Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 27, 2014 9:00pm-9:31pm PDT

9:00 pm
very important civic buildings as well as housing, to work with us. and mr. updike's department. and have come up with a ken except tail plan that has been reviewed with city planning. the site divides the [speaker not understood] in half. the northern and eastern portion of the site basically would become a build to suit for the city of approximately 4 62,000 square feet. i'm going to walk you through the initial massing concept for that in a second ~. importantly, this portion of the site is contiguous to a building that the city already owns. it runs south van ness. so it really is literally and figuratively a consolidation of the city departments. one of the objective of the master plan we've been working on is to give the city a presence on van ness, and also to accommodate a programmatic requirement, very large well played -- something very hard to do. ~ anywhere in the city, but
9:01 pm
particularly this part of the town. and at the same time, create a project that would be a good partner or good neighbor to the 565 units of residential that we are building on the south and western portion of the site. as this slide shows, one of the fundamental pedestrian objectives of the property was to make it easily accessible for any member of the public or staff that were coming to the building either through mass transit on market and many muni lines that run there or if you were trying to keep the cars off 11th and mission, off of 11th which is a much quieter street. another objective of the site plan was to enliven the intersection of south van ness and mission which took it away moved it away from the current vehicular oriented, very busy almost freeway-like condition
9:02 pm
to where it is more pedestrian friendly. essentially to draw pedestrians down from market street to mission street, i'm going to walk you through in a minute, we have the potential to influence that and maybe remake the condition of that very busy intersection, which is pretty much pedestrian unfriendly today, by putting pedestrian-oriented retail along the south van ness and mission street. next slide. so, what you see here in blue is the ground floor permit center john was referring to a minute ago, which will have access from van ness from 11th and also from mission, which really i think will open up what is right now a much more difficult function or series of functions to access. and from a bird's aye perspective, this gives you an
9:03 pm
overall configuration of the city, l, pedestrian concourse from south van ness to 11th. ~ bird's eye image of that, residential shaped complexion with the tower at south van ness and two wings going up south van ness and mission. and in the middle approximately a half acre landscaped one level up garden space that both the office building and the residential units will look into. and this is, again, a very conceptual master plan massing model. it gives you a sense of the scale. what we tried to do here was break up the pieces so that it did not appear as massive as a project of this scale which is approximately a million square feet in total would otherwise look. so, if y'all prefer any questions? >> supervisor mar. >> yeah, i was just going to add that i think it's great that department of public
9:04 pm
works, dbi, planning, they will gradually be moving to that more centralized location to create that triangular spot of where all of many of our city departments have closer access to city hall and the courts. i wanted to ask about the units of housing. i will miss the old good will store and i know that's the central location, but what are the plans for good will for the future? that would be helpful for me. for housing what is estimated to be affordable and/or below market rate? >> so, i mr. woody to address where we stand now on affordability. i think we're coming strong out of the box with the affordable element on-site ~. and we also have jane bond available from the board of good will to answer questions directly. >> so, at this early conceptual
9:05 pm
stage we are envisioning 20% of the units being permanently affordable, essentially 8% more than the code requires. and this is an approach that we've taken on other projects we've developed here in the city, including a project of similar scale at mission corporate paramount which we built in the early part of the decade and still own. >> i'm jane [speaker not understood], chair of the board of good will. you asked about our retail site. actually, that site not only contains our retail store, but our headquarters office. we have warehouse, we do training in our e-commerce. unfortunately it is too tight. [speaker not understood] that is the reason we're selling it because we need to buy, acquire much more modern facility mutt a much larger facility.
9:06 pm
we use the proceeds [speaker not understood] hopefully with ground floor retail within close proximity to this location. [speaker not understood]. and then we will look for warehouse space that is in excess of 100,000 square feet. the proceeds of this sale are very much needed by good will for us to really move forward, expand our mission, we have to have much larger, much more modern facility. just to put my good will plug in. everybody thinks it's a place to drop off your clothes, the retail store, that's not our mission. that's just a means to accomplish our mission which is to take the chronically unemployed, former inmate, former drug addicts from poverty to a sustainable job. we can only do that if we expand our business. so, we're really invested geting proceeds from this thing. thank you. >> thank you.
9:07 pm
>> i just wanted to thank ms. bond for providing the information about good will's mission and the 1,000 employees and the level of training of no wage and low wage worker to get them some skills for better jobs in the future. in the hundred year history good will has had with san francisco. i just wanted to adi hope good will workers will be able to afford the new housing that's built and 20% of affordable or below market rate. i guess i have a question of whether that can be increased, especially given the long history with good will so there are more opportunities for the workforce of good will or low wage workers that are trying to rise the economic ladder would have access to stay in the city in a transit oriented development like this. but i think 20% sounds very low
9:08 pm
to me given the huge needs of housing and low-income families in this city. >> i think it's fair to say, supervisor mar. [speaker not understood]. they're doing the best they can. this is a little complicated, little over 2 acre site. so, every effort is being made and i think that's reflected in the fact we're already looking with the prior item to set the stage for as much affordability as possible. so, we're going to do everything we can. right now we're at the 20% stage. if you don't mind, chair farrell, i'll give you some of the metrics of the transaction and we can move on. >> please. >> and, so, the budget analyst report currently articulates both the particulars on who would be occupying this site. this is very preliminary. we're going to have a number of meeting and discussions on
9:09 pm
exactly how we stack or occupy this facility going forward. the item before you today is a ratification of a explicit negotiating agreement and letter of intent. that is the item that's before you, nothing more than that. that includes [speaker not understood], a classic way of participating in a public/private partnership agreement, as well an obligation to create up to $250,000 towards schematic design. and that will help inform our ability to understand exactly how we best populate this building so that when we return to you -- and i'll outline those returns in a moment, we'll have much more detail. so, we needed that flexibility to expend some schematic designs to move this project forward.
9:10 pm
as in the report you can see it is estimated -- this is the city's part of the project. this is for the office building, around $253 million. that translates to $52 1 a square foot in delivered space ~. that's a total hard and soft costs along with the allocation of the land loss. to put that in perspective, $52 1 square foot cost, of a brand-new lead certified building with seismic conditionses that are beyond standard and with day care facility and with open space. so, that $52 1 would be compared to -- i'll give you the last five transactions in the city and county of san francisco of like buildings in terms of size. 600 a foot, 6 20 a foot, 750 a foot, 725 a foot, 590 a foot. that's not new building. that's existing building.
9:11 pm
we feel this compares favorably with other opportunities in the marketplace. [speaker not understood] the civic center operations are important as well. so, that's the bottom line that the loiena that's before you now. just want to remind you you're going to see a lot of me between now and the time that the doors open in late 2018. so, we'll have a number of trips. the next one coming up will be in the fall. we'll come to you with the purchase and sale agreement. that will be informed by that schematic design effort i mentioned. at that point we'll begin to commit additional fiscally -- fiscal objectly gaytions, but also begin to move forward with the ceqa process. this is all subject to ceqa's completion and analysis of options with respect to develop then we'll come back to you, you'll see it on your [speaker not understood].
9:12 pm
that could be in the fall of 15, early 16. after ceqa approval, then we would return for ratification of the purchase and [speaker not understood] agreement. [speaker not understood] as we approach completion of construction and move in late 2018. so, hopefully that schedule helps, give you some context. there are a number of amendments that have been proposed by the budget analyst. we are happy with those amendments and would intend to return this fall with the additional information requested in those amendments. >> thank you, mr. updike. supervisor mar? >> yeah, i wanted to just comment to mr. updike, i'm realizing also in reading the budget analyst report, reviewing it more closely, that it not only department of public works building inspection and planning, but it looks like it's also the retirement department and health service systems that would be consolidated into more centralized location. and given how much the rents
9:13 pm
have been increasing commercial property i'm seeing the tremendous benefit to the city for those. i did want to ask, the head of mayor's office and housing is here. i know the 550 units proposed and 110 below market rate is cited a a goal. and i know that we're looking at middle income residence as well. but i'm wondering if you can comment on the tremendous need for below market rate units and what you're doing to ensure that we're going to have enough to that, for example, workers from good will would be able to afford to live in the building they used to work in. >> supervisors, olson lee, director of mayor's office of housing. as director updike mentioned we're very early in the process, and the level of affordability specified in
9:14 pm
these agreements are related to the use of taxes and bonds for the financing of this development. so, these units will be affordable. at no greater than 50% of median income. so, they're going to be relatively affordable. and i presume that the workers of good will would be income eligible for those, those particular units. one of the questions is, you know, are they, in fact, low enough to actually serve those employees. but the base obligation for any new multi-family development based upon prop c is 12%. and, so, this is an increase in that air of affordability by 8 percentage points. so, there are going to be over 130 units of affordable housing here at 50% of income for which
9:15 pm
the mayor's office of housing community development is not subsidizing it. and we will actually be the other party responsible for issuing the bonds and monitoring the ongoing affordability and ensuring that the owner is indeed serving, you know, folks at 50%, the median income and below. the mayor's office of housing sees this apart of a larger strategy as we create market rate housing, we are creating indeed affordable housing and this is a classic example of that. is it enough affordable housing? it's never enough, and we agree he with the board on that. we are also looking at other ways of trying to create affordable housing in other particular sites. as you may know, we have spent a lot of time this summer with the housing working group trying to look at the question of middle income housing and
9:16 pm
what some of the tools might be and where it would be most suitable to do t. we haven't found that magic program at this point and the source in which to do it, ~ but we are currently looking at a variety of ways to encourage and produce and ensure that there will be a band of affordable housing serving that particular middle. this may or may not be the site for it, but clearly the initial allocation of affordable units, the 20% is a significant increase over the baseline requirement for a building of this size. >> thank you. >> okay. seeing no other questions, mr. rose, can we get your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman and supervisor mar. a budget for the city's total
9:17 pm
estimated cost to purchase and develop the property and that budget is 253,285,0 80 dollars and that is shown in table 3 on page 78 of our report ~. on page 78 we also note, a mr. updike ha already stated, that this legislation would authorize nonrefundable payment of the city $1 million toward land acquisition costs and up to 250,000 for initial schematic design costs. on page 81, we have our recommendations. we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution [speaker not understood] prior to the date the board of supervisors must endorse the purchase and sale agreement on october 31st, 2014. and that report should provide details on the space
9:18 pm
requirements of the city debtsv and the proposed uses such as training board room, space for occupying the new office building, including long term staffing [speaker not understood], also explain the option for big filling [speaker not understood] allowing them to relocate to the new office building and provide details on the space requirements and recommend poe tension project alternative if the increase in space is not required by dpw, dbi, city planning or other city departments slated to occupy the new office building and describe the real estate [speaker not understood] to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> okay, thank you, mr. rose. mr. updike, is your department
9:19 pm
okay with these proposed recommendations? >> yes, we are. >> okay. if no other questions at this time, we'll open this up to public comment. if anybody wishes to comment on item number 26? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor mar, we have our budget analyst recommendation. he >> so move the recommendations by the budget analyst. >> take the underlying objection. ~ gov. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you call our 10:30 special meeting? >> item number 1, resolution did he nating central city extra to be the neighborhood outreach newspaper of the city and county for the central city neighborhood; northside publications/marina times to be the neighborhood outreach knew paper of the city and county for the northern san francisco neighborhood; west portal monthly to be the neighborhood outreach newspaper of the city and county for the west portal neighborhood; and potrero view to be the neighborhood outreach knew paper of the city and county for the potrero hill, dogpatch, bayview, soma, mission bay neighborhoods to provide outreach advertising for fiscal year 2014-2015. >> okay, thanks. we have our office of contract administration here. thank you. >> good afternoon, chairman farrell and supervisor mar. thank you for hearing me. my name is deirdre darling. i'm representing the office of contract administration and i'm
9:20 pm
here requesting your recommendation and approval for a resolution designating certain periodicals of the city's outreach periodical for the upcoming fiscal year. outreach advertising is intended to meet the public information needs of those communities and neighborhoods which may not be adequately served by the official newspapers. the contract term would start august 1 and go through june 30 of 2015. the estimated contract value is $18,000 to be divided between the awarded periodicals. the admin code requires the purchaser each year to invite bids for outreach advertising for the next fiscal year. the code specifies certain minimum requirement periodical
9:21 pm
must meet in the environment [speaker not understood]. the purchaser performs the valuation and reports the point totals to the board and makes recommendations. historically [speaker not understood] and made its recommendation to the board based on the response of bidder with the highest point total for the outreach communities. the admin code also states, there upon, the board of supervisors shall by resolution choose and designate periodicals as the outreach periodicalses of the city and county for the ensuing fiscal year. the board of supervisors in past years had decided to designate more than one periodical per outreach community in certain neighborhoods in san francisco and have split the contracts between most, if not all bidders who responded whether or not they were responsive to meeting all the requirements. oca sent bids to approximately 50 newspapers and received 11
9:22 pm
responseses. of those 11 responses, six were responsive. the six newspapers are marina time, central city extra, west portal monthly, potrero view, small business exchange, and bay area reporter. we also received five bids from periodicals that were nonresponsive because they were either printed outside of san francisco or were not printed frequently enough. ~ to meet the admin code requirements. those newspapers are the san francisco bayview, [speaker not understood] daily, world journal, and [speaker not understood], also the western he edition. in conclusion, the purchaser has drafted the resolutions for outreach periodicalses based on
9:23 pm
the past practice of recommending the bidders who are responsive with the highest point score. ~ the board of supervisors has the option to exercise its discretion to designate the recommended periodicals or if the board so chooses, to follow past practice to split the contract between most, if not all of the periodicals who submitted bids. last year [speaker not understood] were awarded to all who submitted bids. are there any questions? >> okay, thanks very much. >> a real quick question. >> sure, supervisor mar. >> are there any requirements from language access ordinance on how notice needs to be in languages by language minority populations? i'm just wondering because i know the small business exchange being designated for
9:24 pm
the latino or chinese or immigrant communities, i'm just wondering if they have the abilities to communicate in languageses other than english. so, i'm just asking what are the requirements under our language access ordinance or even just that we follow so that populations that might not be proficient in english would still have adequate notice from our city. >> well, i'm not familiar with the language ordinance. the admin code 2.8 does not require that the notices be published in any particular language. however, the outreach newspapers that represent the chinese community and hispanic community tend to be published in that language. the small business exchange is a little different. they represent minority small business owners.
9:25 pm
we do have non-responsive bid submissions from foreign language newspapers [speaker not understood], publishes in spanish. cinta daily and world journal publish in chinese. >> thank you. >> mr. rose, do we have a report from you on this item? >> no, there is no report, supervisor. >> okay, thanks. so, we'll open this up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item number 1 hereof our special 10:30? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so, supervisor mar, we have options here, either to accept all the responsive bids or do what we have in past practice, broaden it to all the nonresponsive bids as well. i would say that would be my preference, better to be inclusive. [speaker not understood]. that would be my recommendation. >> i would support that. >> okay. so, we have a motion, then, to amend this item to accept both -- to split this contract up between all the responsive bids and the nonresponsive bids
9:26 pm
submitted. >> so move. >> thank you. >> that work? we can take that amendment without objection. [gavel] >> and the underlying item as amended we can also take that without objection. [gavel] >> thank you very much. madam clerk, do we have any other business in front of us? >> no, mr. chair. >> thanks, everyone. we are adjourned. [gavel]
9:27 pm
>> on december 28, 1912. san francisco mayor, sonny jim rolph stared into the crowds of those who have gathered. a moment in history. the birth of a publicly own transit system. san francisco municipal railway. muni as it would become to be known. happy birthday, muni, here is to the next 100 years. the birth of muni had been a long-time coming. over the years the city was disjointed privately owned companies. horses and steam and electric-powered vehicles. creating a hodgepodge of transit options. none of them particularly
9:28 pm
satisfying to city residents. the city transit system like the city itself would have changes during the san francisco earthquake. the transition that will pursue from this aftermath would change san francisco's transportation system once again. facilitated by city boss, abe ruth, ushering in the electric city car. the writing was on the wall. the clammer had begun for the experiment including public transit people. owned by the people and for the people. the idea of a consolidated city-owned transit system had begun traction. and in 1909, voters went to the
9:29 pm
polls and created a bond measure to create the people's railway. would become a reality three years later. on december 28, 1912, mayor sonny rolph introduced the new geary electric streetcar line and the new san francisco railway. that he said would be the nucleus that would host the city. and san francisco gave further incentive to expand the city's network. a project by way of tunnel leading into chinatown by way of north beach. in december the first streetcar
9:30 pm
was driven into the tunnel. just two years after its berth, muni had added two lines. and k, l and m lines that span out from westportal. in 1928, the j line opened heading west to the beach. in 1944 san francisco voters finally approved muni take-over of the market street railway. by then motor bus and trolley bus improvement had given them the ability to conquer san francisco's hills. after the war most of the street-car lines would be replaced with motor or trolley bus service. in 1947, the mayor recommended replacing two lines with motor coaches. and it appeared that san francisco's iconic cable cars ha