San Francisco Redevelopment Agency


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 



113-05209-002                                                                                             Agenda Item No. 4 ( b )

                                                                                                                    Meeting of April 7, 2009

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                 Agency Commissioners

 

FROM:           Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

 

SUBJECT:    Amending the Minimum Compensation Policy and the Health Care Accountability Policy to increase the minimum level of compensation and increase the minimum level of heath care benefits that Agency contractors and developers are required to provide to their employees who work on Agency contracts and projects

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This action would amend the Agency’s Minimum Compensation and Health Care Accountability Policies to allow for an automatic rate increase to match the City and County of San Francisco rate required through its Minimum Compensation and Health Care Accountability Ordinances.  The adjusted rate for both policies would be effective immediately upon approval by the Commission. 

 

Staff recommends approval of the Minimum Compensation Policy and the Health Care Accountability Policy as amended.

 

DISCUSSION

  1. Overview

 

Both the amended Minimum Compensation Policy (“MCP”) and the Health Care Accountability Policy (“HCAP”), attached hereto as Attachments A and B respectively, will apply to entities who enter into a contract with the Agency, including entities that enter into personal services contracts or those that receive Agency funding for their ongoing operations.  In addition, the MCP and HCAP will apply to many Disposition and Development Agreements (“DDAs”), ground leases, and all other property agreements where the Agency has a proprietary interest. Staff anticipates that the amended MCP and HCAP rate will have no impact on developers and the various organizations currently under contract with the Agency, as the amended Policies and subsequent adjusted rate are not applicable to contracts which have been executed prior to its adoption.  In addition, as you are aware, the Agency has a prevailing wage policy applicable to construction improvements for all projects that sets hourly wages higher than those outlined in the MCP. 

 

Staff anticipates implementing both amended policies immediately through its Purchasing Policy and Procedures Guidelines, which would be administered and monitored by the Agency’s Contract Compliance Division. 

 

 

  1. Background on the Minimum Compensation Policy and Health Care Accountability Policy

 

The San Francisco Minimum Compensation Ordinance (the "MCO"), formerly called the "Living Wage Law," was adopted on August 28, 2000 and became effective on October 8, 2000. 

 

The San Francisco Health Care Accountability Ordinance (the "HCAO") was adopted on July 1, 2001 and became effective on August 1, 2001.  The HCAO requires contractors that provide services to the City, contractors that enter into leases with the City, and parties providing services to tenants and subtenants on City property to choose between offering health plan benefits to their employees or making payments to the City. 

 

The Agency’s MCP and HCAP (the “Policies”) follow the City’s ordinances closely, but expands the application of the Policies to property agreements (including DDAs and leases) in which the Agency has a Proprietary Interest (which generally means some type of on-going financial interest).  However, the current Policies do not have provisions which allow the rates to adjust automatically and in conjunction with City’s MCO and HCAO.

 

The Policies, as initially adopted by the Agency, allow the Executive Director to delegate (on a case by case basis) enforcement of the Policies to the City in the event of a violation.  To date, no violations of the Policies have been detected by Agency staff and the Executive Director has had no need to refer any matters to the City.   However, the amended HCAP strengths the enforcement tools available to the Agency should a violation occur.  These new enforcement measures include liquidated damages assessments and an appeal hearing process, which are identical to the new enforcement measures contained in the City’s policies.  The Executive Director, in his discretion, may enter into a letter agreement with the City to delegate to the City the enforcement of the Policies.  The City has or will establish procedures for conducting appeal hearings and it might prove beneficial to use the City’s process instead of the Agency duplicating the process in house.

The attached amended Policies in redline adds specific language which allows the automatic increase of the MCP and HCAP minimum compensation rate to the rate required by the City’s MCO and HCAO ordinances and incorporate additional changes made by the City regarding enforcement of the HCAP.   Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Minimum Compensation Policy and the Health Care Accountability Policy as amended.

The MCP and HCAP amendments are Agency administrative activities that are not CEQA projects pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") definition of a project contained in Section 15378, subdivision (b)(5), of the State CEQA Guidelines.

 

 

             

Originated by Roel Villacarlos, Contract Compliance

and Andrico Penick, Deputy General Counsel.

 

 

 

 

                                                            Fred Blackwell

                                                            Executive Director

 

Attachment A:  Amended Minimum Compensation Policy (redline copy)

Attachment B:  Amended Health Care Accountability Policy (redline copy)


 

 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 34-2009

 

 

 

AMENDING THE MINIMUM COMPENSATION POLICY AND

THE HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF COMPENSATION AND INCREASE THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH CARE BENEFITS THAT AGENCY CONTRACTORS AND DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO WORK ON AGENCY CONTRACTS AND PROJECTS

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1.   On July 1, 2001, the City adopted a companion legislation, the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (the “HCAO”) with an effective date of August 1, 2001.

 

  1. The City’s MCO and HCAO provide for improvements to the health, safety and general welfare of the City’s residents by requiring City contractors to provide a minimum level of compensation and benefits to their employees and to provide for health care benefits to their employees through the direct provision of health benefits or through payment to the City for staffing and other resources to provide medical care to the uninsured.

 

  1. In furtherance of the objectives of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Agency”) undertakes redevelopment activities in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City’s residents. 

 

  1. On September 25, 2001, by Agency Resolution No. 168-2001, the Agency Commission adopted the Minimum Compensation Policy (“MCP”) and Health Care Accountability Policy (“HCAP”) similar to the City Ordinances to govern its contractors and developers.

 

  1. On March 1, 2006, by Ordinance No. 49-06, the City’s Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”) amended the City’s health care accountability policy to, among other things, increased the minimum health care benefits its contractors must provide.

 

  1. On August 8, 2007, by Ordinance No. 212-07, the Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the City’s minimum compensation policy to, among other things, increased the minimum rate of compensation required under the policy.

 

  1.   Further, to provide for automatic increases in the Agency’s minimum compensation level and health care benefits level in the future to match the City’s requirements.

 

  1.   The policies are further amended to provide for automatic increases in the future to match any such increases adopted by the City.

 

  1. pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") definition of a project contained in Section 15378, subdivision (b)(5), of the State CEQA Guidelines.

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Amended Minimum Compensation Policy and Amended Health Care Accountability Policy attached as Attachment A and Attachment B, respectively are hereby adopted.

 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

 

 

For Item (c) please click here

 

4118-36209-002                                                                                                                 Agenda Item No.  4 ( d )

                                                                                                               Meeting of April 7, 2009

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                 Agency Commissioners

 

FROM:           Fred Blackwell

Executive Director

 

SUBJECT:     Authorizing a Personal Services Contract with the Corporation for Supportive Housing, a Delaware nonprofit corporation, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000, for a term beginning April 8, 2009 and ending April 7, 2012, for as-needed technical assistance services to supportive housing developers and operators; Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In conformance with the Agency’s Purchasing and Procedures Policy, the Agency issued a Technical Assistance Services Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) on January 14, 2009.  Proposals were submitted on February 20, 2009. The Corporation for Supportive Housing (“CSH”), a Delaware-based nonprofit corporation, was the only eligible respondent with a complete proposal packet. CSH is a national non-profit intermediary organization with a local office in Oakland.  The review panel found CSH to be a qualified applicant and is recommending a three-year Personal Services Contract be awarded to CSH for a three- year term for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000. The contract will be funded through the Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program to provide citywide technical assistance services as needed to owners and developers of all types of supportive housing including those serving persons with HIV/AIDS.  The contract will begin April 8, 2009 and end April 7, 2012.

Staff recommends authorizing a three-year Personal Services Contract with the Corporation for Supportive Housing in an aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000.

DISCUSSION

Since 1994, the Agency has issued five public solicitations for technical assistance to affordable housing projects.  The first two were funded through the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (“HOPWA”) Program and restricted to developers and providers of HOPWA projects.  Beginning in 2002, the third, fourth, and fifth solicitations for three-year contracts were funded with tax increment funds to allow provision of this valuable assistance to all types of supportive housing developments funded by either the Agency or the Mayor’s Office of Housing. 

The Agency awarded contracts from the first four public solicitations to the Corporation for Supportive Housing (“CSH”), a national non-profit intermediary organization dedicated to developing and expanding supportive housing programs for persons with special needs.  CSH’s current contract was awarded March 21, 2006, in an amount not to exceed $100,000, and


 

renewable for up to three years, depending on the availability of funds. This contract will end on March 31, 2009.

Due to the large number of technical assistance requests, including some that exceeded original scope expectations, additional funds were needed to enable CSH to complete the current contract scope of work.  On March 17, 2009, Agency staff recommended a First Amendment to the Personal Services Contract with CSH to add $35,100, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $335,100. No extension of the contract term was necessary. 

During the past three years, CSH has effectively provided a broad range of technical services for over 20 technical assistance requests from citywide developers/service providers. This technical assistance included financial feasibility analysis for several developers working with specific special needs populations, such as emancipated youth, and homeless seniors; training and support to strengthen property management at supportive housing projects funded by the Agency and MOH; facilitation of supportive housing related groups, such as the Single Adult Housing First Workgroup; and rehabilitation work at several older Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (“HOPWA”) funded projects. CSH provided this assistance through its own staff and outside consultants agreed upon by the Agency and MOH.

In conformance with the Agency’s Purchasing and Procedures Policy, the Agency issued a (fifth) Technical Assistance Services Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) on January 14, 2009.  Proposals were submitted on February 20, 2009.  Two proposals were submitted, one from CSH and the other from the Community Design Center.  A review panel, consisting of a Senior Development Specialist from Housing and a Contract Compliance Officer from the Agency; and a Development Specialist from the Mayor’s Office of Housing met on February 25, 2009 to review the proposals. Only CSH’s packet was complete.  The review panel found CSH to be a qualified applicant and is recommending a three-year Personal Services Contract be awarded to CSH for a three- year term for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000. The contract will be funded through the Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program to provide citywide technical assistance services as needed to owners and developers of all types of supportive housing including those serving persons with HIV/AIDS.  The contract will begin April 8, 2009 and end April 7, 2012.  Please see Attachment A:  Scope of Services.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing First Amendment is not a CEQA project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") definition of a project contained in Section 15378, subdivision (b)(5), of the State CEQA Guidelines.

 

(Originated by:  Chris Harris, Senior Development Specialist)

 

 

                                                                  Fred Blackwell

Executive Director

 

Attachments:

 

  1. Attachment A, Scope of Services
  2. Attachment B, Budget

 


 

Attachment A:  Scope of Services

 

 

  1. Program Objectives

 

  • Build organizational capacity of non-profit housing developers, housing sponsors, and service agencies through the provision of the one-on-one technical assistance.
  • ·         Enhance the ability of housing and services organizations to implement their programs and projects through knowledge exchange, response to questions, trouble-shooting and referrals to other relevant resources in the community.
  • ·         Increase awareness of best practices, funding opportunities and other available resources among the housing developers, housing sponsors and service agencies in San Francisco.
  • ·         Increase the quantity and improve the quality of affordable and supportive housing in San Francisco.

 

2)         Implementation

 

                 CSH will provide the following technical assistance (“TA”):

 

  1. Fulfill TA requests from affordable housing project developers and supportive service providers funded through San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”) or the Mayor’s Office of Housing (“MOH”).  Assistance may include staff training, service planning and delivery, assistance to create capital needs assessments, financial analysis including review of pro-formas, and capital development.
  2. Training as needed. Topics may include:
  • Property Management training for non-profit staff at MOH and/or Agency housing projects;
  • Training to create operating manuals for non-profit developers funded by MOH and/or the Agency; 
  • Training to assist non-profit developers to complete Capital Needs Assessments for their housing projects;
  • Training as needed for supportive service providers at MOH/Agency-funded projects.
  1. Facilitation work as requested by MOH/the Agency for a range of Citywide housing-related task forces or working groups.
  2. Evaluations as requested by the Agency or MOH, including evaluation of implementation and operational issues of affordable housing projects or other housing related topics.

 

 

 

 


 

Attachment B:  Budget

 

                   

2009-2012

Hours

Rate

Budget

Personnel Costs - Hourly Rate =

Technical Assistance and Training

     Steven Shum   

455

53

$          

 

23,978

$                              

 

     Irma Poe

182

62

$          

 

11,365

$                              

 

     Anne Cory

91

65

$          

 

5,903

$                                

 

Contract Oversight, Reporting, Billing

     Debbie Linear

91

29

$          

 

2,639

$                                

 

     Marcelo Leon

182

51

$          

 

9,202

$                                

 

Sub-total Personnel Costs

1001

52

$         

 

53,087

$                             

 

Consultant/Subcontractor

Financial Analysis

varied

12,500

$                              

 

Service Planning and Implementation

varied

12,500

$                              

 

Other Consulting Services

varied

4,292

$                                

 

Sub-total Consultant Costs

29,292

$                             

 

Administrative Costs

Direct Administrative Costs

Rent

5,500

$                                

 

Travel/Reimbursable

480

$                                   

 

Training/TA Materials

300

$                                   

 

Supplies

500

$                                   

 

Phone

500

$                                   

 

Postage/Messengers

250

$                                   

 

Duplicating/Printing

1,000

$                                

 

Sub-total Direct Administrative Costs

8,530

$                               

 

Indirect Administrative Costs @ 10%

9,091

$                                

 

Total Costs

100,000

$                           

 

SFRA Proposed Budget 2009-2012 First Year

Contractor:

Corporation for Supportive Housing

Founding Source:

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

Contract Term:

April 8, 2009 through April 7, 2012


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 35-2009

 

 

 

AUTHORIZING A PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, A DELAWARE NONPROFIT CORPORATION, FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000, FOR A TERM BEGINNING APRIL 8, 2009 AND ENDING

APRIL 7, 2012, FOR AS-NEEDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES

TO SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPERS AND OPERATORS;

CITYWIDE TAX INCREMENT HOUSING PROGRAM

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

1.         The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) is authorized, pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq.) and desires to distribute money from its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the specific and special purpose of increasing and maintaining the housing stock in the City and County of San Francisco as affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. 

 

2.         Technical assistance to affordable housing projects is an eligible use of tax increment funds.

 

 

 

 

  1. Per the Agency’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures, a new RFQ for technical assistance was issued through the Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program on January 14, 2009.  The deadline for proposals was February 20, 2009.  Two proposals were submitted.

 

  1. in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for an initial one-year term, renewable for a total of three years, subject to annual appropriations, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000, to continue provision of technical assistance to citywide affordable housing projects.

 

  1. The Personal Services Contract is not a CEQA project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") definition of a project contained in Section 15378, subdivision (b)(5), of the State CEQA Guidelines.

 

 

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 the Corporation for Supportive Housing, a Delaware nonprofit corporation, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $300,000, for a term beginning April 8, 2009 and ending April 7, 2012, for as-needed technical assistance services to supportive housing developers and operators, substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel, as part of the Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program.

 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel

 

450.011.09-002                                                                             Agenda Item No.  4 ( e )

                                                                                                   Meeting of April 7, 2009

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 

 

TO:                 Agency Commissioners

 

FROM:           Fred Blackwell, Executive Director

 

SUBJECT:     Conditionally approving the combined Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs for residential projects on Blocks 50 and 51 at Hunters Point Shipyard; Granting a density Bonus for Blocks 51 and requiring one additional affordable housing unit in Phase 1; and Adopting Environmental Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

In accordance with the Agency and HPS Development Co. LP’s, (“Lennar’) Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) Phase 1 Horizontal Disposition and Development Agreement’s (“DDA”) Vertical Design Review and Document Approval Procedure, ("VDRDAP"), Lennar has submitted a combined Basic Concept and Schematic Designs (“Schematic Designs”) for residential condominium developments on Blocks 50 and 51.  These parcels are bounded by Donahue Street to the northwest, Friedell Street to the southeast, and Innes Avenue in between them.  Blocks 50 and 51 also abut two pocket parks on their east and west borders, respectively.

 

The proposed project includes:

  • Block 50: twenty-five for-sale townhome housing units, four of which will be affordable, for an approximate total of 28,308 square feet of livable space, 36 parking spaces, and private and shared open space.
  • Block 51: sixty-three for-sale condominium units, 9 of which will be affordable, for an approximate total of 53,231 square feet of livable space, 63 parking spaces, and private and shared open space.

The Shipyard’s Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC") reviewed and approved the Schematic Designs at its January and February 2009 meetings.

 

Both developments are authorized under the Shipyard’s Design for Development (“D for D”), approved by the Commission on September 30, 1997 by Resolution No. 193-1997 and amended on January 18, 2005 by Resolution No. 179-2003.  However, Block 51 has density that exceeds the D for D standards. The Agency Commission is being asked to consider a density bonus to permit the additional units in exchange for providing two additional affordable housing units later in the Phase 1 development. 

 

Agency staff has reviewed the Schematic Designs submitted by Lennar and finds them to be within the scope of the development analyzed in the Shipyard’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and its addenda, and that no additional environmental review is required.

 

Staff recommends adoption of environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and conditional approval of the Combined Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs for Blocks 50 and 51 subject to the conditions contained in this memorandum.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Block 50

Design Approach and Program

Block 50 will be constructed in one phase.  The program for Block 50 consists of 25 townhomes, which include 21 two-bedroom units and 4 three-bedroom units. The units range in size from 906 square feet to 1,542 square feet with an average of 1,112 square feet.  Fourteen units contain single-car garages and 11 units contain two-car garages for a total of 36 parking spaces.  Each garage should accommodate a bicycle space.  The building height complies with the 45’ high limits for the block.

 

The design of Block 50 was conceived as a contemporary take on a single-family home in San Francisco.  Though modern in character, the homes of Block 50 have similar proportions, materials, and architectural features such as bay windows that relate them to the rest of San Francisco. Materials and colors have been selected to be warm and residential, while accents such as wood and steel at the entry gate serve as a reference to the industrial history of the Shipyard.

 

Special attention has been paid to make the units appear as individual homes by varying window configurations, the roofline, colors, and making front doors clearly visible from the street.  Overall, the neighborhood will be pedestrian oriented, with individual homes that naturally follow the site's sloping grade. While the variation and complexity adds to the interest and energy of the community, the consistent use of materials, window modules and details serve to bring the project together as a cohesive whole.

 

From a functional perspective, the townhomes are arranged in two parallel rows on opposite sides of the block with a private court at the center which has the potential to function as open space.  Most units have living space at or slightly above grade with stoops and a half flight of stairs leading down to grade.  To provide architectural variety as the development steps up the hill, there will be a series of different unit types each with a different outward appearance.  The primary frontages are on Friedell and Donahue Streets, however, the design of the corner of Innes Avenue and Donahue Street defines a gateway for the Hilltop and the facade along Innes Avenue, responds to the importance of this street.

 

The four end units are designed to turn the corner and present equally developed elevations, as well as interior elevations facing the courtyard.  This design approach provides facades that respond to the site, its neighbors and the role of the Block as a corner stone for the development of the Hilltop.

 

The townhomes are arranged in two parallel rows on opposite sides of the block. The primary frontages are Friedell and Donahue Streets, however, the four end units are designed to turn the corner and present equally developed elevations to Innes Avenue and the pocket park to the south.

 

Special attention has been paid to units on Innes Avenue which have been designed with living space on the ground level, front doors on Innes Avenue, and architectural treatments and abundant windows to activate the street frontage. As the units step up the hill, different unit types respond to different conditions and provide a variety of unit types, each with a different outward appearance. With garages oriented to the private court at the center of the block, most units have living space at or slightly above grade with small stoops.

 

The overall atmosphere being created is a pedestrian oriented neighborhood with individual “homes” that naturally follow the site’s sloping contour.  While the architectural variation and complexity adds to the interest and energy of the community, consistent use of materials, window modules and details serve to bring the project together as a cohesive whole.

 

The principal finish materials for building walls will be wood siding and cement plaster with accents of metal panels and natural wood detailing. Projecting bays, which feature prominently on each unit type, will be finished with cement fiber siding painted in contrasting accent colors. The bridge over the entry to the private court, a distinctive element of the project, will be finished with natural wood siding.  Stoops and stairs to unit entries will be a mix of exposed concrete and stone tile veneer.  Metalwork, including railings and sunshades will be painted.

 

Block 51

Design Approach and Program

Block 51 will be constructed in one phase, and the program consists of 63 condominium units, which include one studio, 31 one-bedroom units and 31 two-bedroom units.  The units range in size from 449 square feet for the studio, 930 square feet average for the one-bedroom, and 1,202 square feet for the two-bedroom units.  Each unit has a single-car parking space within the building for a total of 63 parking spaces, and 29 bicycle parking spaces are proposed for this project.  Also, the building height complies with the 45’ high limits for the block.  Open space is provided in a number of ways. The overwhelming majority of units have at least one private balcony.  All units have access to the common usable open space located in the courtyard and the roof deck.  

 

The Shipyard’s redevelopment will revitalize a long underutilized section of the City. As such, the Phase 1 buildings and associated streetscape improvements provide an opportunity to create a positive addition to the neighborhood that contains both elements of San Francisco and also references the industrial heritage of the Shipyard.  

 

Block 51 is a gateway parcel to the Hilltop area of the Shipyard and is flanked to the south by Block 50 across Innes Avenue. Together, these two parcels mark the primary entry point to Phase 1.  Block 51 has a steep slope, and the high point is the corner of Friedell Street and the adjacent pocket park and the low point is the corner of Donahue Street and said pocket park (the building height complies with the 45’ high limits for the block).  

 

There are two distinct architectural characteristics in the design of Block 51, the larger site plan and adjacent future developments.  The design of the building facades, however, match materials and colors that seek to bridge the gap between traditional San Francisco architecture and the industrial character of the Shipyard’s historic past.  First, the Donahue Street façade is more “urban” in nature and can be characterized by a regular provision of San Francisco “bay windows.” These bays, however, are clad in more industrial materials and thus reference the industrial past of the Shipyard. This strategy maintains the texture of San Francisco’s traditional multi-family architecture but relates it to the historical context of the area.

 

Second, the Friedell Street façade has been conceived as more residential in its relationship to the street. Residential stoops and more textured materials line the street wall. The massing of this façade is more assertive and consciously references the forms and scales of the industrial buildings in the area.

 

Donahue Street Façade

The Donahue Street façade, which includes the primary building entrance, garage, building service, and ancillary uses, has been designed as essentially three major building elements separated by a recessed and reductive treatment that also functions as a façade modulation.

 

There are private balconies that function as private usable open space for the units and are designed with an industrial palette that complements the overall Shipyard aesthetic. The window pattern is predominantly square to also reinforce the former industrial character of the Shipyard. There is a fenestration treatment at the lowest level that acts to bring the residential appearance of the building down to the sidewalk, although it is predominantly garage at this level. The corners have been designed to permit future retail uses.

 

The building entry is proposed to be a double height open-air space providing both a visual and physical connection to the open space at the Friedell Street level. This configuration allows for a dynamic linkage of the two streets and activates the street with the internal functions and circulation of the building. The walls and ceiling of this space are proposed to be a composite wood panel. The large balconies above the entry evoke the memory of ship’s rails and crow’s nests.

 

Friedell Street Façade

The Friedell Street façade is more pedestrian in nature and contains four residential stoops and two exit stair doors along with the access to the building’s courtyard. The materials of the projecting bays above are similar to those on Donahue Street, but the scale of the “bays’ has been enlarged to break down the overall massing facing the street and is more akin to the massing of factory and warehouse buildings in the greater Shipyard area. The material of the building as it meets the ground varies between a metal and ship-lap siding.  The accent siding in the projecting bays is a vertical corrugated metal that is also found on the Innes Avenue and Hudson Street facades. To reference the main building entrance along Donahue Street, the individual residential entries have an accent panel of wood siding.

 

Building Courtyard

Another major component of the Friedell Street façade is the building’s courtyard and secondary entrance. This courtyard functions as vehicular access for the two private garages located at this level, as well as common usable open space for the building residents and will be accessed through a secured gate. This area will also have four residential stoop entries and will be further activated by a number of private residential balconies. The visual focus of this space will be the “green wall,” a vertical landscaped surface over the building circulation. The green wall will draw attention towards the visual and physical linkage with the building entry and Donahue Street. The landscape design of both the horizontal and vertical surfaces of the courtyard will be further developed in the later design phases.

 

Innes Avenue Façade

The Innes Avenue façade is transitional. Its purpose is to seamlessly step the building up the street and blend the four-story building fronting Donahue Street with the four-story building fronting Friedell Street. The four-story portion of the building stitching these two portions together is clad in metal and structural steel sections. There is an abundance of balconies and one sidewalk level residential entry. There are a series of planters that step with the topography and function as part of the building’s bio-detention system. Also present on Innes Avenue is a vertical photovoltaic array that provides a visual cue to the larger photovoltaic array on the roof.

 

 

Affordable Housing Development

Under the terms of the Shipyard’s DDA 27 to 40 percent of the housing units within the Phase 1 development will be affordable.  Fifteen percent of the non-Agency housing units to be developed will be affordable and 100 percent of the Agency housing units to be developed will be affordable.  As required, the non-Agency affordable housing units will be spread equitably through the development of each of the blocks. 

 

As non-Agency blocks, Block 50 will contain four units of affordable for-sale housing, three of which will be offered to low-income buyers and one of which will be offered to very low-income buyers; Block 51 will contain 9 units of affordable for-sale housing, 6 of which will be offered to low-income buyers and three of which will be offered to very low-income buyers (see chart below). 

 

BLOCK 50= 25 UNITS

BLOCK 51= 63 UNITS

15% will be affordable= 4 units*

15% will be affordable= 9 units*

70% of the affordable units must be offered to low-income buyers (80% Area Median Income)= 3 units

70% of the affordable units must be offered to low-income buyers (80% Area Median Income)=  6 units

30% of the affordable units must be offered to very low-income buyers (50% Area Median Income)= 1 unit

30% of the affordable units must be offered to very low-income buyers (50% Area Median Income)= 3 units

* These affordable units will be sold as part of the Agency’s Limited Equity Program.

 

Increased Density on Block 51

Under the D for D, Block 51 has a permitted density of 51 units, but the Developer seeks to build 63 units, which is an increase of 25 percent over the permitted density.  The Shipyard’s Redevelopment Plan (“Plan”) and the D for D authorize density bonuses for residential developments that provide increased affordable housing.  The one (1) additional affordable unit (“Density Bonus Affordable Unit”) that Lennar is providing in exchange for the density bonus will enable Lennar to build 12 more units than what otherwise would have been permitted on Block 51.  The Density Bonus Affordable Unit must meet all of the standards for Inclusionary Units, but because it is the result of the application of a density bonus, the Agency will not count the Density Bonus Affordable Unit toward the Developer’s Total Inclusionary Obligation.    

 

Citizens Advisory Committee

The Shipyard’s CAC reviewed and approved the Schematic Designs at its January and February 2009 meetings and they expressed support for the project.

 

California Environmental Quality Act

On February 8, 2000, the Agency Commission adopted Resolution No. 11-2000, certifying the Shipyard’s FEIR.  The Commission also adopted Resolution No. 12-2000, adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.  Thereafter, the Commission adopted updated CEQA Findings in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 when it approved a number of actions related to the Shipyard’s Redevelopment Project, including approval of the DDA on December 2, 2003.

 

Prompted by minor revisions to the Project analyzed in the FEIR and pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Planning Department staff published Addendum No, 1 to the FEIR on November 19, 2003 and Addendum No. 2 to the FEIR on July 13, 2006.  The addenda concluded that, based on the findings of the FEIR, the revisions to the Project would not create any significant environmental impacts not already studied in the FEIR and that the conclusions reached in the FEIR remain valid.

 

The DDA approved in December 2003 required Lennar to submit Schematic Plans for the Shipyard’s development in accordance with the VDRDAP, pursuant to and in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan.  Agency staff has determined that the proposed Schematic Design is a subsequent “Implementing Action” that was prepared pursuant to the DDA, and therefore, is part of the project analyzed in the FEIR and its addenda.  Thus, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15180, 15168, and 15164. 

 

Staff Recommendation for Conditional Approval

Staff recommends adoption of the environmental findings pursuant to CEQA for the Schematic Designs.  Staff believes that the Block 50 and 51 Schematic Design submissions are in compliance with the Shipyard’s Redevelopment Plan and the D for D.  Final approval of the development proposals for Blocks 50 and 51 will occur when the Commission approves Vertical Disposition and Development Agreements (“VDDA’”) for these parcels.

 

As is typical, there are a few remaining design issues to be resolved in subsequent design stages, including the Design Development phase.  Staff recommends approval of the Block 50 and 51 Schematic Designs subject to the following conditions: 

 

Block 50

  1. Further develop the design of the central courtyard, specifically landscaping, drainage and paving in order to create an attractive area which could double as usable open space.
  2. Refine the mid-block break design, possibly including a fence to define the common usable open space from the public right-of-way, a gate and the provision of area(s) for active recreation, benches, landscaping and other amenities.
  3. Consider the creation of livable space on the ground floor where the slope and headroom allows the provision of windows.  Such adjustments could result in additional bedrooms or study areas.

 

Block 51

  1. Innes Avenue corner as a gateway to the Hilltop area while maintaining a building massing that respects the topography of the site.
  2. At Donahue Street consider features that announce the entrance to the building such as a canopy.
  3. At Innes Avenue explore design solutions for the residential entrance so as to define a defensible transitional space and to provide features with visual interest.
  4. Refine the design of the Friedell Street courtyard, improvements could include: a) a more defensible design, b) a better balance between hard and softscape areas, c) minimize vehicular and pedestrian circulation conflicts, d) variety in choice of paving and planting materials, e) definition of the courtyard enclosure, including gate(s) announcing the entrance to the courtyard, and f) better definition of the south courtyard wall (green wall) including vine selection and definition of the planting area.
  5. Coordinate the design of the exterior landscaping with the adjacent Hudson Pocket Park.
  6. Address possible safety issues in the roof level open space with parapets or railings.  Define other enclosures such as fences and wind screens, and introduce amenities to make the roof deck inviting and functional open space.
  7. Further design the garage gate and the enclosure of other garage openings visible from the street by providing visual interest, detail and screening.
  8. Further the design of the building exterior by defining a greater percentage of areas for bay windows, animate windowless stretches of the Fridell Street façade and take advantage of potential views.

 

 

 

(Originated by Thor Kaslofsky, Project Manager)

 

 

 

 

Fred Blackwell

Executive Director

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

  1. Context Map for Blocks 50 and 51
  2. Combined Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs for Block 50 -  Part 1 (PDF), Part 2 (PDF)
  3. Combined Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs for Block 51 - Part 1 (PDF),  Part 2 (PDF), Part 3 (PDF),  Part 4 (PDF)

 

 

 


 

Attachment A

Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS): Context Map for Blocks 50 and 51

Existing Community Facilities Parcels: 1.2 acres

HILLTOP

HPS

 

 

 



 

Attachment B

Combined Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs for Block 50

 

 

 

 

(Under separate cover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Attachment B

Combined Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs for Block 51

 

 

 

 

(Under separate cover)


 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 36-2009

 

 

Conditionally approving the combined basic conceptual and schematic designs for residential projects on blocks 50 and 51 AT HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD; GRANTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR bLOCK 51 AND REQUIRING ONE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT IN PHASE 1; and adopting environmental findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act; hunters point shipyard redevelopment project area

 

 

BASIS FOR RESOLUTION

 

  1. Blocks 50 and 51 are located on Parcel A of the Hunters Point Shipyard (“Shipyard”) in the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area.  Blocks 50 and 51 are bound by Donahue Street to the northwest, Friedell Street to the southeast, and Innes Avenue in between the two blocks.  Blocks 50 and 51 also abut two pocket parks on their east and west borders, respectively.
  2. HPS Development Co., LP (“Developer”) seeks approval from the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (“Agency”) of the proposed Basic Conceptual and Schematic Designs (“Schematic Designs”) for the development of Blocks 50 and 51.  This action requires that the Agency adopt environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
  3. The Schematic Designs for Block 50 include 25 for-sale townhome units, four (4) of which will be affordable, for an approximate total of 28,308 square feet of livable space, 36 parking spaces, and private and shared open space.  The Schematic Designs for Block 51 include 63 for-sale condominium units, nine (9) of which will be affordable, for an approximate total of 53,231 square feet of livable space, 63 parking spaces, and private and shared open space.
  4. The permitted uses and development standards pertaining to Blocks 50 and 51 are described in the Redevelopment Plan for the Hunters Point Shipyard Approved Redevelopment Project Area (“Redevelopment Plan”) and the Design for Development, as amended by Agency Resolution No. 7-2005 (Jan. 18, 2005) (“D for D”).  Although the proposal for Block 50 is consistent with the development standards, the proposed Block 51 project exceeds the permitted density by 12 units.  Under the D for D, Block 51 has a permitted density of 51 units, but the Developer seeks to build 63 units, which is an increase of 25 percent over the permitted density.
  5. In a letter dated February 20, 2009, the Developer requested a variance from the D for D density limitation for Block 51.  Letter, Patrick Banks, Development Manager, Lennar Urban, to Thor Kaslofsky, Project Manager, the Agency (Feb. 20, 2009).  Agency staff determined that the D for D did not authorize a variance under these circumstances.  The D for D, however, does authorize density bonuses to accomplish greater density with additional affordable housing.
  6. Pursuant to both the Redevelopment Plan and the D for D, a developer may request a density bonus if it provides an increased number of affordable housing units beyond the existing requirements.  Section 65915 of the Government Code also authorizes density bonuses.  The D for D states:  “Density bonuses for housing development may be awarded by the Agency to developers in order to encourage the provision of low and/or moderate income housing.  Such bonuses are deemed to be a local housing assistance program.  Bonuses may be granted in an amount up to 25% above what the density would otherwise be permitted under the terms set forth in this document.”  D for D at page 14. 
  7. The Disposition and Development Agreement for Phase 1 (as amended, the “DDA”) obligates the Developer to construct a certain amount of affordable housing as inclusionary units in its market rate projects (“Total Inclusionary Obligation”).  DDA, Section 1.1 [definition of Inclusionary Unit].  The DDA also requires that at least 15% of each Residential Project of the For-Sale Residential Units in Phase 1 be For-Sale Inclusionary Units, unless otherwise agreed by Agency and Developer in writing.  In addition, Sections 315.4 and 315.5 of the San Francisco Planning Code (“Planning Code”) provide that when the total number of units is not a whole number, the number of units is rounded up to the nearest whole number for any portion of .5 or above.  Applying these standards to the Block 51 project would create nine (9) affordable units in a 63-unit project, whereas a project complying with the permitted density would have eight (8) affordable units in a 51-unit project. 
  8. To justify a density bonus, the D for D and Redevelopment Plan require the Developer to increase the total number of affordable housing units for Phase 1.  An increase in the total number occurs if the one (1) additional affordable housing unit created by application of the density bonus is categorized separately from other Inclusionary Units (“Density Bonus Affordable Unit”).
  9. The Density Bonus Affordable Unit must meet all of the standards for Inclusionary Units, but because it is the result of the application of a density bonus, the Agency will not count the Density Bonus Affordable Unit toward the Developer’s Total Inclusionary Obligation.  This characterization will have the effect of increasing the number of affordable housing units for which the Developer is responsible and thus satisfy the density bonus provisions of the Redevelopment Plan and D for D.
  10. The Vertical Disposition and Development Agreement for Block 51 will indicate that the Density Bonus Affordable Unit meets the standards for Inclusionary Units, but does not count toward the Developer’s Total Inclusionary Obligation.
  11. Agency staff has reviewed the Schematic Designs, and find them to be in compliance with the permitted uses and development standards described in the Redevelopment Plan and the D for D, subject to the Agency’s approval of the Developer’s density bonus request for Block 51.
  12. Based on the analysis contained in (1) the Final Environmental Impact Report for approval of the Redevelopment Plan, the D for D, and related documents implementing the development program at the Shipyard (“Final EIR”), which was certified by the Commission on February 8, 2000 in Resolution No. 11-2000, and the findings adopted by the Commission on February 8, 2000 in Resolution No. 12-2000, (2) Addendum No. 1 to the Final EIR, published on November 19, 2003, and (3) Addendum No. 2 to the Final EIR, published on July 17, 2006, Agency staff has determined that the Schematic Designs are consistent with the Project considered and reviewed in the Final EIR and Addenda Nos. 1 and 2.
  13. Agency staff recommends approval of the Schematic Designs proposed by the Developer, subject to successful resolution of the following design comments and concerns:
  1. Block 50

 

  1. Further develop the design of the central courtyard, specifically landscaping, drainage and paving in order to create an attractive area which could double as usable open space.

 

  1. Refine the mid-block break design, possibly including a fence to define the common usable open space from the public right-of-way, a gate and the provision of area(s) for active recreation, benches, landscaping and other amenities.

 

  1. Consider the creation of livable space on the ground floor where the slope and headroom allows the provision of windows.  Such adjustments could result in additional bedrooms or study areas.

 

  1. Block 51

 

  1. Highlight the importance of the Donahue Street and Innes Avenue corner as a gateway to the Hilltop area while maintaining a building massing that respects the topography of the site.

 

  1. At Donahue Street consider features that announce the entrance to the building such as a canopy.

 

  1. At Innes Avenue explore design solutions for the residential entrance so as to define a defensible transitional space and to provide features with visual interest.

 

  1. Refine the design of the Fridell Street courtyard, improvements could include:  a) a more defensible design, b) a better balance between hard and softscape areas, c) minimize vehicular and pedestrian circulation conflicts, d) variety in choice of paving and planting materials, e) definition of the courtyard enclosure, including gate(s) announcing the entrance to the courtyard, and f) better definition of the south courtyard wall (green wall) including vine selection and definition of the planting area.

 

  1. Coordinate the design of the exterior landscaping with the adjacent Hudson Avenue Pocket Park.

 

  1. Address possible safety issues in the roof level open space with parapets or railings.  Define other enclosures such as fences and wind screens, and introduce amenities to make the roof deck inviting and functional open space.

 

  1. Further design the garage gate and the enclosure of other garage openings visible from the street by providing visual interest, detail and screening.

 

  1. Further the design of the building exterior by defining a greater percentage of areas for bay windows, animate windowless stretches of the Friedell Street façade and take advantage of potential views.

 

  1. The Final EIR is a program EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and a redevelopment plan EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15180.  Approval of the Schematic Designs is an undertaking pursuant to and in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan in conformance with CEQA Section 15180 (“Implementing Action”).

 

  1. Agency staff, in making the necessary findings for the Implementing Action contemplated herein, considered and reviewed the Final EIR and has made documents related to the Implementing Action and the Final EIR files available for review by the Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before the Commission.

 

  1. The Final EIR findings and statement of overriding considerations adopted in accordance with CEQA by the Commission by Resolution No. 12-2000 dated February 8, 2000 were and remain adequate, accurate and objective and are incorporated herein by reference as applicable to the Implementing Action.

 

FINDINGS

 

The Agency finds and determines that the Schematic Designs are an Implementing Action within the scope of the development analyzed in the FEIR and requires no additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15180, 15162 and 15163 for the following reasons:

  1. The Implementing Action is within the scope of the project analyzed in the FEIR and no major revisions are required due to the involvement of new significant environment effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the FEIR.
  2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project analyzed in the FEIR was undertaken that would require major revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of effects identified in the FEIR.
  3. No new information of substantial importance to the project analyzed in the FEIR has become available which would indicate that (a) the Implementing Action will have significant effects not discussed in the FEIR; (b) significant environmental effects will be substantially more severe; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives found not feasible which would reduce one or more significant effects have become feasible; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the FEIR will substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

 

RESOLUTION

 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that it authorizes a twenty-five percent (25%) density bonus for Block 51 for the purpose of approving an additional 12 units beyond the permitted density, provided however, that one of these additional units will be an Affordable Housing Unit, as defined in the DDA, and provided further, that the one additional Affordable Housing Unit will not constitute an Inclusionary Unit for purposes of meeting the Developer’s Total Inclusionary Obligation in Phase 1. 

 

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Schematic Designs for Blocks 50 and 51 are conditionally approved subject to Agency staff’s approval of the proposal to be submitted by the Developer for resolution of the design conditions stated in the foregoing portions of this Resolution together with such refinements as the Executive Director may approve which do not substantially alter the concepts presented in the Schematic Designs.

 


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

 

 

 

_________________________

James B. Morales

Agency General Counsel