[ gavel ]. >> good afternoon. my name is miguel bustos. this is the regular pleting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure, the successor commission to the

san francisco development agency. august 21, 2018. welcome to members of the public. mr. secretary, please call the first item. >> clerk: thank you, invites chair. the first item is item one, roll call. commissioners, please respond when i call your name. [roll call] >> clerk: the next order is business is item 2, announcements. the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on september 4, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. at city hall, room 416. the announcement of proceed hibition of sound producing devices during the meeting. please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pager's and other similar sound prousing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please know that the chair may

order the removal of anyone from the meeting for use of a cell phone, pager or other similar sound producing device. please be advised that my member of the public has three minutes to make a comment to the commission. it is strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission fill out a speaker card and submit the card to the commission secretary. the next item, item three are items to be acted on from previous meeting. there are none. item four is matters of unfinished business. there are noity others of unfinished business. the next item is item five, matters of business scenting of consent and regular agenda. first consend agenda, there are no consendient items. the next order of business is the regular agenda.

approving to pursuant to the

transbthe -- [agenda item read] >> clerk: madam director? >> good afternoon, commissioners, through the chair, this is -- these two transactions. the transbay related project, unlike the mission bay and the shipyard where we have a master developer, in transbay, we do not, so the agency is required to do infrastructure improvement as well as open space. so what you have before you are two agreements. one's the fourth amendment with c.m.g., and they have representations here today, and the is an m.o.u. between the agency and the department of public works that we've engaged for project management services. so with that -- and this is all related to one project, it's the under ramp project park. with that, i'll call on benjamin brandon to present on this item.

thank you. >> good afternoon vice chair bustos, commissioners, and executive director. i'm here today to seek the approval of two contracts related to the under ramp park project. the first is a request to approve the fourth amendment to the existing contract with c.m.g. for new services to complete the design and provide construction administration services for under ramp park. and the second item is request for an approval of a memory bum of understanding with san francisco public works in an action of $6,521,327 for design review and project management services for under ramp park. present today representing c.m.g., we have scott rutabka

and carrie rusinski. we have y.a. studio, which is designing the buildings and the alternatant responsible for the engineering design elements of the park: representing public works, we have project manager kathleen o'day. first, my presentation will provide an overview of the forth coming parks in the transbay reveemt project area. then i'll cover the fourth amendment, and last, i'll review the m.o.u. with public works for project management and construction administration services, also for under ramp park. i'd like to begin with some context regarding the transbay redevelopment project area. as you are aware, the redevelopment plan divided the project area into two zones.

ocii oversees development of zone one, whereas the s.f. planning code governs zone two. here's a picture of the project area prior to ocii's implementation of the redevelopment plan, and here's a picture of the transbay district once the full build out of the project area is realized. back in 2006, the former agency commission approved the transbay redevelopment project area streetscape and open space plan, which established the project areas dedicated and proposed open spaces as well as the types of plantings, restriction furs and materials to be used throughout the

district. the arrows on this slide point to the trans-bay area parks. th the blue arrows point to the two parks that ocii will right lane, project three, and under ramp park. this is a photo of the newly completed salesforce park. and this is a conceptual rendering for transbay park for block three, that was included in the 2006 streetscape plan. once ocii kicks off the design process for transbay park, we will begin with community outreach to get feedback about what the neighborhood residences and workers would like to see as part of the park, the schematic design of the transbay park will be entirely different from what is shown here, but it will be

based very much on what the community desires. this is the current site plan for under ramp park, which stretches from just south of folsom street, north ward to howard street, with a direct connection to the salesforce transit center. this brings me to the action items that the commission is considering today. again, the commission is considering the approval of two contracts which related to the implementation of under ramp park, the first being a request to approve the fourth amendment to the existing contract with c.m.g. architecture, and the second is an authorization for the ocii to enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding services for under ramp park.

it begins with the transbay redevelopment plan. both the transbay redevelopment plan and the planning department's 2012 transit center district plan detail the open space improvements for the transbay district. the 2006 streetscape and open space plan envisioned plans under the bus plan -- ocii hired c.m.g. in 2011 to design transbay improvement, which the folsom street project, which the commission approved construction for in june, but also to design under ramp park. now ocii desires -- [inaudible] >> the park will be just under 2.5 acres in size and is located exclusively under the new bus ramp servicing the

transbay transit center. it will serve district residents, commuters, office workers and visitors. the project includes many amenities, including a large dog park, protected bike and pedestrian paths, sports courts, relaxation spaces, and casual dining. the design team has completed a draft schematic design for the park, and after that was finalized, i will be back before the commission this winter to request approval. between 2011 and the between, staff and c.m.g. have participated in numerous public outreach meetings including public workshops, transbay c.a.c. meetings, the sota meetings. today's first action item is the commission's consideration

of a fourth amendment to the contract with c.m.g. for its services for under ramp park. let me begin with a little background on the existing contract with c.m.g. as stated earlier, ocii hired the firm in 2011 for design work in consultation with the folsom street program, under ramp park, and the essex street plan. a second amendment to the contract was approved in 2015, and it covered additional scope items strictly related to the folsom street improvement project. this past june, the commission approved a third amendment to the contract, which also pertained strictly to the folsom street project. this amendment authorized c.m.g. to complete the design of the folsom street project and perform construction administration services for it. the existing contract and the

three earlier amendments total 4 $4,420,106. this fourth amendment request for $1.5 million in new services to complete the schematic design -- is for $1.5 million in new services to complete the schematic design and carrie the project through construction. the extra services include additional design submittals to the tjpa and caltrans that were not wrenvisioned in the origin contract scope. submission of an additional construction documentation design set to public works,

which was also not considered in the original contract. new engineering studies, and design of security measures and internet connectivity infrastructure. one element of the fourth amendment that is not specific to you want ramp park is that the community has requested that ocii explore safety improvements to the essex street and guide place stairs. there have been recent complaints about insufficient lighting on the stairs and people hiding in blind spots, so ocii would like c.m.g. to design some lighting and visibility improvements for the stairs. the total contract value is not exclusively for c.m.g. and its consultants work on the under ramp park project which rather covers the full work on the folsom street and essex street projects, as well.

today's second action item is the commission's consideration of a memorandum of understanding with public works for design review and project management services for under ramp park. the m.o.u. will cover public work's services beginning in the schematic design phase and continuing through construction of the park. public works's scopes of work under the m.o.u. include project management services, managing the work of other city agencies, including sfmta and sfpuc, overseeing project consultants, ensuring that the park's design complies with all city requirements that apply to ocii projects and ensuring that it complies with all policies. finally, similar to its role in the folsom street project,

public works will manage construction of under ramp park. the total public works fee for services under the m.o.u. is broken into two categories. base management and services fees, and allowances for as-needed services. the base fees derive from actual proposals, from sfpud services, and the total base services sum to $4.6 million, and the total allowances amount to nearly $1.9 million. here is a detailed breakdown of the base services that will be provided by public works, m.t.a., and p.u.c. as you can see, each of their

respective scopes also includes a 15% contingency over run for services that could not be anticipated at the time the sfpw manager prepared the m.o.u. budget based on kpleegz' proposals. and here is a detailed breakdown of the allowances budget. you'll notice that the largest are for plan check and permitting as well as materials, testing and special inspections. these represent $1.3 million, and their total costs cannot be fully determined until the total design of under ramp park is much fully along. the schedule is as follows: finalize the schematic design for the park this fall, and

seek commission's approval of that design this coming winter. c.m.g. and their consultants will complete the design plans between the spring much 2019 and the spring -- spring of 2019 and the spring of 2020. during that time ocii staff will negotiate the terms of a lease with caltrans for use of its land under the fremont street off ramp. in the summer of 2020, public works would bid the contract out and recommend a general contractor whose contract the commission will need to approve. we anticipate construction beginning in 2020 and being completed by 2022. in conclusion, staff recommends approval of the fourth amendment to the contract with c.m.g. and the authorization to enter into an m.o.u. with public works for services regarding the development of under ramp park. this brings me to the end of my presentation today. thank you very much, commissioners, and i'm happy to take any questions that you may

have. and once again, introduce the team from c.m.d., we have terry and scott. and kathleen o'day, and also with have yaku and -- we have yaku and sean. thank you again. >> madam secretary, do we have any speaker cards for this item? >> yes, mr. vice chair, we have one. we have ace washington. >> okay. how's everybody here? it's the first time i've been here since the supervisors been on recess, so i had to go on recess, but i had to come back because i'm reading the documents that you all have here. so my opening statement to the

city and county and the city by the bay. this is a public notice to san francisco, the city by the bay to all movers and shakers, policy makers, lejs limiters, community players -- legislators, community players, and all of the haters as well as all of the community takers, and i explained to you what community takers are. my name is ace. i've been on the case. before i was on the case, i was ace in your face, but now i'm in your place. but i see that there's a lot of changes going on here in 2018. what does this mean? our community, my community -- oh, first of all, let me just say -- so i'll be parallel with this, it makes no difference what i see, you going to do what you do, you going to do what your administration is. i'm not going to say nothing wrong about the queen. i'll say administration because i don't want to say her name personally.

although she's in room 200, and she's made this commission look a little different. i see up there -- how you doing, dr., welcome to the commission. i see dr. scott out in the bayview, the c.a.c. i know when i talk about issues on the shipyard, she's going to have to recuse herself. i know she is. what i'm here to say to this city and to this administration and to this board, not a threat, but a promise, i have no other obligation. i have a moral obligation to my community, to my family, to my kids, to my grand kids, to my great grand kids. see, i've been doing this longer than anybody in this room except for maybe one or two. but look, the mayor ain't invited me to sit up there. but i'd have to recuse.

why? i've been an activist all my life. there is no western addition, so that's why i'm here to say today, but you know, go ahead and pass whatever you all doing. by the way, young man who gave his presentation, he was in my community before, dealing with issues with the housing authority. i had to set him straight. next thing i know he's in city hall, next thing i know, he's talking to you all. my name is ace, and i'm on this case. i made my statement. >> thank you, mr. washington. >> no more speaker cards, mr. vice chair. >> anybody else wishing to speak on this item? anybody else? hearing none, seeing no other requests to speak, i'll close public comment. [ gavel ]. >> and i'll turn to my felly commissioners for any questions or comments that he -- fellow commissioners for any questions or comments that they may have.

commissioner singh? >> how did they get the contractors? was there competitive bidding? >> for the c.m.g. contract, it was not competitively -- the amendment was not competitively bid because we were already under contract with them for services in the transbay district. this is just an amendment to the contract that's already in place. >> it means it's a continuation of the -- >> it's a continuation of the existing contract. and the m.o.u., you can look at it as a sole source contract where we have gone to the department of public works and requested their assistance in implementing our responsibilities to deliver under ramp park. i hope that answers -- >> yeah. i have seen that scope of work

on item -- 39 -- 39 item and scope of work and condition of work, is another 23. >> but they -- can you speak to the competitive process that would occur with project management from -- next steps? >> yes. so once we move forward into under ramp park's development, we will have to enter into many more contracts. what i want to say there is that our partner, san francisco public works, will be entering into contracts, and in doing so, there is a requirement that they have to comply with all of ocii's policies, so those things will be competitively bid out, and then, we will be reviewing all of those bids as part of our standard process to ensure that sbe's are prie prioritized in the contracts

for the work. >> commissioner scott, do you have any questions or comments? >> just that after going on the tour and asking about the area, the blocks, seeing what you're doing, the people that it will benefit, the community that will have access to parks where there were no park pas, are no parks, play area, food, just -- no parks, are no parks, services, amenities that are not there, that are coming, jobs that will come, i'm impressed. >> thank you. first of all, thank you for clarifying some of the -- the questions i had about the amendment. i always get worried about amendments because we have a contract and a bid, and then, there's an amendment, then there's not to exceed, but

then, another amendment comes after it, so i appreciate the fact that you cleared that up because again, this is all public money because we want to make sure that's good, even if it's within some of our sister agencies, that we're mindful of what we spend. with the outreach, i just want to particularly point out when the outreach is done, the folks who live closest or work closest, 25 essex and 500 folsom, blocks 11-a and block 9, make sure you really reach out to them because they're going to be living closest to this, as well as our neighbor to the south, the mexican consulate. i'm sure there will be people, families out there who will be using this park. but i like the fact that it's going to be open for people and the public to enjoy. the last thing i would just say is you know me about local, and so when you go out to bid for

your subcontractors, you know for me, what's important, you have san franciscans, whether it be in architectural design, whatever, construction, businesses, professional, otherwise -- and is just businesses just showed up last month, but businesses -- and that's why we ask for the bios, sort of biographies of the subcontractors, so that businesses that have been here a long time have the opportunity to benefit from some of these projects that are out there. that includes art, as well, so artists that you're looking at, we would love for them to be local artists from san francisco so they can contribute to the beautifying of the city. thank you. so commissioners, i'll need a motion for items 5-a and 5-b,

but we'll act on them separate. so do i have a motion. >> i will have one more question. >> commissioner singh? >> yes. on page 4 of the incoming electrical-outgoing air conditioning, hot water, cold water, you need everything, hot water, cold water? >> for which? i'm sorry. >> page 4. >> of the memo. >> oh, of the memo. and what was your question, commissioner? i apologize. >> i said, you need hot water, cold water, and air conditioning? >> we will need that for the buildings. one thing that's a very nice element about under ramp park is it features two permanent structures. one pavilion building that will have three feed kiosks in it, and a second beer garden building which we will then go out with an r.f.p. to select

something to run those. but because those buildings are permanent, and they are producing food, we will need hot and cold running water to them, and we will need those spaces conditioned. >> lots of work. >> huh? >> lots of work. >> great. >> i move. >> so commissioner singh moves. would you mind seconding? >> i second it. >> great. thank you, dr. scott. madam secretary, please call the roll. >> clerk: for agenda item 5-a, please announce your vote when i call your name. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. vice chair, the vote is three ayes and two absent. for agenda item 5-b, commission members please announce your vote when i call your name.

[roll call] >> clerk: mr. vice chair, the vote is three ayes and two absents. >> great. motion carries. madam secretary, please call the next item. thank you. >> the next order of business is agenda item 5-c, workshop on the amendment to the recognized obligation payment schedule for january 1, 2019 to june 30, 2019, including the administrative budget for the successor agency and supporting documentation. robs discussion. madam director? >> thank you. this item is a routine item. it's amendments to the fiscal year 18-19 budget that is required under the solution law, so we will have a presentation on that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the deputy director of finance and administration for

ocii, and as the executive director said, we're here today to do a workshop on the amendment to the robs. for those of you who are new to the commission, welcome. the robs is something -- it's very similar to the budget in that it identifies an expenditure authority for the year and identifies the sources of funding for each of those expenditures. it was created post dissolution, and we submit this budget -- we submit the robs to the board for their approval and we come to you to discuss the items with you and get your feedback before we go to the over sight board. so as a reminder, we are required by law to submit the robs to the department of finance on february 2, which is well in advance of when the city's budget process begins. usually, departments are at their commissions in february

and march for june budget submission. so often times, we have to think about things in the rops in advance of when the departments are ready to finalize their budget. so for us, the rops is a really fine time to shore up the rops that we submitted in february with what is ultimately reviewed by the commission, approved by the mayor and then approved by the board of supervisors. the funding sources are slightly different than the budget, so i'll just briefly review those for you. we have bond proceeds which of course are the proceeds of bonds issued and approved by the commissions, reserve balances which can include pledged rpttf, which is an acronym, and due diligence review balances, which are balances remaining after the due diligence reviews that were

required by dissolution, and the agency does not have any of these types of balances. other is generally composed of developer payments but may also include grant or lease revenue payments. non, rfttf nonadmin is more commonly referred to as property tax, and rpttf admin is the funding that the agency can use to fund its operating budget, and it's limited to 3%. so the changes that we are proposing for the rops amendment are very small in nature. if you consider that the current approved rops is 507 million, the changes that we're examining only total 9.2 million, and they are within the existing budget amount of 745 million. and that's because the budget is much larger than the rops

because it contains fund balances and items that were approved in prior years but carrie forward into expend -- carry forward into expenditure for this year, and when most of those changes that we're making in the amendment before you is to switch funding sources, so to use our dollars more efficiently, so the overall amount of expenditure change is very little. so the key take aways are really that the key increases are within our existing budget authority, and because the increase in property tax is only.1 million, the impact to the taxing entities is very, very small. so at a high level, we'll go through the revenue sources one by one. bond proceeds are actually going down by $2 million, and that's because we'll be funding 6 west with funds on reserve, which are mission bay pledged property tax increment that is pledged to the development of mission bay. so we don't need to use bond

proceeds, and we can use those bonds for other expenditures, so it's a more efficient use of the agency's dollars. the reserve billion for that same reason is going up by $7 million. instead of using bond proceeds, the amount goes down. we're using reserve balances instead, so the amount goes up. other funds has an overall increase of $4.1 million. in the majority of cases as you can see about the detail in the slide in front of you, those expensed are costs reimbursed by the developer, but those costs are passed onto our development partners, and so the overall impacts on the agency's financial status is a wash. nonadmin tax is increasing by a

very small .1 million, and that's due to two very small changes. because our issuance program for the kbrayear is going to b smaller than we originally expected, we want to spend the rest of this year being thoughtful allow we manage our debt portfolio and we'd like to use some additional property tax funds to administer some consulting services and some staff services being thoughtful about how we manage our debt program. so the total year over year impact is actually a reduction over the prior year's rops, even though the amendment will cause this year's rops is grow by a very small amount, when you compare it to last year, it's actually about $5 million smaller than last year's rops. so you can see that the changes are primarily in bond proceeds.

we're spending more bond proceeds this year than we did last year. that makes sense because we issued five bonds last year, and three of which were new money bonds, so this year, we're spending those dollars on affordable housing and infrastructure in the trans bay. we are using $9 million more in reserve balances, because of due to the use of mission bay property tax increment. we're using slightly less in other funds than we did last year, as well as slightly less in rpfft nonadmin or property tax and that's because the other two bonds we issued, 2017-d and 2017 e resulted in a really large savings. we really reduced or debt service and therefore are using less property tax increment, leaving more fore the taxing entities, and there's a very,

very small increase in rpttf admin. so this is the schedule for the rest of the rops amendment. we'll take your feedback today and incorporate it into the materials we provide to our over sight board. we'll present to them a workshop on september 10. they'll provide their feedback at that time, which we will incorporate and then return to them for their action on september 24, and then we will submit our proposed amendment to the department of finance on september 30, and they will have until 12-16 to respond to us, which is about 15 days before the january property tax distribution, which is the property tax distribution that would fund the second half of this year's expenditures that are captured by the 17-18 rops,