CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY PROGRAM
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
___________________________________________________________
Meeting Minutes
for
Monday, May 16, 2005 at 4:00 PM
city hall
1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, room 408
Present: Chair richard lee, Vice Chair James Reilly, Mr. Jay bradshaw, Mr. Bruce Engle, Ms. Jill Fox, Ms. lori bammerger (sitting in for Mr. Matthew O. Franklin), Sister bernie galvin, Ms. Ana B. Gutierrez and Mr. leroy moore, Jr.
Absent: Ms. Jamie Armstrong, Mr. Scott clark, Mr. tomas lee and Mr. Ben Rosenfield
Staff: Mr. Joel Lipski, Ms. Joan McNamara and Ms. Lynn Hua
Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM. Roll call was conducted and a quorum was recognized, with four members absent.
2. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting
A motion to approve the April 18, 2005 meeting minutes was made by Mr. Bradshaw and seconded by Mr. Moore. The committee unanimously approved the motion.
3. Director’s Report
Mr. Lipski reported that the process to identify additional surplus properties for jurisdictional transfer to the Mayor’s Office of Housing under the Surplus City Property Program is underway. City departments have until June 1st to identify surplus properties and to submit them to the Department of Real Estate. Mr. Lipski also informed the committee that 341 Corbett St. would be presented at the June 20th meeting and the Roosevelt Way site at the July 18th meeting.
4. Consideration of Main Menu
(a) 150 Otis Street Site
Ms. Joan McNamara, Program Manager, presented data pertaining to the development potential of the site for priority uses under the Surplus City Property Ordinance. The building is located in the South of Market-Mission neighborhood, between McCoppin and Duboce. Currently, it is being used by the Department of Human Services as a storage facility to store possessions of homeless residents. The building was originally used as the City’s Juvenile Hall and Detention Home in the early 1900’s. It is comprised of a 9-story masonry building above a raised basement. The structure is steel–reinforced concrete and has two elevators and two sets of stairs. The building is in the process of being designated as a city landmark, which means that the exterior façade of the building must be preserved. The site is zoned P (Public), and would need to be rezoned to accommodate any other use. The nearest residential zoning is RM-1, which allows one dwelling per 800 sq. ft. of lot (23 units for this site). This density may be doubled for senior or disabled housing (46 units). Group housing (housing without individual cooking facilities) is also permitted at a somewhat higher density (68 SRO’s).
The Mayor’s Office of Housing enlisted Asian Neighborhood Design (AND) to evaluate how housing opportunities could be maximized at the site. It was concluded that 64 SRO units would be the maximum and would involve reconfiguring and rehabilitating the building to create housing units on floors 2-9, with social services and office spaces on the ground floor. Based on the proposed plan, an independent 3rd party cost estimator submitted an Opinion of Probable Cost of $9,978,113 with the addition of standard contingencies the total construction costs would be $10,975,924. Staff projected that total development costs would be approximately $16,244,368. From the information reviewed and an analysis of projected costs, staff recommended that the building continue to serve Priority #2 under the Surplus City Property Ordinance, which is to provide services for people who are homeless. The recommendation by staff was based on 3 factors: 1) the property would be relatively expensive to develop compared to projects that have been completed or in MOH’s pipeline; 2) the building has structural limitations that don’t allow for efficient use of the floor space; and 3) given the nature of a substantial rehabilitation project, there would likely be significant unforeseen additional costs.
Rob Rich, Senior Construction Manager at the Mayor’s Office of Housing, explained that the building has large supporting columns on all 9 floors, which would put limitation on efficient use of the space. Floors 1-3 are 5,178 sq. ft. each, whereas floors 4–9 are smaller, measuring approximately 3,500 sq. ft. each. Seismic retrofit would be a major issue for the building. The cost estimation of $10 million was based on a 75% seismic rehab standard and not on a 100% seismic retrofit to current code. A new elevator tower would need to be built since the current one is inaccessible. All windows in the building would need to be replaced and most likely would have to compliment the historical nature of the façade.
Kim Fergison, from the Department of Human Services, wanted to clarify that the funding from the state is a deferred loan and not a grant. The Mayor’s Office of Disability and the Department of Building Inspection have both reviewed and approved the plans. The Planning Department is currently reviewing the plans to ensure that the façade of the building is maintained. DHS plans on pulling a permit within a month and start the bidding process. The department would like to get the winter emergency shelter open in November this year and is on an aggressive time schedule. The shelter would have a maximum of 50 beds and be for men only.
Ms. Bamberger asked for clarification on the cost per unit for the project as compare to previous Mayor’s Office of Housing projects. Ms. McNamara responded that for 150 Otis Street, the cost per unit would be approximately 54% more than the average cost of previous MOH’s rehabilitation projects and 17% more than previous new construction projects.
Vice-chair Reilly inquired DHS what the overall cost would be for the temporary shelter. Ms. Fergison responded that the cost of the shelter would be from the $469,000 loan from the state and $100,000 of general funds from the city.
Vice-chair Reilly commented that putting 50 beds into the building would be underutilizing the property and expressed his interest in selling the property. He felt that the property would be worth $3 to $4 million on the open market. Mr. Reilly pointed out that the language in the Surplus City Property Ordinance states that it shall be City policy to encourage the sale of surplus properties that are determined by the Mayor’s Office of Housing to be unsuitable for housing development and to designate use of the net proceeds of such sales for the purpose of financing affordable housing in San Francisco. Ms. McNamara explained that staff looked into the option of selling the property, but because of the encroachment issue and the historical significant of the site, staff felt that the property would not provide a substantial amount of revenue if sold on the open market. Mr. Lipski added that selling the property would prevent it from being use for the 2nd priority of the Surplus City Property Ordinance.
Sister Galvin commented that it is much easier to find space for services than it is for housing. She is concerned of the high estimated cost presented by staff and expressed that she would like to see more cost comparisons.
Public Comment
Mr. Mel Beetle, of Canon Kip Senior Center, commented that more and more seniors are becoming homeless and there is a need for seniors and disabled housing. He felt that SRO units in the building would not meet the needs of the seniors and disabled population.
Mr. John Melone, of Doris Campus Senior Outreach, commented that he will soon lose his $339 a month unit and that there is a high need for senior housing in the city.
Ms. Delbert Scott, of the Senior Housing Action Coalition, commented that she is opened to the idea of having SRO units in the building.
Ms. Barbara Blong, of Senior Housing Action Coalition, informed the committee that there is plenty of money left in Proposition 46 for housing for the homeless population. The city can apply for more Proposition 46 funds if needed. Ms. Blond commented that the building has been empty for many years and that she would like to see senior housing at the site.
Public Comment Closed
After much discussion, a motion was made by Ms. Fox to direct staff to explore the feasibility of selling 150 Otis Street on the private market for a fair market value and to have staff provide an update of the process at the next meeting. The item will be continued to a future meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reilly and unanimously approved.
5. Committee Members’ Questions and Matters
None
6. Public Comment
None
Public Comment Closed
7. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 PM.