the general fund, and that gives me pause as to what we are getting ourselves into. when we first had this discussion, i think in september 2010, there was a report that came out prior to that date that showed there'd be about $1.40 billion in economic activity that was going to come to san francisco and the bay area because of the event. there would be hundreds of thousands of visitors that would come and about 8000 jobs that would come. it would be created in the event, the temporary jobs, over time jobs, but jobs nonetheless, and now we are getting very close to the event, and we have our environmental impact report coming out that shows perhaps the numbers of people that are going to becoming are not going to be quite as big, so we are not seeing quite the benefit we were expecting coming forward, and that means are we going to be able to generate the kind of revenue we expected to come out or the economic benefit we expected to come out of the event, and i would say we are not seeing that, and then we

have the kind of tourism we were expecting from the event, for spectators to come to the bay area to enjoy, or is this something that is going to be on television, and what are the economic factors that are going to be changing because of looking at having the event go on here in san francisco. as it is today, i could not vote for this measure, and i hope what the discussion we have today will lead to the port being able to go back to agree to negotiate a lot of the terms of the event. the financing i think is not as well as it could be. i am concerned about 330 going up for the sales, and we are really not doing as well as we could in terms of the interests with the transfers on those sales that are going forward. i think we can do better. i think the interest rates for

covering the gaps in meeting the cost of the events going forward that we have going forward is way too much for us to cover. i am concerned about some of the public assets, how they are not going to be in the public cans in the future and what kind of access we will have to accept these parts of our ports, and i am really concerned about equity. i actually have a great deal of people with boats in my district, district 11, who actually, strangely enough, you travel around the streets in district 11, you will see boats, people who do not have places to park their boats, and maybe years ago would have had a lively and on the bay as fishermen and fish are women. we do not have that now, but there are people that go out and fish every day, and they park

their boats inland. there is nothing that would allow them to have economic benefit to serve the communities like mine. i have not seen it forthcoming, and i am concerned about that. i think we have gotten closer on the work force issues and local hiring. i am really excited about that. i am still waiting to see language that will make me feel really optimistic, but i am feeling more optimistic than i was before, and i want to thank the authority for engaging in that discussion and getting us closer to where we were, but lacking in being able to support this as it stands today, and i think we can have that win-win situation, but the finances have to do a lot better for the city, and i am hoping we can see what we can get in further negotiations between the port and the city and the event of 40, because i think we can get there. what we have in terms of a race that can be enjoyed by not just

the bay area but the world is something that we should seek to employment here in san francisco, and i hope we can get there. chair chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: thank you. i want to thank you for all of your hard work. i was one of the initial sponsors of the initial legislative proposal that we put forth that we voted on on december 14, 2010. i have been a big supporter of the america's cup, but i think as folks understand, my support is not unconditional. this has to be good for our city, and recent reports say it has not gotten better but has got worse for the city. since december 14, we know first and foremost the deal changed, but i think just importantly, the cost for the infrastructure fixes as well as the cost to the city for the event have

skyrocketed. fundraising, unfortunately, is not where we had hoped it would be, but we want to thank the america's cup organizing committee for all of your efforts, and we also know that the attendance assumptions have been brought down, and we have witnessed what happened in san diego and have some concern. i want to thank our budget analyst, mr. rose, with your report, and i know we will hear an update on it. i just want to state at the outset, given what we know now, i somewhat -- i support pretty much what is in the report and more. there are other issues we have to figure out, but as quickly as possible, hopefully over the next week, we can resolve these issues. let me just quickly talk about a couple of them. first of all, pier 29. i cannot support something that includes that. i just wanted to say that. when this was included after

december, there was one to be significant engagement for any of the northernpiers to be in the dda, and that has not happened, and there is your support for this development. other things that mr. rose touched upon in his report have to deal with the resale of condominiums and the fact that at this time there is no revenue share between the city and the event authority on bad. per standard port agreements, we do not have any rent personages as part of long-term leases. there are real questions about the existing marina development rights, and i hope this afternoon, we will be able to go through these, and i know we will continue to have these conversations over the next week. i do want to mention one thing that was not included in the report which surprised me over the last few days, and it really has to deal with one item in number nine, and it is something that i do not think that many including my colleagues are

aware of, including a seawall lot. this is a subject of an extremely controversial project in the corner of my district, the so-called eight washington project, and there is a lawsuit that is pending at this time. i do not think it is inappropriate for us to make any pre-determinations on the future of that project which has not even come to the board at this time, so i think we should deal with that issue, and i think that is something we can easily do, but at the end of the day, there are lots of issues we can work on, and i am committed to work on this to resolve these issues, like supervisor avalos and i think like many of us. we want to get this agreement to a place that is going to work for the city, for the america's cup, and for everyone involved, and i look forward to this conversation. i know that we are likely to be here for awhile. i just want to state at the outset that i may have to leave

or be in and out, but i will certainly watch whatever testimony imus, and a look forward to this in the coming days. thanks. chair chu: thank you very much, supervisor chiu. i also want to welcome supervisor compost who has joined us -- supervisor campos who has joined us. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to look carefully at this, and i think all of the people from both sides to have come out today. i am not want to be labor what was said about the america's cup and the fact that the board has been in support of bringing the america's cup to the city and port of san francisco. the issue is not whether we want to host the america's cup. we clearly do, but we want to make sure in doing that that we all get a deal that we can be

proud of, and quite frankly, for me, i do not have any history in negotiating with billionaires, but i want to make sure that the city and county of san francisco gets the kind of deal that mr. larry ellison would it for himself. that is the test from my perspective, and those of you who follow the press, there is an interesting piece on the america's cup that the "sf weekly" had. the headline is the cup runneth over, where you have a major wave overrunning the city and county of san francisco. we want to make sure that we have a deal that is not only right for the city and county today but is also right for the city and county for generations to come. some of the property rights that are implicated here, that are being proposed, have the city making commitments on property and assets that, quite frankly,

not only belong to us but belong to future generations of san franciscans, and we have an obligation to make sure that 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, people are not going to look back at this deal and say, terrific what were they thinking back in 2012 -- and say, "what were they thinking back in 2012?" i think the recommendations made in this report are recommendations that should be adopted, beginning with fact that any reimbursement that is made by the city to the authority should be based on estimates that are actually made by an independent third party so that we have a neutral party that actually tells us what the legal and financial obligations to the city actually are, making sure that certain provisions that were included subsequent to the board approving the original

deal, that some of those provisions are taken out. there is no reason why certain things that ratted in the agreement as it stands today should be allowed to continue. i also agree with what president chiu was saying about pier 29. there was no limit on the total expenditure the city has to undertake in this project. i think we need to make sure that we put a cap on what the port is required to reimburse the event authority. the issue of what benefit the city will actually get from the america's cup has been a moving target, and when that moving target is such that they number of spectators is being reduced and potentially the number of jobs that are being created could be reduced, and the economic benefit could be

significantly lower than what was originally proposed, i think we have an obligation to make sure that there is no blank check that is left here on the table. we need to make sure we put a cap on what is expected of the port of san francisco. i also think we need to make sure that we comply with good business practices. the city paying an 11% interest rate is not something that to me makes a great deal of sense. likewise, we should benefit from the sale of condominiums along the same lines that the port does with any kind of a deal. i think we need to make sure that at the end of the day, we as the city would get as good of a deal as mary alisyn would get for himself. let me say that i do worry about the inclusion of the seawall lot 351. i think we have to be careful that we are not tying the hands

of the city on other projects that are going to come down the pike and that need to be decided and analyzed independently of this, and i do think it is important for us that we do not make any unnecessary commitments with respect to any future projects. i am not going to be able to be here for the entirety of the hearing, but i know forward to hearing what everyone has to say and the presentation, and i also want to take the opportunity to thank the staff, the mayor's office, and the port, who i know have been working very diligently to make this a better deal for the city. i think a lot of credit has been made, but, again, i do not think we are where we need to be, and as i said the last time this came before the board, i am not prepared to support this as it is. let-up that we can make this deal something we can support and be proud of.

chair chu: supervisor kim > ? supervisor kim: i am not upset a lot on the record about this. there is the event, and there is a development agreement, and for me, personally, i have a strong interest to see how this development agreement is of benefit and a value to san francisco outside of the america's cup event in itself. i think many of us support the america's cup coming to san francisco, but i think we have to look at the deal completely differently. how does this development agreement in and of itself, what is the benefit to the city? what is the benefit of the improved city assets? what is the long-term value, and

why are we using these, and what value is coming to us, so when we look at other development agreements, there are actual benefits that are outlined for the city, whether it is the development of affordable housing or infrastructure or transit. there are gaps in efficiencies. investment in small businesses or commercial corridors. that is clear in what we are getting out of the development agreement and what we are meeting the needs for in san francisco. i also have concerns about the fund-raising efforts so far. we have already incorporated this. to make sure the those dollars come in. having a re-evaluation of the economic benefits that the event will have for the city, i know that in september 2010, the

original memo from the mayor to our board president was a this would bring in $1.40 billion in positive economic impact and up to 9000 jobs created. i think it is important now that we have had the experience of san diego and some of the other projections from the eir that we conduct another economic impact report that would establish a range with the high and low of expectations of what the economic benefits to the city will be. many of the concerns of the deal's structure were brought up by my colleagues. i generally support all the concerns that have been brought up. i think at minimum, i would like to see everything that has been recommended in the budget analysts report be put in, at minimum, and there are a couple of other above that that will come out throughout this budget hearing. last, i really do want to thank supervisor avalos because he has really taken the leadership

role with a local hire and the prevailing wage issues. if we are going to have this event, we want to make sure our residents benefit from the wreckage -- the economic development but comes to the city, so i appreciate the work that has come around back. those are my concluding words thus far, and i will certainly bring up some of the other issues that i see before us for the city. chair chu: thank you, supervisor jim. -- kim. supervisor ammiano has someone here. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i am from the assembly members office. he asked me to submit for the record regarding the question of the america's cup and local hire, which i know has been an ongoing issue of debate at the border and is up for your consideration today. the letter reads as follows. dear supervisor, it is my understanding that there will be a resolution, that there is an ongoing conversation that was made available through a resolution that offered last year and was signed into law by governor brown. it makes the america's cup a public-works project under the administration code, particularly in one section, which includes the prevailing wage, local hiring, and enterprise ordinances. i understand if the city work spending contracts to spend the

city dollars, all of this section 6.22 would apply, but without the public and the structure financing made available through the legislation, the event would not happen. simply because a private entity in this case the event authority is spending money through a contract does not and should not exempted from section 6.22. in drafting the legislation, it was my intention that projects benefiting from the financing, whether spent by the city or county or a private party through contracts would prevail judgment comply with prevailing wage and hiring laws. it is my belief that all of section 6.22 should be applied to the project. given that this position is supported by the three largest trade unions as well as community advocates and as part of the original signed host agreement authorized by the board of supervisors in a december 2010, it is clear that the event of 48 must follow the local hiring law in all pre-and

post construction. permanent and temporary. thank you for your consideration. chair chu: thank you very much for your comments. why do we not moved to the department conversation? >> good afternoon, supervisors. mike martin, a office of work force development. i am very excited to be before you today. we have, along way since the city was selected as the city for the america's cup. it has been a monumental effort by staff, are partners at the event authority, in the organizing committee, all i think with an effort towards drawing a clear picture as to why this is a good thing for san francisco, not only taken as a whole but in its individual parts, and i think in the presentation from the staff level, we will give some context as to how we got to the proposal that is before you, talking

about some of the issues that have been raised so far, but we will try to be agreed to allow more direct questions and direct answers. as noted, there are also members from the america's cup committee and be a better authority that can respond for their part of things, so i have a short slide presentation i am going to start with and then handed over to the staff, so if i could get that? i sort of already went through this overview, but my piece will be about talking about the strategy, the operational framework of the events, and our effort to create a positive legacies that i heard from each of the statements from members of the committee and the supervisors that are with us today. i think that is really vital. that has been our guiding light. understanding what will be left behind after what we expect to be a spectacular series of events, just because i think of the backdrop. the san francisco bay. the excitement of that tableau

is something, but part of this dialogue is pulling it together in a way that really matters and make sense for the city. i am going to do some quick backgrounds of people understand what we are looking at. right now, there is what is called the america's cup world series, which is a world tour of the teams that will be entering in 2013 in the actual america's cup. they are using the small vessels, the 45-foot vessels. there will be a number of stops around the world. they attacked a number in the past year, and they will hold another set of them in the coming year. the stock in san francisco if everything gets approved as part of this process would be two separate regattas, one in august, six days of racing over nine days, and then in august to early september, over seven days.

really sort of a dry run. it allows some piloting of the operational strategies before we get to the main set of events. that starts in july and august. there is the challenger series, where they have the round robin, to see who will be the defender, the best five of nine match races in september 7-22, 2013. here is the diagram that the coast guard has put out as part of its rulemaking procedure to establish the race area. this has morphed overtime as the uva authority and the america's cup race management have learned more about the capabilities of the boats and what is needed to have an exciting, competitive races that we are looking for. as you can see, the 2012 blue area to the bottom left is smaller than the 2013. . that is to reflect that the smaller boats are not as fast

and do not need to cover as much ground to have a length of race that is desired. the smaller boats in 2012 can do a smaller racecourse, said those events will be centered along the northern waterfront. part of that is that the port and then use we will be talking about today will still be under construction, including 30, 32. in 2012, you see the larger polygon for the larger vessels, against all concentrated along the northern waterfront, but it will likely have more than one it finishes, at 27, 29, the bottom right corner of the polygon on the screen. and a little snapshot of our planning status, as we alluded to in the opening comments, there was a unanimous certification both at the planning commission with a similar vote on the industry to appeal with the board of supervisors.

we have negotiated implementation plan that is part of this package. a few of those will have to be revised as we move forward. for example, the traffic plan with the area of racing, but largely, those plans really helped to draw the picture of what is going to be required to put on the event. federal environmental review under one lot is the national environmental policy act. that is in progress. we are working with the coast guard, the park service, the army corps of engineers, and the presidio trust to address this. we think our ceqa effort really provides a good foundation for that, and in a related effort, the permitting process more broadly is under way, not only including those agencies but state agencies, such as the bay conservation and the amendments that are required to do the activities we are talking about. so the overall planning strategy

is really informed on three pillars. environment responsibility first and foremost. when people talk about doing this in the san francisco bay, i think that is one of the things that springs immediately to mind. the comprehensive environmental review process we went through over the past year and how intensive that was, i think we are very appreciative of that. the second pillar is a financial stewardship. there are things that we have held very close to home as we have tried to continue to refine these agreements. we have negotiated i think to limit, of a liability that people were concerned about early in the process, and i think we have a clear picture on the potential costs and potential revenues, and with that, i think we are able to recommend the proposal that is before you and hoping to engage in this dialogue to understand where there are places to make the plan better and join together in moving this forward.

lastly, the positive legacy, i think it is vital to look beyond the immediate excitement of the events, because i think they will be fantastic, but what is going to be left behind for san francisco i think is a key question. i want to talk it about the event operation. i think mr. rose had a report that did an excellent job with estimates. i do want to say that those are based on 5.4 million spectators. there was some commentary during the ceqa appeal that we have revised that spectator number down in the ceqa. we actually did not. it had to do with the number of boats on the bay, so we are still looking at 5.4 million spectators under this ceqa document. that allowed us to establish a conservative on but about what it will take us to put on this event. it is helpful for us to think about, because i think the city has a lot of experience in

dealing with short-duration high-spectator events in sort of a direct, bring those services sort of way, and one is fleet week along the waterfront. there is the duration of the event, especially in 2013. it will not be just one weekend or one week, but it will be and at buffalo -- and ebb and flow. chair chu: one question. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: the bookings, with the critical race events coming up, are we seeing a spike this coming august and hotel bookings? are we seeing a spike next year as well? >> we have not evaluated that. typically, those bookings are closer to the date. we are not officially approved, so i am not sure that people believe it is coming here.

these times of year are high occupancy times, so i think if we look at it, if we get a spike in the other 15%. we can look into that. and get back to you. supervisor avalos: next week would be good. i think it is not enough to assume we are going to get 5.4 million spectators coming here for the events of the world cup, the america's cup, but we should be looking at what we are doing as a city to put the resources and to ensure that we will be attracting those people, and that could cost money. also, what are the things that we do that are separate from the event. are we going to be able to support spectators? the race is only part of the day. what do other people do what their time? what can we do to provide entertainment, as well. i think our arts community has not been addressed as much