Warriors Mission Bay Arena Rendering: 11/3/15

Having been certified as an Environmental Leadership Development Project by Governor Brown, Assembly Bill (AB) 900 requires that the CEQA-based challenge of the Golden State Warriors proposed Mission Bay Arena be resolved within 270 days of its certification which occurred on December 14, 2015.

But AB 900 also outlines specific requirements and timelines for preparing, certifying and lodging the administrative record of proceedings when dealing with an Environmental Leadership Project.

And based on the contention that the San Francisco’s Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) has failed to comply with the requirements of AB 900 “in both timing and content,” the Mission Bay Alliance is preparing to file a motion requesting that the streamlined litigation provision of AB 900 and aforementioned 270 day limit be lifted for the Warriors Arena project.

While the City lodged and served what was described as the certified record of proceedings for the case on January 21, 2016, which the Alliance contends was materially different from the record certified in December, the City then lodged a corrected record of proceedings “to fix certain links between the index and the record documents that were inoperable” in February.

If the motion for an outright removal of the streamlined litigation provision for the project is rejected by the Court, the Alliance still seeks to redefine the certification date from December to February, which would add at least two months to the timeline within which the case would need to be resolved.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by my-4-cents

    a billionaire’s plaything that will inflict gridlock on the public for decades to come.

    we need a ballot initiative to stop this terrible idea.

    • Posted by Formerly Native

      The sky….she is falling

    • Posted by swiftamine

      more like the Mission Bay Alliance are shadowy billionaires wasting everyone’s time and obstructing a project with heavy public support.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        these people only care about themselves. screw everyone else.

    • Posted by Futurist

      No, it’s not and NO we do not need a ballot measure. I hope this gets built.

    • Posted by donjuan

      There’s a stadium down the street that holds 2.5x as many fans. 3rd street and 16th is a 4 lane road that is empty most of the time with fast transit running through it. But hey, if that doesn’t fit into your warped reality, then move to Novato. No pesky sports games there!

  2. Posted by skyscraperluvr

    What is the problem here? SF is getting a *free* arena without having to pay anything out of pocket. Many of these arenas being built across the country are at the expensive of the taxpayer to hundreds of millions of $. The Warriors are also paying hefty fees to improve the area and help with transit improvements that should be the responsibility of the city anyway. This will get built, but the opponents are just going to cost the taxpayers with all of their silly litigation.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      The problem is there are people in San Francisco who will oppose any idea that wasn’t originally their own and sometimes they forget the certain ideas were their own so they oppose them anyway.

  3. Posted by moto mayhem

    these jerks are wasting everyones time and money. why is the billionaire class able to forever delay things in this city to the detriment of all the populace. this arena is WIDELY WIDELY supported by citizens, Mission Bay businesses, MB residents, UCSF, the city, the state.

    • Posted by anon

      A lot of people have serious concerns about the traffic and congestion impact. Not just the billionaire class.

      And even those who would patronize the arena are affected by the time and hassle of getting to and from events. 30 min to drive and park vs 30 min on BART is a wash for most. I know some people who’d like to be able to see a basketball game with reasonable transit time. But I don’t know anyone who’s dead set on this particular location.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        70% of the populace supports this location.

        Of course the Pier 30-32 location was much better for transit and limiting traffic impacts, but there you have the dasterdly TH dwellers fighting everything tooth and nail

        • Posted by Jake

          pier 30-32 would have been much much worse for traffic as it would have impacted both the Embarcadero and Bay Bridge traffic at a critical junction.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            but walking distance to BART , and all major MUNI lines

          • Posted by Mark

            And this location will snarl traffic on 280, as well as local streets. Local transit options are limited to the T-line (N-Judah, if extended during events).

          • Posted by Jake

            moto, “walking distance” to transit is part of the problem for ATT Park, the current proposed Warriors Arena, and the formerly proposed Pier 30-32 site. If you want to understand the traffic flows you have to follow the paths end-to-end.

            As you can see at every Giants game, for ~10k people an hour to walk across a major transportation street to get to/from a stadium/arena they block the traffic. Doesn’t even matter how the lights are jiggered, once the pedestrian density is high enough to feel safe they will cheat as much as they can get away with (the pedestrian version of block-the-box).

            Embarcadero is a major artery in the PM commute to move people both directions between north of Market and 280 (no overhead/underground fwy to grade separate the commute traffic), and Bryant and Harrison are major roads feeding the Bay Bridge PM commute. Something like ~20k people commute by car on these roads. That’s about as much as the entire car commute of the SF Richmond district. All of these people would be delayed 100+ times per year by an arena at Pier 30-32. You almost couldn’t pick a worse spot for traffic flow to add an arena than pier 30-32.

            Someday SF will grow up and build a subway network with exits on the sidewalks at major destinations, not within street traffic clogging walking distance. Maybe then motorcyclists won’t need to use the bike lane on the Embarcadero to go faster than the pedestrians walking to a Giants game.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            we agree on SF needing to sack up and build the subway infrastrucutre that every other modern city in the world has. Its a joke that we are the TECH and Innovation capital and we are stuck with 3rd world infrastructure

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            “As you can see at every Giants game, for ~10k people an hour to walk across a major transportation street to get to/from a stadium/arena they block the traffic. Doesn’t even matter how the lights are jiggered, once the pedestrian density is high enough to feel safe they will cheat as much as they can get away with…”

            This is how it works in a lot of developing countries where there’s few stoplights creating a safe pedestrian walk phase. A lump of pedestrians tipped with 20-something men starts to form on either side of the road, creating a bottleneck that slows traffic. Eventually traffic slows to non-lethal speeds when a few brave young men start walking across the narrowed gap. Then the mobs on both sides hustle across the road in safety.

            “… (the pedestrian version of block-the-box).”

            Not really. The pedestrians are moving and each will get to the other side in short order whereas when a car blocks the box they’re stuck and not moving.

            You could argue that those “cheating” pedestrians are actually creating a new efficient equilibrium. Hundreds of pedestrians moving across the intersection benefit more people than the dozens of cars that could use the same space during that time.

          • Posted by Jake

            mostly a difference of granularity: pedestrians move like sand, while cars move like pebbles. When you say “pedestrians are moving and each will get to the other side in short order whereas when a car blocks the box they’re stuck and not moving,” you are really pointing out that the space and time constants are larger for cars. Pedestrians stand still in the middle of the street when they have to just like cars. And pedestrians in SF sometimes take over the entire street for ~block when exiting major events, like the July 4th fireworks.

            Overall, the behavior and flow/diffusion equations are similar. Also, both can be packed, but neither is compressible and both have more collisions when dosed with alcohol. Human pilots are not so different on foot vs on wheels (2, 4, or 18). If only someone would invent the self-piloted pedestrian, maybe a VR headset app.

            Sure, even chaotic flows can reach an equilibrium, but traffic signals/cops, traffic shaping QoS (laws/etiquette), and other control flow yields higher throughput with less social cost than letting the streets devolve into a mosh pit.

          • Posted by Orland

            The flow of pedestrians across Third and King Streets could be effectively controlled so as not to seriously impede vehicular traffic through those intersections with some reasonable supervision of DPT officers. The situation around China Basin as it has existed for years is absolutely ridiculous. I’m surprised nobody has been killed yet.

            If you don’t believe me, go to Philadelphia where, because the former ballpark was right next to the subway stop and the new stadium built several hundred yards away, pedestrian traffic must cross numerous curbcuts to multiple parking lots between the Broad Street Line and Citizen’s Bank. Flow entire smooth because of the oversight of professional traffic control officers. It can be done.

          • Posted by Jake

            No, you don’t seem to understand the situation. Even if there were no pedestrians at all at 3rd and King, the two traffic flows that cross there are more than the intersection can handle during the commute. I’ve explained this a few times already on SS.

            280 dumps tens of thousands of cars a day onto King St, and most of them turn left at 3rd St. Embarcadero routes the main flow from the northern waterfront and FiDi to 280. These two flows cross at 3rd/King, and together are more than the intersection can handle, with or without pedestrians, with or without traffic officers, with or without a Giants game. It is one of the primary gridlock intersections in SF.

            That is why both directions backup, even during the baseball off-season, often for a mile plus in both directions. Routinely, 280 northbound backs up to around 16th St and Embarcadero southbound backs up to the Ferry building. The extra pedestrians and cars generated by a Giants game just make it back up even further and spreads the backup/congestion into secondary streets as people try to get around the morass.

            And SFMTA does assign traffic officers to Giants games. Costs SF $ millions a year. “SFMTA Parking Control Officers (PCOs) will help fans get to and from the game. Prior to each game, these PCOs are deployed to key locations around the ballpark to facilitate pedestrian safety, efficient movement of transit vehicles and other traffic.” –SFMTA press release, March 29, 2016.

            Turns out SFMTA officers can’t make the streets wider.

            Citzens Bank ball park in philly is built far from the downtown traffic congestion and it is surrounded by massive parking lots. It is more akin to the Oakland Coliseum.

            Sadly, a cyclist was killed at 3rd and King.

          • Posted by Orland

            SFMTA parking control for Giants games is a poor and infuriating joke. Nowhere more so than the exit from Lot A (one of only two) onto 3rd (Willie Brown Blvd) at Channel. Dangerous and nearly impossible to traverse for drivers and pedestrians alike.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        70% of the populace supports this location.

        Of course the Pier 31 location was much better for transit and limiting traffic impacts, but there you ahve the dasterdly TH dwellers fighting everything tooth and nail

    • Posted by Bay Guy

      Amen! This city is operated by a bunch of idiots.

      Or, perhaps they think like this quote, “I’ve been inducted by aliens.
      I’m in their Hall of Fame because of all of the great ideas they found up my a*s!”

  4. Posted by sethgreen

    unless they provide a realistic solution to the traffic woes this arena will create it really doesn’t matter if it’s free. this is an ill planned project.

    • Posted by Mark

      I can see both sides, but I totally agree on the traffic and transit concerns. 16th St. will become gridlock during events. Can only imagine what the removal of 280 will do especially if there are simultaneous events at AT&T and the arena. Good times!

  5. Posted by Harvey

    I remember hearing all of these same arguments about the “nightmare traffic” when the giant’s stadium was proposed. 17 years later and we are all somehow still alive…

    • Posted by Mark

      More like nightmare transit. Holding trains near the ballpark creates a mess and delays throughout the entire system, especially during rush. With baseball season starting next week I’m sure thousands of commuters cannot wait for the evening rush delays to begin again. Go Giants!

      • Posted by AnonAnon

        I’ve worked two blocks from AT&T Park for the last 10 years and I drive to work. The traffic for working stiffs is not that bad on game days because you are either arriving before the crowds start and leaving after the game is over (day games) or departing while others are arriving, but headed in the opposite direction out of the city (night games). Sure the parking rates jack up during day games, but I just park a few blocks away.

        • Posted by Mark

          My comment was focused on transit, not driving.

        • Posted by Jake

          I’ve lived near South Park since the early 1990s. The Giants traffic impacts are usually not very bad for someone driving from South Park out, unless they need to get to Mission Bay, because as you mentioned most routes from South Park are in reverse flow of the Giants fans.

          But anyone that needs to pass by or within a block of ATT Park are almost always delayed by fans arriving for evening games or leaving afternoon games. Tens of thousands of commuters use 280 and either the Embarcadero or 3rd/4th. This is a major route both for San Mateo residents that commute into SF FiDi/northern-waterfront and SF residents that commute to SM. A 7PM Giants game routinely backs up the southbound Embarcadero more than a mile to north of the Ferry Building, and it frequently backs up northbound 280 to around Cesar Chavez.

          BTW, the primary gridlock intersection for the neighborhood is 3rd/King because that is where the north and south bound flows cross. And that is where Giants fans walking across this intersection delay both flows like stepping on the knot of a pair of entwined garden hoses. Even many of the Giants fans that arrive by transit add to the congestion.

          FWIW, if the Caltrain station and Muni train stops that service ATT Park were underground with entrances at Willie Mays Plaza, then much of this would be mitigated. Of course SF hasn’t planned for anything like that for either ATT Park or the Warriors arena.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            If they were underground there they would be underwater.

          • Posted by Jake

            Uh, people have been building subways under water since the 19th century. I’ve even been on one between SF and Oaklandia. The plan for the 4th St Caltrain station DTX/HSR rebuild is to bury it. Old tech:

            “The world’s first sub-aqueous tunnel, Thames Tunnel, was completed in 1843, and despite the severe difficulties encountered in constructing it, the use of tunnelling shields as a construction method was proven. The second tunnel under the Thames, The Tower Subway, used this technology too, in an improved form.” (namelink)

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Of course. But SF being SF, it would cost $50B to build such wonderful things.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            And you’re citing tunnels when the point was stations. Not that sub grade stations in infill areas are beyond human comprehension, of course.

          • Posted by Jake

            We are building a train station “underwater” right now: Transbay Transit Center. The train level is below the water table (namelink). And no it is not costing $50 billion, unless you count the wasted opportunity costs of all the complaining about it.

    • Posted by Jake

      And that “nightmare traffic” is a regular occurrence about as forecast for Giant’s weekday games. People usually survive nightmares, ya know.

      • Posted by Mark

        That’s your opinion. Most folks would rather avoid or prevent nightmares, ya know.

        • Posted by Jake

          Whether it is a “nightmare” or not is a matter of opinion. That the traffic impacts have been in the range of the forecasts is a matter of fact.

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            “Nightmare” is hyperbolic when talking about traffic. For real nightmares, look at the situation of civilians on the ground in Syria. Or this story about a woman who fell into a sex trafficking trap. Those are real nightmares. Getting stuck in congestion for 30 minutes is an inconvenience.

            As for transit, I’ve been on Caltrain plenty of game days when it is crammed with boisterous drunken Giants or Sharks fans. That’s a little annoying but hardly a big problem.

        • Posted by Futurist

          Just to clarify Mark, we do live in a city and yes, there is traffic and gridlock at times.

          It’s a hassle at times, but most people survive it quite well.

    • Posted by gone on

      still alive and gotten the he– out of dodge (SF)

  6. Posted by sassySFboy

    SO VERY TIRED of this costly, neverending, nonsense from sore losers! Think…ALL that $$$ wasted in lawsuits could help shelter homeless, provide affordable housing, etc. That said…once built, stadium management needs to invoke “right to refuse entry” to ALL mission bay alliance members, period!

    • Posted by Mark

      Trust me, none of that lawsuit money would go toward homeless shelters and affordable housing. Also, according to your logic, all TH dwellers should then be banned from using the North Beach Central Subway station if it ever gets built. Oh, I’m against BART expansion to SJ. Does that mean I can’t ride BART to my friends in Berkeley?

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      these [people] have money to burn so they dont mind throwing it away on meritless lawsuits. they are so utterly selfish.

      • Posted by Orland

        They are not being “selfish” in the least. They have very seriously held civic-minded beliefs as to the best use of the land in question. You may disagree but demonizing them over differences of opinion is ridiculous.

  7. Posted by Pablito

    Environmental Leadership Project? I have complete faith the Warriors will do what they can do to make the project as environmental as possible – they understand those are the rules for playing ball in the City – but at the end of the day – building a new arena in San Francisco when there is a perfectly good renovated arena in Oakland is not really environmental. Just isn’t.

    The Oakland Arena is not Candlestick park – no rich developer will step in and convert the site to housing.

    The removal of 280 – the timing of it -vis-a-vis the warriors EIR approval – is dishonest on the SF City politicians part. I expect that the Arena traffic analysis would have looked quite a lot different if it had the removal of 280 in it.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      even SF politicians are not stupid enough to remove 280

      • Posted by Keepitup

        Want to bet?

      • Posted by Orland

        Nobody is talking about ‘removing 280.” What’s being considered is how it ends touching down and integrating its traffic with the City’s street grid.

  8. Posted by boher

    “billionaire’s plaything”…give me a break. Exactly how big is that chip on your shoulder? Maybe you would like a homeless tent city there?

    This is a world class venue for sport, concerts etc. Build it.

    • Posted by Mark

      Too bad it’s not a world class city for transit, infrastructure and low crime.

      • Posted by Pablito

        San Francisco is one of the richest cities in the country – so buying some new buses – and keeping them clean – should not be a big deal.

        Instead – we have situations like the 38 Geary – sardine-can overcrowding – with a level of sanitation on the bus that can often best be described as deplorable.

        If the City did its job – bought some new buses – kept them clean – assigned some of the 50+ patrol officers assigned to guard City Hall to MUNI duty – then maybe people wouldn’t so squeal so much whenever a new project comes along.

        No one with any common sense thinks the City will magically improve transit in Mission Bay because the Warriors are building a new arena. At least no one that rides the bus on a regular basis.

        Bottom line is the City needs to do a much better job delivering public services or the fights over new projects and growth will get worse.

      • Posted by Orland

        SF has one of the lower violent crime rates among major American cities.

        • Posted by Pablito

          And i am thankful for that. But we do have one of the highest property crime rates. Some cities have low Total crime rates. That would be amazing….

      • Posted by anona

        No American cities are world class for any of those. Even New York’s transit is horrendous compared to a Tokyo, Paris, or London, all American cities have decaying infrastructure, and the lowest crime American cities are high crime compared to the rest of the developed world. The one place where American cities outshine pretty much anywhere else is income.

        • Posted by Ohlone Californio

          New York is adequate compared to London. Come on. “horrible” ? no way.

          • Posted by Orland

            Re: NYC transit. It’s there in place but the level of service can be pretty “horrible” on a too regular basis.

          • Posted by anona

            Says someone who has obviously never had to rely on NYC transit. I will agree that London’s transit service is significantly worse than Paris, and Paris is significantly worse than Tokyo.

  9. Posted by Someonewhocares

    So sick of these frivolous lawsuits being thrown about by the bogus Mission Bay Alliance wasting peoples’ time and money. They act like spoiled rotten little rich kids not getting their way. They are playing the delay game to the max trying to discourage and test the patience of the Warriors since they know their suits have no merit. SF has waited long enough for a world class arena venue. How much longer does this BS have to continue? What a waste of time and money for ALL of us. Waiting patiently in Mission Bay!

    • Posted by Orland

      I agree with the need for such a facility. Does it REALLY NEED to be in that very particular location,

      • Posted by Brian M

        There would be similar complaints anywhere they proposed. BANANA Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody.

        • Posted by Orland

          MBA would likely be an arena’s biggest booster ANYplace else. If you’re going to have an opinion, learn the issues.

    • Posted by Sethgreen76

      Let’s be clear. The folks whining about not getting their way are arena developers despite their PR efforts in comment sections such as this.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        thats a joke. you are the only ones against the arena and are using billionaires to try and hurt the citizens for your own interests. SInce most people here in favor of the arena are long term SS posters, and you are brand new, it would appear that you are the ruse and not the supporter

        • Posted by SocketSite

          We’ll note that Seth’s comment history actually goes back a couple of months and didn’t originate with an arena post. Regardless, deriding an opinion based simply on the reader being relatively new is rather ironic considering the struggle of the arena and other waterfront developments based on entrenched points of view.

  10. Posted by Someonewhocares

    So what’s the timeline for resolving the timeline issue? So stupid.

  11. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    Couldn’t we at least put the Teatro Zinzanni tent here while they work this all out? Everybody would be in favor of that iconic tent!

    • Posted by Notcom

      Yeah it’s kind of embarrassing, isn’t it: the TZ folks were able to round up what seemed like dozens of shills – at a moment’s notice, no less – while this idea seems to only draw the same apolo…supporters. That has to be the most the Warriors have been outscored all year!

      • Posted by Orland

        It is asinine to dismiss the REAL (as opposed to anonymous handles) self-identified people who contributed in support of TZ as “shills.”

  12. Posted by Notcom

    Considering that few, if any, of the enthusiasts bothered to acquaint themselves with the issue – which was a rather narrowly defined one having to do with view corridors and the placement of the structure(s) on the property – but instead simply parroted the claim that TZ was great – which was never at issue and had already been acknowledged in an official resolution – “shill” is very much the right term. The fact that your dentist is a “real person”, or that the others put together a First and Last Name on their posts, doesn’t change that.

    • Posted by Orland

      The issue (especially as framed by the Editors here) was that the proposal is receiving significant, snarky pushback from Planning. That may just constitute so much Bureaucratize to the cognoscenti here. Still, the alarm expressed by the “enthusiasts” may seem foolish but much more excusably so than the parochially sorry aghast with which these newcomers were “greeted” by some regular contributors here.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      The fact that your dentist is a “real person”, or that the others put together a First and Last Name on their posts, doesn’t change that.

      Of the 15 enthusiast comments we sampled, 100 percent originated from different IP addresses and we were able to tie their given email addresses to a valid account associated with the published name.

      And now back to the Warriors Arena or over to our Teatro Zinzanni piece if you’d like to continue down that path…

    • Posted by anon

      A shill is a paid accomplice of a confidence man or swindler. More broadly, I’d include those with hidden financial motivations. Knowing someone’s real name or even profession is no guarantee that they are or are not a shill. Bernie Madeoff and the executive team of Enron were all real people. Many doctors and dentists are improperly and/or illegally influenced by drug or equipment companies.

      To be a successful business you need to have at least some happy customers. So it’s no surprise that some people like circus tents, nor that some people like going to basketball games. But most activities have downsides as well. So it’s also no surprise that some people would rather have an uncluttered waterfront and some are concerned about traffic and other negative externalities that can accompany a stadium.

      But it’s also worth remembering that some parties may have very strong financial motivations one way or the other. Particularly worrisome are those with a strictly transactional interest. A developer or salesman of a project (or a tech start-up!) that takes all their payment on sale or completion of the project, but leaves others with the long term effects has a very powerful motivation to favor his/her short term gain over the long term troubles of others.

      • Posted by anon

        Someone posed a piece by Robert Shiller here a few days back and if you followed it a few links deep, one of his colleagues coined a term “entrepreneurs of error” referring to those who make their livings by spinning tall tales and falsehoods to deceive others. It’s very wise to be watchful for that behavior these days, but it’s also a very different thing from someone expressing their sincere belief even if it differs from your own.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles