different almost every time and when we come across a novel question we will review the ftpc's opinion. >> is it more that they said they're not going to investigate this matter, or did they say 803 is the appropriate form and 801 is not, this is the incorrect form? >> well, i have not spoken with the ftpc. i have received two letters, one to the da from the ftpc and one to charlie, a member of the public who filed the complaint. the main question about the 801 is whether the da in this case received a personal benefit and the letter from the ftpc says that based on the facts of the

situation, the da did not receive a personal benefit and therefore there's no gift to the district attorney and no form 801 is required. >> so they said the 801 is not required. >> it didn't reference 801, but it said the da did not receive a personal /pwepbl fit. /pwepbl fit. benefit. >> i'd like to move forward and i'd like to support this item so i'd like to make a motion to move on with the understanding that an 801 will be filed. >> so you would like it to ert

question to supervisor campos about that motion. so if you need to abide by the requirements in that form, the da actually wouldn't be able to sign that because he isn't within the requirements of 801. >> that would be a question for the city attorney. >> city attorney, that's a challenging question. based on what i know, /pwaeulsed on based only public record, i don't know of any facts that the -- are certainly

occasions when officials, either because they're unsure or in abundance of caution file both state and local forms, but if there is a provision in the form 801 that the da or someone there in that office could not sign, then we certainly would advise not to sign it. >> supervisor /waoepbler. wiener. >> i'll withdraw. >> this is a motion to amend, correct? >> i will not be supporting the motion to amend. we are not the enforcement agency for whether to file an 801, the ftpc is. they said that an 801 is not required. i don't see

why would we require this when the enforcement agency says it's not. again, everything has been disclosed. it was disclosed in the 803, it was disclosed in the resolution pending before us today. i don't see what the point of inserting this here is when, if we really think this is that important, someone can introduce legislation and do it the right way and the way that we pass these requirements with a fully vetted public process. >> supervisor campos made a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos. >> overall, as i stated at the

beginning of this conversation, i don't really feel comfortable approving this. feel we're put in a difficult position with this accept and expend. this is a retro active accept and expend. i don't feel comfortable with that. i don't feel comfortable having this open discussion about what was a proper form when we have the city attorney on one hand saying something else should have been done. the district attorney, i believe should follow what is given by the district attorney. i'm voting no, i will accept the amendment

first, we'll see how that goes and i'll base my decision on that. >> let's take the roll. >> just for clarification, the district attorney's [inaudible] clerk of the board to place in our file as well? >> yes. supervisor campos' motion. >> did you want to put a time on that? >> yes. maker of the motion. >> one month. would that be sufficient city attorney? >> this is a policy call for the board. >> one month. >> do you want to reread the motion to amend. >> that would be by june 11. on item -- on the motion. >> that the district /toerpbl's

>> chiu no, farrell no, kim no, mar i, tang no, wiener no, yee no, avalos i, breed no, campos i. there are three i's and eight no's. further discussion. >> i want to reiterate what i said about a retro active accept and expend. seems like

every one we get is a retro active accept and expend. that is not the way we should be doing business. i think it should have its own law that we have to approve these before the gifts get into the hands of our apartments. i'd like to ask our city attorney what advice we might have in terms of how we accept gifts before the fact and not after. >> i'd be happy to look into that. if you'd like us to explore options, we'd be happy to. >> we would, but we're out of hours. >> we'll discuss etin

>> as i had said earlier, i'd like to see this issue resolved. my reference would have been that 801 would have been filed and we'd have approval based on that. i'll be honest, i came in here not really knowing what i would do, but in case of where we are in this particular case, given that you have a letter from the ftpc, i can't vote against it. i do believe that we as the city, should move forward and clarify some of the rules and it looks like maybe there's an interest in doing that. /tkpwepbl, i think that a form 801 should be filed not because the ft /p*rbgc says we have to, but because we have the advice of our city attorney's office and i think as a matter of

policy, all of us should follow the sail rules. that said, in this particular case, you have the ft pc saying there is come come /phraoeupbls compliance so i will be supporting that. >> supervisor wiener. >> just in terms of the retro activity, i think to be clear to benefit members of the public who don't review our agendas every week, we all know that there are retro actives on this board. yes, ideally all departments would submit accept and expends before accepting it. i don't think we should

single out the da when pretty much every department has done this before. this is not something where the da has done something that's so out of bounds of what other departments have done. >> supervisor kim. >> i know i was the initial one who suggested the 801. i think we should think about putting it into the code so it's clear to everyone. i think this is a case where we want to do what the right thing is. if other officials are filling occupant form 801 in similar circumstances then perhaps we should just codify it. i think

that's what opened up that discussisurprised that we are allowed to set up a third-party /aeu /koupblt. i think it's just problematic that any entity can do /tphaet donate. it seems to be a big loophole that i didn't realize existed. this is not anything on what the da done. this is just my overall feeling about the way state law operates. i think it's problematic and i hope with can have a bigger discussion about this. i will be supporting this today. it is legal under state law so i won't disagree with that. >> just a last comment. when i first got on the board of supervisors, it was during the

budget committee /-fp we had a handful of items that were retro active accept and expends and we took exception to those. that's why i brought it up right now. we have a trend that's happening now. proliferation of retro active accept and expends that i think we should tighten up moving forward. this is one of 'em. this is one that pains me more than others. i think it's important to point out. >> any further discussion? let's take a vote. >> item 15 supervisor chiu, i; cohen i, farrell i, kim i mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i,

avalos no, breed i, campos i. ten i's and one no. >> item 16. chew i, cohen i, farrell i, kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, avalos i, breed i, campos i. there are 11 i's. >> i'm 17. >> fiscally feasible under

administrative code chapter 29 [inaudible] and the port commission. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. this was introduced in collaboration [inaudible] see walk 337 as many of you are familiar is better known as a parking lot which is leased to the giants and currently they are in negotiations with the committee than other parts of san francisco. and also, as been briefed by the newspapers will

include [inaudible] san francisco and will be a site for local manufacturing jobs here in the city. this did come out from the budget committee with positive recommendation. i'm looking forward to ongoing discussions with the giants about this. i know that we are certainly looking forward to having a conversation about kind of the different triggers about when i know we will [inaudible] open space will come forward and the parkings and some of the the infrastructure we look forward to having that discussion, but i ask for your support today. >> can we do this item same house, same call. without objection, this resolution is adopted.

>> item 18 is [inaudible] commission for an eight year term with a /pheupbl mum annual guarantee -- ten million. >> supervisor avalos. >> this is regarding the clear channel contract at the airport. this is a break from how we have traditionally done contracts at the airport for leases and contracts. and generally we've had a [inaudible] guarantee plus a gross percentage of gross revenue. it's a standard that we have at all airports for advertising contracts

throughout the country. we found out last week that that wasn't the case. i do feel that we need to really make sure that we are not leaving money on the table. i believe that the members that we've seen in terms of passengers at the airport have ways of giving us a sense that we've had really good years when our economy hasn't been that strong. now we're seeing the economy grow. i expect that our airport passenger ridership will increase as we move forward. last night we heard prelim figures for the current quarter showing that ridership is up even higher and if we were to extrapolate what that looks like going forward and it it would be an even higher

yield. it brings question that 10 million dollars is sufficient and if the airport is leaving money on the /taubl. i think it brings analysis to make sure we have getting the best numbers based on the information coming through and i would ask that it possible to continue this item so we could review the information that's come forward to see whether we are actually looking at mag that is lower than what we could expect to get if we could apply gross [inaudible] revenues. i'd like to ask a question of you, if you could oblige. so you seen some data presented to you earlier today.

could you talk about that be data, about how successful that contract would be [inaudible]. >> mr. president and members of the board supervisor avalos. we have not had time to verify or document what is being represented in that memorandum. we would certainly be happy to look at it if the board of supervisors wants us to do so. >> i would like to think that if we're seeing in trend in ridership, i think it would make sense to analyze it. do you think a week's time would be enough if we were to continue for a week. >> yes. i think that would be sufficient. >> /kuld could you tell us

what you've seen so far in terms of the figures you've seen so far? >> the number that i recall -- they were indicating that there would be about a 10.6 million dollar payment. but again, we have not verified that and we don't know if that's correct. >> and then the assumptions that that number's based on -- do you think that's adequate information you've had >> just want to be clear about the data set. is that something you will verify with the airport to see that it's correct information?

>> we would work with both the airport, as well as the provide of the information. >> so i'd like to request that we continue this for a week to make sure we get that information. i do not think it's critical that we delay a week. i don't think that's a critical am of time, especially if it's giving us guidance. >> is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor kim. >> that's may 21. >> supervisor farrell >> this data set we're talking about -- what period does this cover? do we know? >> the document says 2012. i

want to emphasize, i cannot back up this data. i just received it. we have not done any verification on it so i don't know what the assumptions are or what the data is to back it up. >> do we know where the source of the data is? >> yes. the source is [inaudible]. >> okay. do you have the timeframe of that data though? >> it says on the document 2012. that's all it says. >> okay. well, thank you very much. i would luke like to thank the members of the department who did a tremendous amount of work on this item and we went back and forth in budget committee on this issue. there are a few questions that

came out of this. i think that supervisor avalos discussing now was [inaudible] in the contract or also having combination of a mag and gross revenues, whichever's higher. i've had [inaudible] i ask our budget analyst to do a lot of work to look at what our other airports are doing and especially [inaudible] in san francisco and it's absolutely transparticipant that this is absolutely out of the ordinary to have this [inaudible] guarantee in there. but i do believe that [inaudible] o this is what's going to extract the highest revenue for san

francisco. we do get 15 percent of this revenue into our general fund, but in speaking with mr. martin and his views about future traffic patterns. he made the best decision possible to issue just a mag contract and and rfp. as well, i think one of the things -- i know san francisco is beautiful is here today, but from my perspective we're reducing the number of add /sreration /*rtizing locations to 200, when comparable airports across the country have over 1000 advertising locations. in this instance,

they are protesting and filed a protest on basically claiming that they didn't know that they should have bid more for the minimal annual guarantee, which i think is a bit of a joke. if you're bidding on a financial contract i /aoeud imagine you wanna put your best foot forward and put the maximum amount you can. you can't extrapolate historical data and talk about the future here. the future is -- we were an ticipating losing market share to san jose and oakland. what he's doing here in this

contract is appropriate. i will not be supporting the motion and continue. i don't think that reading data from the competitor that is ticked off because they lost the bid makes sense. >> john martin airport director. we're nearing or maximum capacity. we're handling 44 million passengers per year. we expect growth in san francisco and san jose. my market share is at an all time

high. it's gone from 54 percent to 72 percent. it is going to shift back. san jose is showing an almost 11 percent growth in seat count, i'm showing a zero percent growth in seat count. we'll get 80 million dollars over eight years versus the 72 /ph-l million clear channel is paying 70 percent today. most of our leases are 8 to 12 per acceptable. very unusual. but every lease is unique. th

and beverage /suf submit which is very low. we did that purposefully to try and get local rest /raupblt tours in so they wouldn't be intimidated by hi mag and that's worked well for us. we double or food and beverage sales per passenger, as a result of our food and program we've had for the past eight years. we know what we're doing. unique circumstances that require unique approaches. i lowered the minimum rent because we /tao*er we're afraid of not getting any bidders. having a bank is important for our employees amend our

concessions. >> we've been provided with what is some new information to us today, which provides some data, which i assume you have some knowledge of, although i do understand the information was provided by the opposing bid. could you comment on this? what are your thoughts on the new information?