66-year period in fact does not necessarily kick in during 2013. is that correct? can you shed light on that? >> members of the committee, supervisor campos, i believe the term would start not right away, but after the event occurs and after ceqa approval is obtained and the development plan is in place. the starting point of 75 years is a few years out. supervisor campos: do you know when the 75 years would and? -- end? >> there are variables that come into play. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: i do not believe there is anything else of substantive business before

us. mr. chair, i believe there may be some more amendments party to the question of fortifying the safety net on the city side, with regards to the concern of liability and costs such as the $32 million. we can continue that conversation on monday. i am motioning to recess. it would allow us to return back -- chairperson avalos: 1:00 on monday. we have already closed public comment on this item. i also liked the idea, one of the suggestions of the budget analyst, about a temporary assessment district. maybe between now and monday is not a great time to gather information, but i think it is a worthy idea, especially how to create greater capacity for the port and have direct reimbursement for its costs. i think that is worthy of

consideration. supervisor mirkarimi: i urge supervisor campos -- he suggested he wanted to ask the city attorney some questions. so the days are not lost, if there are any questions that could be exchanged -- supervisor campos: if i may ask the city attorney, just for people who are listening to this or watching -- the document i am basing my questions on is what i believe is the greatest -- is the latest draft of the agreement. what i have is dated november 23, 2010. my questions relate to some of the terms of that agreement. i would stand corrected if there is a document that is actually updated beyond that. one of the things that i want to

make sure is that we as a city are protected as much as possible in some of the terms of the agreement. we are doing some research about what has happened with respect to the america's cup. we are all very aware that there has been litigation that has ensued. so the current agreement as written essentially has some provisions that, in my mind, are somewhat problematic. i would like to ask the city attorney about that. if you look at page 33, section 18.3 currently states that any dispute in relation to the agreement that cannot be resolved through jams would be arbitrated in mthe icc

international code of arbitration, which to me is a problematic provision. we may find ourselves actually having to arbitrate this matter as a city and county overseas. so i am wondering -- or potentially overseas, or certainly outside of san francisco. i am wondering if the city attorney's office has any comments on that. >> deputy city attorney. the agreement contemplates that if there are disputes they would first be resolved or attempted to be resolved through mediation. if that was unsuccessful, they would be referred to the icc for

binding arbitration. section 18.1 -- i am sorry. supervisor campos: 18.3? >> correct. any dispute or difference that cannot be amicably settled will be finally adjudicated by arbitration under the icc. that choice as a forum was one that was negotiated and requested by the team. their rationale was that they wanted what they characterized as a neutral forum, because it is an international sporting event, for adjudication of disputes. and they were afraid that having all disputes resolved by jams would confer upon the city what they called a home field advantage. the decision was made as a

negotiating position to cecde to that request, and the icc was chosen as the forum through which arbitrations would be conducted. supervisor campos: where are they had quarterbacks -- headquartered? >> i think it is in europe. i am not sure exactly which country. the choice of -- the question ofi ha are not -- the question of whether or not the icc would compel the arbitration to occur in europe, some foreign country, the location of any arbitration -- that is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

that is included in the agreement. the choice of law is california law. supervisor campos: but the agreement does not say that it would not be europe, right? >> it would be mutually agreed upon by the parties. supervisor campos: but if the other side does not want to agree to a jurisdiction outside of europe, there would be no mutual agreement. therefore, what happens? >> what would occur if there is a mutual agreement? supervisor campos: the concern i have here -- i have a lot of respect for the work you are doing. you are an excellent attorney. are we going to find ourselves in a position where we are arbitrating in geneva or whatever it is? the kind of resources that are going to go into that? should there be that kind of arbitration? that is the fear that i have.

>> as a protection, that requires the mutual consent. supervisor campos: the problem with mutual consent is that to the -- the agreement does not specify that unless the other side says we are not want to arbitrate in europe. you are kind of stuck. this leads me to the other question, right? you have the initial resolution going through jams, and the arbitration going through the icc. what happens if those are not sufficient and you wind up in actual litigation? as a lawyer, i understand that the whole point of arbitration is to avoid litigation. but we have seen that in this case at least one of the parties has a record of litigation. what venue -- but would be the venue in the event of litigation?

>> supervisor, as i mentioned earlier, section 18.3 of the agreement suggests that any dispute should be finally adjudicated during arbitration by the icc. that does not have a qualification. it would then require that they would seek some sort of extraordinary judicial relief to avoid -- to void the contractual provision. supervisor campos: could the other side file in a foreign court? could it file outside the u.s.? >> they could file in whatever place they chose. whether or not that court would entertain the suit, in light of the fact that this is an agreement that is governed by

california law to be arbitrated under the icc, is another question. supervisor campos: that is the problem. i like that you have a provision that says it would be under california law. but you could end up in foreign court, overseeing that case. i think that is, again, in terms of protecting the rights and interests of the city, and trying to avoid possibly negation, i worry that we might find ourselves -- to avoid possibly litigation, i worry that we might find ourselves in a situation where we are arbitrating in geneva or some foreign european country. should that arbitration not lead to a resolution, and should there be any litigation arising out of that arbitration, you could find yourself in a venue that is not only outside san francisco but outside the u.s.

that is the fear that i have. >> the arbitration is binding. it says that any dispute should be finally adjudicated. that is the protection that the agreement affords to the city. supervisor campos: but any litigator can tell you that binding agreements tend to be litigated from time to time. worst-case scenario, that is what we are trying to address. supervisor mirkarimi: what would you like, mr. campos? supervisor mirkarimi: we should make -- supervisor campos: we should make it clear that it will be litigated not only under california, but that the venue would be in california. that would be my suggestion. i also worry about -- if you look at section 10.6 of the

agreement, and i think there are, by the way, other similar provisions that worry me along the same lines -- section 10.6 deals essentially with a security plan, if you will. let me just -- 10.6 as currently written says that in consultation with and subject to the approval of the authority, the city shall develop no later than march 31, 2011, and thereafter implement a plan to address reasonable safety and security measures. the thing that worries me about that provision is that whatever

the security plan is, no matter how reasonable it may be -- it has to be approved by the authority. if the authority decides, reasonable or not, it is not satisfied with that plan, the can simply say they do not approve it.t>> in the event thae authority unreasonably withheld its consent to any of the plants, the city could seek to mediate in that dispute and then look for me binding arbitration.

we don't have any more money to provide additional officers and additional overtime. the authority, by refusing to -- the approval, can go beyond what the general fund might possibly provide for.

this is subject to the authority. is that correct? >> this is in the window where the review is to be conducted and before any of the events occur. the city could avail itself of the mediation arbitration. >> in other words, if we pass a budget that did not provide the

level of funding that was required by the authority, the way that that usually works. >> if your question is whether or not hypothetically the security plan might require the resources, the answer is yes, it could. >> thank you. that is the concern.

i appreciate that. the potential impact that this could have is an aide channel ready is stretched. i have concerns about that and i think that language that leaves it up to the authority is language that does not provide sufficient protection for the city. if that goal is to have a safe security -- to then the security should require reasonable efforts to provide security. that should be sufficient but the way it is written right now, i would say that this creates a situation unlike anything we have seen in terms of the burden that this could pose on the general fund. >> there is a couple of additional points i would like to make which is implicit in any contract.

there is a requirement. >> that is only able to be enforced if you go to court and that is a challenge here. >> am i hearing a request to the

city attorney's office that there be some effort in order to seek alternative.

>> thank you. >> how do we now know -- how do we not know, there's a lot of doubt about what the cost could be. >> that is one of the concerns that i have. what i would say is that if anyone can come up with the language to protect the city,

that he would and the city attorney would, is a matter of the negotiating team making clear that that is what the city wants. the lawyer can only do what the client is asking. we need to ask the larger question about whether or not there are similar provisions that kids have the same impact. -- that could have the same impact. >> i have never -- i have no further comments. colleagues, i believe that we can recess this hearing. the conversation will be continued, this is an important one. >> will lead to what needs to be

done procedurally? >> this will be a committee report. >> others have asked good questions. that it's been known that we have a little bit more work to do bad. the city family will need to pull together and really marshal some strong answers. >> absolutely. >> i believe that concludes this portion of the hearing. >> this item will be recessed until 1:00 in the afternoon next monday.

>> we have a child care issue and and i'm wondering if it is possible to recess the remainder of the items. monday as well. >> yes, it is. we will beat recessing item number 12, and we will also be recessing the conference and for the city attorney for number 16. >> do we have public comment on the is before recessing? >> we can take public comment on

monday. >> very good. >> there are no further items, we are adjourned.

>> welcome to the board of supervisors meeting. can you please call the roll? >> [roll call] mr. president, there is a

quorum. president chiu: can you please join me in the lead -- the pledge of allegiance? [pledge of allegiance] you should have copies of the board meeting minutes, can i have a motion to approve those minutes? without objection, those minutes will be adopted. are there any communications? >> we are in receipt of the correspondents of the director of elections with the results of the votes cast as the consolidated the municipal general election. the board declaring the results as conducted in certified.

president chiu: we can now move to the consent agenda. >> items 1-8 will be acted upon by a single roll call votes unless a member requests discussion of the matter. president chiu: would anyone like to sever any items? roll call vote. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the resolutions are adopted and emotions are approved. item nine.

>> approving general plan amendments in connection with the better streets plan. president chiu: same house, same call. without objection. >> item 10, environment code to participate in a drug store to program -- stewardship program. supervisor mirkarimi: we have a vision. we have a plan. we believe the plan should be either memorialized -- we wanted to a pilot program with the industry, consulting with the administration that has been an integral part of negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry.