this project. it seems to be very high to me. thank you very much. >> thank you. okay. manual forflez and after that ron miguel. >> good evening madam chairman, fellow commissioners. my name is manuel florez and part of the carpenters union close to 33 years and over the years i have seen a lot of projects but i tell you the designs i see for this one. this is what you call a smart development. what does that mean "a smart equipment". i am talking about a world class arena. >> >> i'm looking beyond the jobs what this can do for the city and county of san francisco. i will the team here is well aware of what they're up against that

it's an uphill battle but they're here rolling up their sleeps. good economic sense and it can be done. you know we're going to get a lot of noise. we're going to get a lot of dust. we're going to get a lot of traffic no doubt and you know what? somebody's view is going to be blocked, but at the end of the day this can work. a first class arena for the city and county of san francisco. that's what we need. that's what we deserve because this is a city that knows how no doubt. they know how to do it and i look forward to more of these discussions. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you. ron miguel and after ron eric mcdonald. >> commissioners ron miguel. i am a member of the piers

30-32cac. a few comments actually. there was a comment about the volume of material maybe because of the number of cac's i have served on and five years on the planning commission that's part of the job. wait until these people see the eir is all i have to say. that's part of the job and it does take time. takes a lot of time and that's why citizens serve on cac's and commissions such as you are doing because they're willing to put the time in. katie ladel was absolutely correct. the cac so far has been nothing but a public sounding board. we have taken the public so you wouldn't have to here in a way to be very truthful but that should not be its purpose, and it is my hope and i have been talking to katie and others on it at least come january we will start to

function as actually advisory group and i think we can do so and i believe we can do so very effectively. there has been a misconception what a fiscal pleasablity study actually is. i know this from the large volume of email conversations i've had as well as a number of private conversations including some this morning next door in pier one at the port's affair breakfast this morning. people do not understand what it is, either commissioner katdz or sue hester can correct me but i believe it was put in place by then supervisor aaron peskin as a baseline so the city on large projects can say this can pencil out or can't. it should stop some fly by night stuff people

tried to propose and it serves that purpose. it's vetted by harvey rose and says yeah it can fly if all of these things come into play. they come into place at the time of the term sheet and the last negotiations. they're sort of in my opinion the fiscal fiscallablity study is like an eir and takes the big box and study everything in the box and see whether it's possible, what are the mitigations, and then guild within that box. the same thing with the fiscal feasibility study it's to look at it and come down to the actual terms. i know it's a very aggressive plan. the concept to play in arena in 2017 blew everyone's mind and still does. i don't know if it can be done. i really don't in this city but i

think there is a responsibility of the cac, of the commission and certainly the board of supervisors to see whether it's possible and i look forward to the process, so as long as people understand that this city works by process, and usually does it pretty well. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment? please identify yourself. >> i was the last name you called. >> i'm sorry. >> eric mcdonald. three facts. i'm a resident and chief operating way for united way the bay area and member of the cac and with the first hat with growing up for the city this is a tremendous opportunity on a number of fronts and economic development, growth, revitalization of a section of the city that should welcome

that. working with the united way we're are looking to reduce poverty and economic growth for the individuals in the economic and increase access to african-american and other minorities and work opportunities and lastly as a cac member i would echo the last person's comments that one the fiscal feasibility says there is room for a discussion in my mind very much like a grand jury which says the trial can go forward and doesn't presume guilt or innocence and allows it proceed and this does that and allows us to proceed and the process whether or not to go forward and i am confident the cac, that we didn't have opportunity yet to dive diseeply, it's the right form and space and we have time to do that on the issues identified and prepare and present a set of recommendations that i believe

will allow the product to move forward so thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. gail kayhill. anybody else that would like to speak after r she's the last that we have public comment. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. we live in blocks away from the pier 30-32 and the sea wall development. i echo what my neighbors have said the speed at which this is hurtelling towards approval. i was struck by what jennifer said and said they had the discussion on business terms and financial aspects but not a mention of community input and the way the advisory community has been disempowered and on the side lines so there is no meaningful input. i have concern about the threarn%

return and i will condition to think about it and i looked at the eps statement that was provided today and back up why 13% is reasonable and dan barrett of barrett's spot group is one of the persons cited in the group and he has research in projects like this and sports arenas and other things and in 2011 talking about the kingace project in kak kak he said "a city must do the due diligence with projects like this and particularly with opportunities come risks and challenges and those risks and challenges have to be weighed carefully before you move forward". i do not feel that the current process is giving due weights to the concerns of the neighborhood whose quality of life is going

to suffer traditionally unless mitigations are made and if this project is so great for san francisco and i hope it is. we have tickets for warriors tickets. we request there is nothing wrong to put it front of the citizenry and with respectful deliberation. thank you. >> thank you. >> sue hester i got my feet wet in this area by participating in the giants project, and that went on for several years, and the giants showed us all how it is done. they worked with the community, the community of their neighbors, the broader community of the city. the eir took a couple of years at the port and the planning

commission, the board of supervisors, and this was after they were on the ballot twice, and there was a huge discussion. instead we have a cooked deal. i don't know how familiar you are with what you're voting on. you are voting on a schedule, and you're voting on rejecting the eir alternatives. the study that you have before you, and there are many studies, the conceptual framework says the port rejects out of hand at the start of the process any alternative site especially any site north of the -- north of here, or south of here. north of here is fully developed. no one in their right mind is proposing an arena north of the bay bridge, but the port commission is voting to reject alternatives. you are setting

a schedule, and you have heard at the beginning of the calendar that the cac said wait this is coming too fast. it is hard to participate as a member of the public for those residents in the area to participate when this is coming so fast and there is a lovely organization from everyone who made the presentations for the warriors and the court and omd and every meeting that the cac has, so i would ask you what are you voting on? additionally i just want to say there are no rendering that we have seen anything about the -- how the stadium and the arena looks at from where people live coming up on the embarcadero on the west side and they are planning on a mounding and a mounding is

going to affect people's views of the bridge, people's views of the waterfront, so we are going much, much too fast, and what are you voting on folks? you should ask your staff. what scheduling -- what assumptions you're voting on for alternative sites? thank you. >> is there any further public comment? i hope it up now for comments and questions from the commissioners. >> if you could -- brad and both of you come back up. i think one of the things i appreciate the presentations and comments that everyone has made. this i think several of the speakers alluded to and one of the great things about san francisco there is so much participation in

everything, and you both articulate the more about what the fiscal feasibility study is and what it does and if you could detail that a little more? explain the cost of capital versus the rate of return. and also give more indication of the schedule and how the cac will be able to participate after the fiscal feasibility study if it goes forward that the cac has time to weigh in all the issues raised. >> i want to acknowledge this is an accelerated schedule and we were presented with an opportunity and i understand the anxieties and concerns and apprehensions of neighbors whose neighborhoods would change if this project is developed, and what i think we want to do is embrace those concerns and work with them constructively in a very deliberate fashion, but we are also trying to do is make

sure that this opportunity remains a viable opportunity for the city and for the port, and in order to do that we need to move on two parallel tracks and i don't think one precludes the other in any way. the golden state warriors want to start the environmental review process and scope and ask the questions about what are the environmental impacts and quite overlapping -- very much so with what are the community impacts and start to address ways to address those impacts and that is where we will be getting opportunities to look at how a neighborhood can evolve and respond to this opportunity and it's only when that process begins is when we can start answering those questions. we can identify the challenges but we can't propose potential answers to those unless we are doing it through the eir process so this is very much a beginning process. i

absolutely acknowledge -- in fact my colleagua brad and i were talking and katie ladel is right and the other cac members it's a deluge of information to bring citizens not necessarily well versed in real estate development in private public partnerships towp speed is who is the waterfront plan? what is the special area plan? what are pro formas and term sheets? and an effort to give fownchzal information as possible and get to where we are which is truly the beginning there is a lot of talk and we are committed to moving forward in the cac process whether workshop format or a format where there is less formalized agendas but opportunities for free flowing comment and the meetings more

productive for everyone and responding thoughtfully. that is something we're willing to do this the many, many months ahead that face this project. i will say again on the 13% what i want to emphasize is that the 13% is reflects the cost of capital that the warriors will have to go out and borrow in order to invest in our public infrastructure. the city uses its balance sheet and its ability to publicly finance infrastructure for things like roads and parks and a hospital and a new public safety building, and laqueena honda and mos conia expansion and the cruise ship terminal. we invest in our public infrastructure all the time and we do it on things that benefit the public

broadly. when we have opportunities to allow a public -- to allow a private partner to take the risk of infrastructure improvements and then be repaid through the value that they create we protect our -- we protect our public finance tools for things that only government can fund, and we think that continuing a model that's really been perfected under redevelopment in which the value that is created is reinvested to pay back our private partners for the infrastructure that they pay for is a good model to try to emulate on a specific case by case basis, and it is one that has been used with success in some variety of way, in mission bay, on the shipyard, treasure island and we continue to look at for other waterfront projects. i don't know if that

answers all of your questions. >> the other part of your question was exactly what is the fiscal feasibility analysis, and jennifer went over that in her presentation. it's a series of very explicit questions asked by the administrative code which really go to are there enough sources and uses of fund it's or enough sources of funds to pay for the plan's project and what are the economic and sort of work force impacts of the project? and it's really looking at -- it's a city wide look, and because of that -- because it's a city economic analysis of these major projects we typically don't ask the port commission to endorse the fiscal feasibility report. we have an informational hearing like we

had tonight and then goes on to the board of supervisors that takes the action under chapter 29. likewise we never have brought a report to a citizen's advisory committee of the report. it's a staff generated document sometimes with the help of consultants, and we certainly share those reports with our interested cac's but we're not asking them to review and comment on the cac. not that we don't do this with this cac and there is a level of interest and we want to honor that in the report, so the only action before the port commission today is really slow down the schedule for the term sheet. it was contemplated that we would be in front of you seeking term sheet approval about thou and for all the reasons we mentioned earlier in the presentation we think it's important to slow that down and consider coming back in follow between that period of

february and april so that's the ac in front of you tonight. >> i guess -- thank you. for what i was getting at for the people that are concerned the opportunity is still there. this is not weighing in on most of the issues with respect to final plans with respect to transportation or views or anything else that comes up, but it does open up the opportunity to start the eir process where that is all weighed in, and we several hope san francisco in its inevitable fashion people will weigh in and as jeffrey said it lends to a better project and it's not always pretty but people are involved with the city and important to get that and that feedback as things move forward. >> commissioner. >> yeah. i would like to have mike come to mic for a minute.

first of all rick i know you have heard all the comments here today, the good and the bad and i know people have concerns. it seems you have commitment to address the concerns of the people, the citizens of san francisco so would you like to say something about that and listening to what people have to say is important for the citizens of san francisco and would you like to say something to that and i know you want them to be satisfied that you want to work -- this is a joint effort with the warriors but also the community involved as a partner. >> thank you for that opportunity. i think our interest coincide. i really do and the report that jennifer referenced projects that the

warrior's ownership group is funding this to the tune of $1 billion, this project, and that is being done privately. for that project to be successful -- it's truly unprecedented and even some of the examples that we looked at and in the discussion there and talking about other arenas and talks about public investment, public tax dollars in those facilities. this is a very different proposal from those that have been referenced here, so in order for that project to work we have exactly the same needs. okay. we need trpg to work. we need parking to work because if not we're making a really bad investment, so i think for the most part our -- the concerns expressed very much represent the things that we have to tackle and things that we have to tackle and get right and we are committed to the public process. i know that we've had a lot of references to

how quickly this is going but i don't think there has been a meeting or request from anyone from the warriors or anyone on the team to be somewhere and talk that hasn't been fulfilled going forward to make sure we get the benefit of that input in creating a project that will be successful and not only for the city but good investment for the warriors. >> thank you. >> well rick while you're up there and i know you have heard some other comments too about minority businesses participating and we hope that you take that to heart as things progress in terms of hiring tenants in some of the other facilities. >> it's certainly heard. thank you. >> commissioner brandon. >> what's left to say? i personally think this could be a win-win for everyone. i think this could be a great project. i don't think we have done a good job in giving the envelope

to the community that they need. >> >> i think the cac is extremely valuable to us and we have depended on them for all of the projects and really want to hear your opinions good, bad and indifferent and we want to hear what you have to say and as jennifer said we need to do a better job and hopefully with this extension -- one thing i didn't hear in the presentation and this sheet of the future community meetings and all of the opportunities for people to give input and i would add one or two more cac meetings to this agenda just to make sure we're getting the input; that the community is involved in the project and i think it could be a win-win for everyone and i was lucky to be here when the giants was going through this and we heard some of the same concerns and we're not going to make everyone happy but we're going to try and the giants have been

great neighbors and i know the warriors will too. thank you everyone. >> okay. i guess i get a chance now. i want to thank the public for all the comments this afternoon and also the port staff and owd and we have been having ongoing discussions. there are a lot of questions out there and some were raised by everyone and i think we need to put the fiscal feasibility study in the right one text. it's the beginning. we have questions in terms of timing and the financials work in the long run and cash flows and other things so some of it may look worse on the surface than it is and we need to make sure as we understand the process and get the information that the financials do turn out as commissioner brandon said and a win-win. i think i echo my fellow commissioners in terms

of what was said and i think the idea of having more meetings with the cac and scheduling because the pace and the schedule probably is going to be very fast but we can certainly do something about the opportunity to have more dialogue with the community and spend the time if necessary to make sure that the understanding is there and have the feedback that is necessary. i think that is a legitimate concern and request and we hear you. i don't think that we're voting today on any final terms. we are not endorsing anything. that's not the request in front of the port commission today so i have a couple of questions that are more specific but i want to just assure you we have raised a lot of questions ourselves, and we know that we have to get the answers, but there is going to be enough time to get the answers so i think we want the public to be assured we're concerned on these things and we feel that the partnership

between the city and the warriors and the port, everybody has the best interests and we will work very hard and we believe there is time to get to the answers and meets the schedules so we will remain oft mist i think on that behalf and the process is important to us. we are going to respect it. what happens so far is not disrespect to the process for the community and we just need to do a better job and make sure we can communicate what you have and how we are addressing those concerns on behalf of everybody involved here so i have a couple of specific questions. one i just want to understand in the resolution we're talking about creating a performance benchmark for negotiating the conceptual framework so jennifer or brad if you can explain how to give a better definition of that.

>> yes commissioner. so the exclusive negotiating agreement is a document that really governs the negotiation between our development partner and city staff, and you approved a resolution authorizing city staff to enter into -- monique and jennifer enter into exclusive negotiating agreement with the warriors. that happened this summer, and that document set forth a series of target dates and performance dates for different steps along the path that we're on right now, and one of those dates was when the term sheet would be approved by the port commission and the board of supervisors, and the way it was laid out in

the exclusive negotiating agreement that you approved this summer was that term sheet approval would happen concurrent with the fiscal feasibility report, which is as i stated earlier typically the way that we do it. the amendment in front of you now would change the target date for the term sheet approval to february 15, 2013, and the actual performance date which is an outside date by which it has to happen to april 15, 2013 and that gives the additional time between those dates to negotiate the added detail in the term sheet that would go to participation component on the business side. how some of the community services are specifically funded and the other issues we mentioned earlier in