Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Substation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends lease for SFPD Sixth Street storefront; redevelopment grant and staffing details spotlighted
Summary
The committee recommended a lease for a 1,932 sq. ft. storefront at 72 Sixth Street to house an SFPD substation; rent is $2,898/month (~$1.50/sq ft), renovation relies on a $500,000 redevelopment agency grant that cannot be contracted until the agency’s suspension is resolved, and SFPD said the storefront will be used as a 'storefront' for officers—not a 24/7 staffed station.
The Budget & Finance Committee advanced a resolution authorizing a lease with Sixth Street Walden House LLC for roughly 1,932 rentable square feet at 72 Sixth Street to be used as a San Francisco Police Department substation in the South of Market area.
Marta Bale of the City’s Real Estate Division said the initial term would be three years with an estimated June 2012 commencement, rent starting at $2,898 per month (about $1.50 per sq. ft.), CPI adjustments of 1.5–3% annually, and three two‑year renewal options. Mike Grissow of the redevelopment agency said comparable rents in the area run from $1.25 to over $2 per sq. ft.; in this case the redevelopment agency is planning to provide a $500,000 renovation grant.
Commander Richard Correa of the Police Department said the space is intended as a storefront post to support officers on the beat — to complete reports, conduct interviews and serve as a deployment “down room” — not as a fully staffed 24/7 station. Correa described current use of a PUC/department van for similar administrative tasks and declined to give exact patrol counts but confirmed daily officer deployment to the area.
The budget analyst estimated total costs for the proposed lease and renovation could be up to $853,293 (including the $500,000 redevelopment grant plus up to $353,002.93 in rent projected over a possible nine‑year term if options are exercised) and said approval would be a policy decision because it uses general‑fund revenues. Committee members asked the Controller’s Office and Mayor’s Budget Office to identify secondary funding options should redevelopment funds remain unavailable.
The redevelopment agency told the committee the $500,000 had been approved in its current‑year budget but that, because redevelopment activities were suspended at the time, the agency could not enter contracts to expend the money until the suspension was resolved (they said they hoped that would happen in January). The Chair requested contingency planning because the project depends on that funding. The committee moved the item forward with recommendation.
