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

business is 5d adopting environmental review findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act and approving amendments to the mission bay for south design for development and signage and master plan to allow a wall signage to be located at a maximum height of 80 feet versus 45, the western facade of commercial industrial designated building located to the west of owens street. >> mission bay is governed by the redevelopment plans. the development standard are not in the planning code but rather for the development and a companion document is master plan north and south. as mission bay has

been fully built out there are a number of buildings adjacent to the 80 freeway, now that they are built out or in the process of being built out like the kaiser building, it has been become clear that we need to alter our signage standards to recognize that certain signage if left unchanged is really just blocked by the freeway. so this is meant to address that particular issue. with that ethan wash is prepared to go through this amendment. >> good afternoon. my name is ethan warrish. assistant project with ocii. as executive director mentioned i'm here to present a proposed amendment to the mission bay signage master

plan and the mission bay south design for development. the quick over view of what i'm about to go into more detail as essentially as the executive director stated as interstate mission bay with approximately 45 feet down mariposa to king street exit. signage of the building on front 280 restricts 245 feet for the master plan for the design for the development so there is a conflict between those two conditions. to give you some context of where we are talking about now you can see the four 4 blocks that are the subject of this amendment directly east of i 280 or mission bay south and potentially up to six buildings affected by

the proposed amendments. >> so a little bit more detail the signage requirements that are now, the proposed amendments are designated as commercial industrial and their signage is set to the following restrictions which is maximum signage must be the smaller of 300 square feet per parcel or linear foot of frontage and the maximum height of signs can be up to the base height of 90 feet limited to 45 feet in height which is exactly -- so again the reason for the amendment that i-280 runs 45 feet in height directly adjacent to the building directly in conflict with where

the sign is loud -- allowed to be at. this is found in the master plan and the master development. the same amendment is proposed for both but there is specific language included in the package for each document but they will allow signage on the western facade for the buildings west of owens street to be installed up to a maximum of 80 feet to be limited to 30 square feet and that is consistent with the planning code which limits highway signage. they would also be lowered to a maximum of 45 feet which is consistent with the language as it is now before the amendments within one 1 year of the removal of i-280 is brought down from it's current height and that's what the planning is looking at.

it provided these images to give you a better idea of what we are talking about. on the top you see the plan view on interstate 280. it's that yellow line and below that you can see the black dotted line is where i 280 runs at 45 feet and see the dotted line which is the proposed 80-foot limit that would be applied to these buildings. also just to show you along with what's going on with owens, you can see that 200 -square foot maximum sign area that we are proposing as part of the amendments in that light teal or blue. that is an idea of what that would look like. that's all. i'm available

for questions and catherine riley also available for questions. >> any speaker cards? >> i have mr. ace washington. >> i spoke on the last one but i thought i would save on this one. for the ones that came in late. i announced my semi retirement. i wanted to elaborate, is it up there? >> can you switch to the overhead, please. >> we are talking about mission bay, right? >> yes. >> as i got up here before when i spoke, my retirement. i'm not badgering. i'm supporting it. the reason is so we can have some kind of legacy with mission bay. i know most people were not around when

this is one of my mentors was one of the consultants down at mission bay. what you don't say about mission bay and i'm an activist. all this was constructed by african american black negro however you want to call it. it's one of the smartest, one of my allies, one of my mentors, retiring as an activist or newsman. i want some historical legacy that all of you developers. let's put some kind of memorial that it was all started off with a black.

jefferson. there needs to be some kind of memorandum once mission bay is built, not saying that we will be around, but anyway, ace, leave that activism alone. but for my children's, children's, children's. i have three great grandchildren. i would like to say 1 day, go down by mission bay, you know your pa pa knew that man that put that together. he's long gone, there is something that will show you it was a black man involved with this new city within that city. don't that sound good? i'm not up here complaining. i'm up here training trying to be something different. anyway, mission bay, i'm supporting it and hoping that there will be african americans involved like it started off to be. jim

jefferson came up here years ago before any of you were up here. he came up with the idea about mission bay and at that time we were proud of him. we didn't know what mission bay would turnout to be and look at it, it's another city and ace washington 61 years old. hoping we can have something dedicated to jim jefferson. thank you. >> thank you. any other cards? okay. commissioners, any questions for staff on this item? >> i just wanted to know that the visibility of this, how visible we are there from there, the visibility of the signage? >> generally the signs are able to be seen from i 280 and the tracks. one of the letters submitted was by kaiser and they noted it's important that

people be able to identify from a distance where the health care facility is. that's another reason that they wanted the visibility of the signage. >> can you see from the third street? >> no. third street is on the east side. we are talking about the western facade. >> okay. thank you. >> do you have any questions? >> i have a question. >> before we hear the motion, at the time that the 45 feet we -- restriction went in, i'm assuming we anticipated the buildings would be facing this question? i guess i'm trying to figure out why the change. if everyone knew the buildings

were going to be taller, why now? >> catherine riley, project manager. i was not there at the time we did the development. i can't speak to that. the design for development was we looked at recent projects come forward at mission bay as a whole. i don't know that they ever got into detail of the building frontage. 90 feet was the base height and we found it at 45 we are getting individual parcels were getting into a level of detail that they were probably not at when they did broader design for development study. most likely, yes. it was always there. i wouldn't be surprised that they didn't get into that level of detail when they were getting these very broadbrush policies. >> so besides kaiser, what other kind of signage are we talking about? >> it would be kaiser, block

40, the kilroy that came before you last month. three other buildings gladstones which is a non-profit, biotech that works with ucfs and real estate biotech and one has a ufc outpatient clinic as well and last building that was designed. it probably will not benefit from this. if you do the aerial again. it's the last building at the far left. that one the design for development actually limits it's height to the top of the freeway so it's not going to have any building above the freeway. this doesn't help it but it's part of those six buildings that would be affected on the street. with the kilroy, there is a reasonably good chance that we are going to end up with medical office buildings that would benefit finding from the freeway

in the location with the hospital consistent with the market out there. >> i understand the way finding justification. commercial advertising on the other hand doesn't persuade me as much. >> i think one thing to add while we limited it's 200 feet on that frontage, they are only allowed to have 200 feet total for the building. the graphic that ethan showed you that's maximum that we do. we anticipate there is more at the 300 square feet because we are going to have that 300 square feet to get the ownage. >> okay. can i have a motion? anyone inclined to make a motion. >> i did.

>> commissioner singh, commissioner mondejar, second. >> commissioner mondejar, singh bustos is absent. commissioner, we have 3 ayes. >> the next order of business is 5e authorizing personal serves contract with public financial management ink for financial advisory services in an amount not to exceed $122,000 related to the proposed sales of tax exempt and taxable tax allocation bonds for mission bay north and mission bay south. >> commissioners, as you recall we refunded a number of bonds in

the existing portfolio but these bonds in particular, they are still outstanding bonds in mission bay north and south given the particulars of the plan, it's a separate refunding, we want to take advantage of lower interest rates of refunding component and there is a new program component, as you know one of our key missions and goals for affordable housing so we would initiate our first taxing bonds and first, we are used to being first on a number of fronts. with that i want to bring a whole sleuth of consultants on the financial advisor which you are considering today and other contracts before you move forward with those housing bonds with other related consultants for the refunding. with that, i would like to ask john

gaegel our ocii analyst to walk through the procurement contracts and the staff recommendations. >> thank you, director bohee. good afternoon chair rosales, members of the commission. my name is john daggel. the execution of a personal services contract in a total amount not to exceed $122,000 for services for oci; allocation bonds. the scope of the contract as director bohee indicated the issuance for tax refunding, tax allocation bonds for mission bay north and south as well as new tax bonds for mission bay and new refunding bonds for mission bay north and south. now, i know that gets confusing but basically this mission bay north and south under each one we have taxable and

tax exempt and under each one of those we have new money and refunding. the taxable bonds deal with housing and the tax exempt with infrastructure. it makes it a little easier to think about it. the tax exempt refunding bonds will take advantage of low interest rates to refinance through three outstanding bonds from mission bay north and two series for mission bay south. the most recent calculation which is somewhat dated is approximately $15 million combined. the realized savings will be subject to market conditions at the time the bonds are priced which is likely to be in the summer or fall of this year. the new money tax exempt bonds for mission bay south will fund the reimbursement of infrastructure cost and support the continued strong pace of development in the project area. the new money taxable bonds will

advance the construction of low and moderate income housing to those areas. to the extent possible new money and refund bonds will reduce the number of bond series and reduce the total cost of issuance. the outstanding housing related refunding candidates are currently being evaluated due to some difference of opinion regarding the current law. the issuance of new money housing bonds may require legislation or litigation to receive validation action. besides of any new money will be to available funds pledge to housing plus the additional funds made available by the refunding. in other words when we do the refunding it will free up a little bit more money each year and the new money on the housing bonds we do and hopefully this will all work together. the final numbers will depend

on market conditions of course but estimates will be provided to commissioner later at presentations. retention of financial advisor to prepare a financial plan for the department of finances for such transactions and use of the structuring process is industry best practice ensuring the transactions are completed to ocie best advantage. a brief summary of the selection process. on january 9th, ocii staff sent out an rfp to all advisor pool prior to the deadline of february 3rd. six firms responded. to evaluate the proposals a panel of four was convened comprised of

senior project manager, catherine rile eeshgs housing program manager jeff white. jessie rubin, the controllers office of public finances and myself. all panel members chose the same top three firms, pfm, knn and csg. pfm were given the highest scores by all panelist in extensive experience in redevelopment and finance and deep understand of the ocii and credit and deposed of solutions for financing and large issuers of tax allocation bonds and national bond markets. pfm also had the lowest price proposal. at this time i would like to introduce bottom gamma in manager of pfm who will be our primary point of contact for these

transactions. pfm will perform all advisories to customs and bond sale and will be compensated from bond proceeds contingent on the successful conclusion of the transactions. >> brief summary of the next steps. an rfp for bond and disclosure has been issued and the panel will be bringing you recommendations at the next meeting for the role once again a bond council and self disclosure council two separate contracts. at the beginning with the approval of a contract, the fa will participate with the oci; and the city controller of public of finances for the services of these bonds. a fiscal consultant will also be selected who will be bringing you all of these contracts in the upcoming weeks

and months. we'll be back also with the basic bond documents and approval to proceed then we'll see approval of the oversight board and the department of finance and the final documents and details of the schedule will be worked out in the coming weeks and in my subsequent presentation give you estimated dates for those and this concludes my presentation. thank you.

do we have any speakers? >> mr. ace washington. >> i ain't got no time for errors even though i'm switching over. we have here this whole new everything on the mission bay as i spoke about it last time as i spoke on mr. jim jefferson. i think everybody would agree if you don't want to hear from me. let's try to put a committee together folks to recognize mr. jim jefferson in the mission bay. i'm announcing formulating the new committee to recognize him, mr. jim jefferson on the mission bay. so write it down just what i said. okay. now. getting back to mr. gamble

was sitting there. that was historical. i was sitting here which was historical. so i think that's a good idea. you all will find as a new ace now that gabelling. people say you rhyme all the time. before i got into politics i have that suave. i think you might like the new me. i think that's a wonderful idea. let that be the record, mr. ace washington is supporting the mission bay. we need to come together. chip in. all of them. i have seen so many new developers and talk about consultants. maybe i can be a consultant.

i'm hustling. anything i do they will say i'm being negative. i would like to say since we have all of these new consultants, new staff. let's start something new in the city. let's all get together and put something together for mr. jim jefferson. >> thank you. any other speaker cards? no. commissioners singh? >> mr. jim jefferson, he was a wonderful man. he was a good friend and the president of the fire department commission. we really miss him. >> i just want to know, what the interest is in nowadays on the

tax exempt bond? >> well we are very early in the stage now. we are at an early stage of this process and we haven't even brought our bankers on yet. we don't know what the interest is on the bonds. if we were doing it today, i would say they probably would be in the high 3s low 4s. bob, does that sound right? about the 4 1/2 percent range. >> how about taxable bond? >> probably add a percent to that. >> okay, but how many years? >> it's hard to answer easily because when you are doing a refunding you don't extend the maturity and outstanding bonds have different matt

maturity. but basically 25-30 years. >> okay. thank you. i move this item. >> yes, commissioner mondejar? >> i have a question. do we have other agreements with psm? >> do we have any other contracts? >> we them? or is this the first one? >> i'm sorry we have had in the past contracts with psm. they have served us well. >> this is the only one? >> as far as bond financing, i think it's the only contract with the agency. >> but you have worked with them before? >> yes we have. >> okay, thank you. >> say. so we have a motion by

commissioner singh, do we have a second. >> i will second. >> a second by commissioner mondejar. please call the roll. >> city clerk: commissioner mondejar, commissioner singh, yes, commissioner bustos is absent, madam chair rosales, yes. i have three ayes and one absent. >> okay, the contract is approved. thank you. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is 5 f status report on ocii small business enterprise and workforce program discussion. >> this is a quarterly report on professional services and construction services and supply as well as local workforce hiring. we have a very high bar for goals at both at 50 percent for

each of those trauchs of goals. we are doing well. on the contractor side $24 million and we have exceeded our small business enterprise goal at the 50 percent mark -- with a great deal of those dollars going with the local workforce contracts. we are shy of the 50 percent goal more at 27 percent, but we'll walk through that as part of the presentation on why that is and why are we getting those local goals up. we have a lot of activity going on in the city. with that, i would like to ask raymond lee to walk you through this quarterly report and we also have the director of the workforce division pat miligan who is here and he is joined by other members of the staff as well. >> thank