policy discussion. mr. rosenfield, if you could touch upon your office's opinions and we had a conversation about whether this is subject to annual appropriation so we can handle it that way at the board anyway. >> good morning, ben rosenfield, controller. i will start by pointing out that what mr. rose is saying is correct here, of course, that this will fundamentally involve a projection. but our office would need to make in future years the extent the board adopts this ordinance. we do believe though and do routinely make estimates of these sorts of impacts for items that come before you for consideration. and so we do think while we can't directly account in the same way we can for property tax revenue, we can nonetheless reasonably estimate and reasonably project these indirect revenues that would be generated by the project. we have peer-reviewed the economic impact reports that are before you today.

we would envision refining our estimates and our methodology to the extent you adopt this ordinance in future years. obviously once the center opens, for example, we have a lot more information upon which to base future projections for subsequent cycles that are envisioned here. for example, one can routinely use intercept surveys and other things where you survey attendees at an event, in a statistically meaningful sample to arrive at what portions may be staying in hotels, for example? so we do think we can reasonably estimate that, but as mr. rose said it really will be an estimate. of course each year you adopt $9 billion budget which is fundamentally based on reasonable estimates as well. we can individually line item the estimate of direct revenue and indirect revenues that we're talking about. and of course, nothing here

changes the fundamental ability of the mayor and board of supervisors to not appropriate those funds to the fund in a given fiscal year to the extent that you so desire. this is not fundamentally changing the appropriation process that is envisioned in our charter. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions for supervisor tang? >> thank you. on another topic, i just wanted to -- i don't know if it's mr. vander water or someone else from sfmta, just to talk about the public transportation aspect of the project? i know obviously there is alot of excitement about the warriors come back to san francisco, but real concern expressed by the residents on west side of the city, large events happening on the other side of town, there are impacts in terms of transportation to residents. so in mr. rose's report it mentioned with the additional

purchases and some of the improvements made at transportation it would decrease time between trains from 9 to 8 minute and on paper sounds very little, but to speak to the overall impacts to transportation, given some of the changes you will be making? >> thank you. good afternoon, chair farrell, members of the committee, ed reiskin, director of transportation. i will give you a high-level view how we approach this. really the essential task here, as we went about this was to figure out how to serve the development of the project and the various array of events that it would be bringing to the mission bay neighborhood. but to do so in a way that would not adversely impact the

immediate vicinity, particularly ucsf and there was a lot of work done with ucsf, and their hospitals in the mission bay area. the other stakeholders in mission bay and importantly the residents of the area, mission bay dog patch/potrero in particular. so the transportation plan we developed was meant to serve the project, but without adverse impact elsewhere in the system. and more broadly, what we endeavored to do was ensure that both the service plan, and the financial plan were such that they would not adversely affect our operation, muni operations in particular. or our operating or capital budget. so that the service plan that was defined and the reason that we require additional railcars, require the crossovers, require the improvements to the boarding platform was expressly for that particular so we wouldn't

adversely impact the rest of muni, particularly when events are happening, when the event coincide peak hours so we couldn't adversely impact the peak hours. that is the big-picture, if you want more detail, happy to have peter albert come and fill in. >> thank you director reiskin. mr. albert. >> thank you, supervisors.

we'll go to the graphic to the screen. adam talked about this slide here that you saw here this. was really important for all of the thinking and community outreach that we put into developing this plan. the reason this baseline slide is important because people have the strong experience every day of deficiencis in the mission bay area for transportation. we wanted to make sure we were working from the baseline that is relevant to the opening of the warrior's arena. this represents all the investments happening even if we weren't building the arena. on the background of this, we layer that. and this is what constitutes those extra costs for service for investment that help to make the warrior's plan something to accommodate the crowds, whether it's a big crowd or small crowd. we developed a nimble enough plan that looks at a smaller number of extra buses, a smaller number of extra light-rail vehicles, but can

size up to the fullest. event. what we see here is the transportation planners and engineers looking at the network that we know and looking at the network that we'll have and figuring out how to still make it work for the neighborhood as a whole. there would be overcrowding on key lines unless we augmented the van ness corridor, touching to the fillmore street corridor and 16th street. that helps hit the bart station at 16th. that helps muni metro and a big number of extra riders on the t-third and also reduced the impact at any one bart station. what is so important is the regional transportation access that makes it work. the second corridor is the purrle one, the central subway, at a pretty robust frequency

with 3.5 minute headways. we would need more going into even hour service. so we show shuttles using the t-third track into the evening hours. now that was the riders transferreding at powell street, keeping the regional to local connection alive. the third line show what is similar to using at&t transit today, the green line is an service that runs along t-third to the caltrain station and the central subway does too and puts riders at embarcadero. so unlike at&t park which puts disproportionate amount at embarcadero, we have people

distributed whether they want to go north and south and include the extra yellow line. a bus shuttle to make sure that we are have an experience, that one, doesn't take buses out of other parts of town and hits the regional transit hubs that matter, ferry and transbay terminal. so that is the color diagram for the numbers that show a minimal or no impact on existing service, but to make sure we're accommodating the warriors to the point it's comfortable enough that people want to take transit again the next day. >> thank you, mr. albert. supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. reiskin and mr. albert for the bigger-picture overview. i just had a couple of questions. so the four light-rail vehicles as part of the funds, how did you come up with that is the need? and where would those four light-rail vehicles go? >> peter albert again from mta.

we did an analysis using the same methodology done for the muni forward plan and making sure we were consistent measuring apples with apples and oranges with oranges. we know it allows us to look at overcrowding factor that we consider unacceptable. there is say aye point that people don't choose that option or that option bypasses them because it's over crowded. we took advantage of existing capacity. the beauty where this arena is vis-a-vis the timeline, reverse commute in the evening. so taking advantage of the streetcars coming to downtown at the time that we have empty seats. that way we can put people in those seats and taking those into consideration, we didn't need 12 or 9, but needed 4 and still stabilizing the overcrowding factor that would be considered unacceptable. >> we're talking about 8,000 to 9,000 people that was said

earlier that would attend a concert or warrior's game and the four light-rail vehicles plus special shuttles and that elaborate plan will ensure that that lrvs and different transportation vehicles aren't pulled from different neighborhoods and that is fully going to support the 9:00 people 9,000 people you are saying. >> that is correct. we're designing for what we call the most impacted scenario. the diagram on the computer shows some event gets up to 17,000 attendees a day. we figured how many of those might be driving? we want to be conservative, because if we are underestimating we would get into a problem. we also assigned another occupants per vehicle to make sure it's realistic and also recognized how many people walk and bike. we're able to take the mode

splits and worked with a mode split of more -- between a third and 40% of transit mode split and also know that a lot of people walk to regional transit. bart is a pretty long walk, but it's walking destination to caltrain. so these are the sort of multi-modal analysiss that are helping us come together. as adam said, the average attendance is closer to 9,000, but we design for the 17,000. because it is the point where people -- first of all, it's the warrior's arena and we know they are popular and will bring people back, but that is how we tested our system. what we really wanted to do was make sure we're smart enough to fluctuate down to the service and not run the more expensive 17,000 arena attendance. >> i had a question on the fund for the pcos, parking control officers. how much is that and how did

you estimate that need? >> what we have is a pretty elaborate spreadsheet and we could certainly bring it together, but we did a careful analysis of everything mta that included the bus operators. it included maintaining the buses and including light-rail operators and maintenance and crossover tracks. the pcos do have a cost. we worked closely with our manager of safety who knows how to handle special events. we learned a tremendous amount from america's cup and we learned a tremendous amount of what we could do more around at&t park and have as many pcos for the warriors as at&t park cha has which has almost twice as many people going to an event. you see it's not the same every

time because we have to make sure we don't burn people out. one would be an unmanaged high-level series of events without respite for the pcos and built into what would be a hiring plan that looks like a pco for the year strategy that avoids burnout and manages the events and manages the number. that is all part of the costing of the figure. >> i know a lot of your work in other projects is to make sure that people are multi-modal and not just using even just transit, but also biking in different ways to get to places. i know -- thank you to mr. welts for being here -- i know the warriors want this to be one of the most bike-friendly stadiums if not the most bike-friendly in the country. i'm just wondering for the funds used, you mentioned pedestrian and bicycle access programs. will it include bike-sharing and some bike-sharing stations, but also additional secure bike parking areas as well? >> there is parts of the

project that are costed out. there are parts of the background infrastructure that is developing. you saw for instance the blue-green that allows cycle track, that makes a huge difference in people's ease of biking to and from the facility. we talked earlier about the waterfront transportation assessment and document what is your address the bicycle sharing facility at the site. that is an important aspect, because a lot of people would pick up a bike-share station somewhere else and the capacity of a bike-share station to handle special events. one of the biggest areas is the bike valet and working with the bike coalition and they may be in the room and certainly helped us in past with testimony. how valuable bike parking is

for at&t and expanding bike valet above and beyond at&t park, even though the warriors is about half or less of attendance. >> thank you. >> colleagues any further questions at this point? okay. thank you everyone. we may have further questions after public comment. why don't we start going through public comment now. we have a number of speaker cards and if people would line up on this side of the line, we'll have two minutes per person and get going here. [ reading speakers' names ] real quick, before we start public comment, supervisor kim is here and her district lies

in and she just shuttling in between committees. >> thank you, chair farrell. i want to appreciate the members of the public who will let me make opening commentsment i'm currently in land use committee over a project that is also being built in my district, the 5m project. i just wanted to make a couple of comments about the legislation before us. first of all i'm excited to see this project is finally pursuing approvals after a 3-year process. as many of you remember it was originally proposed at pier 30-31 [#2*-/] and 32 and also district 6 and moved to a new location where it bought its own dirt, blocks 29-32. i just have to say i was very much willing to work with the warriors on the originally proposed site to make it work for the existing neighborhood and with the incredible transportation challenges that

were proposed from that site. but i do have to say that the new site in mission bay is much more favorable, and it's because it's still a neighborhood that we're building. allows us to put into place infrastructure and other institutions to make it more favorable for the traffic concerns that i know many of our residents have as they are squeezed between the current giant's stadium and new warriors's arena. this provides a complementary mixed-use district development and further establishes it as a destination. it will provide the state of the art arena and training facilities for the 2015 nba champions, as well as event for concerts and other large events. i'm glad to see one of the event centers prominent neighbor ucsf is able to offer

endorsement, working with the city and warriors through their concerns regarding traffic. i also want to recognize the commendable outreach of over 18 months' of stakeholder outreach that has gone into the support of the biotech community, the mission bay cac and i see chair kernwood is here in the audience, as well as ocii and the planning commission. although this project is generating millions in fees and tax revenues the events center is being proposed without city subsidies and will not cost taxpayers dollars. on the contrary project will be a large driver of revenue growth and provide annual contribution to our city funds. for this reason i believe and i support it's reasonable to utilize a portion of these fees and taxes generated by the project to mitigate impacts. this fund has been established to address the primary concerns of transportation, very much listening to the workers and

residents of the area, to issues of crime and littering that also result from large events. to ensure we can fully fund strategies that minimize the events center's impact on the neighborhood. i'm sure many comments have already been previously made on what this legislation will do and i'm glad to see we'll be dedicating the funds whether it's parking control officers to ensure that the city has a stadium and arena, while ensuring that our workers and residents can continue to exist in a livable neighborhood and community. so i do want to thank all of the partis that were involved in making this a reality today and thank the bunt budget committee for hearing this item. >> thank you, supervisor kim. with that we'll continue public comment. >> thank you very much and good afternoon. my name is esther sterns .

transit, crowd management and the general ambience of the neighborhood. so i'm very appreciative of the work that the warriors and the neighborhood groups have done working together to create this transit plan. i don't think there is any way that any of us can know what it's like to have this events center in mission bay and while we appreciate planning we want to ensure there is a flexibility to the planning, so that the city can be responsive, when we actually see what it's like to have the events center there. that is what i think is special about the work that people have done. i think it's really a flexible plan that accounts -- that gives us options, if things turn out to be different than people anticipated. i think as the southeast corridor grows, the city has to

keep investing in transit for this neighborhood and i think the warriors, the revenue associated with the warrior's arena gives us steps and i hope you approve the transportation improvement fund. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> mr. chairman, and members of the committee, i represent the bay area transportation working group. we are not opposing this project. we are somewhat neutral. but we are concerned about the impacts of the arena on san francisco, both the physical impacts and fiscal impacts. it sounds like your staff has done a lot of work to try to encompass all of the physical impacts. that means mainly traffic and parking and i can see that can be mitigated. if they have covered it thoroughly and it sounds like they have done a lot work on it, it may be okay. as far as the fiscal impact is concerned there are two aspects that concerns us.

one is what mr. rose brought up, you and that is are the revenue sources truly there for you? or is there some doubt about that? in other words, if history and experience is any guide, the revenues almost always are not as great as they are projected. and the costs tend to be more. so there is that concern. the other would be the degree of fixity as to your leverage over the developer. do you really have the legal need -- i mean the legal power to exact whatever it takes to cover those city costs? it sounds like mr. rose has raised one concern there. i would enforce that and say that really ought to be looked at rather carefully. i can see why a private developer wants to use municipal bond financing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the financier, namely the city should be at undue risk. thank you.

>> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is john and i'm a principle at economic consulting and here to speak to the fiscal impact of the events center. first as to the issue of taxpayer dollars not being used for the arena. it's true they are not being used to build. they are being used to subsidize in effect through the use of the revenues from the arena and providing traffic mitigation and infrastructure development. so there is say form of subsidy going and the gap between costs and revenues becomes perilously small and the contribution to the arena to general fund revenues is likely to be quite small if you factor in the uncertainty over the estimates of costs. it's not clear there is a substantial contribution to the

general fund. i have a report here i was asked to produce that looks at alternative development on the site. very similar development. current development is two commercial buildings one retail and arena. if you instead you take the arena out and build a facility that could host biotechnology companies of which there are wide variety in the neighborhood. what i found is the net impact on revenues of switching to biotech instead of an arena would be a positive impact on general fund revenues very conservatively estimated at $2 million per year. if you get a little more creative, in the construction of the building, you can raise those estimates to, as much as $7 million a year. so you can think of that as being the cost of bringing the warriors to town. you are giving up between $2 and $7 million of general fund revenue and to emphasize a