Department of Building Inspections for fiscal years 20182019 and 20192020. Before item two. I did receive a phone call from nicole kidman, presenting item three and cannot make it due to illness. I respect that we continue that. Nicole wheaten. Nicole elliott. Thank you. Forgive me. I am going to catch a lot of heat for that. Nicole kidman will be at the next meeting. I will catch heat for that. Number three is so a discussion of possible action. We are going to move that to the next Commission Meeting if there is no objection from anybody. I hope she feels better. That is nicole, not kidman. Would staff like to come up regarding the budget . Good morning. I am dan kushner from the finance services division. Deputy madison is out of the office this morning. I will give the second budget presentation. This should be fairly short since there are minimum updates presented at the last meeting. I will get to the actual numbers. No updates to the proposed 1819 and 1920 revenues. They all sta
This is a special meeting of the budget and finance committee. I am supervisor fewer, vice chair of the committee, im joined by supervisor stefani. Our clerk is mr. Victor young. I would like to thank sf gov tv, jessie and charles for broadcasting this meeting. Do you have any announcements . Clerk clerk please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon will appear on the february 27th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Mr. Clerk, can you please call items 1 and 2. Hearing on the current status of the citys leased owned portfolio within the civic center and update on the Portfolio Five year plan. Item 2, potential three year enewly and amendment of a lease of approximately 27,826 square feet of space at 1390 Market Street with purchase 1390 market as landlord for use by the department of Public Health. Thank you. I think we have a presentation from john updike from the department of rea
Portfolio. We want to thank the Controllers Office for their help in aggregating some of this data to help us visualize the status of our portfolio. So first, i wanted to take a 30,000foot view of what the city owns and leases. So our portfolio citywide contains approximately 44 million square feet of buildings and land, thats not including rec park holdings. That is within the city limits, so it does not extra territorial land which is significant outside the city and county of San Francisco. Of that, we lease from private properties only 4 . Of our portfolio. This has been an issue that is concern of the board of supervisors as we brought leases forward as to what is the constitution of our portfolio. This really tells the big story. Were at 4 . We had a discussion with many of our peer organizations across the country. We found an average range when you look at aggregate portfolio, there is a lot of land in the portfolios nationwide, they range from 14 . New york city, austin, texas
Snapshot today and how were moving this portfolio in the future. How do we move that needle from 19 leased today, to an even lower percentage, which is our goal. First thing i want to mention, we took a look at peer city organizations, those who could slice the data to this level. Most could not produce this kind of data in this presentation. Most just dont have the information, but for those that do, two really good examples as a method of comparison, the city of san diego. Their Downtown Core Office Holdings are 64 owned and 36 leased. Again were at 19 today. The state of california sacramento area, office portfolio, which is huge, at 16 million square feet is actually split 5050 owned and leased. Again, i think we look very favorable to those two organizations. Claudia, my assistant director who played a great role in putting this presentation together, take calls monthly from other organizations across the country asking us how we do what we do. Thats an indicator were the best pra
Things worth exploring, but until we have an executive director, i propose we suspend any further discussion until our march 16th meeting. Colleagues, does that sound okay to you . Great. Now lets open this up to Public Comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item seven. Surprise, surprise. Eric brooks, californians for Energy Choice and all the other groups that i mentioned before. So the weve heard from the interim executive officer that the bids that came in on the request for qualifications are proprietary, and theyre not allowed to be released. The public, of course, really would like to see the applicants and who they are, and so that we can weigh in on who we think would be the best person, but we cant really do it without that information. This is a question for the attorney and for the executive interim executive officer, but if we can even get the names of applicants, then, we can look them up themselves and decide what we think and then mayb