Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






San Francisco 7, Jennifer 3, Us 3, Jennifer Mattes 2, The City 2, America 2, Brad Benson 1, New York 1, Katie Ladel 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 25, 2012
    11:00 - 11:30am PST  

get a map that would be otherwise impossible to understand and too many colored lines and network but it shows how dense and multimodal this network is. these circles radiated out here show quarter mile and half mile and mile radius. we could do that anywhere and how many bus stations and terminals and bart and that informs these land use projects. now in addition to the networks are the list of projects themselves. we identified three phases. 12013 to 2017 and out to two 032 because there are different waves happening and different transportation improvements slaitded to come on line. it might be at the end of the assessment we might jump start a project because a major development is happening the year before so it's this kind
of clarity understand whag is going on in the land use realm, the terminal and the projects and mission rock at one side and understand what all of these things or some of the muni routes coming fall into place. so just a sample of some of the outcomes of the workshop. we had six maps and summaries. these were they written on and saw gaps and things needed to happen. it's hard to read it but it's there and on the website and if you look on piers 30-32 you will see this but there is a list of comments so we know the transit and parking issues. that's helping us make sure as we work with engineers they're getting the input from the people that live and work about this area and the general
responsibility in fixing transportation solutions, but the next steps and we're very much at the beginning of the assessment, are the workshops on december 4. one comment we heard loud and clear "give us land use information to match the transportation information" so we have maps that will be layered on top of the transportation networks so we can see where people are living and where the networks need to go and we had an important comment "what are the goals and objectives of the assessment?" . it's one thing to have engineers and it's another that we understand quality of life and what makes san francisco successful? pedestrian first and transportation priority and the land use plans and those are things that we would incorporate and taking the inventory of all the goals and objectives and
making sure they speak to this area and if need be refined for the outcomes. if we have the goals and networks and the networks and understanding when they come online one thing that would be helpful is try our hand at a few solution ideas . for instance if the neighbors gave the top six concerns and we ran it past goals and objectives and i can't make the cal train because it's congested around the giants game and sometimes they don't go beyond second street very quickly. well, there are solutions to put in place. there are opportunities and check them against the golden objectives and at the end of the day we understand the priorities and the goals of the community and the city and we understand what is happening and when both in transportation and land use, our next responsibility would be to come up with solutions that make sense and that get out ahead of the environmental, so i'm very interested in this process just like we did with the people
plan in america's cup and before the environmental. the environmental kicked in and gave us great data and back in the people plan and had a plan that was smart and a environmental that had great mitigation measures and i think that is a great proposead and recommendation for getting ahead of the issue and vetting them in the project and with they will turn it over to brad for his report. >> good afternoon commissioners. brad benson special projects manager representing the port staff on the negotiating team. so we wanted to take a moment to explain to both the commission and the public the difference phases of this proposed negotiations for the project. city staff has been working and the port and owed staff in
consultation with the city attorney working with the warriors to come up with a conceptual framework for the business deal which is really looking at the cost to rehabilitate piers 30-32 so it's seismically sound and can support the multi-purpose venue on it, and how the warriors will initially finance that investment and how the city would repay that investment to public property, and jennifer mattes will go over that a little more detail but that conceptual framework is published to this point to support the fiscal feasibility finding and with these projects the port and city staff will pursue policy approvals with a term sheet with fiscal
approval. it was the staff's suggestion to separate the two and really the fiscal feasibility finding, again which jennifer will speak to, is necessary to start environmental review, and i think we're all aware of the aggressive schedule that this project is under taking, and we want to make sure at the staff level we are maximizing the time available for environmental review. that's a important component of this project so getting passed fiscal feasibility and starting environmental review with all of the inputs peter was just talk about is really going to maximize the public's opportunity to understand the project in all of its complexity. the next phase of the negotiation is really going to final liezing that term sheet and the term sheet will typically articulate all of the
business terms of the transaction. we hope to bring that term sheet to the port commission and if approved by the port commission to the board of supervisors in the period between february 15 and april of 2013, and the issues that we think that we will be addressing are not currently addressed in the conceptual framework go to a number of important points they would like to describe now. first we're in a public process already with an initial conceptual design that is very exciting. there will be comment whether through the cac format or other public meetings that we're holding on the project and we will need to define the project. we will be looking in particular ideas about the potential maritime use of the east berth of piers 30-32, an
important deep water berth. we are also coordinating with the fire department. we have department chief here representing the chief and we are excited about hearing the fire boat at this location, but it needs to serve the fire department's particular mission involving the fire boat, so there maybe refinements to the project around that, and we're also going to be looking at the historic preservation issues. reds java house is a contributing resource to the national district and how is that facility treated in the overall development? other issues that we will be addressing. we are contemplating mechanisms to repay the warriors that would include potential infrastructure financial proceeds so we want to make sure as we are issuing that debt to repay the initial
private investments that there is appropriate level of security around that. we have used an appraisal process that jennifer will talk about and come up with the value of sea wall 330 and peas 30-32 and we will look at that new york what forms of participation. >> >> rent maybe appropriate and generally speaking how we can repay the private investment as quickly as possible, and finally and i think this is something that the public really wants to hear. the term sheet needs to articulate the way the city plans to pay for the services to address neighborhood impacts so if there are a number of police officers required around the larger events how specifically is the city planning on paying for the police officers? if
dwd crews need to be dispatched around the facility how is that funding going to work? and maybe the most important issue -- there is additional transit service required to get people to and from the site and how when muni is already stressed financially how does the city plan to address those transportation needs? so we will work with the warriors and staff and the board with those issues and look forward to coming to you in april or before for your consideration of that, and finally after environmental review is complete then we would bring to both the port commission and the board of supervisors the more detailed transaction documents associated with the project that are typical in a development deal like this, and we would use the period of environmental review and permitting to negotiate all
of those transaction documents, so now i would like to invite jennifer mattes up. thank you. >> i just want to acknowledge for everyone listening this is a long presentation and i appreciate everyone's patience. there is a lot to cover. we have been busy over the last months trying to develop this proposal from many different facets. we have been looking at the business deal and transportation and design and it's a lot at once . at the board of supervisors we're doing this in two hearings and looking at fiscal feasibility tomorrow and design and transportation next monday in an informational hearing so i want to thank folks. the next piece of the presentation will be familiar to some members of the public that have come to the cac meetings and the members of the commission that i briefed in close session and i want to
discuss the conceptual framework that in whichs the feasibility report that is now before the board. as brad mentioned there was appraisal done on the two sites prior to negotiating the conceptual framework that looked at the fair market value of both a lease of sea wall lot 330 and a sale as well as piers lot 30-32 that had current zoning but improved site for 30-32 and those are the values to model in the conceptual framework, so the central terms of the conceptual framework that the warriors will privately finance all of the development on both sites and the city will reimburse them for certain infrastructure for certain agreed upon improvements to infrastructure. that is capped at $120,000,000.13% cost
of capital return that would agree on the expenditures made to improve public infrastructure. what's important in addition there being a hard cap on the amount of infrastructure spend, there's also a limited number of sources that the warriors would be eligible to get reimbursed from. rent credits from pier 30-32, the sale of saw wall 30 and the value generated from the warrioros both sites. it's anticipated that would be collected to reimburse the warriors in a lump sum payment to pay down the infrastructure cost, so the 13% cost of capital has attracted a great deal of attention in the last few days and i would like to take a moment and put it in context and
describe it a wa that hopefully eliminates some of the confusion. the 13% cost of capital reflects the cost of the money that the warriors would have to -- it reflects the cost and risk involved in financing public infrastructure. what we are proposing in this deal is asking them to pay for improvements to our property and the cost for borrowing that money is high for any developer because it's risky money. that is money that doesn't have a return built into it. in order to get a return for money invested in infrastructure the entity doing the infrastructure has to do something next. they either have to sell the improved property or build upon it before there is potential for return and lenders know that. it's risky in the market to get that money. in addition there are two risks that the warriors
bear in the conceptual framework as negotiated. one is if the cost for repairing the subtracture exceed $120 million they will not be reimbursed for that and if the sources do not fully repay them for their subtracture spend regardless of the amount there is no other recourse there is no other bucket to go to for reimbursement so really the combination of the cost of the money, the cost of the funds being expended on the city's behalf and the risk taken by the warriors when they spend the money lead to the negotiated 13% cost of capital. by way of comparison when this type of money -- this is not unusual. i think what is really important to understand is that the city in its common practice and the port too -- i don't want to speak entirely for the port and
i ask monique and the port to chime in. when the city asks private developers to contribute to the cost of infrastructure we do that in order to protect our balance sheet, and not put our public finance tools into what are risky public /private partnerships in ones we can often find value to repay the developers from the value created. i'm not sure if i said clearly but if you look at hunter's point shipyard and treasure island and what we're looking at doing what happened down the port to a smaller degree and developers were asked to invest in the infrastructure and there is a rate for the capital in order to take into account the cost of borrowing those funds and the risk they're taking in improving our infrastructure, so this is
really a common practice, and in the case of this particular deal when we're talking about repaying at a 13% interest what we're talking about is -- what we're talking about is repaying the warriors largely through the value that they created, either through the property tax increment they created by building vertical structures, by building the arena, building the open space, retail, condos on the site that creates the property tax as well as the value -- the rent is only realizable if the subtracture -- the number i showed you is only available if the subtracture is improved. the two examples of the sprint center and barklies are not apples to apples because all sports venues we investigate are unique financing structures
but these are examples of projects in which david equity was invested in a sport's facility and the return received by that investor for that investment. so other key provisions of the conceptual framework is that we may agree on other improvements which would be built and financed by the warriors and then reimbursed by the city and one is the fire boats and excited to move forward on and think there is synergy moving the boat facility and engineer services further south and allowing to have those activities colocated on this pier. the warriors will pay all development impact fees. we have an agreement that the port will receive 1% of proceeds from sales of condos located on sea
wall lot 330 and brad mentions this benchmarks the motion of having ongoing funding stream to pay for quality of life issues. brad covers the items in the sheet and in the interest of time and operations and as well as the community benefits and work force agreement. so the fiscal feasibility analysis -- another concern i have heard over the last few days is that this analysis was not vetted adequately at the advisory committee. i presented the findings on october 16. the report came out october 23 and was distributed to the board of supervisors, to you all, to members of the public and the cac. the conclusions did not change from the time i made the presentation and in fact this presentation you're about to see is the same one i made to the cac and the same one i'm making
to the board of supervisors tomorrow, so i just want to make that clear, so the fiscal feasibility is really just that. it's an early look at determining whether a project is feasible. it's not a determination whether it's advisable. it doesn't seek to how lucrative or costly the project maybe. it's a gate keeping measure to ensure the city doesn't spend a lot on pre-development cost on a project that is not feasible. in this case that is being borne by the warriors and not subject to reimbursement from the proposal and staff cost and ceqa costs. sorry let me go back. fiscal feasibility has five
components which are listed here. so the summary of the fiscal feasibility analysis findings is that the project would generate direct and indirect economic benefits of about $19 million annually and $53,000,000.01 time in city fees. the visitors spending is approximately $60 million a year and there would be 2600 construction jobs and 1700 permanent jobs and those jobs are job year equivalent that created -- construction jobs during the three year construction time frame and those are permanent ongoing
jobs that would be supported by the project. project funding we just described the basic structure. okay. for the operation and maintenance cost -- the warriors are going to assume all responsibility for the costs associated with sea wall lot 330 and pier 30-32 and an early look at departmental expenditures the fire department and rec and park anticipate no fiscal imprakts from the project and we work with the police and mta and cost of impact and on going cost in order to service this new development. there is proposed use of public debt. the city may bond against the revenues for the project for
improvement for the public infrastructure but the bonds don't obligate them. they're secured by the development that is on the site. so in today's action what we're asking the port to do is amend the exclusive negotiating agreement which is the framework for negotiating the transaction between the port and the warriors. we ask that you have benchmarks for the framework and extend the date to endorse the term sheet. one of the concerns we heard from the public this is moving quickly and they want to understand the overall structure of this deal. we think pushing these dates back to a target date of february 15 and performance date of april 15 gives the time to work with the cac, interested stakeholders, you and the board of supervisors in order to create a robust
sheet that answers many of the questions that have been raised so with they am happy -- so with that i would like to introduce rick welts and have just frame the project a little bit for us all. >> thank you jenn. thank you commissioners, port staff. my only role here today is express the commitment and enthusiasm of the warriors organization for the success of this project. i could do that in about 90 minutes but thinking you might not be interested in that i have short bullets i will run through in three. i think first and foremost we are excited to be part of the solution to piers 30-32. as you know over two decades four proposals that were deep pocketed for this site. we are committed to making this one work and restoring the san
francisco water use for use by all bay area residents. i think what is also important to you we believe that the project as presented will ensure new and ongoing maritime activity on all three sides of the pier site. certainly we have talked about the san francisco fire department, fire station, fire boat berths, water taxis, ferry service, guest docks and my personal favorite human powered craft, that will be operating on the south side of the pier. we have a very special interest in creating the best arena ever envisioned as a entertainment and sports facility that will be the home for warrior fans. they're amazing group and show up in thick and thin and mostly thin in the last 20 years that
we're trying to change and this will set the course for a very successful franchise that we can all embrace for the next 50 years for the warriors. one of the things that always amazed me from a distance is the fact that san francisco has never had a world class multi-purpose arena. there's no city half itself size in america that doesn't have this and as a result many world class acts bypass san francisco. we will now have a place for the family shows, those concerts and performances and to date we haven't had a location for. one of our mostarden supporters and the san francisco convention bureau, sf travel. they see this project as filling a distinct void in the city's portfolio thattee can make available for conventions and
meetings and events in our city. very important. we will make a promise with jobs and 1700 permanent positions and over 4,000 other jobs and aggressive hiring and business commitments new economic engine for this part of our city. we will create massive economic benefits. jenn just ran through those. 10 to 20 million annual direct tax few revenue to the city. over $50 million of one time impact fees and 60 million annually in new visitor spending. all of that again without any money from the city's general fund or any new taxes and last but not least we want to use this arena as an engineer to create a great new public space in san francisco. i know one of the great reactions we have gotten to the describe that they presented to
you earlier and maybe to the surprise of many that over half of the 13 acres of the piers 30-32 site will be dedicated to public spaces that every citizen can enjoy. we're excited about it. i am happy to share the other 85 minutes of my enthusiasm with you at any time you're interested but thank you for your time today. >> okay. time for public comment. and for those that haven't been here if you could put your speaker card and give it to the commission secretary as you come up. please identify yourself. 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 ch