supervisor cohen: are there any other questions for public comment? >> thank you for attacking this issue. i am a member of the eastern neighborhood cac. we were making a recommendation for there to be some delay. in talking with most of the members, six months is ok, too. we did not have deliberations to say it should only be three months. working in our sector, as you probably know, we only work to support manufacturers in the city. the good news is since we have been working and sense the eastern neighborhoods legislation was passed, we placed about 23 different manufacturers in space in the eastern neighborhoods. on the one hand, in reaction to

this morning's article, i would take issue that there is no demand for pdr. i've also seen were certain buildings are up much more effective for industrial uses than others. during this process you choose to take, in addition to outreach, it is important that we reach out to some of the smaller buildings and understand if the fees are too high and if there are certain buildings and not appropriate. the same goes for the largest buildings. we are aware of multistory buildings where there is pdr space on the third four fourth floor that is not appropriate. we have a lot of detailed data. we have 320 companies that we

have pretty detailed usage data on. we're happy to work with any of you as you undergo this exploration process to figure out how it might be refined. since we passed the eastern neighborhoods plan, i think everyone is still struggling if there is a useful way to be able to apply that. one idea that has come forth, thereno one has really taken a bandage of it yet, but might there be a way to look at that same rebate structure, based on hiring income barriers to employment, and might that be something that could be applied to the opposite -- office as an offset. the only action that we took was to say that we feel, and i personally feel, it is in everyone's best interest to

displace best -- displace any business from the city. we wanted to make sure that we could get a message about one week before the expiration. there was not any real debate beyond that. we are looking to provide updates as the work starts to move forward to actually look at other ways to treat the current process. thank you. supervisor mar: anymore public comment? >> dan murphy, again, this is just to pick up where the last conversation ended. staff presented the eastern neighborhood monitoring reports to the cac a couple of months back. i took the time to review them. they are quite -- there is -- is quite a lot of information.

i presume that those reports will make their way to the land use committee at some point. one of the observations that i had as a member of the cac and as someone active in the marketplace was a kind of observation on how the housing portions of the eastern neighborhood land use plans seemed to be working pretty well, actually. looking back on the deliberations that went on between 2005 to 2008 in the eastern neighborhoods, i can tell you for sure that there was an incredible constituency focused on the housing portion of the policies that ultimately made their way into the legislation. i would not say that so much on the commercial and job growth portions of the plant. -- the plan. i would think that there is an important conversation that we should engage in based on the perspective that there were

certain portions of the geography of the eastern neighborhoods that were basically set aside as employment lands and others were set aside to promote a mixed use housing development. as one observer in the marketplace, i think that it would help the city in our economic development efforts and, as it relates to implementing infrastructure, the public benefit portion of the eastern neighborhood could take a fresh look at some of those policies related to job growth. thank you. supervisor cohen: are there any other comments? supervisor mar: thank you. seeing no other comments, public comment is closed. supervisor? supervisor cohen: >> before you you have a draft of the suggested changes. i would like to make a motion to except the proposed amendments

first, then i will make a motion to continue the item. >> -- supervisor mar: colleagues, can we accept this without objection? thank you. supervisor cohen: i would like to make a motion to continue until march 26 meeting. supervisor mar: so moved. can we continue this? without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone, for coming. next item? >> item #3. resolution granting revocable permission to golden gate bridge highway and transportation district to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to replace existing bus stop signs and install and maintain new bus stop signs at various locations along existing golden gate transit bus routes and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. supervisor mar: i am going to ask that we recess for several minutes. minutes. without objection, colleagues?

supervisor mar: thank you. the meeting will come back to order. miss miller, can be call item no. 3? >> item #3. permission to golden gate bridge highway and transportation district to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to replace existing bus stop signs and install and maintain new bus stop signs at various locations along existing golden gate transit bus routes and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is a request that we have been working with with golden gate transit pursuant to the board waiving the fees with earlier ordinance is back in 2010. this is to replace multiple signs, totaling a little over

100 signs on existing -- on existing and new bus stop locations for golden gate transit. with regard to the new signs, those are going to be put up on new polls. they will not be using any joint polls with mta or anyone like that. this was approved at mta on october 13. the planning department ruled that it was in conformity with the general plan depending on the finding of consistency with better street plans. this will be in compliance with the better street plan whereas all the signs will be placed by the curbside, you know, in the street furnishings zones so that it will not impact travel or any building entrances. we held it -- the department held a public hearing on december 7 on this issue. there were no objections raised.

therefore, we respectfully request and recommend that this item be approved. thank you. seeing no questions -- supervisor mar: seeing no questions, let's open this up for public comment. seeing none, public item is closed -- public comment is closed. let's move this forward without objection. and our last item is before aspin. -- is before us. we have not called the item yet. >> item #4. resolution authorizing the execution of a permit to enter and use property for installation and maintenance of a northeast-facing wall sign at 1650 mission street by and between the city and county of san francisco and total outdoor corporation, a delaware corporation, permittee. we are -- supervisor mar: we are supposed to be joined by supervisor olague as well. i just saw her, but i am not sure where she went to.

i am hoping the you can present the remarks. >> thank you, chair, members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this item. i have some handouts. in handing out some photos of the general area so that we have a context of where this signboard is located. it is a little bit of review as to why we are here before you today. this item was initially brought to the budget and finance committee for the fiscal review of the robo-call will permit between the city and total outdoor for a sign wall located on the face of 1650 mission city office building. it was acquired in may of 2007. acquired subject to an existing

license agreement with -- through successor in interest cbs outdoor. that agreement terminated in the spring of 2011. since early 2011, we have been working on a committed process to secure a replacement operator of the wall signed location. this item has been brought forward to budget and finance with the issues of term. that is an initial five-year term with three five-year options. the funds to be provided would be a minimum annual guarantee of $63,000 per year in the first year, inclusive and in addition to that, it $30,000 bonus payment. escalators in future years, as well as revenue sharing opportunities, if the net

revenues from the board reached a certain level in the city shared in those at 35% of those revenues. we also learned during the process in the past year that there was an assumption that the old location could be eliminated. as it turns out, once we went through the files with the help of the planning department, it was determined that there was an error in one of the files and there is not an elimination rate for this location, which offended -- affected the fee structure. at some point the city in its regulatory capacity, if it were to approve the elimination, we would have a two year structure to allow for increased revenues to the city. i am giving you numbers based on non-elimination in there is the chance that they could increase if it is granted. it is not expected that that will be the case.

after budget and finance moved it forward, there were concerns raised in the community. i wanted to try to get you some facts to look at this from a different perspective. stepping back for a moment, there are three different permits. the idea being that we, the city, would continue -- consider issuing in our private capacity as an owner to attend. one permit is issued by the planning department, a second permit is issued by caltrans. some are surprised that caltrans has the authority here, the week -- but because it is visible from any part of the system of the 101, where most of those pictures were taken from, you

can see visibility that gives caltrans additional regulatory authority. so, whomever operates the board has to get a permit from the city there needs to be a permit from the city that is for it -- which is resolved, and one from caltrans, which is in the pipeline to be resolved. that is important to note. the permit size in the agreement before you is 28 by 99. 28 feet by 99 feet. that is the real-estate we're making available. >> 28 feet in height, three stories, and 100 feet wide? >> if you think about the top of the building being the top of the board, down 28 feet. obviously, it is a five story building. so, that is the real-estate the city has to offer.

however, the actual size of the board will be 20 feet by 60 feet. that is a reduction in the size to 1200 square feet. supervisor wiener: in terms of the price reduction in the annual guaranteed, can you just list what the fact is that caused that reduction? supervisor mar: the sides -- >> certainly. the size issue was not discovered until negotiations. we have assumed that the face of the sign could be as large as what i imagined. i did not see that as a factor. during negotiations we discovered it would be a smaller signed and, to their credit, the company we were dealing with

held firm with their offer. they did not change because the sign got smaller. from land use standpoint, good news. fiscal standpoint, bad news. more importantly, the change in our regulatory commission for regular budget for advertising was that both were banned without exception. there were a number of attempts to see if there was a way to still, in a side door way, but on that advertising in some way, liquor or tobacco advertising. this permit is very clear that that is not permitted. it took a number of possible advertisers off the table. >> when you initially went out to bid on this, had you said --

expected significantly higher numbers bella from -- significantly higher numbers? >> we were actually able to look at the gross revenues from cbs outdoor. since 2009, those have dropped precipitously. those just fell dramatically to the point where, frankly, they were losing money every month. supervisor wiener: because of the economy in 2009? >> because of the economy. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor wiener: 5 years from now, is there a realistic possibility that we could get a higher amount of money if the economy is better? potentially renting out this space as a bottom and then stuck

with that long-term at a low rate because of our current poor economy? >> because of the revenue share aspect of the agreement, if things ramp up to where they worked in the early 2000's, when this was a performing vacation, it was not consistent with what we had before. there is a potential upside that will recover far more revenue from the board. supervisor wiener: in not having order -- categorically opposed to billboards, on buses or whenever -- what ever, but i was very troubled when i saw this.

i spoke to one person who said it was one headcount, which was right, but for such a prominent space in an area that we hoped would continue to improve, it strikes me as not a lot of money. i said that at the full board in that will say that again, it is something that has troubled me. >> as i said, much of it is a reflection on the economy and regulations in its location, and it was a result of a competitive bid process. beef with it offers of over one of the national firms throughout the country. and we had good response, as in five solid responses. supervisor wiener: and the competitive marketplace may not be good in general? >> true. one other thing i want to know, there has been a question about whether or not this is legally

appropriate. back in 2010, up unrealized this was coming, we asked the attorney's office to take a look at the possible impact of leasing the property again, given the terms and conditions of the proposition's approved by the public which restrict outdoor advertising and city properties. to be very clear about that, of what was approved was that there would be no increase in the number of general advertising signs on loudoun street furniture, kiosks, benches, newspaper racks, under negotiation in approved by city contracts. and that there would be no new general advertising signs visible to the public if they were in existence after march 5, 2002. so, the issue here is not the issue of contracts. the billboard was visible on

march 5, 2002, which had been permitted significantly before that period of time. i believe that the memo provided by the committee by the planning director does go into some of that history and does indicate that with respect to guidance on how the city should deal with legal or illegal -- conforming signs, proposition's work -- illegal or non-conforming signs, it was consistent. just to recap, legally we believe we are following the correct content of the proposition. the size has been significantly reduced by 60% from the thought -- from the size of the former billboard. i've provided you pictures today to give you a context on the other signs in the area. i also wanted to know if this

was a row vocable permit. the city has the right to, under an emergency that is defined, or if there is a material operational problem with having this sign or access to this sign, the city has the ability to terminate the permit without recourse. secondly, if there is a change in visibility of the sign, which could be a traffic change, street scenes, new construction on the lot adjacent currently operated by enterprise rent-a- car -- should those events happened, the permit he has the option to terminate. -- permittee has the option to terminate. i wanted to be clear that this is able vocable matter for the

city -- i wanted to be clear that this is a revocable matter for the city. supervisor mar: we do have a concern that the market octavia planning process, acting regroups and advocacy groups, have enough time to weigh in on this. i know that last tuesday there was a strong peeling that there was not at halftime. considering the concerns of a number of the neighborhood advocates, and i know that there are a number of speakers here -- what kind of input have we had so far from any of the market octavia groups, or others? >> i would concur that the input has been very recent, within the last few days. as this was moving to the last -- this was moving to the full board, it tends to be an item moving under the radar and it often does not get out to the

public until it is through the hearing process. i am not surprised that that is late information. all that we are trying to do is synch up the regulatory aspects of the approval with this proprietary approval so that the two converged. we could see a little bit of delay here in this process and not affect that, but it would have to be fairly quick so that those are in sync and we do not have a disconnect between approval processes. supervisor mar: ok. thank you. i have three cards on me for public comment. three minutes maximum per person. the buzzer will bring with 30 seconds to go. cro[reads names]

>> hello, but thank you. in the pratt -- past president of san francisco beautiful. thank you for this opportunity to comment on the prospect of a billboard being reinstalled at this location. this is the intersection of -- now, since 2008 there has been a new zoning. so, the proposed billboard, even whether it is a caltrans standard or the former size, we are talking about billboards that are four times or 10 times larger than any billboard allowed if there were relocation going on. in a very real sense of the san francisco board is not taking aim at the opinion of the planning department, which says it is in a legally permissible

place. still, in a very real sense, we're putting in a new billboard. there has been no billboard for over one year and many citizens have noticed the absence of that intrusion. we are asking for this committee to either vote against this contract, given larger policy concerns, or to carry it over so that we have full community participation. the chairman pointed out that in one aspect there is a broader market octavia plan to be considered in advancing the contract before the budget and finance in committee. just as an idea for community input, there is, across the street, a large condominium complex that has a secondary entrance at 1650. i think that this typifies a

welcome direction for this part of the town. moving up part of the town beyond a no-man's land feeling, we find the billboard correlates with outbreaks of graffiti and is just a symbol of the neighborhood proclamation that it is a marginal neighborhood that does not count that much. i know that through the market octavia plan and through the construction of this condominium, in the building itself is an attractive building as far as city buildings go, there is the possibility of it being lost. many times voters have said no new billboards, most notably two years ago, no new billboards on public property and the public saying that they will forgo extra revenue. we just do not want to look at

any more of the squatter. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the executive director for san francisco beautiful. i want to reiterate my concern for installing the billboard at this location and also acknowledging, supervisor, your concerns. we share them about the low price that advertisers will get by bringing in new advertising. thankfully not for alcohol or tobacco, but we do think that there needs to be a new community input here. we think that the community should have a chance to time -- chime in, for individuals to come to the meetings and learn about the processes and we think that with your help, we could

get more community input. we are also excited at the board of supervisors, when we first learned about this, that there were innovative ideas that came from the board. we would encourage a partnership there. we would be happy to be part of those discussions encourage planning to be innovative. i have a couple of things to show you here. supervisor avalos had an idea for a green wall. this is an image from a living wall in france. here is another example of beautification that is closer to home. this is the will -- the woman's building in the mission. we think that san francisco has great ideas about how to use these spaces, and we would like you to be part of a broader community dialogue about how to