City Seeking Interim Proposals for Fenced Housing SiteJune 19, 2019
While the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development is now seeking a qualified team to build affordable housing on the fenced corner parcel at the corner of 7th and Brannan (which was conveyed to the City in 2014 and has been sitting vacant since early last year), it’s going to take “several years” before the ground is broken as the project has yet to be designed, approved or financed, .
And with that in mind, the City is now seeking proposals for “a temporary interim use” as well.
According to the RFP, the City is seeking interim proposals for the site “that will be financially self-sufficient,” with a guaranteed term of up to two years in length and possible lease extensions on a month to month basis, “while due diligence work is completed on the affordable housing development.”
Qualified responses are due on July 17 and a winning proposal is expected to be selected by the end of August. And while we’re not going to set the official over/under for demands that the plans for an embattled Navigation Center along the city’s waterfront be moved to the 600 7th Street site, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
It costs $800,000 to build a housing unit in SF.
Now accepting proposals from all developers who want to bankrupt themselves.
That must be why all the development that has happened in the past several years, everything under construction, and everything in the pipeline exists. Oh wait…
Well not from all developers, only developers that fit these criteria:
Respondents to this Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) must be comprised of the following minimum characteristics:
At least one San Francisco-based non-profit development entity whose mission includes the development of affordable housing in low-income communities with experience developing housing for formerly homeless households acting either as sole developer or as a partner in a joint venture, or joint-venture partner, defined as a nonprofit organization,
A property owner entity with experience owning housing for low-income communities and formerly homeless households;
A property management entity with experience managing housing for low-income communities and formerly homeless households;
At least one services-providing entity with experience providing services appropriate for formerly homeless residents.
They have someone specific in mind when those specs were wrote.
Well, did anyone really think that the navigation centers weren’t going to be almost all in SOMA?
they aren’t all in SOMA. There’s only one in SOMA ( 680 Bryant Street)
How about “SOMA-adjacent”? That would cover both the Civic Center Hotel and the Central Freeway on-ramp one.
As residents of the area will readily attest, 690 Bryant is a flyspeck compared to the Homeless Shelter at 5th and Bryant across from it, colossal and there for at least 20 years which you conveniently ignore. It by itself, and having to put up with the problems it chronically causes, should be enough to exempt the whole of Central SoMa including South Park from any further services provided to the “underserved”.
Your clear moral repugnance aside, your statement in no way, shape, or form disputes or counters the basic factual statement that not all navigation centers and homeless services are in SOMA. In fact, it’s not even close to all.
If reality offends you, that’s your problem.
Okay, so two of the nav centers are what, 1 block outside the hard confines of soma. Sheesh. I am still counting them.
That’s 303 nav center beds in (or on the border) of soma. Include the 5th & Bryant shelter that comes to 643 beds. Maybe another 80-100 coming to 7th & Brannan.
Nav centers outside of those: 192 beds.
Hey, that’s the place where the beds are needed, so I’m not grousing. A shelter isn’t worth much in the Sunset.
So you believe it’s morally repugnant if someone has an aversion to bio-hazards, the mentally ill and addicts laying around on the sidewalks? I find your bigotry morally repugnant.
How about temporary tennis and basketball courts? SoMa could use more recreation spaces.
Free injection site. Enter, receive clean needle and free heroin. After shooting up, receive free tote bag, and exit for a waiting city-sponsored Uber ride to the front yard of either Marc Benioff, Nancy Pelosi, or Dianne Feinstein.
I got my money on a navigation center not happening here. How about a food truck park ala Streatfood/Spark? With a cannabis garden. Something entertaining for the 500 residents in the newly minted building next door and several hundred recently developed units nearby? Somewhere to go before or after Mars Bar.
Navigation center is not really financially self sufficient.
Financial self-sufficiency isn’t a good indicator of value. Park space isn’t even remotely close to profitable and we want it anyway.
isnt a new park the same thing as a new injection site in SF?
I read it that that they are talking about someone setting up Tuff-Sheds.
For all the folks above making wise acre comments about so-called “safe injection sites”, you’ll be happy to know that they aren’t going to happen. Assembly Bill 362, sponsored by Assemblywoman Eggman and our very own Sen. Scott Wiener will not move forward this year, so California taxpayers won’t be enabling chronic drug addiction any time soon.
How come when someone is trying to eliminate homelessness some has to act stupid and write things to stop what is good.. people on SSI deserve to spend there money off the streets it’s called giving back to the community renters, shoppers, etc.
Comments are closed.