tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 27, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PST
announcements? [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please read item number one. >> clerk: item one, item amending the resolution between the west side health center and behavioral health services by increasing the amount by 19 million for an amount not to exceed 23.9 million and to extend the current contract by three years. >> chair fewer: thank you. i believe have we have michelle ruggles here from the department of public health, and this item was continued
from february 13. >> okay. i think this contract is the sum of its parts, so i think it's helpful to understand the backgrounds behind each program, and i hope that will make my own explanation to you clearer. so we continue to be in agreement with the report recommendation both this time and last time, to approve the proposed amendment to extend this contract from one year to a total of 4.5, and to approve the corresponding funding for each of the fiscal years. the department remains committed and confident in its support of continuing this contract. as you know, this proposed continuation contract includes
funding for three programs. two of the programs, the outpatient and the crisis programs, provide mental health and crisis outpatient services to an african american target population. we conduct annual program monitoring reports of each individual program. each of these -- both of these two programs met starts in 14-15, 15-16 and in our most recent annual program, they exceeded standards. that was in 16-17. i recognize from last time, there was some concern about the solicitation rankings of the r.f.p.s use to select these two programs. i just want to point out a few important items for consideration. the first is we conducted a solicitation to continue our existing services. so the department did not have a goal of trying to consolidate or change service providers, and i think if you -- if the report showed the detail for
each agency listed, you would say that they are spread all over the city, and most have a unique target population if not a neighborhood population. as noted, all of the applicants were reselected, and all of the applicants were then and continue to be our contracted service providers with ongoing client service relationships and caseload. so i know that no one wants to be ranked last. if you look at the actual score and compare the scores ge agai each other, but if you look at the score achieved, you'll see that west side achieved 69 and 73% of all possible points.
they may not have been an a-plus, but they're not red flagged scores. the third program that's in there is called west side assertive value treatment. this is a program working with some of the highest needs clients we have. in our most recent year monitored in 16-17, the program solidly met standards, and as i noted last time, we continued and worked with west side with respect to the number of slots that they had -- client slots in that program, and we reduced the slots in agreement with them to reflect what historically they were serving of an 80% client load. so we appreciate that west side
is continuing this program and there by ensuring the continuity of care for these clients. so just in summary, if you roll these programs back up into the contract that you have before you, then i would just repeat that the department is very supportive of this contract with west side and hope that with this additional information that has been provided to you and in my report that it's now more clear also to you. >> chair fewer: any questions from my colleagues? oh, sure, let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> good morning, chair fewer and members of the committee. severin campbell from the budget analyst's office. we did report this to the committee, and at that time we
recommended approval and still recommend approval but are available for any questions you may have. >> chair fewer: colleagues -- yes, supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i want to thank my colleagues for entertaining the motion to continue a few weeks ago, and i want to explain a little bit why i asked for that continuance because i don't want west side community health center to feel picked on. when we were looking at the report two weeks ago, there were concerns when we looked at the report. when i look at the global issues going on, homelessness, drug abuse, that are going on in our nation, i was forced to ask some hard questions. everyone agrees the situation on our streets is unacceptable. people shouldn't live on the streets with drug problems and mental health problems.
we're required to ask the tough questions. i was happy to have the follow up meeting with the b.l.a., severin campbell and with michelle and other representatives from the department of public health. and based on those in-depth conversations with michelle and the d.p.a. and reviewing the past performance with west side in detail and reading the b.l.a., i feel i've seen the information i need to be confident in this information. while it was reported that west side underperformed in certain areas a few years ago, two of the three items in this contract, community crisis program and mental health assistance it met or exceeded requirements. i know that d. ph and west side have worked over the last couple years have worked to adjusting the number of clients
and value to a more feasible amount. after those changes were met, the intensive program has continued to meet all standards. so i think a lot of the confusion, too was that the west side contract was one of several initial behavioral health services contracts were one-year-long rather than anticipated fie anticipated five years. i understand after talking to miss ruggles that that was due to delays in implementing services. so again, i want to thank you, miss ruggles and alexander i
also want to thank marian jones, the c.e.o. of the organization, which wrote a letter shedding light on some of the issues that i think we need to look at as legislators. behavioral health services is a critical part of helping struggling san franciscans, many of them who are living on our streets. i believe we need to continue improving our standards, mand do believe we need to hold all service provider accountable, including the city, and this is what will drive the change i think we need to really solve the crisis facing us. based on the information i received in the interim, i am in support of the contract and will be voting yes to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you. supervisor, any comments? no? i'll just mention that last week, we had further information to clarify this contract. i think we are -- i mean, i --
you know, i was very vested in this because i understand that west side is the only provider providing culturally competent services for african american clients and wanted to make sure they would get any technical assistance that they needed, but also made sure that it wasn't from 180 to 80 participants and 80 is the number they were actually serving. that even though you had slots for 130, they were actually serving 80. >> that's my understanding. in negotiations between the department and west side, they reached that number. >> chair fewer: and because i think there's such high need, i'm wondering, what is the ultimate goal? is the ultimate goal that the intensive case management program would grow to 130 participants or is it the goal that they would stay at 80? >> the goal right now is to continue the contract the way
it is. the department is undergoing a redesign of our entire intensive case management program, so it may change -- or it's intended to change the model so that there's different tiers of where you are in your need for intensive services. so i think once all of that is figured out, then it will be reissued as a solicitation and it's open, but our goal is to definitely maintain the service -- the client load that they have. >> chair fewer: okay. so i think that what i would look for in this is that if we see such high need x that they are currently serving 80, but after you do a redesign, and if there is an opportunity to i am crease the capacity, then, i would say that this is something that should be considered, and the resources put to this program should be reconsidered and need more technical assistance to bring the caseload up to the needed
amount, which if it's 130, then it's 130. as i said, they are the only provider that's providing this culturally competent services for the african american community, so i'd like to make a motion with a positive recommendation to the full board -- oh, public com. is there any members of the public that would like to comment on this, please come on up to the podium, please. welcome, and you have two minutes to speak zm thank y. >> thank you. my name is marian jones, and i want to thank you for looking at this more deeply because the services that we provide are very important.
i really hope that you look more closely at how we're funded and the way that other programs like west side are funded because there are problems inherent in the medi-cal funded system. in fact, we have served 130 clients for three decades, and to have essentially the same b budget with a few increases means it's impossible to serve 130 clients with the same money that you had 15 years ago. i just want to point out that we have an amazing staff, and we do amazing work, and also that no other -- no other provider in the city applies to provide intensive case management services, and i think that is because of the way that we are funded. and i'm not sure that we will be able to continue to provide because as we've been reduced to 80, you know, our budget has
been cut by $600,000, which is a huge amount we're struggling to be able to provide the best services possible to a community that really deserves much more than we're able to offer. but most importantly, i wanted to say thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i was wondering, because it looks like maybe it's something like $300,000 per year per patient, how much of that -- how much of that money goes towards the infrastructure, like, for the facility itself, the building? >> chair fewer: yes, supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i just want to thank miss jones for coming up today and would like to follow up with you and have a meeting with you. i learned a lot about billing, and there's some follow up
questions i have for d.p. h. staff, so i'd love to follow up with you. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i think in light of the comment of the public speaker, this budget should reflect the need, and if it's in need of several mental funds to keep this going as they're the only provider of mental health -- severe mental health case management, i think it's something we need to keep going. >> we will look into that. we do have other intensive case management programs, but not with the same target populations, so we'll continue to explore. >> chair fewer: so we -- i think this committee is specifically looking at this
targeted population, and that if this is a great need, and the budget does not reflect the need, there is a reason for supplemental funds. i think what you'll find in this budget committee, we'll be looking at equity issues. and if we find this is the only provider for services that are culturally competent for our african american population, i think we need to look at supplemental funding. public comment is now closed. and i'd like to make a positive recommendation to bring this to the full board. can you take that without objection? thank you very much. [applause] >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number two. >> clerk: item number two,
ordinance authorizing the treasurer in the event of a partial shutdown with the united states government occurring tweeb february and december 209 to secure a short-term line of credit in an amount not to exceed 20 million or in the alternative partner with one or two companies for the purpose of paying employees or federal employees working at the san francisco international airport. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have amanda reed from the san francisco treasurer's office. >> good morning, supervisors. amanda freed from the office of the treasurer and tax collector.
i did present on this item last week. i don't know if you'd like me to represent on this item. i'd be happy to. >> chair fewer: no, but can you speak to why we had a continuance. >> sure. the amendment we sought last week was simply to extend the authorization of this program through the end of december 2019 so if a shutdown occurs at the end of september when the spending bill expires, we would be poised to offer these services. >> okay. and i believe there is -- we heard from the b.l.a. last week. is there an addition on this? none. colleagues, any comments? seeing none, let's open this uptor public comment. is there any member of the public wishing to comment on this issue? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: miss reed, i have a question for you. are there other loan programs for folks like this, for example, folks reentering out of incarceration?
i think when we talk about a needy population, that i understand that it is beyond the forces of these individuals that this, you know, shutdown happened, but we also have so many communities that actually could benefit from loan programs like this, so i just wanted to know, are there other loan programs like this that actually serve our lowest income folks? >> i believe there are programs that the city offers and then through our office. i know that the office of workforce and community development offers some. >> chair fewer: i know i'm willing to pass this item out of committee because we don't currently have a shutdown. we may have another one. i don't know how our president feels, whether he'll change his mind or not, but i just want to
caution our committee also that we have other really needy populations in san francisco that we're not actually giving this kind of fiscal assistance to, and that we should also be looking at those populations, too. any way, i'd like to make a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation. can i do that without objection? done. thank you. >> thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please call item number four. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have ellen murase. >> in the week of terrible and tragic events, i have good
news. our department has been awarded a two-year, $385,000 grant by the blue shield of california foundation as part of the leveraging collaboration to end domestic violence program. this grant will establish a multisector collaborative to engage new sectors and community leaders to implement community specific prevention strategies, to promote healthy relationships and to combat domestic violence. in 2017, there were over 22,000 crisis calls concerning domestic violence in san francisco. our partners providing over 27,000 emergency shelter bed nights. the police department responded to over 3,000 cases of domestic violence, any one of which could have resulted in homicide. in 2017, there were four cases of incident partner violence homicides. our objectives for this grant,
very briefly, is to want convened partners from among 13 sectors that have been identified to shape community members on domestic violence. a roster of our potential partners is listed on page five of your grant pact. number two, the coalition will implement parallel prevention strategies that focus on healthy relationships with young adults and families in the bay area of san francisco. finally, throughout the grant, the coalition will evaluate the different prevention strategies through preand post assessments and submit reports and recommendations to the san francisco family violence
council. the grant is highly collaborative and funds four agencies to participate in a larger collaborative, as well as implement prevention strategies. specifically, the grant pays for young community developers to implement healthy relationships training in their workforce development program, safe and sound, formerly san francisco child abuse prevention centers to hold trainings, bay cat to support high school students in the creation and production of a social media campaign to address harmful gender norms. finally, the grant will full a half-time position at our department to provide objectives and manage the grant. the condition is retroactive because we need to expend it as early as possible in this new year. we received notification of the award on december 10 of last
year, prepared the package and introduced the ordinance on january 18. elise, who developed the grant proposal and i are here to answer any questions you may. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any question? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. there is no b.l.a. report. i have one question. can you talk about what the new grant position in your department will be doing? sfl yes. we'll be facilitating grant programs, putting together support for the advisory council, so really staffing from beginning to end the grant deliverables. >> chair fewer: okay. any comments? seeing none, i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive
recommendation. can i take that without objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you call item number five. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you, madam clerk. there is no speaker on this except our supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. thank you for considering this. the ordinance will establish procedures for the office of cannabis to regulate legal cannabis sales by creating a cannabis events permit. on january 1, ab 2020 went into effect, giving cities in california the authority to approve temporary cannabis events. san francisco is a city that has long embraced community festivals and gathering as well as the cannabis industry, and
with this ordinance, we will be leading the way on the implementation of ab 2020. regulating cannabis events allows the city to maintain its commitment to public health and safety by ensuring permitted businesses are supplying safe products. we believe that additional regulation discourages illegal sales by instilling confidence in products that the public are buying and ensuring that the only events in our city are involving licensed and permitted businesses. a few key points on this legislation. only applicants who have already received an event organizer license issued by the
california bureau of cannabis control will be eligible to be locally permitted. you must have both state authorization and a local cannabis permit in order to engage in sales or consumption at these events. ab 2020 left a fair amount of autonomy, giving the city plenty of opportunity to detail our regulations and event guidelines. the office of cannabis will have the ability to impose additional conditions to permits, tailing the permits after consultation with various agencies. applicants awarded the permit will have the opportunity to ensure compliance with local and state laws. the city will have the ability to revocpermits if providers
engage in illegal activity. this will allow the city to ramp up cannabis events slowly and thoughtfully, permitting only a select group of events. this will ensure that the office of cannabis isn't overwhelmed. prior to january 1, 2020, the only events that will be considered for applications will be those that have been previously held on a regular basis that have previously received permits from the city and where there that's been significant unregulated cannabis activity. the fee may be waived once for a verified equity applicant or equity operator. ultimately, i hope this legislation will accomplish what all of our recent cannabis legislation has sought to do, bring this newly legal industry
in a way that supports local small businesses and equiti equitium -- equity applicants while putting controls in place. we appreciate the feedback that we received from city and department staff, industry shake holders and event producers. we -- stakeholders and event producers. we look forward to hearing more comments and information. eugene, can you come up and let us know what the roll out for cannabis permits will look like
for the cannabis office? >> yes. one of the things that i'd just like to 'em ifemphasize briefls is a pilot, and it is a known number of opportunities and events. what we are trying to do is minimize the impacts for public health and public safety, but the negative impacts of unregulated sales and consumption. this is an opportunity to move these events from an unregulated space into a regulated space. we emphasize collaborative relationships with city departments. that's something that we've done previously. for example, for temporary permit holders, the san francisco police department reviews city plans. in coming up with the consumption regulations for cannabis retailers, it's a process that we work with the department of public health doing that. so it's something we planning on working with various
agencies. our regulation is posted for public comment. if you go to the office of cannabis website, there are a list of regulations you can see. you can add your e-mail to a distribution list aour website in which information would be shared. we plan to work closely with city departments around this issue and also if there's strong desire from the public. we would be willing to have a public convening for people to share their opinions, and i'd be happy to answer any additional questions that you might have. >> supervisor mandelman: if there aren't, i do have one more. >> chair fewer: yes. >> supervisor mandelman: i think we might be done with this, eugene, so you can sit down. >> chair fewer: yes. >> supervisor mandelman: i do
have one more. the amendment before you is one that we've worked on with the rec and park and the department of public health to allow funding agencies to temporarily waive these laws in connection with a temporary event. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. there was not a b.l.a. report on this item. any comments? questions? okay. so let's open this up for public comment. if you would like to speak on this item, please come forward. i have some cards on this. fernando, and alex. >> i wanted to speak today in fully support of this measure. as last year in 2018, the guidelines were that you could only have these events at a county fair ground or district alri cultural center.
i was more interested in watching ab 2020. obviously was signed by governor brown late september, became law january 1. so although we do have done events at the county fairgrounds last year, i was interested in doing smaller, b boutique events. as an event organizer, as a minority business owner, i just wanted to give my public comment that i'm fully in support of this. i wanted to offer my full help to whoever would like, you know, my input to make sure that we do these responsibly, that we do them safe. again, my name is fernando alvarez, and i'm the director of vape lounges. >> we as an organization support this moving forward. supervisor mandelman, you made some outstanding points, but
one thing that i want to add is so many of our outdoor events are perused by nonprofit -- produced by nonprofit organizations, and this will open up a stream of revenue that many of us need right now. we're seeing our city expenses going up and up with no end in sight, so we need this revenue source. additionally, we as an organization have been actively working on these scenarios, how we're going to make these work at folsom street fair and up your alley as soon as possible. so thank you very much. full c folsom street events supports this very much. >> we are speaking in support of the legislation introduced by supervisor mandelman. our members feel this is a step in the right direction regarding consumption practices in san francisco and that
tourism is going to ab strong and profitable element of the larger san francisco cannabis landscape. echoing supervisor fewer's comments earlier, we feel that equity must be an important part of that conversation and it must be a criteria for evaluating these licenses as it has been, so the equity group would like to say we are in strong support of this motion and we make ourselves available for any questions, comments, information we can provide on that issue. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. conor johnston. i am one of the owners of a soon-to-open cannabis retailers in san francisco. california -- you may have seen in the news recently, when it legalized adult use cannabis sales in 2018, the year for
year sales actually went down. we sold less legal cannabis in 2018 than 2017, and a big reason for that is, we as a state have legalized the growing and the sale of cannabis but haven't done a very good job of legalizing the use of it or normalizing the use of it. you can walk into a store in san francisco and buy cannabis, but you can't use it in -- on the bus, in a park, you can't use it in your car, and if you're a tourist, you can't use it in your hotel. so we've created a system, like they say in pulp fiction, it's legal, but it ain't 100% legal. there are obstacles to the consumption and the normalization of consumption. so thank you for bringing this
forward to the district aid office, and it is great to be here ad what -- at what i think is the second most interesting government hearing right now. if you're not watching michael cohen right now, you should be. >> hello. my name is justin wiener. i'm one of the producers of the howard street fair in san francisco. we feel there's a need for safe and regulated environments for legal cannabis, and we think that san francisco should be leading the way in cannabis events. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is terrence allen, and i've had the pleasure of serving for the last three years as the chair of the san francisco cannabis legalization task force, which just recently completed the third year report which is on the screen, and i
will make sure if your office does not have a copy, you will get one right away. the consumption issue is troubling as someone who likes to make good recommendations for public policy and develop public consent around those policies because if we don't create consumption areas, those consumption areas will happen automatically by the normalized use of cannabis that people are so used to doing, and we want to make sure that we regulate it in conformance with the guiding principles of our task force, which is keep use access strong so that youth cannot access, either visually or through the sale and consumption of cannabis, and so in that way, let's move this forward, let's create the income stream and provide opportunities for all of our
community. thank you very much. >> chair fewer: next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm alex kino, community partner and promoter for 420 community event. as you know, this is a free event and it's open to the public. i'm totally in support of this. this will offer clean, tested legal product to our consumers and our patrons in the park. so we're definitely supportive of this. thank you. >> chair fewer: next speaker. >> good morning. my name is nina parks. i used to run a cannabis yoga program for the past two years, and since we don't necessarily have regulation around events, how i can actually execute in the most transparent way is kind of difficult for me to be able to navigate.
these spaces that we created are for people to be in community while they're consuming. so push people in isolation while they're under the influence of any substance is actually kind of counterproductive to the magic that these plants can actually give, so i really do support this legislation in order for us to continue to build community. thank you. >> my name is terry jones. i'm an equity applicant, verified. i'm also the c.e.o. of joe r.s. but i'm also speaking on behalf of the community and on behalf of the equity program in its general. i would like to know that we're talking about is the war on consumption, but i'm also paying attention to the war on drugs and also the impact that was dealt on our communities. i also want to honor our city because the district attorney just passed a law in order to
give some type of restorative justice for those who were just released back into the community. we've still got a lot of work to do when it comes to healing our community, and the benefits. thank you. >> chair fewer: any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i just have one question for clarity's sake. who -- is it the office of cannabis that is enforcing on-site regulations and permit rules? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm going to welcome yeugene to coe back up. as this, say, on park property,
it might involve some combination of rangers or police that get hired, but if you want to address enforcement. >> sure, thank you supervisor. particularly around enforcement with regard to cannabis sales, so we have the ability to revoke permits, the process of making sure that there's a process for stopping sales of product. for example, that's a place in which the office of cannabis will be able to essentially exert its regulatory authority. for general enforcement, we wouldn't be in a situation where we would usurp the authority for other regulations. specifically, if your question is around sales, then, the office of cannabis will be responsible for that enforcement. >> supervisor mandelman: and then permitting a particular event, the office of cannabis would impose requirements on operators in terms of the kinds of security that they hire,
that they're adequately staffing it, and then work with the relevant departments to ensure that there's appropriate city staff there, as well. >> also. we have the ability to design permits with diagrams. if we had additional stewart personnel -- security personnel requirements, that's a condition we could kboimpose o the applicant. >> chair fewer: thank you. i am a coauthor of this item, but i actually think a report back and an evaluation would be very helpful on things we can improve on, the measures that supervisor stefani just spoke about, enforcement, also secure, those type of things i think we -- since we are learning from this whether or not it's adequate security that
we are requesting or requiring. also, we'd like to hear from the providers, people who are permitted to actually sell this. and also just from event organizers and how did it work, and how we can always work together to make this better with the community, also. i think a report back would be really helpful. so i'm going to make a motion actually to accept these amendments, and can we take that without objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you. and because these events are subt sub-stantive, substantive, to continue this to march 6 meeting as amended. >> supervisor mandelman: just to be clear, i introduced this amendment. were you speaking about the report back as an amendment or is that a suggestion?
>> chair fewer: that is a suggestion. >> supervisor mandelman: we can work with you thinking about how we want that to come. there are other reports coming from the office of cannabis, any way, and we'll work with your office and office of cannabis in figuring that out. >> chair fewer: that would be great. so can we take that without objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number six. >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have juan ibarra, vocational services manager for the department of public health, behavioral health services. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is juan ibarra, and i'm
the vocational programs manager in the department of public health. there are two actions included in this proposed legislation with the state department of rehabilitation, otherwise known as the d.o.r. the first action is to accept and expend the d.o.r. grant funds in the amount of $90,000 annually or $207,290 over the three year agreement to support a civil service position that would assist in coordinating and developing the work for the agreement. the second is to provide d.o.r. with the board of supervisors approval to enter into an agreement with d.o.r. whereby the county provides d.o.r. with a 21.3% catch match for the total program cost. the department of public health has had the same relationship with d.o.r. for the past 27 years. in this relationship, the
department of public health has entered into an agreement with d.o.r. to provide matching funds to support the extension expansion of vocational services through this grant. d.o.c. contracts directly with community based organizations for the deliverly of row -- delivery of vocational services. it's paid for by two main sources. the first is federal funds that the d.o.r. draws from, which is about 78.7% of the total program cost. the second source is the 21.3% cash match from the department of public health. the state needs a county match in order to drawdown a match from the federal government. d. ph supports this agreement because it allows for the expansion of row indicational services in san francisco with only a 21.3% county investment.
d. ph supports d.o.r.s infrastructure as it supports san francisco residents and mental health clients. in short, the department pays only 21.3% of the total program budget, however, 100% of the clients are within behavioral health services. the state contracts directly with four vendors, including richmond rare multiservices, ucsf citywide, caminar, and occupational training program. the vendors providing vocational and specialized employment training services to b.h.s. services, all of whom have severe behavioral health -- need severe
behavioral health services. overall, these programs have proven to be very successful. over the past several years, there have been a consistent improvement in productivity year over year. the success has resulted in approximate an increase of behavioral health clients securing and retaining employment within the competitive workforce. our clients continually express these services are powerful and crucially important to their lives. the program always invites client graduates to large provider and community gatherings so that they can share their stories and inspire others. some of the clients who suffer from severe mental illness are interested or express an interest in these vocational services after not having worked for many, many years, and they need all the support they can get in order to build their confidence, skills, and job readiness. these vocational services are
essential to the client's overall wellness and recovery, and thank you very much for your time, and i can answer any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any questions or comments? there is a b.l.a. report. let's hear from miss campbell. >> yes. as mr. ibarra talks about, this is a long-standing grant. the board of supervisors previously approved the same grant in 2016. the current funding extends through june of this year, and the new grant will start july 1 of this year. on table one in our report, summarizes all the department of rehabilitation grant funding. some of its direct funding to nonprofit organizations for this, as well as the grand funds to d. ph. -- grant funds to d. ph. we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much.
let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number six, please come forward. >> my name is liselle? i'm from california department of rehabilitation? i'm here to support the continued support of d. ph contract and how important the california department of rehabilitation. this contract is helping our -- to coordinate and organize and making sure that the services that we provided to our consumer is being served. the primary -- of course, with the primary notice of mental health who are seeking employment. i hope you guys also see the importance of this contract be continued and be a proved . that's all.
>> chair fewer: thank you very much. seeing no further comments, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions? seeing none, i'd like to thank mr. ibarra for the thorough presentation. i'd like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we take this without objection? thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please read the next item. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have john melichar, population health
division, department of public health. >> that's correct. >> it's popular, too. >> it's very popular. we got some questions on this grant last night, particularly about the timing of this grant. since this grant is slated -- well, the notification says that it should start july 1, 2018. i can tell you that d. ph has met every deadline that was made -- put forth by the state. i can give you a long list of what eventuated, but i can tell you that we're accustomed to this kind of grant. there are no client services in here so no client would be put at risk. so what we have in the grant, the lion's share is $200,000 to
go to an existing social media campaign expansion, to promote notifications among avenue can american men who have sex with other men. we also have some money in here for training phlebotomists. much of our services is now moving to be mobile and on the street, so we need to train our organizations to draw blood in that situation, and then, there's a small amount of money for training and conferences, so all of that can easily be accomplished by the end of the grant date, so happy to answer any questions you have. >> chair fewer: thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? there is no b.l.a. report, so let's open it up to public comment. is there any public comment on item number seven?
seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions? we are joined by supervisor peskin. supervisor peskin, this event is retroactive. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah, just to add a little meat to those bones, the award didn't come in until august 14 for the contract, which is the period you could cover expensed would be july. >> correct. august is when we learned of the funding opportunity, and our -- the grant application was due in august, and we didn't receive the notice of approval until november. there was discussion between the state and the city attorney's office on who signs office, and we were slated to
come here in january, but we were rescheduled, and we still have to go to the board, so this thing is still not available to us. >> supervisor mandelman: great. thank you. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. seeing no other comments, then, i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? taken. thank you very much. >> thank you for your support. >> chair fewer: thank you. madam clerk, can you please call items number eight, nine, ten and 11 together. >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read].
>> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have faith kirk patrick from the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> yes. i'm a senior project manager at the mayor's office of housing and community development. i'm here today to request your approval for the four items before you relating to two adjacent affordable housing projects known as 88 broadway and 735 davis. both are being developed by joint venture between bridge housing and the john stewart company. both projects are requesting bond issuance approval for conduit financing which will not require the city to pledge any of its funds for the repayment of the bonds. for 88 broadway, the bond is not to exceed $55,280,000. for 735 davis, the bond amount is not to exceed $21,885,000. both projects are seeking
approval from mohcd to enter into 55 year loans from the developer. repayment of mohcd loans is due annually to the extent there is cash flow from operations available. for 88 broadway, the loan amount is not to exceed $31,209,735, and for 735 davis, the loan is not to said $19,583,557. i'd like to describe the project to you briefly. both sites are currently surface parking lots, located in one large city block on separate land parcels located in the northeast waterfront landmark district. 88 broadway is roughly half of the city block. 88 broadway parcel is owned by the port. 735 davis