example, when visiting teams come to play the warriors they tend to stay in san francisco. we were careful to try to only look at new and increased benefits. proposed construction costs are close to a billion. if you include hard costs -- >> supervisor avalos. >> sorry, to go back to the last slide. we are talking about net new jobs. i know there's been a discussion about existing workers that work for warriors coping to work here in san francisco. talking about new workers in addition for permanent employment jobs. >> that's correct. >> 1,712 new jobs on top of -- >> on top of what would be considered the transfer jobs, yes. >> great, thanks. >> proposed construction costs of close to a billion. i want to take a minute to pause and say it is our

work through research and consultants it is unprecedented to have a sports facility be privately financed. the sports facilities you see built and rehabed around the country really to one include direct public subsidies from state and local governments in order to finance the arenas. we are talking a billion respond, contributing only to substructure, only to the portion we own. the proposed funding, the city will reimburse warriors for improvements to infrastructure capped at 120 million. funds are restricted to three sources we have discussed. proposed operations and maintenance, we have reached out to city departments. the police funded the cost estimates are to be determined. we will be in -- the cost

will be associated with calls for service during events and non events. responses to illegal vendors and such. fire anticipates no direct fiscal impact from the project. number of staff and hours worked will not change as a result of this development. as mentioned by chief lombardi the san francisco department may contract with warriors for emergency services. certainly if they are co-located, that makes sense. no impact to the project as golden state warrior also pay to maintain open space they create. for dpw and mta we are currently working with both those departments. there will be parking and service officers. there will need to be traffic and cleaning services and other amenities determined as we move forward. as a parenthetical, we will get into this, peter albert is here, but we will have a

robust transportation as part of design hearing monday. we recognize transportation is probably the single biggest issue that needs to be addressed by this -- through this process in order to have a successful project. i have heard rick say several times it is not in their interest to have a project with bad transportation, not if the city or community's interest. we have heard it since the first meeting. >> supervisor avalos, a question? >> yes, please. just when it comes to police fire, currently with the willie mays park, giants stadium, i call it willie mays park, the giants do pay for part of funding for pmta and police services. isn't that correct? >> giants pay for all services that occur on the

premises. they pay extra when there are non related events, they pay the city extra for cost of the events. the giants pay ample taxes. it is the tax revenue that comes to the city's general fund that's been used to pay for supplemental services for mta, police, outside of their premises on game days. is that the model we were expecting for this development? >> i don't think so. we will endeavor to create a separate funding stream that has neighborhood oversight and input. maybe neighborhood control. this is something we need to -- in a cbd model you wind up having neighborhood or stakeholder control of pot of money that can be used to deploy to address issues that are often neighborhood issues. not sure we will have a cbd but what we are committed is creating a dedicated funding stream that is visible and discreet from

the city's commitment to ongoing maintenance and security. that the neighbors have said one of the things necessary is an ability to dial a response to impacts from having large numbers of people come in and out of the neighborhood. >> we don't have a real concept of what the funding mechanism would look like. >> we don't have a concept of the mechanism or what the funding stream is but that is something that, again, i think we will have -- >> having something is what you will want to have. >> we will have something and fleshed out by the term stage. it is a commitment of ours to sort of figure that piece out. >> great. >> thank you. >> the last issue that fiscal feasibility looks at is proposed use of debt. as discussed the city may bond against to reimburse for public infrastructure. we talked about isd bonds.

this is something we are bringing to the committee next week. we used cfds and ifds on waterfront projects. >> i will invite brad up to talk about how we move from conceptual framework to transaction documents to have you have an understanding of what are some of buckets and categories from what i have described talked about in the term sheets. >> good afternoon, supervisors. brad benson, special projects manager with the port representing monique moyer and port team. monique will be up to address the committee after the presentation. i think jennifer, if we could go with the slides please. jennifer i think gave up a fairly thorough description

of the conceptual framework, which is essentially the status of negotiation right now between parties, between warriors and owd and port staff. it was a staff recommendation to not seek an endorsement of the conceptual framework at this moment in time because the key questions. what is the cost of the substructure. what are the eligible costs for reimbursement under the conceptual framework. we need a level of due diligence. warrior also provide cost estimates to justify those expenditures and the city staff will do a third party review of the cost estimates before bringing a recommendation to you on those topics. we have outlined the three sources of repayment. we need to do additional

pro forma-based analysis of the entire development proposalal. really looking how you structure, financing for multipurpose venue of this type. as jennifer mentioned city has retained eps and barrett consulting. they have specific expertise in sports economic analysis. they will be advising the city team as we enter the term sheet negotiations. so at port commission last night the port commission approved a resolution delaying the exclusive time line for term sheet approval from concurrent with the fiscal feasibility analysis to this time later in the spring of 2013 to

allow that to go forward. i think jennifer in her presentation is also gone over the major areas we will be digging deeper into. members of the committee have a memo from jennifer outlining some of the major topics that will be addressed in term sheet negotiations. for the benefit of the public i will go over a few of those issues that we will be looking into. one, we have a project proposalal submitted by the warriors. we are in a very public process with citizens advisory committee, with hearings at the port commission and board of supervisors. we expect to hear about how the project may change and reflected on the term sheet. a few will go to the deep weather berth at the east face of 30, 32. we appreciate the fact

warriors are looking into how to make that a functioning berth. that is something we have heard from our constituency. you heard from the chief earlier. to make the fire station work on north berth of pier 30, we will have to take a kles -- close look how it is designed and mission and has full functionality for the fire department. we also have site circumstances like red's java house. that is a contributing resource to the district the finger piers are in. we need to make sure that is treated in a way that maintains the integrity of the district. secondly we are talking about use of public finance to repay warrior's private financing of the pier substructure improvement. that may involve debt issuance over a 30-year period of time.

we need to have a very detailed discussion about how that is secured, to ensure there are ongoing revenues to continue paying that debt. that is something we will discuss with director of public finance and others who work on finance in the city. i think jennifer has talked a lot about the project financing that we will address through the pro forma analysis and discuss what the city is obliged to repay and community benefits. how specifically is city through the term sheet with warriors establishing a way to pay for police, neighborhood cleanup and additional transit service. those have to be answered in the term sheet. after the term sheet is approved, it would be

endorsed by the port commission and board of supervisors. it is non-binding, reflects intention of parties headed into environmental review. during the period of environmental review city staff would negotiate a more detailed set of transaction documents governing the sale of seawall lot 30 and long-term lease of piers 3032 and those would be subject to both port commission approval and board of supervisors approval. that is expected in early 2014. so quite a -- >> before you go forward supervisor kim has a question. >> seems like actually maybe your next slide was going into a schedule. i'm looking at the memo and says term sheet will be before port for consideration. i know there's a lot of

concerns coming from our neighborhoods in south beach, rin con hill and mission bay about how quickly this is moving through. understanding how ambitious this is and of course time line warriors are under given their lease expiration at coliseum in oakland but being real concerns about answering the questions and addressing neighborhood concerns within this time frame. between february and april is general. can we get a precise time line? >> february is a target date. april 15th is a benchmark. it is not uncommon in negotiations to have a date but have an outside date which doesn't require any amendments or changes in the -- in the previously agreed upon approvals with policy makers, so i don't have a more specific date

between the two. we are committed to take as much time to do a thorough job negotiating the term sheet and bringing it to policy makers. there is from my understanding based upon other ports, there is an interest in understanding business terms of the deals for this. we welcome that engagement. we were at the port commission and heard a lot of concern about the fact the first four cac have been information transfers from city and port staff in order to bring incredibly dedicated and intelligent lay people up to speed around what is required for water front development. there hasn't been time for internal processing. we have gone to the public

in the form of workshops as much as desired in order to have inter ak t workshops that are less kind of presentation, sort of just receiving information to understand where this is next going. we view fiscal feasibility as a launching pad. it is the beginning of the process. in no ways the end of the process. it is the beginning of the process of being able to discuss this project and being able to start providing some of the answers to the questions around the impacts. happen within the seek what framework. challenges are identified. i'm happy to go through the schedule. >> i want to say given the fact we have the holidays coming up with thanksgiving and really just a week and a half and through the holidays i think a lot of folks are concerned about their ability to keep up and attend so many meetings and give feedback and ask proper questions necessary. i know proposing to start

scoping meetings in december and having the terms in february is fast. i'm wondering what we can do in terms of commiting to a process that i think our constituents can keep up with. i think what you said is accurate. we have a wonderful citizens advisory committee but they have other jobs o ther than what we do. we get to spend time every day, focusing and asking questions. we truly want neighborhood input and want to -- whether it appears we are rushing through this process because of how much a priority -- i agree. how much a priority it is to bring the warriors to san francisco. we want to see that happen but not at the expense of the process. >> we absolutely agree. this only works if it truly works. it is not unprecedented to go from an exclusive

negotiating agreement to this. we had an a three-month meeting before it passed accountability but then took time from fiscal feasibility to have the environmental approvals. we have a schedule i can discuss with you. the proposed meetings between now & january. i will be at the maritime meeting tomorrow to talk about the maritime proposals for the three sides of the pier on 19th as i mentioned at 1 p.m. there is is a land use hearing which will be an informational hearing. we have had presentations in the cac, now the port commission and felt like it was important to do that at the board of supervisors prior to asking decision on fiscal feasibility. depending on what happens today, budget and finance will propose to be at the

full board of supervisors november 20th for consideration of fiscal feasibility. because the lead architect is going to be if town on the 19th for the land use we propose to have a workshop, not a full meeting. but design workshop on the lot 330 on tuesday evening to take advantage of him being in town. i have heard concerns about that time. we would obviously bring him back after the holidays to do that again. nothing will progress based on the feet back. it would be a shame not the make full use of his time while here given that he had updated thoughts on that development. many of the neighbors are as interested in what is going on in lot 330 as arena. december 4th we are having third transportation workshop in which peter 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