the original intent. and then the last park that we are here before you is p 19. this is another smaller park that has storm water features that is more passive, it's long building. it will be adjacent to affordable housing and near mission rock street. that's a broad overview of the four parks that are under are part of the amendment. here is just a chart of overview of the management piece that we are talking about and the amount of months of operation that will be covered. ocie has been working very closely with mjm in order to reduce management fees since we know that we plan to bring on additional parks in the future and we have to contain cost but at the same time keep the level of security as well

as maintenance that people have come accustomed to and we think we can achieve that by spreading out some of those cost. the reason why it doesn't have the same management fees because it has different intensity level and we have achieved savings and we can talk about that in greater detail if there are questions. this is the estimated months they will be in operation during this year. it's an estimate again. if the park opens slightly later then we won't pay for those management fees structured as such. and then i just want to go overwork force compliance. mjm is a -- owned business. they have moved out of that category, three of

the subcontractors are sb and they have 58 percent of the contract, the three sb's that are listed here. i think that concludes my presentation. i have mary cruz and -- who are extremely familiar with the parks as well as the parks coming online and with oci staff. i'm here for any questions. >> thank you. >> we have previously asked about speaker cards but there are no speaker cards for this item, or are there? >> mr. washington. >> okay, mr. washington? >> i just wanted to, i didn't know she was going to be here today. i want to speak on behalf of mjm. she

came years ago and did a wonderful job in creating jobs and i wanted to lend a word of support. she did a wonderful job in the west edition. that's first part of my retirement that i came to support mj. i know mary. we were just going over some of the things. we talked about 15-20 years ago. i'm in support of that. if you ever need anything mary, give me a call. i have my cameras and videotape. i can do it all for you. >> we are on item 5b which is a matter moved from the consent. any other? okay. >> i just want to know was how many bids for this job? was there another bid for this job? >> back in 2009, commissioners

-- >> i'm familiar with that. >> there were other applicants. no. perhaps catherine, you can respond to that question. >> catherine riley project manager from mission bay, when we went for the original rfp in 2009, mjm was the only bid for this one. it needed to be the full complex of subconsultants. >> i would like to have more than one bid. >> what we want to do since this contract expires at the end of the year we are going out for a new bid process and this amendment is structured so we are not amending the term and it's really the way the contract was structured to bring as new parks we are ready to come back and set that

management fee, but we are not extending the contract and going out for a very extensive process for the next term. >> why is it $22,000 more? >> as the new parks come in. when we did the original contract back in 2009, the way the contract is structured you have three phases. parks that were already constructed and being maintained. you also had a set of parks that we call phasen parks which is the parks we did our best guess which parks were coming online as the terms on this contract and there were parks in mission bay that we knew were going to get done. two or three 3 years with the economy increases and the grant funds that we had not anticipated, they were not in that original contract

as a phase in so we did not set that management fee but we always anticipated as any park that came on we would roll onto this contract and we needed to come back to you for this commission to get approval for management of these parks because we hadn't anticipated they would come on during this period. >> okay, thank you. >> so there will be additional hiring for this additional amount because we are adding parks. are they hiring more people? >> i don't know if mary wants to go, but what we looked at the

frequency of maintenance would increase and whether or not that could mean staff working longer hours or also adding additional services, additional personnel in terms of the park. >> so with the maintenance, how many hours usually are put into maintaining a park or for example this particular park or any of the parks that mjm manages. is it like 8 or 6 hours a day? >> some of them are even longer than 8 hours as well as the capital maintenance exceeds 8 hours a day. the goal is to spread it throughout the parks so we are not hiring individuals

to serve the park so they are equipped to cover the new park as they come on. in some cases the maintenance happens after hours depending on what the need is or on the weekends. it depends. recently we that had trees replaced along the promenade. that was additional. >> okay. thanks. >> do we have a motion for this item? >> commissioner mondejar moving and commissioner singh second. >> commissioners, please answer when i call your name. commissioner mondejar, yes, commissioner singh, bustos is absent. madam chair rosales. i have 3 ayes and one absent. >> next item. >> the next order of business

is item c authorizing pursuant to the transbay implementation agreement, amendment no. 2 to the memorandum of agreement with the san francisco county transportation authority to expand the is scope of the project management and construction services and to increase the budget by an additional amount not to exceed 1200, 000 for total aggregate amount of $4679541 for construction of the realignment of the folsom street off ram transbay redevelopment project. >> as you recall just last month we were before you for the 1st amendment covering cost for design and services for this folsom street off ramp work. if you tried to take it

recently it's closed. this work is critical because it builds a more valuable parcel for the construction terminal under way. back in february we said we would come back to you. we needed to do some hard work with cal trans and our partner the ta who is serving as our owners rep on this and we are back before you with a contract amendment for $1.2 million that deals with contaminated soils here. with that, kevin matsuda, our civil engineer will give you the background and the scope and the next steps. >> thank you, executive director bohee, i'm the civil engineer with staff. this office is for amendment no. 2 with the san francisco county

transportation authority for the folsom street off ramp consideration in order to provide funding for exposed contaminated materials for the project site. background, the folsom street off ramp curves diagonally. in order to assemble and create the parcel to maximize the development and guidelines ocii is reconfiguring the guidelines. we are estimating these contracts with fca to provide the project delivery. in april 2013, the commission authorized

the design services for this project. in november 2013, the commission authorized construction services for the project. last month in february 2015, the commission approved amendment no. 1 that provided funding for cost over runs and disposal of one area of stock piles for materials that needed to be deposed of at facilities that can handle motor oil material. the disposal of that stock pile is not subject to this amendment, however there are two other areas that are. at that time of that 1st amendment approval, ocii staff and transbay were in on going discussion over the position of other soils and seeking to find

potential solutions in order to minimize project cost. this slide shows the folsom off ramp curve development block 8. the ramp does not allow pedestrians to walk on fairmount and clementina street. this slide shows block 8 after the off ramp is reconfigured. the parcel is rectangular shape with new connection. discovery of contaminated materials. in november 2014, the sfta general contractor excavated soil for the project and contaminants required by the landfill. anti-an will --

an alytic test soils of led in the area. from underneath the off ramp. it amounts to 1,000 cubic yards or 1083 tons. it's in place soils that have not been excavated yet. it's in an island between the folsom off ramp and the fremont street off ramp. the quantity of these soils is 2,000 cubic yards or 3,000 tons. the stock pile is in the way of construction and preventing some of the work from being completed. ocii staff and sfta considered other

method to dispose of the soil since they can not remain on-site. together we reviewed other treatments. these scenarios were not compatible with the type of soils and did not save project cost. after extensive discussions ocii staff concludes that the only available option is to dispose of the contaminated materials at a regulated proposed facility which is clean harbors environmental disposal facility. which is the largest in north america and which is approximately 260 miles from the project site. staff will mitigate liability by requiring the disposal agreement contained in attachment no. 1 to be executed that the work be in compliance with

state laws governoring hazard ous materials and oci insured through contracts through sfta. summary of dispose at cost. the cost to approximately 5500 tons at $135 a ton. there is also administrative and operational cost to conduct analytical test on the soils and maintain the stock piles in compliance with regulations. for the quantities estimated, the cost comes out to $42,000. the cost saefsz savings from the disposal to an ordinary landfill. since area three soil is covered by stock pile,

the exact quantity can only be estimated at this time since the area is necessary. it's making the total cost of the disposal $1 million. there is a covered stock pile on the bottom left-hand corner previously authorized in amendment no. 1 for disposal and it's not subject to this amendment. area one stock pile is in the lower right hand corner is presently in the way of critical items of work. contract extension. the completion date of the project has been extended due to contaminated materials for the completion dates of april 20, 2015. there are cost for office equipment and

office facilities and project staffing that amounts to $200,000 including contingency. other considerations, the cost subject to this moa amendment to 16a. funds will be used on the scope of work and any unused funds will remain with ocii. overall completion is at 60 percent goal. it's utilizing the city's local hiring policy local by trade. the general contractor and 35 percent for labor classification and 15 percent for operating engineers. there to operating engineer trade is short of 50 percent goal. ocii acting through the office of economic and workforce

development continue to work with the contractor to meet this goal at the end of january and operating apprentice to improve local hiring performance. as stated in the resolution, the executive director would be authorized to enter into any and all ancillary documents to complete the necessary contract. that concludes the staff's presentation and we have people here from transportation authority to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, do we have any speaker cards on this item. >> we have mr. ace washington.

>> i just wanted to know what is the reason. it quite a bit of money. >> can there be competitive pricing? >> yeah. they give the bid from $3 million and now they are $4 million. >> the site condition knowable at the time the contract was entered

into? >> the original m orca -- m oa and the amendment did not include for the contaminated materials. >> were they known? was it known at the time of the contract? >> it was not known. >> usually i don't like to change it. if it's $3 million and now it's $4 million. >> we don't like making this request. it's unfortunate the situation that we are in. >> why are we absorbing all of these cost? is this cost not

shareable with other entities. >> we have a permit to do this work on cal trans land. cal trans states that it's not responsible, that it did not of these contaminant materials and that they only brought in topsoil >> it's been there all this time? >> yes. from many years back. >> what was that location used for previously, do you recall? >> there was a foundry. i have

to defer this to the transit authority. >> what are we doing with this after we clean this up. what are we doing with this parcel? we are building? >> housing, mixed income housing. >> so this will clean the area so when we build there is no danger to the future tennants of this area, am i correct? >> is this a major clean up? >> good afternoon, sally for the record. the work done here is a portion of transbay block 8 just solely regarding the reconfiguration of the off ramp. once it's configured and the

entire area is sold as block 8. they may have their own soil and remediation. we sell these parcels as is. the purpose of this is to not clean the whole block 8 but for reconfiguration to complete that scope of work. the dwoerp developer will be responsible for all the work. >> if there is any discoveries? >> this happens on other cites -- sites and they are responsible to deal with it. >> it will be on the developer to accommodate any unknown cost. the land sale price stays the same, but by the time people move in and it will be absolutely safe for the people to -- >> when we sell this parcel

this will be disclosed that this is what we'll discover and any clean up will be done up there. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i have a follow up question. i don't know if it's for you, sally. we acquired this land from the state? >> no cal trans owns the land. we have not yet acquired it. block 8 is comprised of two parcels. there is many parcels underlying it. the portion of the off ramp being done and the larger parcel that is for block 8 together through the land sale. all of that land will flow consistent with the cooperative agreement that we have for entrance -- transbay and cal trans. the land flows from cal trans to the city and under the terms of the

transbay option agreement it flows from the city to us the developer at the close offes escrow. we will own the land temporary. >> why is it not responsible for the clean up. >> that was as it for a baseline condition and this wasn't known and that it was here and is as is and we are the agency seeking to reconfigure the off ramp. so their understanding of the transact. >> we did not include this particular scope in the amendment you approved in february because we wanted to take the time even though we didn't carry cost to go back again with the owners rep construction manager transportation authority our own legal council

and make another push to change cal trans mind. even though we knew what the document said, we made another push and went at it in many different ways during the intervening months and we are at this point too. it does have contingencies in there but to the extent those contingencies are not needed and the funds will be returned to oci. >> one of reasons it's so expensive single -- >> the facility will determine and where is the best place for this type of soil to go. this was the best fit. we were investigating with cal trans if

there were alternate sites that they might have access to. this particular soil is not eligible for those sites. there are limited places to transport this particular type and this is the most cost-effective. >> was there any other bid for this. on the initial contract. >> yes, there was a bidding for the initial contractor. >> it doesn't mean nothing if they are normally willing to increase it. >> this was not included in that bid. this is the additional scope. a surprise. expensive one. >> yes. 25 percent more. >> it's highly unusual since

this commission's inception previously i can't recall a time where we have taken a contract like this to you. so it's a very unique, unusual case. >> so are we moving this contaminated soil to another location. the contract does not clean up this soil? >> yes, those are what those almost 800,000 it goes to this facility. it takes the mitigated liability for us. it's being moved 260,000 miles away from san francisco. >> yes, it's the best fit to receive it. >> i wouldn't want to live there. >> do we have a motion?

>> yes, we have a motion. i move. >> commissioner singh? i can second. so i will second the motion. please call the roll. >> commission members please announce your vote when i call your name. commissioner mondejar? >> yes. >> commissioner singh? >> yes. commissioner bustos is absent. madam chair rosales? >> yes. >> i have three ayes and one absent. >> okay, the commission approves the request. reluctantly. >> please call the next item. city clerk: the next order of