tv [untitled] February 19, 2015 9:30pm-10:01pm PST
enhancement award of contract >> good morning commissioners. project manager, capital division. i'm here for a discussion and possible action to approve the award of a construction contract for the union square ada enhancement project, contractor no. 305av to apadana engineering, inc., for base bid only in the amount of $599777.77. union square is a plaza in the city of san francisco. supervisorial district 3. in 2007 there was a lawsuit
that was filed -- the conditions at union square plaza and garage by federal and state statutes prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities. the lawsuit was settled in 2009 and the settlement agreement required to remediate specific barriers to access to the plaza and garage. this was the work. the mayor's office of disability at that time requested that the department undertake additional disability access enhancements at union square plaza in order to respond to subsequent public complaints. this is called the enhancement award presented at this time. the recreation and park department secured funding for the work and the settlement
work was completed by recreation and park in 2013. and also work at the garage was completed by the non-profit corporation that operated the garage with the contract administered by sfmta. the enhancement work is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2015. so in your handout, i included -- i'm going to put it here -- the scope of work. >> powerpoint, please. >> i included -- before getting into that, in your
writing in the report i read that the settlement work completed included the alteration of the ramps and handrails and also included the modification of the geary street entrance to provide accessible entry and improvement of signage and maps. that was the lawsuit work. the enhancement work, which you see on the screen over there, and actually it shows in order of the description i'm going to make; includes new granite protection at stage terrace and additional handrail and adjacent steps. new, removable stainless steel at the edges, new curbs along the geary street pathway. that does not include the area
where the central subway work is undergoing. the provision of the infill concrete step stones and handrails at geary street pathway, along the planting and sitting areas, the central subway area is not included either. new detection -- handrails adjacent to the path of travel. new improved, lighting and conformed face plate covers. now ada trench covers, guide rails at geary street, garage entry and additional handrails at the stage step pathway. with the assistance of the department of public works the recreation and park received three bids on january 28th. the bid prices including base
bid price for all work associated with the site improvement and the lighting work. for trench grade replacement. due to the funding constraints, the staff is recommending award of the base bid work only, since of the three bids received, only one bid -- base bid was below the construction budget of $604,781. in your report, you have a tabulation of the bids received. the second bidder in order of cost -- [speaker not understood] submitted a bid process -- at the time of the capital committee, it wasn't resolved but at this time there is a
determination that their process is not valid. also there is contractual review that apadana engineering, the lowest bid met -- exceeded the lbe goal of 16% and also 14b requirements. so at this time, the recommendation of the staff is to award the contract to apadana engineering, inc. which is a responsive -- the contractor submitted a responsive bid and is a responsible bidder. upon commission approval, we are planning to complete this work as mentioned earlier by the end of the year.
the project is 1,035000. $700,000 for the construction and $235,000 -- the source of funds is downtown park fund. which is a majority of the budget. also open space contingency and mayor's office on disability. this project had environmental review issue with ceqa exemption under the building permit. it is supported by the union square business district, the mjm management group, which is the onsite property management and mayor's office on disability and rpd staff. >> is there questions? is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is
closed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> entertainment a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> a. >> so moved. >> we're now on item 84-84 guide place approval of conceptual plan. overhead. ? >> good morning commissioners and gung hay hat choy, marvin yee. the item before you is for approval of the concept plan for a park in rincon hill. this item remains on the calendar, although it did receive the capital committee's recommendation for approval. it remains on the calendar due to outstanding questions that were not answered at the last
meeting. as presented at the committee hearing, this project was generated through a public process. it gained community support and we received emails of support for the concept plan. we even had a speaker at the committee hearing in support of the project and its had received key approvals from the arts commission. on the overhead is the concept plan for your consideration. as part of the perfect purchase of the site by the city and presented by the adjacent owner for emergency egress. that easement is shown on the lower part of the design. it's the gray bar underneath the greenness of the park.
on the overhead is an aerial of the park site that shows the location of that emergency egress easement. it's again alongside of the adjacent property. it's a 5' wide by 50' long. on this photo, we see the backdoor of the adjacent property. from which ingress/egress would occur on guy street, on the right side of the photo. the park development involves the raising of the park site, so it's level with the street. except for the emergency egress, which remains existing to provide access from the rear
door of the adjacent property. this section shows the relationship between that emergency egress ramp and the park site. you can see, the park site is level with the street; which is on the left side of the image this. emergency egress area is not accessible from the park itself once developed, nor from the street. it would not be publicly accessible from the street. the intent of this emergency egress is again to provide access from the building in cases of emergency from the building on to the street. this emergency egress area would be secured with retaining walls, holding up the level park side, fencing and landscaping. and would be secured at the street with a gate. here is the perspective again showing the relationship between the easement area, which is on the right side of
that image. and the park proper is on the left side. as you can see, there is a division between the two spaces, again with retaining wall and landscaping and fencing and a gate at the street. the entire park property including the easement area would be maintained by the parks and recreation department with the exception of the phelps and gate along guy street, because that is an art enrichment element and as such would be maintained by the arts commission. the adjacent property however is responsible for any damage done to the easement area. and that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is
closed >> commissioner low. >> marvin, can you clarify that last comment. the easement area is the maintenance responsibility falls on the city? >> that is correct. according to the easement agreement, the recreation and park department is responsible for -- reserves the right to maintain, it operate and so forth the easement area. >> including the gate? >> the gate, because it's an art enrichment area will be maintained by the arts commission. >> okay. commissioner bonilla. >> yes. two questions. will we be using recycled water for the water features, and i wonder about the wisdom of using -- i mean of installing
water features in any of our new projects in light of the citywide water conservation plan? those are my two questions. and i know that we, the recreation and park department has closed down some of our projects or venues that have water features. so i just want a little bit more information on this. >> okay. there are four water features within this park design and each one of the water features would be self-contained where it would use recycled water, but each one of the features, the water features are designed such where if the water would be turned off they with remain attractive cultural items of the park design. >> so it's recycled water. >> recirculated water.
>> recirculated water that doesn't conflict with our water conservation plan? >> no. >> the department? >> no. >> commissioner levitan. >> it might be just the sight of me that always asks the question relative to playgrounds and children in terms of sight lines and security and maybe i'm being overly concerned about something that wouldn't apply here. but the design -- and i'm delighted there is unanimous support. so this is just me. the design seems like it lends itself to maybe not being able to see from the street, if people are in the park and there are things going on in the park that are not safe or appropriate, especially after hours. so my question is has the security issue from the standpoint of design been considered? and also, you say that the gate is a design element. and it looks from the drawing that the gate opens and closes. it is going to be maintained, locked? what are those issues? >> okay.
first of all, the gate would lock -- the park would be locked at night, which is the purpose of the gates. it was heavily considered in the development of this concept design and, in fact by raising the park sight we have better sensibilities to the park. the vegetation would be low. so that sight lines would not be impeded and vertical column should not have sight line impediment to the park. >> commissioner low. >> the matter is before us is to approve a conceptual design, which is fine. but i think as we drill-down into the details, i think we should get better clarification on the use of this easement. it should n't not be the city's responsibility, but the private property owner who benefits
from the secondry regress. i understand the gate is an art element to the park. but again, that should be the responsibility of the private property owner if there is damage to the gate and shouldn't be the city's responsibility, since the city is granting the easement. but i think we should drilldown in that detail as we further develop plans. would i would like to more to have this matter approved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved. >> thank you, marvin. >> we now on item 9, coit tower food kiosk. >> good morning commissioners. mr. general manager. casanda costello with the department in the property management division. i'm here today to present an
item on a coit tower refreshment kiosk looking for an endorsement to proceed forward with approvals on an eastside location or a west side location at coit tower. before we go into the nitty gritty details i wanted to give you a little bit of background. in october of 2011 we asked a request for proposals and in that request for proposals interest is an opportunity for special event, fad and beverage service, et cetera. jr. of 2014 this commission recommended approval of the lease agreement with coit tower, llc. to the board of supervisors and just this last may, after the incredible renovation and installation. murals coit tower re-open to the public. coit tower has historically offered food and beverage through the previous vendor.
many monuments around the globe offer tasteful food and beverage service and the department sees tastefully and professionally offered food and beverage as a desired amenity to the hundreds of thousands of visitors to coit tower annually. there is a demand for food and beverage and the current lessee receives many, many inquiries daily about a beverage or snack for folks visiting coit tower. the proposed kiosk is not designed to be a destination, but it's meant to serve the guests at coit tower by offering a light refreshment. this has been a long process. we have been working with the community or a number of years. and food and beverage service has been contemplated in every step of the approval process. starting with the rfp, the selection process the lease negotiation and the lease approval process. and, in fact in 2008 we work closely with the telegraph hill
dwellingers and pioneer park project on concession goals and principles for coit tower and did opine on guidelines for food and beverage services that were incorporated into the proposal. meetings were held for the agreement and also for the food and beverage proposed options. at some of the meetings, community members expressed some concern over the previous location for food and beverage services on the south lawn. and the commission listened to that feedback last year before you approved the lease agreement and asked staff to go back to the community and go back to the vendor and come up with some alternative location proposals. so we have done that over the last, i would say 16-18 months and we worked with the vendor and really scoured coit tower and analyzed a number of locations keeping in mind ada access, parking and
historic preservation. this graph here, i indicated with stars the number of locations that were seriously considered. all of these are situated around coit tower, the perimeter of the parking lot and in the parking lot. the staff and lessee also analyzed mobile options such as food trucks and mobile carts which are also not being considered due to logistically challenge s around ada, operating noise from a generator or fumes from a generator and concerns stated by lessee about the high operating costs of mobile carts.
some of that is due to requirements. so that brings us to two community proposed locations. one is on the eastside of the parking lot and one is on west side of the parking lot. the eastside of the parking lot was proposed by the pioneer park project, probably about 16 months ago. they started to come to us with this idea. when we presented the option to the public last year, they said hey, can you think about a location farther west? so we have come up with a location and work with the vendor closely on a west side kiosk location. we at first proposed the design on left and due to feedback from the telegraph hill dwellingers and pioneer project, as well as members of the public we went back to the drawing board to come up with designs that we felt were more compatible with coit tower. i want to say these are artists
renderings of the kiosk and will probably change as we go through the ceqa process and work with the planning department. the designs are interchangeable for the west side or eastside of the parking lot. we're also looking into the possibility of a green wall, this is something proposed by members of the public. sort of a living wall concept. so working with department of public health, we're looking into some of those options as well. all of the designs are designed to deter vandalism, deter people from climbing on them, compliment coit tower and pioneer park, be small in size, either 9x12. offer only light refreshments. so no cooking onsite. be ada accessible. sell tickets to the tours and to the elevator, which is important to have some of that queuing outside of the tower. retain views of coit tower and the surrounding bay. be as discrete as possible, be able to run without a generator.
retain all current levels of parking. be removable. and have little permanent impact on the park and be visible, but not obtrusive. this slideshows the existing conditions of the eastside location. so this is a location along the inverse bleachers that surround the parking lot at coit tower. so i have kind of indicate where had the views are from. the views farthest to the right, i have stood where the story pulls are -- i know some of you got a chance to check out the story pulls and those are looking directly down to the nearest homes. we put -- as feedback from the last community meeting we heard from members of the public they wanted us to put up story poles to get a better impact of what a removable kiosk would be. so we did that
and what you have on the top layer of the screen are the story poles and i realize it's a little difficult to see. so we went ahead and shaded in what the impact would be by connecting the story poles. and here is a rendering, again this design or west side design are interchangeable. so i'm sure you have a lot of the emails in your packets and i will also put together some comments in your packet as well. but i wanted to make sure to put up this slide, so you understand there has been a tremendous amount of correspondence, a lot of comments on both the east and west side. these are comments directly from the public and these do not reflect staff's view. these are existing locations for the west side location.
i do want to point out the slide on the lower left-hand sideshows the existing decaus and existing structures. again a rendering of the story poles. here is the artist's rendering at two different angles. same comments for the eastside -- these are different comments, but these are proposed by the community. i did my best to summarize some of the comments we received from emails, which again you have in your packets.
we put together the slide so you see eastside option is a little over 100' away from the closest home and we did verify that with a laser and didn't rely on google earth. 150' away from the proposed west side option. so as you know, staff and the vendor believe that either location would serve the needs of the public, serve the needs of the department and also serve the needs of the vendor. so what we have done is sort of put together an analysis of some of the issues that we heard time and time again from the public. so preserve existing parking. as you know parking is very precious everywhere in the city, but definitely up at coit tower. a lot of local residents depend on it and both
locations preserve existing parking. both locations are easy to remove. both locations support the visitor experience. the west location is a little bit less visible from homes. eastside station further from the decaus toilets. the eastside location will be less expensive to install, but a note on that, the reason is because eastside location is a more simple design and build because of it's rectangular shape and preexisting foundation. the west side location requires a higher level of engineering due to a more complicated topography, need to install footings for a foundation and need to follow a frontal radius and build around angles. the removal of the rock wall along the stairs, but i want to know either location will require ceqa review and through
the process design may change and additional costs may incur with either location. the department has kept the community very abreast of the situation and any situation at coit tower and reached out to the local official supervisors, as well as anybody who has expressed interest in coit tower and food at coit tower has been appraised of these commission meetings, as well as community meetings held previously. we received quite a bit of feedback from members of the public. i would say the majority of the feedback has been from the neighbors in close proximity and neighbors who live in and around telegraph hill. i also want to note there are some people who would prefer no food and beverage service at all at coit tower and we received correspondence of that
nature. quite a process moving forward. hopefully today you will be able to give me some guidance on which location to pursue environmental approvals on. we're also most likely need to vacate a portion of the greenwich paper street in order to build a refreshment kiosk. we'll also go through the building and planning department for review of plans and then we would come back to you with a lease amendment, which would have the food and beverage kiosk. you would be recommending, hopefully, the amendment to the board of supervisors to amend their lease to allow for food and beverage service. that concludes my presentation. happy to address any comments that you have. thank you so much. >> commissioner low. >> just one question, before we go to public comment. casanda, can you comment on