at the core again is the dda, a legally binding agreement between tida and developers. i think it is important to note that the program is based on a horizontal development. developers are able to build out the infrastructure, the public improvements, parks, roads, sewer lines, water lines, and then ferry terminals to get to land has that could be developed, but our agreement with the developer gets us to the point where we have developable pass, which they could sell or develop on their phone for market rate housing, we could use them to develop affordable housing. your actions that we are going to ask you to consider in the next couple of months are certifying the eir, approving the redevelopment plan, the tax increment allocation agreement. you would be asked to amend the general plan to allow for what is to be constructed here to be constructed, proving that the dda, as i talked about -- there is a separate development agreement. there is a trust exchange with the state so we can actually have development on non-trust property and trust uses on trust plan, and you w

>> the leases and the dda's are stand-alone agreements. that had to do with the change. supervisor mirkarimi: i am looking for the contra. -- the entry points. the term sheets or whatever 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

>> the leases and the dda's are stand-alone agreements. that had to do with the change. supervisor mirkarimi: i am looking for the contra. -- the entry points. the terms

we would expect that the dda's come to the board of supervisors sometime after january 2012. next, there would be a project level ceqa analysis for any project term development, and we would expect the long-term leases to come to the board in 2014 or later with probably another term sheet level approval regarding the uses for those sites. there are multiple discretionary approvals by the board of supervisors going forward related to how all of this works. essentially, what we were negotiating with more certainty for the team on the financial terms and flexibility as to how they could be repaid. the major change, and i will put it in the context of all the changes later, that we want in this time was a guarantee that they would make $55 million in waterfront improvements up front before the match. in the december 14 agreement, they could differ much of that work until after the match. since the public expectation is so high that the waterfront improvement would be improved by the america's cup, we thought this was important from a port perspective. that $55 million translates

being able to consult with the city attorney in this process is knowing that the term sheets and the dda's will come back to you, and i think it is good for us to hear the concerns that are important to you as we go back to the negotiating table. we want to hear what is most important to you as we start those more detailed negotiations so we can bring back a product. chair chu: supervisor, did you have additional questions? supervisor mirkarimi: i appreciate supervisor campos' questions. i went to get back to the generalities and what has been talked about since the release of the report -- i want to get back to the generalities. we gave up a guaranteed participation, rent participation on some things, sales and transfers, into my perception, that was a loss. we've locked -- and to my perception, that was a loss. significant losses as reported note -- reported by harvey rose. unlike the other five bonus piers, and then allows things to be transferred back, in a period, which could cut either way, so i want to focus on those nuggets which called into question, i think, and i think there may

i do realize that there are other milestones in this process, like the dda requiring approval, and other leverage points that fortified the board of supervisors' oversight in this particular deal, but why wait months down the road when, obviously, with information before us right now reflected of that two weeks before the deal had changed, do we let this opportunity go by, not fully understanding with the realm of its impacts are? consistent with where we started, let's continue to move down this path, and i look forward to the discussion i have facilitated here today. supervisor chu: 90. i want to take a brief moment to recognize supervisor campos, who has joined us for this committee -- thank you. supervisor chiu: i wanted bank supervisor mirkarimi -- thank supervisor mirkarimi for proposing this hearing today. for ensuring that what we voted on in the middle of september remains essentially the same. i know there have been a lot of questions raised, and i want to thank the different parties that have been putting together some of the answers. i look forward to hearing fuller expositio