Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Warriors Arena topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design team trims arena, adds open space in revised Warriors Pier 30–32 plan
Summary
Designers presented a revised Golden State Warriors arena for Piers 30–32 that reduces building mass, increases open space and repositions vehicular access; the presentation was informational and drew both neighborhood opposition over traffic/parking and support emphasizing jobs and waterfront revitalization.
Designers for the proposed Golden State Warriors arena at Piers 30–32 presented a revised plan to the San Francisco Port Commission that reduces the venue’s mass, increases public open space and reconfigures site access.
Craig Backus, presenting for the design team, said the latest iteration “reduces the girth of the arena rather significantly, and that’s by removing about 33,000 square feet out of the facility itself.” He and the team described lowering several terraces and practice-court heights, adding vegetated areas and expanding publicly accessible space along the pier edges.
The presentation included a series of specific adjustments. Designers said they removed about 15,000 square feet of pier to expose more water at the southern edge; added roughly 1 acre of planted, pervious landscape (about 2 acres of planted sitewide); and increased pier-level open space from about 53% to roughly 60% of the site. Backus summarized the recent changes as a net removal of roughly 1.3 million cubic feet of mass from the design.
The team said the arena’s top height remains 125 feet, but that parapet and edge treatments were stepped down—reducing perceived bulk by roughly 15 feet at the building perimeter—and that retail modules along the Embarcadero were reconfigured to a smaller, more permeable scale to preserve sight lines.
Designers also described traffic and access changes. The primary support vehicular entrance was moved from the northwest corner toward the center of the pier to reduce conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle flows; the access point is three lanes that can be reversed for event operations. The team said the design includes bicycle parking (including valet) and multiple pedestrian ramps and lifts to improve universal access.
Responding to environmental concerns, the design team said the project will rehabilitate existing pier structure and will not involve ‘‘dumping of concrete into the port’’; staff described construction mitigation measures to prevent pollutants from entering the Bay, with details to be worked out in later environmental review.
Public reaction at the meeting reflected both support and opposition. Supporters, including small-business owners, union representatives and neighborhood residents, praised the project’s potential to create jobs, repair aging piers and add open space. Michael McKenna of IBEW Local 6 commended the Warriors’ outreach to building trades and local-hire commitments. Opponents raised traffic, parking and neighborhood-compatibility concerns; longtime waterfront resident Ernestine Weiss questioned the scale, noise and an asserted 500-car garage associated with the project.
Commissioners and staff emphasized that the presentation was informational only and that no action was taken. Several commissioners asked the project team for clearer public materials and more detailed analyses of circulation, parking strategy and emergency-access constraints at future briefings. The design team noted they had entered local-hire and LBE discussions and promised additional details at upcoming advisory committee meetings.
The Port Commission indicated the project will undergo further steps in the review process, including constituent advisory committee review and formal environmental review; an evening presentation was announced to allow deeper public engagement. The commission did not vote on the project at this meeting.
