finally leverage funding and the timing in place as they're needed. so the assessment area that we're talking about is actually broader than this diagram will show but what i think is important these are three projects i am working closely on. pier 70. sea wall 330 and these across the street. but we don't start from a cold start. we have been doing a lot of work already with the community and understanding how to make the trpg in the waterfront work better. i have been to this commission talking about america's cup. that was a tremendously important experience. actually we treated that input from the outreach seriously and we rowntded up the input we got from america's cup and through the progress reports and at the cac meetings of this project and at the hearing we

got input as well and on the website you will see pages of community input we managed and structured and categorized it and it's shaping this assessment for us. but i don't want to down play how important it was to play with the america's cup. we piloted and tried our hand at new things and erks lie and a project and carried hundreds of people and that is a pilot project that could have a legacy. we have the bike sharing program this spring and we work with the companies to do a proxy bike sharing program and get it place for the america's cup and valet parking and giving pedestrians real time estimates how long it goes from point a, say the ballpark to the ferry

building and helping visitors orient themselves around the waterfront and this is a advantage that we have piloted and try our hand at some solutions. we had a meeting already and we wanted to make sure everybody understood the big picture. what we did before the roll your she was up part of the workshop we outlined what the assessment was supposed to do and understand the networks that serve the area. it's understanding which projects and not just transportation but which ones are coming down the pipeline and when and a lot of the challenge is understanding when the solutions are already in the books are serving the developments when they come online and inform the ceqa process. to get out ahead of the environmental review is important for us in the transportation world. rather react to it in the last month

we are doing this assessment now even before the eir started. we had good attendance of 60 people and six tables. they had maps. these are res deptds and advocates and knew the waterfront well. they pinpointed the problems and gave ideas that need to be solved and we went through and got the top six issues in the discussion. we got together and summarized those and set next steps. but these are some of the graphics -- well, these are some of the graphics that we had and it's so important to understand that transportation isn't a snapshot. it's ongoing development process. for instance the transit network that you see in the top is both local and regional and we showed in dotted lines what is coming down the line, central subway, and the loop for mission bay and the

loop in chinatown and all happening at different times and part of the assessment is looking at when and get them in place when needed. we looked at the bay trial and the bicycle network what is needed and proposed and parking and north of the building and lots or garages and looking how they relate to the arterial net works that feed the freeways and you get a map that would be otherwise impossible to understand and too many colored lines and network but it shows how dense and multimodal this network is. these circles radiated out here show quarter mile and half mile and mile radius. we could do that anywhere and how many bus stations and terminals and bart

and that informs these land use projects. now in addition to the networks are the list of projects themselves. we identified three phases. 12013 to 2017 and out to two 032 because there are different waves happening and different transportation improvements slaitded to come on line. it might be at the end of the assessment we might jump start a project because a major development is happening the year before so it's this kind of clarity understand whag is going on in the land use realm, the terminal and the projects and mission rock at one side and understand what all of these things or some of the muni routes coming fall into place. so just a sample of some of the outcomes of the workshop. we had six maps and summaries. these were they written on and saw gaps and things needed to

happen. it's hard to read it but it's there and on the website and if you look on piers 30-32 you will see this but there is a list of comments so we know the transit and parking issues. that's helping us make sure as we work with engineers they're getting the input from the people that live and work about this area and the general responsibility in fixing transportation solutions, but the next steps and we're very much at the beginning of the assessment, are the workshops on december 4. one comment we heard loud and clear "give us land use information to match the transportation information" so we have maps that will be layered on top of the transportation networks so we can see where people are living and where the networks need to

go and we had an important comment "what are the goals and objectives of the assessment?" . it's one thing to have engineers and it's another that we understand quality of life and what makes san francisco successful? pedestrian first and transportation priority and the land use plans and those are things that we would incorporate and taking the inventory of all the goals and objectives and making sure they speak to this area and if need be refined for the outcomes. if we have the goals and networks and the networks and understanding when they come online one thing that would be helpful is try our hand at a few solution ideas . for instance if the neighbors gave the top six concerns and we ran it past goals and objectives and i can't make the cal train because it's congested around the giants game and sometimes

they don't go beyond second street very quickly. well, there are solutions to put in place. there are opportunities and check them against the golden objectives and at the end of the day we understand the priorities and the goals of the community and the city and we understand what is happening and when both in transportation and land use, our next responsibility would be to come up with solutions that make sense and that get out ahead of the environmental, so i'm very interested in this process just like we did with the people plan in america's cup and before the environmental. the environmental kicked in and gave us great data and back in the people plan and had a plan that was smart and a environmental that had great mitigation measures and i think that is a great proposead and recommendation for getting ahead of the issue and vetting them in the project and with they will turn it over to brad for his

report. >> good afternoon commissioners. brad benson special projects manager representing the port staff on the negotiating team. so we wanted to take a moment to explain to both the commission and the public the difference phases of this proposed negotiations for the project. city staff has been working and the port and owed staff in consultation with the city attorney working with the warriors to come up with a conceptual framework for the business deal which is really looking at the cost to rehabilitate piers 30-32 so it's seismically sound and can support the multi-purpose venue on it, and how the warriors will initially finance that investment and how the city would repay that investment to

public property, and jennifer mattes will go over that a little more detail but that conceptual framework is published to this point to support the fiscal feasibility finding and with these projects the port and city staff will pursue policy approvals with a term sheet with fiscal approval. it was the staff's suggestion to separate the two and really the fiscal feasibility finding, again which jennifer will speak to, is necessary to start environmental review, and i think we're all aware of the aggressive schedule that this project is under taking, and we want to make sure at the staff level we are maximizing the time available for environmental review. that's a important component of this project so

getting passed fiscal feasibility and starting environmental review with all of the inputs peter was just talk about is really going to maximize the public's opportunity to understand the project in all of its complexity. the next phase of the negotiation is really going to final liezing that term sheet and the term sheet will typically articulate all of the business terms of the transaction. we hope to bring that term sheet to the port commission and if approved by the port commission to the board of supervisors in the period between february 15 and april of 2013, and the issues that we think that we will be addressing are not currently addressed in the conceptual framework go to a number of important points they would like to describe now.

first we're in a public process already with an initial conceptual design that is very exciting. there will be comment whether through the cac format or other public meetings that we're holding on the project and we will need to define the project. we will be looking in particular ideas about the potential maritime use of the east berth of piers 30-32, an important deep water berth. we are also coordinating with the fire department. we have department chief here representing the chief and we are excited about hearing the fire boat at this location, but it needs to serve the fire department's particular mission involving the fire boat, so there maybe refinements to the project around that, and we're also going to be looking at the

historic preservation issues. reds java house is a contributing resource to the national district and how is that facility treated in the overall development? other issues that we will be addressing. we are contemplating mechanisms to repay the warriors that would include potential infrastructure financial proceeds so we want to make sure as we are issuing that debt to repay the initial private investments that there is appropriate level of security around that. we have used an appraisal process that jennifer will talk about and come up with the value of sea wall 330 and peas 30-32 and we will look at that new york what forms of participation. >> >> rent maybe appropriate and generally speaking how we can repay the private investment as

quickly as possible, and finally and i think this is something that the public really wants to hear. the term sheet needs to articulate the way the city plans to pay for the services to address neighborhood impacts so if there are a number of police officers required around the larger events how specifically is the city planning on paying for the police officers? if dwd crews need to be dispatched around the facility how is that funding going to work? and maybe the most important issue -- there is additional transit service required to get people to and from the site and how when muni is already stressed financially how does the city plan to address those transportation needs? so we will work with the warriors and

staff and the board with those issues and look forward to coming to you in april or before for your consideration of that, and finally after environmental review is complete then we would bring to both the port commission and the board of supervisors the more detailed transaction documents associated with the project that are typical in a development deal like this, and we would use the period of environmental review and permitting to negotiate all of those transaction documents, so now i would like to invite jennifer mattes up. thank you. >> i just want to acknowledge for everyone listening this is a long presentation and i appreciate everyone's patience. there is a lot to cover. we have been busy over the last months trying to develop this proposal from many different facets. we have been looking at the business deal and transportation and design and

it's a lot at once . at the board of supervisors we're doing this in two hearings and looking at fiscal feasibility tomorrow and design and transportation next monday in an informational hearing so i want to thank folks. the next piece of the presentation will be familiar to some members of the public that have come to the cac meetings and the members of the commission that i briefed in close session and i want to discuss the conceptual framework that in whichs the feasibility report that is now before the board. as brad mentioned there was appraisal done on the two sites prior to negotiating the conceptual framework that looked at the fair market value of both a lease of sea wall lot 330 and a sale as well as piers lot 30-32 that had current zoning

but improved site for 30-32 and those are the values to model in the conceptual framework, so the central terms of the conceptual framework that the warriors will privately finance all of the development on both sites and the city will reimburse them for certain infrastructure for certain agreed upon improvements to infrastructure. that is capped at $120,000,000.13% cost of capital return that would agree on the expenditures made to improve public infrastructure. what's important in addition there being a hard cap on the amount of infrastructure spend, there's also a limited number of sources that the warriors would be eligible to get reimbursed from. rent credits from pier 30-32,

the sale of saw wall 30 and the value generated from the warrioros both sites. it's anticipated that would be collected to reimburse the warriors in a lump sum payment to pay down the infrastructure cost, so the 13% cost of capital has attracted a great deal of attention in the last few days and i would like to take a moment and put it in context and describe it a wa that hopefully eliminates some of the confusion. the 13% cost of capital reflects the cost of the money that the warriors would have to -- it reflects the cost and risk involved in financing public infrastructure. what we are proposing in this deal is asking them to pay for improvements to our property and the cost for borrowing that

money is high for any developer because it's risky money. that is money that doesn't have a return built into it. in order to get a return for money invested in infrastructure the entity doing the infrastructure has to do something next. they either have to sell the improved property or build upon it before there is potential for return and lenders know that. it's risky in the market to get that money. in addition there are two risks that the warriors bear in the conceptual framework as negotiated. one is if the cost for repairing the subtracture exceed $120 million they will not be reimbursed for that and if the sources do not fully repay them for their subtracture spend regardless of the amount there is no other recourse there is no other bucket to go to for reimbursement so really the combination of the cost of the

money, the cost of the funds being expended on the city's behalf and the risk taken by the warriors when they spend the money lead to the negotiated 13% cost of capital. by way of comparison when this type of money -- this is not unusual. i think what is really important to understand is that the city in its common practice and the port too -- i don't want to speak entirely for the port and i ask monique and the port to chime in. when the city asks private developers to contribute to the cost of infrastructure we do that in order to protect our balance sheet, and not put our public finance tools into what are risky public /private partnerships in ones we can often find value to repay the developers from the value

created. i'm not sure if i said clearly but if you look at hunter's point shipyard and treasure island and what we're looking at doing what happened down the port to a smaller degree and developers were asked to invest in the infrastructure and there is a rate for the capital in order to take into account the cost of borrowing those funds and the risk they're taking in improving our infrastructure, so this is really a common practice, and in the case of this particular deal when we're talking about repaying at a 13% interest what we're talking about is -- what we're talking about is repaying the warriors largely through the value that they created, either through the property tax increment they created by building vertical structures, by building the arena, building the open space, retail, condos on

the site that creates the property tax as well as the value -- the rent is only realizable if the subtracture -- the number i showed you is only available if the subtracture is improved. the two examples of the sprint center and barklies are not apples to apples because all sports venues we investigate are unique financing structures but these are examples of projects in which david equity was invested in a sport's facility and the return received by that investor for that investment. so other key provisions of the conceptual framework is that we may agree on other improvements which would be built and financed by the warriors and then

reimbursed by the city and one is the fire boats and excited to move forward on and think there is synergy moving the boat facility and engineer services further south and allowing to have those activities colocated on this pier. the warriors will pay all development impact fees. we have an agreement that the port will receive 1% of proceeds from sales of condos located on sea wall lot 330 and brad mentions this benchmarks the motion of having ongoing funding stream to pay for quality of life issues. brad covers the items in the sheet and in the interest of time and operations and as well as the community benefits and work force agreement. so the fiscal feasibility analysis -- another concern i have heard over the last few days is that

this analysis was not vetted adequately at the advisory committee. i presented the findings on october 16. the report came out october 23 and was distributed to the board of supervisors, to you all, to members of the public and the cac. the conclusions did not change from the time i made the presentation and in fact this presentation you're about to see is the same one i made to the cac and the same one i'm making to the board of supervisors tomorrow, so i just want to make that clear, so the fiscal feasibility is really just that. it's an early look at determining whether a project is feasible. it's not a determination whether it's advisable. it doesn't seek to how lucrative or costly the project maybe. it's a gate

keeping measure to ensure the city doesn't spend a lot on pre-development cost on a project that is not feasible. in this case that is being borne by the warriors and not subject to reimbursement from the proposal and staff cost and ceqa costs. sorry let me go back. fiscal feasibility has five components which are listed here. so the summary of the fiscal feasibility analysis findings is that the project would generate direct and indirect economic benefits of about $19 million annually and $53,000,000.01 time in city fees. the visitors spending is

approximately $60 million a year and there would be 2600 construction jobs and 1700 permanent jobs and those jobs are job year equivalent that created -- construction jobs during the three year construction time frame and those are permanent ongoing jobs that would be supported by the project. project funding we just described the basic structure. okay. for the operation and maintenance cost -- the warriors are going to assume all responsibility for the costs associated with sea

wall lot 330 and pier 30-32 and an early look at departmental expenditures the fire department and rec and park anticipate no fiscal imprakts from the project and we work with the police and mta and cost of impact and on going cost in order to service this new development. there is proposed use of public debt. the city may bond against the revenues for the project for improvement for the public infrastructure but the bonds don't obligate them. they're secured by the development that is on the site. so in today's action what we're asking the port to do is amend the exclusive negotiating agreement which is the framework for negotiating the transaction between the port and the warriors. we ask that you have

benchmarks for the framework and extend the date to endorse the term sheet. one of the concerns we heard from the public this is moving quickly and they want to understand the overall structure of this deal. we think pushing these dates back to a target date of february 15 and performance date of april 15 gives the time to work with the cac, interested stakeholders, you and the board of supervisors in order to create a robust sheet that answers many of the questions that have been raised so with they am happy -- so with that i would like to introduce rick welts and have just frame the project a little bit for us all. >> thank you jenn. thank you commissioners, port staff. my only role here today is express the commitment and enthusiasm of the warriors organization for the success of this project. i

could do that in about 90 minutes but thinking you might not be interested in that i have short bullets i will run through in three. i think first and foremost we are excited to be part of the solution to piers 30-32. as you know over two decades four proposals that were deep pocketed for this site. we are committed to making this one work and restoring the san francisco water use for use by all bay area residents. i think what is also important to you we believe that the project as presented will ensure new and ongoing maritime activity on all three sides of the pier site. certainly we have talked about the san francisco fire department, fire station, fire boat berths, te