San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee has unanimously endorsed the proposed financial framework for the rehabilitation of Piers 30-32 and development of the proposed Golden State Warriors arena upon the site.

In a nod to a number of Piers 30-32 Citizens Advisory Committee Members’ concerns, Supervisor Kim amended the resolution to increase the CAC’s involvement in the planning process but didn’t delay the endorsement.

Next week, San Francisco’s full Board of Supervisors will weigh-in on the resolution backing the framework, after which it’s a full court Planning press.

42 thoughts on “Financial Framework For Warriors Arena Development Endorsed”
  1. Those of you who think Piers 30-32 location is the right one are either misguided or in denial. If you work downtown and use Muni to access CalTrain to get home in the PM be prepared for massive delays. If you work downtown and live in the Richmond or Sunset be prepared for massive delays. If you are a interloper who uses our streets to access the Bay Bridge at rush hour be prepared for massive delays.
    Bryant street at Embarcadero is a Bay Bridge HOV access lane. It’s also a bottle neck for Muni. Add a 18,000 seat arena that operates 205 days a year with events starting in the evening and 81 SF Giants games you can rest assured there will be Muni system delays.
    I know some will say the third street Muni extension will solve the issues created by an arena at 30-32. You are wrong. The N line carries downtown commuters to CalTrain. The T line carries works south to Bay view. The N line carries south bay commuters home in the evening from CalTrain. The Muni extension has no easy connection to Bart or the N line at Market. it’s a 1000 foot walk to the Market street station when the new extension is completed…..that is when the new extension is completed. When has Muni ever completed a project on time???
    So those of you who depend on Muni to get home in the evening at a reasonable hour…..should be prepared to spend additional time hanging around the stations staring at the walls.
    There is a better waterfront site for a new arena if the city and the Port is really , truly interested in bringing the Warriors home to SF. One that will not need $120,000,000 million dollars in Tax payer subsidies to fix a ailing pier. One that may even save the Taxpayers $100,000,000 million dollars in repairs.
    The Port and city should look at Pier 50 which is partly on bedrock and won’t require the massive amounts of taxpayer funds to repair. Won’t cause a massive Muni system overload and possesses the same iconic qualities as the 30-32 waterfront location.
    We all want the see the Warriors call San Francisco home , but a new 18,000 seat arena location has to be clearly thought out. The Warriors are in a hurry…should we be willing to accept a ill conceived plan because they are in a hurry? I think not. South Beach, Mission Bay, Rincon Hill took almost 30 years to plan. Are we willing to sacrifice 30 years of good planning to screw things up now with one massive new development at the wrong location?
    This is why the CAC is important. This is why a alternative waterfront location should be considered. Let’s do it right. We got AT&T right, it’s the best damn ballpark in the country lets make the new Warriors arena the best damn arena in the country!
    Muni has enough problems to solve let’s not create additional problems that can be avoided by good sensible planning.

  2. Pier 50? Your solution to the “massive delays” due to street congestion is to move the arena much farther from BART, Caltrain and Muni so everyone has to drive? Really?
    Or maybe you’re just a NIMBY?

  3. So all Giants fans all drive to AT&T park….I had no idea.
    Thanks for your constructive dialog “R”. When you have no argument attack the messenger.

  4. ^Um, pier 50 is much, MUCH farther from BART, Caltrain, and Muni than is AT&T Park, so I’m not sure why you’re giving “R” a hard time.

  5. I don’t know about the suggested solution, but @UwillBsorry is correct. I live in Dogpatch and ride the MUNI T line several times a week to downtown and back. If there’s a game at AT&T, more likely than not, the T isn’t moving. Sometimes, the T will sit through 2 or 3 traffic cycles before being able to turn onto 4th.
    From what I can tell, MUNI and the city don’t care about regular commuters if there’s a Giants game. There doesn’t seem to be any prioritizing of traffic signals nor attempts to get the trains through. I don’t know why MUNI considers it to be okay to sit on a 3 block stretch for 25 minutes.
    Heck, outside of game times, the T is a disaster.
    Yesterday I got stuck right outside of the tunnel for 15 minutes, no word from the driver. This happens at least once a week. Most of my neighbors who work downtown drive because the T is so bad. How sad is that? I can’t imagine that the stadium won’t add to the pain.
    I’d be excited for this stadium if there were a plan in place to improve MUNI.

  6. consider me slow….but how is the commuter impact different when having an event at the new arena vs. a Giants game except the fact it is only half the attendees? If commuters can adapt to the Giants games why can’t they do the same for the Warriors? what am I missing?
    btw – walking from downtown to this area is great exercise and only takes about 20min. A bike is even faster and both are cheaper than Muni. A great way to commute for those afraid of massive delays on Muni.

  7. @lurker – that’s precisely our point. Pier 50 would be an absolute disaster for Muni riders such as yourself. Pier 30/32 puts the arena much closer to downtown and most importantly, BART.

  8. K&L, the commuter impact will be dramatically increased because the number of events will be increased. Instead of 80 days (baseball), there would be events on 320 days a year (88% of all days in the year). That’s 80 baseball, 40 basketball, and 200 other…and assumes the warriors follow through on their intent to not overlap days with the Giants. Just look at the traffic nightmare after Red Bull Flugtag. What a disaster!
    I’m willing to bet at least 75% of attendees come from outside of SF so walking or biking (especially at night in the rain or with young children) is not really a feasable alternative. A lot of locals will be asking why their lives should be impacted negatively just so a redneck from Stockton has a new entertainment venue.

  9. i work downtown and take the T every day.
    agree with the opposing views here.
    is the propsed arena a beautiful structure? yes.
    would i like to have a big concert venue in sf? yes.
    but there’s only so much ‘stretch’ built into muni & our surface streets downtown, and AT&T already stretches them to the max. adding the Warriors will cause these systems to fail.
    **so we’ll have gridlock and paralyzed muni more than every other night. guaranteed.**
    i’m a bit surprised that major corporate tenants downtown (salesforce, gap, bechtel) wouldn’t oppose this too – their employees already have to deal with “AT&T game day schedules” for shuttles & meetings which are disruptive to getting work done.
    and who wants this anyway? IMHO i don’t think a majority of SF-ers are eager to have a basketball team here given the pain it will produce. this isn’t tampa – SF has plenty of entertainment options without basketball.
    fix muni first.
    subsidize the pet projects of VC plutocrats later.

  10. I worked near AT&T for 3 years and never had any real problems traffic. I took muni every day and it didn’t have any noticeable impact on my bus. Sure there were loads of people walking, and traffic was worse for drivers, and taxis were impossible to find, but it wasn’t armageddon, and it won’t be with the stadium. The location is great, the traffic concerns are totally overblown by the self-interested (and short sighted) NIMBYs.
    I mean one of them suggested that it’s impossible for people to walk at night in the rain or with children… seriously?
    I’m opposed to the stadium, but only because of the ridiculous 13% interest rates, if they fix that it would be great.

  11. I think the current location is fine. I’m opposed to the arena only because of the current financial arrangement, which calls for a backdoor subsidy of the Warriors via the 13% interest rate. I don’t think it is in the City’s best interest to be subsidizing billionaires.

  12. Fact: most SF residents want this arena, and it will not put nearly the strain on traffic/public transit that the NIMBYs think it will.

  13. I’m for the project as well, and outside of the 13% interest rates (where do I sign up for such rates), my only consternation is with the *potential* congestion issue. To me, it’s not about what it’s like today, but what it will be like in 2017.
    If you fast forward to then, both SWL330 and pier 30/32 will be changed from approximately 1700 spaces to roughly 900. In the general vicinity just north of the Bay Bridge, there will be 5 (that I count) 30-40 floor towers completed – of course total occupancy unknown. SWL337, aka AT&T paring lot A, will be 2 years into development and the 2900 spaces today will be lowered to an unknown amount left as they phase-in that build out.
    We know that the city modeled a 50/50 split of drive versus public transport (supposedly modeled on the Giants 50/50 split model for game days) and 205 events a year. Don’t forget the hotel and condo on SWL330 (15 floors each worth of people) and the associated traffic and delivery vehicles.
    To me, it just seems like a lot of people in the area in that time and there’s still no qualitative work that’s been presented (that I know of) by the city to show how this influx of new and transient people will be properly serviced transportation-wise. On the surface, it just sounds like a recipe for a mess.
    I really hope that I’m wrong.

  14. Fact: this arena is being rushed to approval.
    Why not do a study of the traffic impact first?
    Why not spend more fixing public transit infrastructure?
    Why are we being raped with loan-shark-like 13% interest raes?

  15. “I don’t know why MUNI considers it to be okay to sit on a 3 block stretch for 25 minutes”
    MUNI just fudges the numbers to make it look like the train/bus was on time. Problem solved!

  16. Like others, I have problems with the 13% rate guarantee, but really…
    “If you work downtown and live in the Richmond or Sunset be prepared for massive delays.”
    I’ve tried to figure out how this could in any way be an issue for Richmond and/or Sunset residents. Try as I might, I just don’t see the problem.

  17. I offered pier 50 as an alternative to 30-32. I will now offer a second alternative to both pier 50 and 30 & 32.
    The vacant lot at Folsom between Spear and Main. Currently the home to the temporary Trans Bay terminal. Let’s call it Madison Square West. Hwy 101 ramps down to the site. The new Trans Bay terminal will a block away. Perfect connection to CalTrian, Bart and Muni and auto parking under the arena.
    Any takers?
    Gets the Port and BCDC out of the picture. Stream lines the process and is the perfect downtown location….how about try thinking out of the box for a change.

  18. To answer Guest666. Muni riders will seek alternative modes of transportation if the Muni lines are stalled due to system disruption. Riders will flock to the bus lines. You will then see a cascading overload of the surface system at rush hour. It’s a natural progression of the human kind. People have to get home…pick up the kids…shop for groceries…etc.
    One system failure leads to another …..

  19. Whenever there is a Giants game or event at AT&T Park MUNI is more of a mess than usual. Trains for normal commuting purposes are taken out of service and stored near the ballpark at the expense of daily riders who rely on the system to get to and from their destinations. I live in the Sunset…when MUNI purposely removes trains from the Market St. tunnel for these events there are fewer L trains, many of which switch back at some point along the route. In addition, the Central Subway will do little to improve the T line north of King St. because MUNI will be storing trains at this end as well. Basically, a bottleneck from two directions.
    UwillBsorry had a good point of moving the arena closer to downtown where it would be more accessible to BART and not require MUNI to hoard trains in one location. Added benefit of the Folsom site is proximity to the TTC.

  20. Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it
    Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it! Build it

  21. @UwillBsorry
    I’m not clear on how moving the stadium 2 blocks is going to fundamentally change the traffic armageddon that you describe.

  22. Any takers?
    Absolutely not. No. No. No.
    What you’re proposing is creating a gigantic deadspace in the heart of downtown during any time except for the couple hours before and after an event. Might as well just build a full city block with all blank walls.
    Terrible, terrible, terrible idea. Arenas belong on the edge of active areas, not as deadspots within them.
    Even pier 50 is a million times better.

  23. Oh, so they can be deadspots on the edge of active areas, which means they are still dead spots. The goal is to make it less of a dead spot by incorporating design and functionality to create a venue that serves a greater purpose. Look at the Giants stadium. It’s no longer in a dead spot like it was in 2000. The area has developed dramatically over the past decade.

  24. The point is that a deadspot on the edge only affects the city on one side (or two as is the case with AT&T Park), rather than all four, as would be the case plopping something like this in a regular city block.
    Giants Stadium is absolutely a dead spot along its two sides on non-event days. I’m not talking about development, I’m talking about people coming and going from the building – activity.

  25. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that it’s more than just 41 GSW games that will be happening at this arena. Another 200+ events will also likely be scheduled to pay for the 10-12 story intrusion that looks akin to a serving of flan on SF’s eastern waterfront. Plus, GSW season overlaps with early part of the Giants schedule. Add in the other half-dozen or so hi-rises full of people and cars coming online in the area immediate north and west of piers 30-32 and you have a nightmarish mess on your hands. Gridlock will be the real name of the game because there seems to be little talk about beefing up any public transit and other necessary infrastructure to support all this new growth. This week’s SF Business Times also talked about another half-dozen high-rise projects between 2nd and 5th streets in the Brannan, Harrison, and 4th Street corridors as a ramp up to the opening of the new muni underground that will be running up and under 4th street through SOMA. The infrastructure needs to manage all these new structures and the people and cars in them simply end up being afterthoughts and seldom if ever are they dealt with realistically. And for those that call it NIMBY whining, please tell us where you live so that we recommend and push for your neighborhood as an alternate site. See how you like so-called change shoved down your through by local government and business heads that have little concern for the affected populace.I can hear the howling already. Everyone is mesmerized by all the hype and no one is paying attention to the damage that this project will do to screw up San Francisco’s waterfront and the impact on the entire SOMA area. This is just the tip of the iceberg in the fight to keep this monstrosity away from piers 30-32. Legal action would be a welcome pause in this hyper fast-racked, stuff-it down-our-throats back-door-dealing on behalf of The City, the Port, and GSW. This is about developers making money. Period. The rest of us be damned.

  26. ^Live by the proposed site, love the arena plan. Also love the idea of dozens of new towers nearby and thousands more neighbors. I walk to work though – perhaps you should consider moving somewhere that suits your lifestyle more if you don’t want to be around people or traffic?

  27. Hey, I want the Warriors to come to SF. I support a 18,000 seat entertainment venue in SF. But this 30-32 location has real issues to deal with and it’s not just traffic and crowds.
    Pier 30-32 is a dead zone for a sports venue as Iconic locations go.
    Take a hard look at the high gloss eye porn GSW is passing around. It’s the image on the door hangers littering the doorways and streets around South Beach/SoMa and the eye porn presented on this sight. Pretty pictures….no substance. Look at how Angelo Sangiacomo used smoke and mirrors to whoo the city into approving his 8th and Mission development. See this story and go look at the results of smoke and mirrors architecture. No bait and switch there. We are getting just what was shown to us at all those planning meeting. Right!!!
    Look and see where the “money shot” was take from in this GSW eye porn. It’s from a hovering helicopter over AT&T park looking Northeast over South Beach. See that foam oozing over the SF taxpayers? See how your getting screwed…by paying a 13% return on borrowed money to these Hollywood billionaires and their army of local lobbyist. You can bet these lobbyist are getting a big chunk of that 13% to ramrod this poorly planned development through the cites entitlement process.
    And by the way, in my opinion, if the city is going to subsidize this “privately funded” arena on pier’s 30-32 why not borrow the $120,000,000 million from the SF public employee pension funds? I’m sure the public employee pensions managers could use a 13% return on their investment. Heck with the city facing a $4,000,000,000.00 billion dollar deficit on our public pension, I would think they would be chomping at the bit to get some help offsetting that deficit.
    Pier’s 30-32 is no “iconic” location. It’s the worst location ever on the waterfront for a sports venue. Aside from having negative impacts on Muni and downtown workers, Pier’s 30-32 can’t even be seen by drivers from the Bay Bridge. It’s under the bridge. It can’t be seen from the Embarcadero if your driving South. It’s completely lost from view. Dumb….dumb…dumb.
    Think about how Pier’ 30-32 is situated? It can only be seen by drivers heading East across the Bay Bridge on Hwy 101…barely. Which means the signage AKA.. “Billboard” will be facing directly into the homes of all those million dollar condos in South Beach and Rincon Hill.
    Those of you who are annoyed by the billboard on Brannan street should get ready for more light pollution stemming from this new 135 foot “Iconic billboard” on our waterfront.
    If you think I am making this stuff up out of thin air…head over to Oracle arena in Oakland, current home to the GSW. Have you seen the billboard on that 150 foot arena!!!
    Pier 50 is definitely a better location if GSW want’s a real “Iconic” location. Clearly it can be seen from the Bay Bridge. The Billboard can be directed toward the Bay and Not the homes in Mission Bay. More bang for your buck. Pier 50 will not require $120,000,000 million dollars in taxpayer assistance because it’s mostly on bedrock. Traffic and pedestrians can be managed more efficiently through the street network just a block away from Muni.
    Beware the unintended consequence of poor planning decisions. Pier 30-32 is not a perfect site. The owners and the city should consider at least two additional locations for a new 18,000 seat sports/entertainment venue. One that makes economic sense for the the city, the owners and the local residence living next door. The economic benefits of 30-32 to the city are an illusion. Given the financial construct of the current deal the city/Port will never see a return on this development for at least 30 years.
    The sales tax and property tax benefits the city says will be derived by this development at 30-32 will never offset the 13% return being paid to these Hollywood billionaires and their lobbyist.
    Mayor Lee has said, “this is my legacy project”. Great, bring the Warriors to SF. But don’t do it at the expense of the residence next door or the workers who have to travel on Muni after a hard days work. Don’t screw up 30 years of waterfront planning just to put a feather in your cap Mayor Lee.
    All your hand picked commissions members and Port employees are feeling a little wimp-lashed by the break neck speed of this proposal. This location has way too many unanswered issues to have us rushing to make bad decisions and backroom deals. Muni is going need some big bucks to offset the demands imposed on it at this location. The South Beach neighborhood is going to need some additional city funding to offset the impacts living next door to a 18,000 seat sports / entertainment venue brings to a neighborhood. Wheres the MONEY going to come from for those impacts???
    All of these details for this addition to San Francisco need to be fully vetted in public view. The Citizens ADVISORY Committee has not had a chance to offer input on the many unanswered questions a Huge…Massive….million square foot development brings with it. And that would be true for any neighborhood in this city.
    And by the way, using the term NIMBY to describe people living next door to this location with a development this large losses all credibility.
    We see how those of you who do not live in South Beach fight with your neighbors over a 10 foot deck addition or a new window addition on your neighbor’s house. We see how important your fights are and how those fights contribute to the quality of life of the average citizen in San Francisco are. Next time you file that DR over that 5 foot deck think about what a 135 foot deck extension might look like next door to you.
    Go ahead and call those living next door to a 42,000 seat stadium and 18,000 Arena NIMBY’s. We fully understand your point of view.

  28. ^I don’t care about an iconic location. I want a functional location, and if an iconic building can be located in a functional location…great.
    Pier 50 is not a functional location.

  29. It’s obvious to me that “the break neck speed of this proposal” is deliberate on the part of the proponents, in order to minimize the time that obstructionists have to thwart the will of the Mayor and the Warriors’ owners. I think they anticipated objections such as those raised by Jeffrey L., above (nice rant, btw).
    The interesting political question is: will it work?

  30. @Joe…..NIMBY?….I’m a developers worsted nightmare, I’m a one man wrecking ball and I’m stickler for process. See you all at BCDC and the Bay Area Air Quality Board…..
    Seems GSW missed a hearing today @ BOS Land use…
    This Arena may happen..but it won’t be on the Hollywood billionaires terms.

  31. From John Coté’s City Insider column in The Chronicle, Sensing a pattern here? Warriors sign another arena labor agreement, last few ‘graphs:

    But there is still plenty of opposition to the project, primarily from nearby residents concerned about crowds, traffic and views who also contend the approval process is moving too quickly.

    Supervisor Scott Wiener, while supportive of the arena, warned that Muni’s subway capacity is inadequate to meet current demand, and the situation would worsen with people flocking to a new 17,500-seat arena with about 200 events a year.

    “I don’t want this to be a transportation nightmare,” Wiener said. “Muni has to invest and expand, and right now, I don’t see that.”

    See, “nearby residents concerned about…” is a delicate way of indicating “obstructionist” or perhaps NIMBY.
    That said, I agree like most things vis a vis real property development nowadays, it really does come down to MUNI. We just can’t wait until all these new buildings are completed and then wonder why transit is so terrible. Hopefully Supervisor Wiener is going to ensure that the development impact fees, if any, actually go towards capital improvements for transit and not just filling holes in current or near-future years’ MUNI budgets.

  32. @Brahma….
    Muni, Bay fill, Air quality and traffic management are the Achilles heels for development at this location. This was true for Lendlease and it’s just as true for GSW. The “NIMBY’s” should be the least of their concerns.
    Muni will be effected..period. Anyone who rides Muni and thinks they won’t be effected is just in denial. Muni is at crush load now! Muni has no funds to add a new boarding platform at this location. Muni will need additional rolling stock and ongoing operational funding to drive those new trains.
    Muni is being proactive in identifying how new developments add demand to the system, but they have no money to procure and operate. Muni will need upfront funding to procure new rolling stock. Which by the way takes up to three years to build, test and deliver.
    Adding a new boarding platform adds additional system delays. One reason Muni is resistant to adding new platforms,which always increase delays on overall system performance.
    BCDC has a mandate to reduce Bay fill….always has. Evey pile driven into the Bay requires two to be removed. Lee and Newsom may have some SF BCDC members locked up but there are 8 other county seats and environmental concerns on BCDC. None beholding to the GSW.
    It will be interesting to see where those additional piles to be removed come from, which location GSW and the Port identify for a fill swap.
    The rubber meets the road once the EIR scoping begins. Questions about additional tonnes of air pollution caused by thousands of vehicular trips into the area will need to be addressed. Tonnes of diesel particulate caused by the offshore and onshore construction equipment will need to be addressed. Oil spillage from pile driving equipment will need to be monitored and mitigated.
    Embarcadero traffic management will need to be addressed during years of construction activities and from the operations thereafter. Noise limits will be imposed on the hours of pile driving.
    The NIMBY’s will have their say on the operations and impacts during the negotiations of the term sheet.
    Next we can touch on the shortage of skill labor coming next year. GSW don’t want to talk about this. It effects the 25% local hiring laws imposed by the BOS last year. Oh did I mention the skill labor wage increase scheduled to kick in next year.
    I’ll fill you in on those subjects at a later date.
    Sorry if I rant…but this seems like a good forum to open a dialog.

  33. Jeffrey’s arguments sounds curiously like some of the anti arena propaganda/hysteria that the NIMBY on steroids group Save the San Francisco Waterfront is attempting to drum up. I read on another site that they instructed members to cheat on online polls showing strong favorability citywide for this arena. I live on the northern waterfront, and they’ve been reaching out to some of the neighborhood groups in almost threatening terms to try and gain support. One email sent around from someone named Lawrence in particular painted the picture of a strangely desperate and obsessed man with a rather tenuous grip on reality.

  34. @Bob…
    Bob I have been involved with planning issues in South Beach/ East SoMa for over 2o years. My finger prints are on several large scale developments in this part of the city. The short list starts with :
    1) AT&T park
    2) Brannan Street Wharf
    3) Muni 3rd Street extension
    4) James R. Herman Cruise Terminal @ pier 30-32
    5) East SoMa rezoning
    6) 200 Brannan
    7) 2nd Street bike plan
    8) …..
    9) …..
    I think you get the picture.

  35. No, I dont get your point…
    Are you a member of the planning commission ?
    It really sounds like you are saying that nothing happens in this part of town without your involvement?
    Sounds like you feel very self important and grandiose.. are you Larry?

  36. LOL and Jeffrey swaggering about in this thread implying that he’s some kind of puppet master.
    We bow down before you, sir! Tell us what we should have in our city!

  37. So you worked on the Crusie Terminal at pier 30. Good calling card. That was for 2 ships parked there almost full time, sitting over 200 above the water, 4500 people staying on the ship coming and going, a 100,000 square foot terminal with 370,000 gross square feet of office space and 220,000 gross square feet of retail space. Lots of full time employees to operate those.
    That you were for, the Warriors you are against.

  38. Tell me the facts of what was going to be built at pier 30 and we can start from there. You had your fingerprints on the development, I spent 5 minutes on the internet. It will be easier to get the facts from you.

Leave a Reply

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