the first person is katie ladel -- >> excuse me commissioner. we need a motion first. >> so moved. >> second. >> now we will have public comment. >> okay. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. i am the chair of the cac and i'm not speaking on behalf of them because i don't know them all. that's i didn't am here. jennifer gave us the feasibility report on the 16th but we didn't get a chance talk about it. in fact we have never had a chance to talk about anything and that's the problem. we have had three meetings and long and mainly presentations that we listen and there is public comment and a few cac comments and we all go home, so this morning i went to the cac annual breakfast hoping to meet other members just because i don't know them so we haven't had a chance to chat and discuss the fiscal feasibility study. i invited them to a meeting on sunday and being a bad day and six of us showed up, but we need time to look at this fiscal feasibility study. some of us that have met have issues. we have questions. we would like to get together as a

i wanted to echo katie ladel's comment which is that we had a lot of information, a lot of documents to read. i'm sure you have read them all, especially the fiscal feasibility study and all four appendices. it took me a couple of days even to download it. this is going too fast. the cac was supposed to believe able to advise city about how we felt about this project. we haven't had that opportunity. the cac meetings have been essentially information dumps without the ability to discuss and ask questions. we have had the opportunity directly with jennifer mattes and other staff people to ask questions but we haven't necessarily gotten answers, and we think it would be better if you're going to postpone, and thank you for postponing the term sheet. if we could have that opportunity before any of these documents get approved. the fiscal feasibility study leads into the term sheet. i can't see how this is a good deal for the board. you're losing all the revenue that you're getting from the parking lots. you're losing ought the revenue you're getting from rent, and while jennifer thinks

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

i also want to thank jennifer, monique, rick and of course to our cac and in particular katy ladel for expressing some of your thoughts to us. of course as we are doing thanks i think the america's cup negotiations did help inform us. every step, even if the it appeared to be a setback has led us to a place where we can be more comfortable with our new project. i do want to state that. i do think that this is a project that has sitting potential. we saw what it would mean to us. brings to us the nba. i think many of us are very excited about that. it brings to us a convention but also entertainment venue that san francisco just does not have at this moment. i think that would be something that is incredibly wonderful for the city and brings a lot of construction and post construction jobs i think is very valuable to people who live and work here. so that being said i know we will have a lot of work on the due diligence component in terms of actually fiscal feasibility component. i think in terms of what is required under the admin code we have met that and looked at benefits and shown

before we do that i did want to allow for the chair of the pier 3032 cac speak, katy ladell. because you are not a member of the san francisco staff you are required to be under public comment period so two minutes is the time we do have. i allow you to speak up to two minutes. of course if you can i think representing what entire cac's perspective with, where there is distinction and view. also share that. >> thank you. thank you supervisor kim for giving me this opportunity to talk to you. some of us on the cac sent all of you an e-mail this morning asking for a 30 to 60 day extension on the resolution for the feasibility fiscal feasibility study. our main concern and our main request at this point is that we would like to slow this process down. things are going so quickly. i have to tell you, we the cac members have not had a chance to talk. the purpose of the cac is we are representing the people who live in our neighborhoods. we need to be able to have a conversation so we can decide what our views are and discuss the issues because we are supposed to evaluate and comme

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 public