Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Leases topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subcommittee advances five-year cargo lease renewal with Asiana Airlines at SFO

Budget and Finance Subcommittee · April 27, 2011
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Budget & Finance Subcommittee voted without objection to forward a five-year renewal of Asiana Airlines—9 cargo lease for Building 648 at San Francisco International Airport; the lease sets a reduced rate of $21.40 per square foot for 39,678 sq. ft., lowering annual rent by about $94,000.

The Budget & Finance Subcommittee on May 4 advanced a resolution recommending the mayor and Board of Supervisors approve a five-year renewal of Asiana Airlines—9 cargo lease at San Francisco International Airport.

Chair Carmen Chu called the item and Kathy Weiner, the airport representative, told the committee the proposed lease (listed in the packet as lease number "Eleven-forty9") would run from May 5, 2011, through May 4, 2016, and cover 39,678 square feet in Building 648. "The new lease would carry a term of 5 years from 05/05/2011 to May 5... The lease is for a total square footage of 39,678 square feet of cargo space, office space, and ramp space at the airport," Weiner said.

Deborah Newman of the Office of the Budget Analyst summarized the office—9s review, noting the current lease rate is $23.77 per square foot (about $943,146 annually) and the proposed rent would be $21.40 per square foot, yielding an estimated annual revenue of roughly $849,000, or a reduction of approximately $94,037 per year. Newman said the airport—9s residual rate-setting methodology would allow the agency to reallocate costs so the lower tenant rent would not create an airport-wide budget shortfall and recommended approval.

After no members of the public requested to speak, the committee moved the item forward with recommendation and sent it to the Board of Supervisors for consideration on its May 5 agenda.

The committee record indicates no roll-call vote; members advanced the item "without objection."