compare their world series event to the numbers you might expect for america's cup. the people who have america's cup know what that is. we cannot miss the opportunity of bringing economic stimulus to the city. it would create new public access would make the pier and embarcadero mort 6 -- more excessive to the public -- accessible to the public. the america's cup goes back so far. it has never let any other city down. we should not question the details. i would just like to see it move forward. >> i am a lifelong resident of

san francisco. i have been involved with saving -- with sailing a little over 50 years, since i was about 10. i am also an entrepreneur. there is a question of who is booking right now. one of the big problems we have had -- we do not have a signed deal. i cannot get my clients in front of america's cup event authority until the deal is signed. i have a pipeline of people just waiting to come and see america's cup. but they are not going to sign any deals with me until it is a signed deal with you. i have an overhead here of a few things that have happened, and the legacy aspect of san francisco's involvement 10 years ago. there is an endowment left by

the founders of america true. they went through for the last 10 years, reaching out to the public and giving public support to events and public sailing events in san francisco. it is an endowment that reinvest itself and invests itself with the public. it reinvest itself in reaching out to the community. this is a small campaign. it was only about $11 million. yet 10 years later, they are generating this legacy. i think with mr. barkley at the helm, trying to make this work for oracle and america's cup, we are going to have a 30 year legacy and a much better financial throughput. educating these children and these communities across the city, i think the delay is going to be hurtful to these children and to business in the city.

>> thank you. chairperson chu: i do not have other cards other than in manuel flores. if there are members of the public who have not spoken, please line up in the center aisle. paul alito. san francisco president, business owner, a journalist. thank you for the diligence you take in looking at all aspects of this agreement, making sure the agreement has the maximum benefits to the city. in my opinion, time has nearly run out to run the america's cup well in san francisco. in my opinion, if you delay, you will do several things. if you delay, you will diminish the value of this event for the city by diminishing the size of it.

if you delay, you will dramatically in habit fund- raising, since fund-raising cannot take place unless it is clear the event is going to move forward in san francisco under a certain size and scope of activity. you will jeopardize the comfort level that any other event will have in coming to san francisco and bringing an event of any size to san francisco, because of the uncertainty of the process of coming to agreement with the city on terms. i strongly urge you to forward this to the full board with your strong recommendation, as well as to vote in favor of this project next tuesday. chairperson chu: thank you.

>> good evening, board members. my name is james brian, director of the philip randolph institute. we have had a long road. this is another long road of history to san francisco. we need to do the right thing. we need to make sure local hiring is an important piece of this process. we need to make sure that all that hard work the board put together in crafting local hiring is put into action. we have heard the authorities. we understand the importance of the committee, this idea of having america's cup here. we understand that it is important to have some contentions. and we are willing.

and we are supportive of some kind of cap. we do not want you or anyone else to come to the city and make a financial endeavor and get nothing for it. our family and friends that have grown up here in san francisco -- we need to have the next big event for san francisco, as they had in 1915, as they had in 1939. this is another pivotal moment in san francisco, but i need you all to understand that with every pivotal moment, there is also some flexibility to bring our community together. this local hiring, with some concessions, makes sure that business ventures that are reported should be put in play. today is the day. let us do it. but let not -- but as not do it

by giving the community which this city serbs. -- service. -- serves. >> i am here to urge you to make sure that local hiring and prevailing wage is put into the dda for the america's cup. i think that after four hours there is no doubt that a lot of money is going to be coming to san francisco. i think it is your responsibility to make sure it is beneficial to san francisco. when mr. barkley was up here earlier, he repeated the commented on the fact that san francisco has won the right to host the america's cup. as a san francisco native, going and raised here, i thought the america's cup was a soccer game, but that is beside the point. i want to make sure that local hiring and prevailing wage go

into the dda. i would like to submit that your friend for looking at this agreement not be that san francisco has won the right, but that the america's cup has won the right to host the event here, in this beautiful city. thank you. chairperson chu: thank you. if there are other members of the public who would like to speak, please come forward. otherwise, this will be the last speaker. >> are you saying you saved the best for last? manny flores, carpenters' local 22. we are in support of the workforce development plan. we have been working diligently with the event authority, especially with good progress. we have straightened up the language. we have an addendum to what is already in the workforce development plan -- the apprenticeships, prevailing wage, and covered work.

we are in a positive direction there. recently, we just presented them with a basic craft agreement. that is an agreement with a few of the trades -- the laborers, the operating engineers, and carpenters. what it creates is labor harmony. we are very confident we are going to move forward with that. it is in the authority to have hands. we are working together with them. it helps to keep the project moving with no delays. disputes are solved prior to that. that keeps the project moving. that was a concern in our office.

we just wanted to address that. other than that, we would like to move forward. chairperson chu: i would like to welcome a former supervisor to the chambers. >> thank you. aaron peskin, for the record, member of the committee. as president clinton said, i feel your pain. you guys are in a tough spot. i kind of know what it might feel like. i want you to stand up for the taxpayers of san francisco and the business enterprise that is the port of san francisco. you can, if you negotiate hard, prevent this from being a boondoggle. we have heard much discussion

about december 14 and december 31. if you would turn on the overhead, i would like to show you a document that is available on the internet. that was dated december 14, 2010. it is pages 53 and 54 of the host of the new agreement. you will see on page one is signed by then-mayor gavin newsom. it is signed according to form. and it is signed on behalf of the america's cup organizing committee. you will see on page 54, also dated december 14, 2010, the signature of richard worth, on behalf of the america's cup event authority. i realize i only have 30 seconds left. i would be happy to answer questions. i was astounded. if i were you, as elected members, on behalf of the people

of san francisco, i would be astounded by the powerful arrogance expressed by the representative of the america's cup event authority. you should not be bullied. we all want the america's cup to come here, but not at any cost. i urge you and i commend you. i have much more to say. i urge you and commend you to stand for the best deal. get pier 29 out of the deal. get rid of the long-term marina developments. i conclude my comments. thank you for your time. chairperson chu: there are no questions at this time. public comment? >> thank you. my name is carroll. i am the deputy director of the national park conservancy. we raised the $35 million for

the restoration. i am here to speak on behalf of our donors and the more than 4000 volunteers, just to remind everyone that the national parks need to be protected. this is an amazing sight that is loved by more than a million visitors every year. our organization is thrilled that the america's cup is going to be -- to make the field even more in the spotlight in san francisco. we have been working very closely with the event authority to reach an agreement for the protection of the field and the national parks is doing the same for the park. we are not quite there yet. but i want to say they have been very responsive to our needs and our requests that the field not only be protected during america's cup, which i hope has a crush of people there to see this amazing grace. but in the event there are any

damages, they would be repaired after words. we are pushing toward a final agreement. we also share your pain. we are enthusiastic that this is going to work out. as i said to the full board when they met about the america's cup, after these long meetings, i invite you to go to the field and go for a walk. it is a restorative place to find tranquility and peace. chairperson chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak? public comment is closed. the titans are before us. we have an -- the items are before us. supervisor avalos: thank you, chair chu.

i know it has been a long road, very difficult negotiations, a lot of sleepless nights, probably a lot of anxiety. this is only a small portion of what i know you have experienced this fortnight. like a said last week, if this was just about voting whether we are going to have america's cup or not, it is not related to the finances of the city, and i would have no problem voting for it. we do not have that before us. we have many aspects of our port finances went to what is going to happen in the future. i do see the benefits of getting development on a port where it

has been planned for years in the capital plan. we should get a jumpstart on it because of the conditions in the economic arena of the city, as well as the port in terms of being able to get a return on investments that are getting more and more dilapidated. i understand the difficulty the port faces. this is an opportunity to develop the use of land that could have greater economic benefit for the entire city, not just the port itself. but i do not feel confident in what we have in terms of projected revenues that are going to come out of the america's cup event that could help the city minimize its costs of what we are going to be putting in to make sure the event can go forward. i do not give a lot of credence to the revenues that are projected to come in. i always take that with a grain of salt.

i would expect that we are going to beat -- one question i have is -- is the 60 factoring in what revenue benefits are going to be as we are doing budget projections, based on what we are going to see in additional revenue? does that obviate the need to do better planning in our budget? because we are going to be seeing added revenue come into the city, but it is going to be paying for the event. it is like a circular phenomenon we are seeing. the money we are using to hold the event goes back into the event itself, the revenue. that does not mean a general fund bump. i do not think we will necessarily have a surplus, based on fund-raising in the city, how much the organizing committee is going to be able to fund raise for this event. i do not think we will get a surplus. i do not think the money we have yet israel.

as i said earlier today, if we have to pony up money as a city -- everybody would laugh at us if we said we would endeavor to pony up money. that is not something i feel comfortable putting my vote behind. i need more time. i can see that we can continue this item. not to move it out of committee. i think if we go to the full board, we lose a great deal of the leverage we have as a board of supervisors to make sure we can get the best deal possible. i do not necessarily want to delay a long time. i can see a week to do that. i have questions around workforce development that i do not think is quite as strong as it can be. i think we can follow more aspects of the local hire

ordinance, particularly around -- we now have liquidated damages versus penalties. i think that is a significant difference. i think it is important for how we do our local hiring that meets what our standard is in the city. that is the local hire ordnance. if we have something different for the event, that does not make sense. moving forward, we want all our contractors to comply. i think having an exception for the event authority, for the event itself, will minimize what we are trying to do with a local hire ordinance. i feel much more comfortable with the condo sales have been subsequent to the first sale. i see arguments that have come forward from the office of economic and workforce development. you have a certain amount -- you have a bucket. you have a certain amount of

money you are going to get. if the sale is happening earlier, the city is not paying enough in reimbursement. but i think if a second sale or subsequent to the first sale, that 1% would be something i could live with. one of the main things -- i would want to keep this in committee if we do not have that. i do not want it at the board. i am prepared to do a host of amendments to the resolution, if need be. but i would like to hear more from my colleagues on the committee. chairperson chu: thank you. i did want to ask mike martin, with regards to timeline, can you tell me more? >> based on the construction schedules before us, we have

been advised by the event authority of the need to have the board approvals by next week, every 28. -- february 28. the discussion needs to continue in the committee as a whole. we will try to address whatever comes out of this. chairperson chu: thank you. supervisor campos: i want to reiterate what has been said about thinking staff not only at the mayor's office, not only the folks at the event committee, but all the organizing work that has gone into this. i want to think the budget and legislative panelists for this report, as well as the city attorney's office. one of the things i think is

important for us to consider is that i have yet to experience with any major project where someone wants that project to go through is ok with a delay. time and time again, we hear that the sky will fall. somehow, we as a body take the time to deliberate appropriately. with respect to the america's cup, i can tell you as someone who was here when they vote was taken on december 14, 2010, that at the time we needed to act them, and if no action was taken by the supervisors, finalizing a deal, that somehow the event would not be able to take place.

what is interesting about that is that the board actually did act. the board did act. lo and behold, between december 14 and december 31, two weeks later, there were additional negotiations where additional provisions were added to the agreement. so that extra two weeks did not and the event, did not terminate the city's ability to have that project. the notion that somehow this has to be voted on by next week is a notion that is very recent. it is a very light piece of information that we have given -- that we have been given. i have yet to understand specifically why action would be legally required or otherwise required by that date. what is wrong with the san francisco board of supervisors, which has made it clear that it

wants this project, to take a few more days to actually iron out some very complex and important issues? why not take an additional week or an additional few days to really get down to whether or not this issue of the hard cap, whether or not we are comfortable enough with the language that is presently in the dda, whether we should modify the resolution to provide additional protections to the general fund? what is wrong with us having more of a discussion about the 1% condo sales after the second year or third year? there is a difference of opinion about that. why not have a discussion on that? why not have a discussion about why the 15% we previously included, as indicated by the budget analyst, is not in there? we heard there are at least

three items that they recommended that were not included in the response. why not take the time to actually see whether or not those items should be included? we also heard from the budget and legislative analyst that they have not had the time to really consider whether or not responses were provided to the recommendations. whether or not those were adequate to address the concerns of the recommendations. i think we should give them the opportunity to give us that information. there was a draft of a memorandum of understanding between the america's cup organizing committee and the city and county of san francisco. this document is seven pages long. it has two exhibits. i would like the opportunity to review, analyze, and consider

the different provisions of this agreement. shouldn't we do that before we move something forward to the board? i think that is the right approach in making sure we do this right, to take the time to do it right. we could take another week to consider these points. it is not going to be the end of the world. the one thing that i think we should avoid is to have the board take action along the lines of what happened in 2010, and be in a situation where the mayor's office or someone else has to go back and make changes. it would be great if we could have a final resolution, but that is not going to happen unless we take the time to do that. i would respectfully ask this committee to make sure we take the opportunity to do this right. chairperson chu: thank you, supervisor, for your comments. i want to thank also the staff,

the port, the event authority, our budget analyst. i like the recommendations made. a lot of issues were covered in a lot of meetings. from my perspective, as i indicated in my last conversation here at the committee, it was really to take a look at functionally whether it is a financial possibility for us to take on. what were the risks associated with it, in addition to what the port finances have been? i think we have covered many of these items today. we have heard from the department of about the status of the negotiations. i would just say, in terms of all the due diligence we are doing, i think it is absolutely our responsibility to make sure we are doing the best that we care, being the most responsible we can be. but i want to echo some of the comments supervisor farrell made

earlier. what gets lost in this conversation is the incredible opportunity. i heard from the port about the opportunities for a huge initial investment we would otherwise not have had, to repair appears that are in serious need of repair. -- repair piers that are in serious need of repair. they are not fancy things anybody wants to pay for -- a bronze along the waterfront, tiles. -- aprons along the waterfront, tiles. these are big opportunities for us. i thought of the issue about the fund-raising and whether there was any risk associated with not seeing the fund-raising come through, and whether that is something we can look at in terms of expenses. i think there is an answer there. from all the conversations i have heard and comments i have received, the acoc is going to be capable of raising additional

money. they have raised significant money already and are generating excitement for a project that has yet to be approved by this body. and think that is the important thing to note. i also think that given some of the scaleable items, the expenses that will depend on the crowd -- i believe people see the waterfront as a special place. i do not think we will see the same issues we saw in san diego. it is going to be a successful event. from the fund-raising component, there is a good story to tell. there are ways to mitigate risk that make me feel more comfortable with this transaction i think with regards to the point that harvey raised -- we went through them point by point. there has been significant progress made.