HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-16 e-packet@3:00Monday, October 16, 2017
3:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and
Planning Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
October 16, 2017Housing Standing Committee of the
City Council and Planning
Commission
Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council and the Planning Commission Housing Standing Committee of the City of South San
Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, October 16, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., at City Hall, City
Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Report regarding the developer selection process for the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission Site, APN 093-312-060 including consideration of confirming the
recommended developer short list and approving the draft Request for Proposals.
(Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator)
1.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/7/2017
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-1033 Agenda Date:10/16/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding the developer selection process for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Site,APN
093-312-060 including consideration of confirming the recommended developer short list and approving the
draft Request for Proposals. (Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and Planning Commission
(“Joint Subcommittee”)receive a presentation on the developer selection process for the development of
the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”)Site and consider confirming the recommended
developer short list and approving the draft Request for Proposals (RFP).
BACKGROUND
This background,supplemented by the attached documents,provides information on the submittals of
qualifications received from developers in response to the City-issued Request for Qualifications (RFQ)for the
development of the PUC Site,and the process undertaken to reduce the initial list of developers to a more
limited, highly qualified pool of developers that will be invited to respond to the RFP.
PUC Site
The PUC Site is a 5.9-acre site located on Mission Road between Grand and Oak Avenues,and identified by
Assessor’s Parcel Number APN 093-312-060 (see map,Attachment 1).The Site was formerly owned by the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,and is now owned by the Successor Agency to the former
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco.
The Site is ideal for transit-oriented development,and features:walkable access to the South San Francisco
BART Station;the Centennial Way bike/pedestrian path;frontage along Mission Road;access to Kaiser
Medical Center;and shopping and services on El Camino Real.In addition,plans for a new Community Civic
Campus are underway on the parcels immediately southeast of the Site.The Campus will house new municipal
facilities including a Police Operations Center and a Library/Parks &Recreation Community Center.
Development of the Site was planned for in the adopted Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP)for
a mix of high density residential, office, open space, and commercial uses (please see Attachment 1).
In 2011,the City adopted the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (“Area Plan”)after an extended
community engagement and planning process.The Area Plan permits high density development on the PUC
Site with:
·Building height ranges of up to 80 feet,with taller buildings permitted up to 120 feet disbursed
throughout;
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/12/2017Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-1033 Agenda Date:10/16/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
·A range of commercial use, enabling residents to walk to everyday amenities; and
·A linear park and a pedestrian-oriented “main street”lined with restaurants,cafés and outdoor seating
along Centennial Way on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) right of way.
Developer Selection Process
To select a developer for the PUC Site,the City determined that the most appropriate method would be to
release a RFQ followed by a RFP.By issuing a RFQ first,a wide net was cast,reaching as many interested
developers as possible,without requiring them to spend substantial time or resources submitting a full proposal.
The next phase will be to issue a RFP to a short list of the most highly qualified developers gleaned from the
RFQ solicitation.
RFQ Solicitation
On May 1,2017,the City issued a RFQ on the City website,soliciting a qualified development team to create a
high-quality,mixed-use,transit-oriented development on the PUC Site (Attachment 2).Copies of the RFQ were
also sent to a selection of developers.Twelve development teams responded.Submittals were evaluated by a
six-member review panel with the following members:
Community Member
Community Member
City: Assistant City Manager
City: Public Works Director
City: Principal Planner
BART: Principal Property Development Officer
The review panel carefully scored the submittals based on the criteria established in the RFQ.The scoring
criteria focused on the developer team’s experience rather than on the concept plan.Based on the scoring,the
review panel narrowed the list of developer teams to eight finalists,which were invited to interviews.On
September 11 and 12,2017,the review panel interviewed the eight finalist development teams.The review
panel used the following selection criteria provided in the RFQ to evaluate the qualifications of each developer
team:
·Demonstrated developer experience with infill mixed-use development sites focusing on transit-
oriented development.
·Experience with similar projects (completed or under construction)as examples of relevant
experience with references.
·Statement regarding plans of ongoing project management.
·Names,résumés and outline of roles of project principals and managers that will be actively
involved with the proposed development.
·Potential sources of construction and permanent financing.
·Experience in community engagement,including working with neighborhood organizations,HOAs,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/12/2017Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-1033 Agenda Date:10/16/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
and other vested interested groups.
The review panel asked probing questions during the interviews to determine how each team would work with
City staff,undertake thoughtful community outreach,and design a project that would be unique to and
emblematic of South San Francisco’s history and culture.The panel used scoring sheets to rank each
development team (Attachment 3),and ultimately recommended the following short list of developer teams be
invited to respond to the RFP:
1.AGI Avant & KASA Partners
2.Blake Griggs
3.Sares Regis
4.Summerhill Housing Group
It is important to note that all of the developers came to the interviews with strong teams and impressive
credentials.Some teams even provided preliminary site analyses and rough development schemes.The
panelists felt that the four teams on the short list were the strongest teams in terms of track record,approach to
project management,approach to community engagement,a body of work that speaks to the City’s goals,and
the financial resources to complete a project.The review panel also felt that these teams would be able to
prepare realistic plans that respond to the criteria established in the RFP.
DISCUSSION
Staff is requesting that the Joint Subcommittee confirm the recommended developer short list put forward by
the review panel and to approve the draft RFP.Following the Joint Subcommittee meeting,staff will
incorporate the Joint Subcommittee’s comments into the RFP and send the document to the short listed
developer teams. Teams will have 90 days to respond to the RFP.
Developer Short List
A summary of each developer team recommended by the review panel is provided below:
AGI Avant & KASA Partners
The team includes AGI Avant Inc.,KASA Partners,Kwan Hemi Architects,BAR Architects,RHAA Landscape
Architects,and GLS Landscape/Architecture.Members of the development team have experience working in
South San Francisco.Andrew Kawahara,KASA Partners,and Kwan Hemi,Architect,have worked in South
San Francisco,as noted below.Relevant experience provided by the developer in their submittal of
qualifications includes the following projects.
•1270 Mission, San Francisco, 299 units, under construction.
•Transbay Block 9, San Francisco, 570 units (23 percent affordable), 43 stories, under construction.
•ABACA at 2660 3rd Street, San Francisco, 263 units, completed in 2017.
•MOSSO at 900 Folsom Street, San Francisco, 463 units, completed in 2014.
•VARA at 1600 15th Street, San Francisco, 202 units, completed in 2014.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/12/2017Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-1033 Agenda Date:10/16/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
•Peninsula Mandalay, South San Francisco, 112 units, 18 stories, completed in 2005.
Blake Griggs
The team includes Blake Griggs,Eden Housing,Capital Senior Housing,and TCA Architects.Relevant
experience provided by the developer in their submittal of qualifications includes the following projects.
•Phases I and II of Walnut Creek Transit Village,596 units,26,400 square feet of retail,in pre-
construction.
•Vaya, Walnut Creek, 178 units, under construction.
•Artist Walk, Fremont, 185 units, 28,000 square feet of retail, under construction.
•1900 Fourth Street, Berkeley, 155 units, 33,000 square feet of retail, in review.
Sares Regis
Sares Regis and the principle architect for Studio T-Square have experience working in South San Francisco,as
noted below.Relevant experience provided by the developer in their submittal of qualifications includes the
following projects.
•Cadence - Phase 1, South San Francisco, 260 units, under construction.
•888 North San Mateo Drive, San Mateo, 160 Apartment units, completed 2014.
•The Crossing, San Bruno California, 900 multi-family units, completed 2006.
•Cityline, Sunnyvale, 792 units, 396,000 sf office, 342,000 sf retail, started in 2016.
.
Summerhill Housing Group
The team includes Summerhill and KTGY,an architecture and planning firm.Both have experience working in
South San Francisco,as noted below.Relevant experience provided by the developer in their submittal of
qualifications includes the following projects.
·Park Station, South San Francisco, 99 condominiums, completed in 2008.
·Lawrence Station, Santa Clara, 988 units (537 apartments and 451 for-sale), under construction.
·Centre Pointe, Milpitas, 694 units, Phase 1 under construction.
·Anson, Burlingame, 290 units (268 apartments and 22 for-sale), start construction in January 2018.
Attachment 4 outlines the developers’ experience in more detail.
RFP
The short-listed developers,if confirmed by the Joint Subcommittee,will be invited to respond to a RFP for
development of the PUC Site.Staff has drafted the RFP for Joint Subcommittee review and approval (see
Attachment 5).Staff will incorporate any comments from the Joint Subcommittee into the final RFP.Upon
issuance,the selected developers will have 90-days to respond to the RFP,which is anticipated to be due in
February 2018.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/12/2017Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-1033 Agenda Date:10/16/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
The draft RFP outlines the City’s expectations for future development at the PUC Site,including inclusion of
affordable housing,partnership in building the Oak Avenue extension,high-quality design and building
materials,and strong connections to the bike and pedestrian path -Centennial Way.In order to evaluate the
developer proposals,each team will be asked to submit their qualifications,project proposal,financial analysis,
and offer price,along with other information more specifically detailed in the attached draft RFP.Once
responses to the RFP are received from the short listed developers,the financial analysis components will be
vetted by a third party economic development consultant.
The following selection criteria are laid out in the draft RFP for the Joint Subcommittee to use when evaluating
the short listed developers’ proposals:
·Appropriateness and quality of project concept.
·Community and economic benefits to the City.
·Financial capability to consummate the proposed deal.
·High-quality iconic design.
·Completeness, creativity, and clarity of proposal.
·Results of developer interviews at the Joint Subcommittee.
Next Steps
Upon completion of the RFP solicitation period,all proposals will be brought to the Joint Subcommittee in
February-March of 2018.The Joint Subcommittee will be asked to hold interviews of the teams that submitted
RFPs,and the Joint Subcommittee’s recommendations will be forwarded to City Council.Following the
Council’s approval of the developer and alternate,the City and the selected developer will enter into an
Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA)that will form the basis of a Development Agreement and
Purchase and Sales Agreement. The ENRA period is anticipated to take eight to 10 months.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Joint Subcommittee confirm the recommended developer short list and approve the
draft RFP.
Attachment 1: Location Map (Sites B & C)
Attachment 2: RFQ
Attachment 3: Interview Scoring Criteria
Attachment 4: Review Panel Powerpoint Presentation, August 22, 2017
Attachment 5: Draft RFP
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/12/2017Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-1033 Agenda Date:10/16/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/12/2017Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Buri Buri
Shopping
Center
MSB
14.33 Acres
5.5 Acres
BART
ROW
BART
ROW
Future Community Civic Campus
Sites A1, A2a, A2b and A3
(purple)
A1
A2a
A3
B
C
A2b
Chestnut
Shopping
Center
South City Car Wash
Proper ty
Kaiser Medical
Center
Missi
o
n
Roa
d
El Camin
o
Real
Che
s
t
n
u
t
Avenu
e
W estbo
r ough
B oule v a r d
A
n
t
o
i
n
e
t
t
e
L
n
Oak
Avenu
e
G r and A v enue
Nor th County
Municipal
Cour t
Kaiser-Owned
Proper ties
1 | Page
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
For the Development of a Rare Infill Transit-Oriented Site
Up to 5.9 Acres / 160’ Max Height / 120 Units Per Acre
Located in South San Francisco, CA
Issued May 1, 2017
Deadline to submit responses: June 15, 2017 by 5:00pm PST
CONTACT: Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Coordinator
(650) 829-6620 or [email protected]
City of South San Francisco
2 | Page
Transit-oriented development site in the heart of
South San Francisco and the Peninsula
with easy access to regional modes of transit,
centered in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area,
a planned district to accommodate
high density residential and
multiple public amenities.
3 | Page
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Page 4
Background Information Page 8
Surrounding Neighborhood Amenities Page 11
Site Profile Page 16
Other Important Information Page 17
Submittal Requirements Page 20
Developer Selection Process Page 21
Preliminary Schedule Page 22
Supplemental Documents Page 23
4 | Page
Executive Summary
The City of South San Francisco (“City”) is pleased to issue a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”)
for qualified and experienced development team(s) to develop a quality project(s) on City-
controlled property (“Site”) with a cumulative acreage of 5.9 acres. Proposals may be
submitted for the entire site of 5.9 acres, or a portion of the Site either “Site B” at 1.5 acres, or
“Site C” at 4.4 acres, separated by the Colma Creek.
The City-controlled site is identified under property inventory owned by the former
Redevelopment Agency. After the dissolution of the Agency in 2012, part of the dissolution
process required Redevelopment Agencies throughout California to implement a Long Range
Property Management Plan of this inventory. The Site in this RFQ is primed for disposition
under an approved Redevelopment Project Plan in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan. The future development and disposition of the Site enhances an urban infill property with
much needed quality high density housing in the City.
The City has up-zoned the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area as a transit-oriented development
(“TOD”) neighborhood, with the Site providing high density residential development
opportunities with a minimum of 120 units per acre, heights of up to 160 feet, and walking
5 | Page
distance to many public amenities and the anchor employer Kaiser Permanente South San
Francisco Medical Center.
This solicitation is solely an RFQ. Shortlisted developers will be issued an RFP for a more
detailed proposal to include a confidential Price and Terms Sheet. The City envisions
concluding the entire process, selecting the developer, and entering into and Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement by February 2018. A Preliminary RFQ/RFP Schedule can be found on
page 22 and is subject to change.
Submittals for this RFQ are due no later than Thursday, June 15th by 5:00pm PST. See page 20
for submittal requirements.
The contact for this RFQ is:
Ernesto Lucero
[email protected]
(650) 829-6648
Economic Development Coordinator
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
6 | Page
Site Highlights
Pedestrian-Friendly Site
The Site boasts a “very walkable” walk score of 79 out of 100 which allows for most errands to
accomplish on foot. Residents and commuters have an array of day-to-day retail services,
surrounded by numerous current and planned public amenities that include a Civic Center
Campus and pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Transit Oriented Development Opportunity
The Site is located within a planned transit village providing ample opportunities to connect to
local and regional transit systems, such as BART and SamTrans, and the San Francisco
International Airport (SFO).
Large Contiguous Urban Infill Site
The Site consists of two contiguous lots providing significant efficiency and flexibility in master-
planning the site.
7 | Page
Neighborhood Map
8 | Page
Background Information
The City of South San Francisco
With a population of 66,683 residents and a workforce of 37,908, South San Francisco is home
to the world’s largest biotech center. The city’s central location and business-friendly
environment makes for a culture of collaboration and entrepreneurial spirit unlike anywhere
else in the Bay Area. South San Francisco offers venture capital next door, a network of the
most talented people in Life Science, as well as the presence of industry leading companies.
• #1 city in the world for biotech lab space, with 211 existing biotech firms in one cluster
• Room to grow with 6.5 million square feet of R&D space under construction or
approved for development in the next three years located at the City’s eastern
waterfront called Oyster Point
• Authentic downtown, stunning waterfront, family-friendly neighborhoods, rich cultural
life
• Convenient access to transit: two BART stations, CalTrain, ferry service, and SFO airport
9 | Page
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Planning Area is geographically in the heart of South San
Francisco and the Peninsula. The area encompasses approximately 98 acres along El Camino
Real, from Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue and is advantageously located at
the city’s busiest crossroads, with visibility from both Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real. Just
west of Downtown South San Francisco, the Area is anchored by key public amenities including
Orange Memorial Park, the Centennial Way pedestrian and bike trail and the Municipal Service
Building (the location of City Council meetings and other community functions).
The Area is near the City’s growing Biotech cluster at Oyster Point, and is a convenient
commute into San Francisco through several regional transit options, including BART.
10 | Page
The Area Vision
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Planning Area will be a new walkable, distinctive mixed-
use district, with a network of open spaces, new streets and pedestrian connections extending
through the area. A vertical mix of uses with primary retail uses on the ground floor and office,
public and residential uses above is conceptualized for this new vibrant zone. The BART right-of-
way will be transformed into a linear park and a pedestrian-oriented “Main Street”, lined with
restaurants, cafes, and outdoor seating.
The Plan envisions a new neighborhood with a mix of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings. It will
provide a range of commercial uses; walking access to everyday amenities; parks, plazas and
gathering spaces for the community. Below grade or structured parking will enable efficient use
of land, creating a pedestrian oriented district close to transit and promoting development
based on sustainability principles and practices.
Core to the Plan is integrating development, connections and open space. The extension of
Centennial Way, a bicycle and pedestrian trail, is a key trail network that will provide a direct
connection between the South San Francisco BART Station and Orange Memorial Park.
Orientation of buildings, parks, and plazas to the open space network will maximize access to
and visibility of these amenities. Integrated public art in the landscape elements can also add
visible interest.
B
C
11 | Page
Surrounding Neighborhood Amenities
South San Francisco BART Station
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
(“BART”) is a high speed rail transportation
system linking 43 stations in the Counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and San
Francisco. Serving over 129 million
passengers annually, the system also serves
as a main connection point to both San
Francisco International and Oakland
Airports, and Amtrak.
The South San Francisco BART station is
directly served by the Millbrae/Richmond
and SFO/Pittsburg Bay Point lines. The
station is an approximate 12 minute ride to
San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”),
and a 17 minute ride to downtown San
Francisco.
12 | Page
South San Francisco Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
One of the largest employers in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area is the South San
Francisco Kaiser Permanente Medical Center campus, located at 1200 El Camino Real. Just a
short 8 minute walk from the project site, the facility houses medical offices, pharmacies, and a
hospital.
13 | Page
Future Community Civic Campus
Plans for a new Community Civic Campus are underway to the immediate south of the Site,
with an estimated investment of over $150 million and plans for development completion by
2021. The campus will consolidate new municipal facilities including: a Police Operations
Center, 911 Dispatch Center, Fire Station, and a Library / Parks & Recreation Community
Center.
Measure W
Funding for the new Community Civic Campus was made possible by Measure W, a local district
sales and use tax increase of 0.5% that took effect April 2016 and is estimated to generate
about $7 million per year in new funding to be dedicated to maintaining and enhancing local
services. These include 9-1-1 emergency response times, neighborhood police patrols, crime
and gang suppression programs, and programs for seniors and disabled residents. Details of
the conceptual elements and town hall feedback can be found on our website.
Conceptual
Layout
14 | Page
Centennial Way Trail
Centennial Way is a beautiful, award winning 2.85 mile linear park constructed on top of the
underground BART tube, featuring a nearly continuous Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian trail that
runs between the South San Francisco and the San Bruno BART stations.
15 | Page
Trail entrances feature attractive plazas with way-finding and interpretive signage, safe
crossings at intersections, and kiosks with trail maps. The trail alignment connects residential
areas, business and retail, parks, including Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way Dog
Park, medical offices, South San Francisco and El Camino High Schools, and Los Cerritos
Elementary School.
The City plans to replace a short section of the trail, which was temporarily built along
Antoinette Road until site improvements are designed for the new civic campus on El Camino
Real at Chestnut Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle paths will connect new development and
surrounding neighborhoods to the Centennial Way corridor.
16 | Page
Site Profile
APNs 093-312-060
Owner Successor Agency
Area The total developable site is 5.9 acres, consisting of two sites separated
by Colma Creek; Site B - 1.5 acres and Site C - 4.4 acres. Proposals will
be accepted for either individual parcels, or the total site.
Zoning ECR/C-RH, El Camino Real/Chestnut, High Density/Residential:
This sub-district is intended to provide for high density residential
development in the form of high rises (along with townhomes at the
ground level) close to the BART station. While uses will be residential,
townhomes with individual or paired (two homes) entrances are
required at the lower levels along Mission Road and Centennial Way
Linear Park to maintain visual interest and promote safety along the
public rights-of-way. (Ord. 1449 § 2, 2011; Ord. 1448 § 2, 2011)
Height 120 feet base, up to 160 feet with discretionary approval
FAR N/A
Density 120 units per acre, up to 180 units per acre with Incentive Program
(High quality architecture, Green Building provisions, Transportation
Demand Management, off-site improvements)
Parking 1 space per unit (1 space for studios and one bedrooms, 1.5 spaces for
2+ bedrooms)
Open Space 150 square feet per unit (can be shared or private)
Site Landscaping 10% of site
Environmental Review CEQA clearance has been provided for up to 1,215 total units within
the Area Plan. Any proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the
applicable mitigation measures of the adopted EIR document. Site
specific supplemental analysis will be required for City review (for
example, traffic circulation, health risk assessment, noise study, etc).
17 | Page
Other Important Information
Potential Oak Avenue Extension
A future planned potential extension of Oak Avenue will be considered for the area. The
planned extension borders the Site to the north, and the Civic Campus to the south. The
improvements would connect increased traffic for the existing Oak Avenue to the east allowing
it to continue west to Arroyo Drive. These improvement costs are currently estimated to be
$15-$16 million. Funding mechanisms are being analyzed, such as the formation of a
Community Facilities District (“CFD”), but the project has not yet been defined with a definitive
funding source.
Community Facilities District Possible Formation
The City is currently analyzing the feasibility of the formation of a CFD in specific sectors of the
City, its impact to development, as well as a financial analysis of potential services and public
improvements. If a CFD is formed during the process of disposition and development of the
Site, the proposed developer(s) agree to adhere to its formation and the implications of its
formation.
Such efforts could fund specific types of public infrastructure improvements, triggered by new
development. The Mello-Roos Act would allow the City to finance public improvements and
18 | Page
services to include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire
protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities.
Disclaimers
The City reserves the right to:
• Extend the due date of the RFQ, or cancel, in whole or in part of this solicitation.
• Interview none, any or all developers that submit responses to the RFQ.
• Select one developer for both properties or a different developer for each property.
• Request additional information.
• Reject, in whole or in part, any or all qualifications submittals, and to waive minor
irregularities in the submittal.
• Seek and obtain additional qualifications beyond the due date if the qualifications
received are unsatisfactory.
• All RFQ qualifications submittals will become the property of the City and are subject to
public information requests. The City may use any and all ideas and materials included
in any submittal, whether or not the respondent is selected as the developer.
• No reimbursement will be made by the City for any cost incurred by developers in
preparation or submittals of a response to this RFQ.
• The RFQ is not a contract or a commitment of any kind by the City and does not commit
the City to award exclusive negotiating and/or development rights. The issuance of this
RFQ does not constitute an agreement by the City that the City Council will actually
enter into any contract.
• Respondent's Duty to Investigate:
1. It will be the sole responsibility of the selected respondent to investigate and
determine conditions of the Site, including existing and planned utility
connections, and the suitability of the conditions for any proposed improvements,
particularly near Colma Creek and the BART right-of-way.
2. The information presented in this RFQ and in any report or other information
provided by the City is provided solely for the convenience of the interested
parties. It is the responsibility of interested parties to assure themselves that the
information contained in this RFQ or other documents is accurate and complete.
The City and its advisors provide no representations, assurances or warranties
pertaining to the accuracy of the information.
• Proposals and all other information and documents submitted in response to this RFQ
are subject to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250
through 6276.48) (CPRA), which generally mandates the disclosure of documents in the
possession of the City upon the request of any person, unless the content of the
document falls within a specific exemption category.
19 | Page
• Non-Liability: By participating in the RFQ process, each respondent agrees to hold the
Successor Agency and City and its and their officers, employees, agents, representatives,
and consultants harmless from all claims, liabilities, and costs related to all aspects of
this RFQ&P.
• “As-Is” Property Condition: As will be addressed in the ENRA, the properties will be
conveyed to the selected developer(s) in an “as-is” condition, without representation or
warranty by the City as to physical or environmental conditions of the land or any
existing structures. The City makes no representations regarding the character or extent
of soil or subsurface conditions or the conditions and existence of utilities that may be
encountered during the course of construction of any work, development, construction
or occupancy of the properties. Respondents will be responsible for independently
reviewing all available information that may be available from the City about existing
conditions, and undertaking independent analysis of site conditions, including any
environmental, health and safety issues.
20 | Page
Submittal Requirements
Responses to this RFQ must be packaged as a submittal with:
• Twelve (12) hard copies presented in collated binders, and
• One (1) unbound, (8.5” x 11”)
• One digital file, either sent electronically or on a thumb drive
Concept responses must include, at a minimum:
A. Letter of Intent
• Project Team description and contact information
• Project Summary outlining the proposed development concept
B. Concept Response
• Concept and approach to affordable/market rate rental/for sale
• Physical description to include a general concept of gross building area and
parking by use and by phase
• Timeline or preferred phasing
• Ownership structure with description of investment strategy
C. Statement of Qualifications
• Demonstrated developer experience with infill mixed-use development sites
focusing on transit-oriented development
• Include any similar projects (completed or under construction) as examples of
relevant experience with references
• Statement regarding plans of ongoing project management
• Names, résumés and outline of roles of project principals and managers that will
be actively involved with the proposed development
• Potential sources of construction and permanent financing
• Experience in community engagement, including working with neighborhood
organizations, HOAs, and other vested interested groups
21 | Page
Developer Selection Process
Selection Committees
The selection committees that will be involved in the developer selection process includes:
• Review Panel – this may include City staff and representatives from the community and
business
• Joint Housing Subcommittee (JHS) – comprised of the Mayor, one City Council Member
and two Planning Commissioners
• Successor Agency and the City Council – comprised of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and three
City Council Members
• Successor Agency’s Oversight Board – comprised of representatives from 10 of the
taxing entities and must approve the disposition of the Successor Agency owned
property.
Selection Phases
The anticipated schedule for selection includes:
1. Phase 1 RFQ - Paper Screen: RFQ submittals are subject to a paper screen review by
staff and possibly an interview with some or all of the selection committees. Based on
this review, a shortlist of developers will be invited to respond to an RFP in Phase 2.
2. Phase 2 RFP - Interviews & Selection: The shortlisted developers will be issued an RFP to
submit a more detailed proposal including development program, drawings and
financial terms. The shortlisted developers will be interviewed by the selection
committees and a preferred developer and an alternate developer may be selected.
Should reasonable progress not be made during the Exclusive Negotiating Rights
Agreement (ENRA) phase, the City may terminate the preferred developer and elect to
proceed with the alternate developer.
Note: Financial Terms will be confidential and outlined in further detail at the Phase 2 RFP, and
is not required as part of this RFQ solicitation.
The Preliminary RFQ/RFP Schedule provided in this solicitation identifies necessary milestones
for the Site. Dates are subject to change.
22 | Page
Preliminary RFQ/RFP Schedule
Milestone Anticipated Date
PHASE 1
RFQ issue date
(45 days)
May 1, 2017
Submittal Deadline June 15, 2017 by 5:00pm PST
City and Review Panel to complete review of submittals
which may include an interview, and identify Short List of
Respondents
July 31, 2017
PHASE 2
City invites Short List of Developer(s) to respond to an RFP
(90 days)
August 1, 2017
RFP proposals due October 30, 2017
City Committees/Council review proposals received from
Shortlisted developers and interviews some or all Shortlisted
developers, and make developer(s) selection.
(Open Session for Proposals submitted & Closed Session for
Price & Terms.)
Housing Sub Committee
Successor Agency
Oversight Board
City Council
(Estimated process is 3 months)
Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement is executed with
preferred developer –
City Council approval
(6 month ENRA period)
February 2018
Proposed ENRA expires August 2018
Assuming a smooth ENRA process and depending on the proposed development and deal structure, the
City would execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) or a Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) in Q4 of 2018.
23 | Page
Selection Criteria
Criteria that will be used by the selection committees to evaluate the qualifications of the
developers that respond to this RFQ will include (in no particular order):
• Financial capability to obtain project funding of developments of comparable magnitude
and scope
• Firm’s demonstrated success of completing similar developments; complex urban infill
sites with extensive subsurface conditions, utility issues and other constraints
• Relevant experience with similar developments by the firm and individual team
members that will be involved with the development.
• Completeness of response for information requested.
• Experience with successful community outreach
• Results of staff interviews of references.
Note that an approval of the sale of a portion or the total site described in this RFQ will be at
the discretion of the City Council, Successor Agency and the South San Francisco Oversight
Board.
Supplemental Documents
• El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
• Draft and Final EIR
• Resolution 99-2011 Adopting ECR/C Area Plan and CEQA Documents
• Land Use Online Tool
• Zoning Ordinance
• Amended City of South San Francisco Long Range Property Management Plan (2015)*
*Document can be emailed upon request
Panelist #1 Panelist #2 Panelist #2 Panelist #4 Panelist #5 Panelist #6 Combined
Score
Ranking
Tidewater 8 7 3 8 2 5 5.5000 7
AGI 6 3 5 4 8 3 4.8333 3
Martin Group 4 8 7 5 4 6 5.6667 8
Blake Griggs 1 1 1 3 1 1 1.3333 1
Sares Regis 2 2 2 7 7 2 3.6667 2
Republic Metropolitan 7 6 4 1 5 8 5.1667 6
Summerhill 5 5 6 6 3 4 4.8333 3
Steelwave 3 4 8 2 6 7 5.0000 5
Recommended to move forward to RFP Shortlist
RFQ Review Panel - Interview Ranking - September 11-12, 2017
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
PUC SITES B & C PANEL REVIEW – AUGUST 22
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Request for Qualifications
Select a qualified and experienced development team(s) to develop a
quality project(s) on City-controlled property (“Site”)
Proposals could be submitted for the entire site of 5.9 acres, or a
portion of:
“Site B” at 1.5 acres
“Site C” at 4.4 acres, separated by the Colma Creek
Evaluation is on qualifications
Shortlisted developers will be issued an RFP for a more detailed
proposal to include a confidential price and terms sheet
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Land Use
Plan
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Land Use
Plan
ECR/Chestnut Plan Concept of Planning Area Buildout (illustrative Only)
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan Objectives
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan (2011) facilitates transit-
oriented development (“TOD”) on the city’s major infill site
The Plan envisions a new neighborhood with a mix of low-, mid- and
high-rise buildings.
Provide a range of commercial uses; walking access to everyday
amenities; parks, plazas and gathering spaces for the community
New walkable, distinctive mixed-use district, with a network of open
spaces, new streets and pedestrian connections extending through the
area
The BART right-of-way will be transformed into a linear park and a
pedestrian-oriented “Main Street”, lined with restaurants, cafes, and
outdoor seating
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Planning Area Site Context
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Approved Land Use Plan & Zoning
LAND USE DIAGRAM
El Caminno Real/Chesstnut Avenue Area Plan
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
Development Considerations
Comply with GP Designations and Zoning Standards for:
El Camino Real Mixed Use North High Intensity (purple area)
High Density Residential (orange area)
High-density residential development opportunities:
Up to 120 units/acre
Heights of up to 160 feet
Walking distance to many public amenities and Kaiser
Permanente South San Francisco Medical Center
Other Development Considerations:
New Infrastructure
Community Civic Center
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Infrastructure Considerations
Infrastructure improvements may include:
Oak Avenue Extension
Street Frontage Improvements, undergrounding including
overhead electrical lines on Mission Road, El Camino Real,
Antoinette Lane, & Chestnut Avenue
Parks and Open Space Improvements, including Centennial Way
Bikepath and landscaping
Extension of water mains and relocation of existing sewer lines
Parking on BART property and Antoinette Lane
Site preparation and demo
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
RFQ Review Criteria
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
RFQ Review Criteria
Criteria - Qualifications Maximum
Points
Scored
Points
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and demonstrated successful completion
of large and complex mixed-use transit oriented developments
(TOD), and experience with subsurface conditions and utility
issues. Experience with diverse housing product types; rental,
for-sale, high-rise, mid-rise, townhouse, affordable etc.
Financial capability to obtain funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and scope.
45
Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the exceptional
advantages and opportunities for development of the PUC
properties and the South San Francisco community.
10
Experience in Community Outreach
10
Total possible points in this section 65
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
RFQ Review Criteria
Criteria – Proposed Concept Maximum
Points
Scored
Points
Preliminary development concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD; types of housing and targeted
market, proposed amenities, approach to common areas
and open space and any retail.
15
Understanding of the special infrastructure needs (such as
the Oak Avenue Extension) and the goals of the Area Plan
to create a new node for the City.
15
Total possible points in this section 30
Submittal 5
TOTAL POINTS 100
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Preliminary RFQ & RFP Schedule
Review Panel scores paper submittals and recommends a shortlist of developers to
interview August 22, 2017
Review Panel interviews for shortlisted developers and recommends a further
shortlist to be invited to participate in the RFP September 11 & 12, 2017
Special Housing Subcommittee Meeting w/ Draft RFP – consideration of
recommended shortlisted developers to participate in the RFP October 16, 2017
Issue RFP With a 90 Day Solicitation Period October 23-February 2, 2018
End of Solicitation Period February 2, 2018
Housing Subcommittee Meeting w/ Short List of Developers (in-person interviews)
to recommend the selected (and alternative) developer February 26, 2018
Council to approve Selected Developer and Alternate March 28, 2018
Council meeting – Approve ENRA with selected developer May 23, 2018
Oversight Board to confirm Sale Price June 20, 2018
ENRA Expiration November 19, 2018
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Proposals
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
AGI - KASA
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
AGI Avant Inc., KASA Partners – San Francisco
BAR Architects, Kwan Hemi Architects
RHAA Landscape Architects, GLS Landscape/Architecture.
Experience in South San Francisco (Andrew Kawahara & Kwan
Hemi). Projects in Section 3 include the following (not all project
listed):
•1270 Mission, San Francisco, 299 units, 2017 construction
•MOSSO/900 Folsom Street, San Francisco, 463 units, 2014
•VARA/1600 15th Street, San Francisco, 202 units, 2014
•ABACA 2660 3rd Street, San Francisco, 263 units, 2017
•Transbay Block 9, San Francisco, 570 units, 43 stories, 23%
affordable housing, under construction (Project Mgr)
•Peninsula Mandalay, South San Francisco, 112 units, 18
stories, 2005
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Notes CalPERS as capital partners (1.A) and lenders (1.A). Tab 3
includes list of comparable projects.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
AGI - KASA
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Section 1.B includes description:
•Residential mixed-use adjacent to the new public green and
Library/Community campus. Concept will include ground-
floor retail uses on the “Oak Avenue” side and townhomes
lining Centennial Way.
•Concept anticipates, potentially, a higher density level than
what is illustrated in the Area Plan, as it is important to
create enough units in this phase to establish momentum for
the much larger Site C.
•Site C is closer to BART, we envision that Site C will have the
high-density residential, products that will provide a real
identity to the neighborhood. Townhomes will line
Centennial Way, as well as Mission Road.
•The “main event” at Site C will be at least two parcels that
will feature high density buildings, where building height is
setback from Mission Road.
Experience in Community
Outreach
Community engagement plan discussed in 2.A. Notes doing
neighborhood charrettes.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
AGI - KASA
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
Development concept described in 2.A. Between 600-800
residential units with no less than 20% low to mod affordable.
Mixture of townhomes and multi-family. 10K-15K commercial
space included.
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Notes infrastructure finance through Goodwin Consulting Group
and Holland & Knight (1.A). Notes closeness to BART. Notes
connection with Community Civic Campus.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Blake Griggs
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Blake Griggs - Danville, Eden Housing, Capital Senior Housing,
TCA Architects. Listing of past projects on pages 16 and 17.
Pipeline projects include:
•Phase I and II Walnut Creek Transit Village with 596 units and
26,400 sf retail, described on page 11 (pre-construction)
•Vaya Residential Project in Walnut Creek with 178 units,
described on page 11 (under construction)
•Artists Walk in Fremont with 185 units and 28,000 sf retail,
described on page 12 (Q4 2017)
•Foster Square in Foster City with age restricted units (55+) and
retail, described on page 12 (under construction)
•1900 Fourth Street in Berkeley with 155 units and 33,000
retail, described on page 13 (under review)
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Page 14.
Equity: 40% - 50%
Debt: 50% - 60%
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Blake Griggs
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Discussion on Concept and Approach on page 2
Experience in Community
Outreach
Detailed description of community outreach process and methods
on pages 14 and 15
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
•850 – 900 units
•Three separate eight (8) story buildings, with subterranean
parking level, two podium levels above grade wrapped with
residential units, and six (6) levels of residential above.
•Mix of one to three bedroom units
•One level of subterranean parking, two levels of podium
parking above grade wrapped with residential units, and six
stories of residential above
•Eden Housing would site affordable housing in the project area
(page 3). Assisted living facility would also be included (page 4)
Understanding of the special
infrastructure
Discussion on Concept and Approach on page 2
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Equity Residential
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Equity Residential – San Francisco
Invested $1.7 billion in Bay Area developments. REIT
involvement on pages 3 to 6 includes:
•Potrero 1010 (1010 16th Street), San Francisco.
Showplace Square / Potrero Hill neighborhood. Two
buildings, six stories, 453 units including 20% inclusionary
on site (55% AMI). Also includes 12,000 sq. ft. street level
retail and 5,800 sq. ft. PDR (some of which is now
occupied by California College of the Arts). Completed
and stabilized 2016. $224 million total development cost,
100% financed by EQR
•One Henry Adams, San Francisco. Showplace Square
neighborhood. Two buildings, six stories, 241 units. Also
includes 8,800 sq. ft. street level retail (leased to two
critically acclaimed San Francisco restauranteurs), and six
two story townhomes at grade level. Completed 2016,
over 70% occupied. $163 million total development cost.
100% financed by EQR
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Equity Residential
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
•855 Brannan, San Francisco. South of Market / Showplace
Square neighborhood. Three buildings, six stories, 449 units
including 12% inclusionary on site (55% AMI). Also includes
16,200 sq. ft. street level retail. Currently under
construction ‐‐ two phase delivery in mid and late 2017.
$304 million total development cost, 100% financed by EQR
Targeting LEED Platinum certification
•Domain and Vista 99, San Jose. North San Jose ‐‐ Vista
Montana and W. Tasman Drive. Two phase project, 444
units and 554 units, five and six stories. Completed and
stabilized in 2014 and 2016, respectively. $370 million total
development cost – Domain was financed through a joint
venture with Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company; Vista 99 was 100% financed by EQR
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Equity Residential
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and scope.
Largest multi-family REIT in the United States pg 8. Included
a balance sheet in proposal. Many projects 100% financed
by EQR
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Concept page 1
Experience in Community Outreach Page 9
Preliminary development concept.
Conceptual programming of the
TOD
Three, mid-rise residential buildings up to 700 units.
Timeline and phasing noted.
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Concept page 1
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Fore Property Company
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Fore Property Company (Fore Green Development, LLC)
- Las Vegas, Los Gatos locally
Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, BKF Engineering. Partnering
with Pacific Housing in Sacramento to provide affordable
housing.
Fore Property projects noted in Section 3 include:
•Rivage, Portland, OR, 260-units, $64.6MM Total
Development Cost, Completion Date Anticipated April
2017
•Waterline, Portland, OR, 244-Units, $46.2MM Total
Development Cost, Completed April 2016
•1000 S. Broadway, Denver, CO, 260-Units, $45.6MM Total
Development Cost, Completed November 2015
•Dublin Transit Station
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and scope.
Fore currently owns and manages 5,500 affordable apartment
units and 1,990 affordable and market rate units. Equity
partners and financing tools identified (pages 8, 14 & 15)
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Fore Property Company
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Development concept discussed on page 6.
Experience in Community
Outreach
Notes experience in community engagement on page 15.
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
•181 self-funded affordable units on parcel B
•528 market rate units on parcel C
•LEED construction (page 8)
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Development concept discussed on page 6.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
M-Rad
Company and Project
Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
The Vella Group – New York, M-Rad Architecture – Culver City,
Oliver Companies Design - Duluth
Vella Projects include:
•670 MESQUIT, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Mixed use (Residential +
Hotel + Commercial), 2,600,000 SF, 1 B investment, Status: Design
Development, City Planning Review
•250 BOWERY, New York, NY, USA, Mixed-use residential
condominium, 145,000 SF. $50 M investment, Status: Completed
•471 WASHINGTON, New York, NY, USA, Condo, 120,000 SF, $40 M
investment, Status: Completed
•11 NORTH MOORE, New York, NY, USA, Hotel + Restaurant,
430,000 SF, $150 M investment, Status: Completed
•290 WEST STREET,New York, NY, USA, Hotel + Restaurant, 140,000
SF, $50 M investment, Status: Completed
•1 NORTH MOORE, New York, NY, USA, Hotel + Restaurant,
110,000 SF, $40 M investment, Status: Completed
•HOLLYWOOD ARTS CLUB, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Hotel +
Restaurant, 110,000 SF, $150 investment, Status: Planning Review
M-Rad concept at 121 East Grand Avenue included on pgs 30 and 31
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
M-Rad
Financial capability to
obtain funding for similar
projects of comparable
magnitude and scope.
Page 18 explains ownership strategy by the Vella Group.
Demonstrated knowledge
and understanding
Pages 7 – 16 examines GP and Zoning standards to illustrate two
options for development.
Experience in Community
Outreach
Section 4.2
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
Pages 7 – 16 show two development options.
Option 1 - high density option with mid to high rise buildings
Option 2 - lower density option with mid rise buildings
The options are explained with massing studies and illustrations.
Understanding of the
special infrastructure
Page 15 describes site planning and pedestrian connections. Page 16
provides a timeline for development.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
The Martin Group
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
The Martin Group – San Francisco, Steven Kay – San Francisco
BDE Architects
Experience in Marin County, Hamilton Field, Emeryville and more
Lists representative projects in Bay Area on pages 7 -15 include:
•34588 11th St. Union City, CA, 243 Rental Units, 3,000 SF of
Retail (Fall 2017)
•3093 Broadway Oakland, CA, 423 Rental Units, 20,000 SF of
Retail (2018)
•301 12th Street Oakland, CA, 333 Rental Units, 25,000 SF of
Retail, Mixed-Use (2020)
•525 Middlefield Rd, Redwood City, CA, 463 Rental Units, 10,000
SF of Retail, Mixed-Use (2016)
•2055 Center Street, Berkeley, CA, 143 units, 15,400 retail (2014)
•South San Francisco – 410 Noor Ave 330 units
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Page 6 – List of equity and debt financing partners
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
The Martin Group
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
See development concept planning starting on page 16. The
developer envisions a two phase project.
Experience in Community
Outreach
Page 5 - community engagement
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
Detailed development concept starting on page 16. Proposes 756
residential units over the two parcels. Illustrations included.
Development in phases.
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Pages 4 and 5 - Discusses public-private partnerships undertaken
in other cities. Site planning illustrations included in
presentation.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Republic Metropolitan
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Republic Family of Companies/ReMet – Washington DC
Mercy Housing (affordable), Hon. Norman Y. Mineta, Hon.
Quentin L. Kopp,
Swinerton Builders, BDE Architects
In Section C, representative projects include:
•Portals II, Washington, DC, Mixed Use, 547,680 sf,
$211,800,000
•Republic Square I, Washington, DC, Mixed Use, 385,765 sf
$172,000,000
•Portals III, Washington, DC, Mixed Use, 506,626
sf$243,089,538
•Republic Square II, Washington, DC, Mixed Use, 200,000 sf,
$132,400,000
•Meridian at Midtown, San Jose, California, 218 apartments
+ 14,000 sf mixed-use retail, $145,000,000
•Marquis, San Jose, California, 166 apartments, $80,000,000
•Portals II, Washington, DC, Mixed Use, 547,680 sf,
$211,800,000
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Republic Metropolitan
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and scope.
Pages 20 and 21 discussion
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Page 12 references
Experience in Community
Outreach
Page 9
Preliminary development concept.
Conceptual programming of the
TOD
•Total approximately 1060 units.
•Two phases
•Phase 1: Parcel C - 600 market rate townhomes and
multifamily apartment / Parcel B – 210 units affordable
senior and veteran housing
•Phase 2: Parcel C - 250 market rate units of condominiums
in mid to high rise.
•Pages 9 and 10 show illustrations.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Republic Metropolitan
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
•Veterans Housing noted. Project includes rental and for-sale
units.
•Oak Avenue Extension – from Oak Avenue/ Mission Road to El
Camino Real/Arroyo Drive
•Potential Community Facilities District - including identifying
funding options/ partnership for design and construction
•Colma Creek crossing - Coordination with San Mateo Flood
Control District, Army Corps of Engineers on design options in
providing 100-year storm event protection and free board
requirements
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Sares Regis
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Sares Regis – San Mateo
Page 5 - Projects under construction include:
•Cadence – Phase 1, SSF, 260 units
•610 East Weddell, Sunnyvale, 205 units
•The Pierce, San Jose, 232 units
•San Bruno Plaza, San Bruno, 83 units
•Ashton, Belmont, 73 units
•Encore, Redwood City, 90 units
•1101 West, Mountain View, 52 units
•Sunnyvale Town Center - Phase 1, Sunnyvale, 198 units
Completed projects include:
•888 No San Mateo Dr, 160u by Burlingame CalTrain (2014)
•Township, Redwood City, 132 units (2014)
•Colonnade, Stanford, 167u, 12,000sf retail (2015)
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Discussed on page 14. Identifies equity partners for past projects
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Sares Regis
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Page 1 and 2 - Letter of intent
Experience in Community Outreach Page 15. Identifies approach to meetings.
Preliminary development concept.
Conceptual programming of the TOD
Page 3.
•700 units
•700 to 1,200 sf/unit in multi-family buildings
•Up to 1,700 sf/unit in townhomes
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Page 3 – concept
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Steelwave
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Steelwave – Aliso Viejo
Page 6 introduction indicates that it is a vertically-integrated
company
SVA Architects on page 9. Team and org chart on page 7. Projects
listed on page 6 include:
•Parq @ Iliff Station (Currently Under Construction), Aurora CO,
424 units (2018)
•74th at La Tijera (Currently Under Construction), Westchester
CA, 140 units (2018)
•5550 Wilshire, Los Angeles CA 163, units (2010)
•Hollywood & Vine, Hollywood CA, 375 units (2009)
•7950 West Sunset, Hollywood CA, 183 units (2008)
•Legacy at Main & Jamboree, Irvine CA, 290 units (2007)
•Bella Vista at Warner Center, Woodland Hills, CA, 579 units
(2004/2006)
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Page 18 - Ownership structure
Page 28 - Sources on financing
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Steelwave
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Pages 14 and 15 – Vision statement
Experience in Community
Outreach
Page 28 reference with descriptions on past projects in
Statement of Qualifications.
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
Page 15 - Concept plan and illustration
Mixed-use project, three phases – one year apart
•570-860 residential units
•14,700 sf of commercial space
•Parcel C: two buildings, 381 – 575 units, 6 stories
•Parcel B: one building, 189 – 285 units, 6 stories
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Notes connection with Community Civic Campus. Identifies
phasing strategy. Oak Avenue Extension included in illustrations.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Summerhill Housing
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Summerhill Housing – Palo Alto, San Ramon
KTGY Architects
South San Francisco experience. Some projects in South San
Francisco and San Francisco Peninsula include:
•Park Station, South San Francisco – 99 condominium units
adjacent to the SSF BART station (2008)
•Lawrence Station, Santa Clara – 994 total units, including rental
apartments, condominiums & townhomes, within — mile of the
Santa Clara Caltrain station (under construction)
•Centre Pointe, Milpitas – 694 rental apartments within walking
distance of the Milpitas BART station (under construction)
•Carolan Ave/Rollins Rd, Burlingame – 268 rental apartments &
22 townhomes within 1 mile of the Burlingame Caltrain station
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Summerhill Housing
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
•988 El Camino Real, South San Francisco – 172 rental
apartments and retail, ECR/Chestnut Plan area (pre-application)
•Park Station, South San Francisco – 99 condominium units
adjacent to the South San Francisco Bart Station (2008)
•Tanglewood, Mountain View – 22 single-family homes and 15
townhomes (under construction)
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects
of comparable magnitude
and scope.
Summerhill is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marcus & Millichap
Company. Page 3 financing
Demonstrated knowledge
and understanding/Other
Concept Response describes existing conditions and uses
illustrations to describe area.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Summerhill Housing
Experience in Community
Outreach
Page 3
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
•649 residential units
•Mix of affordable and market rate units
•Possible phasing South to North
•Parcel B: 165 units
•Parcel C: C1 – 253 units, C2 – 231 units
Understanding of the special
infrastructure
Notes connection with Community Civic Campus during
construction phasing.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Tidewater - Gilbane
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
Tidewater Capital – San Francisco
Gilbane Development Company – Arlington, VA
HKIT Architects, JP Stocco (Affordable Housing)
Reuben, Junius & Rose (Land Use Council)
The appendices lists separate projects undertaken by each
member of the team. Representative projects include:
•1028 Market St (The Hall), San Francisco, CA, 186 units, 10,000
SF retail, 13 stories, 2018
•50 Golden Gate Ave: 77 residential apartment units and 7,500
SF office,
•275 Turk St., San Francisco, CA. 66 residential apartment units,
•429 Beale Street & 430 Main St., San Francisco, CA., 144
residential apartment units, 9 stories, under review.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Tidewater - Gilbane
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Tab 3 - States financial capability
Will utilize the standard sources of debt and equity
Debt financing from Banks, Life Insurance Companies, and Debt
Funds with which Developer has existing relationships.
Letters from banks included
Demonstrated knowledge and
understanding
Stated project goals (Project Summary).
Experience in Community
Outreach
Tab 3 references outreach with entitlement process. Adds case
studies in community outreach with description.
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
•730-unit development with seven story apartment building and
rental townhomes
•Concept plan included
Special: Notes LEED construction
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Tab 2 description and phasing plan with a development schedule
Developer provided site plans and block study illustrations.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
United Commercial
Company and Project Team:
Relevant experience and
demonstrated successful
completion
United Commercial LLC and Golden Millennium Capital LLC
Salvatore Caruso Design Corporation – lead contact
China Harbour Engineering Company LTD, and David Powers
Major projects include (pp 27 – 33) developer role unclear:
•Santana Row, San Jose, a mixed-use project incorporating
residential space with retail restaurants and office space
with a highly active pedestrian experience.
•Villa Italia, planned as a multi-family 144 unit project.
•Napa Resort and Spa (351 room hotel)
China Harbor Engineering projects (status unknown):
•SF BART West Oakland TOD (460 units)
•341, 363 & 365 Delmas Avenue, San Jose (120 units)
•425 & 433 Auzerlas Avenue, San Jose (130 units)
Financial capability to obtain
funding for similar projects of
comparable magnitude and
scope.
Section 5 submitted as “Confidential Financial Information”
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
United Commercial
Demonstrated knowledge
and understanding
Pages 3 and 6
Experience in Community
Outreach
Page 6.
Preliminary development
concept. Conceptual
programming of the TOD
•Page 9
•Parcel C: Mixed use development with 600 residential units
•Parcel B: 80 senior living units and a child care facility for 60
children
•LEED standards
Understanding of the special
infrastructure/Other
Pages 9 – 11 clarifies approach to architecture, open space and
infrastructure.
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Follow-Up
Si
t
e
s
B
&
C
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For a Vacant 5.9 Acre Transit-Oriented,
Mixed-Use Development Opportunity in the
City of South San Francisco
Issued On: October 23, 2017
Responses Due By: Friday, February 2, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
Contact: Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator
(650) 829-6620 or [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Site Description ......................................................................................................................................... 2
The Site in Context .................................................................................................................................... 3
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan ............................................................................................. 4
Zoning ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Development Standards at a Glance .................................................................................................... 5
Disclosures ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Oak Avenue Extension .......................................................................................................................... 6
Environmental Contamination and Remediation ................................................................................. 7
BART Right of Way ................................................................................................................................ 7
THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 8
City Expectations ....................................................................................................................................... 8
High Quality Planning, Design, and Construction Materials ................................................................. 8
Strong Connections to Centennial Way ................................................................................................ 8
Housing Affordable to a Range of Incomes .......................................................................................... 8
Active Ground Floor Uses in Key Locations........................................................................................... 9
Family-Friendly Unit Types .................................................................................................................... 9
Commitment to Public Art .................................................................................................................... 9
Support for Oak Avenue Extension ....................................................................................................... 9
Partnership in Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) .................................................... 10
Thoughtful Community Engagement Process ..................................................................................... 10
Design Complementary to the Planned Community Civic Campus .................................................... 10
Consideration for BART’s Sphere of Influence .................................................................................... 10
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................................... 11
Section A: Development Team & Experience ......................................................................................... 11
1. Development Team ..................................................................................................................... 11
2. Development Team Qualifications ............................................................................................. 12
3. Relevant Experience .................................................................................................................... 12
4. References .................................................................................................................................. 12
Section B: Development Program ........................................................................................................... 13
1. Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 13
2. Approach to Addressing City Expectations ................................................................................. 13
3. Drawings and Diagrams .............................................................................................................. 14
4. Community Benefits ................................................................................................................... 14
Section C: Letter of Intent (Price and Terms), Confidential .................................................................... 14
1. Term Sheet .................................................................................................................................. 15
2. Value of Community and Economic Benefits .............................................................................. 15
3. Financing Plan ............................................................................................................................. 15
4. Project Budget and Pro forma .................................................................................................... 15
5. Review of Form ENRA ................................................................................................................. 15
DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 17
Selection Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Selection Timeline ................................................................................................................................... 17
Term Sheet Negotiations ........................................................................................................................ 17
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................... 18
Contact Information ................................................................................................................................ 18
Limitations and Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 18
Related Information ................................................................................................................................ 19
EXHIBITS ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
A. Site Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 20
B. Environmental Site Assessment for the City of South San Francisco of a 1.12 Mile Corridor Owned
by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ................................................................................... 21
C. Form of Letter of Intent .................................................................................................................. 22
D. Form of Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement........................................................................... 23
E. Template Term Sheet ...................................................................................................................... 24
F. Template Pro Forma ....................................................................................................................... 25
G. Form of Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement........................................................................... 26
1
INTRODUCTION
The City of South San Francisco (the “City”) is seeking proposals for the redevelopment of a property known
as the PUC Site (the “PUC Site” or “Site”). The transit-oriented Site is currently vacant and well situated
approximately one-half mile south of the South San Francisco BART Station, near Highway I-280, and
adjacent to Kaiser Medical Center and destination retail on El Camino Real. The City envisions the
development to be a vibrant community complete with strong connections to the Centennial Way bike and
pedestrian path traversing the Site, the future Community Civic Campus, active ground floor uses, high-
quality construction materials, and a design that fits seamlessly into surrounding, long-established
neighborhoods.
On May 1, 2017, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for a well-qualified development team
to create a high-quality mixed-use transit-oriented development on the Site. Twelve development teams
responded. Those responses were reviewed and reduced to a list of eight finalists, which were interviewed
by a six-member Review Panel of community members and City staff. The Review Panel recommended the
following short list of teams be invited to respond to this Request for Proposal (“RFP”):
1. AGI Avant/KASA Partners;
2. Blake Griggs;
3. Sares Regis; and
4. Summerhill Housing Group.
On October 16, 2017, the City’s Joint Housing Subcommittee confirmed the recommended developer short
list and approved this RFP for issuance.
Developer responses to the RFP will be due to the City on February 2, 2018. If the City obtains additional
information pertaining to the Site during the solicitation period and relevant to the solicitation, it will be
provided to the developer short list as it is received.
2
BACKGROUND
The City of South San Francisco is conveniently accessed by Highways US 101 and I-280, Caltrain, two BART
stations (including a free shuttle), and numerous bus routes. The City’s up and coming historic downtown
boasts international dining, Michelin Guide noted restaurants, a craft brewery and wine school, and various
retail establishments. Known as “The Birthplace of Biotech,” the City is home to over 200 biotech firms and
has a daytime workforce of over 50,000 people.
Located in the western portion of the City along El Camino Real, the PUC Site is situated near the South San
Francisco BART Station, with direct access to I-280, El Camino Real, Kaiser Medical Center, Centennial Trail,
and destination retail. The Site is located in the heart of an area targeted by the City to become a vibrant,
pedestrian- and transit-oriented community. Immediately adjacent to the Site, the City plans to build a
major civic community campus (discussed below), and other projects have been proposed in the immediate
area, such as a new 172-unit apartment development at El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
To catalyze redevelopment of the area, the City adopted the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in
2011 after an extensive public outreach and planning process. The Area Plan calls for intensification of
underutilized properties, both publicly and privately owned.
Site Description
The PUC Site was formerly owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) and is known
by Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 093-312-060. The Site benefits from extensive frontage along Mission
Road, but is bisected by Colma Creek and a bike and pedestrian path called Centennial Way. The parcel is
divided into two sites, identified as sites B and C. The southern portion, site B, measures approximately 1.5
acres and the northern portion, site C, is roughly 4.4 acres. Additionally, a planned extension of Oak Avenue
will border site B to the southeast. Shown as the dark blue area in Figure 1, the PUC Site totals 5.9 acres.
See Exhibit A for a survey of the Site.
The City-controlled PUC site was previously owned by the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency (“Redevelopment Agency”). After dissolution of redevelopment in 2012, redevelopment agencies
throughout California were required to prepare and implement a Long Range Property Management Plan
(“LRPMP”). The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”) prepared a LRPMP,
which was approved by the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency (“Oversight Board”). To carry out the
terms of the LRPMP, the Successor Agency transferred the PUC Site to the City for disposition and
redevelopment consistent with the LRPMP. The PUC Site is primed for development consistent with the
Redevelopment Project Plan in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The future development of
the Site will enhance an urban infill property with much needed quality high-density housing.
3
Figure 1
The Site in Context
Plans for a new Community Civic Campus (“Campus”) are underway on the parcels immediately to the
southeast of the Site. The Campus will house new municipal facilities including a Police Operations Center,
911 Dispatch Center, Fire Station, and a Library/Parks & Recreation Community Center. The Oversight
Board recently approved the City’s proposal to purchase the properties for the Campus. The project is
expected to be completed by 2021 and cost approximately $150 million. It will be funded by proceeds from
Measure W, a local sales and use tax increase of 0.5% that took effect in April 2016.
To the northeast of the site, the County of San Mateo is exploring the possibility of redeveloping its former
County Municipal Court site into housing and other complementary uses. The County recently solicited
qualifications from architecture and planning firms for the completion of a Master Plan for the site. The
City anticipates the County will select a firm and begin the master planning process in late 2017.
In addition to these public projects, there are several private development projects underway in the
vicinity. The most recent housing projects completed or under construction include the following.
Park Station Lofts, located at 1200 El Camino Real, includes 99 units.
A Mid-Peninsula Housing Project, located at 636 El Camino Real, includes 109 affordable units and
5,700 square feet of commercial space.
4
The Mission & McLellan project, located at 1309 Mission Road, includes 20 units and 6,000 square
feet of commercial space.
City Ventures’ Transit Village Residential Project, located across the street from the South San
Francisco BART Station at 1256 Mission Road, includes 31 units.
Figure 1 shows the PUC Site’s within the context of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan.
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
The Site is located within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (“Area Plan”). This Area Plan was
adopted by the City in July 2011 and encompasses approximately 98 acres along El Camino Real, from
Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue. The majority of the area is situated between El Camino
Real and Mission Road. The right-of-way for the underground Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) line runs
through the length of the planning area. The area includes approximately 58 acres of developable land,
excluding streets, BART, canal and creeks, and other rights-of-way. This area is planned for use as a new,
mixed-use, walkable neighborhood with new streets and pedestrian connections.
Adoption of the Area Plan resulted in amendments to the City’s General Plan land use classifications. The
High Density Residential land use classification was amended to allow higher density development within
the planning area and two new land use classifications were introduced: El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
High Intensity and El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity. The Area Plan set forth:
• Heights and intensities that are greater than existing, surrounding development to emphasize the
planning area’s central role as a transit-oriented destination;
• Overall height range of three to six stories, with taller buildings up to 15 stories tall disbursed
throughout, and which are varied in height and bulk, to create visual interest;
• A new neighborhood of up to 4,400 residents housed in low- to high-rise buildings;
• A range of commercial uses; walking access to everyday amenities; and a new Civic Campus with
library, recreation and police services, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San
Francisco community; and
• A linear park and a pedestrian-oriented “Main Street” lined with restaurants, cafés, and outdoor
seating along a portion of the BART right-of-way.
Area Plan Transportation Network
The planning area is comprised of a limited network of existing and proposed streets. The Area Plan seeks
to work within the area’s constraints – significant changes in grade, the BART tunnel, the canal, and large
privately held properties to maximize street connectivity – to improve connectivity within the planning
area, to surrounding neighborhoods, and to BART with the goal of enhancing the area’s accessibility and
role as a citywide destination. Elements of the Area Plan include bikeways and pedestrian paths connecting
to Centennial Way, residential uses, and commercial destinations. Specifically, connections to Centennial
Way are imagined in new development creating smaller blocks and east-west connections.
5
Zoning
The PUC Site is zoned according to the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, with designations
including High Density Residential, El Camino Real Mixed Use North, El Camino Real Mixed Use North High
Intensity, El Camino Real Mixed Use North Medium Intensity, and Public Use. These Zoning designations
allow for 80 to 120 foot height limits and floor area ratios (“FAR”s) of 2.0 to 3.0.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance, South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.280, is available at the
following link: http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=20-iii-20_280.
Development Standards at a Glance
Zoning ECR/C-RH, El Camino Real/Chestnut, High Density/Residential:
This sub-district is intended to provide for high-density residential development in
the form of high rises (along with townhomes at the ground level) close to the BART
station. While uses will be residential, townhomes with individual or paired (two
homes) entrances are required at the lower levels along Mission Road and
Centennial Way Linear Park to maintain visual interest and promote safety along
the public rights-of-way. (Ord. 1449 § 2, 2011; Ord. 1448 § 2, 2011).
Height 120 feet base, up to 160 feet with discretionary approval.
FAR N/A
Density 120 units per acre, up to 180 units per acre with Incentive Program (High quality
architecture, Green Building provisions, Transportation Demand Management,
off-site improvements)
Parking 1 space for studios and one bedrooms, 1.5 spaces for 2+ bedrooms
Open Space 150 square feet per unit (can be shared or private)
Site Landscaping 10% of site
Environmental
Review
CEQA clearance has been provided for up to 1,215 total units within the Area Plan.
Any proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable mitigation
measures of the adopted EIR document. Site specific supplemental analysis will
be required for City review (for example, traffic circulation, health risk assessment,
noise study, etc.).
6
Disclosures
Currently, the City is aware of the disclosures listed below.
Infrastructure
The Area Plan envisions significant infrastructure improvements, including a network of open spaces, new
streets, undergrounding of utilities, new sewer and water connections, and pedestrian connections. The
City’s goal will be to ensure that the development program for the PUC Site is adequately sized to support
the infrastructure cost burden. Necessary improvements include sidewalk widening and utility
undergrounding on Mission Road and Antoinette Lane, potential relocation of sewer and gas lines, grading
and site work. The Environmental Impact Report and the Area Plan discuss infrastructure improvements,
phasing, and potential financing to pay for the new improvements.
Oak Avenue Extension
Initially conceived as a major vehicular route, the Oak Avenue extension will balance vehicle, pedestrian,
and bicycle trips. The extension will provide an east-west connection between adjacent neighborhoods,
relieving traffic congestion at the El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue intersection to the south and allow
for new street frontage to support active street frontage for retail or dining opportunities within the PUC
Site. On-street parking with planters will provide short-term parking for the fronting active uses, while
expanding landscaped and pedestrian areas. Wide sidewalks with tree wells will provide pedestrians a
pleasant experience and a buffer from vehicular traffic. Wider travel lanes will allow bicyclists direct access
from the adjacent neighborhoods to Centennial Way.
The projected cost for the Oak Avenue extension is estimated in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Site
Infrastructure Assessment to be approximately $15,569,300. The City assumes that the development of
the planning area referred to in the Area Plan, plus three site areas on the south side of Chestnut Avenue
and the “Outside Focus Area” will bear the cost burden of constructing this improvement. Costs are
anticipated to be shared on a per project trip generation basis. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
Area Plan calculated the number of trips anticipated from the planned land uses as 16,497 total daily trips.
This equates to a cost of $945 per daily trip. This is an additional infrastructure cost that would encumber
the property and a deduction is made for this factor. The EIR identifies the Fair Share Allocation Costs of
Oak Avenue for sites B and C as follows:
Site B
65,340 square feet
1.50 acres
1,078 projected trip generation
6.55% of adjusted trips
$1,019,233 based on projected trips
7
Site C
196,020 square feet
4.50 acres
2,343 projected trip generation
14.23% of adjusted trips
$2,215,271 based on projected trips
In total, the PUC Site’s fair share of the estimated cost to construct the Oak Avenue Extension would be
approximately $3.2 million.
Environmental Contamination and Remediation
In 2005, the City of San Francisco prepared an “Environmental Site Assessment for the City of South San
Francisco Of a 1.12 Mile Corridor Owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.” The Assessment
indicates that the subject sites do not have adverse environmental conditions. See Exhibit B for a complete
listing of these conditions.
BART Right of Way
The BART right of way extends along the length of the Site and has been transformed into a linear park and
a pedestrian-oriented bikeway called Centennial Way. Along the Site, the BART tunnel is located primarily
below Colma Creek. However, BART also owns a strip of land between Colma Creek and the southwestern
boundary of the Site. The City and BART are currently discussing a future agreement for the use of the right
of way as parking and open space for the planned Community Civic Campus.
Community Facilities District
City staff is currently analyzing the feasibility of forming a Community Facilities District (“CFD”), including
the impact it would have on development and the potential services and public improvements it could
fund. Under the Mello-Roos law, passed in 1982 in response to Proposition 13, local cities, counties, and
school districts may create a CFD to finance the construction of needed community infrastructure. The CFD
is empowered to levy additional property taxes on land located inside the district, thus creating a
dependable revenue stream that can be used in issuing bonds to pay for new infrastructure.
8
THE PROJECT
The PUC Site is an exceptional development opportunity. Few comparable sites remain undeveloped in the
Bay Area, affording the selected developer the chance to shape a neighborhood for South San Francisco’s
future. Although today the Site remains a blank slate, the City has certain expectations for its development.
City Expectations
The respondent’s willingness and ability to meet the City’s expectations will be taken into consideration
when evaluating proposals and selecting a developer for the PUC Site.
High Quality Planning, Design, and Construction Materials
The City wishes to see the PUC Site developed into a vibrant community complementing and enhancing
existing residential neighborhoods to its east and west. Critical to the success of the Site’s development is
careful master planning of uses, intensities of development, and circulation. Following a thoughtful site
planning process, the City expects to see high-quality design of buildings, landscaping, and other site
elements ultimately built with lasting, impactful, and aesthetically pleasing materials.
Strong Connections to Centennial Way
The Area Plan established an open space plan that shall serve as a framework for development of the PUC
Site. This includes continuous green space along Centennial Way, as well as along the BART right of way.
The development of the PUC Site should strengthen pedestrian and bike connections to Centennial Way,
better connecting Downtown South San Francisco to the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations.
Developers should consider activating the bike connections between the Site and Downtown via Grand
Avenue and Orange Park.
Although not physically part of site B of the PUC Site, the Area Plan identifies the northern portion of Parcel
A2b illustrated in Exhibit C, adjacent to the Kaiser Medical Center, as a potential open space and recreation
area that can be incorporated into future development. Responses should address adjacent, vacant space
like Parcel A2b with the assumption that it could be used as open space in the future.
Housing Affordable to a Range of Incomes
New development at the PUC Site should offer housing types that are affordable to a diverse range of
incomes. From nurses, to teachers, to high-tech and bio-tech workers, future development at the Site must
serve a wide swath of South San Francisco and San Mateo County community members. The City has set a
goal for this development to include at least 20% below market rate (BMR) housing units that meet or
exceed the affordability levels called for in the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. BMR units may be
incorporated into the development either as inclusionary units or in a standalone portion of the new
9
community.
Active Ground Floor Uses in Key Locations
A critical objective of the development of the PUC Site is to enhance the adjacent, established
neighborhoods and to activate El Camino Real, Mission Road, and the planned Oak Avenue Extension. To
the extent possible, buildings should be oriented and designed in a manner that preserves views, integrates
well with adjacent residential uses, enhances public areas, and provides active uses on the ground floor. To
achieve this, the City encourages the new development to incorporate various architectural techniques
such as: setbacks, stoops and porches, and/or local-serving retail uses, restaurants, child care centers, or
other neighborhood services.
Family-Friendly Unit Types
South San Francisco is a family-friendly community proximate to vital job centers both within the City and
further north and south along the Peninsula. The PUC Site affords a tremendous opportunity to connect
time-starved families to rapid transit connections throughout the region. Ideally, the Site would be
developed to meet or exceed the Zoning District’s base density of 120 dwelling units per acre while
maximizing the number of two and three bedroom units.
Commitment to Public Art
The Area Plan encourages developers to create a distinct, well-defined public realm with enhanced
streetscape improvements, public plazas, open spaces, and pedestrian connections. In meeting the
objectives of the Area Plan, the developer shall also integrate public art throughout site.
Construction of the Oak Avenue Extension
Construction of the Oak Avenue extension will greatly benefit circulation in the vicinity of the PUC Site and
provide increased access to the southern terminus of the Site. The City believes that the Oak Avenue
extension must be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Site. However, the City does
not have funds available to construct the Oak Avenue Extension during this time frame. As developer of the
Community Civic Campus to the south of the planned Oak Avenue extension, the City will set aside
approximately $5.5 million for the construction of the new roadway.
The City expects the developer to fund and construct the Oak Avenue extension in conjunction with the
Site development. In addition to contributing its fair share, as detailed above, the developer of the PUC Site
would cover the gap between the $15.9 million construction cost and the $8.7 million contributed by the
City and the developer. The gap payment would be reimbursed to the developer following creation of a
financing tool to pay for and maintain the new infrastructure.
10
Partnership in Formation of a Community Facilities District
The EIR – a self-mitigating document requiring developers to undertake significant infrastructure
improvements planned for in the Area Plan – lists policies specifically related to open space and parks,
utility improvements, traffic calming, pedestrian connections, and other site improvements for which the
developer of the PUC Site will pay their fair share. In addition to this, the Area Plan identifies alternative
financing arrangements, including the creation of a CFD. If a CFD is formed during the disposition and
development of the PUC Site, the selected developer will be asked to support the CFD and participate in its
formation.
Thoughtful Community Engagement Process
The City expects the selected developer to prepare a thoughtful outreach plan to guide an engagement
process to gather stakeholder, neighbor, and the community input. Gathering feedback from the public
will be critical in refining the project design and program to serve and enhance surrounding communities
and, more broadly, South San Francisco.
Design Complementary to the Planned Community Civic Campus
As discussed above in the Disclosures section, the PUC Site is just north of a planned Community Civic
Campus. The Site (specifically site B) will frame either side of the planned Oak Avenue Extension. Designing
a project that complements and accentuates the role of the Community Civic Campus as a destination for
the community is paramount.
Consideration for BART’s Sphere of Influence
As discussed above in the Disclosures section, the PUC Site is adjacent to BART right of way. The City
anticipates that the future developer of the PUC Site may need to enter an agreement with BART for use
of the right of way as open space to complement the open space proposed for the PUC Site project.
11
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Please submit proposals to:
Economic Development and Housing Division
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Proposals must be hand delivered or sent by mail to the City’s Economic and Community Development
Department and be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, February 2, 2018. The Economic
Development and Housing Division is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Late or
emailed submissions will not be accepted. Post marking by the deadline will not substitute for delivery.
Responses must include the following number of copies and electronic material.
1. Eight (8) collated, color copies of the materials outlined below presented in 3-ring binders. Sheets
should be oriented in portrait layout and measure 8.5” x 11” unless presenting plans, diagrams,
schematics, or renderings, which should be in landscape layout and measure 11” x 17”.
2. One (1) unbound copy of the above.
3. An electronic copy of the full proposal on a USB drive.
To be deemed complete, proposals must include the materials outlined in Sections A, B, and C, in the order
specified below. Please note that once submitted, this information will become the property of the City
and is subject to public information requests, except where noted as “Confidential.”
Section A: Development Team & Experience
1. Development Team
Submit a list of development team members including their role on the team, their company affiliation, and
their contact information. Teams should consist of at least the following areas of expertise:
Developer
Architect
Engineer
Clearly identify the principal party/project manager who will be responsible for representing the team to
the City on a day-to-day basis and during negotiations. Be sure to include contact details for each individual.
Finally, describe the anticipated ownership entity for the project. Include names of any proposed, general,
12
limited or joint venture partners.
2. Developer Questionnaire
Provide a completed developer questionnaire as included in Exhibit D.
3. Development Team Qualifications
Submit information describing the qualifications of each company, as well as the principals, project
managers, and other team members proposed to undertake the project. The information submitted may
be in the form of resumes and must be sufficiently detailed to allow the City to judge the overall
development team’s ability to complete the project.
4. Relevant Experience
Include a statement of prior relevant development experience for each company in the development team.
Relevant experience will be considered multi-family and mixed-use projects of similar size and magnitude
in transit oriented locations preferably proximate to single-family or lower-density neighborhoods. Ideally,
three to five similar projects would be presented.
For each example project, note the following:
project name,
project location,
which development team members were involved and their role,
stage of completion,
a brief description of the development program,
current ownership structure of the project,
development costs, and
if the project required property acquisition from a redevelopment agency, another public agency,
city, or a successor agency.
5. References
Provide a minimum of five professional references for each company in the development team. References
should include former development partners, financial partners, and city contacts from other public private
partnerships undertaken by the development team. For each reference, provide name, title, company or
agency, phone number, and email address. City staff will contact each of the developer’s references and
ask a series of questions related the project’s financing, entitlement process, construction phasing,
relationship with City staff, and overall project management.
13
Section B: Development Program
The City understands that planning for development is a dynamic and multi-faceted process, and that the
development teams’ initial vision for the site will be subject to refinement to reflect evolving design,
programming, market, and financial opportunities and constraints as well as community objectives. In this
section of the response, please provide the development team’s current, well-considered proposal, which
shall serve in part as the basis for developer selection and ongoing negotiations.
1. Project Description
Outline the development team’s vision for the PUC Site and provide a written description of the proposed
development program. Limit the vision statement and summary description to no more than two pages. It
may include tables and should specify the following:
itemization of housing units, indicating the number of units, bedroom/bathroom count, floor area,
etc., for each housing product type,
number of parking spaces (showing breakdown by housing, visitor, retail, etc.),
height of buildings and number of stories,
construction type,
square footage of each use,
number of affordable units, with information on type of units and proposed levels of affordability,
information on open space including acreage and proposed uses, and
project schedule including phasing plan, which must address the construction of the Oak Avenue
extension.
2. Approach to Addressing City Expectations
In the previous section – The Project – several expectations are outlined for the eventual development of
the PUC Site. Please address through narrative descriptions, illustrations, and/or diagrams how the
proposed development program meets the City’s expectations.
High quality planning, design, and construction materials.
Strong connections to Centennial Way.
Housing affordable to a range of incomes.
Active ground floor uses in key locations.
Family-friendly unit types.
Commitment to public art.
Construction of Oak Avenue extension.
14
Partnership in formation of a CFD.
Thoughtful community engagement process.
Design complementary to the planned community civic campus.
Consideration for BART’s Sphere of Influence.
3. Drawings and Diagrams
Though the City expects the selected developer to refine their development program after undertaking a
thoughtful community engagement process, some preliminary drawings and diagrams are necessary to
evaluate each development team’s proposal. Please provide the following drawings and diagrams.
Site plan showing building footprints, circulation, locations of commercial space, public and private
open space, and bike and pedestrian connections.
Schematic drawings sufficient to illustrate uses within buildings and relationships between
buildings, elevations, showing gross building areas, and parking by use and by phase.
Axiomatic renderings that communicate the vision for the site, and sense of proposed building
heights and massing.
4. Benefits
Describe what economic and community benefits the City will receive as a result of the proposed
development, including details of public spaces, traffic/transit/pedestrian improvements, public art, and
any other proposed community resources. Estimate all projected economic impacts of the proposal,
including one-time fees such as building permit fees and impact fees (estimated from the City’s Master Fee
Schedule), and ongoing payments such as estimated property taxes and sales and use taxes.
Section C: Letter of Intent (Price and Terms), Confidential
As noted under Section B above, the City acknowledges that the financial offer being requested will reflect
development teams’ initial vision for the site, which may evolve through plan refinement and negotiations.
In this section of the response, please provide the development team’s current, well-considered financial
proposal, which shall serve in part as the basis for developer selection and ongoing negotiations. The initial
financial proposal will be considered a benchmark against which any future changes to the financial
proposal will be justified as they reflect evolving conditions or agreements.
Information requested in Section C must be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope and clearly marked,
“Confidential Real Property Negotiations.” Price and terms, while under negotiation, are not subject to
public information requests pending negotiations, and therefore this portion of your submission must
remain separate from the materials submitted in response to Sections A and B above. Only one copy of the
confidential package is required and it must include:
15
1. Term Sheet
Complete all fields in the template term sheet provided in Exhibit E. The term sheet includes the developer’s
offered purchase price and any proposed financial terms, in addition to estimated development costs.
Please indicate whether the developer is proposing to provide any ongoing financial participation, such as
a share in project proceeds above a certain preferred return threshold for the developer.
2. Value of Community and Economic Benefits
Estimate the economic benefits the City will receive as a result of the proposed development project.
Proposer shall estimate all projected economic impacts of their proposal, including purchase price, one-
time fees such as building permit fees and impact fees, construction and any permanent jobs, and ongoing
payments such as estimated property taxes. Include the value of any other community benefits offered to
the City; public open spaces, traffic improvements etc.
3. Financing Plan
Summarize the development team’s approach to financing the proposed development. Include the team’s
role in the capitalization of the project, and relationships with capital resources. Include the team’s
commitment to all or a portion of the financing, or commitment of financing sources for the project.
4. Project Budget and Pro Forma
Include a detailed analysis of project development costs and projected revenue and operating expenses
over a ten-year period that support the economic impacts described in the City Benefits section above.
Project costs should include direct construction costs and sources, other costs with sources and
assumptions, and all costs in current dollars (as of the date of response). Please include two (2) analyses
with the assumptions described above: one utilizing prevailing wage, and one that does not.
So that the City can readily compare the financial offers from the various development teams, please use
the Excel summary pro forma template included as Exhibit F and provided to each development team
electronically. Supporting documentation regarding project costs and revenues (dynamic cashflows or
static building pro formas, more detailed infrastructure cost estimates, etc.) may also be included with the
proposal. Two versions of the template pro forma should be completed – one utilizing prevailing wage and
one that does not – and provided as part of the teams’ written material, and an electronic copy should be
provided on a flash drive within the confidential package.
5. Review of Form ENRA
16
The selected development team will be asked to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
(“ENRA”) with the City to facilitate the negotiation of a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) and
Development Agreement (“DA”) for the Site. Due to the accelerated timeline targeted for the disposition
of the PUC Site, the form of the City’s ENRA has been attached to this RFP as Exhibit G. Please provide the
development team’s acceptance of the ENRA in form or the team’s specific exceptions to the document.
17
DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS
Selection Criteria
The following criteria will be used by the Joint Housing Subcommittee to evaluate the proposals of the
responding development teams.
Demonstrated understanding of and response to the City’s expectations.
Quality design and appropriateness of proposed development.
Purchase price and other relevant financial terms.
Financial capability to obtain project funding, including letters of intent from financial sources.
Experience as a team and as individual team members with similar developments.
Community and economic benefits to the adjacent neighborhoods and City-wide.
Completeness of response for information requested.
Result of staff interviews of references.
Selection panel interview.
Selection Timeline
Proposals Due February 2, 2018
Housing Subcommittee Meeting to interview developers and
recommend a developer and an alternate for City Council approval February 26, 2018
City Council to consider approving a developer and an alternate March 14, 2018
Term Sheet Negotiations
Following the approval of the selected developer by City Council and execution of the ENRA, the City and
the selected developer will enter into negotiations of a Term Sheet that will form the basis of the disposition
and development documents. The Term Sheet will address the following items.
Purchase price and any additional financial terms.
City revenues and support documentation.
Plan for development capitalization.
Development cash flow analysis (revenues, expenses, capital) demonstrating financial feasibility.
Development program including square footages for each component of the development.
Schematic plans and drawings that communicate the vision of the site.
Project schedule and phasing plan.
Community engagement plan.
18
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Contact Information
For additional information or questions pertaining to this RFP, please contact by email Mike Lappen or
Deanna Talavera.
Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator
[email protected]
Deanna Talavera, Management Analyst II
[email protected]
Limitations and Conditions
The City reserves the right to the following.
• Extend the due date of the RFP, or cancel, in whole or in part of this solicitation.
• Interview none, any or all developers that submit responses to the RFP.
• Request additional information.
• Reject, in whole or in part, any or all proposals, and to waive minor irregularities in the submittal.
• Award in whole or in part, by item or group of items, when such action serves the best interests of
the City.
• Seek and obtain additional information beyond the due date if the proposals received are
unsatisfactory.
• All RFP submittals will become the property of the City. The City may use any and all ideas and
materials included in any submittal, whether or not the respondent is selected as the developer.
• No reimbursement will be made by the City for any cost incurred by developers in preparation or
submittals of a response to this RFP.
• The RFP is not a contract or a commitment of any kind by the City and does not commit the City to
award exclusive negotiating and/or development rights. The issuance of this RFP does not
constitute an agreement by the City that the City Council will actually enter into any contract.
• Issue Addenda to clarify or modify elements of this RFP
• Require Proposers to accept the City’s standard insurance and indemnification requirements.
• By responding to this RFP, the Proposer represents that it and its subsidiaries do not and will not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of race, religion, sex,
color, national origin, sexual orientation, ancestry, marital status, physical condition, pregnancy or
pregnancy-related conditions, political affiliations or opinion, age, or medical condition.
• Respondent's Duty to Investigate:
o It will be the sole responsibility of the selected respondent to investigate and determine
19
conditions of the Site, including existing and planned utility connections, and the suitability
of the conditions for any proposed improvements.
o The information presented in this RFP and in any report or other information provided by
the City is provided solely for the convenience of the interested parties. It is the
responsibility of interested parties to assure themselves that the information contained in
this RFP or other documents is accurate and complete. The City and its advisors provide no
representations, assurances or warranties pertaining to the accuracy of the information.
• Proposals and all other information and documents submitted in response to this RFP are subject
to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250 through 6276.48) (CPRA),
which generally mandates the disclosure of documents in the possession of the City upon the
request of any person, unless the content of the document falls within a specific ex emption
category.
• Non-Liability: By participating in the RFP process, each respondent agrees to hold the City and its
and their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and consultants harmless from all claims,
liabilities, and costs related to all aspects of this RFP.
Related Information
Final Long Range Property Management Plan Excerpts
Property Plat Map and Legal Description
Appraisal Excerpts, 2013
Environmental Report Excerpts, 2011
Draft Environmental Report Excerpts, 2017
Transfer Grant Deed Language for Public Use Properties
Request for Qualifications, PUC Property, 2017
Strategic Economics SSF ECHO II Study of PUC Properties
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, 2011
South San Francisco Census Data
20
EXHIBIT A – Site Survey
The Site Survey is being refined by the City’s surveyor and will be included prior to release of the RFP to the
short listed development teams.
21
EXHIBIT B – Environmental Site Assessment for the City of South San Francisco
of a 1.12 Mile Corridor Owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
The Environmental Site Assessment has been omitted for Joint Housing Subcommittee review due to
length. It is available upon request.
22
EXHIBIT C – Map of Adjacent Parcels
23
EXHIBIT D – Developer Questionnaire
The Site Survey is being refined by the City’s surveyor and will be included prior to release of the RFP to the
short listed development teams.
PUC SITE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
DEVELOPER QUESTIONNAIRE
Developer Name:
Principal Office Address:
Principal Contact:
Circle One: Partnership
Corporation
Joint Venture
If a Corporation, in what State: ____________________________________________________
When incorporated: ____________________________________________________________
President:
Vice President(s):
Treasurer:
Members of the Board:
If a Partnership, General or Limited: ________________________________________________
Date of Partnership organization: __________________________________________________
Name and Address of Each Partner:
NAME ADDRESS
_______________________________ ___________________________________
_______________________________ ___________________________________
_______________________________ ___________________________________
_______________________________ ___________________________________
_______________________________ ___________________________________
If Limited Partnership, name general partner(s):
1. Number of years of relevant experience in real estate development: _______________
2. Have any development agreements between the developer and a public entity ever
cancelled? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, give details on a separate sheet.
3. Has the developer or development partner of the proposing team ever refused to enter
into a development agreement with a public entity after an award has been made; or
failed to complete a contract during the past five (5) years; or been declared to be in
default in any contract in the past five (5) years?
If yes, please explain: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Has the developer, or development partner, or any of its principals ever been declared
bankrupt or reorganized under Chapter 11 or put into receivership? Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, give date, court jurisdiction, action taken, and any other explanation deemed
necessary on a separate sheet.
5. Principal(s) of the developer and/or development partner have ( ) have not ( ) been
convicted by a Federal, State, County, or Municipal Court of any violation of law, other
than traffic violations. Explain any Convictions:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Lawsuits (any) pending or completed involving a corporation, partnership or individuals
with more than ten percent (10%) interest:
A. List all pending lawsuits:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
B. List all judgments from lawsuits in the last five (5) years:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. List any and all relationships that are potential, actual, or perceived Conflicts of Interest.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Public Disclosure. In order to determine whether the members of the evaluation and
selection committees, specifically the Joint Housing Subcommittee and the City Council,
have any association or relationships which would constitute a confli ct of interest, either
actual or perceived, with any proposing development team, and/or individuals and
entities comprising or representing such proposing development team, and in an
attempt to ensure full and complete disclosure regarding this RFP, all pr oposing
development teams are required to disclose all persons and entities who may be
involved with this proposal. This list shall include, without limitation, public relation
firms, lawyers, and lobbyists. The Community and Economic Development Department
Director shall be notified, in writing, if any person or entity is added to this list after the
Proposal has been submitted to the City.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
The proposing developer or development team warrants the above infor mation to be true
and accurate, and further understands that the information contained in this Questionnaire
may be confirmed through due diligence investigation conducted by the City, and agrees to
cooperate with this due diligence.
WITNESS: IF PARTNERSHIP:
________________________ ____________________________
Signature Signature
________________________ ____________________________
Print Name Print Name
ATTEST: IF CORPORATION:
________________________ ____________________________
Secretary Print Name of Corporation
________________________ ____________________________
Print Name Address
By: ____________________________
President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
____________________________
Print Name
24
EXHIBIT E – Template Term Sheet
The Template Term Sheet is being refined and will be included prior to release of the RFP to the short listed
development teams.
PUC Site Template Term Sheet
Confidential Real Property Negotiations
Approval Information: Approval of the sale of the PUC Site will be at the discretion of the City
Council.
City Terms of Sale: Escrow will not close until building permits are issued.
At the ENRA and PSA/DDA stages, deposits (unrelated to the land
purchase price) will be taken from the developer to cover Economic
Development and Housing staff and City Attorney costs.
Terms
Condition of Site at Conveyance
Developer to acknowledge that it will accept the property or properties AS IS.
Financial Information Required from Developer
1. Price offered:
State amount Developer proposes to pay for the property: 1) utilizing prevailing wage and 2) not
utilizing prevailing wage.
2. Deposit Amount(s):
Deposit amount(s) proposed.
Terms of deposit (under what circumstances may the deposit be refunded/not refunded).
3. Developer’s Equity Stake:
State Developer’s anticipated equity contribution as a percent of the Total Development Cost.
Estimated Total Development Cost
Provide a summary of the estimated total development costs in today’s dollars for the project including:
a) acquisition/land costs,
b) hard costs, and
c) soft costs, including:
a. architecture and engineering,
b. permits and fees,
c. developer Impact fees (i.e. Parks, Cultural Arts, etc.)
d. FF&E,
e. marketing,
f. property taxes and insurance,
g. legal and accounting,
h. financing costs, and
i. any other projected soft costs (identify the nature and amount).
25
EXHIBIT F – Template Pro Forma
The Template Pro Forma is being refined and will be included prior to release of the RFP to the short listed
development teams.
PRO FORMA INSTRUCTIONS
GENERAL
1. The pro forma template is provided to assist respondents in organizing their financial offers and to allow the
City to review proposals in the most comparable manner possible. The template reflects an "unleveraged" pro
forma, meaning that it does not specifically request information regarding the amount or sources of equity and
debt financing, nor the expected rates of return for individual financing partners. Rather, the template reflects
the economics of the project overall, including the timing and amount of costs and revenues and the level of
revenue that is foreseen for the City while yielding an appropriate blended return for the developers and various
2. The template is set up to reflect the potential buildout within 10 years, followed by a valuation/reversion in
year 10. If you believe that the project will require more than 10 years to complete, please indicate this
expectation in the text of your proposal and through adjustments to the pro forma by adding columns as
3. This pro forma template is based on the concept that the developer will be developing both the infrastructure
and the buildings for this project. If your proposal anticipates a different role for the developer, such as selling
certain or all parcels to third-party developers rather than developing the buildings yourself, please adjust the
model accordingly by showing the timing and expected value of such parcel sales rather than the sales prices or
4. Please provide two versions of the pro forma -- one assuming that the project is subject to prevailing wage
requirements, and the other assuming that it would not be subject to prevailing wage.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / ABSORPTION
1. Please enter the amount of development you expect to begin construction in each year.
2. For affordable housing, please include a description of the anticipated income levels for such units in the text
of your proposal. In this spreadsheet, only the number of units and their development costs and associated
values (sales prices and/or net operating income and reversion value) should be included.
3. The number of parking spaces to be built in each phase should be included in this section of the spreadsheet.
4. If you anticipate development types other than those listed on the template, please add as many rows as
required and provide a brief name of such use in this spreadsheet, with more detail provided in the text of your
SOURCES OF FUNDS
1. For any buildings or homes offered for-sale rather than for lease, please indicate the expected aggregate
market value of the buildings/units sold in each year. For each type of income-producing development (as
opposed to for-sale housing), please enter the Net Operating Income (NOI) in the first year of occupancy and any
years thereafter. It is expected that such NOI figures will occur at least one year later than the commencement
of construction shown in the "Project Description/Absorption" section of the spreadsheet. The figures in the
NOI rows should reflect the cumulative NOI for all buildings in each land use category, which may include the
same uses built during different years or phases of the project. For consistency among proposals, please assume
that sales prices, building lease rates, and operating costs increase by 3% annually, thus increasing NOI by 3%
annually as well. In the text of your proposal, please highlight key assumptions regarding these NOI figures, such
2. For each type of income-producing development, please enter the expected "reversion value" of the building
at the end of the 10-year term of this spreadsheet. This calculation does not necessarily mean that you are
expected or expecting to dispose of the building at that time, but will allow each proposal to be judged on
comparable terms. In the text of your proposal, please indicate how the "reversion value" was calculated,
including capitalization or discount rates used.
3. For parking uses, please describe in the text of your proposal what you are assuming regarding the pricing of
parking (hourly, daily, and/or monthly rates) and the operating costs per space. Again, please assume parking
revenues and costs increase by 3% annually. Please also describe whether the parking costs are included in the
rents to residential and/or commercial tenants, or paid separately.
4. If you are assuming that public funds would be used for any purpose, please indicate the expected source,
timing, and nominal amount by year on this spreadsheet, and provide more detail in the text of your proposal.
Use additional rows as necessary.
5. If funding sources other than from the development itself or from public resources are anticipated, please
indicate the expected source, timing, and amount on this spreadsheet, and provide more detail in the text of
your proposal. Use additional rows as necessary.
USES OF FUNDS
1. Property Acquisition from City -- please provide figures corresponding to the amounts and timing of your
expected land acquisition payments to the City.
2. Predevelopment -- please provide an estimate of the amount and timing of costs associated with
predevelopment activities. In the text of your proposal, please describe the types of activities that would be
included in predevelopment costs.
3. Infrastructure -- please provide an estimate of the amount and timing of costs associated with infrastructure
improvements and site preparation (demolition, grading, etc.). In the text of your proposal, describe the plan for
these investments, including the character and timing of the overall site preparation and infrastructure program.
3. Direct Building Construction -- please provide a summary figure for the annual expenditures on the
construction of buildings, including the building itself and any tenant improvements to be funded by the
developer. Parking construction costs should also be included in these figures.
4. Indirect Costs -- please provide a summary of the amount and timing of expected indirect costs. In the text of
your proposal, please describe the types of costs included in this category.
5. Developer Fee -- if the developer is seeking a fee for services (overhead, construction management, etc.) in
addition to the return on investment, please indicate that amount in the spreadsheet and describe the
assumptions in the text of your proposal (e.g., percent of total development costs or other metric).
6. Other -- if costs are foreseen that are not included in the categories above, please provide those figures and
describe in the text of your proposal what is included in these other costs. Use additional rows as necessary.
7. Inflation -- to provide consistency among the proposals to be reviewed by the City, please assume that costs
escalate by 3% annually for the infrastructure, direct construction, and indirect costs. Please insert your best
estimate of the nominal annual costs for the property acquisition, predevelopment, and developer fee costs.
PROJECT CASHFLOW
1. The Gross Project Cashflow figure reflects the annual and overall cashflow (revenues less costs) from the
project before any further distributions are made to the City. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculation
should reflect the overall project economics through your determined buildout with reversion value.
2. The Other Financial Participation Payments to City row should indicate any other revenues that would accrue
to the City from the project's cashflow. For example, this row may include percentage rents above and beyond a
fixed rent indicated in the previous line. Please provide these figures for each of the first 10 years. In the text of
your proposal, please describe the source and terms of these "other" payments to the City.
3. The Net Project Cashflow to Developer row indicates the revenues to be retained by the developer for
payment of debt service, returns on equity, etc. The Net Project IRR to Developer figure should reflect your
expectation for a reasonable unleveraged rate of return for a project of this character. The preceding rows,
including the payments to the City and any identified sources of subsidy in the "Sources of Funds" section should
be scaled to reach the target rate of return for the developer.
CITY FINANCIAL BENEFITS
1. Property Acquisition Payments to City -- figures should be consistent with those under "Uses of Funds"
2. Other Financial Participation Payments to City -- figures should be consistent with those under "Project
3. Property Tax Revenue to City -- please estimate the aggregate property taxes that would accrue annually to
the City from the construction, occupancy, and operation of the development. Of the standard 1.00% maximum
property tax set by State law, the City receives XX%. This figure does not and need not include any special taxes
above the standard 1.00% set by State law.
4. Sales and Use Tax Revenue to City -- please estimate the aggregate sales taxes that would accrue annually to
the City from the operation of the development's commercial space (if any). The City currently receives sales
taxes equal to XX% of the purchase price of taxable goods and services. In the text of your proposal, please
indicate the assumptions underlying these calculations, especially the taxable sales per square foot assumed for
Exhibit _
Project Concept Pro Forma
Prevailing Wage Scenario
Developer Team Name
Item Total Amount Year 2018 Year 2019 Year 2020 Year 2021 Year 2022 Year 2023 Year 2024 Year 2025 Year 2026 Year 2027
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / ABSORPTION
Market-Rate Housing Units (for-sale)-
Market-Rate Housing Units (rental)-
Affordable Housing Units (for-sale)-
Affordable Housing Units (rental)-
Office SqFt -
Retail SqFt -
Other Uses (describe)-
Parking Spaces -
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Building Revenues
Market-Rate For-Sale Housing Sales $ -
Market-Rate Rental Housing NOI $ -
Market-Rate Rental Housing Reversion Value $ -
Affordable For-Sale Housing Sales $ -
Affordable Housing NOI $ -
Affordable Housing Reversion Value $ -
Office NOI $ -
Office Reversion Value $ -
Retail NOI $ -
Retail Reversion Value $ -
Other Use NOI $ -
Other Use Reversion Value $ -
Parking NOI $ -
Parking Reversion Value $ -
Subtotal, Building Revenues (uninflated)$ -
Subtotal, Building Revenues (inflated at 3%)$ -
Public Financing (if applicable, show in nominal dollars)
(Source 1, please describe)$ -
(Source 2, please describe) $ -
Subtotal, Public Financing (nominal dollars)$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other (describe, show in nominal dollars)$ -
Total Sources of Funds (nominal dollars)$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
USES OF FUNDS
Property Acquisition from City $ -
Predevelopment $ -
Infrastructure (include direct and indirect costs)
Plazas/Open Space $ -
Streetscape/Pedestrian Connections $ -
Public Art $ -
Oak Avenue Extension Contribution $ -
Utility Improvements $ -
Other (describe)$ -
Direct Building Construction $ -
Indirect Building Costs
Permit Fees $ -
Impact Fees $ -
Other (describe)$ -
Subtotal, Infrastructure and Building Costs (uninflated)$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal, Infrastructure and Building Costs (inflated at 3%)$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Developer Fee $ -
Other (describe)$ -
Total Uses of Funds (nominal dollars)$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
PROJECT CASHFLOW
Gross Project Cashflow $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Overall Project IRR before Additional City Participation #NUM!
Other Financial Participation Payments to City $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Net Project Cashflow to Developer $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Net Project IRR to Developer #NUM!
CITY FINANCIAL BENEFITS
Property Acquisition Payments to City $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other Financial Participation Payments to City $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Property Tax Revenue to City $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sales and Use Tax Revenue to City $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenues to City (nominal dollars)$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
26
EXHIBIT G – Form of Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
The Form ENRA is being refined by City staff to suit the PUC Site development and will be included prior to
release of the RFP to the short listed development teams.