2 parties. the non sbe prime and the sbe partner. define the technical managerial responsibility. define the scope of work. percentage break down of the kope scope orwork. identify subcontractors or conceltabout that perform the work. this is important, we want to make sure the small business partner performs that 35 percent level. define the schedule, duration and deliverable of the agreement. detail the fee schedule, break down and compensation. specify insurance requirements that each party shall be required to maintain. specify how additional worker changes are made. specify how claims and disputes will be resolved. what is being asked is a copof

the agreement must be provided to us for approval. one thing that-a couple things we are looking at for the future is looking at potential safe harbor language within these agrume grument and language that is put into had contract. we are seeking to come back to you in 6 months to give a status of how this is implemented over a 6 month period. the second think we are looking at is additional incentives for sbe's that i guess in theory graduated from the sbe program. what i mean by that is because the city has a sba-lbe category that exceeds the ocii standards recommended here, in theory they were once sbe's that fell within the

thresh hold and are now greater but the feds determine them to be small business. we are looking to provide incentive for those that graduated some way oof getting them involved in our particular projects. offering a incentive for them to partner with current sbe's in some manner allowing the firms to participate in some sense give back to the community by engaging with small businesses. we are not certain how that will take place but will continue to evaluate that. from what i heard earlier in comments, we may want to entertain other provisions with respect to dispute kwz complaints put into the particular policy. finally, the change to the policy are really just minor changes. those having to conform with state [inaudible]

really just clarifying language for other areas such as changing the name from redevelopment agency to ocii. [inaudible] construction workforce provision language regarding submission of pay rom, thinks of that nature so it is clean up language in the policy. with that, that concludes my presentation. happy to answer questions. >> thank you. >> have one speaker cards, mr. ace washington >> i was speaking to your staff members or i guess they are not staff members, city build and i have comment to make on the last item which connects with this one which you find that this agency nor redevelopment is set up to monitor or even to

check violations or go over valid issues that no one seems to have the answers to or there isn't a mechanism to address them. case in point, these contractors go unchallenged and unquestions because there is no mechanism to challenge them. you say clearly your agency isn't set >> to do that. yours trully ace washington created something to replace ace, it is called case. take notes. c as in community assistance service enterprise. the thing about it is, you have a guy that has been in this over 25 years monitoring and documenting and advocating and challenging you guys and the person has been through 3 administrations and flip-flopped and opening the possibility to sit down and

partner ship with you because if you can't monitor them, call ace. no, call case. we need somebody has the qual fiications to do those things and check the developers and contractors. i have a mechanism rks if they are out of violation we can find a mechanism where they can have a remedy. right now a remedy-a population may not have nf to work at these places and that doesn't give them a pass to go through the obligation of the violations so you go through remedies. there may be remedies where they don't have-nobody had [inaudible] put money aside and utilize it in those certain communities for non profits working community driven programs that help train scr do other things. you can't let the developers

violate the other people. i am not scared of a contractor. there are 3 principles case does, the [inaudible] that is all i got to know and i get on the case and come back with a report and let you know what is going on. my name is ace and i'm on the case and i'm working with city hall y'all because i done seen it all. it [inaudible] working on a good team. the team, the scheme and dream. we got to keep it going on. thank you much. >> thank you. >> lelt me make a comment on the previous presentation on voint joint jencher. that can be a mechanism for increasingperticipation especially with san francisco minority contractors. they are small however, we have seen some of the jv partnership association or whatever the

term being used today where small companies really don't win on this jv partnership agreement. what happens is while this type of agreements are formed, the majority of firms walk away with much more revenue, profits. it has to be equal or it has to benefit the small business. it has to. otherwise we just kind of serving the same small business that currently has the contract to get bigger contracts and should look at it very carefully and craft it in the sense it benefits san francisco minority contractor squz suppliers who wants to participate on this project but doesvent the financial resource or capacity to manage these types or wins these contracts. this could be another means of

negotiating contractors with developers while twepers negotiate with general contractors that could open up a opportunity for smaller companies to negotiate contracts with general contractors. thank you >> thank you. >> i want to speak on the joint venture aspect to-i have been around contractor since 1982. my name is collidelyde miller. a lot of of ways joint verchers are good partnerships for the small business and the larger businesses but i want to say i think seeing joints ventures over the years and the things i

have seen, a lot of small comps are used by larger companies to get projects and vice versa. the goal here is build a small company. we see-i have seen all these large companies use the small companies just to get joint vercher squz at the ends of the day the small joint venture doesn't prosper. the goal is for the small joint venture to prosper. that is the small joint verchers job too. their job is learn and come out of the vercher with knowledge and understanding and capital so at the ends of the day they can do the large job themselves. i think there should be a time period the smaller companies venchwer the larger companies and the larger companies, they are going out and grabbing this smaller company and that company and not building up the

smaller industry. i think that sadis service to the community that out of this they don't get a smaller joint vercher to rise. we look around in the bay area, how many small companies have risen over the last 10 years? i don't see anybody. that is the problem. if they are going to joint venture, the smaller company has a obligation to grow and the larger company has a obligation to make sure these guys can grow. i don't see the percentage ocii has, i don't know what percentage-what type of percentage do they get of the project? is it-i don't know what the percentage is, but it should be at the chbds of the day the company can grow and if that is not made it is

issue. the other thing i heard mr. lee say is the participation and my question is for the overall dollar amount, how much of the dollar amount is joint vercher and grouss dollar amount? is joint vercher can project for 100 million, of that 100 million how much minority companies get? of that, how much is being counted? i want to know what that amount is. thank you >> thank you. >> i do not have other speaker cards >> public comment is closed. commissioners questions? comments? >> commissioner mondejar >> the resolution that we are approving and some of the recommendations you have are not incorporated am i correct?

>> can we amend the resolution to incorporate-for example the dispute squz complaint process. i don't think i see it here, is that something we can incorporate? i think maybe robert has the final answer. >> we can hardly hear you robert. turn on the microphone. >> madam secretary, perhaps you can-unresponsive throughout the meeting. >> i think mine is on.

>> you can amend the resolution, but the core question is what would the amendments be at the point. i think that would have to come from staff and they made need time to think about the recommendations to see what the appropriate amendment would be. >> i think we could approve this resolution with a direction to staff to consider and propose a complaint and dispute resolution or hearing type procedure to the recommended to be included within the policy at a future date. at the future date we amend this resolution. >> yes >> the amendments before us if we accept them are accepted with theditional direction to staff that is part of the resolution i & staff coming back for the added language to be considered and approved. >> also the prompt payment

of-discussed earlier which is issue with the subcontractors getting paid on time and so forth and again language on that maybe a clarification of the language on that which could be added and chair rosales is suggesting approve it now but develop the language and research that and amend the resolution later. >> correct. the recommendation currently in terms of prompt payment is conform to had state statute but there were not any consideration in terms of mechanisms for enforcing prompt payment. we left the policy alone in that respect but what i hear from todays discussion is looking at possible a mechanism of enforcing prompt payment and complaints and things of that nature.

>> yes. >> okay. >> along with commissioner mondejar can we put a time so we-i assume we approve what is before us now and then do we give staff a mupth? is that enough time or can you do with in less than that? >> mr. lee. >> sooner rather than later. >> you may want to consider what the city has >> i don't want to wait a year. i may be off the commission. i agree, there may be a timeframe for us to come back -for you to come back and for us to consider the amendment. >> i can at least give you a status within a month if we don't have firm recommended language, but- >> can we push that a little bit and come back in a month with firm language? that is what i would like because we

can-- >> with draft language for your consideration and if possible [inaudible] >> the city has a good template i think. any other--i had one also additional point on page 2 of footnote 2 there is a reference that according to the sbeau policy first consideration is given to project area sbe, san francisco based sbe but based on the report we see is & the testimonyed we received, i think there is potentially a practice, i'm not clear on this yet, a practice that when local firms either are not competing or are competing are deemed to have bids or proposals or fees that are too high and here is it is significantly higher

where the san franciscan proposes fees higher than non san franciscan the general contractors go outside san francisco but when i look at the statistics and hear the testimony it sounds like it is happening a lot. that begs the question about what is significantly higher and now i think it is in the discretion of the contractors to decide what is higher. this is a old issue within the city and counto the local business program where the board of supervisors recognize it is a higher cost of bes doing business in san francisco and that is why local business is affordsed 10 percent differential in price called a bid discount and l or bid preference. pr professional service there was a rating preference so that 10 percent for me is sort of like the

established recognition if you will that it is at least 10 percent higher cost of doing business in san francisco, so it seems if we can incorporate in the policy that standard so we define significantly higher to mean beyond 10 percent. that would give guidance to everyone. >> you bring up a good point bauds we have been use ag10 percent thresh hold when we meet with the contractors. to the extent we specify 10 percent that will add clarity >> it is dollar and cents issue so proposing contractors can see i was 15 percent higher versus-and the contractor can say you were 15 percent higher and that is why you didn't get it. i would incorporate that and ask that also be incorporated next. could we

incorporate that now or do we bring it back? >> you have attachment a and- >> we have attachment a. >> the resolution you could probably-then it would be >> i can't hear you. >> if you amend attachment a it is part of the resolution but don't know if that is the easiest way to do it, it might be though. >> because we have existing contracts with other provisions, the mega contracts with huntsers point and mission bay, that have additional subcontracts whether it is professional service or construction to be let, i want to make sure i understand the other terms and conditions of what those are. the commission can make that change today. since we haven't done due diligence as it relate tooz

procedures as part of the overall contracts and primarily i'm talking about mission bay and hunters point, the opa for mission north and south and dda. i don't see a issue but we haven't reviewed it. >> that's fine. i think we can add it to the list so when it comes back we talk-we already have prompt pavement. we talk about complaint resolution and the definition of significantly higher bids. anything else? nope. okay, so then let me see--do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second >> we have a motion by commissioner bustos, seconded by commissioner singh and the motion is approval of the

resolution with the direction to staff as indicated on those points. >> big points , right? >> one point we addressed which is the prompt payment. >> what i have noitated from our information is the-a mechanism of enforcing prompt payment, complaint resolution, a clarity on one significantly higher means >> there are 3 points. yes. it is moved squl seconded. please call the roll >> commissioner members please announce your votesd when i call your name. commissioner maundhair, yes, singh, yes, bustos, yes. rozaul rosales, yes.

>> we understand we are back in 30 days. thank you. please call the next item. thank you everyone who participated. >> the next item is 5 e, approving a delegation agreement with the san francisco planning department for administration of land use authority under the rincon point seth beach redevelopment plan over a portion of the proposed project at 75 howard street. discussion and action resolution number 44-2015. madam director. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners, our work in rincon point south beach is largely complete but our land use jurisdiction extends through 2020. the work program is largely complete as evidence by the action you took to terminate various leasewise the port of san francisco for port

leases in south beach and rincon park. this action before you proposes a consistent with our practice and other redevelopment project areas to delegate a certain portion thf lan use jurisdiction because sthra small portion that continue to howard projeblth to the planning department where the planning department would take action for the city as part of the overall project including the findings under the redevelopment ban applicable to this small portion at 75 howard. with that i would like to ask gym morales the deputy director and general counsel to walk through the background and proposed terms of the delegation agreement. >> madam chair and members of the commission, my name is jim morales. the action before you relates to a project that has

been proposed at 75 howard. it is approximately 20 story over a garage, 220 foot residential buildings. there is ground floor retail, 100 parking spaces and 120 bike parking spaces. it is in a zoning district under the planning code that is designated as downtone office special development. the project comes before you in a very narrow way and that is there is a small portion of the parcel that this project will be built on that is within the rincon point south beach redevelopment project area. the project sponsor first applied for

planning department approvals in 2012 and 2013. they had a slightly larger project at that time. subquently they applied for a revised project in 2014 that further reduced the size and earlier this year they submitted yet aortproposal that brings the project into the limit i just described as the project description. the planning department back in 2012 determined that environmental impact report was required for the projecktd and that has been prepared. comments and responses document has also been prepared in that eir as well as project approval is scheduled to be heard by the planning commission on july 23. in mid-june last month, we received a request from the developer of the project to

approve the small portion of the project that lies within the rincon point south beach project area. that area, the small triangle property is identified in the material that was submitted to the commission as part thofe pact as well as in that page that i just showed which comes from the packet on a slightly larger scale. you see the project itself is outlined in the orange area and that the portion under the redevelopment plan is the small triangle area in the south eastern corner of that building. when we received-when ocii received the request we approve this tiny portion of the projict we looked to see what was being proposed for that area and what

the zoning was. it turns out the part of the project that lies within the rincon point south beach redevelopment project area is very tiny portion of the underground garage, a small portion of the building from floors 1-7, it is a corner of the building and from the floors 8-11 it is just a edge of the building that touches the project area and then from floor 12-20, there are no improvements that actually lie in the project area and so you see the proposal for the project is to taper the building upward so that it becomes somewhat narrower at the tower portion.

so, we reviewed those improvements and looked at the zoning for that small portion. it is zones for residential, it has a height limit of 240 and so we determined and are recommending to you that you approve this agreement with the planning department to have it review the consistency with the redevelopment plan for the small portion alodge with what amounts to the essence of the project which as i said lies within the jurisdiction of the planning department and it will be approved and reviewed. it may not be approved, but it will be reviewed and considered for approval at july 23 hearing. rincon hill south beach is essentially complete. it is a project geria that was

first established in 1981 and runs through till 2021. thousands of units have been built, major public aminities are completed and funding by the agency including south beach harbor and run conpark. other aminities include the privately financed att park which lies in the area and given the substantial completion of the project area and the fact that most of the tax increment money that had been committed to the project area had been spent by 2006, 20 o5. the board of supervisors in 2007 essentially reduced the scope of the project area so that future tax increment from the area was devoted to affordable housing under what we called sb 2113 replacement

housing. the point there is that by 2007 the project area was essentially complete. more recently, this commission and the oversight board and department of finance have approved the termination of ocii leases with the port and these were leases the redevelopment agency first entered into where we acquired lease hold interest and a number of port properties in order to facilitate development on those sites and that is where south beach harbor is located on port property that was originally under a lease to the redevelopment agency and numerous other developments have occurred. those leases are pending approval mptd the termation of the leases are pending approval from the final regulatory agency