The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Build Inc’s massive India Basin project, a proposed development which could yield over 1,200 units of housing, 1,800 parking spaces and 275,000 square feet of commercial space – or half as many units of housing and a million square feet of office, retail and R&D space – along with over 24 acres of recreation and open space fronting San Francisco’s bay, has just been released in a two-volume set totaling nearly a thousand pages which you’re invited to peruse: Part One and Part Two.

Originally expected to published this past spring, the delay will likely push back any ground breaking to the second quarter of 2018, at the earliest. And that’s assuming the impact report is certified, the project is approved, and there are no other significant delays or challenges.

And in terms of the project’s timing once the ground is broken, the development is “likely [to] be conducted in multiple phases over a period of 5–15 years based on market demand and financing.”  We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by folderpete

    Built on stilts

  2. Posted by Martin

    For such a big development, isn’t there a transit plan with proposed bus stops, maybe space allocated for a future muni spur down Evans/Innes that could link up to Bayshore Caltrain? All I see is bunch of parking stats.

    • Posted by Martin

      I guess based on photos, Muni line 47 will be extended down from Caltrain?

      • Posted by Orland

        Why when it’s such a short connection to the T-line?

        • Posted by PanhandlePro

          Per Google Maps, it’s a 28 minute walk from this project to the closest T-Line, directly through the Hunters Point projects. That isn’t a realistic option.

          • Posted by Fishchum

            There’s a shuttle that goes to Evans and Third; hell, as of right now it goes all the way to 2nd and Market.

          • Posted by Orland

            YES, but extending a line several miles paralleling the T is hardly the answer. That is why the 15-Third was eliminated from that section of its route.

            What is needed is either a spur off the T or a high-frequency local connection.

        • Posted by BayviewRising

          The T-line is abysmal as it is — as over-crowded as the N line during rush hours, regularly delayed (for no reason), often off-schedule, and always slow as molasses. It can frequently take 40 minutes to go from Evans/3rd to Embarcadero station. Biking it takes 20. T-line needs to be underground…as does a new branch down Evans to reach this development and the shipyard development.

          • Posted by Orland

            The notion that the T need be undergrounded the length of Third Street (Wille Brown Blvd) is absurd.

            Getting it off the Embarcadero past King/4th will greatly speed service. It would be helpful to give it precedence at traffic signals between 4th/Brannan and Viz. Valley.

    • Posted by Aaron Goodman

      Exactly the problem, they promote building more but mass transit is stalled or an afterthought. I recall asking about a T-line loop out cargo way and Innes to go around the BVHP and candlestick pick up at bayshore near Brisbane caltrans stop and procede up geneva harney to balboa park station. the T-line would have a ceasAr Chavez van ness or portrero route by SFGH and the southern loop would link communities to jobs and housing alongside a water ferry terminal near candlestick park or India basin… They need to plan it soon since they keep building but forgetting that 10-15 years and we won’t have any traffic moving on 101 let alone bayshore Blvd

  3. Posted by Orland

    I really don’t get where all the projected commercial activity is going to come from which is implied by the developers of CP/HP, 5M, Pier 70 and this project as well as the Planners of Central-SOMA. It seems there is plenty of money to be made providing housing for the current economy plus a more reasonably anticipated growth.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Keep in mind that a lot of the older office space in the FiDi is reaching its shelf life and is ripe for conversion to residential use.

      But it’s a small amount of space in the scheme of the world – especially when some people think all of the rest of it wants to relocate to SF…as Richard Reinhardt said of civic boosters in the 30’s – and it’s just as, or more so true today – “they’re seldom prescient and never pessimistic.”

  4. Posted by Fishchum

    I just toured The Shipyard this past Sunday – if the units that have been built are any indication of what’s to come in the future, then this development should be fantastic.

  5. Posted by Pero

    There will be high demand for living in an area that is:
    – 30min from SOMA
    – Fairly close to Silicon Valley jobs
    – Adjacent to the water (few building actually are in SF)
    – Modern in design
    – Relatively affordable (compared to downtown high rises)

  6. Posted by GuyFox

    Too short, too much parkland.

    • Posted by Tim E

      I think more parkland with this development is a decent outcome with no reasonable means to add to SF shoreline, waterfront and considering the fact that significant amount of housing is being added in Candlestick, Hunters Point and this project as well as the build out of old industrial area around the power plant/shipyard & SoMA. Once you build the possibility of green space is out the door. The bigger concern for this development and surrounding development as discussed is really about transit from what I gather. Trying to squeeze more units because you can doesn’t resolve the transit problem with units you already have planned

      SF to Oakland to developers starting to push downtown San Jose have significant amount of housing in the pipeline and doing a fair share for the bay area in themselves. I’m tending to think more and more that Bay communities from Brisbane to Alameda to Concord really need to step up their game or in Marin County a whole county needs to set up their game on housing. Housing in Alameda and Concord on old naval facilities will come together with Concord able to take advantage of BART but Brisbane situation is dismal and the reality of gated suburbs or subdivisions have now resulted in mentality of entire gated communities outright. Just need to add a fence around Brisbane to express how the residents really feel.

      • Posted by Orland

        I’m all for increasing density with smart infill, but what you’re describing amounts to urban sprawl. Urbanize Marin? I’d rather see population control first!

    • Posted by Orland

      The Hunters Point/ Candlestick proposals are even worse with too much wasted “open space.” This isn’t bad at all and should be a great place to live. I just can’t believe these areas have lay fallow for so long.

      • Posted by Jon Schwark

        I like the greenbelt they are planning along the waterfront, but I will agree with you… too short. This density IS the transit problem. It isn’t quite enough to justify a real investment, but it’s enough that it will cause problems with everyone driving.

  7. Posted by Spencer

    1800 is really a dismal amount of housing for this much area and again a very inverse relationship of housing to jobs. How can sf push so had on Brisbane if is not takin advantage of a huge space like this.?

    • Posted by Kraus

      If you read the EIR, you’ll see that a lot of the land (closest to the water) is unbuildable fill.

  8. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    Demand the T-line loop around the area back to Brisbane development and require them to link it over the freeway and up Geneva Harney to balboa park station

    Without mass-transit included the whole series of projects are a traffic nightmare….

    BRT won’t solve the pressures of driving and additional cars and commuters.

    With added density infrastructure must be a part of the solution and up front not 15-20 years away…

Add a Comment

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