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. 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.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 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