or whoever is adequate to speak to it, will you give us an indication of conversations about this? >> as we discussed during the hearing, we have had many conversations about this. there has not been an expression of agreement to the second sale from our partners at this point. from staff's perspective, i think we would appreciate the opportunity to try to negotiate this approach. obviously, this is in the hands of the committee. commissioner chu: thank you. commissioner avalos: with regard to this motion, i think it is important that the board states its preference in what the negotiations could be, and i feel very strongly. this is something we talked about last week and was in the original agreement as well. it makes a lot of sense to put

this in, reverting back to what we have indicated we would like to see out of this agreement, and i think it is important to bring forward again. commissioner chu: thank you. i see two folks on the roster to speak to this motion. supervisor chiu: the issue of participation is one that i and many others brought up during the discussions in 2020 -- 2010. it was something we were surprised to see taken out of the december 14 deal. i don't think it is -- i don't think it is the most difficult thing for us to be requesting as part of this. i certainly think in light of the conversation around whether or not we should have a cap or not, i think it is important for us to participate in any upside come if there is an upside. we're only talking about 1% on

the second sale. commissioner chu: north dakota. commissioner campos: -- commissioner chu: thank you. commissioner campos: i think it is totally appropriate for this board to set conditions on the approval and it is something this board has done before. even though we are not legally allowed to make specific changes to the dda, it is totally appropriate for us to set limitations on what we are willing to do. i also think it is important to provide some context to the issue of participation, that even if you approve this one% on the second sale, even if you add future sales, the level of participation the board is getting is actually lower than it could get. you could require participation on a number of transactions that are not included here. it is already a pretty modest

level of participation. i don't see why we should not provide that guidance to staff to make it clear where we are as open negotiations are finalized. commissioner kim: i agree with my colleagues that i would like to see this included in the dda in order to have my support. i don't support it as an amendment to the resolution. it is not the way i want to move that forward. we either vote them up or down. commissioner chu: thank you. did you want to respond? ok. we have a motion before us. commissioner avalos: aye. commissioner kim: aye. commissioner chu: no. >> the motion fails.

commissioner avalos: i would like to make another motion. add another resolve clause that would say -- how do i want to say this? 7.3hii. it's on the assignment of sublease and legacy leases. the authority will have the right to assign or sublease legacy leases an option leases to any of the authority affiliate's upon prior written notice, but without requiring the consent of the port, and without sport participation and consideration given to the authority by the affiliate. any other assignment of more than 55% individually or cumulatively of the interest in

areas subject to a legacy lease or legacy optionee shall require the port's prior written consent. the first such transfer by the authority or affiliate for the fair market financial consideration may be made without any port participation or any consideration given by the transferee. the port shall have of right to the debate -- the right to participate. the legacy leases and legacy option leases shell obligate the port to grant non-disturbance protection to subtenants on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. so, what to make sure that as we move forward in subleases that the port is able to get some cost recovery as well later in the event. commissioner chu: thank you. similar to the previous motion, i will be voting against this

one for the same reason. why don't we do a roll call? >> on that motion -- commissioner avalos: aye. commissioner kim: no. commissioner chu: no. >> the motion fails. commissioner avalos: i would like to add another resolve clause. it would remove the open space water basin from the dda. having that struck, i don't believe that it is proposed in terms of marina uses, as conforming use currently planned for the open space for the opiate -- for the area. commissioner chu: thank you. if i could ask the port or the oewd to respond to that item? this is removing the open water basin from the dda.

>> brad benson of support staff. as you know, the mayor negotiated the relocation of one marino right, the rain, water basin -- therincon -- the rincon water basin. we thought that was great improvement to the underlying deal. we had discussed the arrangement of marinas with staff. they understood that that was the improvement the committee would make. under the dda, the port would enter an exclusive negotiating agreement. the authority would be obligated to get all of the permission to build a marina in this location, including permission from bcdc. staff explicitly addressed this point and said that the proposal

going forward or to build a marina in that location, there would be a requirement to identify a new open water basin to replace this open water basin. so, i think the policy makers have their eye on this issue and will continue to work with the event authority on it. commissioner campos: one question that i have, going back procedurally to something that supervisor avalos was noting, i do think that the -- there is a danger in simply sending this forward to the board without making some of the amendments that clearly, members of this committee want to see made. i think that the idea of taking our time and may be coming back

for this committee to come back prior to the board meeting is one that i think makes a lot of sense. you still have the opportunity to -- if need be, to take action on tuesday. it gives you some time to maybe come up with language that incorporates some of the issues that have been addressed. i think that being able to come back and reconnect on those issues through this committee is something that will be helpful prior to the board meeting on tuesday. i just want to say that, from my perspective, the idea that supervisor avalos had come a given that we have not been able to make a substantive changes that i wish had been made, is something that makes a lot of sense. there are a number of other issues that remain not addressed. that is the issue of work force and local hire. we also heard from the arts community and there may be

others. i think that having this committee be able to come back and reconnect on these issues, and the supervisors i think would be helpful. >> thank you, supervisor. we did hear from the port of this issue. given the fact they'd have to run but bcdc anyway, and there are skrns considerations there, i'd be comfortable not being to include that here, not removing it at this time. so why don't we do a roll call on it? [roll call] >> the motion fails. >> thank you. and then supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you.

i really appreciate your consideration of hi moogs. the intent is to set a bar for what the expectations are for the board of supervisors and knowing that there's been a great deal of work that's been put in and it's been on all sides. i don't want to minimize that but i do think it's important for me to be able to state what they preference is and all i have are my votes to do that my vote on the america's cup events -- my votes have been very precious to me. because i don't feel that my votes have necessarily expressed what my will has been, especially going back to december 14, 2010 for when i per received was getting -- per received was getting voted on turned out to be something different. i do want to express what my

preference is what ink the resolution supporting the d.d.a. should look like. that's why i'm moving forward with these motions. the last one i'd like to do is a motion, clause that would add language that the d.d.a. and work force plan shall specifically require that all construction contracts should be subject to the hiring and construction. requirements will be set as the date of the d.d.a. is signed this is to make sure that we have the closest language possible to what our local higher ordinance construction is and i think it prevents a real harm any to what we're -- harmony to what we're trying to achieve with america's cup with the rest of the policy. president: supervisor chiu?

chiu i -- supervisor chiu: i support what supervisor avalos and the rest of us are trying to do. i do hope that regardless of what happens to this amendment over the next few days, i would like to get updates from city staff to understand exactly the plans on this issue. it's important for many of us, a vast majority of this board who have supported this to see these provisions really addressed in both the d.d.a. and under underlying documents. i would make that request of city staff and look forward to the conversation over the next few days. supervisor avalos: i do appreciate the efforts that have been made by the authority and the work force development in crafting this work force development and this small business inclusion policy. i think it's a strong step in the right direction. i think when it comes to how we are looking at some of the

penalties, where liberty dated damages is wheric there needs to be greater harmony. i'm willing to look at ways of having something that's programs not quite as strong as the exact liquidated damages of the local ordinance but to the extent that we're applying liquidated damages as they're described but not necessarily the exact amounts would be the way to go and this resolution, this amendment would accomplish that type of flexibility. supervisor chu: -- president miguel:. -- president chu: thank you very much. sounds like we differ primarily in the area of liquidated damages. could someone speak to that? >> hi, i think that's right, supervisor chu. i think this language as a potential place holder for what

we work on the actual work force plan what amendments could actually look like i think is fine. i think as a replacement for the work force plan. i don't think it achieves the goals that we've negotiated over the past year but i think is a path to get us to what we're trying to achieve i think that's fine. supervisor chu: does this require that it has to be word for word? does it give us this flexibility to review that? supervisor avalos: it would have that flexibility. supervisor chu: ok, and we can confirm that to the city attorney? >> i'm not entirely positive i'm understanding what the department is indicating about

the place holder language. so you want to change the resolution to include the language that supervisor avalos has articulated? supervisor chu: i believe the motion that he's made is that the d.d.a. and work force plan shall specifically determine that all plans shall be subject to construction. as of the date that the d.d.a. is signed. it sounds like what we've agreed upon is not exactly the same as the san francisco local hiring policy in that it differs in the penalty and the areas of liquidated damage. the intent that i believe supervisor avalos had mentioned that we'd like to see it as close to our hiring policy as possible. however, we are open to looking at that area. i want to ensure that the language proposed allows that that fecksability is not word

for word the san francisco local hiring policy. mike, did you want to speak to this? >> so this reference is all permanent and temporary construction contracts? temporary contracts i don't believe are covered by our hiring ordinance so i don't believe that a larger part of that paradigm. >> if you want to amend this into the resolution now but make changes to the d.d.a., or changes are negotiated to the d.d.a. it, if they are not exactly squint this provision you could always amend it out of the resolution, if necessary. otherwise, i would suggest making, if you wanted to keep this in the resolution, all the way through to your vote, regardless of what gets negotiated in the d.d.a. then i

would suggest maybe making this a bit brooder. >> uh, ok. >> supervisor avalos can i ask perhaps we can work on it and there are two other motions i'd like to entertain in terms of amendment? supervisor avalos: we can come back to it. that's fine. supervisor chu: ok. and if i can ask the other folks to look at that language with supervisor avalos. supervisor kim, would you like to speak to 337 supervisor kim: yes, i would like to remove references to lot 337 and the attention to the waterfront in the financing district. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe that is a motion to remove item number five to remove any references of seawall lot 337. we've had that motion. is there any conversation to

that? do we need to roll call or take that without objection? we can take that without objection. that has been removed. on the recommended action, i believe it's item number four, that would require an amend -- amendment to the resolution on item number four. it would be to amend the resolution to add the following resolve clause -- further detective the executive director to provide a progress report to the city controller and the budget to the board of supervisors prior to the commencement of any work which include the real state transaction and the seismic upgrade. i think this was an item that was fairly nontrombls, so colleagues, can we entertain that motion? any discussion? seeing none, do we need to roll

call on that? we'll do that without objection. supervisor chiu, are you speaking to this motion? we'll do that without objection. ok, supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i wanted to ask city staff where we were with language with regards to the -- issues. if i could ask either mike martin or jennifer matz, if you could give us a status update. supervisor chu: if we could get a better understanding of the commitments of the organizing commitment to the city in terms of the june 30, 2012 deadline. >> so to take the first set of questions -- supervisor chu, were you asking about the surety bond? so, take a step back. part of the idea was to protect the authority from the city's -- >> i'm sorry, the event authority or the city?

>> the event authority. >> ok, but it's the city that would be out of pocket for $32 million, right? >> no, the bond protects the authority from the city's performance and the committee he is performance of its obligation. that protects the general fund. >> which protects the city. that's what my concern is. >> my apologies. the city's performance is a bit of a moving target because of the amendments you see today. i think once we've got then part of the conversation together we've been talking about different approaches to combining insurance products with other pieces of security that would get to the level of security the event authority needs. so i think we need time based then discussion to go back and try to help our partners come to agreement on that and we'd hope to have that answer to you by the time the board votes on this resolution. >> it's important to me that this gets resolved by that date

and if it doesn't, i'd like to see a language that requires the city for this bond or some financial instrument to be in place. even many if not exactly by that tuesday but please keep us informed on the on -- on that. >> absolutely. we know that has to come together. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor chiu. supervisor kim, did you have a follow-up response? supervisor kim: i would like to know what the committee is willing to commit to. >> thank you. we are able to add two amendments to the m.o.u. one would be to the end of section 1.2 b, saying the acoc shall secure 1 million receipts by june 30 of 2012. trying to be as clear as possible. supervisor chu: can you clear what that means?

in receipts means? >> into our bank account. supervisor chu: in cash on hand? and we'll be reimbursed for actual cost that is you'll have 12 million dollars in cash in your bank account. >> we do secure that supervisor chu: thank you. i really appreciate your ability to step up and make that commitment. it gives me a lot more comfort in terms of the risks that we're putting to the general fund and i appreciate the efforts that you'll be taking on your behalf to make that happen for the city so if you for that work. >> you're welcome. the second point, section 1 .7, where we would create that, that mirrors the comments around the commitment on the bond. the acoc will continue to work with the city on putting the necessary instruments in place to fulfill the section of the host agreement and that come flies with our facility

obligations. that will cover the city's and committee's agreements in the host agreement and further de fined in the implementation plans. >> from my perspective, that language does not feel particularly as if we are completing a commitment. it feels looser than the other language that we've been focused on. i would just give that you feedback. >> we can work on the language. the commitment is the same as what mike martin reflected. we need to have something in place by tuesday and it's a top priority for us. at this moment in time i don't think we have the exact instrument but we're committed to getting there by tuesday. >> i look forward to the updates. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you. if i may ask ms. mcclelland to come back. i was wondering if you could reference that section in the

first amendment of the m.o.u. >> i'm looking at section 1.2 b and adding the last sentence. i think right above it it talks about we're endeavoring to raise 32 million. it says we'll receive 12 million in' seats by june 30 of 2012. supervisor campos: you're not making the same commitment to any of the remainder of that 32 million? >> our ability to commit beyond best efforts is very challenging. all we can do is go out and endeavor to raise $32 million. given what we've raced to date, we feel confident that we can commit to having those funds in place by june 30. if i had a crystal ball or had assets that could create those commitments, we could do that

but i don't want to make false expectations on what we know is achievable. supervisor campos: i appreciate that but i think to the extent to the point that was made on the impact of the general fund, it clearly does but it's only a partial resolution because you're only talking about 12 million out of 32. the fact is that you still don't have that level of assurance with respect to 20 million and that remains an open question and i think that, while i appreciate the movement, i appreciate the progress, there is a different level of assurance here with respect to most of the money that's at issue. >> ok. thank you. >> if i may to that point, the whole m.i.u. is a step forward as far as the overall commitment because it comes with a schedule, with targets that they have to meet, that

they're going to put forward and say this is what we're doing. in a way, the whole document is explicitly saying this 32 million is what we're doing and this is how we're doing it. i think we can work on the 1 million provision but i do want to say that this m.o.u. to me is a great step forward in understanding how that fundraising relationship is going to work. supervisor campos: i think it is a step forward but i also want to be clear that to the extent that the d.d.a. is approved as is right now that the city is also waiving its ability to terminate any kind of commitments if the fundraising goals are not being melt. the city is expressly waiving its rights under that. so, in some respects, yes, there is an added protection but there is a waiver of right that's happening.

so to the extent that you don't have the same level of assurance with respect to the entire $32 million, i think we need to be clear about that thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor campos. so colleagues, let's return to supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i'm actually willing to withdraw this motion and knowing that i'll have discussions with -- and the event authority on making sure we have some conformity with what our available work force will be for the event and local hire ordinance. i will withdraw this knowing in the next few days we'll work out some kind of agreement, hopefully. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, and i want to request that the event authority and our oewd work as hard as possible to work on our work force area.

supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. this was a point that i think that there is some level of agreement around earlier. there is agreement with both parties on 1% sale -- i'm sorry, 1% proceeds from the third sale and i would like to dedicate that to affordable housing on port property. if there is no opposition i would like to move forward with that motion. supervisor chu: so supervisor kim, i believe that it would be something that would be included in the underlaying d.d.a.? so a question to the port with regards to whether it's possible to dedicate. it sounded like brad answered that it is possible as long as there's a nexus of affordable housing that is on port property, correct? >> subject to negotiating that agreement with state hands