RESOLUTION NO. 31-2004
APPROVING THE PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2004 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
SUBMIT THE BUDGET TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE
BASIS FOR RESOLUTION
1. In accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment Agency of the City and
2. The Budget is subject to the further approval of the Mayor’s Office and Board of Supervisors of the City and
3. In addition, approximately $15 million of the Budget is subject to the subsequent approval of amendments to the Hunters Point, India Basin Industrial Park, and the Golden Gateway Redevelopment Plans for the purpose of implementing Senate Bill No. 2113, codified at Calif. Health & Safety Code Section 33333.7.
RESOLUTION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James B. Morales
Agency General Counsel
107-04004-002 Agenda Item No. 4 (b)
March 5, 2004 Meeting of March 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Agency Commissioners
FROM: Marcia Rosen
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approving the proposed Budget for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005
and authorizing the Executive Director to submit the Budget to the Mayor’s Office
Action/Recommendation
Staff requests Commission approval of the Agency’s Fiscal Year 2004/05 Budget and the authorization to submit the approved Budget to the Mayor’s Budget Office.
Background
At the Commission meeting of March 2nd, staff presented a proposed budget for fiscal year 2004/05 for Commission review and public comment. Staff presentations highlighted various aspects of the Agency’s proposed budget, including the challenges facing the City and Agency, the need for SB2113 amendments, plan adoption of new project areas, and next year’s activities and goals.
Two modifications have been made to the proposed budget. One, the amount requested in
The following summarizes the Agency’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year.
Budget Assumptions
The proposed budget for fiscal year 2004/05 is prepared within the context of the following assumptions and constraints.
- Financial challenges facing the City and dwindling debt capacity available to the Agency.
- Increased amount of tax increment necessary in fiscal year 2004/05 for debt service payments associated with the delay in the sale of the Agency’s fiscal year 2002 and 2003 bonds.
- Anticipated new project areas (Mid-Market, Transbay, and Bayview) are not projected to generate tax increment for several years and, therefore, have little or no resources to implement programs.
- Uncertainties related to future takeaways from the state, which could further reduce the Agency’s tax increment.
- SB 2113 amendments are assumed for the Golden Gateway, Hunters Point, and
SB 2113
At the Commission meeting of February 17, 2004, staff presented a workshop on the implementation of SB 2113. In assuming SB 2113 amendments for the Hunters Point, India Basin and Golden Gateway redevelopment project areas, the Agency’s proposed fiscal year 2004/05 budget complies with the Board of Supervisors’ request in Ordinance No. 211-03 that the Agency propose plan amendments pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.7 (“SB 2113”) for the Agency’s older project areas, unless significant blight remains in a project area. An SB 2113 plan amendment would allow the Agency to (i) incur indebtedness until January 1, 2014, and (ii) collect tax increment for the repayment of such indebtedness until January 1, 2044, solely for the purpose of funding low-and moderate-income housing to replace an estimated 7,000 units lost in the early years of San Francisco redevelopment.
Based on this agreement and the remaining blight in the Agency’s older project areas, the fiscal year 2004/05 budget assumes the adoption of SB 2113 plan amendments for the Hunters Point, India Basin, and Golden Gateway redevelopment project areas. The Agency’s proposed housing budget for fiscal year 2004/05 is larger by $15 million because of SB 2113, and the housing budget would need to be reduced by such amount if SB 2113 amendments for
Fiscal Constraints, Revenues, Tax increment
Due to the fiscal constraints facing the City and Agency, staff proposes a work program budget (i.e., excluding debt service, pass-through obligations, and operating costs which inadvertently had been included in the February 20th memorandum) for fiscal year 2004/05 that is approximately $6.0 million less than the 2003/04 budget, with cuts across all major expenditure categories except for job training and public improvements. The increase in the amount budgeted for public improvements is primarily due to a request from the developer of Mission Bay to sell up to $15 million in tax allocation bonds, which we are obligated to do pursuant to the tax allocation agreements entered into between the City and the developer. Other funds for public improvements are budgeted for completion of the Muni substation and parcel 732-A in the Western Addition ($6.6 million) and
Personnel costs included in the proposed budget are subject to change, pending on-going negotiations with bargaining units. Additional funds are requested for administration costs, primarily reflecting unavoidable costs related to the need for the Agency to move to new offices, since its current lease expires in September 2005.
Revenues are lower in 2004/05 than in the current year, reflecting the unusually large carryover amounts budgeted in fiscal year 2003/04. The aberration in 2003/2004 was a result of tax increment transfers and financings requested by the Mayor’s Budget Office that had a salutary effect on the City’s budget, but are simply not available in 2004/05.
The larger amount of tax increment requested for next year -- $54.5 million versus $34.0 million --reflects three non-discretionary items: (1) no carryover tax increment as in the current year to pay debt service, (2) higher debt service payments associated with the delay in the sale of the Agency’s 2002 and 2003 bonds, and (3) developer pass-through obligations related to Mission Bay.
Overview
Despite these budget constraints, the Agency anticipates an active year, funded in part by prior years’ allocations, and potentially by new community facilities bonds for Hunters’ Point Shipyard infrastructure. The Agency’s primary focus for fiscal year 2004/05 is (1) creation of the housing for low-and moderate-income households, including the first affordable housing development in the Octavia Boulevard corridor, (2) completion of redevelopment programs in the older project areas, such as the Western Addition and Yerba Buena Gardens, (3) adoption and implementation of the new Mid-Market, Transbay, and Bayview Hunters Point project areas, and (4) construction of infrastructure and public improvements in South Beach, Mission Bay and the Hunters Point Shipyard. In addition, the Agency will continue its support of revitalization efforts that are ongoing, including a priority for job training and support of small businesses
The Agency’s total spending program for fiscal year 2004/05 is $161.3 million, of which $43.3 million is supported by non-tax increment revenue sources (land sale proceeds, leases, grants, developer contributions). The Agency proposes funding the difference between the spending program and the non-tax increment revenue by requesting $54.5 million in tax increment and borrowing $60.7 million through the sale of tax allocation bonds, i.e., bonds repaid with tax increment.
Of the total tax increment request of $54.5 million, the largest portion ($46.0 million) is required to pay debt service on outstanding debt, $5.9 million is needed to pay for operations (personnel and administration costs), and the balance is for pass-through obligations that are either mandated by the state or required pursuant to developer agreements associated with Mission Bay. To ease the financial burden on the City, the Agency proposes selling next year’s tax allocation bonds at the end of the fiscal year so that no additional tax increment will be needed to cover new debt service obligations in fiscal year 2004/05. In addition to minimizing the impact on City finances, the Agency’s proposed budget will:
- Pay for personnel and administration costs from non-borrowed funds.
- Maintain Agency operations at approximately the current level.
- Pursue a sizable affordable housing program that is consistent with the Agency’s available debt capacity.
- Advance completion of the Agency’s work in older project areas.
- Initiate implementation of redevelopment plans for three new project areas – Transbay, Mid-Market and Bayview Hunters Point.
Work Program Activities
Affordable Housing. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2004/05 includes a total investment in affordable housing of $46.3 million. Of that total, $8.7 million is the federally funded HOPWA program. The balance of the proposed housing budget would be used to purchase Central Freeway sites formerly owned by Caltrans to help finance construction of Octavia Boulevard, acquire and preserve an at-risk affordable housing development, acquire a new site for affordable housing construction, commence another Mission Bay housing development, and finance the construction of family housing in the South of Market built in conjunction with a medical clinic. Affordable housing comprises over half of the Agency’s total work program budget for fiscal year 2004/05.
The proposed housing budget amount of $46.3 million assumes that SB 2113 amendments are made as indicated above to
Public Infrastructure. The Agency is requesting nearly $32.0 million in fiscal year 2004/05 for public improvements, of which $15 million represents major infrastructure improvements in Mission Bay North. Other major items requested for public improvements include $6.6 million to assist development of an entertainment and dining venue with residential and union offices on Agency Parcel 732-A and initial seismic work on the historic landmark Muni Substation’s future cultural use as the Agency approaches close out in the Western Addition Project Area A-2. The Agency’s $5.5 million request for the Yerba Buena Center will also move the Agency towards completion in this project area, with a portion of the funds set aside for a capital reserve account necessary to preserve and protect the public investment in Yerba Buena Gardens. $3.8 million has been added to the budget to undertake demolition and site preparatory work in Hunters Point Shipyard to be funded from federal grants. Major public improvements will be undertaken in
Business development funding in the amount of $867,000 is being requested in fiscal year 2004/05. To support the Agency’s loan programs for small business and property owners, especially along
Other sizable budget items for fiscal year 2004/05 include $6.9 million for the upkeep of Yerba Buena Gardens and $930,000 for the maintenance and improvements of
Conclusion
Staff recommends Commission approval of the Agency’s Fiscal year 2004/05 Budget and authorization to submit the approved budget to the Mayor’s Budget Office.
Originated by: Mario Menchini, Senior Financial Analyst
Marcia Rosen
Executive Director
Attachment
COPIES OF THE AGENCY’S
PROPOSED 2004/2005 BUDGET
ARE AVAILABLE AT THE AGENCY OFFICES,
3RD FLOOR
(415) 749-2400
RESOLUTION NO. 32-2004
Authorizing a one-month extension of the Third Amended And Restated Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Fillmore Development Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company, for a proposed mixed-use project at Parcel 732-A, located at the northeast corner of Fillmore and Eddy Streets; and approving the developer’s new membership structure; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
BASIS FOR RESOLUTION
- By Resolution No. 154-2002, adopted September 10, 2002, the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Agency”) authorized Exclusive Negotiations under certain terms and conditions with Fillmore Development Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company (“FDA”), for the disposition and development of Parcel 732-A (the “Site”), located at the northeast corner of Fillmore and Eddy Streets in the Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2.
- Subsequently, the Agency and FDA entered into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement dated September 10, 2002 (the “ENA”), which required FDA, among other things, to meet specified performance benchmarks by certain dates in order for the exclusive negotiations to continue toward a disposition and development agreement (the “DDA”). By Resolution No. 4-2003, adopted February 11, 2003, the Agency approved the First Amended Terms and Conditions for Exclusive Negotiations extending the performance benchmark dates. As authorized in the ENA, the Executive Director granted further extensions administratively, as set forth in the May 7, 2003 Second Amended Terms and Conditions for Exclusive Negotiations. By Resolution No. 143-2003, adopted September 16, 2003, the Agency approved the Third Amended Terms and Conditions for Exclusive Negotiations (the ENA as amended collectively remains the “ENA”) setting October 21, 2003 for consideration of a term sheet setting forth the principal terms and conditions to be incorporated into the DDA.
- By Resolution No. 163-2003, adopted October 21, 2003, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to execute, among other things, a term sheet and extend the ENA to January 2004.
- By Resolution No. 1-2004, adopted January 20, 2004, the Commission further extended the ENA to March 2004 for FDA and Agency staff to resolve schematic design issues and to complete due diligence on the DDA.
- FDA has made significant progress towards meeting the ENA performance benchmarks, and the proposed mixed-use project for the Site meets the Agency’s goals for a destination entertainment venue. Due to recent developments and potential adjustments to FDA’s development program, additional time is needed for: FDA to amend its operating agreement, to revise its ownership information, and to update project financing; and Agency staff to complete due diligence review of anticipated project revisions. Staff recommends a one-month extension of the ENA, with authorization for the Executive Director to grant two successive 15-day extensions if necessary to resolve outstanding issues related to the proposed DDA or FDA’s schematic design.
RESOLUTION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a one-month extension of the Third Amended and Restated Exclusive Negotiations Agreement, with authorization for the Executive Director to grant two successive 15-day extensions, with Fillmore Development Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company, for a proposed mixed-use project at Parcel 732-A, located at the northeast corner of Fillmore and Eddy Streets; and approving the Developer’s new membership structure; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James B. Morales
Agency General Counsel
105-00204-002 Agenda Item No: 4 (c)
March 5, 2004 Meeting of March 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Agency Commissioners
FROM: Marcia Rosen
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Authorizing a one-month extension of the Third Amended And Restated Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Fillmore Development Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company, for the proposed mixed-use project at Parcel 732-A, located at the northeast corner of Fillmore and Eddy Streets; and approving the developer’s new membership structure; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Commission authorized exclusive negotiations with Fillmore Development Associates, a California limited liability company (“FDA”), for the disposition and development of Agency Parcel 732-A (the “Site”), located at the northeast corner of Fillmore and Eddy Streets in the Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2 (the “Project Area”), on September 10, 2002. The Third Amended And Restated Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (the “ENA”) setting forth performance benchmarks in order for the exclusive negotiations to continue toward a disposition and development agreement expires at the end of March. With FDA’s concurrence, staff is now recommending a one-month extension of the ENA, primarily due to recent and potential adjustments in FDA’s membership structure and architectural program, with authorization for the Executive Director to grant two successive 15-day extensions if necessary to resolve outstanding issues relating to the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) or FDA’s schematic design.
Staff recommends authorization of a one-month extension of the ENA with FDA for the proposed mixed-use project at the Site with authorization for the Executive Director to grant two successive 15-day extensions if necessary to resolve outstanding issues relating to the DDA or FDA’s schematic design, and approval of FDA’s new membership structure.
DISCUSSION
The Commission authorized exclusive negotiations with FDA for the disposition and development of the Site on September 10, 2002. The ENA setting forth performance benchmarks in order for the exclusive negotiations to continue toward a disposition and development agreement expires at the end of March.
Due to recent developments and potential adjustments to FDA’s development program, staff will not be prepared to make a recommendation before the ENA’s expiration. Because FDA has made significant progress towards meeting the ENA performance benchmarks, and the proposed mixed-use project for the site meets the Agency’s goals for a destination entertainment venue, staff recommends a one-month extension of the ENA.
Membership Structure
When FDA was selected for exclusive negotiations, its members were Em Johnson Interest, Inc., primarily a housing developer in
Effective March 4, 2004, Butler Enterprise Group has withdrawn from FDA, and FDA is in the process of amending its operating agreement and making other adjustments necessary to reflect the current membership structure.
FDA intends to proceed with development with its current membership structure. Because the development team substantially reflects the Agency’s requirements, staff recommends approval of the new membership structure.
Performance Benchmarks
Staff recently identified the principal issues remaining to be resolved with respect to FDA’s required performance benchmarks under the ENA. Among them were: (1) architectural concerns; (2) evidence of firm commitments from all sources of construction funds; (3) a revised letter of intent from the Transport Workers Union; and (4) unacceptable lender requirements that the Agency consent to liens against the garage parcel, which will be solely financed by the Agency. Current status is outlined below.
FDA advised staff on March 2 of several proposed changes to its development program to address design concerns expressed by the Agency’s architectural team. Among other things, FDA proposes to reconfigure and reduce the number of condominium units and eliminate the penthouse units. Revised drawings are expected on March 9.
On March 2, 2004, FDA submitted a new development budget that eliminates a $1 million construction financing gap shown on documents submitted on February 24, 2004. On March 5, 2004, however, FDA advised staff of possible events (described below) during mid-March that could affect the development budget further.
FDA has not submitted TWU’s revised letter of intent, as its commitment is contingent on the results of elections to be held during the week of March 8. TWU currently proposes to finance the construction and purchase of its office and banquet space in part through union dues assessments paid by members of Local 250 and Local 250-A. Each local must approve the dues assessments by a majority vote. FDA has informed Agency staff that if either or both of the elections fail, TWU’s space may be eliminated, reduced or reconfigured, requiring adjustments to project design and budget.
FDA has authorized direct negotiations between the Agency and FDA’s construction lenders with respect to loan requirements. FDA’s lenders are currently reviewing the Agency’s requirements.
CONCLUSION
In summary, recent developments and potential future developments may require additional FDA submittals and staff analysis. FDA has presented its development program to the Western Addition Community Advisory committee and is scheduled to present its community benefits package on March 11. Working cooperatively, FDA and staff believe that the recommended extension will allow time for resolution of these pending issues.
Originated by: Joanne Sakai, Deputy Director,
Community & Economic Development
Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO. 33-2004
Authorizing a Personal Services Contract with Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, in an amount not to exceed $99,865, to provide bird abatement and clean up services at the former Municipal Substation located at 1140 Fillmore Street; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
BASIS FOR RESOLUTION
- The Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “Agency”) is the fee owner of a parcel of land located at 1140 Fillmore Street in the Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2 (the “Project Area”), which contains 9,101 square feet and is improved with the former Municipal Substation (the “Substation”), a two-story unreinforced brick masonry structure, built in 1898 and designated as City Landmark Building No. 105. The Substation building is vacant.
- The Agency now wishes to retrofit the Substation and renovate it for publicly beneficial uses, which include, but are not limited to, art, cultural and community uses to serve the residents of the proposed development on the adjacent parcel and the surrounding community. Bird abatement is the first step in the adaptative reuse of the property.
- On April 18, 2003, staff issued a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) in compliance with the Agency’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures, seeking a licensed exterminator to provide bird abatement, debris removal, and sanitation services at the property.
- Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc., a
- Staff evaluated the Contractor’s submittal, conducted reference checks and based on the selection criteria outlined in the RFP, found that the Contractor has the experience and qualifications necessary to perform the required scope of work.
- The Agency now wishes to enter into a Personal Services Contract with the Contractor for bird abatement and clean up services for a period not to exceed six weeks at a cost not to exceed $99,865. The funds are available in the Project Area budget.
RESOLUTION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco that the Executive Director is authorized to execute a Personal Services Contract with Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, in an amount not to exceed $99,865 to provide bird abatement and clean up at the former Municipal Substation, located at 1140 Fillmore Street in the Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2, for a term of six weeks substantially in the form lodged with the Agency General Counsel.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James B. Morales
Agency General Counsel
112-00104-002 Agenda Item No. 4 (d)
March 5, 2004 Meeting of March 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Agency Commissioners
FROM: Marcia Rosen
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Authorizing a Personal Services Contract with Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc., a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 11, 2003, by Resolution 18-2003, the Commission authorized the acquisition of the former Municipal Substation Powerhouse, located at 1140 Fillmore Street (the “Subject Property”), from the City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”). The Subject Property will be used for publicly beneficial uses as required by CCSF under the conveyance agreement. Bird abatement is the first step in the adaptative reuse of the Property. On April 18, 2003, the Agency issued a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) seeking a licensed exterminator to provide bird abatement, debris removal, and sanitation services at the Subject Property. On May 23, 2003, the Agency received one timely response to the RFP from Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc., d.b.a. Birds Away/Pigeon Away (the “Contractor”). An evaluation by Agency staff has determined that the Contractor is a state licensed pest control operator, and concludes that the proposal submitted by the Contractor meets the criteria set forth in the RFP. Staff has negotiated a Personal Services Contract with the Contractor to provide bird abatement, debris removal, and sanitation services at the Subject Property for an amount not to exceed $99,865.00. The scope of work shall be performed over a six-week period.
Staff recommends authorization of a Personal Services Contract with Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc. to provide bird abatement, debris removal, and sanitation services at
BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2003, by Resolution 18-2003, the Commission authorized the acquisition of
The Agency now wishes to develop both properties and construct improvements for publicly beneficial uses, which include, but are not limited to, affordable housing on the 1345 Turk parcel, and art, cultural and community uses on the Subject Property to serve the residents of the proposed development and the surrounding community. Bird abatement is the first step in the adaptative reuse of the Subject Property.
DISCUSSION
Scope of Work
The Agency issued a RFP to licensed pest control operators to: 1) clean, sanitize, deodorize and install pigeon barriers or deterrents on the exterior of the building; and 2) thoroughly wash, sanitize, deodorize and remove multiple years of dirt, droppings and debris from the interior of the building. The detailed scope of work to be conducted in the building is as follows:
Interior of the Building – Main Floor and Mezzanine Area
- Clean, vacuum, sweep, bag and remove accumulation of pigeon droppings, residue and contamination.
- Wash-down all beams, walls, floors and sub-floors.
- Apply an anti-bacterial enzyme spray for odor neutralization.
Exterior of the Building
- Detail wash and remove pigeon residue and nesting materials from target areas including adjacent siding, followed by an application of anti-bacterial enzyme spray for surface sanitizing.
- Install low visibility, long lasting two inch exclusion netting and or galvanized wire mesh plus repellent gel to cover openings on the roof and windows to preclude pigeons from nesting or roosting within these areas.
- Install “Electrak” or other appropriate devices along the entire length of the outer edges of the building.
- Install low visibility, stainless steel wire prongs along the top of the curved ledges and around large windows to deter pigeons from roosting.
Solicitation Process
The solicitation process was conducted in compliance with the Agency’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures, which provides for maximum open and free competition. Bird abatement work in the scope and magnitude needed for this project requires highly specialized skills. Staff undertook extensive good faith efforts to allow all interested firms an opportunity to submit a bid for this contract. A search of the Agency’s Minority Contractors’ database revealed no extermination companies that performed pigeon abatement work. Staff identified seven companies in the San Francisco Yellow Pages Directory that performs pigeon abatement work in the Bay Area. Staff contacted the seven exterminators to discuss the scope of work and to determine their interest in participating in the RFP process. Two of the companies declined the offer to bid on the project. One exterminator said that the scope of work was too large for his one-man office to handle. A package of information was mailed to the remaining four extermination companies showing an interest in the project. RFP packages were mailed to the following extermination companies on April 18, 2003:
- Ebird Control
- Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc. d.b.a. Birds Away/Pigeons Away
- Pigeon Man
- Pigeon Control
Staff conducted a pre-bid conference and inspection of the Subject Property on May 14, 2003. Ebird Control and Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc. were the only two contractors that participated in the property inspection. During the walk through, Staff reiterated the required scope of work, explained the Agency’s procurement policy, and answered questions posed by the contractors. Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc. was the only contractor to submit a bid by the May 23, 2003 deadline. Staff evaluated the Contractor’s submittal, and based on the selection criteria outlined in the RFP, found that the Contractor has the experience and qualifications to perform the scope of work necessary to complete this project.
Timeline for Performance
In order for the Subject Property to be transformed into a cultural resource for the community, it must undergo a number of restorative processes, including bird and asbestos abatement, seismic retrofit, and renovation of its interior. Staff has been concurrently soliciting vendors and consultants to undertake these various restorative projects. Although the solicitation process for the bird abatement was conducted in May 2003, staff felt is was necessary to coordinate the timing of the bird abatement activities with the subsequent seismic analysis, which is tentatively scheduled to commence second quarter 2004. By coordinating the bird abatement activities with other related restorative processes, the Agency would lessen the various impacts on the surrounding residents.
Proposed Personal Services Contract
Pigeon abatement is a highly specialized field. The scope of work necessary to clean, disinfect and prevent pigeon reinfestation in the Muni substation is massive. There are known health hazards presence in the Subject Property including years of old bird droppings, bird carcasses, feral cats and rodents. Van Gelder Enterprises has the expertise and the required safety clothing and apparatus necessary to assure a safe and incident free clean up.
Established in 1987, Van Gelder Enterprises, Inc. is multi-disciplinary company with pest bird and pigeon abatement as its core business line. They have performed abatement procedures throughout the Bay Area, for large corporations and residential clients. The Contractor has successfully completed many projects of similar scope and magnatitude as the Muni substation project. Included in their submission were references from the following businesses and public agencies:
Staff wishes to enter into a Personal Services Contract with the Contractor to provide bird abatement, debris removal, and sanitation services at the Subject Property for an amount not to exceed $99,865.00. Funds are available in the Western Addition Approved Redevelopment Project Area A-2 budget. The scope of work shall be performed over a six-week period.
(Originated by Nicole Franklin, Property Management Supervisor)
Marcia Rosen
Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO. 34-2004
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MISSION BAY SOUTH DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PARKING TO 2 SPACES PER 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF LIFE SCIENCES/BIOTECHNOLOGY SPACE; MISSION BAY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
BASIS FOR RESOLUTION
On September 17, 1998, by Resolution No. 191-98, the Redevelopment Agency Commission (the "Agency Commission") conditionally approved the Design for Development for the Mission Bay
The conditions to the effectiveness of Resolution No. 191-98 were satisfied by the final adoption of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco
The Agency Commission is currently considering the following actions: (a) this Resolution No. 34-2004 Authorizing an Amendment to the Mission Bay South Design for Development that would increase the maximum permitted parking ratio from 1 to 2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet for up to 1,734,000 gross square feet of life sciences, biotechnology, biomedical and similar research facility uses (the “Amendment”); and (b) Resolution No. 35-2004 Authorizing a second amendment to the Mission Bay North Owner Participation Agreement (the “North OPA”). Collectively, the Amendment and the second amendment to the North OPA are hereinafter referred to as the "Actions."
In connection with the September 17, 1998 Mission Bay approvals, the Agency Commission and the San Francisco Planning Department, together acting as co-lead agencies for conducting environmental review for the Redevelopment Plan for the North Project Area and the South Project Area (collectively, the "Plans"), the North OPA and the Mission Bay South Owner Participation Agreement (collectively, the "OPAs"), and other permits, approvals and related and collateral actions (the "Project"), prepared and certified a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR").
On September 17, 1998, the Agency Commission adopted Resolution No. 182-98, which certified the FSEIR for the Project, and adopted Resolution No. 183-98, which adopted environmental findings (and a statement of environmental considerations), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and State Guidelines in connection with the approval of the Plans, the OPAs, and other Project approvals.
The FSEIR, findings of significant impacts, and overriding considerations adopted by the Agency Commission by Resolution No. 183-98 dated September 17, 1998, reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the Agency, were adequate, accurate and objective and were prepared and adopted following the procedures required by CEQA, and the findings in such resolution are incorporated herein by reference as applicable to the Actions.
The San Francisco
On October 19, 1998, the Board of Supervisors adopted Motion No. 98-132 affirming certification of the FSEIR by the Planning Commission and the Agency Commission, and Resolution No. 854-98 adopting environmental findings and a statement of overriding considerations.
Agency staff and consultants have analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Actions as documented in an addendum to the FSEIR dated March 9, 2004 (the "Addendum"), which was prepared and reviewed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Agency. The Addendum analyzed the environmental effects of the Actions and any potential changes in circumstances since the FSEIR and concluded that the Actions do not require a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR, and that no new information has been presented which indicates the potential for new significant environmental impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Documents related to the Actions, the FSEIR files, and the Addendum have been made available for review by the Agency Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before the Agency Commission.
The FSEIR is a program EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15158 and a redevelopment plan EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15180. The Actions are an undertaking pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15180.
12. Agency staff have reviewed and considered the proposed Amendment, the FSEIR, the Addendum and other information contained in the Agency's files and find them acceptable and recommend approving the Amendment as the same has been described herein.
FINDINGS
The Agency finds and determines that the Actions are within the scope of the Project analyzed in the FSEIR and no new environmental documentation is required for the following reasons:
- The Actions do not incorporate modifications into the Project analyzed in the FSEIR, and will not require important revisions to the FSEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
- No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project analyzed in the FSEIR was undertaken which would require major revisions to the FSEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of effects identified in the FSEIR.
- No new information of substantial importance to the Project analyzed in the FSEIR has become available which would indicate that (a) the Actions will have significant effects not discussed in the FSEIR; (b) significant environmental effects will be substantially more severe; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives found not feasible which would reduce one or more significant effects have become feasible; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the FSEIR will substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
RESOLUTION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City and
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James B. Morales
Agency General Counsel
EXHIBIT A