CFAH

501 Beale (www.SocketSite.com)
On the agenda for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors tomorrow afternoon, a resolution intended to streamline negotiations between the City and the Golden State Warriors in a bid to build a legacy new arena upon Piers 30-32.
The key points of the resolution as proposed:
1) finding that the competitive bidding policy set forth in Administrative Code Section 2.6-1 does not apply to the potential real estate transaction involving Port property at Piers 30-32 and part of Seawall Lot 330 with GSW Arena LLC (GSW), an affiliate of the Golden State Warriors, for development of an arena and other facilities and endorsing sole source negotiations with GSW for that purpose;
2) endorsing the Port Commission’s designation of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) as the lead negotiator of the proposed transaction, in coordination with Port staff and subject to the Port Commission’s direction;
3) urging OEWD and the Port to engage in outreach to affected and interested neighbors, community members and other stakeholders to ensure that the proposed project is designed with maximum public input;
4) urging OEWD and the Port to work closely with State agencies having jurisdiction over any of the site, including the State Lands Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, to develop the project description;
5) urging the OEWD Director, the Port Director and other City officials to make evaluation of the proposed project among their highest priorities and take all appropriate steps to negotiate an exclusive negotiation agreement with GSW; and
6) acknowledging that the City may commence environmental review of the proposed project under CEQA if and when the Board of Supervisors makes the required findings of fiscal feasibility and responsibility under Administrative Code Chapter 29.
The rational for making the negotiations “sole source” with noncompetitive bidding for the development rights of the Piers include the “regional civic attributes of the Warriors, the unique opportunity presented by GSW’s proposal to build a new multi-purpose facility,” and “the public benefits to the City and the region that the proposed Project would produce.”
ESPN Source: Warriors Are Committed To Moving To San Francisco [SocketSite]
The Plans For A Legacy San Francisco Warriors Arena Upon The Piers [SocketSite]
Warriors Arena Sole Source Negotiations Resolution [sfbos.org]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by JustLooking

    finding that the competitive bidding policy set forth in Administrative Code Section 2.6-1 does not apply
    Translation:
    Finding that the competitive bidding ppolicy… is not advantageous to the major contributors to our various campaigns and Super-PACS and having found that we will be granted on-going access to sky-boxes of said contributors,….

  2. Posted by sf

    Any plans to develop that parking lot around the Watermark?

  3. Posted by Lance

    Good. And major props to Ed Lee if he really is able to get this thing built on schedule and bypass all of usual BS associated with development in SF.

  4. Posted by anon

    sf,
    the Warriors plans have the parking lot you mentioned (Seawall Lot 330) developed as 3-story commercial / retail space. But nothing is set in stone (or even pencil) at this point.

  5. Posted by mike999

    again,
    1. there is gridlock on the embarcadero & bay bridge ramps every time the giants have a game.
    2. this proposed arena is smaller than att but much closer to the bridge.
    3. traffic snarls would now happen during both baseball & basketball season – essentially year-round.
    2. there are plots in sf suitable for an arena on top or adjacent to bart – eliminating the traffic headache.
    so why build this traffic magnet here?

  6. Posted by James

    @mike999, are these arena-sized Bart-adjacent plots empty and available? The city will lose this pier entirely if it’s not renovated within 10 years, and there’s nothing currently planned for it, so obviously it’s a prime choice regardless of traffic. I think Mission Bay would be better, but this is at least a reasonable walk from Bart.

  7. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Q: How do you avoid generating more car traffic?
    A: Don’t build parking.

  8. Posted by wc1

    Please make it work.

  9. Posted by anon

    A: Don’t build parking.
    It will be interesting to see how that concept works in practice. The Warriors are expected to dramatically increase ticket prices, targeting corporate season ticket purchasers. But these are the exact type of customers who want their own parking spots and would avoid public transport at all costs.

  10. Posted by sf

    Wealthy people do not avoid public transport at all costs. You people need to get out more.
    The most affluent people in America and Europe take public transportation (mostly subways and trains). It is middle class suburbia which is tied to their vehicles, of which much of that mentality transfers over to the “wealthy” in this city.

  11. Posted by anon

    2. there are plots in sf suitable for an arena on top or adjacent to bart – eliminating the traffic headache.
    Do tell. I must be blind, for I haven’t seen a spot that matches this description.

  12. Posted by CouldNotResist

    Put it next to the new fabulous JCPenney on Market instead!

  13. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    This location is only a 15 minute walk to BART. Three minutes more and you’re at Caltrain. You’d spend more time finding a parking spot and walking to the game if there was a huge lot onsite.

  14. Posted by Jim

    The Giants built 5,000 parking spaces for a 42,000 seat ballpark, which have NEVER been filled. They will be happily decreasing this number as Sea Wall Lot 337 (just south of McCovy Cove) gets developed. The “secret” is to have a Transportation Plan and a Transportation Manager who help people find ways to get there that are far superior to driving. This is why the ballpark is downtown, and why the Warriors arena should be too. You’d have to be a dope to drive.

  15. Posted by RobBob

    How about they get the lot in exchange for paying for the Caltrain-HSR DTX down Townsend that would better service their arena? Maybe offer some game parking at Bayshore.

  16. Posted by Joshua

    Another great thing about this project is the concerts and other events it can host. Is there any other US city without a major concert venue?
    Outstanding!!!

  17. Posted by Rillion

    If wealthy people & corporate box holders don’t want to take public transportation they can afford to take cabs or a car service, they don’t need parking spots.

  18. Posted by anon

    Jim, it is just flat out untrue that Sea Wall Lot 337 will have less parking in the future. There will be an 8-story garage built on the south side of Parking Lot A to replace *all* of the ~2,100 surface spots that will be built over with commercial and residential construction.
    And “You’d have to be a dope to drive?” Look at the body-to-body T-third after a game. I would happily pay considerably more to avoid that option!

  19. Posted by K&L

    If you build it, they will come!

  20. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the proposed resolution to allow The City to enter into noncompetitive negotiations with the Warriors for the development rights of Piers 30-32 and endorsing the Office of Economic and Workforce Development as lead negotiator.

  21. Posted by sfjhawk

    “The Warriors are expected to dramatically increase ticket prices, targeting corporate season ticket purchasers. But these are the exact type of customers who want their own parking spots and would avoid public transport at all costs.”
    So, the only people who attend Knicks games at MSG (practically no parking) are poor?

  22. Posted by somadweller

    @sfjhawk: Oh right, because the Bay Area’s public transportation infrastructure compares favorable with Manhattan’s.
    Please. This plan will ensure virtually nightly year-round gridlock for South Beach.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles