and move forward. so i would just ask for your support on that. >> thanks. >> mr. chairman, and the committee, it takes time to hire positions whether you fill a vacant position or you get a new position. so that argument does not hold whatsoever. >> members of the committee, deborah newman from the budget analyst office. the other comment that i would make is that we do have a chart showing all of the vacant positions in the planning department. and i would respectfully disagree that there is a lot more than the 3.28 positions, those are the only vacant planner positions in the permit processing division. there is actually a lot of other vacant, both planners and administrative support positions in the department. but we were specifically focusing on the permit processing, and the backlog.

and i would also note that there is actually the director of planning has noted that they are pulling administrative support staff from the permit division into city-wide planning. and that is why they want an additional clerk position for city-wide planning. i would also note that there is actually three quauters of a vacant senior clerk in the permit processing. so if they are pulling additional staff from there, there is actually other vacant positions there. so that they should again, fill their vacant positions first, before they add at additional positions. >> thank you, supervisor avalos? >> i think that is reasonable for the budget analyst perspective and we are actually going to be voting today most likely to approve 8 positions, moving forward. and i just hope that we are

having the budget process that is going to start very, very soon. i think that those 8 positions can do a lot if we are able to hire, you know, fairly quickly, can help with the backlog and then if there is a need, that comes forward, i think that it is a good time to talk about in june, when we will have the whole budget before us. or perhaps that is something that the mayor's office will be able to present in the budget in june first and we could have it before us at that time. >> i just want to remind the committee that these are fee revenues these are not general funds, they can't be used for other purposes. so with that i close. >> mr. chairman, on that comment, from the budget analyst standpoint it is still tax payer's money, we understand that fee revenue, whether it is fee revenue original fund or property taxes, no matter what, the question is it justified? and that is the basis of our recommendations. >> supervisor mar? >> mr. ram, i just wanted to know if you want to respond to miss newman's statement that

there are way more than 3 vacant seats and also mr. rose's suggestions that filling the vacantcies is critical. what are you doing to fill the vacantcy as well. >> i would say over the last three or four months, we have actually taken 50 different actions to fill the positions, some of those were back fills resulting from internal promotions but we are being pretty aggressive about filling the positions. many of the positions that she mentioned are in the process of being filled right now. >> okay. thank you very much. any other questions colleagues? >> okay, seeing none i guess that we will open up to public comment, on three and four, any members of the public that wish to comment on these items, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> from my perspective i would say that the one comment that i get time and time again is the need to have more staff at planning and handle backlog and so forth, so i am very

supportive of this notion, i would associate myself with the comments of the budget analyst as well. however and i do agree that especially as we head into the budget season we need to be very careful here and i would just be supportive of additional requests here once the positions are filled. i would be supportive of the budget analyst recommendations, all three of them, colleagues any other comments? >> okay, i will make a motion. to amend items three and four to reflect the budget analyst three recommendation? s >> second. >> we can do that without opposition. and i will make a motion to amend or to approve item number 3 and 4 as amended. and we can do that without opposition. >> okay. could you call number five.

>> resolution authorizing the planning department to retroactively accept and expend the grant amount of $200,000 from the metropolitan transportation commission for the inclubings of street scape and circulation improvement on folsom, and howard streets between the second and fifth street in the central corridor from february 8, to july 31, 2014. >> good morning supervisors, i'm the financing director, i am asking to accept and expend the $200,000 grant from the commission from the san francisco central corridor environmental impact report to include street network improvements on folsom and howard streets between second and 6th street. >> the planning department did receive a $400,000 that was included in the 11-12 budget. this additional funding will

augment the existing agreement with the mtc. preliminary work on the eir is currently under way. the consultant contract is under going final review and approval with the city of office of contract administration and should be fully executed by the end of this week or early next week, the notice of preparation of the ier is anticipated to be published in april of this current year and final certification of the eir is anticipated by the end of 2013. i am here along with jessica and planning on this project and she is the grant writer who got us this grant, we will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> colleagues any questions for the planning department? >> okay, seeing none we do have a budget analyst report. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, the required match of $750,000 has been previously appropriate ated by the board of supervisors we recommend that you approve this legislation. >> okay. >> colleagues any questions of

the staff? >> okay, at this point open up for public comment, any members of the public that wish to comment on item number 5, step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to approve number five? >> we will do that without opposition. >> item six. >> hearing to consider release of reserved funds planning department fiscal year 08-09bordening, in the amount of $51,217 to fund the permit and project tracking system project. >> great and mr. demartini you are back. >> before it was a request to release a $51,218 reserve on the planning department permit and tracking service project. the project is a joint project with the planning department and the department of planning and inspection it will improve and enhance the permitting and tracking systems by sharing the data between the two department and combining.

the project and permit and geographic information and property and billing data into one comprehensive system and will allow for a more transparent process by making the data accessible to the public and allowing for the applications to be submit and tracked on-line. the original reserve on this project in the amount of $146,065 was placed on the project? fiscal year, 08-09 pending a joint agreement between the department of building inspection and the planning department on how the project was to be implemented. in november of 2008, 94,847 dollars of this reserve was released, leaving a remaining reserve of $51,218. the pps implementation is on schedule to go live in november of 2013. the release of this reserve is necessary to have sufficient appropriation to pay for the consultant expenses related to the design and configuration of the system. the appropriation requested

made for the project during or last year's budget cycle assumed that this reserve would eventually be released. this concludes our presentation and i will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you very much. >> thank you. colleagues any questions of the planning department? >> okay, seeing none, thank you very much. >> we have a budget analyst report here. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 19 of our report we point out that based on the competitive request for the aprosal process, the planning department and dbi awarded a contract to 21 tank, llc that was in the amount of $3.4 million, and it was based on about 19,500 hours in an average rate of $175 an hour and this specific subject request to release the reserve of $51,218 will pay for 292 hours of that contract, we recommend that you release the reserved funds at $51,218. >> okay, thank you. >> colleagues any questions for our budget analyst?

>> thank you very much. at this point we open it up to public comment? any members of the public that wish to comment on item number 6, step forward >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> move approval. >> okay, we can move approval. item six and we can do that without opposition. >> item number seven. >> item number 7, resolution approving the airport advertising lease between clear channel outdoor ifrpged doing business as clear channel airports acting by and through the airport commission for a eight year term with a minimum guarantee of $10 million. >> thank you association we do have cathy winer here. and government affairs, and manager for the san francisco airport. and let me say miss winer and to members of the public that are here as well as to the budget analyst, i think that we are likely to continue this item and that is the plan here

to give mr. martin, who is the director of the airport time to come back as this one has some discussions around item number 7. and so i would ask that we actually keep presentations brief. we will open up to public comment, and members of the public comment. but, given that we will be hearing this item again in the near term future i ask that we keep the presentations shorter than perhaps thought of. >> understood. >> chair, farrell, cathy with the airport. i will just briefly layout the lease that is before you for the airport and clear channel for advertising at the airport. the proposed lease is a new lease for advertising at the airport it has an 8-year term. and it has or carries a ten million dollar minimum annual guarantee. the lease is a result of a request for proposal process with the clear channel receiving the highest points of 3 proposals submitted. one of the proposers did file a

protest. which the airport commission in consultation with the city attorney's office has found to be without merit. clear channels and $10 million, minimum annual guarantee, includes provisions for 169 advertising locations at the airport. and it is worth noting that that is in comparison to the current lease which has 286 sites, or 107 fewer advertising sites as a part of this lease. that is before you. >> the budget analyst report recommends that the resolution be continued so that the airport may come back and include a percentage rent structure in the lease, in addition to the mag that is offered. the airport is supportive of the notion to continue so that we can get some clarity around some of these issues and i understand that there is a lot of discussion about this. but i just want to be clear that the airport made a business and policy decision to go with the mag only.

based on the notion that has played out that we would receive higher, a higher mag offering. and it also helps us to control the limited space associated with this lease. percentage rent lease incentivizes a tenant to come back to us periodically to ask for opportunities to expand and we have not had good luck with that in the past. we are trying to be really consistent with the city's policy to limit the expansion of advertising on the city-owned property and so that is a part of what was taken into consideration when we moved forward with the mag only. i understand that the budget analyst has concerns with that, which you will hear about today. and i am sure, director martin will be happy to come back and answer more specific questions around his thinking in this. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, do you have any questions of the airport at this time? >> okay. >> supervisor avalos? >> just i know that we are going to have this come back and maybe when it does, you or

john can touch about how or whether they are inside of the rfp there was a question to support local businesses. because that has been coming up in conversation that i have with people that one of the contractors is better at than and i am not sure if that was part of the scoring that went on and if you could touch on that when you return. >> do you want me to tell you what i know now? >> sure. >> briefly, it is my understanding that there was not a component in the rfp that addressed the lbe partnering but that the contracts before you does have that as well as i know that the proposal of the folks that protested the award to clear channel. i know that they have a program as well. but the clear channel proposal before you does also have an lbe component to it even though it was not required as part of the rfp. >> thank you. thank you very much and i think as i mentioned before, i think that the questions that i like

to understand are more around the other contracts that you have concession contracts at the airport and whether they have this dual structure and i would like to understand some clarity and other advertising contracts in the city of san francisco not just the airport as well as other major airports throughout the country, i want to get the list of the top ten and see how the bigger airports are handling this. >> supervisor mar? >> i appreciate your efforts to answer our questions, today. but i know that having mr. martin if we continue this, would be valuable as well. but i did want to just echo supervisor avalos comments that i think that local and disadvantaged contractors are really important in how you insurance that contract maximize the participation of local businesses, but especially disadvantaged businesses. and then, i definitely want to hear more of the rationale for the mag only contract and i know that we will have that for a future time as well. but thank you. >> okay. >> thank you thank you very much, miss winer and we

appreciate it. to the budget analyst report. >> commission chairman and members of the committee, as shown in the table on page 28 of our report, under the existing 12-year lease with clear channel which will expire on march 31, 2013, clear channel will pay the airport a total of $72.2 million, with such revenue paid by clear channel, increasing each year and in addition is showing in the table beginning on this year too. but, the percentage of gross revenues and this is a key point that the supervisors exceeded the annual rent in five of the eleven years or 45 over 45 percentage of the time. as a result, the airport realized additional rent revenues of $5 million compared to the minimum annual guarantee. we are talking about big bucks here, supervisors. and as you know this clear

channel gross was $103 million. that is the column under gross revenue and if you add that up it is over $103 million. under this lease they would not pay a percentage of the gross revenues or a minimum guarantee, instead it will only pay the airport a minimum of $10 million which will be adjusted annually by a (inaudible). >> the airport did provide the budget analyst with a memo february, 28, 2013, that is on page 32 of our report showing attachment two to explain why the airport included the minimum annual guarantee, only for the structure and did not also, but did not also include a percentage of the gross revenues which ever was higher as was contained in the existing lease, so they have gone in writing as to the reasons why they have not included a minimum annual guarantee and that is verbatim

in the report. and the additional grocery receipts is a problem that auditing the additional gross receipts is a problem and budget and analysts believe that the airport should require the contract to devise a system which enable the airport to readily, audit them over the past of the existing use with clear channel. it should be noted that the existing lease with clear channel does provide for the percentage of rent and in fact, in thes only have audits been conducted but the percentage of gross revenue rent paid to the airport by clear channel as i stated exceeded the minimum annual guarantee by $5.5 million, in five of the last eleven years. although the airport states and their memo that proposers would tend to submit a lower minimum

annual guarantee when a percentage rent is included. and end of quote. and the airport has indicated that it would have never received ten million dollar minimum annual guarantee if they had included the percentage of gross, they was absolutely no documentation whatsoever, to substantiate that statement. if that were true, supervisors we questioned why the airport has hundreds of leases and have hundreds of leases in the past and presently have numerous leases, which in fact require both the percentage of the gross and the minimum annual guarantee. the airport has never here before suggested to the board of supervisors that all of the hundreds of leases which the airport has submitted to the board of supervisors for approval that the airport will be getting a lower, minimum annual guarantee because of the airport's existing policy that in each and every one of those leases which required a minimum and a guarantee, it is required a percentage of gross.

so this policy is completely different from the policy that the airport has advocated and is continuing to implement requiring both the minimum annual guarantee and a percentage of gross. there is nothing contained in that airport response, which would cause the budget and legislative analyst to withdraw the recommendation that the airport should incorporate a provision in the lease that would carry a percentage of gross or minute um guarantee whichever is greater as is the case with the khifting core channel. out of the hundreds of leases awarded by the airport, the airport could notify, we asked show us one other lease. where we are required a minimum annual guarantee that you don'tryer a percentage of gross. the airport could not provide us with another lease. and as a matter of fact, mr. moore acknowledged and i am quoting him standard. that the other airports to charge lease rental revenues

based on a percentage of the minimum annual guarantee. excuse me, whichever is higher. and in addition given that the proposed lease will extend to eight years and the rates of clear channel will charge to the advertising customers will likely increase significantly over the 8-year period. the lightly gross revenues to be realized by clear channel from the advertisers, the airport will likely also increase significantly over the eight-year term and is showing them the table in the report that those advertising revenues realized by clear channel increased from 8.1 million in 25, 26 to 13 million in 12-13. that is an increase of $4.9 million and nearly 60 percent over eight years which is the same term of the proposed lease with clear channel. and i am summing up on page 30 of our report, we state that the airport points out that the ten million exceeds the percentage rent of nine million

337, and 11-12 under the existing lease for clear channel. however the budget and legislative analyst points out that the percent allergy rent has exceeded the minimum and guaranteeing the past if you continue to do so in the future, therefore for the proposed lease will be unlike the existing leases with clear channel. the unlikely and unlike nearly every other, lease at the airport now. which is as i state require both the percentage rent and the minimum annual guarantee. this lease would preclude, the airport from participating in higher of a percentage of rent in the future and it should be noted that the city does get and you did not put in our report, which we should have, the city does receive 15 percent of all concession revenues at the airport. so, that is an important factor

as well. the question came up from the committee about the other advertising leases in the city, as a matter of fact, every single advertising lease that the city has it does require whichever is higher. so the family and conclusion of the budget and legislative analyst, the limitation to pay the percentage to the airport and such to exceed is not in the best interest of the city. we recommend that you continue this resolution and request the airport to incorporate a percentage of those gross revenues for the provision in any new lease and, any new proposed advertising lease, similar to the percentage of the revenues which is already contained in the existing lease with clear channel and i would be glad to answer any questions. >> i don't think that we have any. just to repeat my comments, and thank you for answering that about the other advertising contracts in the city.

we will figure that out in the upcoming beak or so. thank you very much. and i know that we have a number of members of the public who filled out speaker cards and i will call your names and if you want to line up up here on the side, michelle secton and bernard, and doralyn dans and don franklin. >> if i have not called your name, i will and you filled out a speaker card, i will put these forward here. >> good morning, supervisors. michelle secton with (inaudible) law partners. on february 8th, (inaudible) submitted the bid protest by the recommendation of the award of this lease. to the board of supervisors you

have a copy of our protests allow me to crystallize the issue for you. this issue is merely and it is simply a matter of law. the law of the administrative code 25173 requires that the lease be awarded to the process. >> they submitted a methodology and failed to follow. it related to them be awarded less points than as prescribed in the rfp. the airport staffs that explained that the provision was orally amended in a non-mandatory preproposal conference as you will later hear that is not the case. further the rfp itself provides that any changes to the rfp must be in righting. no written amendment was made to require that the board sustain the protest. we also want to bring to your attention, that this matter is

properly before you. the competitive process for this lease was legally mandated by the board and our protest relates directly to whether the airport follows this problem and being submitted does not. the board's duty and the author of the legal requirement is to consider the merits of our protest, and further in 2008 our city attorney and the difference of a challenge to a contract award decision must first are presented to the board or it is waived. so we are before you to ask you to review this matter. the city attorney is also applying that contracts with the governmental agencies are invalid if legally mandated if procedures are not followed.

>> evelyn angels, and i am here to read the first hand account of the facts of (inaudible) she apologizes that she could not be here but felt that it was important to read it on record. >> may 10, 2012, i personally attended the conference to asra pacific was interested in responding to the airport's advertisement contracting opportunity. at the congress on 20 12, the presenter made the presentation with the help of powerpoint slides, she did not deviate from the powerpoints presentation and in fact, she read directly from the slide. also, attending at the informal conference were instructed to submit any and all formally and in writing in information was presented that was not part of the powerpoint presentation.

at the conference she haired what was already stated in the rfp. >> new information was not presented. i am confidents confident of this because fp the meetings and knowledge of presentation styles. i recall that she only reiterated what was listed in the written rfp p regards to the scoring minimum guarantee amount and she did not present any new information or provide any methodology for the minimum guarantee that was not included in the airport's written request for proposal. based on the request for proposal and the information received. and the informal conference. and i understood that if a proposal satisfied the minimum annual financial offer, the proposal would get the full amount of points for the mad catecory it was never suggested orally or otherwise that the competitive advantage could be gained by exceeding the mag. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please?

>> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the committee. all parties and the president and america. (inaudible) has been a partner with the city of san francisco for almost 18 years now. and we have been working with a lot of the city departments and the various diverse communities that make-up this great city. and everyone knows that the trucks that go around with our roll call 856, amendment and that is clear and on a daily basis. so the way that this process of the airport has been conducted, has come to an appointment to us because we feel that it has been extremely unfair. and really this purpose is about that. it is not about system particularly, protesting an award that does mot come to us, this is business, you lose some and you win some and we are fine with that. in this