Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends 10-year master lease at 730 Eddy for DPH direct access housing amid calls for competitive RFP
Summary
The committee recommended approval of a proposed master lease of a hotel at 730 Eddy Street for the Department of Public Health’s direct access housing program; the budget analyst noted higher per-unit costs and a public commenter urged a competitive request-for-proposals and raised concerns tenants would pay 50% of income.
The Budget and Finance Committee on Jan. 12 recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve a proposed master lease of a hotel at 730 Eddy Street to house participants in the Department of Public Health’s direct access housing program.
Marta Bale of the Real Estate Division presented the item as a 10-year lease of 86 units intended to provide secure, affordable housing for extremely low-income San Francisco residents. Committee materials included rent and cost-per-unit figures and stated the landlord will be responsible for routine and extraordinary maintenance while the city’s maximum obligation for certain costs would be capped at $5,000 annually.
The budget analyst, Mr. Rose, told the committee the annual rent-per-unit calculation in the report shows a cost per unit and that this site’s cost is roughly 8.3% higher than the average of five other hotels used by the program; he said amenities such as full baths could justify the difference. Mr. Rose also recommended amending terms elsewhere in the agenda to specify one agreement term precisely (see separate airport-item amendment).
Thomas Picariello, a Tenderloin resident, spoke in public comment and urged that the Department of Public Health run a competitive request for proposals rather than awarding this master lease directly to a nonprofit named in the materials. He also warned that the proposed lease framework asks tenants to pay 50% of their income for rent and argued that would pass costs on to residents.
The committee closed public comment and moved the item forward with recommendation to the full board. Committee discussion and the record contain inconsistent renderings of some figures in the staff report (for example, the transcript records a monthly rent of “798,000” and an annual figure of “656,928,” which appear inconsistent); reporters and reviewers should rely on the official contract and budget analyst report for final dollar amounts.
