since we are local government facing a significant deficit, the host city agreement would protect general funds. this has been a key tenet of the agreement as further clarified today. we want to make sure that there are no undue obligations placed on the city. the city has partnered with the america's cup committee to secure the necessary commitments in ways that we would be able to help them fulfill their obligations. it will give you a feeling of the level of caliber people already engaged in that effort. it is no longer a paper effort. they are fully functioning and operational. in addition, we have worked to add language and corporate concepts around community corporate involvement, the use of community labor and workforce. that was some of the key comments we heard at the last board meeting. we worked to include them in the

host city agreement. a little bit about the process -- since the term sheet was adopted back on october 5, since then, and during our host city agreement negotiation, the america's cup event authority and the america's cup race entity merged, and we are in full limit to the process. the experts that have been brought on board have shared key information with us that has affected our negotiations pretty quickly. it has also affected our understanding of what the direct cost would be. we now have a better understanding of the formats, the daily schedule of the races, and that level of organization allowed us to go to policegomuni, -- police, muni, public works, and fire. the budget analyst has done that as well.

i will skip over it because i know some of the other members will get the team to talk about exactly what those numbers are in terms of departmental impacts. the other thing that the team -- the event a story, and the race management brought to us was an understanding of how the race would function. with the 72-foot catamaran, our previous notion was that we would have breakwaters in some key areas because previously, the votes required breakwaters -- the boats required breakwaters. with the decision that they would go with catamarans, and with the ceo of america's cup race management being in san francisco, walking on water front and looking at what facilities were available, he came back to as midstream in our negotiations and said he was not sure that they would be necessary. he said they could be an impediment to the catamaran's functioning. we had to fold that into our

understanding of what the access would be and what the necessary improvements would be, and that was very helpful, and very illustrative, and somewhat challenging and frustrating that this was all happening in real time. i share that with you to help understand the dynamics we have been facing as we have been negotiating this. starting with the term sheet, we have been engaged in active conversations with key stakeholders, both within city hall and outside, and a number of them are here to speak today about their support. when we were last at the board, we had a complete list, and since the term sheet's adoption, we have had support come forward from the various sports organizing committee, the united states sailing association, treasure island sailing center, telegraph hill dwellers, the bay planning association, san

francisco state summer youth sailing and kayaking program, and the association of disabled sailors. in addition, i think you will hear today from one of those real-time things we have been solving, working with the maritime unions. specifically, this came up at the port commission. there have been language previously in the agreement talking about possibly the need for legislative or regulatory relief from the transport of spectators relative to the races. in particular, the foreign flag racing yachts and. there have been some concern that this might be undermining the american cabotage laws or that we would be seeking jones act exemptions. thankfully, with the help of the city attorney's office, we have met several times this week and resolve this issue is, and i think you will hear today directly from the maritime unions that they stand in support with the city and have every confidence that this event can be done. we have added and changed the language of the host city

agreement to reflect that this can be done in a way that is to the benefit of all and reduces their concerns. i want to briefly walk you through what is before the committee with respect to the venue uses and described a little bit of what the activities would look like. i apologize the math is a little small, but, hopefully, folks can digest this. starting with piers -- i will mention pier 80, which is on here, but you cannot see it. this is the chime iran that is a marvel of technology. that won the 33rd america's cup. they would like to bring it here and how's it at pier 80, possibly for fleet week and others, and you can appreciate

that the wing is so large that it could not fit under the golden gate bridge, so it will be brought in on a boat, and this will be yet another signature opportunity to showcase the technology on the bay. pier 80 would be used in some of the world series events in 2012 leading up to the america's cup in 2013. starting with 30/32, this would be the area where the race soon the kids would be located. each of the competitors, and they hope to have eight to 10 teams competing. the adjacency walleye is where the tv compound would be, the media center. also, moving to the north, 28 and 26 would be hospitality, and possibly also some media in here. these are concepts. this is ideally what would go into these uses. this is part of our proposal. we will work with the team to

ensure that each of these facilities meets their needs. if we need to adjust slightly our use under what is considered here, we would. between pier 14 and 2.5, there would be a potentially got center and mooring area. prior to the america's cup race management being in existence, we independently had tried to conceive of were the best place on our waterfront would be for these boats. with the america's cup race management coming to town looking at our waterfront, they felt strongly that that area would be a prime location that would really support these negative votes -- these mega boats. not only relative to the race, but leading up to the race. piers 19 and 23, just south of pier 27 would be storage of the offices. 29 to the north would be the

media center. 27 really would be -- if you recall in the original vision, we had skidmore, owings, and narrow creed, this iconic image that captured what could be, and that any activity conceptually would now be located at your -- pier 27. and so that would be where conceivably at the tip of pier 27 the races could start and stop. you could envision a grandstand of source where the public would be able to see these boats start off on to the races. maybe there is a large tv screen out there, a real place for the public to gather, to come down, in joint the waterfront, and i know the board will speak in greater detail about this as to its synergy with the passenger cruise ship terminal. two other points i just want to touch on, and then i will be completed. one is that this is just the

beginning. of the public process and the discussion around the use of these facilities and the necessary approvals. we included in the materials that were launched with the board on november 9 a full time line, as anticipated, with future of rubles. i just want to touch on the fact that part of why we need to get this done now is we need to initiate ceqa. we have made commitments in this agreement that we will be 3 ceqa next year. we know we can do this because with the san francisco general hospital -- supervisor avalos: supervisor elsbernd has a question. >> i am almost finished. in the file is a complete timeline of the venue approvals. not only for the venue uses, but

the long-term development rights would also require future ceqa. that is a really important point for folks to understand. the leases would go to the port commission as well as to the board of supervisors. the question has been -- why now? why are we moving so quickly to get this decision through? i will answer it hopefully very clearly. protocol states in section 12 as well as section 25 that the team will make a selection of a host city for the 34th america's cup by december 31. they will also have the course determined, and they will show that with the competitors who have taken out papers. i believe there are at least four of not five competitors. the challenges open on november 1, so those folks are already wanted to design their boats and get their corporate sponsorship program under way. this data is not arbitrary. it is stated in a protocol that

they will make a decision by the end of the year. additionally, it is stated that if there is any way we are going to succeed in our commitment on the ceqa front, we have to start. we have to finalize the event description, the project description, and initiate ceqa. the planning department has been exceptional in advising us not only how quickly we need to move but what we do need to do to get going. the ports staff and our office are ready upon adoption of this agreement, hopefully next week, to finalize the project description. so with that, happy to have marked the you'll come up, or if you have questions on my particular presentation -- have faded have mark -- happy to have mark buell come up. supervisor campos: 94 the presentation and for the great work that has gone into this

project. my questions have to do not with whether or not we should post america's cup -- i think that the board at least a supermajority of the board has made it clear that we are interested in doing that. and as someone who voted for that resolution, i remain interested in making sure that happens. it is just a question of whether or not we have a deal that makes sense with the city and county of san francisco. with that, i want to ask if i may get a little more clarity as to why we need to act by december 31, 2010. my sense of this deal, if you will, as someone who is supportive of making this happen, is that the deal has progressively improved as negotiations continue. my experience with something as complicated as this type of a deal is that the more time you

have to expand on the various points that are very complicated, the more likely you are to get a better deal for the city, so i understand that the protocols may outline that, but that is not necessarily a binding document on the city and county of san francisco, so what is it really that is keeping us from taking our time to do all the due diligence we need to do to make sure this is done right? >> thank you. the protocols are not binding on us. it very clearly states when they plan to make their decision. if we do not have our host city agreement to the next week, they will make a decision on an alternative venue other than san francisco. that is part of it. more importantly, irrespective of that, we have tended -- we have to initiate ceqa.

if we continue in discussions with the board, we will never be able to pull our papers and get the process started. the planning department has been clear with us. we are already at a disadvantage in needing to move as quickly as we have committed to moving, but we are confident we can. supervisor campos: taking ceqa for example, what i'm talking about is probably a two-week extension, perhaps. we vote by january 15 instead of december 1. -- instead of december 31. with respect to the impact of the protocols, that would be the impact of the case if they actually had another viable offer, which is actually something that i am wondering about. one of the things that you said, which i think we should be very proud of is that food is processed in a very open way. the competition, to the extent that there is a competition,

has, as you indicated, seen what the city's offer is, and that has been discussed very clearly and very openly, but i have yet to see what the offer of the competition to the extent that there is a competition, actually is. >> on that point, i have every level of confidence, having been part of the negotiations and the dialogue that has happened around that table, that they are considering and negotiating with other countries. to the extent that you have questions about what is in that offer, we have done our best to make the event authority -- and they have expressed their interest to answer any questions, and i think some members of this board had taken them up on that opportunity and sat with them and had that opportunity. so it is available to you as well. >> -- supervisor campos: do you have something in writing for

the committee and the public that shows with the competition is? what other countries they are looking at, and is there something in writing that actually outlines that? supervisor avalos: i saw something earlier today on the computer that showed something in the italian language, getting some diagrams of a potential court citing close to rome, and i was told that san francisco does not want to share its information because that would put it at a disadvantage around bidding, but we have all this information, and we have the discussion here. it seems like what is happening in san francisco is very well known, but what is happening in other parts of the world is not very well known. that puts us at a disadvantage to make a really good decision with the deadline we are being told we are working under. supervisor campos: let me

actually ask the budget analyst and the city attorney's office -- do they have written confirmation that in fact there are competing bids? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisors, we have not seen anything in writing. we have no confirmation of the competing bids. this is not to say that there are not. we just do not know. we have never been provided with any specific documentation. we do not know anything about the competing bids at all. supervisor campos: if i may ask the city attorney's office if they have received written confirmation that in fact there are competing bids. >> tom owens, a city attorney's office. i'm not aware of any written confirmation. would not necessarily have seen it if it was available. >> i might have something to add on that. one of our attendance has always been we have to negotiate an

offer and an opportunity that put san francisco's best foot forward, that works for us independent of what else is out there. that said, i hear you loud and clear, and i would like you to consider what is before you today, but that we will also work in the coming days to make additional requests and would encourage you independently to also. we are the negotiating team. i know you can appreciate that dynamic that we are pressing them for information but at the same time trying to negotiate a deal. as a policymaker, i think it is completely appropriate for you to ask for that information as well. supervisor campos: i respect the very important role that the team plays. i do not think it is important for us as an elected official to try to micromanage the negotiations. to the extent that written confirmation and competing bids is something that you would naturally do, i think that is something that should be done by the negotiating team. i am not one who is going to try to micromanage the very good

work you are doing. but to the extent that you were saying we need to make sure we're putting our best foot forward, the deciding factor is making sure we are sure what we're competing against. if we are competing against other countries, that is one thing, but competing against ourselves is an entirely different matter. i do have a couple of other questions for you about the process. to what extent has the staff of the port of san francisco been involved in the negotiations? with something as significant as this where you are talking about giving away development rights and very profitable land that is owned by the port of san francisco for 60, 75 years, i would imagine that you would include the port staff at the very outset of any discussions. can you talk a little bit about

the level of involvement of court staffed in the negotiations from the very beginning of this discussion? >> absolutely. not only has the director and her staff been involved at the negotiation table, the director or her representative was in every single negotiation session, and i would even characterize mr. bentsen as one of our lead negotiators. this is not a deal that was done independently by the mayor's office. it absolutely was in concert with the port's team. they have been instrumental. >> let me -- supervisor campos: let me just say this. i know there are questions that members have that they want to ask, and i think the understanding was that i would just be making an opening statement, so i would just differ the rest of the questions to let you finish the presentation with the understanding that other members, like myself, have

questions that they will ask. supervisor avalos: just so we have a good process for asking questions, there are a lot of members of the panel here beyond the committee, i would like to think that we can actually ask clarifying questions that will not have a very elaborate response, let the presentations proceed, and at the end of that, go into more detailed questions, which i'm sure there will be an ample amount of. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree, and i think we held off on wanting to ask. i think any of us has quite a list of questions here, so i think what we would like to have is the presentations, but the departments should be agile enough to be on their toes to start answering i think what have been well-known concerns, such as was supervisor campos has iterative in early amendments what we have signaled that we would like to advance in order to help, i think, protect

the city's best interests. the department should continue to move forward in the presentations. we will try to keep this on a point and focused, but we also need to have the budget analyst, a controller, an economist cross over into the corporation or not of where we stand on this. let's keep moving forward if we could. we will do our best to take in the information and intercede as we see necessary. >> great, now i would like to introduce the chairman of the america's cup organizing committee, mark buell. >> thank you, supervisors. i have the honor of chairing the america's cup -- the san francisco america's cup organizing committee. it is a 501 (c)3, and is made up of a litany of distinguished san franciscans, californians, and

people around the country, all very enthusiastic about helping to host this event here. i have -- i can tell you that both governor brown -- governor- elect brown and governor schwarzenegger, both of our united states senators, the speaker of the house, and a host of others, the mayor of los angeles, all are on the committee. george shultz and his wife charlotte. but we also have a very good working committee, which includes some prominent san franciscans. tom perkins, renown sailor. we have walter and alan newman on that committee. icahn also include ellen on the association of disabled sailors. we have the rear commodore of the st. francis yacht club.

this committee has been meeting for about two months. i see this entire proposal as a three-legged stool. the first you will discuss in detail, and it has to do with the port and physical facilities and the trade-offs that the sponsors get for using the port. what do they give, and what is good for the taxpayers? i will leave that to your judgment. the second leg is the america's cup event authority, and that is the authority that is going to raise $270 million to put on a host of regattas are around the world, including the 2012 and 2013 races on the bay. our committee is committed to helping them in that regard, and those are primarily corporate sponsors, and corporate sponsors will make their own judgments about what it is worth for the advertising may get, and we can only introduce them to people who might benefit from that. in that regard, members of the

committee have already introduced the event authority representatives to 20 or 25 leading corporations in the bay area, and they are in early discussions about sponsorship. i think you will have by your full board meeting a list of letters from major corporations that have expressed interest in this, and i think that is terrific. the third leg is the money that needs to be raised to cover the city expenses. it has been estimated at $2 million. my estimation is it will be less than that, but let's assume for the moment that is the number. we are committed to raising $16 million a year, and there are provisions that call for after the eir is committed, the committee posting a bond for that amount or what remains of it to be raised to protect the interests of the organizers. so we are prepared and ready to go.

we have filed our papers for non-profit status. we have literally hundreds of people that are interested in helping us, and i am extremely confident that this will turn out to be one of the most exciting ventures for the day that we will be able to deliver the goods on our end. i will stick around to answer questions as you may ask. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much for your leadership in helping us steer the interests of the private sector and elected family beyond san francisco and their interest in this. with regard to the $32 million, which i absolutely agree with and i think others do as well, that we want to secure as much as we can the question of us not being held liable on the $32 million, an amendment that says

potentially may terminate the agreement if $32 million is not raised. that might not even be strong enough for us. >> right. i understand there is language, and the america's cup has that obligation as the america's cup team. i do not have any objection to the language. i think that is the projection. when i raise this issue, i do not want to dwell on it, but the reality is once we go down this line and the yacht club has to make a decision probably is there are already about five teams that have signed up and put the money on the line to compete in this. they are accusing this of not knowing the venue -- and knowing the venue and not sharing it with other teams, and he is under the gun to identify this side. it has ramifications in various other places. i think a year from now, when it

is time to say, "is the bond posted? are we doing the job? what are the realities that if anyone is going to walk away from this?" i think you should be protected. i'm not moving that way, and i think our committee needs to be protected from liability, but we will be well on our way by the time that juncture in the road comes. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: i know supervisor elsbernd has some questions, but no events we have seen in the united states typically happen without some foreseen cost overruns. we expect that in that particular case, with the question of $32 million, it could be more than that, so we would presume that your body would also be taking consideration of how we would protect for that particular possibility. >> absolutely. supervisor mirkarimi: hal?

>> the limit of our liability now is $32 million, and we have specifically tried to hold onto this. we are a committee of volunteers and good citizens. none of them should be held personally or collectively liable. our assets will be as much as we have raised, and that will be the extent of it, and they will all be contributing to the event. i think we have maximum exposure on this, but i do honestly believe if we have the opportunity to get into the details of what we call option b or the northern waterfront, i think we are going to find ourselves below that number, but that is the maximum exposure. supervisor elsbernd: thank you for all that you have done on this. a couple of things you have said and some other things that have been said i'm hoping you can been said i'm hoping you can understand -- help me