for that waterfront site. But it might not be such a bad idea.


Why don't they maki it a gold mine?

Posted by Becky Backside on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

But the Kremlin chief seems equally determined to avoid steps that could trigger broader sanctions and deal a further blow to a Russian economy that is already teetering on the edge of a recession.

Posted by telugu news on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

Neymar scored a brilliant brace as Brazil beat Cameroon 4-1 on Monday to secure top spot in World Cup Group A and a last-16 tie against Chile.The Barcelona forward scored the 100th goal of the tournament in Brazil’s 100th World Cup finals match to put the hosts ahead in the 17th minute.
telugu news

Posted by telugu news on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 11:28 pm

Their "findings" are routinely ignored.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 4:32 am

The Civil Grand Jury is chosen by the Superior Court judges for better and for worse, hardly self-selected.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 5:25 am

Unlike a regular jury which is randomly selected.

The people on the civil grand jury want to be there, which means they are of a similar ilk. Same thing with all the various advisory councils. They are all breeding grounds for bias and groupthink.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 5:44 am

The jurors are self-selected just as are voters. SF voters register and then are eligible to vote. Only a fraction do even all they have to do is to show up to cast their ballot.

So there is a one difference. Not all who apply for the Jury are selected to even undergo the interview process. Then there are several interviews to discuss one’s interest and commitment of time to the jury, and then one has to fill out a form like all city officials disclosing all your financial interests to determine if you have conflicts. Then the Superior Court culls from that to arrive at a list of 30 potential jurors, and then 19 of those are chosen at random with the remaining 11 as alternates.

Even then you are not done, because you have to take an oath and can face criminal charges for violating your obligations (such as confidentiality). So, yeah, “self-selected.”

Too bad city commissioners don’t have to show they are voters, or reveal their financial conflicts until after being in office for 30 days, or undergo an independent interview process. Looks like all they have to know how to do is raise money for the person who appoints them. And then they don’t just make recommendations, but decide on everything to whether parks will get maintenance or Muni gets new rolling stock or whether the police response time to you is good enough.

The sneering tone in the post aims at avoiding the potential value of the jury’s findings and recommendations in favor of an ad hominem attack, and we know the brainiacs who use that tactic and what they have to offer the city.

Posted by CitiReport on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:21 am

and not from people who are randomly selected.

Therefore those who sit on the jury all have something in common. for whatever reason, they want to serve.

And those who want to serve are not necessarily those we would want to serve

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:32 am

‘not necessarily those we want to serve.”

Who is the “we” in this sentence? You? City Hall, which can’t own them? Major donors, who can’t buy them? Anonymous commentators, who lack the willingness to openly espouse their opinions?

Self-selected as are those who choose to cast a ballot? Self-selected as in this who make decisions for the entire city by virtue of self-selecting to vote?

Now, have you even read the report you so airily dismiss? I thought not.

Posted by CitiReport on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:50 am

have some personal interest in doing the job, and therefore are not random or representative.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 9:20 am

The mess and the stink were not worth the trouble or the savings.
There are many different steps that one can take, in order
to keep their ferret smelling good; all it takes is a little bit of time and perseverance.
Don't make any sudden movements as you don't want your boa constrictor
to bite you as boas are sensitive to humans and can easily
feel threatened.

Posted by crimsonchilla on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 1:48 pm

The royal we from a developer paid political hack who thinks that there is just too much democracy. Shut up and vote for the candidates "we" select for you worthless peons or the ones we co-opt.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 9:03 am

But these advisory councils are notorious for having wannabee-politico's and interfering NIMBYs on them.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 9:21 am

As for the troll, one would have to be a bit of a dullard to stick around SFBG continuing to get so cut-up as this one does.

Even someone financing such trollery--if indeed it is paid--would have to be somewhat simple, but perhaps such can be chalked up to the fact that developers and corporatists just don't have the facts on their side. For that reason they and their minions must wallow in the stupidity of cognitive dissonance and falsification of fact.

When I spend time on right wing sites, I honestly try to find common ground with those hewing to the publications' editorial stances. I do so by citing differences between what views are being falsely imputed to me as a liberal and what views I actually hold.

For instance, I am repeatedly characterized as an Obama fan and I explain how that is absolutely false and why; typically focusing on spying issues which figure to be the most fertile grounds for agreement, but certainly not hiding my views about Obama's failure to live up to his populist rhetoric and reputation.

Sometimes I get positive responses from those who realize as I do that there is good reason to listen to each other and seek common ground, but I would hazard to guess that these SFBG trolls *never* have this sort of effect here due to their utter vacuity and lack of substance as revealed over and over again.

Well done CitiReport and marcos both.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 9:07 am

Lilli agrees with one and disagrees with the other


Posted by Guest on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 11:13 am

How about we put the "beach" back in South Beach for a warm water front park?

Posted by marcos on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 5:26 am

The original waterfront is way west of there

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 5:45 am

The water there is basically the same temp as it is on ocean beach. Hardly warm.

Posted by Morton Drucker on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 6:19 am

A warm weather beach park would be perfect for that section of the waterfront.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:37 am

with gardens, plus the ferry building, south park and so on.

The space is screaming to be developed, but an Exploratorium or Pier 39 type project is not ruled out

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:44 am

Now spaces scream and the passive voice outlines the possibilities? Time for yer meds.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:03 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:31 am

Marcos is just looking for another place for anonymous hook ups.

Posted by Becky Backside on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 6:52 am

Mayberry is back yonder east, ass

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:03 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:07 am

I will NOT be ignored!

Posted by marcos* on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:35 am

are Becky and I, and we both make a fool of you.

You started out with great political ambitions and ended up as an angry bitter troll. Some achievement.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:45 am

The folks who gave progressive political campaigns the lift we needed to win when we won are on the same page with my analysis that the nonprofits have been coopted into San Franciscans' greatest political enemies, very conservative liberals masquerading as "the left" that attack San Franciscans with greater vigor than they attack capitalists and get paid to do so.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 8:01 am

agreeing with each other?

You don't say.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 9:39 am

We rarely see one another. But when we do.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 10:08 am

regular circle jerks where they complain about others who won.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 10:20 am

Well Marcos is already hosting these for any male in the general public, how hard would it be to add some failed SF politicos to the invite list?

Posted by Becky Backside on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 7:10 am

Aunt Bea from Mayberry RFD is in the house!

Posted by marcos on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 7:26 am

When it first goes in, it tends to hurt. But once you get used to it, you begin to like it and even find it quite pleasurable.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:49 am

That will be great until the tides come up.....

Posted by Richmondman on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 1:48 pm

"Charity is bourgeois," a sentiment that must obviously apply to public works. But yeah, sure, a marine research institute. Because science.

Posted by Chromefields on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 6:31 am



Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:59 am

Hey, maybe George Lucas could put his museum there!

Oh wait.

Posted by Peter on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 3:13 pm

Has everyone forgotten about Moss Landing Marine Laboratory who do exactly what's suggested?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2014 @ 8:07 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.