You are on page 1of 15

Mayors Office of Housing and Community Development

City and Countyof San Francisco



Olson Lee

From: 88 Broadway Selection Panel through Teresa Yanga


Faith Kirkpatrick, Joel Lipski


88 Broadway RFP Developer Selection Recommendation

Date: April 4, 2016

Executive Summary
On December 4, 2015, the Mayors Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD)
issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of two adjacent parcels for lowincome family and low-income senior affordable housing. Both parcels are currently used as
surface level parking lots. The lot located at the corner of Broadway and Front Streets is owned
by the Port of San Francisco (the Port Site) and is anticipated to be developed as mixed-use
affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families. The adjacent mid-block lot is
owned by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and is perpendicular to the Port Site,
running east from the Port Site to Davis Street (the DPW Site). The DPW Site is anticipated to
be developed as mixed-use affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income seniors.
The RFP highly encouraged the two projects to be developed, designed, and built simultaneously
to maximize cost savings. The RFP sought proposals from qualified development teams to
develop, own and operate both developments with at least 20% of the units for formerly
homeless and up to 25% of the units for middle income households. The Human Services
Agency (HSA) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) intend to provide an annual
operating subsidy and service funding for the formerly homeless families and seniors
respectively once the projects are complete. The RFP required proposals for neighborhood
commercial uses along the ground floor, per the applicable zoning code, and encouraged child
care facilities on the Port Site.
The RFP pursued goals articulated in the MOHCD Consolidated Plan and San Franciscos Ten
Year Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness. Furthermore the RFPs goals are to 1) to select a
qualified respondent that can develop, own, and operate the development in a professional,
sustainable, and expert manner; and 2) to ensure that the development will be developed in a
manner consistent with the Development, Design and Financial Objectives described in the RFP.
1 South Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 701-5500 TDD: (415) 701-5503

The Design Objectives were developed with input from the Seawall Lot 322-1 Working Group
and community stakeholders who participated in the Community Design Workshop and were to
be applied to the development as a whole.
MOHCD staff made outreach efforts to attract submittals from qualified developers by the
February 29, 2016 RFP response deadline. An optional pre-submittal meeting held on December
17, 2015 was well attended by a broad range of interested parties.
MOHCD received comprehensive submittals from the following two teams:
Chinatown CDC - Self-Help for the Elderly ("Chinatown")
Chinatown Community Development
Self - Help for the Elderly
Lead Architect
David Baker Architects
Associate Architects
Min / Day
MEI Architects
Architectural Resources Group
Property Manager (both Projects):
Chinatown CDC
Services Provider, Family/Homeless Services: Chinatown CDC (Families)
Services Provider, Senior Services
Self - Help for the Elderly (Seniors)
Childcare Provider
Kai Ming Head Start
Commercial Consultant
Erika Elliott, Colliers International
BRIDGE - John Stewart Company ("BRIDGE")
BRIDGE Housing Development Corp.
John Stewart Company
Lead Architect
Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects
Property Manager (both Projects):
John Stewart Company
Services Coordinator (both Projects)
BRIDGE Housing Development Corp.
Homeless Services (both Projects)
Lutheran Social Services of No. Calif.
Childcare Provider
YMCA of San Francisco
Commercial Consultant
Vikki Johnson, Bond Retail Partners
After confirming that both submittals were complete and met the minimum qualifications, both
respondent teams were invited to a two hour interview. The interviews consisted of one-hour of
presentation from each development team followed by one hour of questions from the panel.
After careful review of each proposal and interview, the selection panel composed of MOHCD
staff, a representative from the Human Services Agency and DPH, a representative from the
Port, and three community representatives from the Chinatown/North Beach/Telegraph Hill
neighborhood, reached consensus to recommend the BRIDGE team.
88 Broadway RFP
RFP Respondents were required to form a team consisting of the following:

One or more San Francisco based non-profit developers in a joint venture where at least
one of the nonprofit developers is San Francisco-based, or a qualified for-profit developer
working in partnership with a San Francisco-based nonprofit developer (the
A property management entity with experience managing low- and very low-income
affordable housing in San Francisco, in a culturally competent manner;
A lead architectural firm with experience in design and construction of multifamily
housing, preferably with residential experience in San Francisco;
A retail/commercial designer/planner/consultant, and
One or more qualified supportive service providers with experience providing culturally
competent services appropriate for low and very-low income seniors and families.

The development program described in the RFP for the site included the following requirements:
At least 120 units of family housing with 20% set aside for homeless families referred by
the Human Services Agency, up to 25% of total family units for middle income
households earning up 120% of area median income, including 15% of the family
housing units as 3-bedroom units;
At least 50 units of senior housing with 20% set aside for homeless seniors referred by
the Department of Public Health, up to 25% of the total senior units for seniors earning
up to 70% area median income, including 70% of the senior units as 1-bedroom units;
Maximum rents based on 30% of the targeted incomes;
A feasible project financing plan that minimizes MOHCDs financial subsidy assuming a
75-year initial term ground lease agreement (with an option to extend to a total of 99
years) with MOHCD for the DPW site and a maximum 75-year term ground lease with
the Port for the Port Site;
A description and estimated cost savings of innovative financing approaches or costsaving strategies intended to minimize MOHCDs financial subsidy;
A development program that meets the RFPs goals and objectives guidelines;
A supportive services provider and plan to serve the needs of the residents, including the
formerly homeless families and seniors;
A property manager with experience successfully managing supportive housing for
formerly homeless households and ground floor commercial;
A plan to undertake extensive community outreach and establish positive links with
surrounding neighbors and the larger community, both during project development of the
and during ongoing project operations.
Selection Criteria
All applications were required to meet the minimum experience and capacity requirements and
were rated and ranked according to the following scoring criteria:

Experience and Capacity:

Developer Experience & Capacity (20 pts)
Architect Experience (10 pts)
Property Management Experience (5 pts)



Service Provider Experience (5 pts)

Development Concept and Preliminary Site Plan:
Commercial Retail Plan (5pts)
Financing and Cost Control Innovations:
Services Plans:


(1a) Development Experience & Capacity -- (20 points possible):

Respondents were scored according to the number of qualifying projects that are affordable to
low or very-low income families or seniors completed or under development in excess of the
minimum and whether or not their experience includes middle-income/moderate-income
housing, at least 5,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, and the developers experience as
lead organizer of a collaborative community outreach and planning effort. In addition the
developers staffing capacity to carry out the project during the entire development process is
(1b) Lead Architectural Firm Experience (10 points possible):
Points were awarded according to the number of completed family housing developments in
excess of the minimum Architects experience, the architects experience with collaborative
community outreach and planning efforts, and whether the architect has any experience with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards.
(1c) Property Management Experience (5 points possible):
Points were awarded only to Property Managers whose experience includes managing housing
for formerly homeless persons (seniors, families or single persons) in San Francisco for at least
24 months. Points are awarded for experience managing a mixed use property (ground floor
commercial with residential use above), and separate points for experience managing housing for
homeless families and homeless seniors.
(1d) Service Provider Experience (5 points possible)
Proposals were scored according to the amount of experience (length of time) the service
provider has successfully provided services to low- and very low-income families and seniors,
including homeless families and homeless seniors. This experience should include linking clients
to the Citys safety net of services and supporting their efforts to access those services. A Letter
of Interest from each service provider was required to be submitted with the application.
(2) Development Concept and Preliminary Site Plan (40 points possible):
Proposals were scored according to the degree to which the Development Concept and
Preliminary Site Plan for the entire Development achieves the Design Objectives described in
RFP Section IV.A.3, including, but not limited, to ensuring housing habitability through
appropriately sized units and resident interior and exterior amenities; providing good urban
design by maintaining the overall scale and character of the Northeast Waterfront Historic
District; addressing community concerns about the projects scale through its height, bulk and
massing; providing active uses along the street frontages; providing neighborhood/community
amenities; and maximizing sustainability to the extent possible.

(2b) Commercial Retail Plan (5 points possible):

Proposals were scored according to the degree to which the Commercial/Retail Plan achieves the
Development Program Objectives described in RFP Section IV.A.1, namely, maximizing ground
floor active commercial uses along all street frontages after accounting for other priority
community-serving uses.
(3) Financing, Cost Control and Innovations (10 points possible):
Proposals were ranked according to the degree to which the development teams proposed a
financing plan that is feasible and consistent with the requirements, limitations and opportunities
associated with its proposed sources; proposed development costs are comparable to similar
family and senior projects; minimizes MOHCDs permanent financing; proposes innovative
sources or financing instruments; and uses innovative (i.e., non-standard, routine or commonly
used) but practical materials or methodologies designed to reduce development, construction
and/or operating costs, either directly or indirectly, without reducing the overall quality of the
completed project.
(4) Services Plan (10 points possible):
Proposals were scored according to the degree to which the Services Plan includes providing
access to an array of services appropriate to the diverse needs of low-income families, parents
and children, including formerly homeless families, and to low-income and formerly homeless
seniors; how access to those services will be encouraged and facilitated; the degree to which the
Plan relies on coordination with existing services in the neighborhood and community; and the
appropriateness of the services budget.
Selection Panel and Process
The selection panel appointed by the MOHCD Director reviewed and evaluated the two
responses. The selection panel was facilitated by Joel Lipski (MOHCD consultant), staffed by
Faith Kirkpatrick (MOHCD Project Manager) and Teresa Yanga (MOHCD Director of Housing
Research) and consisted of 7 panelists:

Margot Antonetty (Interim Director of Housing and Urban Health, SF DPH)

Doreen Der-Mcleod (Chinese Progressive Association community representative)
Bob Harrer (88 Broadway Working Group community representative)
Bruno Kanter (Port of San Francisco Northeast Waterfront Advisory Group community
Briana Moore (Family Permanent Supportive Housing Program Manager, SF HSA)
Ricky Tijani (Development Project Manager, Port of San Francisco)
Harry Wong (MOHCD Construction Manager)

During the week of March 7th to March 11th, the selection panel met in smaller focus groups to
prepare questions about each proposal to ask the respondents at their interviews. These focus
groups included those panel members who were particularly well qualified to review
respondents Resident Services Plans, Preliminary Site Plan and Design Concept, and
Financing/Cost Control Innovations. During the same period, MOHCD preliminarily scored
respondents Experience and Capacity for later review by the selection panel. The questions

identified in focus groups or by MOHCD staff were sent to respondents on March 18, 2016 to
allow them time to answer the questions during the follow-up interview.
On March 25, 2016 the selection panel interviewed both respondent teams. Each interview
consisted of one hour of presentation by the respondent teams followed by one hour of questions
by the selection panel. Following the second interview, the selection panel re-convened and by
consensus, scored each proposal using the four scoring criteria described in the RFP.
Final RFP Scoring
Category (Max Score)
Experience (40)
Development Concept and Preliminary Site Plan (40)
Financing Cost Control (10)
Services Plan (10)


Stewart Co.

The BRIDGE team outscored the Chinatown/Self-Help for the Elderly team in all but one
category, with the most significant scoring differential in Development Concept and Preliminary
Site Plan.
Proposal Summaries
Consistent with the requirements of the RFP, both proposals included two separately-owned and
financed projects, one for families and the other for seniors on adjacent lots. Both included a
north-south pedestrian passageway along the property line between the two projects and both
included retail/commercial spaces on Broadway between the pedestrian alley and Front Street.
Both also included ground floor space for childcare along with standard resident amenities such
as open space, a community room, laundry facilities, and offices for property management and
resident services. Both included units with rents targeting moderate income families and seniors
as well as low-income households and formerly homeless households.
Neither team included any significant above-grade, public parking for Ports consideration. The
BRIDGE team included 10 off-street spaces for commercial space tenants and housing staff.
CCDC team proposed a below-grade, 90-stall parking but with no architectural layout.
The most significant differences between the two proposals were in their exterior design, unit
mix, sizes and affordability, and in their financing, particularly their cost assumptions and
proposals for commercial space financing.

Comparison of Residential Uses:

Family Project:



Total Units
Average Unit size**
Average Low-Income AMI

722 sf
40% AMI

790 sf
45% AMI

Moderate Income units

% of Total Units
Average Mod-income AMI

120% AMI

95% AMI

487 sf
39% AMI

542 sf
45% AMI



Senior Project:
Total Units
Average Unit size
Average Low-Income AMI
60% - 70% AMI units:
% of Total Units:

** Both teams proposed units that are larger than the minimum sizes required for tax credits:
Chinatown by 10%, BRIDGE by an average of 19%.
Comparison of Non-Residential Uses -- both Family and Senior Projects combined:
4,638 sf Infant/Toddler Head Start Childcare
4,431 sf Infant/Toddler/Preschool YMCA
Center (48 slots) plus 1,127 sf Youth Center
Childcare Center (55 slots)
4,100 sf retail/restaurant commercial space (2
7,000 sf retail/restaurant commercial space
(3 spaces) plus 4 moderate income livework spaces.
1,490 sf Community Room in Family Project; 833 sf Community Room in Family Project;
1,950 sf Senior Activity/Community room
915 sf Community Room in Senior Project
10,030 sf private open space
14,276 sf private open space
Mid-block north-south pedestrian walkway
Mid-block north-south pedestrian walkwayand east-west pedestrian walkway from
Davis to mid-block
10-space off-street commercial space
parking garage
Attached is a more detailed comparison of the proposals metrics, including copies of the
financing summaries, and lists of amenities.

Key Differences and Scoring

EXPERIENCE AND CAPACITY: Both teams maximized points for Architectural, Property
Management and Service Provider Experience and Capacity for a total of 33 points each. The
remaining 7 points were in two categories:
(a) Experience with development that included moderate income units (3 points); and
(b) Evidence of project management capacity (4 points).
(a) BRIDGE identified sufficient experience with development of moderate income housing to
be awarded the full 3 points for this category. Chinatowns experience has been limited to a
single project that included units at 80% of AMI for which their team was awarded only one (1)
(b) The selection panel was not satisfied that either team clearly demonstrated that they have at
this time sufficient project management capacity in terms of identifiable assigned staff or
consultants with demonstrable capacity to be awarded the full four (4) points for project
management capacity.
The BRIDGE submittal identified supervisory development staff from both BRIDGE and from
JSCO who have the capacity to oversee project management of the 88 Broadway project, but
listed a single person from John Stewart Company as Project Manager. The panel was
concerned that the primary developer during the development of the Broadway projects would be
BRIDGE and that the BRIDGE staff identified as Lead developer is primarily supervisory and
may be over-extended due to his involvement in one of MOHCDs HOPE SF projects.
Nevertheless the panel was satisfied that BRIDGE could address this issue relatively quickly in
part due to the fact that both co-developers have experienced and relatively sizeable development
departments to support day-to-day project management activities. In light of this determination
the panel decided to award the BRIDGE team three (3) out of the possible four (4) points for
some project management capacity.
On the other hand, the Chinatown/SHE team would rely almost entirely on Chinatown CDCs
development staff and acknowledged the need to expand Chinatowns capacity not only to
manage the 88 Broadway sites if they are selected, but to manage other projects for which
Chinatown CDC has recently been selected by MOHCD. Furthermore, although a project
manager for the Family Project was listed as TDB in the RFP submittal, Chinatown CDC did
identify a staff person at the interview to manage the family project, but that persons specific
experience, workload and capacity to take on the role of Lead developer was not clarified.
Chinatown did not identify a project manager for the Senior Project, although they had shortlisted several candidates for that position and Self-Help for the Elderly was apparently also
seeking to hire staff to perform its duties as co-developer. In light of these uncertainties the
selection panel awarded only one (1) point to the Chinatown/SHE team for lack of project
management capacity.
Design Objectives that were developed with input from the Seawall Lot 322-1 Working Group
and community stakeholders who participated in a Community Design Workshop. They

represented a consensus among those who participated in their formulation, including

community and neighborhood representatives, MOHCD staff and Port staff. The RFP explicitly
stated that scoring of the respondents Development Concepts and Preliminary Site Plans would
be based on the degree to which their proposals achieve the Design Objectives.
The Design Objectives included specific goals related to
(a) Housing Habitability, including appropriate unit sizes and resident interior and
exterior amenities;
(b) Urban Design, including conforming to the design characteristics of the Northeast
Waterfront Historic District and conforming to the urban design of the adjacent area by
stepping building heights down toward the Bay and providing mid-block pedestrian
(c) Height, Bulk and Massing, including building within 50 height on the Davis Street
frontage and reducing visual massing by breaking the faades on Front and Broadway
Streets with setbacks on the upper floors, and other architectural details;
(d) Facilitation of Active Uses Along Street Frontages, including the Davis Street
frontage, as required by the C-2 zoning;
(e) Neighborhood Amenities, including community-oriented programs and facilities open
to non-residents and landscaped open space at least visually accessible to the public.
(f) Sustainable Design, including building elements that reduce resource consumption.
Design Comparisons
HABITABILITY: While both site plans and design concepts would provide habitable spaces,
appropriate amenities, and desirable homes for their residents, the Chinatown interior plan was
more fully articulated than the BRIDGE concept. Although BRIDGE proposed larger units (at
the cost of providing fewer total units), more private open space at ground floor and roof level
(combined), and a larger childcare space along with other more or less standard amenities,
Chinatowns concept included multiple service-oriented facilities specifically oriented toward its
future low income residents, including Head Start childcare, a senior Activity Center, a youth
center, and a proposed restaurant that would provide discounted food for low-income seniors.
URBAN DESIGN and HEIGHT, BULK and MASSING: In contrast to Chinatowns more
detailed design of its interior space, the BRIDGE proposal both in written submittals and in the
interview presentation paid considerably more attention to the exterior of the development and
its external context. Both design teams included architects versed in designing to the Secretary
of the Interior Standards, included step-downs and set-backs at Davis Street and elsewhere, but
the BRIDGE presentation was more focused. The panel found both proposals still too bulky and
visually massive, particularly the senior buildings, but BRIDGEs design included many more
architectural contextual details intended to break up the visual massing and to conform to the
general pattern of buildings in its vicinity.
addressed this Objective well for most of the street frontages, particularly along Broadway with
nearly identical commercial spaces designed at least in part for restaurant use, including exterior
seating. The respondents approach to the Davis Street frontage was quite different. Chinatown

proposed a relatively inactive frontage composed of offices adjacent to a (set-back) senior

building entry. BRIDGEs concept included a commercial space designed for a small caf to
activate this street frontage and be complementary to the proposed development across the street
currently anticipated to be for a hotel and a dinner-theater operation.
NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES: Both proposals included nearly identical north-south
landscaped pedestrian walkways running along the eastern property line of the Family Project
and separating it from the Senior Project. Both would widen at their southern end to provide
outdoor space for a restaurant, but BRIDGES addresses this much more so than Chinatowns.
BRIDGE also included an east-west walkway that would extend approximately three quarters of
the block from Davis Street to Front Street. Both would provide non-residents access to their
childcare, although funding differences will have an effect on both residents and non-residents
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN: Both proposals included a variety of Green Building strategies,
including photo-voltaic panels and solar water heating on the roof, green roofs to retard and filter
rainwater runoff, non-toxic interior materials, water-conserving fixtures and drought-tolerant
The maximum scoring under this Design category was divided as follows: 35 for the overall
design concept and site plan, and 5 specifically for the commercial spaces. The panel used the
following matrix as a guide for scoring the overall design concept and site plan:
Very Good
Fair - Poor

30-35 points
25-29 points
20-24 points
0 -15 points


By consensus, the selection panel agreed that although the Chinatown interior design concept
was stronger in terms of its emphasis on serving the needs of residents and overall Habitability
and would merit a Good score, the BRIDGE plan did a much better job of addressing the other
Design Objectives laid out in the RFP, particularly those related to Urban Design, Massing,
Contextual Design/Details and Street Frontage Activation, and would merit a score of Very
Good. The panel felt with respect to design, the BRIDGE proposal with its variety of massing
profiles along Front Street and an appropriate setback of upper floors facing Davis Street, as well
as its creative use of modern materials and window treatments that acknowledges the adjacent
and neighboring existing masonry buildings would have a considerable advantage over the
Chinatown plan when the developer begins the effort to garner neighborhood support for the
In addition, while Chinatown proposed more units in both projects (139 family units to
BRIDGEs 130; and 62 senior units to BRIDGEs 52) the selection panel noted that Chinatowns
design concept was likely to lose units as a result of adding more setbacks to the family project


and stepping down more of the senior project and that while BRIDGE may lose some units as
well for similar reasons, it would not be as many and their loss could be mitigated by adjusting
BRIDGEs unit sizes if necessary. The panel decided that a fair score reflecting this analysis
would be a score of 29 points for BRIDGE and 22 points for Chinatown.
The key differences between the two proposals with respect to commercial spaces were the
amount of non-Childcare commercial space proposed and their locations. Chinatown proposed
2 spaces (4,100 sf total) both located on Broadway between the new pedestrian passageway and
Front Streets. BRIDGE proposed 3 spaces (7,000 sf total) including one large (divisible) space
on Broadway and one each on Front Street and Davis Street. The Front Street frontage would
also have four (4) live-work units with entries off of Front Street.
The selection panel had a favorable impression of BRIDGEs proposal for a small caf on Davis
Street which would be designed to attract visitors from across Davis Street as an example of how
the BRIDGE concept was more thoughtful about integrating the overall development into the
neighborhood programmatically as well as architecturally. The panel awarded BRIDGE 5 points
(out of 5) for its commercial space concept and Chinatown 3 points.
Evaluation of respondents financing and cost control proposal included consideration of the
degree to which each proposal was consistent with proposed financing sources requirements and
opportunities, minimized MOHCD permanent financing, and proposed innovative financing
instruments and/or innovative cost control strategies or methodologies.
Both proposals included what are now standard sources of financing, including tax-exempt
bonds and 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, General Partner equity, Federal Home Loan
Bank Affordable Housing Program funds, permanent debt and State Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding.
The proposals differed in several significant ways, regarding:
Overall strategy for moderate income unit financing;
Leveraging assumptions, particularly regarding AHSC
Cost assumptions; and
Commercial space financing.
Chinatowns financing strategy was to use moderate income units excess income to crosssubsidize very low income units in both Projects in order to deepen the overall affordability of
the non-moderate income units, serve more very low income households and increase potential
AHSC funding. Consequently, their plan assumes a higher percentage of moderate income units
at the highest income (all 120% AMI), and less tiered low income units, with 41 of their 30%
AMI units cross-subsidized in the family project.
BRIDGEs approach was to maximize the debt-carrying capacity of the moderate income units
to lower the dependency on MOHCD funding for those units and to offer a more tiered


affordability for both the moderate income and low income units. BRIDGE also offered an
equity financing alternative for the moderate income units that would replace some portion of
MOHCD funding for these units - an equity investment that would pay a reasonable return using
cash that would otherwise be used for residual receipts payments to MOHCD.
Consequently Chinatowns proposal includes a higher percentage of moderate income units in
both projects (24%) than BRIDGEs (18% in the family project and 13% in the senior project),
deeper affordability for the low income units (an average of 40% AMI vs. 49% AMI), less tiered
overall affordability, and ironically, a slightly higher average affordability for the entire Family
Project than BRIDGEs (60% AMI vs. 57% AMI).
The proposals differed significantly in their assumptions about how much AHSC funding could
be leveraged. Chinatown assumed the maximum allowable funding based on the AHSC per unit
funding limits at over $25MM for the two projects combined. BRIDGE assumed only $9.5MM.
The primary reasons for this dramatic difference were:
1. Chinatown did not assume any reduction in their request for AHSC for purposes of
getting additional competitive points; BRIDGE did assume some accommodation would
be necessary, and acknowledged that the $9.5MM figure could be as little as half of what
they might actually be awarded.
2. Chinatown also incorrectly assumed that the LOSP units would be scored for AHSC
purposes as 15% AMI units. This is contrary to HSA and DPH policy as was pointed out
in the RFP and at the pre-submittal meeting. Adjusting the proposed leveraging in both
cases, Chinatowns by assuming LOSP units at 30% AMI instead of 15% AMI and
BRIDGEs by assuming no reduction in their request to obtain additional points, results
in a much closer total AHSC funding: approximately $23MM for Chinatown and
$20MM for BRIDGE. This difference would clearly reflect the fact that Chinatowns
proposal would include more low income units at a deeper average affordability.
The proposals also differed significantly regarding how much developer equity would be
contributed to the projects from their developer fee. BRIDGE included $2,000,000 in the family
housing budget and $1,445,000 in the senior housing budget, taking advantage of a recent
increase in the amount of fee that could be included in the basis for calculating tax credit equity.
Chinatown included $1,000,000 for each project.
Chinatown projected total development costs (TDC) per unit of $438,000 for the family project
and a construction cost per sf of $301. BRIDGEs projections were $549,000 per unit TDC and
$368 per sf construction costs.
The selection panel agreed that while BRIDGEs assumptions might be a little high, particularly
with respect to the TDC for a project without any acquisition costs, they were probably much
closer to the real costs of development and construction. This was corroborated to some
degree by examining Chinatowns most recently completed family project at Broadway and


Sansome Street. That projects TDC (excluding acquisition costs) was $553,000 per unit and its
construction cost per sf was $352.
Chinatown proposed to develop all three commercial spaces, including a childcare center and
two retail spaces, using funds from the housing development budget. The budget also includes a
tenant improvement allowance for the two retail spaces. Rent for one of the retail spaces would
be discounted in return for the proposed restaurant tenants agreement to provide meals at a
discounted cost for seniors who qualify for a Department of Aging and Adult Services meals
program. Net income from rents of both retail spaces would be used to reduce the Family
projects LOSP subsidies. Chinatown also proposes to guarantee 75% of the non-childcare
commercial space net projected net income for the first full year of operations through a masterlease agreement with the Limited Partnership that will own the development. The childcare
center would pay for its own tenant improvements.
BRIDGE proposed that their four retail commercial spaces be separately owned and fully
financed by the co-developers themselves, as was successfully accomplished at North Beach
Place. BRIDGE would secure debt financing from a third party lender with guarantees from
BRIDGE and JSCO if necessary. BRIDGE also assumes a ground-lease payment to MOHCD
using the North Beach model of 20% of annual net proceeds. The shell of the childcare center
would be incorporated into Family housing development budget. T.I. and start-up costs would
be financed separately.
Both proposals included similar strategies for saving operating costs, such as PV panels and solar
water heating. Chinatown did a better job of identifying cost-saving ways to take advantage of
the proximity of the two projects, such as negotiating better consultant contracts, and mobilizing
both projects at one time. Chinatown also referenced design components that would result in
savings such as open air lobby, stairs and circulation to reduce mechanical loads.
Top ranked proposal re: financial and cost control innovations:
2nd ranked proposal

10 points
7 points

The selection panel ranked the two proposals Financing Plans and Cost Control Innovations
according to how well they:
are feasible and consistent with the requirements, limitations and opportunities associated
with their proposed sources;
propose development costs that are comparable to other similar Family and Senior
minimize MOHCDs permanent financing;
propose innovative sources or financing instruments; and
use innovative materials or methodologies designed to reduce development, and/or
operating costs.


The panel decided that BRIDGEs housing financing plan was more feasible, insofar as their
approach to AHSC funding appeared more likely to be successful, their understanding of current
tax credit requirements and opportunities appeared to be stronger, and their understanding of the
affordability limitations associated with LOSP funding more accurate as well. The panel also
preferred BRIDGEs straightforward commercial space financing plan to Chinatowns, which
relies heavily on housing development funds for its two retail spaces in return for public benefits
that are arguably less than adequate. In addition, the panel concluded that BRIDGEs cost
assumptions were probably closer to actual current costs and if not quite accurate, probably too
high rather than too low, an approach that the panel found preferable to seriously underestimating costs. This was a major issue for the selection panel.
After adjusting both plans to maximize potential leveraging and to use the same cost
assumptions, Chinatowns plan would still require approximately $50K/unit less in MOHCD
financing for the family project than BRIDGEs plan. On the other hand, using the same
adjustments on the senior housing financing plan would have the opposite results: BRIDGE
would require approximately $20K/unit less in MOHCD funding that Chinatown would need.
Both offered innovative financing ideas: Chinatown to use excess moderate income family units
to cross-subsidize units at 30% AMI without the need for LOSP subsidies and BRIDGEs
proposal to use equity financing for some of the moderate income units. Both also offered some
cost control strategies, although none that stood out as particularly innovative.
On balance, the panel decided that while neither proposal was outstanding in all respects, the
BRIDGE teams financing plan was preferred and awarded BRIDGE 7 out of 10 possible points
to Chinatowns 4.
The selection panels discussion of the Services Plans was led by staff from HSA and DPH and
eventually scored using the following scoring matrix:
Very Good

10 points
7 points
5 points

The panel found Chinatowns plan superior in several respects, particularly in its incorporating
trauma-informed services for homeless households and residents and found their presentation
both in writing and at the interview more thoughtful and comprehensive than the BRIDGE
presentation. The Kai Ming Head Start childcare proposal was also seen as more advantageous
to the developments low income families than BRIDGEs YMCA proposal insofar as the Head
Start program would provide free childcare to all qualifying low-income households, while the
YMCA would need to rely on some full-fee paying families and other sources of assistance to
serve low-income families. As a result, only 35% of the slots available would be earmarked for
children residing in the building.
The panel found BRIDGEs plan a good one as well and considered LSS to be a very well
qualified service provider for the homeless families and seniors, but expressed some concern


about overall coordination of the services within each building and between the two projects.
There was some concern that the BRIDGE supervisory structure may include too many chefs in
the kitchen.
On balance, the selection panel decided to award Chinatown 8 points out of the possible 10, and
BRIDGE 6 points.
The 88 Broadway RFP selection panel recommends that the BRIDGE / John Stewart team be
selected to develop, own and operate the family and senior affordable housing proposed for 88
In addition, the selection panel suggests that the BRIDGE / John Stewart team consider the
following potential improvements to their proposal:

Both BRIDGEs family and senior projects should begin operations with 24-hour desk
coverage and monitor the need for such coverage for the first year.
BRIDGE should work closely with LSS to be sure the location of resident services
offices ensures residents privacy and facilitates their access to services.
YMCA should consider the up to 20 slots set aside in their childcare program for at
risk children from low to moderate income families, and children of families residing in
the building, a minimum, not a maximum, and give priority for their subsidies to lower
income families who reside in the building.
BRIDGE should give strong consideration to re-sizing the units in both buildings in order
to increase the total number of lower income units in the development.
BRIDGE should address concerns about height and visual massing by giving strong
consideration to adding setbacks at the top floor along Broadway and additional stepping
or deeper setbacks facing Davis Street.
BRIDGE should work with the Port to explore the feasibility of incorporating more
parking into BRIDGEs proposal starting with design issues (e.g., can we go below grade
or partially below grade?) and then addressing the required financing.
BRIDGE should re-consider the 10-space garage and pocket retail space on Front
Street to determine whether additional community-oriented programming, additional
resident amenity space, ground floor open space, or larger retail commercial space may
be preferred.