comes back to us, i am looking for the entry point. -- points. chair chu: that is an excellent question. just to step back, part of what everyone is struggling with, the staff, for staff. this is really a road map and tries to go through many cases depending on level of spending. how much money do we expect to be expanding.

it is that point that this is a successor agreement that can be drafted and we have the term sheets in the summer based on those numbers that would leave a great deal of uncertainty. >> but you are operating under a different standard as modified. that standard is the point and the concerns and raised eyebrows as to whether how substantial these changes are. starting from that bracket -- >> given where we are in the process, it is important to note that we have the signed

agreement. we have had a number of hearings back through december and november where many of the public concerns have been voiced. some of these contingencies, some of these cases about whether they give back the property or whether certain properties would be in play or not is based upon the investment value. if you say that there are some remnants in the amended agreement that will have to be

addressed, that would be a possibility. >> who was informed of these changes? is it through the protocol with the president for was no one notified? >> i know that any board of supervisors member that expressed interest was contacted on a regular basis. >> i was an interested party and i guarantee you i was not contacted. >> we have one more item. >> just a quick question.

you said that the staff had a reasonable argument that there was no material changes to the agreement. taking the other side, is it possible that a taxpayer could be found to have a reasonable argument that there was in fact reasonable changes? >> i would agree that reasonable minds could differ but the question is whether or not the negotiators could reasonably have concluded that there was a factual basis for their business assessment, that there was no material increase in the liabilities. if so, our office believes that they can appropriately and less the changes made. >> do you think that a taxpayer

looking at this could have a reasonable expectation that there was a change? >> i would think the reasonable minds could differ. just as there is an interpretation made by the negotiators, that does not then mean that the budget analysts could not come to a different interpretation. >> that goes to the heart of this point for me. i and a stand that there was a reasonable basis for staff to understand that there was a reasonable change. someone could in fact are due that the material change happened. i want to make sure that there is clarification that there was a point made with respect to peer 29.

looking at section seven point section, that language is very concluding -- confusing. i don't know if mr. sullivan wanted to clarify. of turning uses a acceptable to the city. that language is written in the negative and it is very confusing. maybe if you can clarify what

mr. bentsen was same -- benson was saying. >> i think there has been discussion about whether a taxpayer or someone else can make a reasonable determination. this is not just whether there is material change, this is change that is a detriment to the city overall for this board and what for final approval was. there is language that makes it clear who is to make that determination. frankly, whether or not a taxpayer disagrees is irrelevant in terms of a legal

lawsuit. there is no basis for that. >> i will take exception because i don't think that that is an accurate description. the board delegates its authority to staff and to make changes that are in the best interest of the city that do not directly increase this to the city. what a taxpayer says or believes with respect to whether or not that elevation is relevant as it is relevant with any kind of potential taxpayer litigation, -- i am referring to the language that says that they determine what is in the best interest of the city. we are on solid legal grounds and we have no fear of any lawsuits of anyone alleging that this was the legal or that the loss it would have any validity.

>> finder stand if there are differing opinions within the city attorney's office but you have any point to make within this subsection? >> the issue that we have heard two different opinions on is whether or not the authority has the discretion to develop pier 29 if they spend substantially more than $55 million and the city approves that. this is where there could be

additional long-term development at any of the short-term venue sites and those are 19, 20, 29. the language carves out that the city has sole discretion to disallow development at all of those sites with the exception of pier 29. what i stated earlier was that the city acting through the port commission and the board of supervisors can exercise their reasonable exception. that explanation would be better coming from the city attorney then for me. >> we have more item of -- one more item before us.

there is one final topic for this hearing which is a tenant relocation. >> this might have to come later. there has been an earlier question about the assistance of tenant relocation. perhaps you can speak to this. >> thank you, supervisor. this calls out a number of sites that if the city fulfills the requirements of the california environmental quality act and certifies the eir, this could be a venue site for the america's cup. they have tenants in all of

those facilities who would be impacted by this. we are obviously very concerned about our tenants. the port has provided and will continue to provide regular updates to their tenants about information in the public records to make sure that they are aware of a host of thing you agreements. the staff has started out reached to those tenants to offer one-on-one meetings to give that information. a number of other city agencies, treasure island development authority, the redevelopment agency has experience with this

kind of tenant relocation effort. if see what is approved, we would seek their advice as well. -- if seek whaceqa bid is approe would seek their advice. after the final eir is certified, the port would identify the available space and the tenants' needs. also the types of space that is available both on pork property and the private-sector turned to we currently don't have sufficient vacancies for all the tenants that would be impacted by this.

any tenant relocation plans would go to the port commission for its approval. that is where we stand on the tenant relocation peace. >> i think we can go to public comment now. >> why don't we open this item up for public comment?

>> we are only able to give you two minutes. >> i have requested this discretion. two separate matters. >> we will reset this. we cannot allow someone to see their time. >> i will disagree. -- which you might see on more t-shirts. the disposition of the 330. i strongly disagree with the city attorney's determination. this is a giveaway. this is a gift of public funds. we are $30 million, if you can

believe mr. rose's determination. you are getting nothing for it. san francisco is one of the longest tenants. if you look at the pretty pictures, this is being thrown away. the rest of the tenants and the peers have received notices from the port authority. give them money. the place right next to the house is the -- restaurant they were given a nine-year lease. rain now, pier 30 turn to 1000 people come there for every given baseball game. i am one of them. for $10, to get an honest hamburger, french fries, and a couple of beers. those people will be very unhappy. i asked the director and what

would be the fate of the host agreement. >> this is an institution. this subject matter is subject to the hearing. on lot 330, let's put this in perspective. this city has based a $300 million liability and i would ask you for $30 million. this is a giveaway. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> i would like to stipulate

that i like that house as well. thank you for the yeah opportunity to speak to the committee. i made taxpaying citizen and i am pleased that you are taking some much time and energy in scrutinizing this deal of the december 14th and the final deal. i have also been impressed with the integrity, the skill, and the negotiating talent of the city family team that negotiated this deal. my profession is mergers and acquisitions. i have done over 50 deals in my life, mostly with technology companies. in every single one of those deals, from the time that the term she was issued and the time the deal gets done, there are many changes that take place. a skilled board and negotiating

team has the latitude to make certain changes within that that i know that you granted. i have been to auckland, new zealand, of valencia, spain, to watch the america's cup and i have witnessed firsthand the changes that have happened and those cities. a great legacies of change that have occurred in the port, the cities, and tourism for those cities. i applaud you and approving this agreement and helping to make this deal happen. i also know that the obligations are far less for this america's cup then it was in valencia, or auckland. the city and state of san francisco got a tremendous deal with the america's cup event authority. i would like us to focus on those things we have to do, literally thousands of tasks that need to get done before we

are on the world stage in less than two and a half years. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to say thank you for support staff and all of those who negotiated the deal. we must understand that they were negotiating under pressures. i think that we have been remarkably civil in the discussions around the america's cup and quite unified. however, i think that supervisor

campos is correct, there will be people coming out and sniping and firing at this. we have to make sure that this deal is watertight and complete the above any type of the tax. i think that the supervisor must have heard rumors that these things are being planned and we should try to make it so that those can be warded off easily. >> thank you. >> [singing] don't get too tired for the cup don't let it and don't say goodnight to night it may never come again don't say it, you can see anything but don't say goodnight to nine

. the price turns out right don't get too tired for the america's cup don't let it end, don't say goodnight don't say it, don't say goodnight you can say anything but don't say good night and of the millions will never and don't say goodnight, good night the meeting will never end don't say it, you can say anything but don't say goodnight tonight don't get too hungry and tired don't let the meeting and

don't let the meeting and the america's cup might never come again don't say goodnight, tonight , don't say it until the price hits the highest height don't get too tired for the cup don't say goodnight until the price turns out right you can say anything but don't say goodnight >> and the other members of the public that wish to speak on this item. public item is closed. >> i would like to thank the budget analysts office for their work on this and to thank the

port authority, the city family, and the organizing committee for their response. i believe that this is -- this process is ongoing and an evolutionary process based on what is being negotiated between the city and the organizing authority. i think it it is important that while time might not allow for this that if mr. rose would like to respond to any of the specifics.

i do not know how we will come down on the side on the question of the material changes or not. i don't think we have an answer here today. this would not be party to the ongoing progress of how the cup is unfolding and to see when there are other opportunities for the transaction to come before us. this deal was developed. we will be able to see what those aggregate impact like. there is one thing that i want to city attorney to talk about and this is relative to the question of the charitable trust. i'm not clear as to who holds

the charitable trust of the cup, whether it is the golden gate yacht club or held by the new york courts. this is an unresolved issue where i am not sure if it is resolved or not. i will want to get some opinion as to has jurisdiction on this question. i don't know if this is something that you can follow up on that it would be helpful to get some understanding of that. this indicates a question of due process and conflict of interest depending on who is doing the negotiating on behalf of the city and who would reap as benefits, rewards, liabilities.

thank you to everyone. i look forward to moving forward in this discussion. i believe that we can file the report and continue this hearing to the call of the chair because i have a feeling that there will be post script information by mr. rose and by the rest of the city. i am not aware of any member of the board of supervisors that was party to the negotiations. we would not have been allowed up to december 14th but we have been there in an attic total weight. i was not aware of any member of the board that had been intimately involved in what was called a discreet negotiations. there was also not a clear report process to the board of supervisors as to the outcome

of those negotiations as well. i would encourage their to be some installment of the communicative process that is not just wait for a hearing three months later but either conveys to the members of the board of supervisors or the budget committee as to those new developments that take place or in pending developments that may take place in order to sculpt the deal. if we can look forward incorrect that process. thank you. >> thank you. >> we would welcome that because of the length of this hearing, and you might not want to add further topics to what we are discussing. we could potentially talk about the implementation and what we would welcome his regular scheduled hearings and whatever

meeting that they think is appropriate. >> there are new terms and the long-term development rights which will begin to be flushed out. those will be subject to the scrutiny of the budget analysts. leading up to decisions that have been made, it would be helpful to have some pipeline to the board of supervisors and through the budget committee or whoever to explain whatever is in cuba. that would be more helpful. >> what we have as an action to continue this item to the call continue this item to the call of the chair and i believe from