be followed to the port. this is something that we value at about $2,000 a year. we are estimating the bonding capacity at about $24 million to be used for port improvement. in exchange for agreements put forth in and ifd district, the board would agree to suspend up to $5 million of qualifying public improvements on public parcels that are related to the project. either on the park parcel or on the surrounding public ground. in a similar vein, the court agrees to work with the developers to create facilities and community districts. these are meant to be funding public use projects. as i mentioned, over all, it has benefits in the magnitude of about $10.1 million of direct payments support. over time, the ability to increase the ifd revenues the port can expect to capture. overall, our assessment is transaction guarantee short-term payment, payments up to $5 million in the next couple of years. it will enhance our long-term lease revenue through the park and other commercial revenues, and provide the part re

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 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 ca

the port has already provided the building comments. bart has not submitted a permit -- a building permit for the marine barriers to date, but for the surface barriers, bart has provided the terminations. bcdc has approved the approval concept. design and layout will not infringe upon the tax on the plaza. in addition, the building permit requires the provision of a construction plan and schedule for the barriers. staff has already provided comments on this to make sure that the construction has limited impact on area stakeholders. after construction, bart will be responsible for maintaining the barriers. the ports, under the agreement, will not be responsible for maintaining the areas where the barriers will be installed. dictating the future, what we have agreed on is that the port undertakes a project on the platform that requires the relocation of a barrier to maintain the circle they are creating around the facility, the port will have to pay for that relocation. if the port undertakes a project that requires additional barriers, o

the port has had a retail leasing policy approved by the port commission in 1993. it has been a fairly successful policy. that policy requires competitive bidding for new retail opportunities to provide new market entrants a chance to do business on the waterfront. including local business enterprises. that balances the need of the port to keep tenants who are performing well, who have built successful businesses along the waterfront and are willing to make additional investment. most of the policy discussion today is meant as a refinement of that existing policy. as i mentioned, the port commission adopted the existing policy in 1993. recently, the port commission has adopted two lease renewal extensions pursuant to the policy. i would just remind you pier 47 in fisherman's wharf, a 15-year term. tenant invested three-quarters of a million dollars into the property. base rent increased 100% under that deal compared to the prior base rent paid by the tenant. java house llc, was a 15-year deal with a 2% increase. so we have had good -- 200% increase. so we have had

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 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

the port may consider other uses as part of the approval process. term sheet may be amended along with subsequent proposals to change the mix of uses, intensity of development, or other fundamental terms. along with any underlying document, the term sheet is not intended to be contractually binding until the party executes on the transaction documents. that being said, that is where we are in the process. one of the fundamental differences between the proposal received in december 2008 and the current term sheet has to do with transaction structure. that was contemplating a structure where they would lease the entire site for 66 years as part of the project. what the developer has proposed and this term sheet reflects an agreement, with park staff and the developer, something more complicated. essentially, a swath of public trust on certain properties of seawall lot 351, 6 certain portions of the golden gate tennis and swim site. the current parts of the 351 that have the public trust are in great. the new areas that will have the public trust are i

we got that to the budget office from port staff. if we lose revenues in a four your time, i am not sure how to reflect that. i went with a four year time period of loss at $40 million. port relocation facilities on pier 50, we do not know. temporary berthing of super yachts, i do not know. the swap of seawall lot 330, we do not know. the financing may be included in the $32 million. i do not know. reimbursements to event authorities, helipad -- maybe that is included in the $325 million. maybe it is included in the $35 million. i do not know, i do not know, i do not know. it seems to me that colleagues and staff do not know the answers to these questions. so we are being asked on a committee meeting at monday and a board of supervisors' meeting the following tuesday to approve a term sheet. i have negotiated a couple of term sheets. a negotiated a term sheet on treasure island late into the night. the conditions have changed. but typically, term sheets that come in front of the sport have these types of questions answered. there are

today marks a great achievement for the port. it gives us great pride but it also gives as testimony the wonderful things can happen when leaders come together and great minds work on innovative projects. the port, as i mentioned, is over 100 years old. it is a place of great history. these appears you are standing on were built many years ago and have stood the incredible test of time, thanks to the amazing workmanship with which they were built. tremendous ingenuity has been demonstrated over and over again, and we are doing it again today. today, we get to celebrate our collective ingenuity, so it is with great pride that i introduce our leader, mayor gavin newsom, who, frankly needs no introduction, but i will say one thing -- his accomplishments, particularly in leading local government's response to the environment are too much for me to go into today. i'm here to tell you that this would not have happened without his leadership and support. i want to thank you for prioritizing this project and for making sure that once aga

would be the port. these are proximate depending on the start date and end date. the port will receive about $57,000 per month, or $230,000 for the term of the lease. plus, service valued at $350,000, the total would be called would not be expanding any of its own resources the benefit from these leases because of with awareness of its public opinion with local production persons and i think that those numbers are fairly impressive. in the there were two dollars in there, 50 cents kovac to a, -- into the local economy. home productions is wrapping up to this point, $500,000 locally on local labor. prosing in kind services for the discounted rates i noted. at this time i would like to introduce susanna robins to make a brief presentation. >> the port has been working with the production company to find space for them. a great office space and potential for using the building, just when a production company needs. it would help to draw other productions here in the future. they do not even need to shoot t

the staff are not really sure either. what are the costs to the port? we do not know. future infrastructure, financing mechanisms, actual cost for work at pier 80 -- this may or may not be in the $25 million of infrastructure work. pier 50 -- the cost of accommodating super kyats -- yachts, we do not know. there is an attachment of $890 million. i do not know if that is one year or what. we are not sure on that. the breakdown of the total city costs for america's cup -- we can take a look at that in the budget i prepared. is the city liable for ceqa preparation, yes. the cost of that document? i am not sure. is that $32 billion going to be raised before the 270? is the city protected first or mr. ellison protected first? do not know. for those of you who follow south beach development policy, you know that is the one that is worth something. it is actually on land. there is that title trust issue. in this term sheet, there is a title and trust swap. what program are we going to put on that? we do not know. what is the value of that parcel? we do not know. piers 30 and

you have is the port 80% is under the city's jurisdiction, not the port)lñ pe you have structured an entire deal assuming you can take city portlegy it is in two different places. you aredj÷ assuming you will hae an infrastructure finance district for improvements, and that money is going to come from the parcel that is not it is under city control, but the monlls to the port pirie even more important, you are assuming that you are the redevelopment agency and you can expandwk what the redevelopment agency used to do, which is a tax increment to city property. youdh have 20% of the site. you are assuming you can takeeu 100% of the tax increment with -- buy or lease in"-ñ the city. i do not see anyone from the city on these papers as having endorsed it. !wthe board of supervisors has o agree that you can take general fundpnkuup'd use it exclusively for the port pirie you hideum in these documents. my guess is a number of civilians that read it and understood it is veryfy small. but how does the porthéñ justify taking general tax revenues and dedicating them to the entire financ

to convert the port shed space to commercial space. on the table on page 9, that shows that the board would be paid for the first five years of this lease the base rent. and then the option would total this. as you know, the administrative code requires the board of supervisors to make a finding if it was impractical to award a lease on a sole source basis. this lease was awarded in 1996. it has never been competitively bid. there have been various rituals and extensions. it has never been subject to a subjectbid. mr. benson advises that it was inadvertence that the finding was not included. he also advised us that based on staff reports, the board routinely finds it is not practical. as you know, the port, in the situations, where it is not practical to competitively bid. the port explains that they have maintained this lease on a noncompetitive basis because it has been a good tenant. they feel it has been an excellent tenant. we would typically recommend that any lease renewal be however, if the board agrees, if there's justificatio

if you think about that, that really has been the era for the port of development and rehabilitation of all the waterfront, so nothing has been done could have been done without all support. as you probably know, the state lands commission has the very difficult job of interpreting what is exactly the public trust, what it means for the state as a whole, and how it can best be applied to san francisco. i have to commend you and your entire team and being willing to work with us, being able to think creatively. in the time i have been here, and i have to say i think you were one of our first partners that really understood the crossroads that the ford was at in terms of its future, and you step right up to help us, and i'm really grateful for that. it means a lot to me personally, and i hope you will counted among your many accolades and legacies that you are leaving for all of us. hall is the only person i know that kind referred to himself as a bureaucrat. for the rest of us, that is a four-letter word we do not really appreciate, but he says it with such love and endearment. he has

the port may consider other uses as part of the approval process. term sheet may be amended along term sheet may be amended along with subsequent proposals to

when the port of san francisco has cruise ships at port, and back in the '70s when we were more of a cruise ship terminal, it was a tremendous

i have been influential with the development of the port. i advised willie brown to create redevelopment of the port because that is where the money is, and you know that. so i think i know a little bit about real estate, having had that career all my life. the two things that are the worst features of this proposal is the condominiums. there is no need, only greed involved in this condominium. what we do need is affordable housing. everybody knows that. we have an oversupply of condos. i do not care what all those figures are. the underground garage is ridiculous because i defeated the underground garage underneath lot two ferry part because it was not feasible. there is water underneath there. all the developments have to be pumped out. they have to have pumps for the water because there's so much seepage, and it is unbelievably expensive to build. there is no need to cut three jackson. we already have washington and the other one, broadway. the worst hypocrisy is that the study says connect the bay to the water -- i'm sorry, connect the l

footage of the port of san francisco. there is a program called hbo buzz, it will start being on other films coming out where they highlight the behind-the- scenes for a feature movie. in addition to that, we have professional still photographers that will take photographs of the port, which we will provide for you, as well as moving footage of the port. opportunities to have links to various web sites. the average viewer hit on the hbo web site as 10 million for a feature of this size. there are many promotional opportunities there. the campaign would start in 2011. i am here to answer any questions might have. >> commissioners, can i answer any questions you might have? i have a couple of thoughts. there may be more suggestions that some of our properties undergoing development might be featured, using some of his credit as a public relations, so i want to offer that comment. i know that we will hear some public comment first. >> very good. >> i have one card. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you, staff, for allowing

the costs of the port infrastructure work. supervisor daly: the reason why i included that is because of language. maybe that 40 is too high because the revenue into the city is not that much. maybe that 40 should come down to the 24 figure because of language through that charter provision where there can be an intra-departmental thing. i heard you were interested in keeping the port hole and perhaps using that provision for interdepartmental transfer to make sure the port was able to capture from the city the delta at in terms of increased revenues to the city. let me go ahead and make a correction. if everybody can cross out that party, i was not thinking. that should be 24, because that is all the income i have reflected into the general fund from this event in terms of hotel, payroll, and sales tax. i do not think the port or city revenue authority should do the transfer of more money than what is generated through this activity, to that charter section. let us make that 40 to 42. that 108 has turned into 92, and the 52 g

the last one talks about the interaction with the port. you have your own inspectors. in other restaurants, we would be dealing with tbi. when a restaurant goes in, we tell somebody they are a category one, inspectors just need to know that they need to put this kind of equipment in. they can keep the same role of ensuring that it is up to code. i think i will end on that note. in terms of next steps, we have gone to the commission. we are approaching the mayor, board supervisors, to see who would like to sponsor it. then we will go to the board to get it adopted by the end of the year. >> any questions, commissioners? aside from getting my cholesterol checked next -- >> i tried to avoid the analogy of arteries. >> i know that fishermen work has done some things changing out things, pipes. i think the change will be noticeable. >> we are looking at a lot of issues working together with the port. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> item 10a. request approval of term sheet for seawall lot 351 with san francisco waterfront partners as part of the washington