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. >> 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. >> the public wants to access particular information about your house or neighborhood we point them to gis. gis is a combination of maps and data. not a graphic you see on a screen. you get the traffic for the streets the number of crimes for

a police district in a period of time. if the idea of combining the different layerce of information and stacking them on top of each other to present to the public. >> other types of gis are web based mapping systems. like google earth, yahoo maps. microsoft. those are examples of on line mapping systems that can be used to find businesses or get driving directions or check on traffic conditions. all digital maps. >> gis is used in the city of san francisco to better support what departments do. >> you imagine all the various elements of a city including parcels and the critical infrastructure where the storm drains are. the city access like the traffic

lights and fire hydrants. anything you is represent in a geo graphic space with be stored for retrieval and analysis. >> the department of public works they maintain what goes on in the right-of-way, looking to dig up the streets to put in a pipe. with the permit. with mapping you click on the map, click on the street and up will come up the nchgz that will help them make a decision. currently available is sf parcel the assessor's application. you can go to the assessor's website and bring up a map of san francisco you can search by address and get information about any place in san

francisco. you can search by address and find incidents of crime in san francisco in the last 90 days. we have [inaudible] which allows you to click on a map and get nchldz like your supervisor or who your supervisor is. the nearest public facility. and through the sf applications we support from the mayor's office of neighborhood services. you can drill down in the neighborhood and get where the newest hospital or police or fire station. >> we are positive about gis not only people access it in the office but from home because we use the internet. what we used to do was carry the large maps and it took a long time to find the information. >> it saves the city time and

money. you are not taking up the time of a particular employee at the assessor's office. you might be doing things more efficient. >> they have it ready to go and say, this is what i want. >> they are finding the same things happening on the phone where people call in and ask, how do i find this information? we say, go to this website and they go and get the information easily. >> a picture tells a thousand stories. some say a map >> the next time you take a muni bus or train,