assess the clinical outcomes and behaviors of h.i.v. infected adults receiving care in tunds. this has been in place for about seven years and is conducted nationally across 17 states, six cities. this is a continuation of this grant and amount referenced by the clerk. >> just a little bit going toward what the public speaker said previously, can you explain what this would be used for so the public, who does not have documents, can understand what is going on. >> this is to enhance surveillance, provide coverage for staff to enhance with followup with questions of surveillance activities to find patients who have fallen out and assess reasons why they have not remained engaged to hair and health but connect them to h.i.v. care. >> this does not require matching funds nor additional hiring of staff, correct? >> correct. >> okay. this also does not have a budget analyst report. are there members of the public who wish to speak on

this item? item number three. >> i'm just a little confused. item three or four? >> item number three. >> i'm on the next one, thanks. >> are there other members of the publics who wish to speak on item number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. [pounding of the gavel] >> do we have a motion to send this forward with recommendation? >> so moved. >> we have a motion, we will do that without objection, thank you. item four. >> resolution authorizing san francisco department of health to retroactively accept and exopinioned grant from health resources services administration entitled enhancing engagement and retention of quality h.i.v. for trancegender women of color, demonstration sites for september 1, 2012 through august 31,2013 and waiving indirect costs. >> mr. goodwin? >> thank you. this was noticed as an announcement by the h.i.v.

a.i.d.s. bureau of health association in march of last year. we applied for funding, a continuing five-year grant, with the partnership of the collaboration of a health center and asian-american pacific islander center and receiving ryan white funds for providing excellent services in the tenderloin area, which is basically primary care and support services to keep people with h.i.v. engaged in care. this grant is a spins grant, special projects of national significance, which sets up a demonstration model to evaluation and monitor the efficacy of providing services within a specific population or model. this is particularly for transgender women of color and will be focused on that population in the

tenderloin. >> thank you very much. on this item it looks like a $1.5 million, five-year grant that has been given to us, or it has been granted to the city with $300,000 in each year. >> correct. >> no matching funds are required of the general fund and no additional hires? >> correct. >> okay. why don't we open this open for public comment if there are no other questions. is there a members of the public or members who wish to speak on item four? >> thanks, supervisor. to be clear i'm not critiquing the individuals or departments. i fully support -- >> please speak into the microphone. >> tom king once again, thanks. my comments are not a critique of the efficacy of the program or the efficacy of the staff or departments; it is really about funding and reducing costs. on this specific item -- i understand this is a specific grant we have

already received, but i think the main issue has to do with i guess what i would call the hyphenization of san francisco. for some reason city government feels that we need to be compartmentalized i want sub cat girs. people with h.i.v. a.i.d.s. should have a separate allocation but why the need to break down the segment even further? you know, this is h.i.v. positive, transgender woman of color. what about transgender men or transgender woman of no color, which i imagine would be white. again, i don't quite understand that. in san francisco there is no majority race. i believe in the last census that was determined. so i guess it is just the -- like i said, the hyphenization is of less importance than helping everyone as a whole, thanks.

>> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item, number four. public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> we have a motion to send the item forward without recommendation and we will do that without objection. item five, please. resolution authorizing san francisco department of public health to accept and expend grant of 300,000 from health resources and services to participate in program entitled special projects of national significance to build homes for h.i.v. homeless, populations at september 1,2012 and august 31,2013 and waiving indirect costs. >> this is a grant announced about the same and s.p.i.n.s. grant and demonstration model. this specifically is for

looking at the challenges of finding the multiply diagnosed homeless population living with h.i.v. and engage them in care and keep them engaged in care. it is a similar project that will be funded for five years. the maximum amount of 300,000 per year. >> this again similarly no matching general fund funding or additional san francisco personnel hired. >> correct. >> okay. why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item five? come on up. >> supervisor, tom king again. i'm not quite sure i understood the actually agenda item. when it says to participate, building a medical home, are they referring to building a facility for h.i.v. positive homeless individuals? is that -- >> why don't you finish your public comment. >> my comment was based on

that. if it is not, it is moot. i just think that all people with h.i.v. should feel part of the community as whole, not an isolated part. they should be welcomed by everyone. employers, landlords, et cetera. not a separate facility, thanks. >> thanks very much. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item five. public comment is closed. to answer this gentleman's question, the home means where they receive primary services. it is not necessarily a physical place where they are housed but a term used to describe where someone receiving their primary care services, their medical home. so with that, colleagues, do we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation? okay. we will do that without objection. to mr. goodwin. before you do good can i ask you to follow up with the gentleman with some of the questions he had regarding why it was that the grants were structured

the way they were. i think that would be helpful, thank you. item six, please. >> six, authorization authorizing san francisco as primary grantee of urban areas initiative and the uasi to accept and expend 2012 grant in amount of 21,931,312 from the u.s. department of homeland security through the california emergency management agency for the period of october 12,2012 through may 31,2014. >> thank you. we have the department of emergency management on this item. >> thank you, chairwoman chu and supervisors kim and avalos. i'm with the san francisco department of emergency management. the item is the annual urban area security grant the u.s. department of homeland security grants to the entire bay area region. it is in front of you today. as you know, san francisco

is the fiscal agent for the bay area, uasi. the total grant is approximately 22 million. the grant supports projects and public safety agencies throughout the bay area. the money is not just for san francisco; it also funds the almeda sheriff, police department, san jose police, santa cruz county fire department, the fremont fire department and many other public safety agencies. here in san francisco the grant will fund planners at my agency, department of emergency management. it will fund radio communications equipment for the police department and department of public health. apparatus for the fire department. supplies and equipment and things many first-respond errs use in san francisco . this resolution creates no new positions in san francisco and there are no matching funds required by the city. the resolution is retroactive because the performance period for grant began the day we received the award letter,

october 12th. we have a short time to spend the grant, 18 months. i'm happy to answer questions you may have. >> thank you very much. for this item we did not have a budget analyst report because san francisco is acting as a fiscal at. the money is accepted legally through us. we distribute it per the grant requirements and uasi, or regional body. why don't we go to -- before public comment we have a question. supervisor avalos? >> thank you. just a quick question. you mentioned nert as being one of the services funded locally in san francisco with the grant wha. are the services within nert that will be funded. >> what the grant will be paying for will be equipment used by the nert volunteers. so it is the safety equipment they might use. there is portable lighting. trailers to store their equipment. it is not funding for personnel but for the physical equipment the volunteers use. >> great, thank you.

just a question about nert. i'm pretty interested in a program. i have done a lot of work with residents in my district who are volunteers with nert. but i don't see the volunteer base expanding in a visible way and wondering perhaps we can have a conversation moving forward and where we see the program going and how to make sure that the program can actually be as robust as it needs, given a disaster happening in our neighborhoods and how do we do, looking at recruitment and where you see the program moving forward. >> i appreciate that comment. i think the nert program is appreciative from the board of supervisors. as you know main leadership is at the san francisco fire department. i think my agency and fire department would be happy by to follow up and have a lengthy conversation about that. >> and i know a lot of the uasi grant money goes for funding equipment. but is there also funding

that can actually, you know, help fund boots on the ground, networks of people in san francisco who are not necessarily staffed at one of our department but community members. not to fund their work but make sure we have an organizational structure in san francisco that can be responsive in our neighborhoods, given a disaster. >> that is good question and worth looking into. the grant does fund some ongoing existing positions in san francisco government. you know, some of the work our planners do has to do at dem has to do with engaging the community. one of the positions funded through this grant is at the general services. the job is to engage community organizations organize folks in neighborhoods to participate in disaster planning and response and recovery. so i am not sure the funds could actually fund individuals that are outside of city government

but i can tell you right now it does fund city positions whose job it is to reach out to and coordinate with folks in the community, including in your neighborhoods. >> i'm not interested in people getting funded that are not part of city government but just within a structure that exists perhaps outside city government that people can connect with from our neighborhoods to actually have a solid, you know, network on the ground folks who can be involved in disaster relief in neighborhoods. >> sure. it is worth looking into. if it is not through this particular uasi grant, there are a number the federal government offers including one specifically for nonprofits for disaster preparedness that may be a source of funding for the type of activity you are discussing. >> we can talk about it off-line, just wanted to bring it here on the mic and appreciate your time. >> great, happy to follow up on that.

>> ra quell is the person to reach out to. >> why don't we open this up. are there members who wish to speak on item six? come forward. >> hi again, supervisors. tom king. congratulations to the department for securing such a great enlarged grant. i run a small charity myself. unfortunately our grants are several decimal points to the left. i think the presenter in front of me answered a lot of the questions i had. my main hope is that some of the moneys can be used to stop the huge problem in san francisco we have with human trafficking, especially trafficking of women. look at the back pages of san francisco weekly or bay guardian for confirmation of this enormous issue. i hope that could be allocated in some fashion, thank you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item, item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send the item

forward with recommendation? we have that motion, we can do that without objection. thank you. item seven. >> item seven, resolution finding the project proposed by gsw arenas, llc, an affiliate of the golden state warriors to rehabilitate port property at piers 30-32, develop on the pier multipurpose venue usable for public uses and other events such as convention, warriors home games, cultural events, family shows and performing arts and other uses including public space. retail and related parking facilities and develop on seawall lot 330 residential, hotel and/or retail uses and accessory parking in fiscally feasible and responsible under code 29 urging city and port officials to make evaluating and proposed

project among its highest priorities and to take all appropriate steps to further environmental review of the proposed project. >> thank you very much. on this item we do have a number of presenters. we first will have jennifer, from the office of economic and workforce development who will give a presentation. after jennifer completes her presentation, we will have monique morrier, offering her comments and to the budget analyst report on this item. before we begin, just for folks who are in the overflow room, we have an overflow room, room 263 that is available. if there are members of the public who are in that room that wish to speak during public comment we will make sure you have the opportunity to speak. just want to make sure you are aware of that. jennifer. >> thank you, good morning, supervisors. i'm jennifer matz from the office of economic and workforce development. i appreciate you holding this hearing under the

somewhat compromised circumstances of no power. or compromised power. this is a meeting for the proposed warrior arena, the piers 30-32 and seawall project. by way of background fiscal faoez bt, its purpose is for the board of supervisors to determine whether a proposed project is fiscally feasible before substantial predevelopment costs are incurred. it is a gate keeping measure that ensures costs are not occurred on infeasible. does not include approvals or entitlements. fiscal feasibility is required by law when a project is on city-owned property, construction costs over $25 million and pre-development costs of over a million. the determination must be completed before environmental review can commence. it is a relatively recent law. we have not done physical feasibility on all but we have done reviews of the explore tor yum, america's

cup and san francisco wholesale produce mart. i would like to invite rick welts up to talk about this project. it seems a little bit -- doesn't seem to give enough context as we talk about fiscal feasibility for a project that you haven't seen or heard the description or seen or heard this opportunity. we will be having a full design and transportation presentation in board of supervisors land use committee next monday but i wanted to give warrior's president rick well ts a couple minutes to talk about the vision for this arena. i want to yield to him. >> thank you, jennifer. supervisors. i am going to take a couple minutes to do an overview of the project design that has been released to date, the image you are seing in front of you right now is looking at the south part of piers 30, 32 and view north toward the bay bridge. couple of things of note on

this. the design is meant right now more amassing design than architectural design. the arena that's placed 600 feet away from the embarkadero as far as it can be for several reasons, to enhance the view corridors, preserve the views of bay bridge, especially for those coming from the south. the arena will be transparent in nature, utilizing primarily glass so that it is as transparent as it can possibly be on the site. as you can see, the early design concept shows that on the south side of the pier recreational use that steps down in the water. this slide shows more of the entire site plan. you can see the position of proposed arena. also see along the embarkadero on the piers 30-32 site about 135,000

square feet of retail proposed. perhaps the most distinguishing feature you can see on this slide is the fact that over 50% of the site -- in fact, quite a bit more than 50% of the site in the plan that's been proposed, over seven acres of new open public space, that obviously with investment and rehabilitating the piers is what we think is a tremendous new public space opportunity in san francisco. the perimeter on all three sides will have access to the public at all times for pedestrian traffic as well as bicycle traffic. you can see that it actually from the water side on the south steps up to a plus 45 on the north side of the pier. that allows us to do several things. from an experience of those patrons who will be coming to events there it allows us to enter those patrons

on the main con course and go down to their seats, or up to their seats, which will greatly experience the fan experience. one of the other things you see is robust maritime opportunities. part of the plan proposes to relocate the fire boat station to this site. the three vessels you see on the north side to the left represent the city's fire boat fleet. there is a placeholder on the north and south side of the pier that is envisioned to accommodate water taxi, ferry landings and private craft in the lower right-hand corner of the site. we are very excited about having this enter into the review so these ideas can be fully vetted. the design will evolve as

that takes place. >> in order to do the fiscal feasibility analysis it was important to come up with a broad outline of the proposed business terms for this deal. so the warriors in the city in port work to come up with a conceptual framework. that is not before you today as part of the resolution. i think it is important to take a few minutes to describe the framework that forms the assumption in the feasibility report. the framework says this. the warrior also privately finance all development on piers 30, 32 and seawall lot 30. the city and port will reimburse warriors for agreed upon improvements for city-owned infrastructure. expenditures for improvement are reimbursable expenditures are capped at $120 million. funds for reimbursing those are limited to three sources. let me take each of those three individually. the warriors will privately finance all development. all buildings and

improvements, including the multipurpose entertainment venue will be financed by the warriors. estimated cost is $1 billion. they will also finance rehabilitation of piers 30-32 with estimated cost of $120 million. the public open space and maritime amenities and other amenity also be privately financed. that includes as rick mentioned 50% will be public open space, public small craft boat launch on suit side for kayaks. anticipate ferries and water taxis and excursions on the north side and exploring the feasibility of maintaining deep water berth on the east side of the facility. the city will reimburse -- city and port will reimburse warrior for agreed upon improvements the city owned infrastructure capped at 120 million with 13% cost of capital. the cost is estimated to be $120 million but if the conceptual framework creates space that if through cost saves thing

rehabilitation of piers is less than 120 the city and warriors may negotiate for other public improvements up to the cap. those would include increased amounts of open space and maritime amenities. there's been a great deal of conversation around this 13% cost of capitol. i want to take a minute to hopefully clearly explain what that means. when you look at other public private partnerships the city has engaged in over the years in which we have asked private partners to improve our infrastructure, there is a cost and rate of return which is often negotiated in those deals. in the hunter's partnership yard the rate of return was 20%. treasure island was 18.5. the lend lease deal proposed for piers 30-32 years ago had a 12.5 rate of return. the 13% rate of return reflects the risk that the warriors are taking in

investing in our infrastructure. as i will continue to descrape because the sources are capped and because the sources may never equal 120 million, it is extraordinary risky for them to invest in our infrastructure. the funds for reimbursing costs are limited to three sources. rent credits from piers 30-32, valued at 1.9 million a year. the sale price of seawall lot 30, valued at 30 million a year and new property tax revenue generate bid the yards your's development on both locations through creation of infrastructure financing district, estimated to yield about 5.8 million a year. >> to clarify the sales price is not per year, it is one time. >> one-time. the estimated total value of an infrastructure financing district, the amount that we could bond against for future property tax revenue off these two is approximately estimated to be 50 million.

these values were determined by an appraisal that was conducted by the department of real estate with instructions provided by the city and port. there is then -- >> just one second. jennifer, we do have a few questions. supervisor a loss. >> thank you, chair chu. feeling a need to kick the tires a little bit. but looking at my notes here, when we had america's cup before us. >> yep. >> there was a discussion about seawall lot 330, that being a portion to use to help subsidize development, at that time the seawall lot 330 was assessed at 33million, now 30 million. how are we at the difference? we have seen property values increase generally over the past few months.

how are we at a lower property value? >> we did three appraisals under the america's cup. the value,ly need help from brad, who i know is here, we did three appraisals piers -- excuse me, the seawall lot and take the value of the america's cup and that was lower than the 30 million that we are valuing it at. we had one that came in at 3 3 million, we had two others that brought an average down to an amount we agreed upon to use for transfer value, lower than 30 million. 30 million that is reflected came out of one appraisal in today's dollars and determined based upon looking at comparable sales -- recent comparable sales. >> right now we have not necessarily an agreement but understanding about 30 million. >> we have an understanding that is the number we will be using with some index

for time when the transfer actually occurs. >> when we have term sheet, probably be more set in stone? >> absolutely. that is one of the recurring points i would like to make in the hearing is it is through the term sheet that all financial assumptions i'm presenting will be born -- borne out and backed up with a robust fiscal analysis, that will be back to you this spring. it is that time we will ask you to opine on interest rate and structure. now this is conceptual, it create an outside framework for where this deal is going. >> i know the value of $30 million for seawall lot 330 comes with some assumptions about size, height, usage. what are we assuming? >> assuming current zoning and current conditions, what we asked the appraisers to do is look at highest and best use to maximum the development potential. whether or not as we all

know waterfront development in san francisco is contentious and often times the maximum development that is allowed under zoning winds up being something that is a negotiation. so it anticipates -- the appraisal was based on the maximum development on that site. >> include what is kind of height. >> the heights today i believe are 105 feet on that site. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. i also wanted to ask in terms of what supervisor avalos was alluding to, we will see the term sheet that will come before us probably sometime next year. >> that will layout specifically the items. in terms of creating a conceptual framework, the thinking is we are able to put some level of price, some kind of value on these three different reimbursable sources so that they will be able to say reasonably we can get to 120 millionto