this is the city of san francisco acting through its airport commission. >> good afternoon. the airport is seeking your approval for the leases relating to our ongoing closure and mitigating financial effects that the closure has on tenants on or around the boarding area. in july of 2011, the board of supervisors approved the first amendment to these existing leases between the airport's and of the subway. c[unintelligible] and burger joint to partially waive their minimum guaranteed during renovation. originally the project was expected to be completed this summer.

now we know that the tenants will not just be closed, but complete the demolished. this is occurring because the project has significantly increased in scope from a straight forward seismic upgrade to a more expensive redesign that more accurately reflects our terminal 2 redesign. we found that when we opened the concession and retail outlets, they were doing so much better than the other boarding areas the new renovation does require relocation and reconstruction of the existing spaces within the boarding area and is expected to be completed by november of 2013 rather than this summer. the second amendment will

continue the existing changes, totaling approximately $906,000, as well as providing the tenants with replacements of a similar size and to replace existing lease terms of which 5.5 years to six years remained, to commence by on the date on which they reopened. the proposed amendment would continue to waive the minimum guarantees, but as a budget let em -- budget analyst reports, only subway is currently operating in the boarding area and they are due to permanently close the location in september. tenants will be required to build new spaces in boarding area e to a terminal 2 level

design and they will abide by the terminal food policy. staff projects that once the newly designed boarding area opens, attendance will realize an estimated 8.9% growth in sales, translating to 10% additional rent for the airport. the budget analyst has recommended approval, but i would be happy to answer any questions you have. >> on the bottom of page 5 of our report it says, as shown on cable to, the airport will pay in one time reimbursements for the amortized construction costs, forgoing $291,000 in minimum annual guarantees in

fees annually until the commencement date of the revised lease. with the airport's break-even policy, that will not have a direct impact on the airport's budget. on page 6 we have pointed out that when these renovations are completed, estimated october 31, 2013, based on prior experience, the percentage of rent would actually go up by around 10.1%k. as shown in table no. 3, page 6, the projected $913,000 from before the lease is more than the total. it is expected that that percentage of rent would be realized. >> think you're a much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members that wish to comment?

>> ♪ i knew that you were a budget alright you made it turned out right must be doing something budget right we are going riding on the subway a budget love with a budget wind against our back we are going riding on a subway of budget love without holding no money backe ♪ and ♪ you did it my subway the record shows you really know, budget, and did it my subway ♪ supervisor chu: any other members of the public that wish to comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed.

colleagues, do we have a motion? >> i will motion that be except and move forward with recommendations. >> we have a motion to send forward with recommendations. item number three? >> item #3. resolution authorizing the amendment of an existing lease at 3120 mission street with klw, llc, to expand the premises by approximately 5,000 square feet for the human services agency. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have john updike. >> good afternoon again. this item cease your approval to add 5000 square feet to an existing multi-address least to a 34-25 mission, expanding the human services agency footprint at these addresses under a consolidated least.

specifically, the particular space before you today but has been successfully used for weekly job fairs, employment training, education related to workforce development programs, in association primarily with calworks. two years ago we first least this for a pilot program. the program was such a success that it led to over 1000 job placements over the past year. they had sufficient funds from federal, state, and general fund sources to make a longer- term commitment, essentially converting what was a temporary rental occupancy to a long-term occupancy. the budget analyst has provided to you the overall impact context for;uu leasing these properties, the item before you today is straight forward. it is an amendment to lease the

expanding premises of 5000 square feet until june 30, 2013. the rate is $24 per square foot, per year, plus electrical or janitorial costs. of course, those are variable. i do have a list of come parable's at what we felt was provided by the marketplace and equivalent to the space we were looking at. it is quite the range. $24 per foot is matched by a couple of the compare rebels in the area of as high as $62 per square foot. the market is a bit crazy and rising, so, we are confident that 4 no greater than fair market rent at this rate. i am joined by our contracts

manager to answer any program questions you have. >> a question about how we are able to consolidate three different pieces of three sites into one contract. is it the same owner? is that why it is allowable? >> exactly correct. we have the initial lease, the second amendment to the least, and given that there is one ownership, it frankly gives us more leverage to consolidate these spaces and in an overall basis get a better idea. >> in one area it is no more than 6% in that wanted to understand how you arrived at that. is there a situation where you imagine it could be on the floor? >> that is often a negotiated item between landlords and tenants. you will see ranges that are

common in the industry. and this is a question of market tolerance. .jk, this was the best negotiated rate we could see. you are correct, they have been around 3 or less, lately. that is a reflection of the market and its demand. this is consistent with market rates andurrfg increases. >> with the 3% to 6%, what happens with the five-year opportunities to expand? is there an opportunity to renegotiate other conditions of the lease? >> extensions are set forth typically at a market rate reset, depending on the amount

of term, or one cpi inflator upon renewal. in this case, bear with me a moment it does look like we have a cpi increase at the first option renewal, although sometimes that is negotiated depending on whether there has been a negotiation in the market moving in a rising market, most likely that will be to our advantage.

supervisor chu: jobs report? >> at the bottom of page 4 of our report, we point out that this third location, the rent would be increased by $1 per square foot to $2 per square foot. that is a 100% increase based on the fair market value, which is based on the analysis of the real-estate division. we also pointed out that the average per square foot, if you combine all three, would go up approximately 4.3%. we recommend approval of the resolution. members of the public that wish to comment on item number three? seeing no one, public comment is closed. y motion tos

forward? y motion tos we can do so without objection. item number four? >> item number four. resolution authorizing the exercise of a five year option to extend the sublease of the 52,200 square foot building at 1440 harrison street for the human services agency. supervisor chu: thank you. john updike, again. >> here be secure approval in the exercise of eight five-year option for this 52,200 square feet of sub-leased space. we have a map to give you the context of with this location is. the subject is highlighted. they then lease it to the llc of record, who some leases it to

the city. we operate cal fresh programs. there are just under two employees at this facility. the city has been a tenant here since 1983. in consideration, they will be carpet in rebate the facility, an expensive $200,000. the renewal rate is fixed for the entire five-year term at $23.28 per square foot, per year, estimated to be 95% of a fair market rent determined in this case by an independent appraisal analysis and an agreement by the landlord and tenant as to the rate. in that appraisal, the

following compare robles, unfortunately rather small on the screen, my apologies, indicate a range similar to what we saw in the last item, very varied. of course, we are at the lower end. on top of that, the city pays for janitorial ah$o and securit, estimated at $8 to $9 per square foot. i am budget -- again joined if you have any programming questions on this. >> thank you very much. supervisor chu: let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 3 we pointed out that the monthly rent in this case would go up 72.4%, which is

significant. the state department has stated that it reflects the escalated rent in the south of market area due to the relocation of various technology companies. again, we recommend in this case that you provide for retroactive approval as amended. supervisor chu: let's open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public that wish to speak on item number four? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor chsupervisor avalos:e to rescind that market tax rate, would that give as a brake on our lease? >> it is interesting, there are many benefits as a result of this in the, twitter, moving --

zynga, twitter, and others moving into that area. there is higher rent, but we can conclude that it is better to have them moving into that area of san francisco. >> it is not just the city experiencing rent increases. there are lots of small businesses as well. but thank you. i appreciate that. wanted to throw that out there. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. but you take action to make sure to say that it is retroactive to 2012? i think it is helpful to see the comparable to the share with us and in thea?p provide a hard copy. might be helpful in the future when we bring leases before us.

do we have a motion to except the recommendation and moved it as recommended? ok, done without objection. thank you, item number 5. >> item #5. resolution approving declaration of emergency construction contract of an amount not-to-exceed $319,000 to address a rockslide near south fork adit. supervisor chu: thank you. >> general assistant manager from the public utilities commission, the proposed resolution would be to ratify the declaration of emergency and approve the emergency contract and eliminate the risk of further rockfall. it is actually an access point into the mountain tunnel down here to san francisco and the rest of the bay area. this is definitely an emergency type situation. we have to maintain access to

critical facilities. the cost of work came in at much less than what we had requested the exemption for, now that we are in conformance. i am happy to answer any questions. supervisorn]rfñ chu: let's go te budget analyst report. >> on page four of our report, as shown in the table, the total project costs is now estimated at $150,000.250 -- $150,250, so we recommend that you reduce that authorized to the $203,000 and that you approve this resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. are there members of the public  item

number five? seeing no one, public comment is closed. can we except the reduction and not to exceed amount from the budget analyst? ok, we have a motion to except the amendment. the underlying item as amended, is there a motion to send up forward without recommendation -- with recommendation? done, without objection. please provide a copy of the amended document to r clark. item #6? >> item #6. resolution amending the contract between the san francisco department of public health and community awareness and treatment services, inc., for behavioral health services to $35,699,175. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

this is a request from one of our larger providers. this is for the homeless outreach team and medical respite center. they have currently been awarded services not included in the out years of the original contract, but we are currently in the process of reconfiguring these services and are requesting approval of this contract to continue these services while we are in the process of reconfiguring. eventually we will bid competitively. i have our director of adult behavior of health services here, if you have any questions about program details. supervisor chu: thank you.

mr. rose? >> on page 4 we point out that on page two, this proposed first amendment would increase the amounts in order to continue funding for all the programs. remain the expiration date of the agreement. when the board of supervisors considered this item, the department of public health testified that they would commit these soft source services under a competitive process in lieu of the continuation of the soft

source. it is about $18.9 million, it could be a policy matter for the board. we recommend you approve. supervisor kim: thank you. this question goes back to dph. by the way, i am a fan of taft and i note that the work they do for the neighborhood and the city at large is important. in the stand the importance of our medical respite in sobering center. i was wondering if you could speak more about what you planned to do. clearly, at the time the sole source contracts made sense. even if bid out competitively, there was a chance the contract would stay with the same provider, just given the kinds

of expertise and things that we do being unique, but i was curious, moving forward the board has always expressed support for these programs, as seen through several budget cycles. but could you go further into ensuring that kind of uniformity? >> i would like to confirm your z as this very flexible partner in delivering services to homeless citizens. also, you might appreciate that our challenge to help the homeless is an ever evolving process and not stagnanta as a practice, doing the same thing over and over. so, in the last few years we have come to realize that these programs, the sobering center

and homeless outreach could be better integrated so that they worked with a more clear focus and in coordination with each other. previously they tended to operate as separate programs, a separate kinds of service delivery objectives. so, now we are realizing that there is a group of+pg(÷ indivis who are high it utilizes of multiple systems for which we thought it would be good to create a model that uses engagement specialist teams that enables the homeless outreach team to work together in concert with our focused effort on this particular group of individuals who have been repeated. that is all the same partnership with the sobering center.

with a greater linkage to our intensive case management teams. supervisor kim: the intent is to move to an eventual the competitive process? >> most definitely. it is done in the access of clear program parameters. supervisor kim: i understand that. i have tremendous respect for the organization. i would hope that they would continue. i would also hope that as a matter of process, these contracts should be bid out competitively. i am excited that it will provide, eventually, a source of transportation that will have a regular route between our service centers, given our challenge providing tokens to all of our clients who need it to circulate between job placement programs, centers,

waiting lists to get on shelters. i think that that is going to be a very important change that will benefit our homeless population. >> yes, transportation is a key service. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. did i miss it? the gsa when you anticipated going out? >> there is no clear date yet, but 2013 is the fiscal year date when we will implement the changes. we will fashion the rflp accordingly. but, we share your concern about competitive bidding and do not want to just settle on a contractor without a competitive bidding process. we fully support your sentiment around that. supervisor avalos: this works

city-wide, or in a particular part of san francisco? >> most of their work is geared toward the concentration of the homeless. any citizen can call for services in any part of the city. supervisor avalos: the best way to connect with those services is what, 311? >> that should work, and there should also be a direct line number. supervisor avalos: you probably touched upon it, but if you could discuss what you see as the primary goals of a hot team, is it moving towards working with people who use multiple services? that is always what it has been, in my mind, or is it about getting to the people in the shelters who are homeless?

>> right now we are getting -- seeing a need to address those people who are going to our emergency and acute services. that is an effort we are currently trying to implement. but there is a general need for services for all homeless individuals. supervisor chusupervisor avalos. i always thought that the intent was to look at high users with multiple services. are you saying that the final objective is not being that by the way you are running the service and you have to figure out a new way of doing it? is that what is happening? >> yes, a as well as a focusing efforts toward that goal. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisork