>> president cohen: good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to another edition of the san francisco budget and finance committee. my name is malia cohen, i'm the chair woman of this committee. to my right is going to be sandy fewer. she's the vice chair, and she's going to be joining us shortly. on my left is supervisor kathrin stefani. the clerk is linda wong. madam clerk, are there any announcement? >> clerk: yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items included in this calendar will be included in the board of supervisors december 13, 2018 meeting unless otherwise noted. >> president cohen: thank you. madam clerk, can you please

read item numbers 1 and [agenda item read] [agenda item read] >> president cohen: thank you very much. i want to bring ana devegna from the controller's office. just want to recognize that there was some confusion at our last hearing as to whether or not this money would be used to pay for some of the repairs for the faulty construction and in the interim, we have been able to clarify, clarify that none of the funding will be used for these purposes, but we've got ana devegna from the controller's office. if we can keep this tight, we've already heard this twice. good morning. >> thank you. good morning, supervisors. my name is ana vendegna from

the controller's office. i appreciate the opportunity to address the question that was posed the last time i stood before you, specifically, that is will proceeds from this be used to fix the cracked beams at the salesforce transit center? upon further research, we can definitively say they will not. on the next slide is a table that you've seen before. it shows the total approved project costs of 2.259 billion. wanted to direct your attention to the two yellow highlighted bond items, approved in 2016. this issuance we're here to talk to you about today is the safety bond proceeds. there's two parts to this. the first issuance which occurred last year, funded 149 million towards the project.

this would fund an additional 105 million. the additional item, the c.o.p. approved in 2016 in an amount not to exceed 260 million. to date, 103 million has been drawn. there's some other numbers on the page i'd be happy to go through. also want to note that there are representatives here from b.a.r.t., tgpa, and public works to answer any questions that you may have. >> president cohen: thank you very much. i appreciate that. i don't think we have any questions. i'll go to the budget legislative analyst to see if she'd like to offer any remarks on item 1. >> severin campbell from the budget analyst's office. i would like to point out about 29 million of this will go to streetscapes projects under the purview of the department of work public's. we spell that out in our

report, and we'd recommend approval. >> president cohen: all right. colleagues, let's go to public comment on items 1 and 2. if there's any member of the public that would like to comment on items 1 and 2, please step forward. you'll hear a soft chamber which sates you have 30 seconds left, and then, a louder chime which indicates the end of your time. hearing none, public comment is closed. can we take that without objection? golf golf. >> president cohen: item is forwarded to the board of supervisors with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, please read item [agenda item read] >> president cohen: i would like to continue this one week.

i'll open public comment for this. seeing none, public comment is closed. goefl goe [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: item number 4, please. [agenda item read] >> president cohen: excellent. do we have anyone speaking on item 4? deputy city attorney jon givner. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. so this item was sponsored and it was introduced by the mayor and president cohen. it will authorize the city attorney to file a validation action regarding proposition c which passed in the november election. the board adopted a similar

ordinance in july authorizing the city attorney to file a valuation action for june's proposition g. as you know, questions have been raised about whether proposition c in november and propositions c and g in june required a 50% vote to pass for a two-thirds majority. this ordinance will authorize our office to seek kay judgment that proposition c in november required only a 50% majority to pass. >> president cohen: that's great. thank you. so just as a question to you, deputy city attorney, how long does this process take before the city can expect to hopefully be able to drawdown and spend this revenue, this money? >> mr. givner: that depends on a number of factors. we expect this ordinance if it comes out of committee today as a committee report to pass finally at the december 11

meeting. after the mayor signs, the ordinance will become effective 30 days later, so probably mid-january, and at that point, we can file our validation action in court. after that window of 250itime, there's an opportunity for anyone to join the case to take the position that the court should not validate the measure, that the measure actually required a two-thirds vote. that window is a few months, so it -- the timing depends both on whether anyone opposes the validation action, and then, on -- on the court's schedule going forward. >> president cohen: so we don't know how long it will take. that was a lot of words -- all right. >> mr. givner: that's what i'm paid for. >> president cohen: that's what you're paid for, exactly. thank you very much. all right, folks, so we don't know. but i do know we've got a

wonderful group of folks that will be litigating and moving forward. all right. colleagues, i don't see any names on the roster so i'm going to pivot to public comment. anyone that would like to public comment on item four? anyone? anyone? okay. public item is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: thank you very much, mr. deputy city attorney. let me make a motion to approve and send to the full board as a positive recommendation. i want to send it as a committee report. this is for item four and we'll take that without objection. items number five and six, call them [agenda item read] [agenda item read]

>> president cohen: all right. thank you very much. i want to -- i want to welcome mr. trent rohr who's the director of the human service agency. the mayor is the sponsor of this lemgislation, and mr. rohrer, welcome. >> thank you. there are actually three different state initiatives that i'm going to present to you today that hopefully -- will require action that hopefully you approve, but they're all changes that occurred through the state budget or the state grant-making process. the first is a very significant

shift -- significant change to calfresh eligibility for s.s.i. recipients. s.s.i. recipients are individuals who are receiving federal disability payments, so they're either disabled, blind, or over age 65 and low-income. since 1974, individuals who are on s.s.i. are not eligible or were not eligible for food stamps. food stamps is now called calfresh. in june late in the legislative session, through the legislative process, the legislature changed that state law and as a result, s.s.i. recipients beginning this coming summer, june through august, will become eligible for cal fre-- calfresh benefit. formerly, they were only eligible for $10.

it was called a cash out. now instead of the $10, they're going to be eligible for calfresh, which they would use to purchase food or buy meals in restaurants if they're eligible for that. in san francisco, we have approximately 43,000 individuals who are on s.s.i. it's possible that all our most of them would be eligible, but it's difficult to know because the eligibility criteria for calfresh is not simply income. there are a lot of other factors. the state has projected that about statewide, 30% -- 29%, actually, so we've taken that projection and estimated about 12,600 households -- or individuals, excuse me, will be eligible for this new benefit. in addition, there could be as many as 4,200 households where

one of the family members would now be eligible to receive calfresh or the calfresh allotment would be increased because that one person in the household would be eligible. so it could potentially impact almost 17,000 households. we think this is a pretty low 12i789. it was projected stayed wi-- estimates. it was projected statewide. in san francisco, as you probably know with our community partnerships, the food security task force, and our efforts to do outreach to households who are eligible, we anticipate that more than the 12,600 will actually become eligible -- apply and become eligible. we have partnerships with the food bank, with other nonprofits to do outreach to households that are already receiving either availing

themselves of congreggate food meals or distributions through the food banks. so because this is such an increase, to give you some context, we have about 31,000 households currently on calfresh, so just taking those 12,000 households, that is about a 40% increase, which will require a significant increase in our staff. our role in the calfresh process is to intake the process. we interview the prospective clients, fill out the documents, and then we have clerical or back office works that make sure that individuals aren't on aid in another county, that their records are all in order. so the workload increase falls on our eligibility workers and our clerks.

so the budget supplemental before you -- i should say typically, we're h.s.a. because we're so heavily funded by state and federal dollars, we usually anticipate changes like this and they're incorporated in our budget before -- as it goes before the board? june. however, there was not known in june nor was there a proposal that appeared earlier in the lejs laytive process, so for that reason, we're coming to you now to be able to hire staff midyear, so be able to train them and so they can do this new eligibility work for over 12,000 people when it begins this summer. so this -- this slide shows you what we are requesting. so 20 eligibility workers and then three supervisors in

eligibility, and then nine clerks, senior clerks and regular clerks and one program analyst and a manager to oversee this. i should say, you know, i mentioned that our caseload is growing -- projected to grow by about 40%. our increased staff request is really only about a 5% increase in our eligibility worker staff. >> president cohen: i have a question. >> yes, supervisor cohen? >> president cohen: what perpetuates your caseload to grow? >> so in this particular instance or just sort of overall? in this case, because it's a new eligibility criteria. so before this law change, these 43,000 individuals who were received federal s.s.i. were not eligible for calfresh, so they just couldn't come on the caseload because state law didn't allow it. what the legislature did in june was change the state law. if you're on s.s.i., you get

$10 cash. you no longer get that ten extra drollars, now, you're eligible for calfresh. it's up to $95. it's increasing the individual's opportunity to purchase food. it also has a benefit to the economy. between 11 and $13 million will be spent in local merchants, grocery stores, farmer's markets, and restaurants if they are eligible. so our request is for staff to process those applications. the reason that they are ongoing staff is because not only is there an application flow, not everyone will come into the office on the first day and apply, they'll come in throughout the year, but also,

there's continuing eligibility work. so once you're eligible, clients do have to come in periodically and do what's called a remember certification to demonstrate that they're still living in san francisco, demonstrate that they're still low-income. so the work is done at the front, but then, it's also done on an ongoing basis. so before i move onto the next initiative, any questions on this one? >> supervisor fewer: supervisor, if i may. thank you very much, madam president. i just want to know if these are full-time positions. >> yes, we're proposing full-time positions. the total request is 33 additional positions. it's only 11 f.t.e. in the current year because we're hiring in march. next fiscal year, it'll be 33 full-time positions. >> supervisor fewer: okay. and the permanent full time? >> permanent full-time positions positions. one thing that i forgot to add, when the state funds counties,

they're required to fund it. it's one of our bigger leverages in our programs to support this work. any other questions, supervisors? >> president cohen: i don't think we have any other questions, but are you through with your presentation? >> there's two other items. >> president cohen: okay. let's finish your presentation, and then, i'm going to pivot and hear from the budget and legislative analyst. >> okay. the first two are trade forward. the next is a state calworks home visit initiative which was fund index this year's budget. we did anticipate this funding and we budgeted in our budget in june, but we budgeted in our

contracts line item in our budget and not really knowing what the funds would be available to be used for, not sure how we wanted to design our program. the way we're designing the roll out, rather than using staff, we're using d.p.h., psychiatric social workers, social work specialists who actually are doing the home visiting. some of the other funds will be used for flexible funding to meet needs for clients as well as a child care perhaps. so what the home visit initiative does, it's for low-income moms who have a newborn up to age two, so newborns up to age two, and they're eligible to receive these home visits. it's really over the last decade, home visiting has been recognized as one effective way

to help promote early child brain development and blondion with moms and kids. whenever you have a new child, as some of you know, it's a whole new ball game and challenge. and if you're a single mom, it's a whole new challenge. we're excited about the program because it's 100% state funded. this was just the first year, and we expect this program continuing to be expanded through the state budget process. so we anticipate serving with this money about 80 additional families. we currently have a home visiting program now in partnership with the department of public health that serves between 130 and 140 calworks families, so this adds to that

program. we will serve more than 80 families, because the kids up to age two, they would phase off and start of this own program, so we would be serving close to double the 80 families over the cycle of the program. the request is simply to move money from the contract's line item over to staff. and then to add the staff into the budget. and then, the third initiative is also good news. it represents an expansion, and this is a program that began about three years ago, i believe. it's a state-funded housing subsidy program for homeless families who are receiving public assistance. so these are families who are on our calworks program and they are homeless. so what this does is provide rental subsidies to move them

from homelessness into housing which breaks down them engaging in homelessness into employment. this funding, which is $968,000, would allow us to serve an additional 50 calworks programs. of the $968,000, about two-thirds of it is spent on direct rental subsidy does, so direct rental support to families. because we received this increased subsidy after june, we're simply asking for authority to allow us to spend the additional state dollars. that concludes my presentation. >> president cohen: supervisor fewer has a question. >> supervisor fewer: yes.

so i think the home visiting initiative is fabulous. i myself had a visiting nurse when my children were young. is there a wait list? >> no, there is not a wait list. department of public health operates an evidence-based home visiting program, so we're sort of augmenting that piece, but in our calworks program, there won't be a wait list. sort of data and research in other states that offer a similar program, not every mom wants to take up the offer. some just simply, they feel okay and stable and don't want anyone in their home or whatever other reason, so we're anticipating being able to serve families who want to avail themselves of these

services. >> supervisor fewer: and i'm assuming we have bilingual capacity in our staff. >> yeah, the staff that we have will be able to absorb these new families. >> supervisor fewer: in bilingual capacity -- language capacity. >> oh, language capacity, yes, of course. >> supervisor fewer: and these people can be served regardless of any immigration status, is that correct? >> because the eligibility for this program is dictated by the eligibility for the calworks program, which is a federally funded and state funded program, undocumented moms are not eligible to receive these benefits. there could be -- i should restate that because it's nuanced. the eligibility rules are complicated. if there are documented children of an undocumented mom, they can be served.

if it's 100% undocumented, because it's state and federally funded, these funds cannot be used. >> supervisor fewer: so i assume it's the same for the calworks program, if there are citizen children, they can be served. >> yes, that's correct. >> president cohen: continue. >> that concludes my presentation. >> president cohen: we're going to hear from the budget and lejs laytive analyst agisl understand there's a discrepancy on the proposed number of positions. would you like to speak now or do you want to hear from the b.l.a.? >> so we have proposed -- let me go back to my -- so the slide before you shows what we are proposing. again, we're anticipating an

increase in our calfresh caseload by about 40%. we're asking to increase the number of eligibility workers by 5%, so we're asking for 20 eligibility workers and three eligibility worker supervisors. in our clerical back office, we're asking about a 25% rise, nine senior clerks. the budget analyst proposed -- well, i don't need to speak for severin. she can speak to what the budget and legislative analyst has proposed. i should say, and i said this in my presentation, but to remind you, i know the budget analyst's always represents a taxpayer dollar is a taxpayer dollar, however because of the significant leverage that you get if you adopted the current adoptions in the current fiscal

year, it would only save the county general fund $29,220, and in fiscal year 2020, it would save about $86,000. the other dynamic of what we -- the way we receive our state funding, we get a fixed allocation based on our caseload. if we don't match that allocation by 15%, then we have to give the state and federal money back. and so if you did take the b.l.a.'s recommendation, you would have to give back $61,000 in the current year and about $450,000 in fiscal year 2020. we don't like to give back state money. >> president cohen: we don't like to give back state money. >> no. >> president cohen: we'll hear from severin. >> thank you. while we understand mr.

rohrer's arithmetic, we still look at what we consider the efficiency of the use of those moneys. so i do agree with him, but we do have our approach and he understands that. what i want to say is that this is an appropriation in the current fiscal year of 2.6 million. we summarize is on exhibit 2, page 8 of our report. it would fund 33 -- excuse me, 37 positions, and we summarize those positions to total salaries out of the 2.6 million. it's about 1.6 million in fiscal year 18-19. those would annualized to about 4.6 million in fiscal year 19-20, and we do summarize the 37 positions that are being requested in the supplemental appropriation and in the amendment to the annual salary ordinance. our recommendations are, out of the 37 positions, we actually are recommending for all four

positions that are being requested in the home visit initiative program. and out of the 33 positions that are being requested for the calfresh increase, we're recommending 28 of the 33. and in making these recommendations, we look at the organization as it currently exists in sort of the relative staffing proportions of eligibility workers and other positions and clerks in that program. we also looked at the projected caseload, and we looked at vacancies. and our recommendation out of 28 positions is we are recommending for the manager, we're recommending -- the clerk positions, there's a request for three, and we're recommending two. of the senior eligibility workers, they're requesting 20, and we're recommending 18. of the eligibility supervisors, they're recommending three, and

we're recommending all of those. and the program specialist, they're requesting one, and we recommend all of those. i think we summarized in our report, and we can certainly discuss it, we did look at the caseload and the impact of our recommendation workload for the three -- the five positions in those classifications, and did not think that it had a significant impact on the caseload. it would -- we also looked at vacancies, and i do want to point out that all of these classifications have vacancies in this particular program, so hiring existing vacancies would also have an impact on caseload, so -- and we're available for any questions you may have. >> to the point on the vacancies, we have, in h.s.a., 370 eligibility workers, 2905 classification, so it's just a natural turnover of staff. so the vacant -- it's not as if those vacant positions -- those

particular positions have been vacant for a year or two. it's just with simply that many staff, you have people who retire, resign, move on, get promoted, and it just takes time to catch up. >> president cohen: how many employees do you have? >> in the agency, i think our budgeted f.t.e. is around 220, but the eligibility side is 370. i should say -- i've said this before to you all, but i'll say it again. the budget analyst referenced caseloads. the way we used to issue eligibility caseloads, was the worker would be assigned a case. we ended up having workers of caseloads with 300. you can't. that's not really case work, so

we move today a service center model where any eligibility technician, eligibility worker can serve any client, so they can be served by anybody, get their problem resolved. it allows us to shall much more efficient, which is why when we see a 40% increase in our caseload, we just need a 5% increase in workers, because we can do our work more efficiently. >> president cohen: thank you, trent. colleagues? supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. so if you don't have the requested number of f.t.e.s, what happens if you can't meet those goals? >> thanks for the question, supervisor. yeah, basically, people will be served slower. workers can only do so much work. if we have two fewer, it probably means for each worker,

five applications a week, times two, ten applications a week, 40 a month. for a certain category of clients, we need to determine eligibility in 72 hours or shorter. we might not be able to meet that. it simply slows down the process for clients. they will ultimately get their benefits, they might have to wait a little longer in our lobbies for a resolution to their application. and again, the estimates -- we're using the state estimates, which really -- of 30% eligibility. it really doesn't account for the work we do locally. they're funding us at 30%, but as we show we're increasing, we will get additional state funding to recognize the increased caseload. it's hard for me to imagine

that only three out of ten of these individuals will be eligible and because of our relationships with our community bases organizations, our funding outreach teams, we do outreach at c.b.o.s and food banks, because of the outreach work that we do, it's going to be higher than 1200, but it's difficult to predict. this work won't begin until june at the earlier. >> president cohen: thank you. we're going to go to public comment on these items. on items six and seven, we're taking public comment. is there any public comment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. all right, colleagues, so how do you want to handle this? >> supervisor fewer: i think that -- so when we're looking at the impact on the general fund, the total impact, if i'm reading this right is really 197,000, is that correct, okay, on the general fund because the rest is grant appropriated or

funded through another entity. so you know, i think the issue of the vacancies in actual will come up during the next cycle -- the budget cycle, and we can revisit it then. but in the meantime, mr. rohrer has given a good case with the immediate nature of these positions and since we're transitioning over, and these are families in high need. and so even waiting a couple of days is really not acceptable, so i would give this actually a positive recommendation. >> president cohen: so just so i'm clear, we are not accepting the b.l.a. remits? [inaudible] >> president cohen: okay. that's fair enough. [inaudible] >> president cohen: okay. did you hear that? we thank the b.l.a., but we're not taking the recommendations.

all right. so what we're going to do is we're going to make a motion, we've already taken public comment, make a motion to approve and send to the full board with a positive recommendation and we're going to send this as a committee report. >> all right. thank you, supervisors. >> president cohen: thank you. move on, please call item 7 [ gavel ]. >> clerk: item seven, retroactively authorizing the police department to accept a grant from the united states department of justice to assist with united states reporting transition efforts september 2020 through september 2021. >> president cohen: this is just a simple resolution to accept and expend grants so that the police department can improve their data reporting system and bring it in alignment with the department

of justice reform recommendation. i'm actually very excited about this, and i am supportive, as well. miss mcguire, the floor is yours. >> president of the committee, skm members, my name is cath lynn mcguire. i'm the executive director of the strategic bureau of the police department. today we're seeking your approval to receive and expend a $5.3 million grant that will implement a new incident-based reporting system, and i will give you a bit more detail on what that means. three things to keep in mind as we talk about nibrs is it is something that the d.o.j. will be requiring at the close of december 2020. this is allow the department to have best practices and data

collection and automation for crime data. just to give you a background, the current method is uniform crime reporting method. essentially, it sums all data into crime categories, eight part one times and a number of part two crimes, as well and reports those in a summary fashion to the federal government. this -- that system was based on a rule created in 1929, so as you can imagine, it's quite antiquated, and it collects data -- limited information. this information the sfpd uses to report crime data, this is the current system we use to report crime data to the state and federal government, and it's a hierarchy rule, so if multiple crimes occur in any

incident, we take the most severe crime and report that as the crime that occurred in the particular incident. it doesn't track -- the current system doesn't track the number of victims impacted by one specific incident, and there's no national regional startized language to report crime or -- or subcrimes, so to speak, and i'll explain that a little bit more. essentially -- and also i mention this, the s.i. plans to retire that in july 2020, so by the end of 2020, we're expected to be compliant. we're shifting to an incident-based reporting system. what it does is it sends every incident that happens inside san francisco or in any other jurisdiction to their state government first, and then, that gets reported in turn to

the federal government. the information is incident based, as i mentioned. this improves the overall quality of crime data and has allowed for more useful statistics. so for instance, we can look at hate crime and aggravated assault that is hate crime and we can compare that across the country to other jurisdictions and how they're experiencing it, as well. the new method also allows us to, as i mentioned, count multiple offenses. talked about that within each incident and allows us to track the number of victims impacted by each incident. so we may have a homicide that has five victims, but it's not actually five homicides. it will have one homicides and potentially four attempted homicides or potentially two attempted homicides and two assaults, so we'll be able to

track that level of granu granulearity of san francisco. and just to reiterate, this is a federally mandated program that we're able to initiate the compliance with that program through nongeneral fund dollars by accepting this grant. so this is updating the data reporting. so this provides a greater specificity when we report crime and collects more

detailed information which then gives us a lot more context of what's happening in those crimes and allows for better analytical flexibility and developing better strategies to address crime going forward. this is reiterating under the current system, we would be reporting one thing, and under nibrs, we would be reporting multiple things. and then, the same thing goes for aggravated assault. so if we have an aggravated assault that is motivated by hate crime and is also a stalking case, all three of those things would be reported under the new system, rather than just the aggravated

assault. if we're able to communicate with the community on a level at that helps them be aware of potential crime trends, that then, they can prevent themselves from being victims at the outset. so we are collecting, under u.c.r., the vast majority of this information is collected in the narrative or not collected at all? and nibrs we'll have more specificity on the type of victim, or more specificity on whether the law enforcement was the victim and the impact on that officer? the -- whether or not a person lives in san francisco. resident status does not refer to immigration or national citizenship status of the individual? it really is just saying are they a san franciscan or not. the type of injury sustained by a victim is collected only by a

narrative in the current system. in the future, we'll have categories of injuries sustained. and then finally, we'll be collecting information that connects the victim to the offense. so as i mentioned before, each victim, what they were a victim of, rather than in the summary formation -- or a summary form. essentially, this just shows how data is used. we collect data at the officer level. we use it in a couple of different days. one is for the state and federal data, and the other is for san francisco police department to use and develop crime strategies? and so this system allows us to do both of those things much better. this final slide sort of shows very high level draft project plan. we have to, of course, accept the money before we can spend it, and the big first thing we

have to spend money is planning, so we have to scope this project and we'll be hiring consultants to help us determine what the right scope of work and timeline is and really under what the needs of the department and other stakeholders are before we really get into a project planning phase. with that, i will take any questions you have. >> president cohen: thank you. your presentation was solid. i don't have any questions. i think we -- we don't have a b.l.a. report on this, so what we can do is go to the public and see if there's any member of the public that would like to chime in on this. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i just want to acknowledge that i don't think your report touch odd this, but if i'm -- touched on this, i think the f.b.i. will be retiring the current

reporting system in 2021, is that correct? >> yeah. this system is mandated to end by 2020, and this is nongeneral fund money. >> president cohen: i appreciate the presentation, miss mcguire, thank you very much, and i will make a motion to approve and send this to the full board. we can send that with a positive recommendation, and it looks like we can take that without objection. we're going to go out of order. i'm going to call items nine and ten together. this is pretty straightforward, this is a lease of a property for arts fans. >> clerk: item nine, resolution authorizing the property director for an arts ban for a term of ten years

with two five year options to extend. item number ten, resolution authorizing the director of property to execute a commercial lease between the city and volunteers in medicine for approximately 47,000 peryear and authorizing the reimbursement of up to 410,000 for tenant improvements for a term of ten years with two five-year options to extend. >> president cohen: okay. so supervisor safai is joining us. he is the sponsor of this legislation, and we will hear from claudia gorham. this is straightforward. they're two leases in the outer mission, ingleside neighborhood. it's going to create a lease for two nonprofits, art and volunteers in medicine. the tenants were selected through of course a very robust r.f.p. process, and improvements will be paid for

by t supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes, thank you. >> president cohen: you're very welcome. >> supervisor safai: i know this is pretty straightforward, but i just want to give a little background to some people and say thank you. i know that beth and avalos worked on this to get this out. these are one of the only two buildings in our district that are city owned. they've been sitting dormant and vacant for a rsignificant amount of time. one of them has a historic mural in this that was discovered through part of this process that will be restored, but we are super, super excited. one of them, for a significant amount of time always served as a public health facility for the neighborhood. it was a public health clinic. the other one has set dormant for a significant amount of

time and also served as a place where people could meet and work in the community. hence the beautiful mural that's there and will be restored. in response, the respondents were one art span that does a significant amount of work to foster, house, encourage and develop artist and give them space in the city to provide their creativity and their work. the other one is clinic by the bay, an organization that offers free medical care to the indigent. it is already housed in the excelsior, but this will give them a permanent home for years and years to come. the thing that's significant about this lease and it's -- i want to thank the department of real estate for all their hard work and creativity on putting this together after the r.f.p. i think the r.f.p. was done the first month that i was in office, and here we are coming to the end of the second year.

it's taken almost 14 months to negotiate this lease. i want to thank clinic by the bay, janet riley and all the people on the board. i want to thank art span for investing in our community. i want to thank so many people that have been involved in making this a reality. our arts commission -- i see our arts commission director and the team there. thank you. these facilities -- this facility, and this is the uniqueness of the deal, the city is putting aside a few hundred thousand dollars, but both entities are going to raise over $1 million to restore these public facilities, and that is a significant investment from nonprofits. this is not a dollar-a-lease

giveaway. it is below market rate, but it is not significantly below market rate. and in exchange, both of these organizations will go out and raise north of $1 million each, invest them in those properties and then turn jarnd and provide space for the artists and space for the indigent to have free health care. so for us, we think it's a phenomenal model. we think it's great for us to have the ability to restore these. other than the people that i've already mentioned, again, just want to thank tom, our director of the arts commission, cultural ai recognize if a, sandi the cultural affairs.

so for the excelsior, for district 11 that has so few city properties, we're excite today have the opportunity to restore these two buildings and provide opportunities for residents in the excelsior for years to come, and that's it. thank you, madam chair. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. claudia, do you have a presentation for us? >> i believe pretty much everything's been discussed. i'll just note that a environmental study was done on the buildings and that was part of the reason why it took so long for negotiations to last. i think it deserves -- both entities wanted to know what they were getting into, so everyone kind of wait today have the results of that study and that did determine how much work needed to be on -- done

for certain aspects. [please stand by]