Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 5, 2010 3:00pm-3:30pm PST

4:00 pm
were picked. but we need to go out there and we need to beat them. and i certainly hope that we bring our hometown guy. mr. elson is a constituent of mine in district two. i hope that what we send forward today is something that shows the rest of the world that san francisco is there for a fight. that this is something that we want and that this is something that we're willing to go out there and win. and i hope and look forward to watching the new classic bowl, the multi-hole 72-foot catamaran in the bay of san francisco come to the bay in 2013. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. president, colleagues, i appreciated the discussion both yesterday chaired by supervisor maxwell from the land use committee and
4:01 pm
believed all very good points were exchanged. as soon as mr. ellyson's oracle had won the cup and secured the rights, i moved with a resolution which we had passed unanimously and then the mayor had also said that san francisco should do everything in its power to become the host in the america cup races. i still feel the same way but not, of course, to the exclusion of the watchful comments that i think have been chaired by supervisor daly and a number of you colleagues. but i do think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. i have lived and seen this opportunity where i spent most of my youth in new england growing up with a single mother, very working class,
4:02 pm
blue color community and witnessing the generational effect economically of what this race did for 53 years when it was hosted by new port, rhode island. we lived off the port of new port. we couldn't even get off the mainland unless there was a boat to do so. that's how isolated we were until they finally put a bridge in. it wasn't like anybody where we lived was rich. but our economy was entwined at the time and it was significantly enhanced for all specially windows with greater means did come to the area on a three-year rotation the compete for the cup. i also participated in some of the cup myself in 1980. i feel strongly that san francisco puts its best foot
4:03 pm
forward in a unified, as much as we can, collect vised way in trying to secure this. to the general public, i know this has been mentioned but this is a very clumsy process. we're the only city vying for a cup. our competitors are two nation, italy and spain. it is the prime minister who gets to make the unilateral decision of whether their countries are going to be able to successfully vie for the cup. they do not necessarily have to seek the blessing of their parliament or therefore the supervisors in order to get where they want to go. fortunately, we have the freedom of information act and we live by sunshine and brown act. so the demands on us are that much more compounded to make sure that we're able to drill down the most effective
4:04 pm
agreement that we possibly can. we're the only city that's going to have to go through this exercise but yet this is a mandatory exercise. so i don't think anybody should feel, i think, withered or fatigued or beleaguered by this because it's necessary. and yet known very well in recent history of what has occurred and what could become with the 49ers in san francisco , what had happened and not happened with the olympics in relation to san francisco. what did not happen with the world cup in 2018 in not coming to san francisco where we had other cities beat up. we're trying to do everything we can to line up the variables as much as we are enabe led to
4:05 pm
make sure that the point people on behalf of this effort are as well fortified to secure the best deal possible. some of the very questions that supervisor daly and others are asking, we don't have answers to those questions, so we're going to want our team, our point people to go in there to ibs gait a process to what the term sheet about, to begin the green light process just toiness gait a process but knowing very well they're going into the gauche yating room and there's no way in order to get those answers yet. so we're in this purgatory. and this purgagtory is are we going to move forward knowing very well that we're not going to subvert the best interest of district six constituents or people in the bay area. i'm betting on the fact that if we move forward this term
4:06 pm
sheet, we have enough backstops to referee i think the warning signs to make sure that we do not see a salaried experience. i'm not betting this blindly. we must have those answers. but those answers must be predicated on some milestones. one of those milestones is that in order for sequa to beiness gaited that that fiscal report must be in hand. and for us in order to move with se qua only will allow us to be real players in competing to secure the cup races. so the question to the chair to the staff of oewd would like to answer is -- when can you get us a fiscal feasibility report so that we're able to, i think, get to some of the drilldown that a number of us would like
4:07 pm
to see so that we're not officiating i think this exercise blindly. >> supervisor merker, we would be pleased to come back to the budget and finance committee with a physical feasibility study for the cup as we understand it subject to the fact that the organizers don't know the full scope but we will disclose everything that they have disclosed to us and do as much fiscal feasibility and impacts based upon that as we know it at this time and that time. >> so let's troo to put a little more hape to the answer. so is it possible that you can say that if the chair agrees with the budget committee that two to three weeks tomorrow depending on which budget meeting, can we have a hearing and budget committee on the physical feasibility report? >> yes, we can. >> all right. and to close on this, this
4:08 pm
report -- i mean, i know we're into slogan hearing. the direct and indirect benefits of potentially hosting the cup. i'm not speaking to the potential loss which we will have analyzed but conservative doesn't put it into a close approximation with regard to the potential on the job market side. i can see where the job potential can be and that is a tax not to the boating industry but i firmly brief that this is that interception at time that happened purely out of coincidence and the ser dipity that it presented an opportunity to san francisco that we now might be able to reimagine what to do with this
4:09 pm
portion of the port that there has no plan for and it has been remaining in abay yens for so many years. this has come down from mono. so with regard to, i think the opportunity that is before us, then this answers long-standing questions, unresolved about between this section and yes, the very section of an area well, -- well-represented by our colleagues that we can still use this and capitalize this and something very good beyond the impact zone of just where the building is. i took a tour from all the piers down in this areas in this area and i appreciated the port for providing the facilitation on this. and i have to tell you if you look at the current condition of the port, if you look at all the piers that would be in the
4:10 pm
adjacent areas that would be i78 -- impacted and compare that with their lack of studys that are in place right now, we have no answers. that doesn't mean that we should compromise ourselves and not do anything to seek profit and for the bertment of all san franciscoians especially those who struggle to stay in the city which hopefully means that can be translated into indirect revenue. i see this having a wave effect beyond what this conversation is revealing. i believe the watchful comments and concerns by some of our colleagues added to my voice to that are spot on and i believe we both can go forward the correct amount of milestones and warning steins. because we've seen collective
4:11 pm
bargaining agreements with unions that every time when the city comes back to us and the negotiating team says, we've got a deal. ask yourself, at any time in the board of supervisors have we ever sent the collective bargaining team back for a bert deal without them responding it's too complicated, it's too much trouble. rarely has that happened. we can't take this answer on blind faith that there may be need for renegotiation which there might be need to re-insert ourselves at the proper point so that at one time we make sure that the best interest of the people of san francisco do not go unnoticed or neglected. thanks. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president, i know there are members of audience waiting for other
4:12 pm
items. i'll be very brief. i appreciate the discussion and along the lines of what the supervise or indicated. i'm excited in bringing the america's cup to san francisco. i don't think there's a question about the desire that we have in making something like this happen. which is why from the very beginning i've been very supportive of that effort. i think though, that you have to make sure you do it right. and i have to say that i am disappointed about the process and that even though there's a very short time line it is very clear that a lot more should have done in terms of involving the supervisor that involves district six which will be directly impacted by what
4:13 pm
happens. and i think that what has been represented to me so far is not sufficient in terms of the kind of outreach that you might expect. so i can understand how any one of luss be -- frustrated in light of that. i also think that the comments by the mayor were unfortunate because you can't expect to have a united front as an elected family if you do not include every member of the elected family. that said, i think we have an opportunity to come together and i don't believe that we can have a successful event unless some of these questions are answered. so i speak as someone who wants to be supportive, who wants to see this go through and be
4:14 pm
finalized. i think some important questions do have to be arsdzed. >> we are talking about a term sheet. even though the term sheet by its own terms is nonbinding, the term sheet makes it known that it is a document that sets forth and i quote essential terms and conditions agreed upon, end quote by the parties. so the term sheet even though it's not the binding document, it does have at its core the frame that it has as a basis as a legally binding document. to the extent that it talks about it containing the essential terbles of the agreement, i do think that there are some things that are missing from the term sheet. i don't believe that a term sheet is supposed to outline
4:15 pm
every specific of the agreement. but a term sheet should provide broad parameters for addressing certain key issues and some issues come to mind. there is the issue of workforce which is something that i know that my colleagues and committee raised and it's snag this board has been working on certainly since i've been on the board and from watching the board prior to that for quite some time. so to me if workforce is a priority, then clearly you have to include something that addresses that issue in the term sheet. i don't think you have to outline the specifics of that. but there has to be general parameters, covering that issue that are put in there. we talked about the issue of how do we involve youth and make sure that all communities in san francisco benefit from this event while i agree with the superthat it is a city wide
4:16 pm
even. to become a city wide event it has to be something that directly impacts every resident of san francisco. it can't be to be a city wide event something where only certain folks who live in specific parts of the city are impacted by it. i'm glad to hear that some of my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about america's cup. but i don't hear from my constituents about america's cup because i don't thinkably constituents are aware that they are part of this event. that pesh in portola and bay view, how are they going to be impacted by this event. i don't see even broad parameters of that in the term sheet. we talk about small businesses and local businesses, again, a priority for this board. i don't see anything in this term sheet that will provide a
4:17 pm
broad outlook of how we're going to benefit small businesses. i agree that there's a lot of potential when you have this keebt kind of event coming into this city but what exactly is it that we're committed to? not specifics but in terms of general, broad principles, what is it that we're committed to? and then in materials of good public policy, i don't think that we as a board should enter into any kind of agreement unless we have some analysis provided by the budget analyst. again, i am supportive of this event. i am supportive of making this happen. but there has to be some independent analysis o a financial impact. and i don't believe that we wait until the end of the -- finalizing the agreement to make that happen. i don't think that you -- that
4:18 pm
that is good public policy. i do have also a couple of questions that i'd like to ask. i don't know if the port director is here. but if the port director is in the audience, if she can please come up. i do see ms. moyers from port. if i may just a couple questions to the port director. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. >> i guess a very broad, basic question. there's a lot of entitlements that would be given by the city from sop of the parties here. do you feel that the person that oversees the port of san francisco that the terms are good for your operation? >> i think the terms of the term sheet or letter of intent whatever the name for it are
4:19 pm
promising. as we said in committee yesterday, this is the first proposal of this magnitude to rehabilitate piers for martime use. i think that the benefits of having the america's cup at our piers is a tremendous opportunity for the port. the discussion that's happening today is not unlike the discussion that we have had related to the benefits in cost of building a crew ship terminal or any of those things. i do think it is early on but with your guidance, we can get to a deal that i can say to you is good. but i think it's very promising. >> thank you very much for that answer. are there points in the term sheet that are not so promising? or are there thanges are
4:20 pm
missing in the term sheet that you would like to see that are not in there? >> the points that are in the term sheet are still very much simply points and one of the supervise ors pointed out earlier are not spelled out with specificity. an example of that is that there are a number of pier locations that were mentioned. >> yesterday, we talked about primarily about 3032. but in fact others are contemplated. we will have to understand how the race is going to be run, what the timing is for for those peers to be turned over and how they will impact us. we have a city report to talk about how and where we can relocate tenants that can be impacted and we have yet to talk about a track that can benefit more specifically.
4:21 pm
so for example, we don't have the a robust maritime supply at port. we talked about one. maybe we can finally do that. there's a lot that still needs to be spelled out. for myself i called it a letter of intent. >> are there any concerns that you have about any existing terms that are in the term sheet right now. >> i think right now it is my assumption that the city is the project manager, and that the city will, through the organizing committee and other ways assist the port or whom ever had the on application to ready the facility, i don't understand from the term sheet yet what the timing is. so it is a future year?
4:22 pm
is it a current year? there's an investment that needs to be made up front, a return on investment that needs to come later, that's how the port does business. i'm not in a position to measure those impacts. >> final question. one of the interesting points of the term sheet that -- that -- that at least jumped out at me is that with respect to some of the legacy sights that -- that we're talking about entering into a long-term lease of anywhere from 66 to 75 years, the lease would be rent-free. and i know that there is a lot of planning that has gone into a number of properties within the port of san francisco. do you have any feelings about that specific provision that would give this long-term lease rent-free for that period of
4:23 pm
time? >> it's going to be incumbent on a of us as you referred to earlier to make sure that those uses of the sight are beneficial to the public interest, whether it's exactly the public trust or not remains to be seen. my understanding is ha the port will have a say in those things later. in an idea world we would be able to keep tall revenue first the port. but we have yet to do an investment with all the parties, fishermans war of, the ballpark that pays the port. as i understand it, this deal is set up that way. what i don't know -- how many races will there be at the port? what is the actual full term. >> just a final follow-up to that. do you have a sense of what the value of what we will be giving
4:24 pm
up with respect to those sights , a 66 to 65-year lease? >> i don't have a sense of that. i will tell you that in the ports, capital improvement plan and the accompanying plan of finance, we always assumed that it will finance in tow tall in piers to 3032. that the only way to keep 3032 in the portfolio was to do that. pier 50 has not been on our radar screen in the past. so i can't speak to what the appraised value of that facility is. certainly one of the reasons that we've been coming to the board of supervisors and the state legislator is because the public-private partnership model as i said returns benefits to the city as a hole and financial benefits later in the process. i don't know when laettner the process is yet because we don't know the number of races and
4:25 pm
how long it will go. so we need to figure that out. i'm sorry, i don't know the exact value. >> thank you. thank you. >> supervisor aval orves s. >> this is a question for director moyer. there are questions related to the current leases you have at different piers, especially 3032. what is the revenue that could be lost in terms of the leasees moving out? could you talk about the amount? >> ok. so 3032 and c walnut 330. it's weight listed, which means that some of the activitys that we were using and puting on the
4:26 pm
pier can no longer be on the pier such as the volley tournament that was there a couple of years ago. the important part of 3032 is that it has a remaining useful life that is very sport without its investment. peer 50 has quite a -- pier 50 has quite a few tenants. 38, 4048 are revenue-generating properties. there are approximately let's say around 60 tenants who could be impacted but we don't know that they will be impacted yet. i will say significantlyless than that will be impacted by 3032. i think the revenue is $9 million? does that sound right?
4:27 pm
>> would you answer? >> certainly. the revenue were projected to be 12.75 million if the race is two and a half years. we looked at the term sheets and we minimized the use of facilities. that's how we got to the estimate of $12.75 million. that also assumes an increase in our projected percentage rents will results from the race being hosted. >> is that based on your ability to relocate certain tenants or is that the loss of those leases regardless if they're going to be relocated or not? >> the number is based loss of rental impact. we began to look at how to
4:28 pm
relocate tenants. but we need the to know how the -- they will use the piers. we do have some available space but not enough to provide for all of the leases that director moyer referenced. >> and then 12.5 over two years? >> that's over two and a half years and as asaid limited use of the facilities. >> what percentage of your revenue is that? >> our entire budget is $66.6 million. so that is a good portion. >> 10%? >> 10%? >> then as far as i look at the resolution, of course, and this line has been added about assuring of the port getting
4:29 pm
reimbursed for the revenue that you might lose or the leases that you might lose. have you heard anything concrete about how you would be reimbursed? what are your biggest concerns about being reimbursed for the lost revenue? >> we've been working with the mayor's office that the port would be reimbursed for the lost imcome by capturing a portion of the revenue that results from the race. we've been looking at potentially other debt that the port could utilize to improve areas of the waterfront that is not backed by revenue. but not using revenue bonds but instead general obligation bonds, perhaps a store of obligation bonds and other ways to left radge funds for