Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240714

Consider this to be the jewel of the bart system, then you have to actually have some information on the bart system. I think we should include under criteria a, as well. Thing here. Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. When i first moved to the bay area, more than 30 years ago, i got on bart and was told to get off at the glen park bart station. It is the pleasure of fabulous architecture. You suddenly have experienced a building and you really experience that one. It is a stunning building. It is so worthy. I agree with what the prior two commissioners have said and i do wonder, at this jewel, this stunning piece of architecture is going 47 years without significant alteration and 47 years without any cleaning. [laughter] i would like to make a motion to approve adopt the resolution to adopt the approval. I seconded. Thank you. If theres nothing further, theres a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That passes unanimously 50. This is an informational presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners i am from planning staff. With me today are lily and alison, also with the Planning Department. The purpose of todays presentation is to provide you with information regarding the market octavia plan amendment or the hub plan with a special focus on Historic Resources. Lilly will begin with a presentation describing the plan and i will followup with the description of Historic Resources within the plant area, including those that were newly identified in preparation for the plan. Please note that they have been prepared for the plan. Good afternoon, commissioners i am with the longrange Planning Division of the department and i have been working on this effort for the last three years or so. With the draft e. I. R. Coming out next week, we have been doing updates to various Community Groups and we are at the Planning Commission last week and wanted to come to you as well. I will provide a brief overview of the project and our key recommendations, and it is a pretty broad overview so im happy to answer any questions or follow up with you after this. The market octavia plan was adopted in 2008 and that plan really set the framework for the hub. The hub was envisioned as this area for High Density Residential development. The area was rezoned to allow towers at market and van ness and mission and south venice in a special use district was created to support the development, but while the plans set the framework for development, the department did not receive applications until and so in 2016, we took a step back and took another look at the area holistically to see if there were opportunities to include the amount of housing and particularly Affordable Housing. It is not showing up. Sorry, hold on. San francisco government t. V. , can you go to the computer, please . Sorry, that is not what is on the computer screen. Talking to a ghost. [laughter] its okay, we need a little break. Okay. Ready . We are ready. Can you see the presentation on your screen . We see what the tvc his we see what the t. V. Sees. All right, we will switch to the overhead projector. Good oldfashioned paper does the job. You can see it. I will try and stay organized as i said, the market octavia plan was adopted in 2008. We received of element applications in 2012. We initiated a planning process to look at the area holistically over the course of the last three years, we had four public workshops, each focusing on different themes, doing outreach to various neighborhood organizations and we started the Environmental Review process in october of 2017. Were expecting the draft e. I. R. To come out next week with looking towards plan adoption in winter of 2020. So this work is really informed by three main goals. The first is to increase the amount of housing and Affordable Housing near transit. The second is to coordinate public realm improvements. Theres a lot of projects that are active in this area so were really looking at how the streets fit together and how those projects interface with the streets. And then the last is to update the market in octavia Implementation Plan with additional Infrastructure Projects that could be found with impact fees. So this effort will result in amending the existing plan, updating the height map, the zoning map, some of the policies , making planning code in general plan amendments and as i mentioned, updating Implementation Plan there are a number of projects in this area at different stages in the Development Process and i think sometimes that can be confusing. There is a number projects that have been entitled and are currently built. Many of these projects are on a Market Street or on van ness, including 150 venice, 100 van ness, 1600 market. Then there is other projects that are currently under construction. If you walk to our office from here, you will see screens in this guy, 30 otis with a former carpet store that is currently under construction right now. Theres a lot of activity happening. There is also a project that has been entitled and have not yet started construction. This includes 1601 mission, the carwash across the street from our office, one oh, there is a handful of these projects. And then there are three projects that we are currently reviewing right now. That includes ten south van ness , 30 venice and 98 franklin. These projects are seeking additional height. The next item i just wanted to walk through some related efforts that have been informing our work. The first is around Affordable Housing. I mentioned that a primary goal of this was to increase the amount of housing in the amount of Affordable Housing, and when we started this work, we were looking at increasing the Affordable Housing requirement. In june of 2016, voters passed prop see which increased the requirement citywide. This table shows the column on the left and shows what the requirements where when we started this project, so if you were doing a project on site, the requirement was 12 , and now , with the changes in effect, if you are doing a project on site, it is 20 . The requirements have increased by about two thirds since we started this. The second work that we have been doing with this to strategic Economic Consulting Company Based in berkeley. We have been testing Feasibility Analysis to really see if there is an opportunity to increase fees or raise the Affordable Housing requirements for these projects. They have been doing a number of rounds of testing for us and what they have found so far is that there really is limited capacity to raise fees or increase the requirements. This is both for the Small Projects as well as the towers. This is really a trend we are seeing citywide. We are seeing Construction Cost of almost doubled since 2013 and have been increased 5 for next last year. And the Affordable Housing requirements have increased. We are trying to balance to making sure that the development happens, but also making sure we maximize Public Benefits. We will do another round of analysis with them prior to plan adoption. The other project i wanted to mention is the study of the venice station, looking at capacity, particularly vertical circulation, from the sidewalk all the way down to the platform they are working with peers and have doing counts within the station over a peak and nonpeak times. And so far there pull many results have shown that there is capacity for vertical circulation from the sidewalk to the mezzanine. It gets more crowded from the mezzanine to the platform, and the platforms, as we have all experienced, are quite crowded, they found that this is broadly due to the location of where the trains are stopping in the location of the stairways and the escalators. They are going to be developing further recommendations and cost estimates, and they will be publishing report in the fall. On the last study that i wanted to mention is the Community Stabilization strategy. So recognizing that the city is in an Affordable Housing crisis, in 2017 we initiated this strategy to really understand what the city is doing with respect to the preservation, protection and both housing and commercial tenants. We are anticipating a draft strategy to be released in the fall, and this would include recommendations to enhance or modify existing city programs. Many of these strategies could be applied to neighborhood such as the hub. So now i will quickly walk through our recommendations. The first is for land use. Currently there are two Zoning Districts in this area. N. C. T. , and c3 tee. And for the most part, the uses that are allowed in these districts are pretty similar. The biggest difference is the c3 district is also within the special use district that has a Fee Associated with it that generates money for both infrastructure and Affordable Housing. We are proposing to rezone the whole area and make some amendments to really meet some of the goals that we have been talking about. A little bit more flexibility for nonresidential uses, lower parking requirements not allowing a conditional use for additional parking, and then requirements or micro retail consistent with what we did in central soma. The next topic is height. Part of this proposal is looking at locations where we think adding a little bit more height makes sense from both an urban form standpoint and a feasibility standpoint. We are proposing to raise heights on 18 different sites. Today, towers are between 250 feet and 400 feet and are allowed at market and venice. Most of the remaining heights are around 85 or 120. We are proposing to raise heights on 18 sights. These are shown in orange. I know it is very hard to see but i can point you to where it is on the website. Towers are between 250 feet and 690 feet would be allowed at market and then ness and mission and south bend. I will just highlight for you that the biggest transformation and change that we are going to see here is the buildout under the existing zoning. The increase of height on these 18 parcels as an additional 1600 units, which is quite significant, but really the greatest transformation is the changeover what is allowed under the current controls. Given all the changes inland use that we anticipate and the increase in the number of people that will be living and working here, we wanted to look at how the streets all work, and we developed street designs for the major streets and alleys, and released a public wrong plan that has Detailed Design and all the streets are being covered in the e. I. R. So the last piece of is around Public Development with development and Developers Pay impact fees to the city to fund Infrastructure Projects. So there are five main categories in the planning code of where impact fee money gets spent or allocated. This is Affordable Housing, transit, streets, child care and schools, and open space. We are anticipating, with the rezoning of these 18 sites, about a 30 increase in Public Benefits. We have detailed recommendations for projects in each of these categories, which i can talk to if you have questions, but this is just a summary in terms of what we are projecting. I will just conclude for our next steps, the draft e. I. R. Will be coming out next week. We are going to be refining the Public Benefits package based on the feedback that we here. Will be drafting the planning code amendments and the general plan amendments, we are continuing to work with the active Development Projects that we are reviewing right now to make sure that there street improvements are consistent with this plan, and we are expecting adoption in winter of 2020. I will now turn it over. Thank you. Now to go over the Historic Resources briefly, the planner contains numerous Historic Resources as depicted on this map. If you can see the boundaries of the area, they are shown in red. Sequel Historic Resources are shown in yellow, and the historic districts are shown in a variety of shades as described in the legend. Several of the individual resources and historic districts within the plant area were designated under articles ten and 11 of the planning code. The area also contains Historic Resources that were identified in past adopted surveys that covered all or part of the area including the here today survey, the market and octavia area plan Historic Resource survey, the automotive support structure survey, the central freeway replacement project and the south of market Historic Resources survey. Several Additional Resources were identified through the sequel project review process. A new survey was prepared in conjunction with the hub area plan e. I. R. This survey, the Historical Resource survey or the hub survey was conducted between 2018 and 2019 to develop a comprehensive inventory of all Properties Within the hub plan area, along with the california register of Historical Resources and eligibility findings. A plenary analysis of the hub plan area determine 27 buildings within the area require new evaluations. This was either because the buildings had not been preselected for intensive level evaluation and past surveys, or not age eligible at the time of the surveys, meaning they were not yet 45 years old. New information has come to light indicating potential new areas of significance and this usually had to do with either lgbt queue history or modern architectural history, or they had designations or evaluations that were not determined to be submission sufficient. Of the 27 buildings evaluated, five are identified as individually eligible Historic Resources and this includes the San Francisco womens center, brady street and this building hows the San Francisco Womens Centre and San Franciscos women s switchboard in the 1970 s, was determined eligible under criterion one as an embodiment of the San Francisco Womens Movement during a period of which the physical imprints on the building environment were exceedingly rare. The peer to significance as 1973 to 1979. The San Francisco cannabis buyer s club at 1438 to 1434 Market Street. This building was determined eligible for listing in the california register under criterion one as a site of the country his first medical marijuana dispensary, which occupied the building during a significant time in the medical Marijuana Legalization movement. It is also significant under criterion two for some association with prominent Marijuana Legalization activists 1618 to 24 Howard Street is significant under criterion three. It is an intact example of the relatively rare flat type of residential building executed in the edwardian area of classical revival style. The period of significance is 1910, the year of the buildings construction. And then finally, the San Francisco Human Services Agency Building at 170 otis street was determined eligible under criterion three as a high style example of the brutalist style, which is comparatively rare in San Francisco. The period of significance is 1978, which is the year of the buildings construction. It should be noted that three of these new Historic Resources assume their significance less than 50 years ago under california register criteria. Property less than 50 years old maybe identified as a Historic Resource if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed for scholarly perspective to inform to have formed on the buildings significance. The Planning Department is found this to be the case for these three buildings. This concludes this presentation please note that the draft e. I. R. For the area plan will be presented to this commission for review and comment at its his august 7th hearing. Thank you. What any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Close Planning Department<\/a>. The purpose of todays presentation is to provide you with information regarding the market octavia plan amendment or the hub plan with a special focus on Historic Resources<\/a>. Lilly will begin with a presentation describing the plan and i will followup with the description of Historic Resources<\/a> within the plant area, including those that were newly identified in preparation for the plan. Please note that they have been prepared for the plan. Good afternoon, commissioners i am with the longrange Planning Division<\/a> of the department and i have been working on this effort for the last three years or so. With the draft e. I. R. Coming out next week, we have been doing updates to various Community Groups<\/a> and we are at the Planning Commission<\/a> last week and wanted to come to you as well. I will provide a brief overview of the project and our key recommendations, and it is a pretty broad overview so im happy to answer any questions or follow up with you after this. The market octavia plan was adopted in 2008 and that plan really set the framework for the hub. The hub was envisioned as this area for High Density Residential<\/a> development. The area was rezoned to allow towers at market and van ness and mission and south venice in a special use district was created to support the development, but while the plans set the framework for development, the department did not receive applications until and so in 2016, we took a step back and took another look at the area holistically to see if there were opportunities to include the amount of housing and particularly Affordable Housing<\/a>. It is not showing up. Sorry, hold on. San francisco government t. V. , can you go to the computer, please . Sorry, that is not what is on the computer screen. Talking to a ghost. [laughter] its okay, we need a little break. Okay. Ready . We are ready. Can you see the presentation on your screen . We see what the tvc his we see what the t. V. Sees. All right, we will switch to the overhead projector. Good oldfashioned paper does the job. You can see it. I will try and stay organized as i said, the market octavia plan was adopted in 2008. We received of element applications in 2012. We initiated a planning process to look at the area holistically over the course of the last three years, we had four public workshops, each focusing on different themes, doing outreach to various neighborhood organizations and we started the Environmental Review<\/a> process in october of 2017. Were expecting the draft e. I. R. To come out next week with looking towards plan adoption in winter of 2020. So this work is really informed by three main goals. The first is to increase the amount of housing and Affordable Housing<\/a> near transit. The second is to coordinate public realm improvements. Theres a lot of projects that are active in this area so were really looking at how the streets fit together and how those projects interface with the streets. And then the last is to update the market in octavia Implementation Plan<\/a> with additional Infrastructure Projects<\/a> that could be found with impact fees. So this effort will result in amending the existing plan, updating the height map, the zoning map, some of the policies , making planning code in general plan amendments and as i mentioned, updating Implementation Plan<\/a> there are a number of projects in this area at different stages in the Development Process<\/a> and i think sometimes that can be confusing. There is a number projects that have been entitled and are currently built. Many of these projects are on a Market Street<\/a> or on van ness, including 150 venice, 100 van ness, 1600 market. Then there is other projects that are currently under construction. If you walk to our office from here, you will see screens in this guy, 30 otis with a former carpet store that is currently under construction right now. Theres a lot of activity happening. There is also a project that has been entitled and have not yet started construction. This includes 1601 mission, the carwash across the street from our office, one oh, there is a handful of these projects. And then there are three projects that we are currently reviewing right now. That includes ten south van ness , 30 venice and 98 franklin. These projects are seeking additional height. The next item i just wanted to walk through some related efforts that have been informing our work. The first is around Affordable Housing<\/a>. I mentioned that a primary goal of this was to increase the amount of housing in the amount of Affordable Housing<\/a>, and when we started this work, we were looking at increasing the Affordable Housing<\/a> requirement. In june of 2016, voters passed prop see which increased the requirement citywide. This table shows the column on the left and shows what the requirements where when we started this project, so if you were doing a project on site, the requirement was 12 , and now , with the changes in effect, if you are doing a project on site, it is 20 . The requirements have increased by about two thirds since we started this. The second work that we have been doing with this to strategic Economic Consulting<\/a> Company Based<\/a> in berkeley. We have been testing Feasibility Analysis<\/a> to really see if there is an opportunity to increase fees or raise the Affordable Housing<\/a> requirements for these projects. They have been doing a number of rounds of testing for us and what they have found so far is that there really is limited capacity to raise fees or increase the requirements. This is both for the Small Projects<\/a> as well as the towers. This is really a trend we are seeing citywide. We are seeing Construction Cost<\/a> of almost doubled since 2013 and have been increased 5 for next last year. And the Affordable Housing<\/a> requirements have increased. We are trying to balance to making sure that the development happens, but also making sure we maximize Public Benefits<\/a>. We will do another round of analysis with them prior to plan adoption. The other project i wanted to mention is the study of the venice station, looking at capacity, particularly vertical circulation, from the sidewalk all the way down to the platform they are working with peers and have doing counts within the station over a peak and nonpeak times. And so far there pull many results have shown that there is capacity for vertical circulation from the sidewalk to the mezzanine. It gets more crowded from the mezzanine to the platform, and the platforms, as we have all experienced, are quite crowded, they found that this is broadly due to the location of where the trains are stopping in the location of the stairways and the escalators. They are going to be developing further recommendations and cost estimates, and they will be publishing report in the fall. On the last study that i wanted to mention is the Community Stabilization<\/a> strategy. So recognizing that the city is in an Affordable Housing<\/a> crisis, in 2017 we initiated this strategy to really understand what the city is doing with respect to the preservation, protection and both housing and commercial tenants. We are anticipating a draft strategy to be released in the fall, and this would include recommendations to enhance or modify existing city programs. Many of these strategies could be applied to neighborhood such as the hub. So now i will quickly walk through our recommendations. The first is for land use. Currently there are two Zoning Districts<\/a> in this area. N. C. T. , and c3 tee. And for the most part, the uses that are allowed in these districts are pretty similar. The biggest difference is the c3 district is also within the special use district that has a Fee Associated<\/a> with it that generates money for both infrastructure and Affordable Housing<\/a>. We are proposing to rezone the whole area and make some amendments to really meet some of the goals that we have been talking about. A little bit more flexibility for nonresidential uses, lower parking requirements not allowing a conditional use for additional parking, and then requirements or micro retail consistent with what we did in central soma. The next topic is height. Part of this proposal is looking at locations where we think adding a little bit more height makes sense from both an urban form standpoint and a feasibility standpoint. We are proposing to raise heights on 18 different sites. Today, towers are between 250 feet and 400 feet and are allowed at market and venice. Most of the remaining heights are around 85 or 120. We are proposing to raise heights on 18 sights. These are shown in orange. I know it is very hard to see but i can point you to where it is on the website. Towers are between 250 feet and 690 feet would be allowed at market and then ness and mission and south bend. I will just highlight for you that the biggest transformation and change that we are going to see here is the buildout under the existing zoning. The increase of height on these 18 parcels as an additional 1600 units, which is quite significant, but really the greatest transformation is the changeover what is allowed under the current controls. Given all the changes inland use that we anticipate and the increase in the number of people that will be living and working here, we wanted to look at how the streets all work, and we developed street designs for the major streets and alleys, and released a public wrong plan that has Detailed Design<\/a> and all the streets are being covered in the e. I. R. So the last piece of is around Public Development<\/a> with development and Developers Pay<\/a> impact fees to the city to fund Infrastructure Projects<\/a>. So there are five main categories in the planning code of where impact fee money gets spent or allocated. This is Affordable Housing<\/a>, transit, streets, child care and schools, and open space. We are anticipating, with the rezoning of these 18 sites, about a 30 increase in Public Benefits<\/a>. We have detailed recommendations for projects in each of these categories, which i can talk to if you have questions, but this is just a summary in terms of what we are projecting. I will just conclude for our next steps, the draft e. I. R. Will be coming out next week. We are going to be refining the Public Benefits<\/a> package based on the feedback that we here. Will be drafting the planning code amendments and the general plan amendments, we are continuing to work with the active Development Projects<\/a> that we are reviewing right now to make sure that there street improvements are consistent with this plan, and we are expecting adoption in winter of 2020. I will now turn it over. Thank you. Now to go over the Historic Resources<\/a> briefly, the planner contains numerous Historic Resources<\/a> as depicted on this map. If you can see the boundaries of the area, they are shown in red. Sequel Historic Resources<\/a> are shown in yellow, and the historic districts are shown in a variety of shades as described in the legend. Several of the individual resources and historic districts within the plant area were designated under articles ten and 11 of the planning code. The area also contains Historic Resources<\/a> that were identified in past adopted surveys that covered all or part of the area including the here today survey, the market and octavia area plan Historic Resource<\/a> survey, the automotive support structure survey, the central freeway replacement project and the south of market Historic Resources<\/a> survey. Several Additional Resources<\/a> were identified through the sequel project review process. A new survey was prepared in conjunction with the hub area plan e. I. R. This survey, the Historical Resource<\/a> survey or the hub survey was conducted between 2018 and 2019 to develop a comprehensive inventory of all Properties Within<\/a> the hub plan area, along with the california register of Historical Resource<\/a>s and eligibility findings. A plenary analysis of the hub plan area determine 27 buildings within the area require new evaluations. This was either because the buildings had not been preselected for intensive level evaluation and past surveys, or not age eligible at the time of the surveys, meaning they were not yet 45 years old. New information has come to light indicating potential new areas of significance and this usually had to do with either lgbt queue history or modern architectural history, or they had designations or evaluations that were not determined to be submission sufficient. Of the 27 buildings evaluated, five are identified as individually eligible Historic Resources<\/a> and this includes the San Francisco<\/a> womens center, brady street and this building hows the San Francisco<\/a> Womens Centre<\/a> and San Francisco<\/a>s women s switchboard in the 1970 s, was determined eligible under criterion one as an embodiment of the San Francisco<\/a> Womens Movement<\/a> during a period of which the physical imprints on the building environment were exceedingly rare. The peer to significance as 1973 to 1979. The San Francisco<\/a> cannabis buyer s club at 1438 to 1434 Market Street<\/a>. This building was determined eligible for listing in the california register under criterion one as a site of the country his first medical marijuana dispensary, which occupied the building during a significant time in the medical Marijuana Legalization<\/a> movement. It is also significant under criterion two for some association with prominent Marijuana Legalization<\/a> activists 1618 to 24 Howard Street<\/a> is significant under criterion three. It is an intact example of the relatively rare flat type of residential building executed in the edwardian area of classical revival style. The period of significance is 1910, the year of the buildings construction. And then finally, the San Francisco<\/a> Human Services<\/a> Agency Building<\/a> at 170 otis street was determined eligible under criterion three as a high style example of the brutalist style, which is comparatively rare in San Francisco<\/a>. The period of significance is 1978, which is the year of the buildings construction. It should be noted that three of these new Historic Resources<\/a> assume their significance less than 50 years ago under california register criteria. Property less than 50 years old maybe identified as a Historic Resource<\/a> if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed for scholarly perspective to inform to have formed on the buildings significance. The Planning Department<\/a> is found this to be the case for these three buildings. This concludes this presentation please note that the draft e. I. R. For the area plan will be presented to this commission for review and comment at its his august 7th hearing. Thank you. What any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Close Public Comment<\/a> and bring it back to the commission. Any comments or questions . I have a couple. Are there any of these Historic Resources<\/a> that we might want to consider adding to our landmark Designation Program<\/a> . Are there any that are on it . I dont think so. I dont believe so. The full list of Historic Resources<\/a> that were reviewed in conjunction with the hub survey were included digitally in your handouts. So if you like to take a look and recommend some for inclusion in the work program. I might want to have a look at that and see. And then the boundaries, so the market and octavia, the eastern boundaries are the same. Okay. And then do you have any sense on why some of the projects that have been entitled have not Broken Ground<\/a> . I can answer that. I think what we hear is just rising Construction Cost<\/a>s, labour costs. I know one oak was one. I can also contribute to that you have a mistake in the entitled projects. You have 42 otis street, which is my project. So it is also not entitled yet, which we are hoping to entitle in the next few weeks. Okay. But optimistic from the Planning Department<\/a>. It also says 16 units but it is 24 units. Okay. I will make that change. And the reason it is not going up yet because it is not entitled yet. [laughter] it will go as soon as he gets entitled. [laughter]. Anything else . Are we done . Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Adjourned. Shop dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of San Francisco<\/a> by supporting local Services Within<\/a> the neighborhood we help San Francisco<\/a> remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop dine in the 49 my name is jim woods im the founder of Woods Beer Company<\/a> and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that were reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside were having a lot of ingredient that get theres a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to Treasure Island<\/a> because we saw it as an amazing opportunity cant be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on Treasure Island<\/a> like minded Business Owners<\/a> with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a nobrainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting Small Business<\/a> those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and cant get that of minor or anywhere else and San Francisco<\/a> a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant well make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of San Francisco<\/a> and a vibrant community when i open up the paper every day, im just amazed at how many different Environmental Issues<\/a> keep popping up. When i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. It was really easy to sign up for the program. I just went online to cleanpowersf. Org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof it happened. Now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg e and i dont see any difference in paying now. If youre a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, its not going to change your bill at all. You can sign up online or call. Youll have the peace of mind knowing youre doing your part in your household to help the environment. [ gavel ]. Good morning, everyone. The meeting will come to order. This is the july 24, 2019, regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. I am sandra lee fewer, i am joined by supervisor Catherine Stefani<\/a> and supervisor mar who is sitting in today. Our clerk is ms. Linda wong. Colleagues may i have a motion to excuse supervisor rafael mandelman. Madam clerk, do you have any announcements . Clerk yes, please silence all cellphones and electronic devices. Anything to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. The items today will appear on the next agenda. Commissioner fewer thank you very much. Can you please call item New Brunswick<\/a> 1. Clerk item no. 1 is the resolution retroactively approving an agreement between the city and county of San Francisco<\/a> and the San Francisco<\/a> Bay Area Rapid<\/a> Transit District<\/a> bart regarding administration of Capital Funding<\/a> to fund half of the cost of the bart muni Market Street<\/a> entrance Modernization Project<\/a> with proceeds from the sale of general Obligation Bond<\/a>s, in an amount not to exceed 45,000,000 for an Agreement Term<\/a> from february 1, 2018, through december 31, 2025. Commissioner fewer thank you very much. Colleagues, last week we heard this item and continued it for more information. We heard from the bla last week. We may not need to hear the report again, but we are joined today by supervisor mar who was not here last week. Supervisor mar, would you like to hear from the bla . Supervisor mar i dont think thats necessary. I had a briefing from them already. Commissioner fewer thank you very much, supervisor mar. Lets bring up leo levinson from the toa and of course our elected bart representative bevin dusty. Thank you, chair fewer and committee members. I am the cfo for the San Francisco<\/a> mta and happy to be coming back here to supply more information on this item. Just briefly, this is an item for the mta to share with bart the cost of installing 21 can y canopies over the shared bart and mta stations along Market Street<\/a>. This is up to a 90 million project of which the mta would be agreeing to fund up to 45 million from general Obligation Bond<\/a> funds. Im very happy to have here carl holmes is the assistant general manager for bart and hes going to supply more details about this project. Commissioner fewer mr. Levinson, you mentioned 21 canopies, but in your powerpoint it mentions 22. There are two installed as pilots that helped with the costing of the remainder. There is 19 further that would be in the base contract that would be approved here within the 90. Then there are three others that could be an option under this. So the 22 would represent one more optional canopy, but this funding of 90 million would be for 21 canopies. Commissioner fewer for 21. As in the bla report. Commissioner fewer thank you very much. So carl. Thank you, leo. Thank you, supervisors, and thank you for acknowledging our board president. My name is carl holmes, assistant general manager. I lead the design and construction for most of the Capital Projects<\/a> for bart. First, i want to thank you for the partnership that we have with you and with sfnta. I also want to apologize for not having the right info last week. I believe there was a miscommunication, but we hope that were bringing the right data today. We normally do present to our own boards when we ask for approval of funds, so we understand the questions. First off, before i introduce tim chan who is our Group Manager<\/a> for stations planning, i will say that the main point of this i believe is the questions came with the questions of the cost. So ill just start by saying and tim will get into it as well we believe, i believe, it was the responsible thing to do with by having our engineers estimate be modified based on the lessons that we learned in our Pilot Program<\/a> that we have in San Francisco<\/a> at pal street station as well as the civic center station. This is our second pilot. So we had another pilot that we installed several years ago in 19th street in oakland. San francisco wanted a different design. So thats why we have this template that were proposing. It is more costly than what we had in oakland, however, we think that even with 2019 dollars the cost for our 19th street canopy, it was around 2. 3 million could be as high as 3 million. We have another canopy in downtown berkley using that same template. So we believe that was going to be the model. However, were willing to work with San Francisco<\/a> with public works, sfmta, and thats why were moving forward with this canopy design. There has been a history of engagement and tim will speak to the details of that. We have a lot of information thats in these slides. Theres six slides, including the cover, but i asked tim to just highlight some of the points and that way it allows for if theres questions, we would be happy to answer. I know supervisor fewer, you had a question about the quantities. So the 90 million is for 21 canopies. Weve got 19 that are in the base contract, two that includes the two pilots. So that 19 plus the two gets us to 21. We have options for three canopies, and that could allow for us to go to 24. This agreement that were asking for approval, the 90 million is requesting 45 million to be paid by city and county San Francisco<\/a>. This is an estimate. Were wanting to advertise this project and we want to have estimates better in line with the Market Conditions<\/a> and better in line with the lessons we learned on the Pilot Program<\/a>. We think thats the responsible thing to do and once we get the business that will verify that were closer aligned to the market. Commissioner fewer mr. Holmes, apologies for interrupting you. Just to clarify, the 90 million that we are talking about and discussing today will cover 21 canopies, as 19 base in the contract plus the two pilots . Thats correct. Commissioner fewer this does not include the option for three additional canopies that we have the option of adding on later on; is that correct . Thats correct. Commissioner fewer and the cost of the additional three canopies, do you have an estimate cost if we wanted to extend for three other stations how much that would be . I believe we do. I can make sure we have that if tim doesnt have it with my colleague sits behind me. Commissioner fewer thank you. Youre telling us you also installed these structures over the 19th street station in oakland; correct . At the 19th street bart station in oakland, you had constructed one of these canopies over there . Yes, thats correct. Commissioner fewer and that was at a cost of 2. 3 million . Yes, thats correct. Commissioner fewer and the one in berkley cost how much . That was around i believe it was 3 million. Commissioner fewer so from your pilot of the two, and i believe you mentioned civic center actually, i think it was the closer to 2. 5 million. It was a bigger canopy. We tried to isolate the cost because theres a number of station entrances so we tried to isolate the cost for that particular canopy. Commissioner fewer so weve had this pilot and theres been two pilots. I think what you mentioned briefly is that after doing the two pilots and the one was at civic center and the other one is at pal street, that your cost estimate that youre giving to us today incorporates what youve learned around the cost analysis or what might be needed during the construction of these 19 canopies; is that correct . Thats correct. Commissioner fewer okay. So and then you have here today with you someone that can respond. So actually i think what supervisor mandelman asked last week was about a cost analysis. So if we build these canopies over the escalators i think and i think during our meetings we have heard that the purpose of these canopies, one, is that it is required by state ordinance state code. Commissioner fewer state code. So we must have the canopies in accordance with state code, so theyre required. We the reason were doing this is because also wear and tear on the escalators, also to prohibit feces from getting stuck in the escalators and whether all that kind of stuff; is that correct . Yes, thats correct. Commissioner fewer so we know what were getting. And i think what you may not have mentioned which i got during your briefing and i wanted to share with my colleagues is that the 19th street bart Station Design<\/a> over in oakland is a different design than what the city and county requested because of better Market Street<\/a>. So because of better Market Street<\/a> they wanted a design element that was different than the 19th street bart one that added also additional costs because of the redesign of them. And then also each entrance canopy must be custom designed because of the site environment. Now, am i capturing that correctly . Absolutely correctly. Commissioner fewer okay. Great. Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to clarify because it is confusing and i think it is a little complicated and it is a hell of a lot of money. So your next speaker, please. Thank you. Commissioner fewer thank you, mr. Holmes. Tim chan, Group Manager<\/a>, stations planning. Good morning, supervisors. You did a great job. I feel like i dont have to say a lot, but i will add more information. So im not going to go through a lot of information that was provided at the briefing on monday. So what i can do is i can take questions towards the end. This is really just a list of the process that we went through. The information has not changed, so im going to move to the next slide. We did add this slide in providing an overview of the Market Street<\/a> canopy project. So i have 22, but it is 21 plus two options. It is anticipated for that Construction Program<\/a> to be completed over the next seven years. Now, the benefits of the Canopy Program<\/a> is to provide safety for bart and muni patrons as well as employees who have to close early in the morning and late at night. When we took a look at the performances of the entrances at the 19th street station with and without the canopy, we saw, in fact, an 80 improvement on the operational reliability. So that is significant. Of course, you know, by closing the gate at the top, we are significantly improving and will improve the entrances at the four downtown stations. We are of course expecting to have the canopies last for decades to come, as long as the maintenance is consistent, and this maintenance includes cleaning, it includes glass replacement, stainless steel, grille gates, maintenance, and then lighting. So we included a lot of this information, but it just quickly bears mentioning that we did significant outreach to bart and and muni customers when we started the process to get input. Weve reached out to a lot of supervisors and other elected officials, but over the last two days of course we briefed supervisor fewer, supervisor mandelman, and then we also had an opportunity to brief the staff of supervisor stefani and supervisor mar. Weve engaged a lot of the stakeholders on Market Street<\/a>, and the one information i would like to highlight is that staff went to the sfmta board on june 18 of this year and received approval from that board. So we there was a lot of Lessons Learned<\/a> from the pilot, and this is a list of that. I think you saw that on monday. So we took all of those Lessons Learned<\/a> and then incorporated that into the next phase of design and cost estimates. And then at the same time, as you are well aware, the construction climate, the Market Conditions<\/a> for all major public works Construction Projects<\/a> are astronomical. Were dealing with a lot of factors that are driving up costs annually, and these are what were dealing with, these factors. Id also like to mention any delays to the canopy project is going to significantly impact the overall project costs, not just for the canopy project, but also for the escalator project because they have to be constructed in tandem. Now, i know there was requests for information about how we do our cost evaluation. We bring on a professional estimator, and that professional estimator is very fully aware of all of the Market Conditions<\/a>, all of the site conditions, everything that we do in the state and in the region, and brings that knowledge to our projects. So when we have the estimator both help us in developing the engineers estimate, the engineer is also there when after we advertise and we receive the business, the estimator is also there to review that information, the bid information, to determine for accuracy and reasonableness. So the cost information, this is the last slide, so its the unit cost for this next phase of design is approximately 4. 5 million, but that does include the 10 contingency. So the Construction Cost<\/a>s, if we break it down, its approximately 3. 3 million. The soft costs that include design, construction project, project management, its approximately 1. 2 million. As carl mentioned as we go out to advertise well have a better sense of what the bid will be and what that price will be. As we compare that with the 19th street pilot, that project was completed in 2015 and it was 2. 3 million and the Market Street<\/a> pilot that was just completed last fall is 3. 5 million. If we were to take the 19th street pilot, again complete in 2015, and we escalate that over the fiveyear period to 2019, it would cost 3 million to implement that project now. So again, its giving you a sense of that cost escalation that were dealing with. So there was also some information requests around the allocation, the funding allocation. So heres a table that shows you over the next seven years of the construction phase where the money is going, all the different pots of money that weve identified. So the column right after the phase is the San Francisco<\/a> prop a bond. So you can see how much is allocated for each of those fiscal years. Then we layer on the state prop 1 b money and how thats going to be spread out over time. We are going to frontload i think the prop a bond and the state prop 1 b bond towards the front. And as we move forward and towards the middle to the tail end of construction, were going to bring on the bart measure rr. Then finally, in partnership with San Francisco<\/a>, we applied for a state and cap grant fund and we received 1 million from the state to help contribute to one of the canopies on Market Street<\/a>. I believe its in conjunction with an Affordable Housing<\/a> project thats coming in in that location. So finally, i also want to highlight that sfmta, were commiserating and sharing the pain. Just a simple project, although nothing is simple, if i use a muni shelter, that is a consistent design across the board. Even the sfmta saw a cost escalation of 40 . So this concludes my presentation, and im here to answer questions. Commissioner fewer thank you. So, mr. Chan, i think what supervisor mandelman asked was sort of a cost analysis about the Current Situation<\/a> of our escalators. So we spend money to repair them. Do escalators need to be replaced because of weather or feces . How much do you think this will putting a canopy will offset the overall cost of the maintenance, also the inconvenience that happens when our escalators are not functioning . We were trying to get that cost from our maintenance and engineering group. Im going to turn to carl and mark to see if they know. I had not heard back from me. So we dont have a cost yet. We got numbers from them, but were trying to make sure that theyre accurate. What we also were looking at were the number of maintenance calls and also the days out of service. I can say that looking at other escalators, for example, at 19th street station, there was a number of days out of service i want to say over 100 without the canopy and then you were looking at maybe 50 with the canopy. So the cost may not translate linearly, however, thats just an order of magnitude. Weve seen significant improvements with the operability of our escalators. Commissioner fewer youve mentioned these canopies will last for decades should . Yes. Commissioner fewer weve had problems with structures here, cracks in beams and things like that, so does bart have a Maintenance Fund<\/a> that actually is so these canopies will be on a regular schedule of maintenance . So we have an operating budget and that includes the maintenance for all of our assets. So commissioner fewer is this a shared asset with the city and county of San Francisco<\/a> . Yes, it is. Commissioner fewer so would we be responsible for the maintenance of these canopies . Yes, for half of commissioner fewer for half of them . Yes. Commissioner fewer how are we coordinatoring this effort together . Because as were seeing this is going to be a 90 million investment, so we want to make sure our investment is welltended and maintenance does not slack off so that we maintain these and theyre in good condition, they should last us for a long time. How is that coordination going to be happening on the maintenance of these canopies together . So ill make sure at staff level that its happening with bart staff as well as sfmta staff. I know that has been occurring in the past in regards to providing a fiveyear lookahead for projects, as well as making sure that both maintenance departments are on the same passage with regards projects that sfmta may be performing and making sure theyre in line with our projects. There is that synergy there and ill make sure it happens with these new canopies. Commissioner fewer yes, because it has been a concern about our bart stations and we coshare them with bart, and the maintenance and the cleanliness, the elevators, everything, i actually feel there has been an issue with the maintenance and this is why i bring it up. Maybe mr. Levinson can shed some light on this. I can just say that we meet regularly with bart staff over the maintenance needs and we have an annual Maintenance Agreement<\/a> or Maintenance Fund<\/a>ing that we supply with bart and a discussion over priorities and roles and responsibilities. That includes not just physical maintenance, but also issues around security in the bart stations and other items such as staffing of elevators in order to have better security and cleanliness in the elevators. So we are reviewing all of those maintenance items, and we have a substantial commitment and contribution each year. It is something that comes out of our operating budget. So when we have operating budget pressures, this is one of those things that is also under pressure, just like Everything Else<\/a> in the operating budget. But i know i have a very strong commitment to the concept of maintenance, that we dont underinvest in our existing assets and then have greater costs later. So its very much on our radar screen that we maintain the assets that we have as we get all of these requests to expand our services and assets, we dont want it to be forgotten that we have to maintain what we currently have and that includes a close relationship with bart on our current assets. Commissioner fewer supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani thank you, chair fewer. Im glad you are asking those questions because those were mine. But im wondering what is the annual cost of maintenance for these structures . Do we have an annual cost of maintenance . We do not, at least at this meeting, but i can see between now and the last question if i can get something for you. Supervisor stefani do we have a ballpark figure . Do we have any idea . Supervisor stefani i can get that for you, any minutes. Supervisor stefani and any foreseeable events that could increase the cost of maintenance. I think the intention of this project is that there is a net reduction in maintenance costs associated with the station because the reduction in maintenance costs around the escalators, should bart heed the extra cost of a physical canopy. Im not speaking from any cost analysis, but that is one of the general purposes of this project is that its reducing escalators maintenance costs. Supervisor stefani okay. Commissioner fewer but we have not seen a cost analysis of that. So i think that is fairly vague, quite frankly. Supervisor mar. Supervisor mar thank you. Thanks for the presentation and for all your work on this important project. I just had a question around cost information that was presented and just wanted to see if you could provide a little more explanation about the difference in the estimated costs per unit is 4. 5 million for the new canopies and in the pilot for the Market Street<\/a> pilot, it was 3. 5 million. Can you just explain that, the cost difference, is that just due to the cost escalation or is there going to be any some changes made to the new canopies from the pilot . Sure. So there are a number of Lessons Learned<\/a> from the pilot. For example, we needed to provide additional security. As we were doing the construction of the pilot. So we incorporated that cost of providing officers into the next phase of design. We also had some unanticipated things that came up around the permitting, requiring that we do monthly permits. So were going to reach out to some of the supervisors to see if we can help expand the permit time so that our contractors dont have to keep going back to public works to get that permit. And then also i would say that if you look at the second half around the labor shortage, the fact that wages are going up in order to meet really the cost of living in the bay area, were dealing with that. Were dealing with a lot of construction. Workers leaving the bay area because they cant afford to live here. Were dealing with significant steel tariffs, up to 25 that were incorporating into the engineers estimate. We are working very proactively, including with our board president , devin dufty, but also with staff. Were reaching out to all of the Construction Companies<\/a> that are in the bay area in order to generate interest, because as you know, the more competition that we have, the more were able to drive down the overall bid price. I mentioned the cost of doing business for agencies, we incorporate a lot of different programs around sbde and around our pla programs. I also want to mention this is going to be an approximately sevenyear project to construct, but were also dealing with city issues and policies around moratoriums. So during the period between thanksgiving and new years, we have to shut down. Were not going to be able to do a lot of construction work at pal area. So all of those different factors, including an annual cost escalation of 5 is whats elevated that price from 3. 5 to an engineers estimate of approximately 4. 5. But again, were really working diligently to get all of the different Construction Companies<\/a> to be interested, and from there we hope we will see some benefits as a result of that. Thank you. Commissioner fewer id like to call up actually board president devin dufdevin dufty. Good morning. Devin, i know youve been doing a lot of work about cleaning up our bart stations yourself i mean yourself actually. So weve had this question, i think supervisor stefani and i were just discussing, about the maintenance of these i mean, of bart stations in general, but also about the maintenance of these canopies because its such a huge dollar investment, we want to make sure that theyre maintained on a regular basis. Since youve been working so diligently on cleanliness and maintenance of the bart stations, i thought you would have some insight to this relationship that bart has with mta around shared maintenance. Because what weve seen so far isnt that reassuring. Thank you so much and its an honor to be here with my friends at the Budget Committee<\/a> and, madam chair, as you know i swept at the 16th station for four months with your colleague supervisor ronen. I spent a lot of time in civic center station. And i believe over the last year and a half to two years that weve changed the culture at bart. For example, when we hired custodians, who are known as Systems Service<\/a> workers, they were not trained. They were simply given the tools of a grabber, gloves, a bucket, and a broom and told to go at it. I have cleaned human waste at 16th and mission station at the platform level and i was deeply concerned that i felt that, first of all, we also had 21 maintenance vacancies in our last fiscal year. So i drove that home, and we do not have vacancies anymore. At the 16th and mission station, the first day that i swept when i was by myself, i had a gentleman who identified himself as being homeless and said that he pretty much lived in the plaza and there hadnt been a fulltime custodian daytime for eight months, and i was absolutely shocked at that. We have had a change in leadership. Our former assistant general manager for operations retired, and tamar allan who is an engineer and shes been with bart for over 30 years has come into this role as being our assistant general manager for operations and engineering. We now participate with the International Systems<\/a> supply association, issa, which is an International Maintenance<\/a> and cleaning association that im sure city hall belongs to","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia601004.us.archive.org\/10\/items\/SFGTV_20190727_140000_Government_Access_Programming\/SFGTV_20190727_140000_Government_Access_Programming.thumbs\/SFGTV_20190727_140000_Government_Access_Programming_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}