Skip to main content

tv   Special BOS Budget and Finance Committee 11915  SFGTV  November 16, 2015 4:10am-6:21am PST

4:10 am
food truck for thought is an opportunity to eat from a variety of different vendor that are supporting the mission graduates by coming and representing at the parks >> we're giving a prude of our to give people the opportunity to get an education. people come back and can you tell me and enjoy our food. all the vendor are xooment a portion of their precedes the money is going back in >> what's the best thing to do in terms of moving the needle for the folks we thought higher education is the tool to move young people. >> i'm also a college student i
4:11 am
go to berkley and 90 percent of our folks are staying in college that's 40 percent hire than the afternoon. >> i'm politically to clemdz and ucla. >> just knowing we're giving back to the community. >> especially the spanish speaking population it hits home. >> people get hungry why not eat and give >> welcome everybody to a special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance commission for november 9th, 2015. i'm thank you, charles crem nack and jennifer low from san
4:12 am
francisco geof and the clerk of the committee, ms. wong. do we have any announcements. >> please science any carolinas and electronic devices and documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. thank you. >> could you call items 1-4. >> item 4, resolution adopting findings under the california environment quality act and its guidelines including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations, in connection with the development of the golden state warriors event center and mixed-use development at miss bay south blocks 29 to 3 and mission bay south redevelopment plan. item 2, ordinance amending the administrative code to establish a fund to pay for the city services and capital improvements addressing transportation and other needs of the community in connection with the events at the golden
4:13 am
state warriors event center and mixed-use project. >> item 3, ordinance delegating to the director of public works the authority to accept required public improvements related to the development of the golden state warriors event center and mixed-use development pursuant to the mission bay south redevelopment plan. and item 4, ordinance ordering the summery vacation of four easements for water line, sanitary sewer and/or stormwater purpose and two offers of dedication for the portions of assessor's black no. 8722, lot nos. 1 and 8 within the mission bay south redevelopment plan for the golden state warriors event center and mixed-use development of mission bay south blocks 29-32. >> thank you madame clerk and thank you everyone for beinging here and normally we meet on wednesdays because of timing concerns and veterans day falls this wednesday we will not be meeting this wednesday. so i want to thank everyone for
4:14 am
coming here and we're here to consider a number of items related to the proposed golden state warrior project and look forward to getting moving. i would like to call mr. vander water to speak on the items. >> thank you, good afternoon. supervisors. chair farrell, madam vander water in the office of workforce development. we have four items for your consideration. first adoption of ceqa monitoring requirements at the ocii commission and board and you planning commission. so we don't have a separate presentation prepared for that. i will walk you through the creation of the mission bay transportation improvement fund, and then barbara moyer from the mission bay task force will wrap up with items 3 and 4. before i do that i wanted to give the project sponsor an opportunity to say a few words and invite rick welts, president and chief operating
4:15 am
officer of the warriors >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm president and chief operating officer of the golden state warriors and honored to be in front you today. since we piveted the mission bay a year-and-a-half ago we had over 60 community meetings including 11 meetings with the mission bay cac, and numerous meetings with the dog patch potrero and south bay neighborhoods, the ucsf, and obviously the mission bay biotech community. through this process i'm pleased to say that our support has been just nothing short of incredible. this is best evidenced by the overwhelming turnouts we had last week in the unanimous votes at ocii, planning and mta. along with that strong support from the first day, we started this project, we also heard time and time again concerns from the community, and especially from ucsf about transportation in the
4:16 am
neighborhood. we feel like we have gone a long way to addressing those concerns through our recent agreement with the ucsf negotiated by chancellor's office and barb french. that addresses hospital and local access and includes capping of events when the giants are also playing. the ordinance before you is last most critical piece of this puzzle, the means to ensure there is ongoing funding for the transportation services that will be there for the entire neighborhood. the warriors are in strong support for this measure. we urge to you move it forward, thank you. >> thank you, mr. welts. >> the clerk mentioned the use of the four action items before you. i think the most substantive item is item 2, the ordinance establishing the fund, and we'll spend the bulk of our
4:17 am
presentation walking through its mechanics. before we do so, as mr. welts mentioned we have been having this conversation for about 18 months in the community, since the warrior moved to mission bay and for context-setting it's sites 29 through 32 in mission bay redevelopment project area, mission bay south, excuse me. which they purchased privately from sales force, and that transaction just completed a number of weeks ago. it is a 100% privately funded site acquisition, and construction. there is no city funding within the curb of the site. on-site at the proposal is for 18,000-seat arena. about 580,000 gross square feet of office, and up to 125 gross square feet of retail. it's entirely within the mission bay height limits of 160'. there are 950 parking stalls
4:18 am
on-site, and as part of the purchase, acquired the rights to 132 spaces across the street at 450 south street. this is an existing garage to the north of the site plan. and there are 3.2 acres of on-site open space, most notably 1-acre plaza off the 3rd street which will be the primary entry from transit and 3rd. this gives you a sense of the level of activity we anticipate at the arena, in addition, to the 41 regular home season games, the tallest bar there, and up to 3 preseason games and of course, nba finals every year in san francisco. we have a number of concerts, other rentals, family shows, and other events at the arena. the capacity again of 18,000
4:19 am
will likely be realized during some of those peak events, the center stage configuration concerts, and postseason games. but due to the nature of the smaller events, the convention events, the theater events and disney on ice type of family shows the average attendance is 9300 as projected by the eir. a couple of quick visuals. a view of the mid-rise office towers seen from 3rd and south street. this will be the primary site from the new expanded platform, from the t3, the primary access from transit. you walk into the site from the northwest corner. you will come diagonally into that one-acre plaza about the same size as the elevated portion of the union square. and into your first real view of the arena in the distance and the primary entrance. if you recall from the site
4:20 am
design you can go around the perimeter to the terry francois side of the water. we had a lot of time in the mission bay and in the community, we have met with a number of primary stakeholders, and that included the neighborhoods, the businesses, the hospital, some of the advocacy organizations and that culminated just last month with a number of very critical endorsements. one on october 6th the official endorsement there the university of california, san francisco mission bay and later that week unanimous approval of the design from the mission bay citizens advisory committee. and october 20th, a letter from the life sciences community officially endorsing the project as well. we then went into a series of approvals.
4:21 am
unanimously certificated by the office of community investment and infrastructure and the sfmta board. last thursday the planning commission unanimously approved the sign view and ceqa findings and mmrp that is before you today. just before we get into the financials, a big topic in the community is transportation. there is a number of very high-profile transportation improvements that you are not doubt aware of, completion of the central subway, the next phase of the t-3rd and fillmore transit priority project, a preferential street on 16th street, electrification of caltrain and ferry ferminal expansion and multi-billion dollar investments coming to
4:22 am
san francisco irrespective of the project proposal. sitting on top of that are a number of specific improvements to the site. so once the arena is open for business, we will be decreasing the headways, the time between trains on the t-third and adding longer trains. it's currently one-car trains and if you have experience going to the meetings, the great door-to-door service from city hall, but not on a real regular frequency and we'll be addressing that as part of this. purchasing seimens light-rail vehicles, allowing them to go to 2-car train and much higher frequency. we're also adding special event shuttles on 16th street into the regional transit commencings at transbay and terminal building and van ness brt and regional collections and working with our regional
4:23 am
partners at bart, at weta, golden gate and caltrain and sam trains. there is a variance in the project to create a new center platform. so when you go to the giant's game and go to the central boarding platform, which has the advantage of being both longer and wider and serving both trains in either direction. in addition to transit supply, we have a lot of traffic management. these stars on the map show proposed locations for parking control officers, the mta uniforms that are flushing traffic in the peak directions. there are a couple of colors that may not show well on the screen, including those we analyzed in the eir and those added and a couple of critical ones to the conversations with
4:24 am
the neighborhood and hospital to separate destinations. so if you are coming to the arena and looking for parking, you do so on the arterial streets like mariposa and 16th and do not interrupt the traffic along the hospital and we'll be diverting the traffic to do that. there is also an on-site management center, much like at at&t park with closed circuit tv and contacts to deploy as necessary if we get an event that draws from one direction geographically more than another and we can shift accordingly. so now into the financials. there is two elements to any financials, one is the one-time upfront capital costs and the other is the operating. on the capital side, we're proposing to purchase four of the light-rail vehicles, to install crassover crossover
4:25 am
tracks allowing downstream accessibility to expand the platform as we described and augment powers to train can idle preand post events, including when there is an event at at&t park. installing signals, changeable message signs and closed circuit court tvs and upgrating the network. the total cost is over $55 million in 2014 dollars, just so we're consistent with all of our sources and uses. and our projections have one-time project-generated sources of about $25.4 million from the real property tax transfer tax that our assessor received and construction-related taxes leaving a balance just shy of $30 million that we're in active discussions with the
4:26 am
controller's office to figure out how to finance those costs. on the one-time side, on the source's side, we contracted with economic and planning systems, the same consultant who did the fiscal feasibility for the original site at piers 30-31 and updated for mission day and instructed them to be accurate, but conservative in their estimates. by that, i mean, if there is a range of revenues, on any of these particular line items, choose the lower end and be conservative about what you think the project will generate? we also then had keyser marston review these and she'd made sure our budget analyst was heavily involved. the result of that was $14.1 million as shown in line item
4:27 am
here. on the uses side, taking the $14.1 and break it down into component parts there is an element mandated by the ad min code and voters to go to dedicated and restrict sources, -- the tax measures total $ 2.9 million. operating costs are largely transportation as you saw with transportation augments and traffic management, the parking control officers, totals about $6.1. of the $6.1, $5.1 million is dedicated to the sfmta just less than a million is for the sf police department for added foot patrols in the neighborhood surrounding the site, not on-site. and some extra funds for the department of public works for street cleaning services in the neighborhood.
4:28 am
the warriors pay into the mission bay management corporation. and to mission bay parks, that maintain the streets, sidewalks and parks in the neighborhood. this is sort of an added backstop measure during events, to make sure that there are no neighborhood impacts as people leave the site. we mentioned the $55 million in one-time capital needs. the delta that we would look to finance results in an annual payment of $2.7 million to cover those capital costs. and that leaves two items. one is a dual event fund and all of our conversations in the neighborhood with the hospital, with the biotech community, a lot of concern was transportation, and specifically peak condition transportation. so what happens when there is a playoff game at one of the sites and a concert at the other? or there is a lot of activity in the neighborhood and keep in mind,
4:29 am
baseball and basketball are very complimentary, that world series just completed and nba season just began, so there is very little overlap between the two. in those conditions we have created a dual event fund that makes additional funds available to the director of transportation, who is here today, to put into service extra transit, extra parking control, other services to make sure that the flow of traffic gets to where it needs to go. and we'll talk in a minute about the administration of those funds. that leaves a remaining balance of the $14.1 of $1.5 million. we have language in the transportation improvement fund that if conditions even despite all of our efforts in the project description with the million dollar dual event reserve result in significant delay and we measure a couple of routes from the neighborhood out to the regional collections up 16th, down 3rd, up to the
4:30 am
bridge. if that gets to be a significant delay, there can be access to these funds. our hope is that we never reach that point, and if so, then we would be generating $2.9 million to our dedicated and restricted city funds and another $1.5 million to the remaining balance for a total of $4.4 per year. these are all funds that do not exist today that are all generated by the arena. and this would create a condition where we would put those funds into a controller's reserve account. it's still subject to annual appropriations by the board. we do not have a development agreement or charter-mandate, so it's subject to the annual appropriations, but it's a clear signaling of our intentions to fully fund all of the services to serve this arena in a way that does not deprive service elsewhere in the city. it was very
4:31 am
important that we had enough parking control officers to serve the site bringing people off of their existing beats. subject to a maximum annual deposit. so the fiscal feasibility analysis is our estimate for today, but in the year of first operation, and at least every five years thereafter, or more if determined necessary by the controller, the controller's office would estimate that maximum fund, take 90% of that and put it into this controller's reserve. so 10% again available for discretionary general fund use. and then create this $1 million dual event reserve. there is built in public review and accountability, if in a future year, a future mayor, or board of supervisors, appropriates less than the amount required to fully fund these services, it triggers a series of public
4:32 am
hearings. so that we make that very transparent. we recognize there could be conditions where economics dictate a change of policy direction, but we, absent any of those changes want to make sure those funds are fully ascribed in the controller's reserve. as part of the fund that creates a five-member advisory committee. to advise the board the mta, the public works department, the police department, and other decision-makers on the use of monies in the fund this. is both annual budget request, as well as uses of that $1 million dual event reserve. those five representatives include designee from the golden state warriors owner, a designee from the sucf and one a resident from the dog patch potrero neighborhood and the other is a business from the
4:33 am
mission bay dog patch, potrero and one if not all have to be members of the transportation coordination committee, an existing committee that grew out of the creation of at&t park. and has been serving for the last 15 years or so as the central body for coordination of events and has membership from the public, private, resident interests of the neighborhood and the 5th street is a representative of the district supervisor. so these five representatives would make recommendations to the mta on the use of the funds and doing this in full transparency in a way that could we both serving events at the event, but protecting the interests of the hospital, the biotech community and the neighborhood. with that i would turn it over
4:34 am
to barbara and we're happy to take questions and comments >> thank you, mr. vander water. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm barbara moy with the department of public works. what you have before you is first a request to delegate authority for the acceptance of public infrastructure to the director of public works, as well as a delegation of authority to accept easements, offers of easements and dedications to the director of the department of real estate. very straightforward. to give you some background, in 1998 the board of supervisors adopted the mission bay redevelopment plan, and mission bay subdivision code. the redevelopment agency
4:35 am
entered into an owner participation agreement which outlined master developer's obligations to build public infrastructure and that they would dedicate the public infrastructure and land for acceptance bit board of supervisors for the city operation and maintenance. public infrastructure includes lights, underground utilities, et cetera to service private development. the configuration for the land foyer mission bay was established in 1998 by the board when it approved the final transfer map, including blocks 29 through 32, which is the actual area that we have in question right now. the project is located within the mission bay south redevelopment plan, and is bounded by 3rd street, south street, terry francois boulevard and 16th street. as discussed about mr. vander water, ocii certified the sf eir and public works has adopted findings.
4:36 am
the developer [spha-eupbtd/] application for the tentative map for the project in march of 2015. the application is being processed in accordance with the mission bay subdivision code. after action on tentative final map the board of supervisors will be asked to approve a final map, public improvement agreement. after approval of the street improvement permit, the public works will inspect the work to ensure that the work is in compliance with the improvement plans and specifications in it and if appropriate, determine that the project is complete. the final step is accept the public infrastructure by the board of supervisors. the request today is to delegate the acceptance of the public infrastructure to the director of public works and grant the director of property the authority upon director of public works' determination of completion to accept, record grant deeds and easements. i'd be happy to address any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions at this time?
4:37 am
much appreciated. mr. vander water, why don't we go to our budget analyst report first. mr. rose. >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 7 of our report, we note that the sfmta's estimated cost of purchase four new light-rail vehicles and make other transportation improvements to accommodate the warrior's projects has been state $55.3 million. estimated revenues generated by the warriors $25.4 million, $previously stated revenue shortfall that is shown in table 2 on page 8 of our report. according to the sfmta, the estimated revenue shortfall of that $29.9 million for the transit improvements for the warriors' project will be
4:38 am
financed through the sale of sfmta revenue bonds or other sources and annual debt service projected to be paid by revenue generation from the warrior's project, shown on page 9 of the report. the sfmta expenditures for transit services to the project will be paid by fare and parking revenues generated by these services, and the mission bay transportation improvement fund will pay for sfmta service to the warrior's project not covered by the fare and parking revenues and the sfpd, the police department -- city department's estimated annual expenditures to provide services to the warrior's project are $10.1 million and will be fund by an estimated $11.6 million in revenues generated by wattior's project and results in estimated net revenues of $1.5 million, and
4:39 am
that is shown on table 3 again on page 9 of our report. on page 10 of our report, we note under the proposed ordinance the general funds contribution to the mission bay transportation improvement fund is capped at 90% of revenues generated by the project and ocii's system, economic and planning systems attributed to the warrior's project, generated off-site -- regarding that off-site revenues we state on page 11 of our report that the budget and legislative analyst notes that they can be be directly attributed to the warrior's project. it's noticeble to poverify if changes in hotel occupancy are due solely to visitors who come
4:40 am
to san francisco specifically to attend warrior's game or other events at the proposed events center. such increases tax revenues might be attributable to visitors to san francisco who do not attend events at the warrior's project. any methodology to attribute hotel and gross receipts to the warrior's project is based on assumptions and not actually accounting of tax receipts and therefore, we do not include those off-site tax revenues estimated to be $1,709,165 and that is shown in the table 3 estimates on page 9 of our report. so our recommendation, supervisors, are on the bottom of page 11 of our report, no. 1 we recommend that you amend the proposed ordinance to specify that if the annual cap of 90% of general fund revenues from the project site and events at the events center insufficient to cover sfmta's expenditures for transportation services to
4:41 am
the warrior's project, then the warriors will be responsible to provide the additional transportation services to comply with the eir mitigation measures. secondly we recommend that amend the proposed ordinance to specify that only tax revenues on-site by the warrior's project are included in the controller's estimates of the general fund generated for the purpose of calculating the annual fund contribution to the transportation improvement fund and we recommend that you approve this ordinance as recommended. we would be happy to responds to questions. thank you, mr. rose. supervisor tang. >> thank you. i'm wondering based on mr. rose's second recommendation about revenues generated off-site if perhaps someone can speak to exactly how the methodology was completed? i know that based on mr. rose's report retail and office were not included, but if you could speak to the recommendation in further detail, that would be great? >> sure.
4:42 am
the supervisor through the chair, office of economic and workforce development, the fiscal feasibility that keyser marston peer-review and the controller concurred with it conservative estimates on and off-site. it does not include revenues generated by the tenants of the two office buildings. it does not include sales of the retail that is on-site, but outside of the arena. and where there is off-site spending on parking tax, on gross receipts, on retail, on hotel tax, we have explicitly conservative assumptions. the economic model that our controller uses and the consultant uses and common across the country in planned uses similar types of methodologies, in terms of estimating these funds. and we wanted to make sure we weren't
4:43 am
counting things, like somebody who is already visiting san francisco on holiday, and happens to go to an event, or somebody who rents a hotel room in san francisco, that displaces somebody who would be coming to rent the same hotel room for a different event. so we expressly cut the assumptions of those out, so that we have a very conservative estimate. we spent a lot of time discussing this, in part because san francisco is blessed with high occupancy of its hotel rooms. they are about the 80-86% occupancy at any given time, but the cost per room night has gone up so much in the last several years. so that we can generate a fair amount of hotel tax on a very small number of rooms. so we are prepared to make some amendments. we have had some conversations since the introduction of the ordinance today to expressly call out some of the neighborhood membership on the
4:44 am
advisory committee as presented here today. and also, to separately line item, as part of the controller's estimates of revenues generated both on-site and separately listed those generated off-site. so we can fully estimate these. they are estimatable and invite our controller's office or our city attorney's office to add any particular details >> real quick, colleagues, those amendments that will vander water mentioned are reflected in the amendments i distributed earlier. there are some technical amendments solely proposed after public comment today to reflect the neighborhood concerns >> i have one small detail that the city attorney has to hand to you as well. >> okay. >> i guess, chair farrell, members of the committee, budget analyst office and to make sure what our recommendation is and why it's important. we're not actually weighing in on the fiscal financial analysis.
4:45 am
our concern was actual general fund revenues are allocated each year to this fund. and as you will see from our estimates, we actually estimated that direct general fund revenues would, in fact, be sufficient to cover the estimated costs of this project. we also had concerns that once you start using indirect revenues that aren't -- where there is no actually direct accounting for those revenues could not accurately state those attributable to the warriors and thought it was prudent to recommendation direct revenues generated by the project. which can be calculated based on actual tax receipts. i do want to point out when we also brought our report, there already were some differences from the eps estimate, the most significant one transfer take came in at $3.9 million. so once you are doing those kind of estimates it's really better to have the actual numbers and
4:46 am
not the assumed number for the purposes of the fund. >> appreciate that commentary and we can certainly have that 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
4:47 am
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
4:48 am
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
4:49 am
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.
4:50 am
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
4:51 am
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
4:52 am
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
4:53 am
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,
4:54 am
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.
4:55 am
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
4:56 am
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
4:57 am
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
4:58 am
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.
4:59 am
>> 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
5:00 am
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
5:01 am
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
5:02 am
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 ]
5:03 am
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
5:04 am
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.
5:05 am
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.
5:06 am
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
5:07 am
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
5:08 am
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
5:09 am
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
5:10 am
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
5:11 am
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
5:12 am
and $7 million of general fund revenue and to emphasize a biotech facility could house up to 2,000, perhaps more employees, whereas the arena will employee a mere 500 people 6789 thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please >> my name is iggy and my wife and i own a house and business in the mission. our son was born at ucsf with severe heart congenital defects. they took great care of us. we love that hospital and we love san francisco. we have invested our lives in the city. we strongly oppose the proposal to build the warriors arena across the street from the children's hospital. we have two concerns. first, when our son has a medical emergency, that is the only hospital he can go to in
5:13 am
the hospital city that knows how to treat his condition. we are very concerned that the arena traffic will prevent our son from getting the care he needs. asking familis to deal with the noise and traffic from an arena on top of everything else they are going through is just adding insult to injury. ucsf leadership has been bullied into going along with this plan and in doing so they have let us down. i hope the board of supervisors will be brave enough to stand up for our families and our cities against big-money interests trying to build this
5:14 am
arena. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is patti and i'm a san francisco native. as well as a potrero hill homeowner for going on 34 years now. so being a life-long san francisco resident, i'm sure you can well-imagine the numerous developments i have been witness to and you i continue to observe today and right now we can't go two blocks without seeing another construction crew. i have seen these impacts both positive and negative in the community and know those developments that succeed are spearheaded by organizations such as the golden state warrior who have been willing to come to the communities and hear our needs and you our concerns. i think the giant's at&t park actually symbolizes a
5:15 am
development landmark that becomes an integral part of our community and i believe that the warriors are committed to taking the same thoughtful approach with their events center. for these reasons and we have raised our children and they are life-long fans of everything in san francisco and all that is san francisco, i would like you to approve the transportation >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. howard, for the sierra club. when san francisco first contemplated the downtown we now have because bart was coming, the first thing we did was limit the amount of parking you could provide for any office buildion. . so san francisco at that time limited parking to 2/10th parking space and here we are the rest of the city has one parking place.
5:16 am
and then we hear about all of the traffic congestion. if we had the downtown controls in this area and downtown is what? a mile-and-a-half away, we would have very little of the downtown traffic congestion and wouldn't be worried about people having to drive their kids in emergencis to hospitals and muni would work better. all of this kind of stuff would work so much better and yet, here we are, we have almost approved it, 800 some more odd parking spaces, when 100 or so for the presidents and higher ups this work in the office buildings would be plenty. you know what you do that, what you are doing is really creating money for muni, because the parking fees and the parking taxes that was the next thing we did a few years later, would be so much more on less parking places and the neighborhood meters would have to be so much higher to take care of these things and muni gets all of that money. so
5:17 am
here we are, i'm happy we're talking about money, but muni could get so much more, the city would get so much more if we really had a sensible parking plan for this project. otherwise, it's wonderful. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is jasmyn and i'm here to read a statement from one of our supporters who couldn't make it here, bruce agot, the transportation rep and board member of the rincon neighborhood association and wanted to provide comment as a resident of mission bay. i'm very pleased to see the approach taken by the warriors and city to address traffic and overall transportation concerns in regards to the warrior's events center. although it's a complex set of issues the warriors working with the city and ucsf have developed a best in class approach and agreement. in addition to performing a
5:18 am
thorough eir, the parties listened very closely to the concerns of residents and businesss and they have come to agreement on several fronts to ensure transportation and other quality of life issues are resophed resolved through the approach including a development of in-depth public transportation plans including local hospital plans. a committed and secured funding source, the transportation improvement fund and lockbox agreement secures funding necessary to provide services, 3 stakeholder involvement, the creation of transportation improvement fund advisory committee consisting of representatives from each key stakeholder group and 4, accountability. under worst-case scenario, where traffic cannot be mitigated the warriors have agreed to limit overlapping events to 12 a year. a self-generated funding
5:19 am
mechanism, stakeholder review, accountability and pre-determined corrective actions, this should be a model for all future san francisco projects. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors, thank you for hearing me out this afternoon, concerning the warrior's arena and transportation package. i'm originally from seat seattle and when the sonics came to the city and said you needed to upgrade the building the city council said no. therefore the basketball team left seattle and went to organic oklahoma city. i think we're very beneficial receiving a privately subsidized arena versus falling on the taxpayer's shoulders. within a mile there is about 9,000 parking space as valuable for visitors and great bart
5:20 am
transportation from east bay to san francisco. to incentivize them and i ask that you please support this transportation package today. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. [ reading speakers' names ]. my name is eddie conrad. i would like to say that first and foremost, i am a fan of san francisco before i'm a fan of anything else. i love this city. we're a world-class metropolitan facility and one thing that amazes me the warrior's organization, whenever an issue comes up, a
5:21 am
negative issue, they have come up with a cohesive, conscientious and responsive plan to resolve those issues and would be easier for ambulance and emergency vehicles to get to the hospital on game day than on a regular game day because of the warrior's commit ment to designate lanes solely for getting to the hospital. the taxes that would be generated will be great for the city and the infrastructure. the jobs that will add and also i think we always talk about hidden costs and underestimating projects' complete costs. i think we're also underestimating how much benefit there will be because of the unforeseen things that will happen with this type of venue. for instance, republican or democratic convention. all of these things kind of bring tax dollars and tax money into the city. my job, i meet people from all over the world, from paris,
5:22 am
milan, beijing and they all say the same thing, when they get money enough to visit a place, they go to san francisco. they don't go to oakland, or santa clara, they come to san francisco. so with all due respect, would i like to quote the words of another chairman of the board, who was when he was asked how he thought about san francisco many, many years ago he said, now there is one grown-up swinging town, baby. that is what frank sinatra said when he came here. i don't want to let them down. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm joel. i'm an electrician with electrickal workers 6 in san francisco. i grew up in the city playing basketball at the high school here, not playing basketball at college here, but attending college here in san francisco. i want to speak on behalf of our labor, the electricians local 6 and management today.
5:23 am
the san francisco electrical contractors association, both of who are very much in favor of the project and think the transportation improvement fund is adequate than following the project through the process, speaking at the board of regents. both unanimous decisions last week, at the ocii commission and the planning commission. we'd like to also state we have been working closely with the office of economic and workforce development and city build to ensure that san francisco residents have a chance to work on this job. we're hiring residents. our contractors employee residents and we have members that live in the nearby vicinity and we have contractors based nearby the project site. these contractors are also inin favor of the project because this project is encouraging very fair competition management-wise. our companies pay their payroll
5:24 am
taxes here and gross receipts here and the warriors have committed to working with us and our laborers and we would like to support the project today. >> thank you very much, next speaker, please. >> committee members my name is chris keller, a residence of las altos and i know about the work you do and want to thank you for the time and effort you put into your jobs. i'm here today as a member of the public to support this program, and this project, this arena for all of the same reasons that others have mentioned. i'll make my comments brief. i do currently drive for lyft and uber as a contractor. i'm not here to represent either of those organizations, but to the extent that they are changing the way that people move around the city, to alleviate traffic and parking
5:25 am
concerns, and that is something that is helpful. i want to note in a couple of these meetings that i have been in, the amazing collaborative approach that the warriors have taken to solve problems that have come up, to resolve concerns in the community that have had issues with a project of this magnitude. rick welts and his team are a world-class organization and not only are the warriors currently creating a new type of game plan on the court, that other organizations are trying to copy, you can see that here in san francisco, with the collaboration between this organization, and the city, represents a playbook for other professional sports organizations to copy to, mimic the kind of success that they have had. lastly, i just want to say that i am a father. my wife and i have four girls, and raising kids is all about creating family memories. and for me and my wife, that
5:26 am
includes watching games on tv and taking our kids to fun and interesting things. this arena, the images that i have seen so far is something that i look greatly forward to taking my kids to. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. my name is stephany, and i run the gardens, which is san francisco's first transportable community garden. i just wanted to say thank you so much for what you do. but one of the things i know is that as i tried to get my support for nomad, i wanted to say that the warriors have done an amazing job to actually ask the community what they want? i'm just very proud to be part of that conversation, and to just tell you guys also, my background is in architect and urban design and think that the transportation plan that they have put in place is really very strong and robust.
5:27 am
and i'm very supportive of them coming into the neighborhood, and would actually ask you guys to consider approving. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor farrell, supervisor tang, supervisor mar, my name is corinne and i chair the citizens advisory committee and i rent the mission bay cac on the ballpark, mission bay transportation committee. when the warriors first proposed the arena at pier 30-32, they listened to us when we said were were most concerned about transaction transportation issues. traffic and transportation are the keys to our neighborhood
5:28 am
concerned abouton 13:21:33 transportation issues. concerned abouton surviving this especially after 15 years of the giants and by approving the eir and by approving this transportation fund, you are helping us to move forward, hopefully with some flexibility. so that as we learn what the impacts are, we can address them as we have been with the bt cc over the years. i ask you to approve the transportation improvement fund and committee and let us move forward. thank you. >> thank you, ms. woods. next speaker, please. i will call a few more people as well. david lombardi, tony mobley. mike mcgongaling.
5:29 am
>> i'm representative of the sheet workers in san francisco and we applaud rick welts and his team for collaborating with the building and construction trades council on this project. it will benefit local restaurants and local hotels, and furthermore, it will create thousands of good-paying jobs for local residents and contractors as my colleague alluded to. to take it a little further, it will also create career pathways for local youth through our state-approved building apprenticeship program. good paying jobs and pathways for kids in the bay view and hunters point and kids that are often overlooked that won't go on to be doctors, but highly
5:30 am
skilled building trades people that our economy desperately need and urge you to support it. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is diane gray and i'm a native san franciscan, homeowner in the bayview-hunters point community and also the executive director of bay view association for youth, a college access program for the bay view middle and high school students. the warrior's proposed development is a win for our city and a win for our community in the southeast sector. the transportation improvement fund as it is currently drafted will also benefit the bay view transit system. last week the project received around of unanimous endorsements on the dine and design and environmental review and they have been strong partners in our city that --
5:31 am
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thanks for having me. any name is mike mcgonagle and i live in mission bay and strongly support the warrior's project. when i wife and i bought our home over three years ago, we knew that the neighborhood around us would change and change in a big way and we looked forward to the way. for those in the neighborhood, that change hasn't happened fast enough. this project will replace acres of empty space with a venue that san francisco has always needed and has lacked. it will also come with substantial transportation improvements that we have heard about today.
5:32 am
those of you that think more biotech is the answer to a more livable neighborhood, i encourage you to walk the area at 7:00 or later. you will soon realize that all of us who live in mission bay already know, nothing is going on. these workers arrive in the morning and go home in the evening. leaving behind an empty and quiet area where crime can and does take place. the arena is a gift to the city and our neighborhood. it it will bring a vibrancy that has been sorely missed and will showcase the diversity that makes this city great. i encourage you to support this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is stewart canning, i'm a resident of mission bay.
5:33 am
thank you for having us here today. i'm also a 10-year resident of san francisco, and my entire ten years here i have worked for non-profit organizations that serve the community, and my goal, my work is to invest in san francisco and make san francisco a better place. so you have heard a lot of arguments, and a lot of value things that the warriors' stadium will bring to san francisco. i think there are some important discussion points that are also been raised about how we can bring the statement effectively into the community, but supervisor kim's most important point, i think, mission bay is a community that is building. so we have an opportunity to do it right, and clearly, the warriors are committed to do it the right. overall, i think all of us in this room are for the warriors' stadium and want san francisco to be the best city it can possibly about. with that, it's absolutely clear in my mind that the
5:34 am
warriors are committed to that too, and we should bring the stadium to mission bay. i hope that you will approve all of the proposals before you today. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is david lombardi and i live in the mission. just echoing and following-up up on that comment making san francisco the best city it could possibly be, i think a project like this is absolutely necessary for san francisco to be able to hold itself in world-class status and to zoom out and remember that very rarely does a project come to a city, you either hear about projects bankrupting cities and the warriors have come here to do something great for san francisco and have shown us the transportation plan that will not only assuage the plans to
5:35 am
get to the arena. being a person who lives in the mission, i drive and use muni and understand how the flows of traffic and how some of the pains in getting around the city work. in this location, where you can get down to the bart 16th station or uptown, i think this is the most untapped transportation potential this city has on the eastern side. and with the plan that the warriors have presented, i think we can tap into the transportation potential at a cost that they're basically funding. so i urge you to approve this plan, it's a dream come true for a city that really needs this >> thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is howard picket, i just wanted to tell you that san francisco travel
5:36 am
is committed to this project because we really believe it will create thousands of jobs and generate millions of dollars in economic activity for the city. as know travel and tourism is one of our big economic drivers in the city. last year we welcomed over 18 million overnight visitors that supported about 87,000 jobs, and contributed $665 million to the general fund. while the numbers are very impressive, there is more we need to do to be competitive with cities. with the renovation of moscone center and our major customers, meeting and convention planners still point out how badly we need an indoor event venue like the one being proposed here this. project will give san francisco a spectacular venue to address this need and its excellent design, we believe will make the center easily
5:37 am
accessible and ease crowd movement to make for safe and enjoyable events. for these reasons we believe that the new facility will create a great new venue in the city and will help us to stay very competitive with other cities around the country and around the world that we compete with. so we would ask you to please vote in favor of this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. i will call up a few more cards. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> good afternoon, and thank you, commissioners for hosting this special meeting for the san francisco warriors' events center. my name is toni mobley and some
5:38 am
of my friends know be as antonette, a loud, proud warrior's fan and we're talking about the transportation improvement fund. that t-train trying to get home on the giant's is just horrendous. it's been horrendous and i know the city has been meeting with the sfmta board and community to come up with strategies to calm that traffic around at&t park and mission bay. biotech companies talk about coming in and bringing 2,000 in there and they leave in the afternoon. and we're still -- they are still not addressing the issues of residents just wanting to get home after work. so this transportation improvement fund to me is very, very personal. i really appreciate the warrior's collaboration with all of the government entities,
5:39 am
the bicycle coalition, but primarily, with the community. i mean, they stepped really up first-class and came out and have been talking with us over the last 18 months >> i mean they came out swinging, you know? i really, really appreciate for them. they couldn't have come with this plan at a better time, given that the central subway is in alignment with the rollout of the new events center. that will even further improve that little hub there, bringing in tracks where there is one platform, you see in that will accommodate more people. it's safer. you know, right now you have to go even if you are going to the eastside, you have to go over to that track and cross that street and cross that street and takes you five minutes, it's just kind of crazy, you know what i'm saying? so this plan makes sense. it just makes sense.
5:40 am
and they are going to pay for it 100%, you can't ask for a better gift than that, okay? so go warriors. you all say yes to this plan. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon pat valentino, south bay merchant association. we support the project and our association also supports this transportation improvement fund. i also should mention that i live in the neighborhood and travel through the neighborhood quite eight a bit on public transit and as several speakers mentioned how important this is overall. specifically it's been a community-oriented and i have run into peter albert running along the waterfront several
5:41 am
times and he said i ran to clear my head and he starts to talk how he is going to find solutions, which he has obviously worked with the city to control come up for this project. the warriors have come to us and asked for our input and we have given it to them and they have come back with a highly strategic. a lot of us just commute in and out of the area and this will do wonders for our transit needs separate from the events center. looking at the events center itself and its use an average crowd of 9300, ranging from 5,000 up to 17,000, they are setting it up for 17,000. we're going to have an average of 9,000. america's cup arena was 9,000 and did fairly well with a very limited transit plan. i think we're going to be in really good shape to see the net benefits of this. we appreciate the strategy put into this fund.
5:42 am
it's a strategic fund that will benefit the neighborhood and take care of the needs of both capital and operations of the center. so please approve the fund. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. i will call out the next cards. [ reading speakers' names ] if there is anybody else aside from those speakers when want to speak, please line up on the far wall. >> supervisors, good afternoon. potrero neighborhood association. we're pleased that our amendments on the citizen representatives and the business representatives, ." representatives no. 3 and 4 has been amended and we would like to request district representative have the same controls as representatives 3 and 4 so they live in the mission bay neighborhood,
5:43 am
potrero hills, somewhere close to the stadium and not out on treasure island or the tenderloin or someplace like that. we're optimistic with the proposal from the warriors and in the area where it's going to cause significant issues, a number of residents of potrero hill and dog patch are still highly concerned that this -- so this needs to be sold to them. so they understand what is going to go on there. the proof will be inment implementation by the city, the mta and warriors. we need the additional cars for the t-line and to go to caltrain and not terminate. the ferry landing is critical, because the giants are telling us that a large percentage of their patrons are coming by the ferry boats. so a ferry landing would also help mission bay. the e or end line needs to be
5:44 am
extended to 25th street and needs to be pcos and a livable street s for dog patch and potrero. we have speeders and people running stop signs and significant problem because of applications like waves that route people on to our streets instead of keeping them on the freeways. thank you for your time and at this time the boosters are not endorsing the project, but would like to continue to work with mr. albert and the committee. >> thank you, mr. castro. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, carla tucker, native san francisco and academic enrichment program. we also have a group of
5:45 am
wonderful supporters from various communities and organizations, which brings me to talk about our nba championship team the golden state warriors. the warrior's project will attract over 4,000 jobs both permanent and construction. seeing that bay view has the highest unemployment rate, our families are excited about the opportunities that this will bring to our city. the warriors have already demonstrated tremendous amount of community support particularly in the bay view community, by providing tickets for kids and families to attend professional basketball games, awarding several bay view organizations grants, refurbishing our courts and neighborhoods and showing just an overall commitment to health and education. it will also trigger creation of a brand-new waterfront park along the terry a. francois boulevard, which will set a tone for better access to the waterfront and eventually add a connection point to other waterfront projects like the
5:46 am
hunter's shipyard and candlestick point. the move will generate more than 40 million upfront funds to pay for transit improvements for the neighborhood, including expanded muni and t-train services. this is something that will also definitely benefit the families in the bay view community. i think that san francisco deserves a world-class sports and entertainment facility. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is tom lippe and i represent the mission bay alliance that opposed this project as you know. i will submit three letters one from my office that objects to the ceqa finds and other from cocounsel that talks about the public subsidy you are going to provide and the third one is one that you may have seen before, from bruce alberts and 20 other faculty members from
5:47 am
uc f sf, if i can paraphrase, for this area to be health sciences and biotechnology and this is a key legal issue and because the [pro*-ept/] project sin consistent with the redevelopment plan in a number of ways. i want to move to big-picture points of the process. i have gone to the hearings and since the time of the final eir, there hasn't been enough time to look at the serious legal issues. any development is -- it's both a political process and a legal process. and sometimes the politics can overwhelm the law, and here you have lots of strong political forces that are urging you to approve this project. but you have lots of legal reasons to stop and say, wait a minute, we have legal issues,
5:48 am
we have legal violations. and i think a comment that was made at the planning commission last week summarized my concern, one the planning commissioners after the public comment said there is a small restaurant on grove street that we had earlier on the agenda that got more opposition than the warrior's arena. that denigrates the written opposition that has come in. my client has submitted 40 letters that detail serious legal violations and also den grates the depth of the faculty members who signed the letter to the original vision for this area. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, chair, and supervisors. my name is barbara french. i am vice chancellor at ucsf and i'm here to represent chancellor hall good as the rest of the ucsf. werish to express our support for the golden state warriors
5:49 am
event center and development and specifically for the ordinance that is before you today. ucsf has been studying this project for overia a year. initially the concerns focused on the impacts to the hospital, that opened this year, cancer children and women. as we study the project, our concern quickly focused on the traffic impacts and how that might hinder the ability for emergency vehicles for patients and their families and for the more than 3,000 employees who work at the hospitals to get to work on time? we in analyzing the project, we do support an active mission bay environment, which some neighbors have testified today. our concerns quickly focused on the impacts during what we call our peak hours, the times there would be an overlap between a large event at the arena and home-game of the giants, and a situation that could bring more
5:50 am
than 60,000 people into that neighborhood. we looked that the time, because our analysis showed that this would likely cause the biggest traffic issues for patients and our health care workers during this time of analysis our chancellor publicly announced his qualified support pending some agreements around traffic and last month the city, the warriors and ucsf announced that we had those agreements and ucsf gave the project its endorsement. it's our firm belief that the measures that you heard of today, as well as other measures that have been implemented will provide a level of monitoring and management sufficient to ensure that people who need access tot to the hospitals and workers to provide that critical care. in conclusion, we do support the ordinance before you today.
5:51 am
>> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm scott van horn and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i'm a dog patch resident. i live just a block from site and i can actually see the site from my deck. i'm fully in support of this project. the benefits it will bring to the entire area are immense. the warriors have worked with the residents and city and transportation plan including bus and light-rail service, almost 30 parking control officers and railcars and additional police, the possible ferry service, bypass track, et cetera. all are wonderful and needed, but the thing that really shows how this is a clear win for our neighborhood and city is the transportation improvement fund. this fund will allow the city to spend money on whatever it
5:52 am
decides to as the project progresses and events start. i would anticipate eventually using this fund to do things like, provide even more service from 16th street bart station, some additional officers in the dog patch area after events and hopefully building the ferry terminal. local businesses and residents desperately need the transportation improvements with or without the new arena. however, if we let the billionaires and lawyers who want the land for themselves, we will get nothing and we'll continue to have a dilapidated field and pit sitting there for many, many more years. we'll not get the new services and businesses and we'll not get the warriors next championship. thank you. we urge support for this project. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
5:53 am
my name is john cornwall and 20-year resident and member of the board of rain rincon hill development association. the big 800-pound gorilla is transportation and congestion. so we can order all the extra streetcars we want and put in bus bridges and all the rest, but currently we all know there is a 2-8 p.m., even without a special event at the ballpark, 80 is already congested and the on ramp to mariposa is congested and we have reached saturation. there is some very high-level traffic studies that we did when was going to be on pier 30-32 and showed that the
5:54 am
commute hours would be extend on each end. you have to ask yourself, there is something very unique about the sports events and the events are synchronized. if you have offices or labs, people would adopt their schedules, but you have 18,000 people coming to a sporting event that begins and completely overlapping and synchronized in terrible hours. every single event has thousands of hours of disparate impact and i could get into the opportunity costs of an arena versus office space or what have? when these entitled projects come online, transbay terminal, the giants, it's going to be car -magedon
5:55 am
>> thank you, any other speakers. >> thank you, supervisors for letting us speak. my name is rudy from the united players. been serving the community in the city and county of san francisco 21 years. we just cleaned your neighborhood. that was the kid's version. kids in school. we are here in full support of the warrior's stadium built in a city built in a city that is built on champions. we have right here in -- right here behind me, people from district 6, people from treasure island, people from.tenderloin and south of market.
5:56 am
president obama is speaking about re-entry and we have one brother who did 35 and rick stevenson who just came home and did 36 years. when you talk about re-entry and talk about giving opportunity, this is the people from the community and the people from the hood. we are ground-zero people. we are the people who are about safety. that is our no. 1 thing that we fight for, is safety in our community. they say don't stop -- we need housing. we need jobs. we need health care and this is the opportunity that they are giving to our community and our people. so we're thankful for that and letting us speak here and letting us share. thank you. >> thank you guys for coming. much appreciated and thank you for being in district 2 over the weekend. it was fun. >> i don't know how many lead
5:57 am
singers you have had before you, but here i am, gold records and a prison record and it's a pleasure to be here and support this. thank you all. >> thank you. anybody else from the public who wishes to comment on these items? please step forward. >> hi. my name is alex and i'm here representing the mission bay alliance as winston-salem. wall. i wanted to say given the new information revealed by mr.
5:58 am
rosen budget analyst report but what or because this information is different, to ask for a defer to read through the documents and absorb what was shared today putting the taxpayers on the hook for $29 million that as of yet unfunded and process the fact this stadium is not generating the kind of revenues that we had previously anticipated. thank you. >> thank you very much. anybody else wishing to comment on items 1-4? please step forward. anybody else, please line up on the far side of the wall, so we can finish it up. thank you. >> my name is leo schwartz and would request more information according to the brown act.
5:59 am
these materials are not published in compliance with the brown act and i had to call on friday to find out this meeting was being changed and nothing was posted until after i called midday friday items 1-4. so they should be posted farther in advance. thank you. >> thank you, anybody else to comment on items 1-4? seeing none, public comment is closed. before we get to discussion amongst our colleagues, i would like to call back mr. adam vander water, who had comments based on some of the testimony earlier. >> thank you, chair farrell. supervisors, a couple of comments in response to commentary today. first, there was a comment made about parking. and a suggestion that this move entirely to an office space. the proposal before you today is actually 100 fewer spaces than would be allowed under a full office development. so it's not by any stretch of nba
6:00 am
standards by mission bay standards or city code, overparked. second you heard the university of california, san francisco talk about access this. was a very important thing in our conversations with the community. i mentioned the local hospital access plan, which provides access for non-emergency vehicles. what i did not mention is that eir analysis talks about no significant impacts to emergency vehicles under the no project, the project, the project plus cumulative conditions and the 20/40 conditions and the reason we're able to say that, there are transit priority lanes, north, south, east and west and once we complete the 16th street corridor on 16th street the red-striped lanes under traffic code will permit emergency vehicles. and on an occasionally basic non-emergency vehicles to use those lanes. our feeling is between the 28
6:01 am
parking control officers, the transit priority lanes, and the added transit service to the neighborhood, that even under peak conditions that access to this neighborhood may actually improve over current conditions today. there was some commentary about the fiscal impacts of this report. these were comments that were made last wednesday, and we responded to at the planning commission last thursday. they are simply holding up the revenues from the arena against the proposed sources we presented today, versus an all-office building. which they resume would bring in an additional 2,000 employees without impact to city services. so they contributed zero costs to the added employee and gave no benefit to the existing employees as part of the two office towers on-site. finally, with two other comments. one with respect to the other
6:02 am
budget analyst recommendation, that we did not discuss. their first recommendation. we fully agree with that recommendation and, in fact, the item before you, item 1 today, adopts the ceqa findings and the mmrp included in that mmrp and ceqa findings is a transfer of responsibilities adopted by the ocii on tuesday and by the mta board and while we're in full agreement with the budget analyst, it's an unnecessary amendment to make today because it's already contained in what is adopted before you today. finally the comment about rush to judgment and request for continuance. this has been part of the standard approval process. we have been providing adequate notice and, in fact have been responding in writing to what we refer to as data dumps
6:03 am
within hours of our meetings and don't feel there is any new information that wasn't addressed in the analyses or our responses to comments. >> thank you, any comments from my colleagues or questions at this time? mr. vander water, anything else that you want to add? >> just one second. >> by the way, in case i didn't do it, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] >> we also submitted a response to a comment about public subsidy for the project in writing. and submitted that to the clerk of the board as part of the file. >> mr. vander water in terms
6:04 am
of amendments to item 1 that you distributed earlier, could you just briefly highlight what they are for us? >> to budget analyst recommendation no. 1. >> no, no. to item no. 1. the ceqa findings. there was -- i believe some small amendments handed out earlier or ask our city attorney. >> the substantive items of the recommendation that we have handed out in response to some recent comments with the neighborhood related to the composition of the advisory committee that would be advising the mta for the transportation improvement fund. >> that is item no. 2 and to talk to item no. 1 really quick. >> john malamut from the city attorney's office. there were before you today there are four pieces of
6:05 am
legislation and each one has a series of minor technical amendments made to it. your questions were about the very first item on the ceqa findings. many of these things are just minor additions. one recognizes the mta's approval on november 3rd. just a few other minor things. while i'm here i might as well speak to amendments to the delegation ordinance, which is the third item on your agenda. there was one small addition on the -- it's on page 4 of the ordinance, line 23 and 24, just recognizing the existing process that the city usually goes through for accepting public improvements and
6:06 am
recognizing that the director of public works can make those decisions in this case, given that everything is really mapped out in terms of what the obligations are for public infrastructure. there are also a few minor additions to the last item on your agenda, the street and easement vacations, and that is primarily to recognize there is an existing agreement on the use of the temporary terry francois connector boulevard that will remain in place until the permanent improvements are constructed as part of this project. there are a series of agreements that the city needs to work through with various parties to make sure that that can remain open to the public. so it recognizes what those agreements would be and delegates that authority to the director of property to negotiate the final pieces of those two agreements. >> okay. thank you very much, mr. mallet.
6:07 am
colleagues any questions? so we have these items before us, items 1-4. let me suggest unless there are overall comments i would like to say thank you to everyone from the public in support/opposition who came out to all of our staff -- to the warriors and their team, to mta, i know this has been a long time in coming. ucsf in particular for being out as well. we have item 1. let's take this one first. we do have technical amendments that were just discussed and would like to entertain a motion to accept these items. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang. will you take those without objection? [ gavel]{enter} and underlying item on ceqa findings as amended. can we have a motion to approve these items as well motion by supervisor mar. >> to a certain date, supervisor? >> yes, thank you very much, madame clerk. colleagues because we cannot act on these items at the full board until the ceqa time has run out, we're going to be forwarding these items to the december 8th board of
6:08 am
supervisors meeting and entertain a motion to forward this item with recommendations to the december 8th board meeting. we can take that out objection [ gavel ] >> it's relates to item 2, let me suggest two things. first of all there were a number of technical amendments that i will quickly read through, done in conjunction with the different neighborhood groups. page 2 line 9-10, potrero hill and dog patch neighborhoods with regard to enhancement to multi-modal transportation. on page 7, lines 2-4 states that the controller shall in the assessment include separate estimates of revenues generated on the project site and revenues generated off the site in response to bla's recommendation and including the words any any neighborhood to be a seat on the advisory committee to address the concerns of potrero and dog patch neighborhood." and
6:09 am
includes the requirement that one of the two mayoral seats be a member of the ballpark mission bay transportation coordinating committee -- and clarifis that one of the duties of the advisory committee to collaborate with the ballpark mission bay transportation coordination committee. so colleagues these are technical amendments, but i do think very reflective of a number of community conversations that have gone on and something that i would certainly like to support. so entertain a motion to accept those. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar without objection [ gavel ] and the budget and legislative analyst has talked about two specific recommendations. i will just make my comments and open up for a conversation, particular around the second one around on-site versus on-site. i appreciate the commentary very much in the analysis from the board's perspective. you know, from my perspective,
6:10 am
from a policy-level i do come out thinking that it might not be as accurate as on-site, we can definitely attribute revenue to off-site behavior as well, just as someone who was born and raised in the marina, and my parents still live there. we have for instance blue angels come every year and the bars and restaurants they love it every single years because of the massive influx of people. residents might not like it from a parking perspective or the noise, but i have seen firsthand the ancillary effects of the revenue and looking at it and talking to folks i believe it's on the conservative side and would be comfortable supporting and
6:11 am
therefore, >> supervisor tang. >> i would agree with supervisor farrell's recommendation regarding the second item and it was good to distinguish between the on-site and off-site, but the analysis was done thoroughly and we based it on the conservative-level. so i would feel comfortable without taking that second recommendation from the budget and legislative analyst report. as the controller mentioned there will be some fine tuning of the numbers going forward. and so, i know that we'll be engaging in a transparent process when that opportunity arises. and so again at this point, i'm okay with taking the recommendation, the first one, even though it is redundant in terms of the other documents. but i don't see harm in including it in item no. 2, but not recommendation no. 2. >> okay. so is that a motion? >> okay. so i will make had a motion then to adopt budget
6:12 am
analyst recommendation no. 1, which is that the ordinance should specify that the annual cap of the 90% of the general fund if it's insufficient to cover sfmta's expenditures for transportation services to the warrior's project, then the warriors will be responsibility to comply with eir mitigations t-r2b and t-18. >> motion by supervisor tang without objection. colleagues we have the underlying item no. 2 as amended by both amendments. motion to accept the item with full recommendation to the december 8th board of supervisors meet. >> ing so moved. >> motion by both supervisor tang and supervisor mar, we'll take it without objection. as to item 3 we have some technical amendments, discussed. can i have a motion to accept the technical amendments. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar this time.we'll take that out
6:13 am
objection and to move item 3 to the full board to the december 8th board meeting. motion to that effect? >> so moved >> motion by supervisor tang, take that without objection. [ gavel ] . colleagues all right all all item no. 4, take those without objection and underlying to separate send it forward with full recommendation to the board for the december 8th meeting. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang. >> mr. malamut. >> city attorney's office, i prepared language to address the budget analyst's recommendation. i could read that into the record. >> item no. 1? >> i'm sorry, all item no. 2.
6:14 am
>> recommendation no. 1 in regard to agenda item no. 2, i could read into the record a proposal, but it would require rescinding that vote on item 2 and rehearing it if you think the item is acceptable. >> sure, i just want to make sure it's something had that we're voting on today. >> yes. >> happy to do so, colleagues motion to rescind the moment so moved. >> thank you. >> this is again your agenda item no. 2. at the end of the existing language this is entitled "environmental findings." we would add the language, "in that action, and this referring to the ceqa findings -- the first item on your agenda.
6:15 am
that action the board recognized that the commission on community investment and infrastructure ocii on november 3, 2015 approved resolution 70-2015 which adopted california environment quality act findings. and including a statement of overriding considerations, and mp research and planning program as required by law. as part of the ocii approval of the resolution and other proval actions related to the golden state warriors event center and mixed-use district c pretty sured as conditions of approval, those aspects of mitigation measures and
6:16 am
concerning transportation impacts in the mp research and p mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and this essentially recognizes the two mitigation measures and indicates that they have been imposed as conditions on the project by the commission on community investment and infrastructure. >> thank you, >> i just wanted to clarify the reason we put this recommendation in and i'm willing to ask what the city attorney says is that none of the documents we saw did it explicitly say that if there wasn't sufficient money for the mta to implement all of the transit measures that are being considered by this legislation,
6:17 am
it never explicitly that the warriors are responsible for the list of measures. we understand it was in ceqa and we understand it was in the mitigation measures and in the ocii, but it was never stated explicitly that if the revenues fall short that that is what the warriors are going to be doing. so i will defer to the city attorney on this one, but i think it's a really key point on why we made the recommendation. >> thank you. i think you will find agreement on this entire panel and the full board. assuming that your language satisfis that concern, i think that is something i would certainly support. so at this point, colleagues unless questions, entertain a motion to accept that language into item no. 2. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar, take without objection [ gavel ] colleagues we have to revote on
6:18 am
item 2 as amended to forward in item to the full board for recommendation to thedecember 8th board of supervisors meeting. >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang without objection. madame clerk, do we have any other action. >> item 4 was also amended -- it was also recommended to the full board to thedecember 8th 8th meeting. >> there is no other action. >> thank you everybody we're adjourne meeting. >> commissioner brandon commissioner vice president low item two approval of the draft minutes for the october 2015
6:19 am
so >> i. >> opposed? okay is there any public comment on executive session now we'll vote on whether or not to go into closed session>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> so moved pursue that second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> hold on. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? we're in executive sessions. >> conference with the legal matters and conference. >> time to use my a good deal of for the ends of any presence. >> ready is there a motion? >> i move to reconvene session. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? >> not to disclose anything
6:20 am
closed session. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? >> we are reconvened. >> pledge of allegiance to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, phones, devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room meeting room meeting room responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices. item 8


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on