very useful hearing so far. someone who has been supportive to the concept of bringing america's cup to san francisco -- i am glad there will be for the discussion on monday. but i am not convinced that this item is ready to go before the board on tuesday. i hope there is no pre-judgment on that until we actually see where things are on monday. i would like to ask a couple of questions through the chair to the budget analyst which i think are relevant. i actually think they need to be aired out for purposes of having as complete a hearing as we can. to the chair, mr. rose -- through the chair, mr. rose -- what happened today is we have essentially a different agreement that is being asked to be approved by the board of

supervisors. the original host agreement has now been amended to essentially be the northern waterfront plan that was put together with the input from port staff. the analysis that you and your office conducted of the original agreement is a pretty thorough analysis. i think that whenever you may say about your views on the substance, i know that it took some time to complete that analysis. i would like to ask you through the chair -- have you engaged in the same level of analysis of the northern waterfront plan that is now the item that is being asked for approval? >> members of the committee, supervisor -- the short answer is no. we did state in our report that we issued for this meeting on the host agreement that we had

not conducted an independent or detailed review of the northern waterfront agreement. now it has been changed. both supervisors of the lows and mercury me have requested -- both supervisors avalos and mirkarimi have asked that we prepare a report for the monday meeting at 1:00. i did clarify that it would be a brief report. it would not be as thorough and detailed as the report -- if the committee wants to do it for monday, as the report we repaired for today's meeting. supervisor campos: it is clear this is a very important project. i think we need to be as thorough as we can in our analysis. how long would it take your office to conduct the kind of in-depth report that on the northern waterfront plan -- that you conducted for the original host agreement? >> supervisor campos, i would

estimate at least one week, and may be up to two weeks. but at least one full working week. supervisor campos: thank you very much. ms. mattson, you want to add something to that? >> as the no. waterfront alternative, there was an effort to keep the budget analyst in the loop, initially through informal conversations as we saw the potential developing. on november 23, the tuesday before thanksgiving, the no. waterfront alternative was offered to the port commission -- the northern waterfront alternative was offered to the port commission as an alternative. we believe that would continue to be part of the record. that is the basis, that document, the 11/23 document for

the northern waterfront. that is before us with slight modifications. the document today is slightly modifying something that has been in the public realm since the tuesday before thanksgiving. >> i would be curious to hear from the budget analyst. from -- supervisor campos: i would be curious to hear from the budget analyst. from my perspective, i did not know for sure that was the direction we were going to take until today. well i appreciate the fact that the budget analyst has been kept in the loop, from my perspective, the budget analyst is doing work at the request of the board of supervisors. this is the first time in this chamber that the northern waterfront has been sought for by the board of supervisors. >> i am not trying to be

argumentative. only to say that we are all working under extraordinary pressure to meet deadlines in order to have this be possible, have ceqa begin, and have this baby something that can be considered by the team -- and have this be something that can be considered by the team. we have been trying to work were operative and under these circumstances to get the bid succeeded. supervisor campos: does that change in the answer? >> i do not understand the context of those comments. if it is meant as a criticism, i would state this. we learned today there are two more significant projects added to this agreement. if she is speaking for the budget analyst and saying how

much longer they should take, i am telling the board of supervisors it will take at least a week to do a professional report. we will do the best of our ability to get a report for you for monday. that is what the supervisors requested. supervisor mirkarimi: then we will see what the work product looks like. >> i am sorry? supervisor mirkarimi: we will see what the work product looks like on monday. >> absolutely. supervisor mirkarimi: but i firmly believe, since we have literally been inundated with data before us in the last week, week and a half, especially from the original plan that is now the northern waterfrong plan, a lot of data can be extrapolated before us. hopefully, what has appeared to be new would be able to be ascertained and assessed between

now and monday. we are counting on you. >> we are going to do the best we can. i want the board to know we work hard in our office. i left my office at 11:00 last thursday night to get this report out to the board. there are many variables. we will do the best professional job with him, supervisor. i promise that. supervisor mirkarimi: i know. supervisor campos: mr. rose, with respect to peer's 24 and 38 -- piers 24 and 38, was the use of those disclosed to you prior to this meeting? >> absolutely not. supervisor campos: i want to ask the budget analyst about this northern waterfront proposal. something which has jumped out is this notion that the city would be giving away development rights for 60, 77 years.

i am wondering if in your research you and your staff have found whether any other city or jurisdiction that hosted the america's cup has in fact given or provided development rights as part of any package to host this event. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, we did some brief research on that. we did not find any other city that has done so. however, that does not mean it has not been done. based on our limited research, we could find no other city that has granted development rights for such an event. supervisor campos: earlier, we had a conversation about whether or not there are competing bids for this proposal. you indicated that you in fact had not seen anything in writing that confirmed that. my understanding is that the city attorney made the same

representation. have you looked at the term sheet for some of the prior host cities -- valencia or any other host city? has that been provided for you by staff so that you have a basis upon which to compare the city bid to those? >> we did not. we did not look at any other term agreements of other host cities. supervisor campos: were those provided to you? do you know whether or not those were considered by the negotiating team? >> they were not provided to us. i do not know whether they were considered by the negotiating team. supervisor campos: in light of that, you have no way of comparing how what we are proposing to do in san francisco compares to what happened in some of these other host cities? >> that is absolutely true. the basis of our report was to determine what was exempt, to

determine the costs and the benefits, and to name the fiscal feasibility determination in accordance with the board laws. supervisor campos: one of the things i am trying to understand in this agreement -- we keep hearing about the very positive prospect of the economic benefits that this agreement would have for the entire region, not only san francisco. one of the questions that comes up to me -- i am not sure if this is something your office looked at. to the extent that the benefits are not just benefits for san francisco, is there any consideration in this agreement where some of the other jurisdictions in the bay area also contribute to the plan, since they also would be benefiting from the event? >> mr. chairman, supervisor campos, the answer is no. this is precisely why -- let me

read to you a statement i made today. it was option # 4. -- it was option number 4. are option was to structure a joint powers agreement to enable joint funding from the jurisdiction such as berkeley and sausalito that receive economic benefits from having the america's cup held in the bay area. such jurisdictions would not incur costs. similar regional financing was used in hosting the 32nd america's cup in valencia, spain. supervisor campos: we talked about america's cup and the president of giving away development rights, the value of that -- and the precedent of giving away development rights, the value of that to other host cities. in other sporting events we have

talked about, we have heard about this in terms of the income and new job creation. this ranks pretty high. it is probably just behind the olympics, the world cup. do you know if in those types of events, whether it is the island before world cup, if development rights are usually -- whether it is the olympics or the world cup, if development rights are generally given by the host city? >> i do not know. as i indicated, we are not aware of any development rights being granted. i do not know. supervisor campos: a final question. i have some questions for the city attorney. there may be a different time to ask that. in terms of what the event authority is contributing, if you take into account what the city is providing, what they are getting in return -- what is there out of pocket investment,

or what is thereir out-of-pocket payment for expenditure under the terms proposed? >> i touched upon that in my original statement. what i said was in essence that if you combine the incremental property taxes and the rent credits the event authority would receive, the event authority could be fully reimbursed, totally reimbursed for the entire $55 million infrastructure improvements that they are proposed to make under this agreement. supervisor campos: just a final clarifying question about the development rights. i understand the development rights go up to 75 years. if the event happens in 2013, we would be in 2088.

my understanding is that the date can be longer because the 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