Supervisors advance fiscal‑feasibility review for Warriors’ Pier 30–32 arena, with CAC protections

Chair Carmen Chu convened the Budget & Finance Committee on Nov. 13 and heard a multi‑hour presentation and discussion of the Golden State Warriors’ proposal to rehabilitate Piers 30–32 and develop Seawall Lot 330 into a multipurpose arena, public open space and mixed uses. City staff described a conceptual finance framework that would privately finance above‑pier development while capping city and port reimbursement for agreed substructure improvements at $120 million.

The committee’s fiscal‑feasibility hearing centered on the conceptual framework presented by the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and port staff, which assumes the Warriors privately finance construction of the arena and associated development; the city and the Port of San Francisco would reimburse eligible substructure improvements up to a $120 million cap. Staff told the committee that proposed repayment sources are limited to three buckets: rent credits tied to Pier 3032 (valued at roughly $1.9 million annually), one‑time proceeds from sale or prepaid ground lease of Seawall Lot 330 (appraised near $30 million), and new property tax revenue secured through an infrastructure financing district (estimated about $5.8 million per year). Staff and the budget analyst said those three sources together currently produce a present‑value amount substantially below the $120 million cap, meaning the private partner bears significant risk under present assumptions.

Officials also described a modeled ‘‘cost of capital’’ of 13 percent used to illustrate the private partner’s expected return on recovery of reimbursable expenditures; staff said that figure reflects negotiated returns in comparable San Francisco public‑private deals. The committee’s budget analyst, Harvey Rose, reported that the fiscal‑feasibility analysis models roughly 205 events per year (including 50 Warriors games) and estimated one‑time city receipts of roughly $50 million and ongoing unrestricted general‑fund revenues around $12 million annually under the assumptions used in the pro forma.

Port and fire officials testified about maritime benefits and logistics: Port Director Monique Moyer urged attention to the piers’ historic construction and the public benefit of a deep‑water berth; Assistant Deputy Chief Ken Lombardi of the San Francisco Fire Department described the opportunity to relocate and modernize fireboat facilities at a new North Berth. The Port noted that rehabilitation of Pier 30–32 would remove a current liability, add maritime capacity and create hundreds of thousands of square feet of public open space.

Members of the Pier 30–32 Citizens Advisory Committee and neighborhood speakers urged the board to slow the process so the CAC can deliberate; labor and community speakers urged local‑hire commitments and protections for neighborhood quality‑of‑life. In response, staff and the Warriors’ representatives described plans for additional community workshops, transportation workshops, and CAC engagement. Staff said the term sheet — which will spell out the precise repayment mechanics, eligible reimbursable costs, entitlements, and any proposed zoning — will return to the Port Commission and Board of Supervisors for public hearings.

Given the volume of public interest and lingering questions about traffic, neighborhood impacts and the precise finance mechanics, Supervisor Jane Kim read amendments into the record that would (1) require future discretionary approvals (including the term sheet, disposition and development agreement, waterfront land‑use plan amendments, and zoning changes) be presented to the Pier 30–32 CAC for review and written recommendation prior to Board consideration; (2) require the CEQA scoping schedule be reviewed by the CAC; and (3) require a thorough analysis of traffic congestion and noise impacts during environmental review. The committee adopted the amendments and, with those safeguards included, voted to send the fiscal‑feasibility findings and resolution on to the full Board of Supervisors with a recommendation to proceed to environmental review.

The fiscal‑feasibility decision is not project approval. Staff emphasized that term‑sheet negotiation, third‑party cost review, environmental review (CEQA) and subsequent Board and Port Commission approvals remain to come. The committee’s action allows city staff to begin environmental scoping and to continue negotiating financial and community benefit terms that will be presented later in the process.

The Board is expected to receive the term sheet, project‑level CEQA documents and any required discretionary approvals in subsequent hearings; at those times the Board will have the opportunity to vote on the precise financial commitments, reimbursable categories, development agreements and any entitlement changes. Ending: the committee forwarded the fiscal‑feasibility item with the amendments to the full Board for final consideration and further hearings.