San Francisco Seawall 330

As roughly outlined in the endorsed Financial Framework for the Golden State Warriors proposed arena upon Piers 30-32, the preliminary plan for the development of Seawall (SWL) 330 across from the arena calls for two buildings rising up to 150 feet, one of which would be residential with up to 130 units and the other a hotel with up to 250 rooms, up to 300 parking spaces, and 33,000 square feet of retail at the base of the buildings.

SWL 330 Rendering

This evening, Craig Dykers of Snohetta is scheduled to lead a discussion and workshop around the conceptual framework for SWL 330. The public meeting will be held from 6-7:30pm in the Port’s Bayside Conference Rooms on Pier 1. Let us know what you learn.

Financial Framework For Warriors Arena Development Endorsed [SocketSite]
Design For The Warriors San Francisco Arena On Piers 30-32 [SocketSite]
Plans For Seawall 330 Remain As Murky As The Rendering [SocketSite]

4 thoughts on “The Conceptual Details And Design Discussion For Seawall 330”
  1. Current height limit on SWL 330 is 40 feet along the Embarcadero, not 50 feet. The current height limit on SWL 330 for the two towers is 105 feet, not 150 feet.
    So apparently GSW mislead the BOS at the hearing on the Feasibility study. Supervisor Avlaos had it right. Adding 50 additional feet on the towers and 10 feet along the Embarcadero makes SWL 330 much more valuable to the taxpayers of San Francisco. I sense GSW and the Mayors office want the city to believe SWL 330 is only worth $30 million instead of $40 million. Hummm.
    Current height limit along Embarcadero at pier’s 30-32 is 40 feet, not 50 feet.
    Makes one wonder what else is smoke and mirrors in this project.
    Study calls for 150 foot towers and 50 foot height along the Embarcadero. I guess GSW will be looking to spot zone their project.
    Remember the 4th@ Walsh street loft project called the Palms? Remember how Chris Daly used spot zoning to rezone a portion of SLI zoned property so his RBA buddy could build housing?
    I wonder which Supervisor will take up the legislation for the illegal spot zoning?
    If not spot zoning then a full blown variance hearing will be required, which of course will include appeals, lawsuits etc.
    This is about to get interesting…..

  2. 1) is spot zoning what they tried to get approved for the washington street development at Embarcadero (the tennis club location)?
    2)Aren’t we voting next year to approve or reject height increases along the embarcadero because of the concern of increased heights at that developments?
    3)Would the same ballot measure apply to this development?

  3. If the dwellers of the low rises of Bayside Village worry about the arena killing their view, they need not worry. The view is going to be blocked by SWL 330, not the arena.

Leave a Reply

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