without objection? >> and we could do supervisor mar do you have any comments? >> no, i don't. >> okay. >> i want to do a vote on this item? >> yeah. >> madam clerk? >> on the motion that is amended, supervisor mar. >> aye. >> campos. >> no. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> two aye and one no. >> the item passes. >> i just wonder if we could turn to item 7. >> thank you chair farrell cathy widener with the san francisco airport and i would respectfully request that this item be continued i understand that there will be a little bit of discussion about some concerns that have just been raised that i would like some time to try to address. internally with the revenue staff and the airport tenants before we bring this to you, but in the meantime i would be happy to answer questions if

you have them. >> thank you. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, i do have a number of questions about this. with the over arching issue being why are we not doing competitive bid here? but in terms of a continuance, how much time are you talking about? just to get a better sense? >> off the top of my head, i would ask for january at some point. just because it was the ten-year extension issue, do you want me to go over the item? >> why don't we do that. >> so the item that is before you has to deal with five existing leases for airport food and beverage tenants and there is a series of reno vasings that have been ongoing and many of these have affected our ten tenants in terms of locations, and locations have been closed. the five leases before you are

in the terminal three east. and that terminal has been the construction has started and those locations no longer exist. so, the series of amendments before you would contemplate a suspension would address the new square footage in the renovated terminal and also would extend the contract term for ten years. so i understand that that is an issue it was until recently that i realized that the five tenants before you have three years left on their current lease terms. so, adding of the ten years as an issue, was just something that was recently brought to my attention as a concern and so i have been in contact with the airport revenue staff to figure out how we got to that number, but i would like to understanding the why this is not being put out to a bid layering that on top of the various construction projects that we have and all of the

moving pieces around our tenants. and that is why i am asking for a continuation. >> okay. >> thank you. >> no other questions, why don't we go to mr. rose and his report and i think that we should do that and i know that there is a bunch of public comment and if it continuances going to carry i might suggest. >> let me comment on that last issue. and that is, many of these leases are, it is not the tenant that instigated the legislation it was the airport because of the renovation and now the question about whether the lease should be, the new leases should be ten years or the remaining term of the existing lease that is clearly a really good question. and that is something that should be discussed. but i just want to point out that it has been prior history

and we have been reasonable that when the airports asks a tenant to move, they should be allowed the airport should be authorized by the board of supervisors to terminate or extend, it is not fair in the tenant can no longer operate and they should have to may the minimum too. that is the thrust of this report. but the question about how long the new lease should be certainly is a valid question. mr. chairman, and members i note that the reduced will be minimum guarantee will total, 1 million, 37,090. on table three of page 26 of

our report and that will because the airlines must make-up the drift, different. >> and we note that the total annual guarantee to be paid in the first year of the new ten year lease is 658,419 and we have several recommendations supervisors on the bottom of page 27 and first of all the legislation has to be amended to february of 2014 and secondly there was an existing two year option in the existing leases, and that was contained in this and we noted that and the airport agrees that should be removed and it is just a ten year lease and not ten years plus one to your option. thirdly, the reendorsement of the construction costs are incorrect and we list the correct numbers, and changing from two to the old result in a reduction, but it is just the correct the correct numbers. and finally, we recommend that

you approve this resolution as amended. >> thank you mr. rose. and just a question. in terms of the construction that is going on. the tenants are out? or they abandoned the space. >> these particular tenants these five do have other location and so they continue to operate and pay rent on the locations that are open. they are not paying rent to the locations that we closed because of construction. >> and they had the office in this renovation area are they also going to have spots in the new all of them? >> yes, part of the amendments before you, would redefine, some of the square footage changes and so that is part of

the clean up and in the amendment it will redefine the square footage in the new location and in the renovated terminal. >> thank you. >> any questions for supervisor campos? >> just a point, i think that we are not seeing adherence with the competitive bidding and i think that raises our issues and concerns, which goes to my original point in the prior item, you know, i am not going to speak to the ten year extension and i am going to try to understand from the staff how we came to that number. and we have in the past, as we have closed locations, made up for that through reimbursement of the construction costs for locations that are closed.

if know other questions, i have a number of speaker cards and i know that there are other folks here and i will call them in the order we saw them. >> michelle limb, and marley gomez and lily wong and i don't know else that wish to comment, step forward and we can take you up one at a time. >> hi, my name is molly gomez and i work at sfo and i have been coming up for 35 years and i been there for all of the good and bad changes that have occurred throughout the years.

and i have two daughters, jessica, who just started college, and leona who will be following her soon. and i can tell you it is very expensive. so i hope you can understand why i am concerned about my job. the problem is that we have not had a contract in almost 16 months. no pay raises or improvements in our benefits since january of 2013. we need a contract with job security, i need to know that my healthcare will be there and i can cover my kids at college and we need fair wages, and some relief from the expensive parking fees. i am frustrated and confused that the city thinks that the employers at sfo deserve these extensions and compensation. while the restaurant owners will not offer us a fair contract with the compensation we deserve. they don't appreciate their leases. this is not the time to reward

them when they are behaving badly and are pushing us into a strike. we work hard to make the customer experience at sfo the best in the world and we deserve a contract that guarantees job security and decent wage increases and i urge you not to reward them. thank you. >> i have worked at the airport for 31 years and i came to the airport because i wanted a good union job and i was getting food stamp and on afdc and by coming to the airport i was able to raise my son on my own, now we have labor strikes and i find it telling that the owners

of the restaurant come here and want some kind of a deal when they are not willing to even mention the employees that lost their jobs when these places were closed, hundreds of people were put out of work. i don't think that you should reward this kind of behavior, i don't think that it is san francisco-like, and i don't think that it is what we want to represent the airport. and also, some of the owners i will mention, some of the owners and one of the owners of the soup company if you want an extra pat of butter he charges you a quarter, they keep the napkins behind the counter so if you have small children you have to stand in line and ask for a napkin and people if you are not there, you don't see this day in and day out, but they should not be rewarded unless they come to the table and offer us a secure contract with what we deserve, thank you for your time. >> thanks. >> next speaker, please.

>> i represent the advocates and i am urging you to reject the renewal of the tenant leases until they have the job security that they deserve, coleman advocates as you may know, organizes a lot of low wage workers some of who are local two members and it is a disservice to these workers to renew the leases until the workers needs are addressed. the workers are the back bone of any industry, especially those at sfo and they do deserve a meaningful wages and job security. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> hello, thank you for your time supervisors my name is michelle len and i am here representing jobs of justice which is a strategic alliance of community and labor groups, and so this proposal that we

have in front of us reimburses 438,000 dollars for unamortized construction costs however in the agreement, there is no consideration for the dozens if not hundreds of workers who have been laid off. right? and so, you know i am here today saying that if we are going to give such businesses special treatment, we should also make sure that the special treatment and the benefit work ers as well as the owners and i am here representing the jobs of justice, asking the supervisors that you rao ject this proposal today so we can come together at a different time to negotiate a deal that will contract workers and require the lease to go through the competitive bidding process, so workers will no longer be left behind, thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. campos, farrell and mar. and i am mike kasey with local two and we have been in

bargaining as molly said for more than a year now, the proposal this 30 take aways, and over 30 different take aways that they are seeking in terms of concessions, from workers who are averaging $14 an hour, at the time that this airport food service revenues have increased by 11 percent just in the last year, over the last three years, revenues have increased by 34 percent. their proposals include, limiting access and, they are trying to limit, notice, it is

curious that one of their proposals on the table is actually not to provide us, we have four weeks notice when there is going to be a closure, they want to take that and they want to modify that and rewarding them as previous sisters spoke so well about with a $400,000, our members when they are out of work, they continue to have to pay their housing and their healthcare and all kinds of stuff. they don't get, you know, those kinds of breaks, we would very much urge you to reject this, resolution, and i think rewarding them with a ten-year extension on the lease is outrageous, and if you can't do that at the very least, you know, continue it while they consider whether or not they want to treat their employees fairly. >> we would very much ask you to vote no on this. or at least, continue it.

>> thanks. >> thanks very much, anyone else wish to comment on item seven? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i do want to thank the workers that have come out to speak thank you for sharing your stories and as someone around the holidays you interact with the airport and you see the very difficult job that these workers have. and so thank you for doing that. and for making sfo as successful as it is. but we are talking right now about whether or not the extension of these leases makes sense, and that is a separate matter as serious as what has been said is. but let me simply say, that i think that we have rules in place for a reason. and i am really worried about the fact that we are talking about sir come venting a lot of

those rules and best practices and i don't think that makes sense in terms of the tax payers of san francisco. and so i am certainly ready to reject this item today. i would be open to a continuance. i would imagine that if that continuance happened, it would probably be some time in january. i don't know how folks want to approach it. but, you know, like i said, i can, and i am ready to reject it, but the rest of my colleagues are opened to a continuance i am happy to move in that direction as well. >> supervisor mar? >> let me thank the workers for raising our awareness of the shocking what seems to be shocking unfair treatment of the workers and the lack of a fair contract. and i am ready to vote no on this contract. but i know that miss widener

mentioned that and i am appreciative that the airport will relook at what is being proposed to us, but i am willing to be and i am willing to vote on this today to reject. let me just say also, that as we go to the airport, to the maxes and the different restaurants and my expectation is that they should be high road employers that really treat the workers with respect with a fair contract, and when we go to the or any of the restaurant or business establishment there, and we don't find that the workers are being treated fairly and i think that the stories that have been told today, give me enough evidence to feel that, that i am willing to reject especially the rewarding of these restaurant with the reimbursements or the extension of these contracts, but i think that for miss widener i wanted

to know horror about why the extension is being given, it is almost like a reward for something and i don't know what they are rewarded for and why it would be brought to us in this way, without more of a discussion, especially if there is a labor conflict going on in the past when we have had the issues like this and the tenants have had to close a location due to the airport project it was not the tenant's request and it was at the airport's not even request, and we made them close their businesses down. we have sought to make-up for the time that the business is closed and obviously the ten years is more than the businesses have been closed and they will at the end of the day be closed i believe in these locations for two years, and that is what i am trying, or attempting to find out, where we came up with the ten-year term and why that made sense,

financially, and i don't have that answer for you today. i want to appreciate all that came out to speak and i think that there are obviously a number of issues that are raised here and by supervisor campos by some of these issues, and i do think that this is something that is come up kind of very i appreciate that the colleagues if you want to reject this, that is your prerogative and i think that there is another option to continue this for a short period of time to get the answer to see what is happening, i guess that it is obvious that people are scrambling right now to find out what the imp itus behind the extension was and if we can't find a resolution we can have another vote.

if we are going to do that, one suggestion would be that we have a budget finance committee meeting on january 7th, and right after our first board meeting in january, but before those of us are being sworn in and also, potentially have a new supervisor, and that will give a few weeks to allow this to unfold, if you will. and we can deal with it at that time. one suggestion, mr. rose. >> the only comment that i wanted to make, supervisors and i am not just saying this, and really i mean it, that the question has been raised. and i want to point out that the original leases were awarded. and so that there and they went through the process. and there is a remaining term as i understand it, of approximately 3 years. which is different than the proposed ten years, i just want to point that out to you as a

matter of fact >> that will be my preference to allow this to sort it out. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. let me say that i i think that this is important to give the airport the opportunity to address some of of the concerns that have been raised here. and so, even though there is a part of me that wants to reject this today, i will make a motion to continue this to january 7th. and one thing that i would say is that i think that this item along with item number 3, to me, does point to the need for us to step back and consider having a management performance you had it at the airport, and i think that not having something like that, in a comprehensive way since 1972 is simply not a smart way of

running any operation. so i will be looking at that in the next few weeks. and so, there is my motion. >> so supervisor campos has made a motion and supervisor mar? any comments? >> i will second a motion. >> okay. >> we have a second on that motion. >> we can take that motion without objection. >> okay. >> madam clerk, do we have any business in front of us. >> no. >> okay, thank you everyone, we are adjourned.