Request to void the Glass House RFP

There has been a request to void the current RFP regarding the the Glass House in Peacock Park because, according to local activist Grace Solares, it does not comply with the City's waterfront Charter requirements.

Grace wrote to the City Manager asking that the current RFP be voided and rewritten so that it complies and actually quotes Sections 3(f)(iii) and 29-B of the City Charter regarding leasing property and leasing waterfront property.   

As a result, the RFP must state that if a successful bidder is chosen out of three or more applicants (minimum three), and the proposed lease exceeds five years and contains renewal terms, it must go to the city's voters.

Grace says that the current RFP "is defective because it does not include the primary Section of the Charter, Section 3(f)(iii) - 'Waterfront Lands' -  that controls Peacock Park." 

Peacock Park is a waterfront parcel of land covered by only ONE folio, more specifically: 01-4121-061-0010.

This is in the Charter, Section 3(f)(iii) of the Charter:


  (f)   Acquisition and disposition of property and services:
 .     .      .
              (iii)  To lease to or contract with entities for the management
                                   of any of the city’s waterfront property,
                                   but only in compliance with the other
                                   requirements of this charter and on
                                   condition that;
         
                            (A)  the terms of the lease or contract allow
                                       reasonable public access to the water
                                       and reasonable public use of the
                                       property, and comply with other charter
                                       waterfront setback and view-corridor  
                                       requirements; and
         
                            (B)  the terms of the contract result in a
                                    fair return to the city and the terms of a
                                   lease result in a fair return to the city based
                                       on two independent appraisals;  and
         
                            (C)  the use is authorized under the then
                                       existing comprehensive plan of the city; and 
         
                            (D)  the procurement methods prescribed by
                                       ordinances are observed; and

                            (E)   the contract does not exceed five years
                                   and does not contain an automatic renewal
                                   or termination penalty.

                                 Any such lease or contract or proposed extension 
                                 or modification of an existing such lease or contract
                                 which does not comply with each of the above
                                 conditions shall not be valid unless it has
                                 first been approved by a majority of the
                                 voters of the city.
         
                                  Nothing herein contained shall in any manner
                                  affect or apply to any project the financing
                                  of which has been provided by the
                                  authorization of bonds to be issued by the
                                  city.
                  
 As you can see, NO LEASE for City owned waterfront property can exceed FIVE YEARS or can have AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.  However, the RFP released by the City is expressly requesting proposals that would violate Section 3(f)(iii) of the Charter, i.e., one initial terms of TWENTY (20) YEARS, and TWO (2) additional terms of FIVE (5) YEARS.

Grace goes on to say, "The City’s RFP deliberately misleads those who might otherwise not be inclined to submit a proposal if complete and accurate information were disclosed in the RFP. Moreover, it would appear that the City is 'staging' an RFP -- it includes the provision for a referendum if less than three written proposals are submitted. Although 29-B has a referendum requirement, that requirement only kicks in if less than three applicants submit proposals. Having three applicants submit RFPs can be easily manipulated in order to avoid the referendum, as per 29-B. However, Charter Section 3(f)(iii) prohibits leasing City waterfront land that includes a term exceeding five years, includes automatic renewals, and does not return fair value to the City.  Therefore, simply quoting 29-B is not enough. And, simply having language of a 'referendum' which 29-B contains, does not meet the specific requirements of Section 3(f)(iii) which is the Section that controls anything being done with Peacock Park."