October 3, 2012
Timeline And Key Milestones For Building The Warriors Arena In SF
The official project schedule, key dates, and milestones for building an arena upon San Francisco’s Piers 30-32 for the Golden State Warriors in time for the 2017-18 NBA season with construction proposed to start in the summer of 2014 and finish three years later:
∙ October 2012: Homeowner Association Meetings and Public Outreach
∙ October 16, 2012: Conceptual Drawings, Framework and Fiscal Feasibility Presentation
∙ October 23, 2012: Port Commission Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 20, 2012: Board of Supervisors Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 21, 2012: Notice of Preparation for EIR issued by Planning Department
∙ December 2012 thru 2013: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Design Review Board (DRB) Hearings
∙ January/February 2013: Port Commission Hearing and Action on Term Sheet
∙ January/February 2013: Board of Supervisors Action on Term Sheet
∙ Summer 2013: Planning Commission Hearings: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
∙ Late Fall 2013: Certification of EIR; adoption of Zoning and General Plan
Amendments and approval of Conditional Use permits if required
∙ January – April 2014: Board of Supervisors Action on Transaction Document
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC DRB Action on Project Design
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC Major Permit & Public Trust Consistency
∙ January – April 2014: Other regulatory approvals
∙ Summer 2014: Proposed Start Construction
∙ Summer 2017: Proposed Complete Construction
It's an aggressive schedule as proposed with little leeway for major legal challenges or NIMBY opposition to building upon the Piers and Seawall 330 at the base of 501 Beale.
∙ The Plans For A Legacy San Francisco Warriors Arena Upon The Piers [SocketSite]
∙ Golden State Warriors Snag Snøhetta For Piers 30-32 Stadium Design [SocketSite]
∙ Piers 30-32 Citizens Advisory Committee Tips Off Tonight [SocketSite]
∙ Neighborhood Survey Says: Mixed Sentiments For Warriors Arena [SocketSite]
First Published: October 3, 2012 8:15 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
∙ Summer 2014: Proposed Start Construction
∙ Summer 2017: Proposed Complete Construction
For those opponents out there, please face reality that we are within an urban growth region, this project will proceed and provide benefit for years to many generations to come. There are far to many pros than cons! Open space, parks, restaurants; all will be built harmoniously within this complete & complex development greatly enhancing our neighborhood. (How wants to look an ugly old dilapiated parking lot?) This is our opportunity of having private financier develop an eyesore at a very nominal if any expense to us taxpayers.
(Lives Within 3 Blocks Of Development)
Posted by: Excited Realist at October 3, 2012 9:31 AM
I agree with ER. This new arena will transform that entire area along the embarcadero.
I'm looking forward to this! Can't wait to see what kind of masterpiece Snøhetta is going to come up with.
(Lives 4 blocks away from the Development)
Posted by: Palms at October 3, 2012 10:13 AM
It's pretty silly to be excited about a project when no real details have been released whatsoever. We will know a lot more when the prelim designs are released on 10/16. It could be excellent or it could suck.
And even if the prelims look great, everything is subject to change...just look what the Barclays Center arena in Brooklyn was proposed to be and what actually was built....The designer (Gehry) was let go due to budget conerns, etc.
And given the multitude of necessary approvals and inevitable lawsuit(s), I would take this timeline with a large sack of salt grains.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 10:15 AM
While I agree a new Warriors arena would be great addition to San Francisco, building such a massive structure on piers on the waterfront is not the place for it.
The outreach to the "neighborhoods" is little more than promotion of the Warrior's viewpoint, while the Embarcadero and waterfront belong to the whole City.
The Warrior's proposal will meet the same kind of resistance as the 8 Washington project, and will fall behind their summer 2017 opening schedule.
Posted by: Jackson at October 3, 2012 10:30 AM
Why is it not the place, and where is the place?
Posted by: lyqwyd at October 3, 2012 10:55 AM
Some would say that building right on the water is not really a brilliant idea. Transportation aside, would you build an arena on Crissy Field or at Ocean Beach? Hell no! That would be idiotic.
Some would say the Mission Bay salesforce site would be a less disruptive location. Anyway I am definitely intersted in seeing Snohetta's design for the site.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 11:14 AM
I would suggest one of the remaining vacant lots as seen in Mission Bay, perhaps across the slough from AT&T Park, either off 3rd or 4th street.
I think the Warriors will face less opposition for building their arena on schedule if they do not plan on building on piers in the bay.
Posted by: Jackson at October 3, 2012 11:19 AM
If Snohetta can build a landmark for SF's waterfront like they did on Oslo's waterfront with the opera house, then I'm all for it!
Posted by: Dan at October 3, 2012 11:23 AM
Piers on the bay is the best possible location for an arena:
1. Close to existing billion-dollar transit infrastructure
2. Arenas should be adjacent to dense areas, but not in them, because they're dead spots on non-event days. This is absolutely perfect for that - the 3rd/4th location is much better for housing/commercial stuff that's active all days (unless the plan would be to build the arena out over the water there)
3. Opens up the pier to allow normal people to enjoy it by walking out and around the arena. No need for more private pier space as is there now or with most other piers.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 11:24 AM
The arena should be built without additional public parking on the Embarcadero. Patrons can use existing spaces, and walk to the Embarcadero, or use public transit.
Posted by: Dan at October 3, 2012 11:33 AM
Any neighbor who opposes this project from the beginning will say "there wasn't enough outreach" when in fact any amount of outreach would never change their opposition.
Posted by: James at October 3, 2012 11:36 AM
this is a much better spot that mission bay because you can bart straight to it!
Posted by: BigV at October 3, 2012 11:49 AM
James - I agree completely. What amount of 'outreach' would satisfy someone who, for a likely self-interested reason, opposes the project. The outreach argument is a smokescreen for those who have no other valid argument.
And regarding 8 Washington - I dare the nearby condo owners to put up the cash for a referendum on this. Hell, maybe I'll contribute a little myself. This thing passes on a referendum with a huge majority.
Posted by: rabbits at October 3, 2012 12:06 PM
With the upcoming residential density coming to this area, I would love to see the piers developed into parks and open space. What a great new space for SOMA residents!
As to the mass transit options for my suggested Mission bay location, the T-3rd MUNI line and Caltrain would be short walk.
When the Giants built AT&T park, it was an then obscure location, adjacent to the bay, and a stimulator of future business growth in the area.
The Warriors arena would help the floundering Mission Bay redevelopment.
Unfortunately, I think the wheels are greased for the pier location and the out-reach is nothing more than the similar out-reach approach done by the SFMTA for the "southeast parking improvements." :)
Posted by: Jackson at October 3, 2012 12:11 PM
Dan, the NBA has a requirement for minimum parking spaces (~750 I think) in any arena. No parking = no arena. Simple as that.
The 'existing spaces' of Seawall lot 330 and pier 30-32 are going away once construction starts.
Mission bay (old Salesforce site) has great transportation since it will link directly with the central subway (muni, bart, caltrain) by the time the arena is built. And it would be much less disruptive to traffic.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 12:12 PM
James and Rabbits,
The outreach has begun and really is much appreciated by area residents, especially those that are on the fence. The burning question is if the outreach is just for show or if the concerns of the community will be truly reflected in the final package. No one knows right now, and it is riduculous to have a strong opionon on the project when there has been basically zero real information communicated to the public!
I think things got off to a bad start when the surprise initial announcement was made that the arena would certainly be built...even though there was no approvals, EIR, funding, architects, etc. It was just an idea, far from a done deal.
Lawsuits will be the big question though. They could make it painful enough that the project moves or is dropped entirely. But I'm hoping that the Warriors can put together a package that the immediate community will be highly enthusiastic about.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 12:25 PM
Dan, the NBA has a requirement for minimum parking spaces (~750 I think) in any arena. No parking = no arena. Simple as that.
This is not true. Several NBA arenas have no dedicated parking spaces. Simple as that. The Verizon Center in DC has no parking available for games (except a small amount of disabled parking) and Madison Square Garden has literally no parking.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 12:36 PM
anon, I am curious... what concerns does the community have that can be addressed by the Warriors without relocating to Mission Bay? Aside from traffic, because an arena in use 200-250 days per year (including concerts and other events) is going to include people and traffic, what is the community looking for? Input on the color scheme, building materials, etc? I am hopeful for a cool design, but I think we all understand what the basic concept will have to look like in order to be functional. So what sort of input do you have to add that you think would be meaningful?
Posted by: rabbits at October 3, 2012 12:57 PM
A real rendering will clear up a lot of questions. One of the misleading things about the watercolor above is that it shows the arena taking up the entire footprint of the piers. Snohetta has indicated that the arena only needs about a third of the entire site, and the rest will be an open/public plaza.
Posted by: James at October 3, 2012 2:20 PM
Craig of Snorhetta Architect of arena stated at the Warriors CAC meeting that NO public parking is slated.
If parking is to be provided it would be for staff and delivery.
Posted by: ncydr at October 3, 2012 2:30 PM
Re: parking, I've been to the both CAC meetings and had the Warriors come to my building for a long Q&A session. The Warriors mentioned the parking requirement several times. This could be a newer NBA rule but be assured that parking is part of the plan that will absolutely not go away.
What Rick and Craig said about parking as that a certain portion of the spaces were needed for some of the staff during NBA games. When there is not a game (the other 325 days of the year) the spaces would be public. But really, until there is a term sheet the details are nebulous.
In terms of community conerns it is more of traffic impacts (could maybe be mitigated somewhat by legally limiting the maximum number of annual events) and also (for some) the height of seawall lot 330 development. Also the non-arena commerical uses will be scrutinized throughly. No one wants McDonald's, Hooters, etc. or a Fisherman's Wharf Part Deux.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 3:23 PM
There already is a Mickey D's right near there that pre-dates any of you NIMBYs.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 4:10 PM
I've been to the McD's on Townsend many a time. The onwer doesn't even try (look at the remodeled version of McDonald's Rome near the Spanish Steps as a comparison).
McD townsend is certainly not increasing the caliber of the 'hood. Seems more like a bum magnet.
And the NIMBY reference is getting pretty old. So anyone who opposes anything is a NIMBY? I propose 100 story homeless shelters on all sides of your current residence. If you oppose it you are a NIMBY. Ridiculous.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 5:26 PM
100 story homeless shelters are not within the realm of what is possible. Try bringing up something remotely possible and we'll see if I'd be against it.
If you're simply anti-arena in general, I can understand that. I don't agree, but I understand. If your stated goal is to have them "build it in Mission Bay", then yes, you are by definition a NIMBY, whether or not you view that term as negative is up to you.
Posted by: anon at October 3, 2012 5:57 PM
San Francisco and its mayor are so hugely behind this development that it simply doesn't matter. It will get done. Sports arenas don't have to play by the same rules as the ones NImBYs game in this town. So sorry, NIMBYs. You lose. And the area is still evolving as well. Everybody who owns in that area has benefited because of the ballpark. How dare they, given that fact? What a joke.
Anyone who opposes this is a NIMBY, plain and simple. 100 foot homeless shelters, surrounding? How funny. A little insight into a NIMBY's mind. Like it is surrounding you? It is out on the water, across the Embarcadero. Wow.
Posted by: Anon1 at October 3, 2012 7:16 PM
I live in the neighborhood and would support building the stadium as long as they did something to mitigate traffic. And by mitigation I mean preventing people from driving by buying out all of the parking garages in the area and closing them down for game parking.
Drivers from the peninsula are terrible at dealing with pedestrians and bikers, maybe because they are not used to driving in the city. But these drivers are really the largest downside to living near the giants stadium.
Posted by: Robert at October 3, 2012 7:23 PM
Hey, Robert…how do you know the drivers who are "terrible at dealing with pedestrians and bikers" aren't from the East or North or even South Bay for that matter?
Is there something specific about the cars that motorists living and doing most of their driving in San Mateo County have that sets them apart and makes them easy to identify?
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 3, 2012 7:43 PM
Wouldn't be a bad idea to shut down a buffer area of roadways on event nights to private autos between Harrison and 3rd on The Embarcadero and maybe 2-3 block radius inland.
Traffic is the big concern I see and increasing public transit capacity to help encourage folks to take transit needs to happen too... And I'm hopeful Ferry Boats will be a big part of that as there is already a disaster/emergency preparedness need for more robust ferry boat service. Existing bus service is crap to this location, but hopefully that will get addressed sooner rather than later.
Secondarily, more police are needed in SoMa.... And not just any police but police who enforce laws instead of standing around and staring at their iPhones.
With or without an arena, traffic congestion is a huge problem.
I wouldn't say this is a slam dunk by any means. An opposition group would only need to delay the start of construction past mid-2014 and the Warriors need to find another plan for where they will be playing ball in 2017-2018. I think things are progressing okay so far ... Again, I think the City is the party that needs to put up or shut up for this to happen. I think SoMa residents are a bit tired of all the intensity of uses beng focused in our part of town.... We welcome changes a lot more than any other neighborhood in SF, but it feels an awful lot like we're being exploited with such crap public services in SoMa.
Posted by: Jamie at October 3, 2012 10:57 PM
Forgive me if this has been answered in posts past but are we really adding any net new incremental traffic with the arena ? Basketball season starts immediately after baseball and ends around the time Baseball starts (there's only about six weeks of possible overlap should the Warriors make the playoffs) and this arena will most certainly seat less than AT&T Park (approx 20K less?). I understand that parking in Mission Bay and walking to Piers 30-32 is a bit farther than to the ball park but it isn't that bad.
Posted by: Sahrani at October 4, 2012 12:04 AM
200 events per year of 15,000 people means 3 million extra people in the area per year. So it's basically the equivalent of another baseball stadium. That is an enormous increase in the amount of traffic to the area.
Posted by: anon at October 4, 2012 8:59 AM
3 million extra people in the area per year is nothing. You're talking 30 million extra people per DECADE! Now those are big numbers!
Posted by: emanon at October 4, 2012 9:26 AM
A 10 story arena on piers 30-32 will be a visual disaster.
I walk along the water most weekends and the views will be obliterated from blocks in every direction.
Can this possibly pass the planning commission, which takes umbrage at the slightest irregularity?
Help us John King!!
Posted by: jamesjr at October 4, 2012 9:28 AM
The arena will have to be worth looking at, to make up for the loss of view-- and Snohetta is capable of that.
Traffic is already terrible on the Embarcadero-- which is why there shouldn't be substantial new public parking there (parking for team and arena staff is fine, as they don't all arrive and leave at once).
Drivers coming from the Peninsula should be encouraged to park by AT&T Park after exiting from 280. Other drivers should park in various downtown garages. The dispersion of traffic from people walking a few blocks (and perhaps stopping for a bite or a beer before or after the game)will lessen the traffic problem.
Posted by: Dan at October 4, 2012 9:35 AM
"I walk along the water most weekends and the views will be obliterated from blocks in every direction."
not even true. The vistas along the Embarcadero will change. But obliterated for blocks? It is situated behind like a 27 story building, it is out on the water, the bridge is much taller, and on and on ....
Posted by: Anon1 at October 4, 2012 9:39 AM
They should build the arena underwater.
Posted by: anun at October 4, 2012 11:02 AM
Would you want to be underwater with 19,000 people when an earthquake hits?
Posted by: Dan at October 4, 2012 11:48 AM
^why don't you essay upon the merits of the proposed build's seismic integrity, "dan" ? And what are your credentials, again?
Posted by: Anon1 at October 4, 2012 2:04 PM
I'm in favor of the arena as proposed-- above the water line. I think building the arena underwater is silly.
Posted by: Dan at October 4, 2012 2:32 PM
I've gotta agree with Dan. Building below water just to save bay views is foolish. And it isn't just seismic issues to worry about.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 4, 2012 3:00 PM
From what I understand from the architects, bulding below the water line is out of the question. So it's going to be interesting to see an arena that is basically built on stilts. That is one serious foundation.
Posted by: anon at October 4, 2012 4:09 PM
All new buildings should be below ground so as to not mess up views. Also, all buildings should be designed by starchitects - no normal buildings should be allowed in SF. Period.
Posted by: anon at October 4, 2012 4:38 PM
Funny...I didn't see the ballot initiative for the voter approvals needed for a 130 foot structure on the waterfront .....did I miss something???
Posted by: 130footwall at October 5, 2012 5:47 AM
^Exactly. Voter approvals not needed.
Posted by: anon at October 5, 2012 8:03 AM
Really? I wouldn't take that to the bank. Giants needed to go through 3 painful voter approved ballot initiatives.
I don't see how Warriors get around this. And if they think they are exempt ...they're kidding themselves. Even with all the insiders in Strada the citizens of SF will rise up and place an initiative on the ballot. It's a fact of life living in a city of land use activist.
Posted by: 130footwall at October 5, 2012 2:30 PM
The Giants got their stadium when they stopped asking the taxpayers to pay for it. The Warriors have already learned that lesson. It's possible that some wealthy South Beach condo owners might try to pay signature collectors, but the fact is that the Warriors arena is extremely popular in public opinion polling, as well as with city government. As long as the Warriors are paying for the arena, there's little chance it will be defeated at the polls.
Posted by: Dan at October 5, 2012 6:14 PM
Dan, I guess you agree then, the Warriors will indeed need voter approval in order to raise the current 40 foot height limit to 130 feet on the piers.
Your assumption about no tax payer funds is incorrect regarding the Giants. They in fact got the benefit of redevelopment mello roos public tax credits for public infrastructure improvement.
The Warriors will be asking for around 60,000,000 million in public bonds for this project. It's not all private money. And if you think handing over seawall lot 330 free and clear is not a tax benefit then we are not on the same page.
Please, I sense you work for their PR machine. Your comments fall in line with the BS they are feeding the press. Now I hear Willie Brown has been hired to grease the tracks.....I ain't the same neighborhood the Giants were facing.
I sense a big fight coming given how the Warriors PR machine has been dismissing the locals.
Posted by: 130footwall at October 5, 2012 8:53 PM
I don't believe that the arena needs a public vote to be built, simply because of its height. My guess is that there will only be a vote if the Warriors expect money from the general fund or if the deal otherwise leaves the taxpayers holding the bag. I don't know whether or not a proposed handover of Seawall Lot 330 to the Warriors will trigger a public backlash, like it did for America's Cup.
I'm not a Warriors fan, but I think the arena will be good for the city-- though I'm still waiting to hear all of the details of the proposal before giving it my support.
Posted by: Dan at October 6, 2012 7:09 PM
Living in the neighborhood and have been to several informational meetings. Warriors are proposing a (12) twelve story entertainment complex on the water! Will be used approximately 200 - 240 days a year. No plan for additional parking... Belief is that everyone will take Bart or Caltrain.
Posted by: Grace Fletcher at October 8, 2012 10:35 AM
^Good lord, that plan sounds absolutely amazing. Let's hope it isn't screwed up in some way. The only way it gets better, IMO, is if we could up the days in use to 280-300 and develop the lot across the street as a 40-50 story tower.
Posted by: anon at October 8, 2012 11:06 AM
Grace, the Warriors are not saying everyone has to take BART or CalTrain. They are saying that for those who drive, there are 16,000 existing parking spaces downtown, and many of them will be empty when the arena is being used, at night. I would imagine that parking will be very tight on the 60-70 or so evening Giants home games (the rest are day games), but few of these overlap with the Warriors. When the arena is being used, say, for a concert, during a Giants evening home game, there should be a warning for people to use public transit.
Posted by: Dan at October 8, 2012 11:21 AM
There are always going to be the negative minded people who just shoot down anything and everything simply because it is change and it is in their DNA to whine and complain. The truth is that this arena is a god-send to the City of San Francisco. A lot of people lack the vision necessary to see how beneficial this project will be for not just basketball fans, but for concert goers who don't like going over to Oakland or San Jose to see a good show, and the general public who would like more access to the bay. Those crumbling old piers offer zero access to people, and there probably won't be a upcoming project that would utilize all of the facets that this one is for decades, if at all.
I was born and raised in San Francisco, and I can honestly say that this is the best development project that has been proposed in San Franciso in decades. I was a young boy when the Transamerica Pyramid was built, but I remember my parents talking about how controversial that project was, they had to take away a City street to build it and everyone was so up in arms about this was going to ruin Sab Francisco. Well, where are those people now that the pyramid has become an icon of the City and has been copied in many places all over the world? I don't know, but I do know that some liked-minded negative Nellies and fearful-of-change Franks have taken their place in opposing this winning project for San Francisco and its citizens.
Posted by: Shawn at October 17, 2012 6:46 PM
This controversy is not about local residents or even city residents. It is about the future of San Francisco Bay, which belongs to all Californians, if not the world. The current pier structures are "crumbling into the bay" because we have decided to let time and the elements do the work for us. This process should continue until the area is restored to open water again. We have already eliminated large parts of the Bay over the years and what remains is neither a waste of space nor an opportunity for development. We should need a better reason than this one to kill off another piece of San Francisco Bay.
Posted by: Bud Ryerson at May 12, 2013 11:26 AM
Sorry Dan you are kinda of clueless about the parking situation around South Beach / Rincon Hill. (it's disappearing as I write this) And your also kinda of clueless about how many days/nights a year this Entertainment/Sports complex is going to be used.
Warriors need to rent out the place on average excluding home games 200 days/nights a year to make it work financially. There will be overlap with the Giants and Moscone. Getting home on Muni is going to suck for downtown workers.
Frankly I say just build it and let the cards fall where they lay. If Muni can't handle the demand, well so what. If there is no parking, so what. This development will either fail or succeed on it's own merits.
The location is smack in the middle of a transportation funnel and it will be what it will be. Ed Lee has spoken, this is his legacy project win ,lose or draw. The fix is in.
I have my own private parking and I'm close enough to walk to downtown or the waterfront...let the Hollywood money guys figure out how to make it work for their fans and concert goers. Just figure out how much to add on to the ticket price as a surcharge to pay for services and keep the neighborhood intact and I will be happy.
And by the way, please build it to look as pretty as those flashy pictures, don't cheap out and build some cheap piece of crap that will look ugly on our pristine waterfront. Truth in advertizing please.....
Posted by: icanwalktoit at May 13, 2013 1:09 PM