Culture. With this, we honour the contributions of italian americans to the city and county of San Francisco. I want to thank my cosponsor, supervisor peskin, who, of course, represents north beach and also supervisor safye and walton for their sponsorship and i would like to urge your support. Thank you. Colleagues, can we take this item, same house, same call . This resolution is adopted unanimously. Colleagues there were two people that were not let into the chambers when we were having Public Comments and probably because of capacity and everyone left and they were allowed in. So if you would like to agree to indulge and allow for Public Comment to be reopened, are there any objections . No. Then ill open up Public Comments for the two people that were not allowed in. And then what with lik i would o do, could i rescind can somebody make a motion to rescind item number 44 . Supervisors searc safye and sec. No objection, and im 44 vote is rescinded. The two speakers that were outside, you have two comments or ill close Public Comments. Are you the two speakers outside . There were a number waiting for the Previous Group to leave. So i think a number were waiting to speak and im part of that. Thank you. Good afternoon. Im an unemployed tenant under rent control in district 3. For now, 20 years and i also happen to serve on the sanfrancisco rent board. Thank you for passing supervisor browns measure moments ago and i would like to give a bit of context following supervisors fuer and brown in their comments about this. This all relates to a grandfathering clause that was placed into the original legislation. This clause was inserted due to the idea there might be small Property Owners barely getting by and had reasonably relied on the funds or they wouldnt have made their purchase. During these four months, this window of four months between december of 2017 and pul april f 2018 when the public outcry began, it was abundantly clear that these passthroughs were considered inappropriate by the general public, that legislation to stop them was on its way and the overall San Francisco community opposed them. And opposed the idea of large corporate lane lands. Due to large landlord lobbyists, the fourmonth clause was inserted. The rent board of which i was not a member conducted public hearings on the legislation. During those discussions around reasonable reliance, there was a belief, but it was a mistaken belief there would be one or two cases because how many cases could there be of a landlord trying to use this loophole . However, one year later, weve seen there are way more than that and all are large corporate firms and not mom and pops. I believe this resolution would go a long way in providing more information to the rent board. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. The rent in sanfrancisco is too high. Landlord can afford to drop the 7 rent increase. 7 is rent increase is just pitt pittance to the landlord but to the tenant its huge. Pittanclandlord renovate the apt and of course, its passed through the tenants. Thats why the rent goes through the loop. Longtime resident of San Francisco a leaving the city that they love. They simply cant afford the exiborbitant rent. Thank you. Next speaker. Im a longtemple tenant of veritost in district 3. I want to reiterate as a tenant involved in urging veritost to drop the excessive operations and rents hikes, impacting 25 of their buildings this year, i stan with oustand with our demap the rent hikes. The proposal is inadequate and frankly, insulting. For a multiple billion dollar firm to put the burden on tenants to disclose their Financial Information when they have disclosed nothing about their financial need for these increase. In conclusion, i urge to pass this resolution and stand here with my fellow tenants in urging you to help amly few the modest request of hundreds of rentcontrolled tenants to drop these rent hikes. I thank you and i do believe the current rented ordinance is outdated for tenants facing the Current Crisis if San Francisco. Thank you. Next speaker. Im patrick shannon. I live in north beach and this is my neighbour, lizy staub. Shes a wonderful artist and is always work on some project or another and weve gotten along and never been a cross word between us. In the previous years, there was never a problem with the landlord. The landlord sent us a little note every month and said with an envelope to pay the rent and we paid the rent, never a problem. No one had a problem. We have a lot of history together. Now recently whats happened, though, with the verutose takeover, things have changed and now we have different managers. We have had three different managers so far. The first thing that happened to us after you finish your two minutes, she can begin. Im not going to speak. Shes a little shy about that. We wanted to say that we thought reasonable rents, we all got along fine. We wish we could have that kind of relationship again. The rent, my rent, i showed my papers and they said your rent increase was 19 and that doesnt include in the two years, that doesnt include the attorney i had to hire. My wife and i had medical issues requiring hospitalization and surgery and this is when they took over the building. They didnt know about that. They didnt know what we were going through at the time. So may i have 30 seconds to finish . Thank you. So we tried to retch out to resolve these things and then we found the ledger. Every resident has a ledger and our account is so confusing and riddled with mistake. Were owed several hundred dollars in addition to the rent. They say we misfigured the numbers and the increase is only 14 in the twoyear period. But that does not include thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is nick godhart. I live in district 5. In a building on turk street. Ive been in the neighbor for ten years. I moved into the building and three months after i moved in, veritose purchased the building, raised my rent. I love living in San Francisco and dealt with that and now this year, theyre putting an Operation Maintenance increase and a Capital Improvements increase and a 200 rent increase in our apartment that i moved into in 2015. I not something i can do. Im also here on behalf of six other tenants in my building who have been in there for 10 years, 20 years and 30 years and i want to urge to pass this resolution today. We had our arbitration with the rent stabilization board two weeks ago. It was confusing and scarry. Veritose presented 500 receipts for increased trash, a new door. The services in the building have decreased. Theyre slum dogs. Please, thank you. Next speaker. Hello, supervisors. Im james. I work for Housing Rights Committee in San Francisco. Ive been supporting a building at 71 farrell. Its a chinesespeaking building, longterm tenants burdened by the maintenance passthroughs. Theyve been very disoriented. Have not received clear communication. Their Property Management own speaks english and so, oftentimes they feel underserved by their lard. Landlord. They have numerous maintenance and repair issues that they feel if they do tell their landlord, it never gets addressed, including rats, heater problems, alarm problem and garbage issues. So i am in complete support of the board passing this resolution and i think its really important thinking about the additional communities that are deeply affected by the action and how they are further isolated from getting support and solutions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker. I work at housing rates committee of San Francisco. Thank you for opening back up the Public Comment for this and thank you for passing the resolution. You just want to add that last week, hundreds of tenants marched in the street to tell the largest lard to drop rent hikes at a relatively small number of their buildings, just about 25, out of the their inventory of 250 plus. We trade to deliver a letter to the ceo on that day and no one came down to receive the letter. So on thursday, we traveled to foster city where the ceo was a keynote speaker at a major real estate conference. After multiple attempts, we managed to get the letter into the ceos hands. So we think the ball is in veritos court to respond to this specific request from the tenants, not about the hardship proposahardshipproposal to discl information but to be honest with the city and with the tenants about whether they need these representative increases. This is affecting a large number of buildings. Whatever the action the board can take, we strongly support and urge you to help amplify the tenants original demand of dropping representativdropping. Next speaker. It is impossible to recover. Our uniissue is clear, we want r monemoney back. Within two weeks you hav city never compensated us for last six years. Please address the board as a whole. We are not here to make any more money. If you want to see what is your mistake, youre a part of the mistake and responsibility. Please correct your mistake and the way you promise. You see everything is there and you suffered that and say, if this programme failed, we buy them back. This is what we asking. We not asking anything extra. I cannot do it. I come daybyday. This is a joke. Please, get serious open your eyes pu. Thank you, next speaking. Speakerrer. Speaker. Good afternoon. The same taxi issue. We spent 250,000. We are not a beneficiary of buying the m medallion. Where we stand, we are crippled and all of you know that. Some of them, i know, you try to help us but we need support from all of you. Buy back, please. We cannot live with this kind of situation any longer. I request you all to please buy back. You just help to us get rid of these Cab Companies that they are sucking us up. Day after day. Everyday we pay 25 to the cab company, just for what . Nothing. They do not do anything for us. They just buy 500 or 1,000 colour scheme and they are charging me 7,000 a year. Please help us out. Thank you very much. Thank you, networks speaker. Next speaker. Good afternoon. We keep coming over and over and we wouldnt keep coming and taking our time from work and missing what we make for our kids. We came here because we have a pen. Itthis pen, because we had borw ed thiborrowed that medallion. We have been working decades for this city and we should have been given that for free. We bought it because we wanted to support that city. When we bought the medallion, the isnpromised if it didnt we would launch something like, what do they call, technology and this and that. So well buy the medallion back. So, sir, why dont you just question these people. If you promise theyll give the money back, what is that holding you guys to get that together and get us out of debt . Because we love the city and were not a political people. Were a hardworking labour people and we serve the city and we deserve our supervisors and our president and our mayor. Even though the governor, they should look after us, were individuals and i know because we dont have any big issues. We are individual taxi drivers. But we are human being. We have a family. We have a heart beating in our bodies. The colour is different but i swear to god, we love this country as much as you guys love it. So i beg you with my respect, when we come here, we feel embarrassed because some people are taxpayers and walking aroun thank you. I see no other Public Comment and comments are closed. Well do number 44. Supervisor. Has item 44 been called and need to be called again . Yes. I would like to speak to that item when its called. Yes. Item 44 urges to adopt fair guidelines for the use of reasonable reliance in the evaluation of operating and maintenance passthroughs. Supervisor peskin . Thank you. I said most of what i said to say last week but let me thank my colleagues, supervisor brown and fuer for their words and sponsorship and cosponsorship and let me reiterate because hopefully somebody from veritose is watching or send them a clip, which is, if you dont get it together, your administrative hardship waivers notwithstanding, it will result in a backlash that will be very similar to the backlash that created rent control in the beginning pup want tbeginning. I want to say that for the record. My neighbor, patrick shannon, who i intervened on his behalf when veritose bought the building but has gotten a 24 rent increase and it is unconscionable and you need to listen or youll wonder why you messed it up for everybody else in the industry. With that, i look forward to voting for item 44. So can we take this same house, same call . This resolution is adopted. Its adopted unanimously. Call item 47. Is a resolution to urge the Municipal Transportation Agency to consider compliance with California State Assembly bill number 5 when issuing permits to emerging technology entities, contractors, vendors and any business entity required to have a permit in order to operate in the city. Were voting on a resolution that i know that all 11 of us cosponsored and i want to thank everyone of you for that. That urges the sfmta to give permits open to applicantses that hire employees. These workers are denied the basic benefits that all employers are entitled to, such as unemployment, insurance, healthcare subsidies. What i have learned some of these companies have hired third parties so that the workers can technically be considered employees and receive a w2 but they do not receive any of the benefits afforded to employees such as health insurances. Noas a city, we must evaluate impact on these technologies. Not only on our Public Infrastructure but on our residents, including loopholes to take advantage. I want to thank my colleagues for your support on this resolution. I hope to have your support on the office of emerging technologies so that we can be confident in establishing a clear and streamlined process to evaluate impact of technologies before it is. Is allowed to launch in our city. This resolution is adopt. Can you please read the inmemoriums. None to report today. That brings us to the end of our agenda. Any other business for today. No other business. Thank you and we are adjourned. Good morning everyone. The meeting will come to order. This is october 2nd, 2019, regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. Im sandra lee fewer joined by supervisors Catherine Stefani and rafael mandelman. Our clerk is linda wong. I want to thank sfgov tv. Do you have announcements. Pleaitems will appear on october 8th board of supervisor agenda. Thank you, item number one . Resolution of amended for the java house restaurant and increasing the Monthly Base Rent to 4,000 and no change to the initial term through august 31st, 2023. I believe we have mark to present today. Madam chair, chair members and board members, im the assistant Deputy Director of real estate and development for the port of San Francisco. The item before you today regards java house restaurant, a small restaurant at pier 40 1 2 located next to south beach harbor. The java house restaurant is a long standing port restaurant which has been operated by the family for over 33 years. In 2006, by their daughter. The java house currently operates under a 15 year lease with the port that expires august 31st, 2023. The original lease covers approximately 14,090 square feet. The original lease provides for the port to receive the greater of guaranteed monthly based rent or percentage rent. The current base rent is 3,314. The percentage rent is set at 7. 5 of gross sales for food and beverage. For the period ending 12 months, the 12 month period ending may 2019, the java house reported average monthly gross sales over 17,000, which did not result in percentage rent being paid to the board. Percentage rate has not been paid to the board for quite some time under the lease. Also, pursuant to the current lease, java house was required to make Capital Improvements of at least 346,000 to the facility. Due to personal, family issues and difficulty in raising financing, the java house has not been able to complete the Capital Improvements currently under the lease. These are the signs of a struggling operation which is having a hard time making ends meet basically. In the latest phase of ongoing dialogue with the port regarding coming into compliance for Capital Improvements and overall desire to improve the Operational Performance of the restaurant, the tenant has approached the board with a proposal to restructure ownership and bring in a new investor. Under this proposal, the entity would complete the previously required Capital Improvements and construct an addition to allow outdoor seating and alcohol sales and to make amendments to the lease which improve the financial metrics to the port and provide the tenant with an initial lease term. To that end, the owners of the java house have engaged in negotiations to sell the original lease to a new entity which the current owners retain 15 ownership stake. The new entity would be called frankies java house, llc with the owner being a well known business Man Associated with the insurance industry. The frankies proposal seeks to resolve the Current Issues related to the completion of Capital Improvements and reposition the restaurant into a viable business enterprise. The proposed amendment would require them to make a Capital Investment of no less than 737,000 into the facility and includes the previously not completed improvements of 346,000. He is willing to condition the extension of the lease on the successful completion of the Capital Improvements first and to provide a personal guarantee for the cost of all the construction. Upon 100 of construction and completion of Capital Improvements, which must be completed in one year of commercement date of the amended lease, frankies has the right to extend the lease term for 10 years. The direct benefits to the port are the base rent increased to 4,000. The increase Capital Investment from the original 346,000 into the facility to 737,000 into the facility that also includes an expansion which doubles the Seating Capacity of the restaurant. So now that 737,000 is put toward an improvement that actually grows the business, creates more sales and hence brings more back to the port. The port will receive a 12 of the proceedings of the sale, which is approximately 63,000. The 12 was negotiated up from 10 originally in the lease. That was negotiated up from 10 to 12. And finally the port will receive 51,000 as a penalty from the original tenent for not completing the tenant improvements in a timely manner on time. The port is 100 in accord with the budget Analyst Report and supportive of it. If theres nothing else, i have ill be here for questions and i have a representative from the tenant to answer questions also. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments, if not, lets hear from the ble please. Good morning chair fewer and members of the committee. This resolution approved amended and restated lease between the board and a new buyer frankies java house, llc for the java house location on pier 40 as the representative from the port stated, this would set rent at 4,000 a month in the first year increasing subsequent years and provide 7. 5 rent on gross sales. The new buyer would be required to put in about 737,000 in tenant improvements. If they put them in within the first year, they do have the option to extend the lease by an additional 10 years from 2023 to 2033. We summarized the rent component on table 2 page 4 of the report, it would be about 1. 4 million to the port over the 10 years. We want to call out, this is a sold force lease. There was not a competitive process to select the tenant. There is a port retail policying that allows for sole source if its a tenant in Good Standing and financially reasonable to do so. We summarize that on page 5 of the report. The current tenant couldnt be considered a good tenant in standing, but the assumption if they make the improvements and get the additional 10 years, it will be a benefit to the port, because its consistent with the ports retail policy, we recommend it. Lets open this up for Public Comment . Seeing none, closed. I have one question. Just for clarification, so it looks as though there are 12 years left on the current lease. This started in 2007, is that correct . Yeah, it expires in 2023. So, they would do improvements and if they do it within a year, they have the option to actually extend it for another 10 years. Correct. Would that extend it not to 2023 but to 2033. At that time when they renegotiate have the option to extend it for another 10 years, a rerenegotiating then, another rental fee . You mean after the 2033 . So if in a year, they decide to we offer them the 10 year extension and then are we then negotiating at another rate for the additional what happens when they exercise the if and when they exercise the option, the base rent would rachet up to basically 85 of the percentage rent experience for the past three years. So theres a racheting up and that also happens in year well, year five of the option. So half way through the option, theres a market its a market to market adjustment. So the lease constantly goes up with the market. I think you mentioned, i could be wrong, 15 of ownership will be with the original owners or leasees, is that correct in. Yes. If they extend it for 10 more years after the 2023 date, would 15 of the ownership still be would we still see the 15 of ownership is with the existing tenant now . Thats probably no guarantee, if the person may sell out at some point. Its a partnership ownership. So its hard to predict what would happen. Theres no requirement. Correct. This has been in the family hands for so long. This is the kind of thing that we actually this handoff, of a struggling business, that is an institution in San Francisco. I think it has been recognized as very much beloved institution along our waterfront and the family has invested so much into the building of this, the name and also i think some of the great affection that San Francisco has for the java house, right . So my question is just about the 15 ownership because it would be really nice if they could continue to be part still of what they originally developed. We are losing so many of these institutions in our neighborhoods and it would be nice to see that the original owners would still have 15 ownership. Thats the only reason i ask. And i think they they have experienced personal family difficulties, you know, the spirit has gone away a little bit but they still want to hold on and be a part of it. Kind of nice. Thank you very much. No more Public Comment. No questions or comments from colleagues, i would like to move it with a positive recommendation to the board and we can take that without objection. Thank you colleagues. Madam clerk. Resolution approving bond or loan for California Municipal Authority not to exceed 65 million to refinance outstanding debt and refinance the acquisition construction and improvement located within the city owned and managed by healthright 360. And we have michelle from the office of Public Finance. Thank you very much. Good morning. From the Controllers Office of Public Finance. Thank you for considering the item today. And in attendance, representing the healthright 360. He can speak in more detail about the project if theres specific questions about that. Just as a reminder for you and the public, the tax and financial act allows the Tax Exemption on interest of certain types of debts. In this case, proposed financing through the California Municipal Authority through which San Francisco is a participating member. Notes and bonds and certificate of depreciation. This resolution is before you because federal tax law requires that the governor body in which the project is locating approve the finances after providing opportunity for a public hearing before bonds can be issued on tax exempt basis. The city and county of San Francisco is not obligated for payment on the bonds. Hearing notice was published on september 6th. The public hearing held at the office of Public Finance on september 16th and no comments from members of the public were heard or received. Ill give you background on the borrower. Healthright 360 arose out of a merger between two clinics. They started in the 60s to serve adolescences and young adults and opened in 1967 as the first Free Medical Clinic in the country. They were an innovator to giving Healthcare Services to those who could least afford it under the guiding principle that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. It was to help homeless and runaway adolescences. Today it treats people with Mental Health and Substance Abuse problems at various centers throughout california, including prison treatment programs and providing drug and alcohol treatment and Mental Health services for people transitioning back into their communities. Like the free clinics, they have served people who are underserved, homeless and those with h. I. V. And aids. They merged in 2012 and have subsequently added additional clinics and programs that serve San Francisco to its portfolio, including Asian American recovery services, lion martin Health Services and Womens Community clinic. So the project, proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be loaned for the following purposes, to refinance all or portions of outstanding debt obligations financed and refinanced, furnishing of clinics and Treatment Facilities at hayes street, buena vista west, haight street, coleridge all within the city of San Francisco managed and owned by healthright 360, a California Public non benefit corporation with Residential Treatment Services in the city and equipping and maintaining such facilities may capitalize interest on the bonds and pay certain expenses incurred with the issuance of the bonds. They would issue the bonds to not exceed 69 million. Bond council on the transaction, the bonds do not con constitute a debt of the city. If there are questions, ill be happy to answer and the borrower is here as well. That was very thorough. Thank you. There is no b l. A. Required on this. Opening up for Public Comment. Any Public Comment on item number two . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, any questions or comments . Seeing none, i would like to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. Thank you good to see you. Thank you madam clerk. Call item number three. Resolution retroactively approving the contract for electric Monitoring Program for term of three years from august 1st, 2019, through 2022 with two one year options to approve. We have the Sheriffs Department here. Good morning supervisors. Im here requesting retroactive approval of a contract we have with sentinel. We were here in july and this body approved the Program Scope and legislation today approves the contract as a whole, not simply the scope. Otherwise it is unchanged. But still ill give program history. Electric Monitoring Program to provide alternatives to incarceration. Fee structure was originally based on ability to pay. In february of 2018, the sheriff waived fees for sentenced participants and in february 2018 an apellet court ruling required courts to consider ability to pay and non monetary alternatives when setting bail or release conditions. This resulted in a significant increase in the number of people who came on to and into electric monitoring as ordered by the courts. Monthly participation increased from about 100 before the ruling to roughly about 400 per month now. And as i said, we were here in july, this body approved the Program Scope for the contract to begin august 1st and were here today simply to approve the contract as a whole, which we should have done back then. I have two other slides that before you that show the growth and monthly participation that resulted from the Appellate Court ruling. Fees went up, we struggled with this for the budget last year but have budgeted for it in the current year. The mayors office, mayors Budget Office was generous in their funding of this, thank you. And finally this last slide before you, just shows the increase in releases on alternatives. Back in september, late september 2016 we had total justice involved population of about 2150 of which 1350 were in jail and about 800 were out on some sort of alternative. In september 2019, the total number of justice involved people is up to over 2700, the jail population has gone down by about 75, but the individuals out of custody on pretrial release or sentenced to alternatives has gone up. That means that our the percentage of people on alternatives has increased from 37 to 53 which is higher than youll find in other counties in the bay area. Thank you. Yes . Supervisor stefani. Thank you chair fewer and thank you for the presentation. Can you talk about the success rates of electric monitoring . Have you noticed anything obviously we know why the number of people on electric monitoring have gone up, but im just wondering if theres been problems and if you could briefly touch on the success rates . Well, theres been quite a bit of there have been news reports about some of issues that have come up, but overall, for people who are put on some form of pretrial release, over 90 show up to court. I think overall the program has been successful. Continues to be successful. And what happens i know it says something about the Sheriffs Department staff will respond and enforce compliance of the programs rules. If in that 10 situation, what happens then . Then we have a warrant Services Group and the warrant Services Group responds as needed. Okay. To people who are not responding in the way they should. Thank you. Any other comments or questions. Bla please . Yes, the proposed resolution retroactively approves the program as stated excuse me. As was stated, the board did previously approve the terms and conditions of the program but not the contract itself. It is below the charter threshold for board approval but the california penal code does require approval. It would be for three years with a maximum amount of 3. 4 million. There are two, one year extensions subject to board approval if they exceed the 3. 4 million maximum. We recommend approval. Im sorry. Thank you very much. Supervisor mandelman. Thank you chair fewer. This is a little outside the scope of the contract, but im curious if the Sheriffs Department has thoughts on what accounts for this pretty significant increase in the estimated job population without alternatives to incarceration. You dont have to answer that. Its not related to the contract. I think actually if i were the one answering asking the question, it would be why is the justice involved population going up so much. I think the fact that alternatives to incarceration have gone up speaks to the citys commitment to alternatives to incarceration. But the increase in the total justice involved population . Id speak to any number of issues but i would be my expertise is finance. Im not sure i would want to venture into that area. I didnt totally expect you to answer that. But it is a marked increase. Thank you. Certainly. I think that there are many questions that i have about this and just about the program in general and why are there some people who can be released without it and why courts are requiring it and what is behind that and have we done analysis or advocacy for those who dont need to be electronically monitored who are employed, have families, stable. I think its a larger question and the question that supervisor mandelman had, i dont think you have the answers to that today. But it think it calls for a larger and deeper discussion about the demographics of the people released and the ones not released and for what offenses and the outcomes, too. Anyway, today i know you are in charge of finance, open up for Public Comment. Any members of the public like to comment on item 3 . Seeing none, it is closed. I will move to the board with a positive recommendation and take without objection. Thank you. Good to see you again. Madam clerk, item 4. Resolution authorizing the execution and acceptance of the First Amendment to a lease buy between lexington lion of San Francisco and the city for the Real Property at 350 rhode island street north facilitating the provision of rent credit to the city in consideration of waiver of real estate afforded to the city under the lease. Thank you very much. Im going to make a motion to continue the item but before i do that, i would like to open for Public Comment. Any members of the public want to comment on item 4 . Seeing none, it is closed. I would like to make a motion to move this item to the next meeting next week. Thank you madam clerk. Thank you. Madam clerk, call item 5. Resolution approving easement agreement between Pacific Gas Electric company for the exchange of easement areas at airports west of bay shore for the replacement of a natural gas pipeline. So we have deanna with us today. Im sorry, my notes say kathy wagner. Please. The airport is requesting approval of the quick claim agreement with pg e over the airports west of bayshore property. The original easement was conveyed in 1953, it includes a natural gas line, in accordance with u. S. Department of transportation departments concerning pipeline integrity. Its necessary to bring the facility into compliance with the federal mandate. A 3700 foot section of gas pipeline will be replaced installing alignment. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Theres no bla required on this. Open for Public Comment. Any members of the public want to comment . Seeing none, its closed. I would like to make a motion to move to the board with a positive recommendation. Thank you madam clerk. Item 6. Item 6, resolution approving a 2011 Lease Agreement between the city and El Al Israel Airlines limited, effective the following day of the first month and expire june 30, 2021. Exclusive use space and joint use space and rent and landing fees. Thank you very much. The airport is requesting your approval of a new lease with El Al Israel Airlines as a significanttory to the 2011 Lease Agreement for approximately 1 year nine months. Through june 30, 2021. This agreement is the mechanism that allows airlines to provide Flight Operations and rent terminal space at the airport and has a common set of lease provisions such as rent and fees and terminal space and provides Legal Framework to make an annual Service Payment to the ci