albert will describe more indepth on 19th. that's been announced previously. there is a proposal for community advisory meeting on 11th. if we hear feedback that doesn't work that is not a meeting the city or warriors need to hold before the holidays. we thought that was responding to the cac's desire to have another before the holidays but that is an entirely flexible date. then we were proposing two scoping meetings in order to get input as to the scope. it is somewhat unprecedented to have two. one december 13th and one january 8th or 9th. that is the current near term schedule. i want to emphasize as strongly as possible that we feel we are at the cac's disposal to schedule any and all future meetings. >> i certainly think that we probably need to think how we develop the agenda for the cac is that is a

citizen-driven process. my feet back is i think that having a scoping meeting which is substantive in the community on eir and hosting december 13th will be viewed as trying to ignore public input and feedback. it is a busy time for many of our families and residents. i know the request has been to move the scoping meeting to after the new year's in mid-january, when people are back and will be able to focus attention on this important project in the neighborhood. >> okay. i'm happy to talk to the larger project milestones briefly, which is just while we first fiscal feasibility finding and environmental e are view process. as we talk about term sheet endorsements between february and april that anticipated a draft n

environmental report would be published may to june of 2013 and final eir would be in early 2014 along with proposed approval of transaction documents. trust consistency approvals that would need to be obtained in the spring of 2014. that would keep us on a schedule tol begin construction december of 2014. >> i want to say one other thing. in addition to the fire department we have reached out to several other city departments in order to begin to create really a citywide team that looks at this project. we reached out to the mayor in order to have initial input of design on open space and access issues. we reached out to department of emergency management to look how a facility and amount of open space could be used in the case of catastrophic events or emergencies. the deep water berth could

be extraordinary helpful to bring in large boats. one of the only natural occurring deep water berth that doesn't need to be dredged. dem sees potential. we have reached out to entertainment and travel to understand how to design and program this space for its maximum benefits and sf travel was here today. i'm waiting patiently for moscone expansion item emerging as key partner in use of facility. another asset for convention business. i wanted to close and have you understand the scope of early work in order to make sure that the full breadth of the city is involved in potential positive impacts of this project. >> jennifer, just to talk about some of the things coming before the board, today we had fiscal

feasibility finding before us, allowing the city to move forward and begin review process. >> correct. >> if we didn't have that we can't move forward to the next step? >> we can't. many of the questions asked about impacts and transportation require studies that need to occur as part of seek what. we get to a point in which assessments and evaluation can only go so far until we start ceqa. ceqa is important to stay on schedule but for importantly answer questions this project has raised. unlike prior partnerships, all staff time borne by warriors. so should this not work, should there be problems down the road, they are taking the risk of all this up front cost. our triggers to reimburse do not start. like our meter does not start until all approvals are done and substructure

is improved. so this is a risk that our private partner is taking in order to bring this opportunity to the city. >> great. so what question can expect to see before the board in coming year or year and a half would be the term sheet that will layout specifically all the mechanisms on the financial components, as well as agreements and other fine detail. >> yep. >> would likely to see if there was appeal of the document that would come before us and any other zoning changes required or any other documents like long-term leases would come before us. >> correct. >> two clarifying questions. in terms of what we expect to analyze under environmental review process the anticipated arena and also development on seawall would be part of environmental documents? >> correct. >> the approval f there was

an appeal, would include seawall lot 30 as well as -- >> absolutely. >> in terms of reimbursement costs, when we talk about 120 million, one of the things i'm curious about, term sheet agreements s how the city would agree. there could be a gamut one party would make that could be categorized as improvements to substructure to rehab facilities so how can we come to agreement about what is acceptable level of improvements there? >> i think we will have a stronger narrative of what qualifies, then a mechanism for understanding and approving what is a qualified expenditure and not. this is something we have given a lot of thought to. we went through the same exercise and learned a lot and expect we will have a tight process for categorizing and improving what is a reimbursable cost. >> i imagine if it is

possible to establish this process that would be the goal. >> that is the goal, yes. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i was hoping through the chair that i do want to recognize the chair of pier 30, 32 citizen advisory committee is here. it would be okay with the port and city if she could speak as well. >> just let me finish my presentation. >> yes. >> i would like to ask monique to speak and if there are other parties representative, we can do that. ms. moyer. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for allowing me to have a few minutes to speak. there is a broad group waiting a long time. i'm anxious to hear from them as well. i don't have a lot i want to share. i think it is instrmental to look at appears 30 and 32 for a second. they were built as two separate piers in 1914. they will mark 100 next

year. they were joined in 1952 when we moved from rail to trucking. this was filled in in 1914 to provide a rail yard to support piers 30, 32, 26 and 28. that is where the city had the sugar import section. we were a big importer of sugar. those were envisioned and pioneered to be built with reinforced concrete to make them fireproof. ironically in 1984 the buildings on top of the piers burnt down but pier itself survived. in 1987 there was a proposal for development on 30, 32. by my count this is the sixth proposal to do some sort of significant development on peers 30 and 32. that is completely unique to this site, unlike no other project the port has

done. as the port director, something that gives me great pause. we spent a lot of time as you brought up this morning supervisor avalos during the america's cup event authority lookinging at that pier in more detail and we determined there is an expensive proposition to remove, let alone try to rehabilitate it. it is sitting pier for us. as mentioned naturally deep berth. that is the whole reason the port exists on the western side is because we have naturally deep berths and can take advantage of that for the benefit so it is important to us. next door we are building the brandon street war f, requiring removal of peer 36, also row inforced and the building of a new park.

the entire cost is 32 million. when i think about this, it will achieve something since 1987, repair a blighted part and put it into economic use. two, removes significant liability for the port. we are investing little money with respect to commitments on the america's cup to ensure the promenade and pier remain attached in event of seismic event. we will get another berth we desperately need at a cost we currently cannot afford. it is clear from our projections that will go away without investment in future as near as possible, ten years. we are making investment in northern waterfront of almost a hundred million to keep the business in san

francisco. in doing so we are attracting business. that is important. it is to host fleet week. ships are getting bigger and bigger. when working with piers built in 1914 they weren't built for these types of ships. 30, 32 affords us that advantage. we are getting half million square feet. we are building a park for 54,000 feet at cost of 32 million, very similar to what is at piers 3032. this would allow us to get half million square feet of landscaped parkland plus additional open space, plus all the economic benefits in form of fiscal feasibility report. we don't have that balance sheet in our wildest dreams to invest 120 million to accomplish those goals. it will take a big idea.

that was my exact testimony. it will take a big idea with lots of benefits. as i was listening to ms. mathis's presentation, i was thinking this will hurt partners in oakland. it is challenging for all of us, but one i'm hoping we can take advantage of of the waterfront and keep this as economically viable as possible. those are the thoughts. i'm happy to take questions if you have them. >> thank you. supervisor kim, did you have a question? thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. mr. rose. if i can ask you to go to the poem.

>> madam chair, members of the committee, we have a conclusion and report on page 18 where we state the proposed development appears 3032 and seawall lot 10, including rehabilitation of the property at pier 30, 32, multipurpose arena for golden state warrior games and events. public open space. maritime use, retail and related parking. development on seawall lot 330 of residential hotel and retail use and accessory parking. we provide estimated fiscal impacts including one-time benefits of the city up to 53.8 million. direct ongoing annual financial benefits between 9.8 million and slightly over ten million. undetermined indirect

benefits from grocery receipts tax revenue up to 120 million as you have heard capped in private expenditures, rehabilitation of 3032, reimbursement by port of those private construction expenditures. for use of 66 years of credits for pier 3032, valued at 1,970,000 per year. you also heard when i talked about 120 million that does include 13% return to gsw on the reimbursement of construction costs, non reimbursement construction costs. transfer of seawall lot 330 from port of gsw bay and 34 million and four years of general fund property tax revenues, used to repay a 60 million ifd bond. no new ongoing maintenance cost for the port.

undetermined maintenance costs for which funding options are explored by the office of economic and workforce development, port and gsw. so based on those criteria the budget and legislative analyst finds the proposed development to be fiscally feasible under the code and therefore we recommend approval of this proposed resolution before you. in accordance of the codes, chapter 29, finding of feasibility as you know that the project merits evaluation and review. we will evaluation and make further recommendations on this project to the board of supervisors when the port submits the term sheet to the board which will contain project details.

i would also note on page 18 we state for purposes of the analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed development, gsw assumed 205 events per year, including 50 warrior games at proposed multiuse arena with total of attendance of 2 million annually. that is shown in table three on page 19 of our report. this report that economic viability of proposed arena depends on hosting a variety of events in addition to golden state warrior games. we would be happy by to respond to questions the committee might have. >> thank you. are there any questions to the budget analyst at this time? if not -- just to jennifer, are there any other departments planning to

speak? no, okay. we will opening for public comment soon. before we do that i did want to allow for the chair of the pier 3032 cac speak, katy ladell. because you are not a member of the san francisco staff you are required to be under public comment period so two minutes is the time we do have. i allow you to speak up to two minutes. of course if you can i think representing what entire cac's perspective with, where there is distinction and view. also share that. >> thank you. thank you supervisor kim for giving me this opportunity to talk to you. some of us on the cac sent all of you an e-mail this morning asking for a 30 to 60 day extension on the resolution for the feasibility fiscal feasibility study. our main concern and our

main request at this point is that we would like to slow this process down. things are going so quickly. i have to tell you, we the cac members have not had a chance to talk. the purpose of the cac is we are representing the people who live in our neighborhoods. we need to be able to have a conversation so we can decide what our views are and discuss the issues because we are supposed to evaluate and comment and offer options. but we the cac members have not had a chance to talk. we have had three meetings. those are all mainly information done. presentations, which are very valuable that we have not had the chance to chat. i don't know all of my cac members. so that is what we are asking, is to slow this process down. we need time to be able to discuss the issues, as we

are supposed to. also speaking personally and not to the cac, i am something who lives over in that neighborhood. and the neighborhood has not really been heard. we have heard all the pro's but some of us are very concerned so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. a quick question. in terms of the letter we did see it come through that was not a formal action taken by cac. sounds like a number of members of the cac -- not all had concerns and sent that letter. >> that's correct. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. a quick question for probably jennifer matz or -- not sure. jennifer is probably best to answer it. >> jennifer. >> it is -- just a quick

question. one of the discussions going forward about this project is looking at projections for events. warrior's games, concerts, family events that are going on. the proposal is 205 events each year. i'm wondering how realistic that is. we are not saying -- you know, there are any venues around the bay area or the country that actually have this many combination of sports and other events. has there been like -- you know, when vegas first started they signed a contract with allegedly frank sinatra and dean martin to actually bring. we have acts set up for the warriors? >> i can let rick speak directly to what the warriors have been doing in order to talk to event promoters. what i think is important to note is that 205 events

runs the gam mot of the different size of shows. from as small as 4,000 to 5,000 to as large as full capacity for basketball games. when you look around the country at similar types of multiuse venues, whether it is the boston garden, whatever that is called or united center in chicago, the hp pavillion in san jose or the current or goal arena in oakland, there is a wide variety in the number per year really ranging -- these are once anchored by sports teams really between about 100 and 250, depending on the venue. i think the notion is there are -- part is whether or not your regional area has enough capacity to maintain

a multiday -- events that would happen recurrently over a lot of days or whether your market is such that a show might only come to town for a few days. depending on the market in some ways depends on the number of events. i can let rick speak about this. >> just a question in the context of the events. is that really a major consideration for this project being successful in years to come? if it is 25 events what does that -- >> thank you for the question. that is a realistic number and facility of this size and budget we are talking about to perform, that is not only a goal but something we will try to achieve. there are arenas that have sittingly larger numbers but that is driven by the fact they have more than

one primary major league tenant. for example a number of teams. madison square garden has a national and nbc, which add another 50 dates. they are at that 300 level. we don't anticipate getting close to 300 but think 200 is realistic. to point out one thing, the there is quite a variety. we are talking about an arena we are planning to make smaller than the current we are playing in oakland by about 1,500 feet. the capacity of 17,500, about 40% the size of every night is sell-out crowd at at&t park for perspective. the majority will not play to a full house because smaller house like family

shows and smaller concerts that today don't have a home to play in san francisco. that answer your question? >> so you have expectations that having events will consist it isn'tly yield a certain amount of viability and profitability. 205, if you are less than that, how critical to your success? >> well, that isn't a magic number. depends on the mix that end up taking place but it is a goal to be similar. in that range. i think it is probably realistic goal for a facility site. we envision something good. the three in the underis madison square garden, staples and new arena pier 32. we have in answer to another part of the question you asked earlier we are in conversations

with the major concert and promotion companies to date and have been on an ongoing basis and are extremely happy but the local promoters. we met with several this week. we envisioned the warrior's management not being, collusive to any promotion company. we want to entertain acts that are represent bid a variety of promoters, including local. >> great, thank you. that is all the questions with the budget analyst. what led to my question around the events, number of events that are being planned on yearly basis for the new stadium, do you see 205, that number as being critical about -- anything related to financial feasibility or viability of the project?

madam chair, members of the committee, supervisor avalos, i mentioned that 205 because yes that was part of the fiscal feasibility analysis. the revenues were based on that 205. as i stated, ms. match emphasized in addition the 50 warrior games there must be a number of theser events in order to make this whole project fiscally feasible. our information is that the approximately 200 is necessary, at least based on the data we have received to date. again, as i mentioned to you, when we received the term sheet and see all the details behind this

project, we will evaluate and report. our only statement, our recommendation is that based on the data provided, including this 205 number, we believe this project is fiscally feasible. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> can i add up with thing? it is inextrick bli linked the numbers of revenue generated by the city are linked to the totality of uses at arena. but the warriors won't be able to finance and won't have any desire to build an arena that is not -- that does not make economic sense for them. the ability -- their willingness to build an arena is dependent on having that arena be a viable economic engine in order to recoup the billion dollars that it is going to

cost to build that facility. so i think obviously we will be providing more detailed information to the budget analyst and to the decision-makers and cf ac in months to come. the reinforcing mechanism, the warrior also not invest a billion in something that isn't going to yield the economic activity that justifis that. >> thank you. supervisor kym? >> i want to ask you to come up again. given kind of a lot of concerns i raised in the neighborhood around the speed which this process is going, i get it with the fiscal feasibility. this initiates the process. the board is asking if this is fiscally feasible. the substantive part is with the term sheet and substantive eir. i'm hoping to get a commitment from city on

ensuring we don't hold scoping meetings during holidays and move to mid-january to make sure we adequately hear through the input. if the city would also be okay with amendments to the resolution ensuring the cac would hear and review the term sheet prior to the board budget committee meetings. >> since you mentioned, during my presentation, the concept of moving the eir scoping meeting to mid-january, had an opportunity to talk to planning department and warriors, we can do that. rather than having two meetings, one before and one soon thereafter the new year, we can move and have a scoping meeting in mid-january and get beyond the holidays. that is something that is achievable and we will do. in addition, i would be happy by to have you amend the resolution to include whatever lange