San Francisco Redevelopment Agency


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 



104-8.09-002                                                                                       Agenda Item No.  4 ( b & c )

                                                                                                            Meeting of May 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Agency Commissioners

FROM:           Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

SUBJECT:    Authorizing a Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Toshiba Financial Services, a California corporation, to extend the term, 90 days from May 31, 2009 through August 31, 2009, for two Estudio 520 Black and White Copiers and to increase the lease payment by $2,500 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $56,600

Authorizing a Second Amendment to the General Maintenance Agreement with Toshiba Business Solutions, a California corporation, to extend the maintenance term, 90 days from May 31, 2009 through August 31, 2009, for two Estudio 520 Black and White Copiers and to increase the contract amount by $2,500 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $58,500

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a matter of copy machine industry practice, copy machine leases and copy maintenance are administered by separate, but affiliated, companies. As such, the Agency currently carries two separate agreements for the lease and maintenance of two Toshiba units, and another set of agreements for one Canon copy machine. The Toshiba agreements expire on May 31st, 2009, and the Canon agreements expire August 14, 2009.

Staff has determined that it would be more efficient and cost effective to seek replacements for these units and administer their use through one copy machine manufacturer, rather than two.  To that end, the lease and maintenance agreements for the Toshiba copiers must be extended to coincide with the expiration of the Canon copier, so that the Agency may issue a single RFP for their replacement.

The proposed Second Amendment to the existing Lease Agreement with Toshiba Financial Services (“TFS”) would authorize the Agency to enter into an automatic month to month lease for the two black and white copiers not to extend beyond August 31, 2009, for an amount not to exceed $2,500.

The proposed second amendment to the General Maintenance Agreement with Toshiba Business Solutions (“TBS”) would extend the maintenance for the same black and white copiers no later than August 31, 2009, for an amount not to exceed $2,500.

Staff recommends authorization of the Second Amendment of the Equipment Lease and General Maintenance Agreements to extend the terms of the two black & white copy machines through August 31, 2009.


DISCUSSION

On May 2, 2006 by Resolution No. 58-2006, the Agency Commission authorized a three-year Equipment Lease with TFS along with a General Maintenance Agreement with TBS, bothCalifornia corporations for three eStudio 520 black and white copiers in a total aggregate amount not to exceed $60,000. 

On June 3, 2008 by Resolutions Nos. 52-2008 and 53-2008 the Agency Commission authorized a First Amendment to the Lease and Maintenance agreements with TFS and TBS respectively, to remove one of the black and white copy machines from the agreements in order to enter into five-year lease and maintenance agreements for a Toshiba e-Studio 351c color copier for a total not to exceed $52,000.

The color copier was leased to address the Agency’s increased need to produce color documents in a more efficient and cost-effective way than through the use of outside vendors and is not affected by this proposed Second Amendment.

The authorization for the lease and maintenance for the black and white copiers expires on May 31st, 2009; rather than seek authorization to renew the agreements or replace the units at this time, staff has determined that it would be best to extend authorization for the copiers to coincide with the end of the agreements for the Agency’s high-speed black and white Canon copy machine, set to expire in August.  This will allow the Agency to then issue a single RFP for all three units, instead of issuing an RFP now and another in July.

Furthermore, by entering into only one lease and one maintenance agreement for replacement units, the Agency will eliminate approximately half of the associated paperwork, billing and postage required to administer the equipment. Maintenance and supply calls will also be reduced by working with only one maintenance company.

The proposed Second Amendment to the existing Lease Agreement with Toshiba Financial Services (“TFS”) would authorize the Agency to enter into an automatic month to month lease for the two black and white copiers not to extend beyond August 31, 2009. The cost to extend the eStudio 520 black and white copiers through August 2009 will remain at the current rate, including taxes, for a total not to exceed $2,500.  This expense together with the remaining lease payments for the color copier added in the Second Amendment will not exceed $24,500.

The proposed Second Amendment to the General Maintenance Agreement with Toshiba Business Solutions (“TBS”) would extend the maintenance for the same black and white copiers not to extend beyond August 31, 2009. The cost to extend the maintenance through August 31, 2009 will remain at the current rate, plus supplies and taxes, for total payments not to exceed $2,500. This expense together with the remaining maintenance payments for the color copy machine added in the Second Amendment will not exceed $32,500.

Although funds are included in the Agency’s FY 09 and 10 budgets for these payments, the lease contains a “fiscal out” provision, which allows the lease to be cancelled if funds are not appropriated to the Agency in a future year for the copiers. 

Staff will seek Commission approval this summer to issue an RFP for all three black and white copiers.


Agency authorization of the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement and the Second Amendment to the General Maintenance Agreement are
 Agency administrative activities that are not Projects as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5),
 will not independently result in a physical change in the environment, and are not subject to environmental review under CEQA.
 Originated by: Amy Dawson, Administrative Services Manager 


RESOLUTION NO. 47-2009

AUTHORIZING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO EXTEND THE TERM, 90 DAYS FROM MAY 31, 2009 THROUGH

AUGUST 31, 2009, FOR TWO ESTUDIO 520 BLACK AND WHITE COPIERS 

AND TO INCREASE THE LEASE PAYMENT BY $2,500 FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $56,500

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

  1. On May 2, 2006, by Resolution No. 58-2006, the Agency Commission authorized a three-year Equipment Lease with Toshiba Financial Services and a General Maintenance Agreement with Toshiba Business Solutions, Inc., both California corporations, for three eStudio 520 black and white copy machines in a total aggregate amount not to exceed $60,000.
  2. On June 3, 2008, by Resolution No. 52-2008, the Agency Commission authorized replacing one eStudio 520 black and white copy machine with an eStudio 351c color copy machine on a five-year term for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $22,000.
  3. Agency staff wishes to extend the existing lease agreement (“Lease Agreement”) for the two black and white copy machines so that the end of the lease coincides with the end of the lease of the Agency’s high speed copy machine, allowing the Agency to issue a single Request for Proposals to replace all three copy machines.
  4. The Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement (“Second Amendment”) with Toshiba Financial Services would authorize the Agency to extend the term for the two copy machines up to August 31, 2009, for an amount not to exceed $2,500.
  5. Authorizing the Second Amendment is an Agency administrative activity that is not a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), will not independently result in a physical change in the environment, and is not subject to environmental review under CEQA.

RESOLUTION

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Toshiba Financial Services, a California corporation, to extend the term, 90 days from May 31, 2009 through August 31, 2009, for two eStudio 520 black and white copy machines and to increase the lease payment by $2,500 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $56,500.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel


RESOLUTION NO. 48-2009

AUTHORIZING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS,

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO EXTEND THE MAINTENANCE

TERM, 90 DAYS FROM MAY 31, 2009 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2009,

FOR TWO ESTUDIO 520 BLACK AND WHITE COPIERS AND TO

INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $2,500 FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,500

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

  1. On May 2, 2006, by Resolution No. 58-2006, the Agency Commission authorized a three-year Equipment Lease with Toshiba Financial Services and a General Maintenance Agreement (“General Maintenance Agreement”) with Toshiba Business Solutions, Inc., both California corporations, for three eStudio 520 black and white copy machines in a total aggregate amount not to exceed $60,000.
  2. On June 3, 2008, by Resolution No. 52-2008, the Agency Commission authorized replacing one eStudio 520 black and white copy machine with an eStudio 351c color copy machine on a five-year term for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $22,000.
  3. On June 3, 2008, by Resolution No. 53-2008, the Agency Commission authorized amending the copy machine General Maintenance Agreement through the addition of an eStudio 351c color copy machine for a five-year term, and removing one of three eStudio 520 black and white copy machines, leaving two copy machines for the remaining one-year term ending May 31, 2009, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $30,000.
  4. Agency staff wishes to extend the existing lease and maintenance agreements for the black and white copy machines through August 31, 2009 so that the end of the lease coincides with the end of the lease of the Agency’s high speed copy machine, allowing for the Agency to issue a single Request for Proposals to replace all three copy machines.
  5. Agency staff wishes to enter into a Second Amendment to the General Maintenance Agreement (“Second Amendment”) for two Toshiba eStudio 520 black and white copy machines not to extend beyond August 31, 2009, for an amount not to exceed $2,500.  The maintenance of the eStudio black and white copy machines through August 31, 2009, together with the maintenance payments for the color copy machine through the end of the five-year term will not exceed $33,500.
  6. Agency authorization of the Second Amendment is an administrative activity that does not constitute a project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

RESOLUTION

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Second Amendment to the General Maintenance Agreement with Toshiba Business Solutions, a California corporation, to extend the maintenance term, 90 days from May 31, 2009 through August 31, 2009, for two Toshiba eStudio 520 black and white copy machines and to increase the contract amount by $2,500 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $58,500.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

450-026.09-002   Agenda Item No. 4 ( d )

                                                                                                                                                                  Meeting of May 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO:                        Agency Commissioners

FROM:                  Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

SUBJECT:           Authorizing a Personal Services Contract with Helene Fried and Associates, a sole proprietorship, for a one-year term, with one, one-year extension, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $230,000, to provide support services related to implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program on the Hunters Point Shipyard, including assisting with the commissioning, installation and maintenance of works of art; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On February 18, 2009, Agency issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for qualified consultants to facilitate implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program (“CHRP”) on the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) and work with the Agency to facilitate the commissioning, installation and maintenance of public art on the Shipyard as the CHRP Coordinator.

On March 25, 2009, the Agency received seven proposals.  One of the applicants lacked any public art commissioning experience and therefore was not considered.  The other six applicants were interviewed by an Agency-led panel consisting of a Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee member (“CAC”), a representative from the Art Commission, a representative from HPS Development Co. LP (“Lennar”), and two Agency staff.  The panel unanimously endorsed Helene Fried and Associates as the CHRP Coordinator and the Shipyard CAC concurred with this endorsement at its April meeting.

Staff recommends authorization of a personal services contract with Helene Fried and Associates, in an aggregate amount not to exceeded $230,000 to provide support services related to implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program on the Hunters Point Shipyard

DISCUSSION

Background

The CHRP is one of eleven community benefit programs included in the Community Benefits Agreement of the Shipyard Phase 1 Development and Disposition Agreement (“DDA”) for the redevelopment of the Shipyard.  The CHRP program is a critical component in the Agency’s strategy to restore the Shipyard’s role in supporting the economic vitality of the BVHP community.  In addition to improving quality of life for the residents who live there, the art and artifacts program will ensure that the future Shipyard is not disconnected from its historical and cultural context.  The program will also underscore the level of public investment in the area, making it a more attractive location to own a home or business.  Finally, the CHRP supports the Agency’s efforts to create a future Arts District for the Shipyard, which seeks to attract cultural visitors to the Shipyard and to directly engage BVHP residents and businesses in the production, sale, and promotion of art. 

The objective of CHRP is to create an art program that identifies opportunities for recognizing cultural components of the Shipyard and surrounding community in the development of the Shipyard, integrates cultural features and facilities throughout the Shipyard, and provides opportunities for local artists to participate in creating public art for the Shipyard.  To date, significant work has been completed to meet these objectives, including:

  • A conceptual CHRP program entitled “Remembering our Past for the Future” developed by Myles Stevens with input from the Shipyard’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee (“CAC”) in July 2004.

  • Additional community outreach and input coordinated by Ilona McGriff. A consultant hired by Lennar in 2005. This work focused the CHRP objectives on specific programs and opportunities at the Shipyard and included input from an exploratory committee comprised of interested stakeholders.

  • The creation of a Shipyard Open Space & Streetscape Master Plan (“Master Plan”), approved by the Commission on January 17, 2009, by Resolution No. 6-2007, that identified specific opportunities to tell the story of the Shipyard and the surrounding Bayview Hunters Point (“BVHP”) community through interpretive features.

CHRP Coordinator Scope of Work

Although some work has been done to create a vision for the CHRP program, including general guidelines and locations for implementation, additional work must be undertaken to implement the CHRP, including (see Attachment A for Scope of Services):

  • Finalizing priorities and locations of programs and artwork through coordination with the CAC, the Agency, and Lennar.
  • Creating a final work plan in collaboration with CAC, the Agency, and Lennar.  The purpose of the plan will be to provide direction and guidance to commissioned artists.
  • Soliciting proposals from artists.
  • Selecting artists and artworks for specific locations.
  • Providing oversight of the installation of selected art pieces.
  • Developing a maintenance plan for the art work on the Shipyard.

EDA Grant Funds

The CHRP Coordinator and the art to be installed on the Shipyard will be funded from a $2.3 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), which must be spent no later than August 15, 2010.  The goal of the EDA grant is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the United States.

RFP Outreach

Consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures the RFP was advertised (1) on the Agency’s website, (2) the City’s “Bid and Contract Opportunities Website,” and (3) in the San Francisco Examiner.  In addition, the RFP was mailed to art related businesses on the Agency’s mailing list. 

On March 6, 2009, staff hosted a pre-bid conference for interested consultants.  Staff provided an overview of the Shipyard project, CHRP, the requirements of the RFP, the Agency’s contracting process, and responded to questions from the attendees.  All of the questions and responses were posted on the Agency’s website and sent to the registered bidders.

Applicant Interviews

On March 25, 2009, the Agency received seven proposals one of which was from Hasz Development LLC (“Hasz”).  Hasz possessed some art curatorial and art production experience but lacked any public art commissioning experience and therefore was not considered.  The other six responsive applicants were interviewed by a five person Agency-led panel consisting of a CAC member, a representative from the Art Commission, a representative from Lennar, and two Agency staff. 

The six applicants were evaluated based upon their qualifications and experience, as well as a number of other relevant criteria described in the RFP, including:

  • A minimum of four years of experience providing visual arts administration and or public art administration.
  • Qualifications of key personnel to successfully undertake the scope of services outlined in the RFP and work effectively with diverse populations.
  • Reasonable staffing, operating budget, and consulting fee. 

The written proposals, which counted for 40 percent of the total score, were evaluated based on responses to the RFP that gauged the applicant’s ability to perform the scope of services.  During the 45 minute in-person interviews, which counted for 60 percent of the total score, the applicants were given 10 minutes to describe their project plan and were asked a series of standardized questions regarding their qualifications.  The results of the scoring are below and are based on a 100 point scale:

  1. Helene Fried and Associates:                            91 points
  2. Architectural Resources Group:        71 points
  3. Leslie Prichett:                                      69 points
  4. Aesthetics, Inc.:                                   68 points
  5. RBA Creative:                                                     67 points
  6. CALPAA                                                               32 points

The panel unanimously endorsed Helene Fried and Associates as the CHRP Coordinator giving the team a score of 91 points out of a possible 100 points.  The CAC concurred with the endorsement of Helene Fried and Associates as the CHRP Coordinator at its April meeting.

California Environmental Quality Act

The Personal Services Contract with Helene Fried and Associates, including assisting with the commissioning of art pieces, facilitating the installation of art pieces, and developing a maintenance plan would not directly cause any change in the physical environment, and are activities that are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262 and 15061(b)(3).

Originated by Thor Kaslofsky, Project Manager

Fred Blackwell

Executive Director

Attachment A:      Scope of Services

Attachment B:      Budget

Attachment C:      Personal Services Contract


 

ATTACHMENT A

Scope of Services

Task 1-Project Scope Development:

The selected Consultant will work with Agency staff to develop a work plan, budget and refine the project schedule and scope. The Consultant will also conduct a site visit of Parcel A.  In coordination with the Consultant, the Agency will convene a Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”), consisting of the Agency, the Art Commission, and Lennar staff to confer with Consultant on pertinent policies and procedures.

  • Deliverable(s): Approved work plan, budget, scope and project schedule.

Task 2-Selection Process and Panel Formation:

Agency staff anticipates that the process developed for this CHRP implementation will closely follow that used by the San Francisco Arts Commission in its commissioning of public works of art. The Consultant will adapt this process for the CHRP program and the Shipyard and present the process for adoption by the CAC.  The Consultant will review previously identified proposed public art sites and recommend final site selection.

At the direction of the Agency, the Consultant will work with the CAC and San Francisco Arts Commission to develop a small selection panel of community representatives, artists, representatives from the San Francisco Arts Commission and the development project team to identify a “basket” of projects that reflect the intent of the CHRP program as documented through previous community efforts and the Phase I Open Space Master Plan. The proposed project should include at a minimum one signature piece to be installed in one of the principal location on the Shipyard.

The Consultant will work with Agency staff, the CAC, the Arts Commission and the selection panel to identify selection criteria that will enable the panel to review submissions and award commissions.

  • Deliverable(s): Selection process, selection criteria, and list of panel participants.

Task 3-Recruitment and Outreach:

The Consultant, under the direction of the Agency, will need to conduct thorough outreach and ensure adequate marketing of the selection and commission process. The Consultant should develop and outreach and recruitment plan with the Agency and CAC, which may include the use of an on-line submissions software or service.

  • Deliverable(s): Outreach and recruitment plan

Task 4-RFP and Selection:
The Consultant will work with the Agency, CAC and the selection panel outlined in Task 2 to issue and RFP that articulates the design concept of the CHRP program and selection criteria necessary for submission. The panel will then review the submissions and make a selection based on the earlier determined selection criteria.

  • Deliverable(s): RFP for selection of art pieces

Task 5-Commissioning of Art Pieces:

After a selection has been made the Consultant will assist the Agency in preparing contract templates and executing all necessary contracts with the chosen artists.  The Agency will be responsible for the overall contracting process and the final execution of the artists’ contracts.

  • Deliverable(s): Contract templates and technical assistance for the commissioning of art pieces

Task 6-Installation and Management:

The Consultant will work with Agency staff and the Developer to facilitate the installation of the art pieces, including assisting with obtaining any necessary permits for installation, identifying potential sub-consultants for installation, developing a schedule and check-list for the installation of all art pieces, and working with the Agency and Developer to ensure that the site is ready and any preparatory work needed for installation.

  • Deliverable(s): Assistance with necessary permits, list of approved sub-consultants for installation, schedule of deliverables and check-list for installation of each art piece, completed site preparation work.

Task 7-Maintenance Plan:

The art will be publicly owned and as such, the Consultant will be required to develop a maintenance plan and budget for the installed art pieces and ensure that an acceptable maintenance schedule is established and that all parties with designated responsibilities are aware and agree to the terms and conditions of the plan.   The maintenance budget will have a separate source of funds.

  • Deliverable(s): Maintenance plan and schedule, maintenance agreement with relevant parties for signature.

* Note: Authorship:

The Agency agrees to acknowledge all work and reports in association with this project as authored and produced by the Helene Fried and Associates’ team, where applicable. 


 

ATTACHMENT B:

Budget

Name

Role

Hourly Rate

Hours

Budget

Helene Fried

Prime

 $     125.00

720

 $  90,000

Keilani Tom

Principle

 $     125.00

640

 $  80,000

Denise Bradley

Team member

 $     125.00

160

 $  20,000

Barbara Ockel

Team member

 $       60.00

333

 $  20,000

Myles Stevens

Advisor

 $     200.00

25

 $    5,000

Alma Robinson

Advisor

 $     150.00

33

 $    5,000

Operations and Materials

$  10,000

GRAND TOTAL

 $230,000

Notes:                                                                                                           

  1.  The actual monthly Compensation is subject to the amount of hours billed by Contractor and verified and approved by Agency staff.

  1. The maximum amount payable during the Contract is $230,000 and is subject to the appropriation of funds.  Payments shall be made in arrears and Agency shall have 30 days from the receipt of Contractor’s invoice to remit payment.


ATTACHMENT  C

SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

This PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT (“Contract”) is entered into as of May 19, 2009 by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a public body, corporate and politic (the “Agency”), Helene Fried and Associates, a sole proprietorship (“Contractor”).  From time to time in this Contract, the Agency and the Contractor may collectively be referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

This Contract is made with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

  1. On February 18, 2009, Agency issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for qualified consultants to facilitate implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program on the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) and work with the Agency to facilitate the selection, installation and maintenance of art (“CHRP” or “Program”).

  1. CHRP is one of eleven community benefit programs included in the Community Benefits Agreement of the Shipyard Phase 1 Development and Disposition Agreement (“DDA”) for the redevelopment of the (“Shipyard”).  The objective of CHRP is to create an art program that identifies opportunities for recognizing cultural components of the Shipyard and surrounding community in the development of the Shipyard, integrates cultural features and facilities throughout the Shipyard, and provides opportunities for local artists to participate in creating public art for the Shipyard. 

  1. To date, significant work has been completed to meet these objectives, including:  1) Conceptual CHRP program entitled “Remembering our Past for the Future” developed by Myles Stevens with input from the Shipyard’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee (“CAC”) in July 2004; 2) Additional community outreach and input coordinated through a consultant (Ilona McGriff) hired by Lennar in 2005. This work focused the CHRP objectives on specific programs and opportunities at the Shipyard and included input from an exploratory committee comprised of interested stakeholders; and 3) The creation of a Shipyard Open Space & Streetscape Master Plan (“Master Plan”), approved by the Commission on January 17, 2009, by Resolution No. 6-2007, identified specific CHRP opportunities to tell the story of the Shipyard and the Bayview Hunters Point (“BVHP”) community through interpretive features

  1. Although some work has been done to create a vision for the CHRP program, including general guidelines and locations for implementation, additional work must be undertaken to implement the CHRP.

  1. The CHRP Coordinator and the art to be installed on the Shipyard will be funded from a $2.3 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), which must be spent no later than August 15, 2010.  The goal of the EDA grant is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the United States.

  1. Consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures the RFP was advertised 1) on the Agency’s website, 2) the City’s “Bid and Contract Opportunities Website,” and 3) in the San Francisco Examiner.  In addition, the RFP was mailed to art related businesses on the Agency’s mailing list.  On March 6, 2009, staff hosted a pre-bid conference for interested consultants.  Staff provided an overview of the Shipyard project, CHRP, the requirements of the RFP, the Agency’s contracting process, and responded to questions from the attendees.  All of the questions and responses were posted on the Agency’s website and sent to the registered bidders.

  1. On March 25, 2009, the Agency received seven proposals one of which was from Hasz Development LLC (“Hasz”).  Hasz possessed some art curatorial and art production experience but lacked any public art commissioning experience and therefore was not considered.  The other six responsive applicants were interviewed by a five person Agency-led panel consisting of a CAC member, a representative from the Art Commission, a representative from Lennar, and two Agency staff.  The six applicants were evaluated based upon their qualifications and experience, as well as a number of other relevant criteria described in the RFP.  The panel unanimously selected Helene Fried and Associates as the CHRP Coordinator giving the team a score of 91 points out of a possible 100 points.  The CAC concurred with the selection of Helene Fried and Associates as the CHRP Coordinator at its April meeting.

  1. The written proposals, which counted for 40 percent of the total score, were evaluated based on responses to the RFP that gauged the applicant’s ability to perform the scope of services.  During the 45 minute in-person interviews, which counted for 60 percent of the total score, the applicants were given 10 minutes to describe their project plan and were asked a series of standardized questions regarding their qualifications.  The results of the scoring are below and are based on a 100 point scale:
  1. Helene Fried and Associates:                                91 points
  2. Architectural Resources Group:                            71 points
  1. Leslie Prichett:                                                          69 points
  2. Aesthetics, Inc.:                                                       68 points
  1. RBA Creative:                                                         67 points
  2. CALPAA                                                   32 points

NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency and the Contractor agree as follows:

  1. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Contractor shall provide the services described on Attachment A, “Scope of Services.”

  1. TIME OF COMPLETION

Contractor will begin work after the Commission authorization.

  1. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT

A.            Compensation.  The maximum amount payable under this Contract is two-hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($230,000.00).  Payment shall be made according to the terms described on Attachment B, “Budget”.  All expenses of Contractor are included in the amounts payable pursuant to Attachment B, “Budget”, and no expenses shall be reimbursed separately.  Contractor will submit monthly billing invoices to the Agency. The invoices shall include the billing amount, total hours invoiced, hourly billing rate, description of services rendered, supporting documentation and Contractor’s signature.  Agency staff will review and approve these invoices for payment.” 

B.            Taxes.  No payroll or employment taxes of any kind will be withheld or paid by Agency on behalf of Contractor.  Agency will not treat Contractor as an employee with respect to the Contract services for any purpose, including federal and state tax purposes.  Contractor understands and agrees that it is Contractor’s responsibility to pay all taxes required by law, including self-employment social security tax.  Agency will issue an IRS 1099 Form, or other appropriate tax-reporting document, to Contractor for the Contract services.

 C.           Benefits.  Contractor will not be eligible for, and will not participate in, any health, pension, or other benefit of Agency which exists solely for the benefit of Agency employees during the Contract Term.

  1. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY

No member, official or employee of the Agency shall be liable personally to Contractor or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach by the Agency or for any amount which may become due to Contractor or any successor or on any obligation under the terms of this Contract.

  1. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT

Contractor shall not assign this Contract, or any part thereof, without the prior express written consent of the Agency.

  •  Intentionally Omitted

 7.    NON-FEDERAL LABOR STANDARDS

Contractor agrees that any employees performing work or services for Contractor shall be paid not less than the prevailing wage rate and shall be subject to the same hours and working conditions and shall receive the same benefits provided for similar work or services performed in San Francisco.  Contractor further agrees that the inclusion of the above provisions in this Contract shall not be construed to relieve Contractor or any subcontractor from the pertinent requirements of any applicable Federal labor standards provisions; and Contractor also agrees that the limitations, if any, in these non-Federal labor standards provisions upon hours per day, per week, or per month which the employees engaged on the work covered by this Contract may be required to work thereon shall not be exceeded.  Where minimum rates of pay required under State or local law are higher than the minimum rates of pay required by or set forth in applicable Federal labor standards, said State or local minimum rates shall be the applicable minimum rates of pay for such classifications.

8.     INDEMNIFICATION

Contractor shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco and their respective commissioners, members, officers, agents and employees of and from all claims, loss, damage, injury, actions, causes of action and liability of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising out of or connected with the performance of this Contract and any of Contractor’s operation or activities related thereto, excluding the willful misconduct or the gross negligence of the person or entity seeking to be defended, indemnified or held harmless.  This section does not apply to contracts for construction design services provided by a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8.

9.     INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

Contractor hereby declares that it is engaged in an independent business and agrees to perform its services as an independent contractor and not as the agent or employee of the Agency.  Contractor has and hereby retains the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services and work to be provided under this Contract and full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons assisting it in the performance of the services and work hereunder.  Contractor agrees to be solely responsible for all matters relating to payment of employees, including, but not limited to, compliance with all federal, state and local payroll tax and withholding requirements, workers’ compensation requirements and all regulations governing such matters.  Contractor agrees to be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its subordinates and employees during the term of the Contract.

10.          INSURANCE

A.    Contractor must procure and maintain for the duration of the Contract, including any extensions, insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Contract by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

  1. Minimum Scope of Insurance.  Coverage must be at least as broad as:

(1)           Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 00 01).

(2)           Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage, code 1 (form number CA 00 01- any auto).

C.    Minimum Limits of Insurance.  Contractor must maintain limits no less than:

  1. General Liability:  $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.  If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit must apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit.

  1. Automobile Liability:  $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

D.    Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions.  Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Agency.  At the option of the Agency, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects to the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco and their respective commissioners, members, officers, agents and employees; or Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Agency guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

E.    Other Insurance Provisions.   The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

(1)           The “San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, the City and County of San Francisco and their respective commissioners, members, officers, agents and employees” are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor.

(2)           For any claims related to this Contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary insurance as respects to the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco and their respective commissioners, members, officers, agents, and employees.  Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco and their respective commissioners, members, officers, agents or employees shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

(3)           Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco and their respective commissioners, members, officers, agents or employees.

(4)           Each insurance policy required by this clause must be

endorsed to state that coverage will not be suspended, voided,

canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except

after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return

receipt requested, has been given to the Agency.

  1. Acceptability of Insurers.  Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A. M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise approved by the Agency’s Risk Manager.

H.            Verification of Coverage.  Contractor must furnish the Agency with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements evidencing coverage required by this clause.  The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.  The certificates and endorsements may be on forms provided by the Agency.  All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Agency before work commences.  The Agency reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements demonstrating the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

I.             Subcontractors.  Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.  All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all the requirements stated herein.

11.          RECORDS, REPORTS AND AUDITS

A.            Records

(1)           Records shall be established and maintained in accordance with Agency requirements, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") requirements if the Contract is funded with HUD Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds, with respect to all matters covered by this Contract.  Except as otherwise authorized by the Agency, such records shall be maintained for a period of four years from the date of the termination of the Contract; except that records that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for four years or until such audit findings have been resolved, whichever is later.

  1. All costs shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, vouchers or other official documentation evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges.  All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to this Contract shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.

 B.           Reports and Information

At such times and in such forms as the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco or HUD, if the Contract is funded with CDBG funds, may require, there shall be furnished to the Agency or its designated representative such statements, records, reports, data and information as the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco or HUD may request pertaining to matters covered by this Contract.

  1. Audits and Inspections

At any time during normal business hours and as often as the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco or HUD, and/or the Comptroller General of the United States, if the Contract is funded with CDBG funds, may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the Agency or its representatives for examination all records with respect to all matters covered by this Contract and Contractor will permit the Agency, the City and County of San Francisco, HUD and/or the Comptroller General of the United States to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Contract.

12.          CONFLICTS

Except for approved eligible administrative or personnel costs, no employee, agent, contractor, officer or official of the Agency who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to this Contract or who is in a position to participate in a decision making process or gain inside information with regard to it, shall obtain a personal or financial interest in or benefit from any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for himself or herself or for those with whom they have family or business ties, during his or her tenure or for two years thereafter.  The term “Contractor” also includes the employees, officers (including board members), agents and subcontractors of a Contractor under this Contract.  In order to carry out the purposes of this Section, Contractor shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all contracts and subcontracts relating to activities pursuant to this Contract, a provision similar to that of this Section. 

  1. CONTRACTOR’S DUTY OF LOYALTY

Contractor for itself and subcontractors, if any, agrees to abide by the Agency’s duty of loyalty, which appears at Section IX.H. (Prohibited Activities of Present and Former Employees, Commissioners and Consultants) of the Agency’s Personnel Policy and which states in part the following:  “Unless approved in advance in writing by the Agency, no present or former employee, Commissioner or consultant of the Agency shall knowingly act for anyone other than the Agency in connection with any particular matter in which the Agency is a party, or has a direct and substantial interest, and in which he or she participated personally and substantially as an Agency employee, Commissioner or consultant whether through decisions, recommendations, advice, investigation or otherwise.  Violation of this section by a present employee, consultant or Commissioner may, in the case of an employee or consultant, be grounds for discharge or termination of the consultant contract, and in the case of a Commissioner, be considered misconduct in office pursuant of California Health and Safety Code Section 33115.”

14.          LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS

Through execution of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that it is familiar with section 1.126 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which prohibits any person who contracts with the Agencyfor the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment, for the sale or lease of any land or building, or for a grant, loan or loan guarantee, from making any campaign contribution to (1) the Mayor or members of the Board of Supervisors, (2) a candidate for Mayor or Board of Supervisors, or (3) a committee controlled by such office holder or candidate, at any time from the commencement of negotiations for the contract until the later of either the termination of negotiations for such contract or six months after the date the contract is approved. Contractor acknowledges that the foregoing restriction applies only if the contract or a combination or series of contracts approved by the same individual or board in a fiscal year have a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more. Contractor further acknowledges that the prohibition on contributions applies to each prospective party to the contract; each member of Contractor's board of directors; Contractor's chairperson, chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer; any person with an ownership interest of more than 20 percent in Contractor; any subcontractor listed in the bid or contract; and any committee that is sponsored or controlled by Contractor. Additionally, Contractor acknowledges that Contractor must inform each of the persons described in the preceding sentence of the prohibitions contained in section 1.126.

Finally, Contractor agrees to provide to the Agency the names of each member of Contractor's board of directors; Contractor's chairperson, chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer; any person with an ownership interest of more than 20 percent in Contractor; any subcontractor listed in the bid or contract; and any committee that is not sponsored or controlled by Contractor.

15.          CONFIDENTIALITY/PROPERTY OF AGENCY

All of the reports, information, data or other materials prepared or assembled by Contractor under this Contract, including Contractor’s opinions and conclusions based upon such items, are confidential.  Contractor agrees that such reports, information, opinions or conclusions shall not be made available to or discussed with any individual or organization, including the news media, without the prior written approval of the Agency.  Unless otherwise stated in the Scope of Services, all such reports, information, data or other materials and work product shall become the property of the Agency.

16.          COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

It is understood and agreed that Contractor shall comply with California Government Code Section 7550.  California Government Code Section 7550 provides in part that when the total cost for work performed for a local agency by nonemployees of such agency exceeds $5,000.00, any document or written report prepared in whole or in part by nonemployees for such agency shall contain, in a separate section, the numbers and dollar amount of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of such document or written report.

17.          NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL BENEFITS

A.            There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of

persons, on account of race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, gender identity, age, marital or domestic partner status, sexual orientation or disability (including HIV or AIDS status) in the performance of this Contract.  Contractor will ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, gender identity, age, marital or domestic partner status, sexual orientation or disability (including HIV or AIDS status) or other protected class status.  Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:  employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training, including apprenticeship; and provision of any services or accommodations to clients or the general public.

B.    Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by it or on its behalf, state it is an equal opportunity employer.

C.    Contractor will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Contract so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor, provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.

D.    Contractor agrees not to discriminate in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of such employees, and shall comply fully with all provisions of the Agency’s Nondiscrimination in Contracts Policy (“Policy”), adopted by Agency Resolution No. 175-97, as such Policy may be amended from time to time.  

E.    Contractor shall provide all services to the public under this Contract in facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities as required by state and federal law and execute Attachment 2 “Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits Form”.

18.          COMPLIANCE WITH SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM

The Agency has adopted a Small Business Enterprise (“SBE”) Program, which provides first consideration  in awarding contracts in the following order: (1) Project Area SBEs, (2) Local SBEs (outside an Agency Project or Survey Area, but within San Francisco), and (3) all other SBEs (outside of San Francisco).  Non-local SBEs should be used to satisfy participation goals only if Project Area SBEs or Local SBEs are not available, qualified, or if their bids or fees are significantly higher than those of non-local SBEs.  (See Attachment 1 “SBE Agreement”).  Contractor shall make good faith efforts to achieve the goals of the SBE Program, which are 50% SBE participation for professional, personal services, and construction contracts.  SBEs must be certified with the Agency.  If Contractor intends to utilize subcontractors/subconsultants  in the provision of services, it must consult with the Agency’s Contract Compliance Division and comply with all the provisions of the Small Business Enterprise Agreement.

19.          COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM COMPENSATION POLICY AND HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY

Contractor agrees, as of the date of this Contract and during the term of this Contract, to comply with the provisions of the Agency’s Minimum Compensation Policy and Health Care Accountability Policy (the “Policies”), adopted by Agency Resolution 168-2001, as such policies may be amended from time to time (See Attachment 3 “Minimum Compensation Policy” and Attachment 4 “Health Care Accountability Policy”).  Such compliance includes providing all “Covered Employees,” as defined under Section 2.7 of the Policies, a minimum level of compensation and offering health plan benefits to such employees or to make payments to the City and County of San Francisco’s Department of Public Health, or to participate in a health benefits program developed by the City and County of San Francisco’s Director of Health.

20.  TERMINATION

The Agency may terminate this Contract at any time without cause upon written Notice of Termination to the Contractor; provided, however, that in the event of such termination, the Agency shall compensate the Contractor for work completed to the satisfaction of the Agency as of the date of such notice or the date of termination specified in and directed by such notice.

21.  MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

A.    Notices

All notices, demands, consents or approvals required under this Contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when delivered personally or by facsimile transmission or three (3) business days after being deposited in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

If to the Agency:         San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

                                        One South Van Ness Avenue, Fifth Floor

                                        San Francisco, CA  94103

                                        Attention:  Thor Kaslofsky

If to Contractor:          Helene Fried Associates

                                        1233 De Haro Street

San Francisco, CA  94107

                                        Attention:  Helene Fried

or to such other addresses as the parties may designate by notice as set forth above.

B.    Time of Performance

(1)           Time is of the essence in the performance of all the terms and conditions of this Contract.

(2)           All performance and cure periods expire at 5 p.m., San Francisco, California time, on the applicable date.

(3)           A performance or cure date which otherwise would be a Saturday, Sunday or Agency holiday shall be extended to the next Agency working day.

C.            Successors and Assigns

This Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and

assigns of the Agency and the Contractor.  Where the term “Contractor” or “Agency” is used in this Contract, it shall mean and include their respective successors and assigns; provided, however, that the Agency shall have no obligation under this Contract to, nor shall any benefit of this Contract accrue to, any unapproved successor or assign of Contractor where Agency approval of a successor or assign is required by this Contract.

D.    Modification, Waiver and Amendment

Any modification, waiver or amendment of any of the provisions of this Contract must be in writing and signed by both the Agency and Contractor.

E.    Entire Contract

This Contract represents the complete agreement between the parties as to the matters described herein, and there are no oral understandings between Contractor and the Agency affecting this Contract not set forth herein.  This Contract supersedes all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings between Contractor and the Agency with respect to the subject matter hereof.

F.     Severability

If any provision of this Contract shall be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect any other provision and all such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

 G.   Governing Law

This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.  It is the responsibility of Contractor to be informed of local, state and federal laws and requirements applicable to this Contract and to perform all work in compliance with those laws and requirements.

H.    Headings

Titles of parts or sections of this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting its provisions.

I.     Attorneys’ Fees

In any action or proceeding arising out of this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

J.     Authority

The undersigned represents and warrants that he or she has full power and authority to enter into this Contract and to bind the Contractor in accordance with its terms.

K.    Designated Representative

The initial designated representative for the Agency for this Contract is Thor Kaslofsky.  The initial Contractor designated representative for this Contract is Helene Fried.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Agency and Contractor have executed this Contract as of the date first above written.

HELENE FRIED AND ASSOCIATES,

a sole proprietorship

By:_______________________________

Helene Fried and Associates

Owner and Operator

Federal Tax Identification No. 561-62-1841

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a public

body, corporate and politic

By:_______________________________

Amy Lee

Deputy Executive Director,

Finance and Administration

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:__________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

Authorized by Resolution No. ______ adopted ________________


 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:      Scope of Services

Attachment B:      Budget

Attachment 1:      Small Business Agreement

Attachment 2:      Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits Form

Attachment 3:      Minimum Compensation Policy

Attachment 4:      Health Care Accountability Policy

Attachment 5:      Disclosure Questions

Attachment 4:      Statement of Compliance with Agency Policies and Certification of Applicant


RESOLUTION NO. 49-2009

AUTHORIZing a Personal Services Contract with Helene Fried and Associates, a SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, for a one-year term, with one, one-year EXTENSION, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $230,000, to PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES RELATED TO implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program on the Hunters Point Shipyard, including ASSISTING WITH the commissioning, installation and maintenance OF works of art; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

  1. On February 18, 2009, Agency staff issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for qualified consultants to facilitate implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program (“CHRP”) on the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) and work with the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) to facilitate the selection, installation and maintenance of public works of art as the CHRP Coordinator.

  1. The CHRP is one of 11 community benefit programs included in the Community Benefits Agreement of the Shipyard Phase 1 Development and Disposition Agreement (as amended, “DDA”) for the redevelopment of the Shipyard.  The objective of the CHRP is to create an art program that identifies opportunities for recognizing cultural components of the Shipyard and surrounding community in the development of the Shipyard, integrates cultural features and facilities throughout the Shipyard, and provides opportunities for local artists to participate in creating public art for the Shipyard.

  1. Significant work has been completed to date to meet this objective, including:  (1) a “Remembering our Past for the Future” event in July 2004 that was developed by Myles Stevens with input from the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”); (2) additional community outreach and input coordinated by Ilona McGriff, a consultant hired by Lennar in 2005, including input from an exploratory committee comprised of interested stakeholders; and (3) creation of a Shipyard Open Space & Streetscape Master Plan, approved by the Commission on January 17, 2007, by Resolution No. 6-2007, that identified specific opportunities to tell the story of the Shipyard and the surrounding Bayview Hunters Point community through interpretive features.
  2. Although the work completed has led to the creation of the vision for the CHRP, including general guidelines and locations for implementation, additional work must be undertaken to implement the CHRP.

  1. Consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures, the RFP for the CHRP Coordinator was advertised (1) on the Agency’s website, (2) on the City’s Bid and Contract Opportunities Website, and (3) in the San Francisco Examiner.  In addition, the RFP was mailed to art related businesses on the Agency’s mailing list.

  1. On March 6, 2009, staff hosted a pre-bid conference for interested consultants.  Staff provided an overview of the Shipyard project, CHRP, the requirements of the RFP, the Agency’s contracting process, and responded to questions from the attendees.  All of the questions and responses were posted on the Agency’s website and sent to the registered bidders.

  1. On March 25, 2009, the Agency received seven proposals, one of which was from Hasz Development LLC (“Hasz”).  Hasz possessed some art curatorial and art production experience but lacked any public art commissioning experience and therefore was not considered.  The other six responsive applicants were interviewed by a five person Agency-led panel consisting of a CAC member, a representative from the City’s Arts Commission, a representative from Lennar, and two Agency staff members.  The six applicants were evaluated based upon their qualifications and experience, as well as a number of other relevant criteria described in the RFP.

  1. The written proposals, which counted for 40 percent of the total score, were evaluated based on responses to the RFP that measured the applicant’s ability to perform the scope of services.  During the 45 minute in-person interviews, which counted for 60 percent of the total score, the applicants were given 10 minutes to describe their project plan and were asked a series of standardized questions regarding their qualifications.  The results of the scoring are below and are based on a 100-point scale:

  1. Helene Fried and Associates:                                91 points
  2. Architectural Resources Group:                            71 points
  1. Leslie Prichett:                                                          69 points
  2. Aesthetics, Inc.:                                                       68 points
  1. RBA Creative:                                                         67 points
  2. CALPAA:                                                  32 points

  1. The panel unanimously endorsed Helene Fried and Associates as the CHRP Coordinator giving the team a score of 91 points out of a possible 100 points.  The CAC concurred with the panel’s endorsement at its April meeting.  Staff now proposes to enter into a personal services contract (“Contract”) with Helene Fried and Associates to provide support services related to implementation of the CHRP.

  1. The CHRP Coordinator and the art to be installed on the Shipyard will be funded from a $2.3 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), which must be spent no later than August 15, 2010.  The goal of the EDA grant is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the United States.  This goal is consistent with the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan.

  1. The Contract with Helene Fried and Associates, which includes assisting with the commissioning of art pieces, facilitating the installation of art pieces, and developing a maintenance plan, will not directly cause any change in the physical environment, and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262 and 15061(b)(3).

RESOLUTION

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Personal Services Contract with Helene Fried and Associates, a sole proprietorship, for a one-year term, with one, one-year extension, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $230,000, to provide support services related to implementation of the Cultural Historic Recognition Program on the Hunters Point Shipyard, including assisting with the commissioning of art pieces, facilitating the installation of art pieces, and developing a maintenance plan for the works of art, substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel.

            

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

103-01909-002                                                                                                                                          Agenda Item No. 4 ( e )

                                                                                                                                                                  Meeting of May 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO:                        Agency Commissioners

FROM:  Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

SUBJECT:           Adopting the Mayor’s Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The public has broad rights of free speech in addressing the Agency Commission at public hearings.  Nonetheless, the Agency may impose certain limitations to ensure that speakers address the subject matter of the agenda or of its jurisdiction, to control misconduct disrupting the meeting, and to protect employees in extreme and unusual circumstances from discriminatory or harassing comments made on the basis of a protected class status.  In 2005, the Mayor adopted a policy providing City Commissions with certain procedures to respond to discriminatory or harassing remarks made at public meetings.  This policy does not prohibit any speech, but rather establishes a set of protocols to be followed in extreme and unusual circumstances.  The resolution before the Agency Commission would adopt the Mayor’s Policy and apply it to the Agency.

Staff recommends adopting the Mayor’s Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings and applying it to the Agency.

DISCUSSION

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution (Article I, Section 2), and the state public meeting law (the Ralph M. Brown Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 54590 et seq.) provide the public with broad rights of free speech at Agency Commission meetings.  The courts have construed these constitutional rights as allowing public speakers to address any matter related to the authority or function of the government body.  “Debate over public issues, including the qualifications and performance of public officials . . . lies at the heart of the First Amendment.”  Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (S.D. Cal. 1997) 973 F. Supp. 951, 958 (holding that a public body’s prohibition of criticism of its employees violated free speech rights of public).  Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District (C.D. Cal. 1996) (holding that public body’s prohibition of possibly defamatory public comments and its expulsion of speaker from meeting violated constitutional rights).  See also Cal. Attorney General, The Brown Act at p. 28 (2003) (“[M]embers of the public have broad constitutional rights to comment on any subject relating to the business of the governmental body.  Any attempt to restrict the content of such speech must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest.”)  The Brown Act codifies this broad constitutional protection of speech by requiring, among other things, that public agencies “not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the [governmental] body.”  Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3 (c). 

Constitutional law and the Brown Act, however, provide that, at the public meetings of a governmental entity, public comment may be limited to those issues related to the entity’s subject matter.  These meetings are “limited public forums” that the government has created for the purpose of conducting government business.  “‘[A]s long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view,’ the government may preserve the forum for its intended purposes.”  Flint v. Dennison (9th Cir. 2007) 488 F.3d 816 [quoting Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n (1983) 460 U.S. 37, 46.  See also The Brown Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3 (a); 78 Ops. Cal. Atty Gen. 224 (July 25, 1995) (public body may prohibit members of the public from commenting on matters that are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body).[1]

In addition, the Agency Commission may have the obligation--in extreme and unusual circumstances--to take immediate and appropriate
corrective action to stop harassment, on the basis of a protected class status, of an Agency employee or an Agency contractor by
a member of the public at an Agency Commission meeting.  Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940 (j)(1). 
See also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e—2000e-17. 
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), unlawful employment discrimination occurs when an employee
or contractor is subject to harassment on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.  An employer is also potentially liable for harassment of employees by non-employees. 
State law requires an employer to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring in the workplace and to take immediate and
appropriate action when it is, or should be, aware that harassment has occurred.  Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 (j)(1) & (k).  In general, the harassment,
however, must be both objectively and subjectively offensive to violate the law.  “The conduct must be extreme:  ‘simple teasing,’ [citation] offhand comments,
and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’” 
* * *Thus, for example, ‘mere utterance of an . . . epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee,’ [citation] does not
sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate [anti-discrimination law].” 
Jones v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377-78. 
To address extreme and unusual circumstances where public comment may constitute discriminatory or harassing speech,
the Mayor’s Office has issued a Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings of City Boards and Commissions (“Mayor’s Policy”). 
City Attorney, Good Government Guide Supplement:  A Compilation of Laws, Regulations, and Policies Governing the Conduct of Public Officials,
(2007-2008), pp. 157-158 at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/city_attorney/Resources/GGGSUPPLEMENT2007-08.PDF [as of May 5, 2009]. 
The Mayor’s Policy prohibits discrimination or harassment of City employees on the basis of:  “Race, color, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, place of birth,
sex, age, religion, creed, disability or medical condition, HIV/AIDS status, sexual orientation, marital or domestic partner status, gender identity,
parental status, pregnancy, weight or height or any other characteristic protected by state or federal employment discrimination laws or,
by the San Francisco Charter or local ordinance.” 
The Mayor’s Policy does not prohibit any form of speech, but rather instructs the chair of a public meeting of a
City board or commission to take certain actions when the speaker makes a discriminatory or harassing remark. 
If any person makes discriminatory or harassing remarks at a public meeting that violate … City policy,
the chair of the meeting shall immediately take the following actions:
a.   The chair shall read the City’s policy against discrimination and harassment . . . into the record. 
The chair shall state that comments in violation of City policy will not be condoned and will play no role in City decisions.
b.   The chair shall further state that any City employee in the room who is offended by the discriminatory or
harassing remarks is excused from attendance at the meeting, and that no City employee is compelled to
remain in attendance where it appears likely that speakers will make further discriminatory or harassing comments.
c.   If that person or others continue to make discriminatory or harassing remarks that violate City policy,
the chair shall remind the speaker of City policy, and then may recess the meeting temporarily. 
After this temporary interruption, speakers engage in public comment shall be permitted to finish their allotted time.
The Mayor’s Policy attempts to balance the public’s broad right to speak at City Commission meetings with the protection of public employees. 
See City Attorney, Good Government Guide,  p. 106 (2007-2008).
For the reasons stated above, the Agency Commission may wish to adopt the Mayor’s Policy and have it apply to the Agency.
Adoption of the Mayor’s Policy is not a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), will not independently result in a physical change in the environment, and is not subject to environmental
review under CEQA.
Originated by James B. Morales, Agency General Counsel
Fred Blackwell
Executive Director


RESOLUTION NO. 50-2009

ADOPTING THE MAYOR’S POLICY ON DISCRIMINATORY OR

HARASSING REMARKS MADE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

  1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) is subject to the public meeting requirements of state law. The Ralph M. Brown Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 54590 et seq. (“Brown Act”).
  1. In addition to the Brown Act, the Agency Commission also follows Robert’s Rules of Order (“Robert’s Rules of Order” or “Robert’s Rules”) in conducting its public meetings. Section 37 of the By-Laws of the Redevelopment Agency (Sept. 1, 2003). Robert’s Rules provides, among other things, standards for decorum in debate. These standards apply to Commissioners’ discussions and deliberations and provide that “a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he [or she] must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he [or she] attack or question the motive of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of the debate.” Robert’s Rules of Order at p. 380 (10th ed. 2000). Robert’s Rules apply to members of the Commission, but do not apply to members of the public who may speak at the Commission hearings. More importantly, federal and state laws governing the rights of the public at Commission meetings would supersede any specific aspect of Robert’s Rules that is inconsistent with those laws.

  1. Under the Brown Act, the public must be allowed to speak at Agency Commission meetings and has the right “to directly address the [Agency Commission] on any item of interest to the public, before or during the [Agency Commission’s] consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the [Agency Commission], provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by [the Brown Act].” Cal. Gov’t Code §54954.3 (a).

  1. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution guarantee that the public has broad rights of free speech at Agency Commission meetings. See Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (S.D. Cal. 1997) 973 F. Supp. 951 (holding that public body’s prohibition of criticism of its employees violated free speech rights of public); Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District (C.D. Cal. 1996) (holding that public body’s prohibition of possibly defamatory public comment and expulsion of speaker from meeting violates constitutional rights). Accordingly, members of the public speaking at Agency Commission meetings have the right, among others, to criticize the Agency’s programs, practices, policies, and services, as well as its members and staff.

  1. Notwithstanding the public’s expansive free speech rights, the Agency Commission has the authority to limit reasonably a public speaker’s comments to the agenda item being addressed or, for general public comment, to the subject matter jurisdiction of the policy body. Brown Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 54954.3(a). See e.g. Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (S.D. Cal. 1997) 973 F. Supp. 951 (state created a limited public forum where comments may be restricted to the subject matter of the public body).

  1. In addition, the Agency Commission has the obligation--in extreme and unusual circumstances--to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop harassment, on the basis of a protected class status, of an Agency employee or an Agency contractor by a member of the public at an Agency Commission meeting. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940 (j)(1). See also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e—2000e-17. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), unlawful employment discrimination occurs when an employee or contractor is subject to harassment on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation. An employer is also potentially liable for harassment of employees by non-employees.

  1. FEHA requires an employer to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring in the workplace and to take immediate and appropriate action when it is, or should be, aware that harassment has occurred. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 (j)(1) & (k). In general, the harassment, however, must be both objectively and subjectively offensive to violate the law. “The conduct must be extreme: ‘simple teasing,’ [citation] offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’” * * *Thus, for example, ‘mere utterance of an . . . epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee,’ [citation] does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate [anti-discrimination law].” Jones v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377-78.

  1. To address extreme and unusual circumstances where public comment may constitute discriminatory or harassing speech, the Mayor’s Office, in 2005, issued the Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings of City Boards and Commissions (“Mayor’s Policy”). City Attorney, Good Government Guide Supplement: A Compilation of Laws, Regulations, and Policies Governing the Conduct of Public Officials, (2007-2008), pp. 157-158 at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/city_attorney/Resources/GGGSUPPLEMENT2007-08.PDF [as of May 5, 2009]. See also City Attorney, Good Government Guide, p. 106 (2007-2008). The Mayor’s Policy attempts to balance the public’s broad right to speak at City Commission meetings with the protection of public employees.


  1. The Agency Commission now desires to adopt the Mayor’s Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings of City Boards and Commissions and to apply them to Agency Commission meetings. References in the Mayor’s Policy to “City” shall be deemed to also refer to “Agency.”

  1. Adoption of the Mayor’s Policy is not a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), will not independently result in a physical change in the environment, and is not subject to environmental review under CEQA.
RESOLUTION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that it hereby adopts
the Mayor’s Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings of City Boards and Commissions
that is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1. 
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James B. Morales
Agency General Counsel
Attachment:  Exhibit 1


 

MAYOR'S POLICY ON DISCRIMINATORY OR HARASSING REMARKS MADE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS

Full Official Title: Mayor's Policy on Discriminatory or Harassing Remarks Made at Public Meetings of City Boards and Commissions.

A. 1. CITY POLICY AND GOVERNING LAW PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OR HARASSMENT OF CITY EMPLOYEES.

The City invites public comment about its operations, including comment about the performance of its public officials and employees, at the public meetings of City boards and commissions. But City policies, along with federal, state and local laws, prohibit discrimination against or harassment of City employees based on race, sex and the other categories listed below. Discriminatory or harassing comments about or in the presence of City employees, even com­ments by third parties, may create a hostile work environment, if severe or pervasive.

City policy prohibits discrimination or harassment of its employees on the basis of:

Race, color, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, place of birth, sex, age, religion, creed, disability or medical condition, HIV/AIDS status, sexual orientation, marital or domestic partner status, gender identity, parental status, pregnancy, weight or height or any other characteristic protected by state or federal employment dis­crimination laws or by the San Francisco Charter or local ordinance.

The City Attorney's Office is available to assist Boards and Commissions in identifying prohibited discrimina­tion or harassment.

In order to acknowledge the public's right to comment on City operations at public meetings, while taking reasonable steps to protect City employees from discrimination and harassment, City Boards and Commissions shall adhere to the following procedures.

B. 2. HOW TO RESPOND To DISCRIMINATORY OR HARASSING REMARKS MADE AT A PUBLIC MEETING.

If any person makes discriminatory or harassing remarks at a public meeting that violate the above City policy, the chair of the meeting shall immediately take the following actions:

  1. The chair shall read the City's policy against discrimination and harassment, set forth above in bold type, into the record. The chair shall state that comments in violation of City policy will not be condoned and will play no role in City decisions.

  1. The chair shall further state that any City employee in the room who is offended by the discriminatory or harassing remarks is excused from attendance at the meeting, and that no City employee is compelled to remain in attendance where it appears likely that speakers will make further discriminatory or harassing comments.

  1. If that person or others continue to make discriminatory or harassing remarks that violate City policy, the chair shall remind the speaker of City policy, and then may recess the meeting temporarily. After this temporary interruption, speakers engaged in public comment shall be permitted to finish their allotted time.

C. 3. HOW TO RESPOND TO WILLFUL DISRUPTION OF THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF A MEETING.

If persons engage in misconduct that disrupts the orderly conduct of the meeting, the chair shall follow the standards and procedures set forth in the state Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code Section 54957.9) to deal with disruption of meetings.  The Brown Act provides:

  1. If the "meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible", the chair may ask for the assistance of the Sheriffs Department in removing the persons engaged in the willful interruption.

  1. If "order cannot be restored by the removal of persons who are willfully disrupting the meeting", the public body, by motion and majority vote, may order the meeting room cleared and continue the meeting in conformity with the Brown Act (representatives of news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend, and the public body may establish a procedure for readmitting individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting).

D. 4. QUESTIONS.

Questions about this policy shall be directed to the Deputy City Attorney assigned to advise the Board or Commission.

(Adopted in 2005)

118-61409-002                                                                                 Agenda Item No. 4 ( f )

                                                                                                       Meeting of May 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Agency Commissioners

FROM:           Fred Blackwell

                        Executive Director

SUBJECT:   Authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $26,000,000 to assist Nihonmachi Terrace Limited Partnership with the financing of the acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable residential rental facilities known as Nihonmachi Terrace Apartments at 1615 Sutter Street and authorizing and approving related actions and authorizing the execution and delivery of related documents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 16, 2008, the Agency Commission authorized a bond inducement resolution for the Agency’s application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (“CDLAC”) for an allocation of $28,000,000 tax exempt bonds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of 245 units of very low and low income rental housing for seniors and families at Nihonmachi Terrace, 1615 Sutter Street (the “Project”) within the former Western Addition A-2 Redevelopment Project Area (the “Former Project Area”).  The Project was developed by the Japanese American Religious Federation Housing, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation (the “Sponsor” or “JARF”), pursuant to a Land Disposition Agreement (“LDA”) executed with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”) in 1974.

The Sponsor in now requesting the issuance of tax exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 (the “Bonds”).  The issuance request is $2 million less than the inducement amount because the development budget has been finalized. The bond proceeds with be combined with equity from the sale of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, a seller carry-back note, Affordable Housing Program funds,  and a deferred developer fee. For tax credit purposes, the financing structure includes the sale of the buildings to a newly created partnership known as Nihonmachi Terrace Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership (the “Developer”).  JARF will retain an ownership interest in the development as managing general partner and as owner of the underlying land which will be leased to the Developer. The rehabilitation work includes replacement or modernization of the building’s major systems, improvements to exterior finishes including new dual-glazed window, roof repairs, and significant improvements to most unit interiors. In exchange for the Agency’s issuance of the bonds, the Developer will be required to extend the affordability restrictions for an additional term of fifty-five (55) years. No Agency funds are required or are being requested.

With the Commission’s authorization, a bond closing is scheduled for June 3, 2009, and construction will start shortly thereafter and completed fourteen months later.

Staff recommends authorization of the Issuance Resolution for the issuance of multifamily revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 for the acquisition and rehabilitation of Nihonmachi Terrace.

DISCUSSION

Background

Nihonmachi Terrace (the “Project”) provides 245 units of affordable rental housing for seniors and families at 1615 Sutter Street in the Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2.  The Project was originally financed through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Section 236 interest rate subsidy program and also partially assisted by project-based Section 8 rental subsidies. The Project was developed by Japanese American Religious Federation Housing, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation (the “Sponsor”), pursuant to a Land Disposition Agreement (“LDA”) executed with the Agency in 1974.  The Project was completed in 1975 and provides 51 studio units, 142 one-bedroom units, 30 two-bedroom units, 18 three-bedroom units and 4 four-bedroom units for very low- and low-income seniors and families; about 80% of the residents are seniors and 20% are families. The site of the complex includes 1 twelve-story high rise, 1 four-story wood frame building, and 5 two-story buildings.  The complex also contains 66 surface parking spaces, as well as a central courtyard, laundry rooms and community spaces.

The Project has a HUD project-based Section 8 contract for 120 units that enables the Project to meet its operating costs while serving low- and very low-income households. The original Section 8 contract had a term of 20 years and since 1995 has been renewed each year subject to annual appropriations. At the completion of construction, HUD will enter into a new 20 year Housing Assistance Payment contract subject to annual appropriations with the Developer.  If rental subsidies are not appropriated, the Sponsor would be able to utilize reserve funds budgeted through this refinancing to help fund operating costs during transition to non-subsidized rents.  On July 30, 2008, the federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act was signed into law. The bill included a provision which increased the number of project-based Section 8 vouchers providing up to 125 new project-based Section 8 voucher subsidies for the Project. These additional vouchers will ensure that once the Project has been completed, all eligible tenants will only have to pay 30% of their income towards rent. The new vouchers will be administered through the San Francisco Housing Authority with a separate Housing Assistance Payments contract. With the new subsidies, the Project can carry greater debt and will fund a more comprehensive scope of work than previously planned.

Financing Plan

The Sponsor is working with financial consultant Devine and Gong, Inc., and together they approached the Agency with a plan to refinance and rehabilitate the Project while preserving and improving long-term affordability. The proposed refinancing plan takes advantage of recent changes to the Section 236 program that allows projects such as Nihonmachi Terrace needing rehabilitation to recapitalize while maintaining the financial advantages to the Project to remain in place. The financing plan utilizes a loan of tax-exempt bond proceeds, continuation of interest reduction program (“IRP”) payments pursuant to the existing Section 236 program loan, Section 8 rental assistance, equity from the sale of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Affordable Housing Program funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank, and a partial deferral of the developer fee.

On December 3, 2008, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (“CDLAC”) allocated $26 million in private activity bonds to the Agency to be issued toward funding the rehabilitation of the Project. With this allocation, the Sponsor applied for and received an allocation 4% low income housing tax credits that permits the Sponsor to raise private equity as a source of funds for the rehabilitation. In order to take advantage of the tax credit program, the refinancing plan includes the sale of the Project buildings to a new limited partnership, Nihonmachi Terrace Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership (the “Developer”).  The Sponsor will be managing general partner and retain ownership of the land; at the end of the 15-year tax credit term, ownership of the Project buildings would revert back to the Sponsor. 

A tax credit investor, Enterprise Community Investment, Inc., will be committing $8,025,374 in equity funding for the Developer and will be the limited partner of the Developer. Securing this commitment took longer than normal due to the recent disruptions in the capital markets, and the Sponsor was required to meet more stringent underwriting guidelines.  For example, Enterprise required that the Sponsor bring on a co-general partner that offered a greater experience and financial capacity. After a public solicitation, JARF selected the John Stewart Company as co- general partner. JARF remains the managing general partner.

Affordability Requirements

Currently, all units in the Project are restricted to households earning up to 80% of area median income.  The 120 units assisted by Section 8 rental subsidies require the household to contribute   30% of the income towards the rent with the balance provided by the HUD.  The remaining 125 units pay what is commonly referred to as Section 236 market rents which are the prorated operating and debt service cost.  The Section 236 market rents are significantly below the Fair Market Rents and true market rents. 

The proposed plan both increases the affordability to 60% area median income (with most units at 50% area median income), and extends the Project’s affordability term for 55 years. The existing Section 8 contract for 120 units will be renewed by HUD for an additional 20 years. In addition, up to 125 of the remaining units will receive new HUD issued project-based Section 8 vouchers to be administered by the San Francisco Housing Authority. These vouchers will be administered through a 20-year Housing Assistance Payments contract starting at the end of the construction period.  The existing Section 8 subsidy and the new Section 8 vouchers ensure that all eligible tenants will be able to pay only 30% of their income towards rent. 

In exchange for issuing the bonds, the staff recommended and the Sponsor agreed to maintain the affordability of the Project for a minimum of 55 years, a requirement that will be memorialized in the bond regulatory agreement. The regulatory agreement will include a provision requiring affordability restrictions to remain in place even if the bonds are paid off prior to the expiration of the affordability term. 

Scope of Work

The scope of the rehabilitation has been finalized. Since the building was completed in 1975, no significant improvements or renovations have been made and many building components have reached the end of their useful lives. Major building systems will be modernized and energy saving systems installed, and life safety systems upgraded. Two traction elevators and one hydraulic elevator will be rehabilitated. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed and the fire alarm system upgraded.  The heating-ventilation-air-conditioning (“HVAC”) systems will be replaced with energy efficient domestic hydronic and hot water, a new boiler and storage system, and replace re-circulating pumps.

Exterior improvement includes window replacement with energy efficient dual-paned windows, and replacing all building roofs. Common areas improvements will be made to increase the accessibility of laundry facilities and remodeling the community room, corridors and elevator lobbies. Unit interiors will be significantly upgraded. Twelve units will be made accessible. Approximately 90% of units, depending on current condition, will receive new kitchen appliances, cabinets, countertops, doors, flooring, painting, sinks, faucets, window coverings, toilets, tubs and showers. All units will receive new smoke, heat and CO2 detectors.  

Community Outreach

The proposed rehabilitation will minimize temporary relocation, and if necessary at all, temporary relocation would be accommodated within the building for a maximum of one month.  The Sponsor is keeping all residents apprised of the proposed rehabilitation project on a regular basis. In addition to a series of meetings the Sponsor held with residents of Nihonmachi Terrace, on March 12, 2008 the Sponsor held a community meeting attended by over 50 members of the surrounding community to explain their plans for the rehabilitation. There was a consensus among those in attendance to support the rehabilitation.

On March 13, 2008, the Western Addition Citizens Advisory Committee (the “CAC”), voted to support the rehabilitation plans and the inducement resolution for the tax-exempt bonds. After confirmation that the new Section 8 subsidy from HUD, the Sponsor held a meeting on September 4, 2008 with the Project’s residents and other stakeholders to explain the expanded and revised proposed scope of work. On September 11, 2008, the scope of the rehabilitation and the amended intent to issue bonds was presented to the CAC; the CAC voted to support the amendment.

Tax exempt bond issuance

The Agency, by its Resolution No. 107-200, adopted on September 16, 2008, expressed its intention to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds in one or more series in an amount not to exceed $28 million. As required under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Agency held a public hearing on the proposed issuance of the bonds on October 16, 2008. The hearing notice was published on October 1 and 8, 2008 and Mayor Newsom approved the issuance of the bonds on October 30, 2008. On December 5, 2008, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee awarded an allocation to the Agency to issue tax-exempt bonds in an amount not to exceed $26 million for the financing of the project.  The allocation request from the Agency was reduced from $28 million to $26 million to reflect a revised development budget.

The issuance of the tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds does not require a monetary contribution by the Agency, nor does it affect the credit of the Agency. The bonds are repaid solely by rental income from the property, not by tax increment funds. The securities for the repayment of the bonds are the property itself. The first step of the bond issuance occurred on September 16, 2008 when the Commission authorized the intent to issue bonds. The date of the inducement resolution determines which project expenses become eligible for reimbursement from tax-exempt bond proceeds.  With the Commission’s authorization, the Agency applied to the CDLAC.  The final financing plan submitted by the Sponsor to Agency staff has been reviewed, evaluated, and approved by Agency staff.

California Environmental Quality Act

The refinancing and rehabilitation of Nihonmachi Terrace, an existing residential facility, will result in the completion of interior and exterior alterations to the building and rehabilitation work.  The facility will not be expanded and its use will not change.  The construction activities are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a) (alterations to an existing facility) and Section 15301(d) (rehabilitation of an existing facility).  These activities would not directly cause any significant adverse physical change in the environment.

(Originated by Jeff White, Development Specialist)

Fred Blackwell

Executive Director

Attachment:    Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants

Cc:       Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi


RESOLUTION NO. 51-2009

AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS, in one or more series, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,000,000 TO ASSIST nihonmachi terrace limited partnership WITH THE FINANCING OF THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL FACILITIES KNOWN AS nihonmachi terrace APARTMENTS AT 1615 sutter STREET AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING RELATED ACTIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF RELATED DOCUMENTS

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

1.         In furtherance of the objectives of the California Community Redevelopment Law, constituting Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. (the “Law”), the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Agency”) undertakes programs for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of slums and blighted areas in the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”).

2.         The Agency is authorized by Chapter 8, commencing with Section 33750, of the Law to issue revenue bonds, the interest on which is tax-exempt under State of California and federal laws, and to make loans to finance the cost of, among other things, the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily residential housing developments for occupancy, in whole or in part, by persons of very low-, low- and moderate-income.

3.         Nihonmachi Terrace Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”), will acquire from Japanese American Religious Federation Housing, Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Seller”), a multifamily apartment complex with 245 residential units known as Nihonmachi Terrace Apartments, located at 1615 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California (the “Project”).  The managing general partner of the Borrower is Japanese American Religious Federation Housing, Inc.  The Borrower has requested that the Agency issue its housing revenue bonds pursuant to the Law in order to finance a portion of the costs to acquire and rehabilitate the Project.

4.         The Agency, by its Resolution No. 107-2008, adopted on September 16, 2008, expressed its intention to issue multifamily housing revenue bonds on a tax-exempt basis in an amount not to exceed $28,000,000 to finance a portion of the Project.  On October 16, 2008, the Agency held a public hearing on the proposed issuance of such tax-exempt bonds, as required under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), following published notice of such hearing on October 1, 2008 and October 8, 2008, and the Mayor of the City, as an applicable elected representative under the Code, approved the issuance of such tax-exempt bonds on October 30, 2008.

5.         On December 3, 2008, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee awarded an allocation to allow the Agency to issue bonds on a tax-exempt basis in an amount not to exceed $26,000,000 for the purpose of financing a portion of the Project.

6.         The Agency intends to issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Nihonmachi Terrace Apartments), 2009 Series A, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $26,000,000 (the “Bonds”).  The proceeds of the Bonds will be used for the purpose of funding a loan, in the maximum amount of $26,000,000 to finance the Borrower’s acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project (the “Loan”) pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”), by and between the Agency and the Borrower, in accordance with a Trust Indenture (the “Indenture”), by and between the Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), an Assignment of Note (the “Assignment of Note”) by the Agency for the benefit of the Trustee, and a Bond Purchase Agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), by and among the Agency, the Borrower and Citicorp Municipal Mortgage, Inc., or its designee (the “Purchaser”), and pursuant to certain conditions and requirements to be set forth in a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the “Regulatory Agreement”), by and among the Agency, the Trustee and the Borrower. 

7.         The Agency is authorized pursuant to the Law to lend and distribute monies to nonprofit developers and sponsors for the specific and special purpose of increasing and maintaining housing stock in the City for very low-, low- and moderate-income households.

8.         The Borrower intends to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project using, among other sources, the proceeds of the Loan.  The Bonds to be issued to fund the Loan will be sold to the Purchaser.

9.         The Agency is authorized pursuant to the Law to adopt a regulation that contains standards, qualifications and criteria for the making and approval of loans.  The Agency intends to adopt the standards, qualifications and criteria for the making and approval of the Loan that are set forth in the following documents (collectively, the “Regulation”) as the regulation of the Agency that contains standards, qualifications and criteria for the making and approval of the Loan for purposes of the Law: (i) the Loan Agreement, (ii) the Indenture, (iii) the Assignment of Note and (iv) the Regulatory Agreement.

10.       All acts, conditions and things required by the Law and by the Constitution and laws of the State of California to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in connection with the adoption of the Regulation and the consummation of the financing represented by the Bonds and the Loan do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law, and the Agency is now duly authorized and empowered, pursuant to each and every requirement of law, to authorize the adoption of such Regulation, to authorize such financing and to authorize the execution and delivery of documents related to such financing, for the purposes, in the manner and upon the terms contemplated in this Resolution.

11.       The refinancing and rehabilitation of Nihonmachi Terrace Apartments, an existing residential facility, will result in the completion of interior and exterior alterations to the building and rehabilitation work.  The facility will not be expanded and its use will not change.  The construction activities are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a) (alterations to an existing facility) and Section 15301(d) (rehabilitation of an existing facility).  These activities would not directly cause any significant adverse physical change in the environment.

FINDINGS

The Commission hereby finds and determines that the adoption of the Regulation for the making and approval of the Loan and the use of the Loan proceeds to assist in the financing of the Project will be of benefit to the Agency.

RESOLUTION

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that:

1.         Pursuant to the Law, the Agency hereby adopts the Regulation, in the forms lodged with the Agency General Counsel, with such changes, additions and deletions as may be approved by any Authorized Officer (described below) in the manner set forth in Section 3 below, as the regulation of the Agency that contains standards, qualifications and criteria for the making and approval of the Loan for purposes of the Law.

2.         Pursuant to the Law, the Agency hereby authorizes the issuance and delivery of the Bonds designated as the “Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Nihonmachi Terrace Apartments), 2009 Series A” (the “Bonds”), in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $26,000,000, and maturing not later than December 1, 2042.  The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to the Indenture.  The terms of the Bonds shall be as set forth in the Indenture, as such is executed and delivered by the Agency.  The Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director - Finance and Administration and the Secretary of the Agency (each an “Authorized Officer”), each acting alone, are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds on behalf of the Agency by manual or facsimile signature, in the form set forth in the Indenture, with such changes, deletions and insertions as may be approved by such Authorized Officer upon consultation with legal counsel to the Agency, such approval being conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof, and the Authorized Officers, each acting alone, are hereby authorized and directed to attest the Bonds in said form and otherwise in accordance with the Indenture.  The Bonds, when executed by the Agency and authenticated by the Trustee, shall be delivered to or upon the order of the Purchaser.

3.         The Indenture, the Regulatory Agreement, the Assignment of Note, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Loan Agreement (collectively, the “Bond Documents”), in the forms lodged with the Agency General Counsel, are hereby approved.  The Authorized Officers, each acting alone, are hereby authorized for and on behalf of the Agency to execute and deliver the Bond Documents in such forms, with such changes, additions or deletions as may be approved by such Authorized Officer upon consultation with legal counsel to the Agency, including such additions or changes as are necessary or advisable in accordance with Section 4 below, such approvals to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery by such Authorized Officer of all of the Bond Documents.

4.         All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Agency with respect to the adoption of the Regulation and the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified.  The Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director - Finance and Administration, the Treasurer, the Secretary and Assistant Secretaries, the Agency General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsels and other officers of the Agency are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things, and to execute and deliver any and all documents and certificates (including, without limitation, those in connection with tax compliance matters and continuing disclosure obligations) which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and the funding of the Loan, and otherwise to implement the purposes of this Resolution both before and after the delivery of the Bonds.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:



_________________________
James B. Morales
Agency General Counsel

450-027.09-002   Agenda Item No. 4 ( g )

                                                                                                                                                  Meeting of May 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Agency Commissioners

FROM:  Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

SUBJECT:           Authorizing a Personal Services Contract with Wallace Roberts and Todd, Inc., dba, WRT/Solomon E.T.C., a California corporation, for a one-year term, with two, one-year extensions, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000, to provide design and planning services for the Community Facilities Parcel on the Hunters Point Shipyard; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area.  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On November 19, 2008, Agency staff issued a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) offering the opportunity to contract with the Agency to conduct an integrated planning and design effort for the 1.2 acre Community Facilities Parcel (“CFP”) on Parcel A of the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) and develop conceptual and schematic plans for residential and or mixed-use development of the site (“CFP Plans”). 

On December 22, 2008, the Agency received seven proposals, two of which lacked sufficient relevant experience and therefore were not interviewed.  The remaining five applicants were interviewed by an Agency-led panel consisting of two Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee members (“CAC”) and three Agency staff.  The panel unanimously endorsed WRT/Solomon E.T.C. to conduct the planning effort and develop the CFP Plans.  The CAC concurred with this endorsement at its March and April 2009 meetings.

Staff recommends authorization of a personal services contract with WRT/Solomon E.T.C, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $2,500,000 to develop conceptual and schematic plans for the Community Facilities Parcel on Parcel A of the Hunters Point Shipyard

DISCUSSION

Background

The Shipyard’s Phase 1 Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) between the Agency and HPS Development Co., LP (“Lennar” or the “Developer”) provides for a substantial community benefits package.  Attachment 23 of the DDA “Community Ownership, Financing and Benefits Program,” includes provisions for six acres of land on the Shipyard to be used to benefit the Bayview Hunters Point (“BVHP”) community.  The use of the CFP will be determined through consultation with the community controlled Quasi-Public-Entity (“QPE”), the Shipyard CAC and the Agency as part of a collaborative planning process. 

The first 1.2-acres of the CFP are located at the eastern end of Parcel A between a low density neighborhood commercial area along Innes Avenue, open space, and the proposed mixed-use area envisioned for Phase 2 of the Shipyard development.  The eastern side of the site is bordered by Galvez Avenue, the northern side is bordered by Donahue Street, and the southern side is boarded by Coleman Street.  The map pictured on Attachment V titled, “Community Facilities Parcel Site Map,” shows the location of the first 1.2 acre CFP.  In accordance with the Second Amendment to the Phase 1 DDA, adopted by the Commission in October 2006, the 4.8 acre balance of CFP’s will be delivered during Phase 2 of the Shipyard development. 

In the DDA, the Agency and the CAC agreed to create a QPE to develop and manage the CFP as well as the income from the Agency’s portion of the Shipyard’s net land sale proceeds. A working group called the Supervisory Team, comprised of the ten executive members of the CAC, the Mayor’s Office, the District 10 Supervisor’s Office, and the Agency worked with the consultants, Urban Strategies Council, on a plan for the creation of the QPE (“QPE Reports”).  These QPE Reports will serve as the starting point for development ideas for the CFP.  

CFP Planning Tasks

The Agency has proceeded with the RFQ process for the CFP in order to develop a land use plan and program that incorporates the community’s priorities for the CFP that is sustainable and economically viable.  Specific objectives for this effort include but are not limited to:

  1. Soliciting additional community input regarding the potential range and mix of uses (i.e., job training, community center, cultural, educational, housing) for the CFP through a community meeting/workshop, using the priorities already established in the QPE Reports.
  2. Refining the priorities and develop preliminary conceptual plans using the existing Shipyard Design for Development guidelines and other information supplied by Agency, and present them to the community for review.
  3. Requiring the CFP’s designs to be sustainable; therefore Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ Silver certification will be sought.
  4. Conducting feasibility and due diligence analysis of preliminary use concepts.
  5. Reviewing existing environmental/geotechnical studies (*Note: existing engineering studies conducted by the Developer’s consultants, will be made available) and conduct engineering studies as needed.
  1. Developing basic concept design documents and provide preliminary construction cost estimates.
  2. Developing basic design documents including but not limited to: Program of uses, estimated range of development densities, height and bulk of buildings, block development, general circulation (including vehicular service and pedestrian circulations), conceptual building elevations, street frontage, and overall building character.

EDA Grant Funds

The CFP Planning Tasks will be funded from a $2.5 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), which must be spent no later than August 15, 2011.  The goal of the EDA grant is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the United States.

RFQ Outreach

Consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures the RFQ was advertised (1) on the Agency’s website, (2) the City’s “Bid and Contract Opportunities Website,” and (3) in the San Francisco Examiner.  In addition, the RFQ was mailed to architectural and planning businesses on the Agency’s mailing list.  On December 5, 2008, staff hosted a pre-bid conference for interested consultants.  Staff provided an overview of the Shipyard project, the requirements of the RFQ, the Agency’s contracting process, and responded to questions from the attendees.  All of the questions and responses were posted on the Agency’s website and sent to the registered bidders.

Applicant Interviews

On December 22, 2008, the Agency received seven proposals.  Two of the applicants 1) Dahlin Group and 2) DeStefano Partners did not have sufficient relevant community facility planning experience and therefore were not interviewed.  The remaining five applicants were interviewed by an Agency-led panel consisting of two CAC members and three Agency staff.

The six applicants were evaluated based upon their qualifications and experience, as well as a number of other relevant criteria described in the RFQ, including:

  • Experience and technical ability in the area of economic studies, such as market, feasibility, fiscal and economic benefit, highest and best use, and other analyses as specified.
  • Qualifications of key personnel to successfully undertake the scope of services outlined in the RFQ and work effectively with diverse populations
  • Reasonable staffing, operating budget, and consulting fee. 

The written proposals, which counted for 40 percent of the total score, were evaluated based on responses to the RFQ that gauged the applicant’s ability to perform the scope of services.  During the 60 minute in-person interviews, which counted for 60 percent of the total score, the applicants were given 10 minutes to describe their project plan and were asked a series of standardized questions regarding their qualifications.  The results of the scoring are below and are based on a 100 point scale:

  1. WRT/Solomon, E.T.C.:                       84 points
  2. Perkins + Will:                                    78 points
  1. Stevens & Associates:                                        66 points
  1. Architecture + Design:                        64 points
  2. MBH Architects:                                55 points

The panel unanimously endorsed WRT/Solomon E.T.C. to conduct the planning effort and develop the CFP Plans giving the team a score of 84 points out of a possible 100 points.  The Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC’) concurred with this endorsement at its March and April 2009 meetings.

California Environmental Quality Act

The Personal Services Contract with WRT/Solomon E.T.C., including completion of design and planning services would not directly cause any change in the physical environment, and are feasibility and planning studies that are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.

Originated by Thor Kaslofsky, Project Manager

         Fred Blackwell

Executive Director

Attachment A:                     Scope of Services

Attachment B:                     Budget

Attachment C:                             Hunters Point Shipyard Parcel “A” Land Plan and Community Facilities Parcel Site Map

Attachment D:                     Personal Services Contract


 

ATTACHMENT A

Scope of Services

Task 1 – Project Initiation

  1. Description: Task 1 will define and initiate the process for completing the CFP Conceptual Plan.  It will include meetings with Agency, Mayor’s Office, and other City staff as needed, the CAC, and representatives of the neighborhood community.  This task will help to set the framework for the analysis, leading to a final scope of services and schedule for the project. A total of five community workshops and numerous team meetings will be required.
  2. Product(s):  Final Scope of Services and Schedule

Task 2 – Community Workshop and Preliminary Mix of Uses

  1. Significant community outreach has already occurred regarding preliminary ideas for the CFP.  However, a community workshop facilitated by the Consultant, with Agency assistance, will be required to solicit additional community input regarding potential uses for the CFPs.
  2. During this task, the Consultant will determine the preliminary mix of uses (i.e., job training, community center, cultural, educational, housing, etc.), and the approximate size of each, using the existing data and priorities, as well as guidelines and restrictions articulated in the D for D and the CFP Study. 
  1. Product(s):  Community Workshop and preliminary Mix of Uses summaries

Task 3 – Market Data Collection and Existing Conditions Summary

  1. Description:  During this task, the Consultant team will evaluate existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints.  This evaluation will result in projecting demand for space and identifying existing market conditions (including rental and vacancy rates) for the various potential uses identified in Task 2.
  2. Along with the data collected in Task 2, this information should be summarized in a draft Existing Conditions – Opportunities and Constraints document.  A community workshop, facilitated by the Consultant, with help from the Agency, will be held to present these findings and solicit stakeholder feedback.  An Existing Conditions – Opportunities and Constraints document incorporating feedback from the community will be prepared and serve as a basis for the planning and design effort.
  1. Product(s):  Community Workshop and Existing Conditions – Opportunities and Constraints document and Market Feasibility Analysis

Task 4 – Preliminary Design Concepts, Alternatives Analysis, Synthesis and Community Workshop

  1. Description:  Task 4 will focus on the preparation of design concepts which could include single-use buildings, mixed-use structures (community, retail, and/or residential uses), open space elements, or some combination thereof.

  1. As part of this task, an analysis of the financial feasibility of any alternatives should be included, comparing the cost of construction with the income potential generated by the various uses.  The Consultant will evaluate the economic and


 

financial feasibility of various alternatives, and develop program refinements.  To address development economic/financial shortfalls, if any, the Consultant will be tasked with producing recommendations, including creative financing and revenue opportunities (i.e., monetization of air rights).

  1. A community workshop, coordinated by the Consultant, with Agency assistance, will be held at the culmination of this task to review concept plan alternatives and get direction to prepare a preferred concept plan.
  2. Product(s):  Community Workshop summary, Alternative Design Concepts, and   Financial Feasibility Analysis of Alternatives.

Schematic Design

Task 5 - Refining Alternative Design Concepts, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Conditions; Synthesis, Community Workshop

  1. Description:  Based on input from the community workshop in Task 4, the design concept will be refined into a “preferred option.”  Engineering and/or geotechnical investigations (including use of existing engineering studies) may be required to determine the viability of the proposed configuration.
  2. As part of determining the feasibility of the “preferred option” refined cost estimates would be prepared.  This material and previous analysis will be synthesized into a Draft Community Facilities Parcel Conceptual Plan.  A community workshop, coordinated by the Consultant, with Agency assistance, will be conducted to get feedback on the “preferred option.”
  1. Product(s):  Community Workshop summary, Preferred Alternative Design, geotechnical reports, engineering studies, basic concept drawings, estimates of building improvement costs, Draft Community Facilities Parcel Conceptual Building Designs and Land Use Plan

Task 6 - Final Schematic Design Documents and Community Workshop

  1. Description:  Based on the outcome of the community meeting in Task 5, the concepts will be finalized and the consultant will prepare schematic design documents.  A community workshop will be held to present this final design and outline the next steps to complete improvements.
  2. The Consultant will prepare 100 percent construction drawings based on the Preferred Alternative Design selected in Task 5. The schematic design documents will illustrate building height and bulk, street frontage, building elevations, and streetwall length, height and character.
  3. Product(s): Community Workshop summary, 100% schematic design and construction documents for the CFP and next steps.  The schematic design should include the following documents:

1.            Data Charts. Data charts should provide information appropriate to a Basic Concept Design submittal consistent with the project being proposed, including:

a.             Program of uses

b.            Maximum development density

c.      Approximate number of parking, bicycle and loading spaces

d.             Building coverage

e.      Height and Bulk

2.            Vicinity Plan. In addition to the site plan for the immediate area of the project, a diagrammatic vicinity plan should be submitted showing this project in the context of planned and existing:

a.      Land uses on surrounding areas

b.      Utilities, including interim facilities

c.      Vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation

d.      View corridors

e.      Public and private open space

3.            Site Plan and sections (at a scale of l"=40' unless otherwise agreed upon). The Site Plan will pertain to the total area of development and improvement included in this project which may include required streets, open space and other existing infrastructure improvements.  A Site Plan should indicate the location of uses; the general location, scale, relationship, and orientation of buildings; the general site circulation and relationship of ground floor uses including:

a.             Site boundaries and dimensions

b.            Building footprints

c.             Existing public open space areas

d.            Private open space areas

e.             Existing roads, sidewalks, mid-block connections

f.             Parking and loading facilities (including interim facilities)

g.            Circulation diagram including entry locations for pedestrians, autos and service vehicles

h.            Existing and proposed streetscape improvements

i.              Site Sections at different locations showing heights relationships of the proposed and adjacent development

4.            Building Plans, Elevations and Sections sufficient to describe the development proposal and shall include, but not limited to:

a.             Isometric or perspective drawings sufficient to illustrate the overall project.

b.            Building plans, elevations and sections sufficient to describe the development proposal, the general architectural character, dimensions, and materials proposed, at appropriate scale to fully explain the concept. Scale: minimum 1/8” to 1’

5.            Written Statement of Program, including: size and use of the facilities proposed, structural system and principal building materials.  Model. A model shall illustrate the location, scale, massing and the architectural character of the proposed building(s) and its relationship to existing public open space, streets andsurrounding development areas.

Illustrative Materials. Sketches or perspective renderings (and other appropriate illustrative materials acceptable to the Agency) shall be


 

6.            Submitted to illustrate the character of the proposed development and its relationship to the pedestrian level.

7.            Samples of the proposed materials, textures and colors.

8.            Phasing Plan. Within the project, any anticipated phasing of construction or temporary Improvements, including temporary or interim parking facilities and infrastructure, to ease the transition among projects and between phases, if any, shall be indicated.

Task 7:                   Design Development and Construction Documentation


 

ATTACHMENT B:  Budget

 

 

Task 1: Initiation

Task 2: Mix of Uses

Task 3: Market Study

Task 4: Design Alternates

Task 5: Preferred Option

Task 6: Schematic Design

Proposed  Task 7:                   Design Dev. & Const. Documentation

Total by Team Member

WRT | Solomon E.T.C.

$47,000

$14,000

$15,000

$65,000

$20,000

$200,000

$762,861

$1,123,861

 

Full Circle (Collaborating Architect)

 

 

 

 

 

$60,000

$240,000

$300,000

 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alvin P. Norman, Jr. (Outreach)

$37,000

$7,300

$7,300

$7,300

$7,300

$7,300

 

 

$73,500

 

Abbott Little (Facilities Programming)

$6,250

$10,000

$2,500

$1,875

 

 

 

 

 

$20,625

 

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Devine & Gong, Inc (Economics)

 

 

 

$75,000

$50,000

 

 

 

 

$125,000

 

S. L. State & Associates, (Market Research)

 

$7,000

 

 

 

$7,000

 

DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cliff Lowe Associates (Landscape Arch.)

 

 

 

 

 

$9,000

$40,000

 

$49,000

 

OLMM Consulting Engineers (Structural)

 

 

 

 

$10,000

$15,000

$117,000

 

$142,000

 

Winzler & Kelly (Civil Engineering)

 

 

 

$5,900

$12,130

$27,000

$34,480

 

$79,510

 

ENGEO Incorporated (Geotech)

 

 

 

 

 

$15,000

$10,000

 

$25,000

 

Ajmani & Pamidi Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$229,500

 

 

Mechanical Engineering

 

 

$6,120

$12,240

$73,440

 

 

 

Electrical Engineering

 

 

$6,120

$12,240

$73,440

 

 

 

Plumbing Engineering

 

 

 

 

$3,060

$6,120

$36,720

 

 

 

 

Commissioning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$8,000

 

$8,000

 

Davis Langdon (Cost Estimating)

 

 

 

$15,000

$20,000

$7,500

$70,000

 

$112,500

 

Model

 

 

 

 

 

tbd

 

 

tbd

 

Renderings: 4 total (Watercolor or Digital)

 

 

$10,000

$10,000

 

 

$20,000

 

Mei Wu Acoustics (Acoustical)

 

 

 

 

 

$6,600

$15,400

 

$22,000

 

Horton Lees Brogden (Lighting)

 

 

 

 

 

$6,600

$30,800

 

$37,400

 

Subconsultant 10% Mark-up

$4,325

$1,730

$1,680

$10,508

$12,473

$19,460

$74,928

 

$125,104

 

 

Subtotal by Task

$94,575

$33,030

$33,480

$180,583

$157,203

$414,060

$1,587,069

 

$2,500,000

 

 

GRAND TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$2,500,000

 

Notes:                                                                                                   

1.        The actual monthly Compensation is subject to the amount of hours billed by Contractor and verified and approved by Agency staff.  

2.        The maximum amount payable during the Contract is $2,500,000 and is subject to the appropriation of funds.  Payments shall be made in arrears and Agency shall have 30 days from the receipt of Contractor’s invoice to remit payment. 

 

Attachment C

Hunters Point Shipyard Parcel “A” Land Plan and

Community Facilities Parcel (CFP) Site Map


 

Existing Community Facilities Parcels: 1.2 acres

The approximate location and dimensions of the 1.2 acre CFP is shown circled below:

HILLTOP

Community Facilities

Parcel

 


 


 

RESOLUTION NO. 52-2009

AUTHORIZing a Personal Services Contract with WALLACE ROBERTS AND TODD, INC., DBA WRT/Solomon E.T.C., a California corporation, for a one-year term, with two, one-year EXTENSIONS, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000, to provide design AND planning services for the Community Facilities Parcel on the Hunters Point Shipyard; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area  

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

  1. On November 19, 2008, Agency staff issued a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) offering the opportunity to contract with the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) to conduct an integrated planning and design effort for the 1.2-acre Community Facilities Parcel (“CFP”) on Parcel A of the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) and develop conceptual and schematic plans for residential and or mixed-use development of the site (“CFP Plans”).

  1. The Shipyard’s Phase 1 Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) between the Agency and HPS Development Co., LP provides for a substantial community benefits package.  Attachment 23 of the DDA, “Community Ownership, Financing and Benefits Program,” includes provisions for six acres of land on the Shipyard to be used to benefit the Bayview Hunters Point community.  The use of the CFP will be determined through consultation with the community controlled Quasi-Public-Entity (“QPE”), the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”), and the Agency as part of a collaborative planning process.

  1. The first 1.2 acres of the CFP are located at the eastern end of Parcel A between a low density neighborhood commercial area along Innes Avenue, open space, and the proposed mixed-use area envisioned for Phase 2 of the Shipyard development.  The eastern side of the site is bordered by Galvez Avenue, the northern side is bordered by Donahue Street, and the southern side is bordered by Coleman Street.  In accordance with the Second Amendment to the Phase 1 DDA, adopted by the Commission in October 2006, the 4.8-acre balance of CFPs will be delivered during Phase 2 of the Shipyard development.

  1. In the DDA, the Agency and the CAC agreed to create a QPE to develop and manage the CFP as well as the income from the Agency’s portion of the Shipyard’s net land sale proceeds.  A working group called the Supervisory Team, comprised of the ten executive members of the CAC, the Mayor’s Office, the District 10 Supervisor’s Office, and the Agency worked with the consultants Urban Strategies Council on a plan for the creation of the QPE (“QPE Reports”).  These QPE Reports will serve as the starting point for development ideas for the CFP.

  1. The CFP Plans will be funded from a $2.5 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), which must be spent no later than August 15, 2010.  The goal of the EDA grant is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the United States.

  1. Consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures, the RFQ was advertised (1) on the Agency’s website, (2) the City’s Bid and Contract Opportunities Website, and (3) in the San Francisco Examiner.  In addition, the RFQ was mailed to architectural and planning businesses on the Agency’s mailing list.  On December 5, 2008, staff hosted a pre-bid conference for interested consultants.  Staff provided an overview of the Shipyard project, the requirements of the RFQ, the Agency’s contracting process, and responded to questions from the attendees.  All of the questions and responses were posted on the Agency’s website and sent to the registered bidders.

  1. On December 22, 2008, the Agency received seven proposals.  Two of the applicants, Dahlin Group and DeStefano Partners, did not have sufficient relevant community facility planning experience and therefore were not interviewed.  The remaining five applicants were interviewed by an Agency-led panel consisting of two CAC members and three Agency staff members.

  1. The five applicants were evaluated based upon their qualifications and experience, as well as a number of other relevant criteria described in the RFQ, including:

  • Experience and technical ability in the area of economic studies, such as market, feasibility, fiscal and economic benefit, highest and best use, and other analyses as specified.
  • Qualifications of key personnel to successfully undertake the scope of services outlined in the RFQ and work effectively with diverse populations.
  • Reasonable staffing, operating budget, and consulting fee.

  1. The written proposals, which counted for 40 percent of the total score, were evaluated based on responses to the RFQ that gauged the applicant’s ability to perform the scope of services.  During the 60 minute in-person interviews, which counted for 60 percent of the total score, the applicants were given 10 minutes to describe their project plan and were asked a series of standardized questions regarding their qualifications.  The results of the scoring are below and are based on a 100-point scale:

  1. WRT/Solomon E.T.C.:                84 points
  2. Perkins + Will:                             78 points
  1. Stevens & Associates:                              66 points
  2. Architecture + Design:                64 points
  3. MBH Architects:                         55 points

  1. The panel unanimously endorsed WRT/Solomon E.T.C. to conduct the planning effort and develop the CFP Plans giving the team a score of 84 points out of a possible 100 points.  The CAC concurred with this endorsement at its March and April 2009 meetings.

  1. The Personal Services Contract with WRT/Solomon E.T.C., including completion of design and planning services will not directly cause any change in the physical environment, and is a feasibility and planning study that is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.

RESOLUTION

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Personal Services Contract with Wallace Roberts and Todd, Inc., dbaWRT/Solomon E.T.C., a California corporation, for a one-year term, with two, one-year extensions, for a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000, to provide design and planning services for the Community Facilities Parcel on the Hunters Point Shipyard, substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel.

            

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

450-022.09-002                                                                                            Agenda Item No. 4 ( h )

                                                                                                                   Meeting of May 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Agency Commissioners

FROM:           Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

SUBJECT:     Authorizing a Construction Contract with NCR Construction Inc., a California corporation, for an amount not to exceed $1,899,136.00 for construction of improvements to Building 101 on the Hunters Point Shipyard, allowing Cal Pacific to withdraw its bid, and authorizing a lien and any related documents for the landunder Building 101; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 17, 2009 the Commission adopted Resolution No.32-2009, approving the Schematic Design for improvements to Building 101, which is located within Parcel A of the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”).  Proposed improvements in the Schematic Design included exterior painting, replacement of deteriorated doors and windows, and hazardous materials abatement.  Also on March 17, 2009, staff notified the Commission of the intent to issue bid packages for the Building 101 improvements.  Following notification to the Commission, Agency staff advertised a Construction Contract for public bid for the first phase of these improvements, which includes exterior painting and replacement of windows and doors. 

On April 15, 2009 seven bid proposals were submitted to the Agency.  The first apparent low bidder, Cal Pacific, has asked to be allowed to withdraw its bid due to a clerical error.  The next lowest bid, Ionian Construction, was determined to be non-responsive due to not meeting Agency guidelines and not submitting adequate supporting documentation. NCR Construction, Inc. (“NCR”) submitted the lowest responsive bid of $1,899,136.00.  Consistent with federal EDA procurement guidelines that call for the selection of the lowest responsible bidder, Agency staff recommends awarding the Construction Contract to NCR.  Agency contract compliance staff have been closely involved with the outreach, bidding, and review of the proposed Contract, and has determined that NCR’s bid complies with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures and the Shipyard’s Phase 1 Disposition and Development Agreement’s Equal Opportunity Program (“EOP”).

The Construction Contract will be funded from a $2.13 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”), which must be spent no later than August 15, 2009.  Federal EDA procurement rules will apply to this Construction Contract.  Also, the EDA requires a first priority lien on land underneath improvements funded by the EDA that disallows the Agency from selling or using the building for purposes other than those intended by the scope of the grant.

Staff recommends, 1) authorization of the Construction Contract with NCR, for an amount not to exceed $1,899,136.00, 2) allowing Cal-Pacific to withdraw its bid, and 3) authorization of a lien and any related documents for land under Building 101

DISCUSSION

Background

Building 101 is a 106,000 square-foot, two-story wood-framed building located within Parcel A of the Shipyard.  Building 101 was constructed in 1946 and is currently in need of repair and upgrades in order to ensure that the building will continue to serve as the hub for the planned Shipyard Arts District.  Nearly one-half of the Shipyard’s 300 artists rent studios within Building 101.  The improvements will help to ensure that the artists continue to be an integral part of the Shipyard, which will help drive economic activity in the Shipyard’s mixed-use Arts and Technology District.

On March 17, 2009, the Commission approved the Schematic design for improvements to Building 101 and authorized a First Amendment to the Personal Services Contract to allow the project architect, Levy Design Partners (“Levy”), to provide final construction drawings and construction administration support for improvements to Building 101.  Accordingly, Levy has worked with the Building 101 artists, the Shipyard’s Citizens Advisory Committee, the Agency, and the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development to identify and prioritize the Building 101 improvements which will be funded under the EDA Grant. 

Working with Levy, Agency engineering staff prepared a Construction Contract with construction documents that include exterior painting, limited fixture upgrades, replacement of windows, and replacement of exterior doors that would be offered as a Bid Package.  The proposed improvements are consistent with the Agency’s programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Shipyard Redevelopment Plan. 

Procurement Process

The Construction Contract must comply with federal EDA procurement guidelines which call for the selection of the lowest responsible bidder and encourages the use of small businesses, minority-owned firms, and women’s business enterprises to the fullest extent practicable.  In addition, the Agency’s EOP has subcontracting goals of 31 percent for Minority-Owned Business Enterprises and 10 percent for Woman-Owned Business Enterprises (collectively, “M/WBE’s”) of the overall Construction Contract value, as well as a 50 percent construction workforce participation goal by San Francisco residents.  Agency contract compliance staff reviewed the Construction Contract and determined it to be consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures. 

Subsequently, the Construction Contract bid package was advertised in the San Francisco Examiner, the City’s “Bid and Contract Opportunities Website,” and the Agency’s website.  Complimentary copies of the plans and specifications were sent to various plan rooms (centers that have bid documents available for contractors to review) to encourage the participation of contractors.  In addition, an invitation to bid was sent to over 600 Agency-certified M/WBE contractors, as well as contractors who have expressed interest in being notified of upcoming contract opportunities.

On April 2, 2009, staff hosted a pre-bid conference and site walk-through at the Shipyard in which 43 interested contractors reviewed the submission requirements, scope of work, and had questions answered.

Contract Award

On April 15, 2009 the Agency received seven bids for improvements to Building 101:

  1. Cal Pacific............................... $1,367,800.00
  2. Ionian Const........................... $1,669,400.00
  3. NCR Const. ........................... $1,899,136.00
  4. Angotti & Reilly .................... $2,024,961.00
  5. Rossi Builders......................... $2,233,069.00
  6. Giampolini ............................. $2,297,059.00
  7. Earth Development................. $2,553,553.38

The lowest apparent bidder, Cal Pacific, has asked that their bid be withdrawn due to a clerical error. The contractor has provided evidence that the total for Bid Item Three, “Demolition and Abatement,” should have read "$267,500.00" not "$67,500.00."  Agency staff has reviewed Cal Pacific’s supporting documentation and determined that Cal Pacific has made a genuine clerical error. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Cal Pacific’s withdrawal request and relieve Cal Pacific of their bid obligations.

The next lowest apparent bidder, Ionian Construction, was determined non-responsive due to having 0% M/WBE participation as well as insufficient documentation of good faith efforts to utilize M/WBE’s as called for in the bid specifications.

The lowest responsive bid was submitted by NCR .  NCR has the necessary experience to perform the work under the Construction Contract and will be able to complete the work by the project funding deadline of August 15, 2009.  In response to the EOP requirements included in the bid specifications, NCR made superior good-faith efforts and achieved an overall M/WBE participation level of approximately 38 percent for MBE’s and 5 percent for WBE’s.  Agency staff will work with NCR and local workforce development institutions such as Citybuild, to maximize local workforce participation in the construction contract.  

EDA Conditions

The improvements to Building 101 will be funded from a $2.13 million grant from the EDA. The goal of EDA grants is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the United States.  Building 101 is a critical component in the Agency’s strategy to restore the Shipyard’s role in supporting the economic vitality of the Bayview Hunters Point Community. 

To secure EDA’s investment in these improvements, the grant agreement requires a first priority lien on the land underneath improvements funded by the EDA (i.e., Building 101 on the Shipyard.). The lien ensures that the Agency will not sell or use the building for purposes other than those agreed to in the grant agreement, which, in the case of Building 101, is for artists’ studios.

Currently, Building 101 sits on Agency-owned land within Parcel A of the Shipyard.  The Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan calls for the retention of Building 101 and the building has been included in the land planning work under the proposed Phase 2 portion of the Shipyard’s development.  Since this land will not be sold or transferred for market rate development, staff has determined that the lien will not unduly encumber the land so as to inhibit its expected use as artists’ studios.

Other conditions of the EDA grant and approval of NCR’s Construction Contract include but are not limited to the timely completion of the construction improvements, the Contractor obtaining payment and performance bonds for the Construction Contract, and obtaining proper liability insurance, among other things.

California Environmental Quality Act

The Construction Contract with NCR provides for the completion of construction improvements to Building 101, including rehabilitation and improvement of the existing building.  The Construction Contract and the construction activities under the Contract are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(a) and 15301(d).  The construction activities would not cause a significant adverse impact on the physical environment.

(Originated by Thor Kaslofsky, Project Manager)

Fred Blackwell

Executive Director


 

RESOLUTION NO. 53-2009

AUTHORIZING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH NCR CONSTRUCTION INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,899,136 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BUILDING 101 ON THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD, ALLOWING CAL PACIFIC TO WITHDRAW ITS BID, AND AUTHORIZING A LIEN AND ANY RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE LAND UNDER BUILDING 101; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Board”) adopted the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan (the “Plan”) in July 1997.  The Plan included policies and land uses for Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) that facilitate implementation of the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee’s general principle of supporting the existing businesses and artists on the Shipyard.

In 2007, the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Agency”) and the City undertook a new, integrated planning effort for the Shipyard and Candlestick Point, which resulted in the adoption of a Conceptual Framework for Development (the "Conceptual Framework").  The Conceptual Framework was endorsed by the Agency on May 1, 2007, and subsequently by the Board.  The Conceptual Framework establishes the goals and principles that guide the integrated development plan for the Shipyard and Candlestick Point.  The Conceptual Framework includes a provision for permanent affordable space for the existing artists at the Shipyard to be phased in a way that prevents displacement. 

In June 2008, the voters of the City overwhelmingly approved Proposition G, the “Mixed Use Development Project for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard.”  Proposition G made it City policy to proceed, subject to public input and the environmental review process, with revitalizing Candlestick Point and the Shipyard through an integrated mixed use development project that provided for, among other considerations, permanent affordable replacement space for the artists in the Phase 2 portion of the Shipyard development.  An essential component in ensuring affordable replacement space for the artists is the preservation and rehabilitation of Building 101.

Building 101, located within Parcel A of the Shipyard, is a 106,000 square-foot, two-story, wood-framed building that was constructed in 1946.  Nearly one-half of the Shipyard’s 300 artists rent studios within Building 101.  Building 101 has deteriorated over time and requires repair and upgrades in order to ensure that the building will continue to serve as the hub for the Shipyard’s arts community, and thereby maintain the artists as an integral part of the Shipyard.  Staff believes that retaining the arts community will help drive economic activity in the Shipyard’s mixed use Arts and Technology District. 

On March 17, 2009, the Commission approved the schematic design for improvements to Building 101 and authorized a First Amendment to the Personal Services Contract to allow the project architect, Levy Design Partners (“Levy”), to provide final construction drawings and construction administration support for improvements to Building 101.  Accordingly, Levy has worked closely with Building 101 artists, the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee, Agency staff, and staff from the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development to identify and prioritize the Building 101 improvements. 

On March 17, 2009, staff notified the Commission of the intent to issue two bid packages (“Bid Packages”) for the Building 101 improvements.  The first proposed Bid Package provided for exterior painting, limited fixture upgrades, and replacement of windows.  The second proposed Bid Package included corridor repainting and replacement of common area light fixtures, code related upgrades, replacement of exterior doors, and a renovated gallery and lounge. 

Working with Levy, Agency engineering staff prepared a Construction Contract (“Construction Contract”) with construction documents that include exterior painting, limited fixture upgrades, replacement of windows, and replacement of exterior doors that would be offered as a Bid Package.  This Construction Contract Bid Package complies with federal EDA procurement guidelines which call for the selection of the lowest responsible bidder and encourages the use of small businesses, minority-owned firms, and woman-owned business enterprises to the fullest extent practicable.  Further, the Bid Package complies with the Shipyard’s Phase 1 Disposition and Development Agreement’s Equal Opportunity Program (“EOP”), including subcontracting goals of 31 percent for Minority-Owned Business Enterprises and 10 percent for Woman-Owned Business Enterprises (collectively, “M/WBEs”) of the overall Construction Contract value, as well as a 50 percent construction workforce participation goal by San Francisco residents.  Agency Contract Compliance staff has reviewed the Bid Package and has determined it to be consistent with the Agency’s Interim Purchasing Policy and Procedures.

The Construction Contract Bid Package was advertised in the San Francisco Examiner, the City’s Bid and Contract Opportunities Website, and the Agency’s website.  Complimentary copies of the plans and specifications were sent to various plan rooms (centers that have bid documents available for contractors to review) to encourage the participation of contractors.  In addition, an invitation to bid was sent to over 600 Agency-certified M/WBE contractors, as well as contractors who have expressed interest in being notified of upcoming contract opportunities.

On April 2, 2009, staff hosted a pre-bid conference and site walk-through at the Shipyard in which 43 interested contractors were given the opportunity to review the submission requirements and scope of work, and to ask questions about the Bid Package.

On April 15, 2009, the Agency received seven bids for improvements to Building 101:

  1. Cal Pacific............................... $1,367,800.00
  1. Ionian Const............... $1,669,400.00
  2. NCR Const. ............... $1,899,136.00
  1. Angotti & Reilly ........ $2,024,961.00
  2. Rossi Builders............. $2,233,069.00
  1. Giampolini ................. $2,297,059.00
  2. Earth Development..... $2,553,553.38

The lowest bidder, Cal Pacific, asked that its bid be withdrawn due to a clerical error.  The contractor has provided evidence that the total for bid item 3, “Demolition and Abatement,” should have read "$267,500.00" rather than "$67,500.00."  Agency staff has reviewed Cal Pacific’s supporting documentation and determined that Cal Pacific has made a genuine clerical error.  Staff recommends that the Commission approve Cal Pacific’s withdrawal request and relieve Cal Pacific of its bid obligations.  The next lowest apparent bidder, Ionian Construction, was determined non-responsive due to having 0% M/WBE participation as well as insufficient documentation of good faith efforts to utilize M/WBEs as called for in the bid specifications.  The lowest responsive bid was submitted by NCR Construction, Inc. (“NCR”).  NCR has the necessary experience to perform the work under the Construction Contract and will be able to complete the work by the project funding deadline of August 15, 2009.  In response to the EOP requirements included in the bid specifications, NCR made superior good faith efforts and achieved an overall M/WBE participation level of approximately 38 percent for MBEs and 5 percent for WBEs.  Agency staff proposes to work with NCR and local workforce development institutions such as Citybuild, to maximize local workforce participation in the Construction Contract.  

The proposed Construction Contract with NCR provides for the completion of construction improvements to Building 101, including rehabilitation and improvement of the existing building.  The proposed improvements are consistent with the Agency’s programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Plan.  Completion of the repair project will alleviate blighting conditions in the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area for the benefit of building tenants and the general public. 

The improvements to Building 101 will be funded from a $2.13 million grant from the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (“EDA”).  The EDA requires a first priority lien on land underneath improvements funded by the EDA that disallows the Agency from selling or using the building for purposes other than those intended by the scope of the grant.  Other conditions of the EDA grant and approval of NCR’s Construction Contract include but are not limited to the timely completion of the construction improvements as well as the posting of payment and performance bonds for the Construction Contract, and the acquisition of liability insurance, among other things.

The Construction Contract is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(a) and 15301(d).  The construction activities would not cause a significant adverse impact on the physical environment.

RESOLUTION

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that: (1) the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Construction Contract with NCR Construction Inc., a California corporation, for an amount not to exceed $1,899,136 for construction of improvements to Building 101 on the Hunters Point Shipyard, substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel; (2) Cal Pacific is allowed to withdraw its bid due to a clerical error; and (3) the Executive Director is authorized to enter into a lien and any related documents for the land under Building 101 pursuant to EDA grant requirements.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel



[1] In conducting Agency business, the Agency Commission also follows Robert’s Rules of Order during its public meetings.  Section 37 of the By-Laws of
the Redevelopment Agency (Sept. 1, 2003).  Robert’s Rules provides, among other things, standards for decorum in debate. 
These standards apply to Commissioners’ discussions and deliberations and provide that “a member can condemn the nature
or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he [or she] must avoid personalities,
and under no circumstances can he [or she] attack or question the motive of another member. 
The measure, not the member, is the subject of the debate.”  Robert’s Rules of Order at p. 380 (10th ed. 2000). 
Robert’s Rules apply to members of the Commission, but do not apply to members of the public who may speak at the Commission hearing. 
More importantly, federal and state laws governing the rights of the public at Commission meetings would supersede
any specific aspect of Robert’s Rules that is inconsistent with those laws.