Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure - Regular Meeting

It is now 1 PM. I am Dr. Carolyn Ransom Scott. And this is the regular meeting of the Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure for Tuesday, July 21, 2026. I'd like to welcome everyone. who is joining us, today's meeting is being held in hybrid format. Members of the public can participate and provide comments both in person at City Hall and remotely by phone. Thank you to the staff and the guests who will also be participating this afternoon in today's meeting. Madam Secretary, please call the first item.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The first order of business is item one, roll call. Commission members, please respond when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi? Here. Commissioner Lim?

I'm here.

Commissioner Shaddix? Here. Vice Chair Miller?

Here.

And Chair Scott?

Present.

All members of the commission are present. Madam Chair, we have a quorum. The next order of business is item two, announcements. A, the next regular meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, August 4th, 2026 at 1 PM. B, announcement of prohibition of sound producing electronic devices during the meeting. Please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any persons responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing electronic device. C, announcement of public comment procedures. Please be advised, a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the commission adopts a shorter period on any item. During each public comment period, members of the public attending the meeting in person will first have an opportunity to provide their comments. It is strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission fill out a speaker card and submit the completed card to the commission secretary. Members of the public who are joining remotely will be instructed to dial 415-655-0001. When prompted, you'll be asked to enter the code, which is 2663-528-7582, followed by the pound or number sign, then the pound or number sign again to enter the call. When prompted, please press star 3 on your mobile devices to submit your request to speak. When you dial star 3, you will hear the following message. You have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you. When you hear your line has been unmuted, this is your opportunity to provide your public comment. You will have three minutes. Please speak clearly and slowly. You will be placed back on mute once you are done speaking. You can stay on the line and continue to listen to the meeting. You can also choose to hang up. If you are planning to provide a public comment on any items on today's agenda, it is recommended that you call the public comment line ahead of time to allow you to listen to the meeting live and to prevent you from experiencing delays. Today's meeting materials are available on our website at sfocii.org, under Commission, then the Public Meetings tab. The next order of business is item three, report on actions taken at a previous closed session meeting, if any. There are no reportable actions. The next order of business is item four, matters of unfinished business. There are no matters of unfinished business. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS ITEM 5, MATTERS OF NEW BUSINESS CONSISTING OF CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA. FIRST IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM A IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 19, 2026. MADAM CHAIR.

MADAM SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE AT THIS TIME ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO PROVIDE A COMMENT?

At this time, if there are any members of the public who wish to provide public comment on the minutes, please call 415-655-0001, enter access code 2663-528-7582, press star then three to be placed in the queue. If you're already listening to us by phone, please press star three if you'd like to provide a comment. And we'll begin by inviting members of the public who are here in person. If you would like to provide a comment on the minutes, you may come up to the podium at this time. Seeing none in person who are interested in providing a comment, moving over to our remote participants. Again, if you would like to provide a comment, please press star 3. Madam Chair, it does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to comment at this time.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Hearing no further requests to speak on the item, I will close public comment. Commissioners, can I get a motion to approve of the minutes? Commissioner Hakimiso moved. And may I get a second? Thank you. May I get a second? I'll second. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please take roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The item was motioned by Commissioner Hakimi, seconded by Commissioner Shaddix. Commissioners, please announce your vote when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi. Yay. Commissioner Lim.

Yes.

Commissioner Shaddix? Yes. Vice Chair Miller? Yes. And Chair Scott? Aye. Madam Chair, the vote is five ayes.

Thank you. Motion carries. Madam Secretary, please call the next item.

Next is the regular agenda. Agenda item numbers 5B through 5D, related to the Mission Bay North refunding bonds contracts, will be presented together but acted on separately. Item 5B is authorizing a personal services contract with Fieldman, Rollap, and Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $176,000 for financial advisory services. In connection with the proposed issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds related to the prior funding of Mission Bay North infrastructure. Discussion in action, resolution number 15-2026. Item 5C is authorizing a legal services contract. with Jones Hall LLP in an amount not to exceed $182,000 for bond council and disclosure council services in connection with the proposed issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds related to the prior funding of Mission Bay North infrastructure. Discussion and action resolution number 16-2026. Item 5D is authorizing a personal services contract with Kaiser Marston Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $62,000 for fiscal consultant services in connection with the proposed issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds related to the prior funding of Mission Bay North infrastructure. Discussion and action resolution number 17-2026. Director Kozlowski.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Greetings, members of the public, members of the commission. Today's commission item is considering three contracts for consideration, selection of a bond finance team. It includes a financial advisor, bond counsel, disclosure counsel, and a fiscal consultant. And the purpose of this financing is to realize cost savings through a refinancing of certain outstanding Mission Bay bonds under better terms and at a lower cost. These bonds paid for past and completed infrastructure in Mission Bay. And these contracts, although be presented together, will be voted on each separately and be presented by Nick Jones in OCII's finance division. Nick.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Chair Scott, thank you, Director Kieslowski. We'll go through the presentation here related to the three contract items. So agenda item numbers 5B, C, and D relate to financial service contracts in connection with the issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds. The prior bonds were issued in 2016 to fund infrastructure in the Mission Bay North project area. And we will be refunding those for debt service savings. The finance service contracts under consideration are for financial advisor. bond counsel and disclosure counsel, and fiscal consultant. Item 5B is to authorize a personal service contract with Fieldman Rollup and Associates in an amount not to exceed $176,000 for financial advisory services. Item 5C is to authorize a legal services contract with Jones Hall LLP in an amount not to exceed $182,000 for bond council and disclosure council services. And item 5D is to authorize a personal services contract with Kaiser Marston Associates in an amount not to exceed $62,000 for fiscal consultant services. A financing team for a bond issuance typically consists of four specific members, financial advisor, bond counsel, disclosure counsel, and fiscal consultant. The financial advisor advises on deal structure, ensuring bonds are issued at the lowest cost of least risk. The bond council drafts the bond documents. The disclosure council drafts the official statement, which will be issued to investors to solicit bids for the bonds. And the fiscal consultant projects revenues to determine bonding capacity and debt service coverage for the bonds. The members of this proposed financing team were selected from competitively established city panels. And you can see here a summary of the proposed financing team for these bonds. Fieldman for financial advisor, Jones Hall for both bond counsel and disclosure counsel, and Kaiser Marston for fiscal consultant. The 2027 bonds consist of Mission Bay North refunding bonds to refinance our outstanding 2016A Mission Bay North bonds for debt service savings. About $57 million of Mission Bay North 2016 Series A bonds will be outstanding and callable after the scheduled August 1, 2026 prepayment date. And that's the same date that the bonds become eligible to be refunded. After consideration of the contracts today, the bond financing team would undertake drafting the core bond documents and come back to commission in October for approval of those primary bond documents and authorization for OCII to issue the bonds. We would then seek oversight board approval of the bond issuance and submit the approval packet to the State Department of Finance, who then has 65 days to review. So we would expect their approval by early January of 2027. In the meantime, we would be working on the preliminary official statement and finalizing the bond documents for the bonds. We would return to commission in February of 2027 with that preliminary official statement for approval. And then we would aim to issue the bonds in March of 2027. And at that point, once we issue the refunding bonds, the 2016A bonds would be completely paid off. And that concludes the presentation for these contracts. Happy to take any questions or comments.

Thank you, Mr. Nick Jones. Madam Secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment?

For any members of the public wishing to comment on any of these items, please call 415-655-0001 with entering the access code 2663-528-7582, followed by the pound sign, then the pound sign again to enter the call, then press star, then three to be placed in the queue. We'll begin by inviting members of the public who are here in person. If you would like to provide a public comment on any of these three items, you may come up to the podium at this time. Seeing no members in public here in person wishing to comment, moving to our remote participants. Madam Chair, it does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to comment on these items.

Hearing no further comments, requests to speak on the item, I'll close public comment. I will now turn to my fellow commissioners for their comments, questions, or concerns. Fellow commissioners. Just a quick one.

Go ahead, sir. Just a quick one, Nick. Thank you for tracking these, because I know they're key to a certain date that when you can refinance it. Sorry, no hard question. But it's a lot of work to refinance these bonds, and I appreciate that because it's money that could be saved and used for other housing projects, right, develop more housing with that money?

Yeah, absolutely. So we tracked the bond portfolio for opportunities for refinancing. And as the eligible refinancing date is coming up in August, we thought we'd pursue this. So any amounts we save on these bonds can be used towards, for example, our replacement housing bonds. So yeah. That's great. Thank you. It's money saved, money that can be used in the future.

Thank you. Thank you, Nick. And thank you, Vice Chair. Because we do appreciate anything that you can help this city with for saving funds and then doing the right thing in the right places with what we have. We're grateful. Commissioners, we will take a separate action for each of these items. And let's start with item 5B. May I get a motion?

Commissioner Hakimi, so moved.

And second.

I'll second that motion.

Madam Secretary, please take roll.

Item motion by Commissioner Hakimi, seconded by Vice Chair Miller. Commission members, please announce your vote for item 5B when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi. Yes. Commissioner Lim. Yes. Commissioner Shaddix. Yes. Vice Chair Miller. Yes. And Chair Scott.

Aye.

Madam Chair, the vote is five ayes.

Motion carries. Commissioners, can I get a motion and a second for item 5C?

Commissioner Hakimi, so moved.

Thank you. May I get a second? I'll second that motion. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please take roll.

Motion made by Commissioner Hakimi, seconded by Vice Chair Miller. Commission members, please announce your vote for item 5C when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi. Yes. Commissioner Lim. Yes. Commissioner Shaddix. Yes. Vice Chair Miller. Yes. And Chair Scott.

Aye.

Madam Chair, the vote is five ayes.

Motion carries. Commissioners, may I get a motion and a second for item 5D? Aye.

You don't let me fall asleep.

Commissioner Hakimi, so move.

I'll second.

Thank you. It's been moved and second. Madam Secretary, please take roll.

Item moved by Commissioner Hakimi, seconded by Commissioner Lim. Commission members, please announce your vote for item 5D when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi. Yes. Commissioner Lim? Yes. Commissioner Shaddix?

Yes.

Vice Chair Miller? Yes. And Chair Scott?

Aye.

Madam Chair, the vote is five ayes.

Motion carries. Madam Secretary, will you please call the next item?

Next is agenda item number 5E, confirming authorization of the issuance of new money and refunding tax allocation bonds for infrastructure in the Mission Bay South redevelopment project area in aggregate principal amounts not to exceed $48 million and $170 million, respectively. and approving preliminary and final official statements a continuing disclosure certificate and other related documents and actions mission based south redevelopment project area discussion and action resolution number 18-2026 director koslovsky

Thank you, Madam Secretary, members of the commission, members of the public. This item here is also a bond issuance item. It's the authorization of $48 million in new money bonds for infrastructure in Mission Bay. and $170 million in refunding bonds for infrastructure in Mission Bay. The purpose of the refinancing is to realize cost savings of certain outstanding Mission Bay bonds under better terms and at a lower cost. And today's authorization is the final commission authorization necessary after several previous authorizations over the past year by this commission, the Oversight Board, the State Department of Finance, and the Board of Supervisors. And once again, we're going to invite Nick Jones from OCIS Finance to present this item.

Good afternoon again, and thank you, Director Kozlowski, for the overview there. We'll be going through the presentation for these mission-based south bonds, both new money and refunding. So here we have two different series of bonds issued under two different authorizing authorities. The new money bonds will be issued under California Health and Safety Code section 34177.584, which allows us to issue bonds for infrastructure. The 2026B refunding bonds will be issued under California Health and Safety Code section 34177.5 , which allows us to issue refunding bonds if doing so would result in debt service savings. And also Article 11 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, which also covers refundings. A little overview of the two different bond series. The 2026A New Modi Bonds will fund about $40 million in infrastructure. They'll have a not to exceed sort of upper limit principal amount of $48 million. And those funds will reimburse the developer for completed and to be completed Mission Bay South infrastructure, including open space and streets, and infrastructure and open space under construction and upcoming. The 2026B refunding bonds have a not-to-exceed principal issuance amount of $170 million, and those will refund for debt service savings our outstanding Series 2014A, 2016B, and 2016C tax allocation bonds, which were issued originally to fund infrastructure in the Mission Bay South project area. As Director Keselowski mentioned, this is the final approval by the Commission for these bonds. You can see here the prior approval process related to this bond issuance. So Commission approved the budget back in April of 2025. Board of Supervisors approved the budget. We got approval of the bond documents. We got approval of the documents from Oversight Board. The State Department of Finance approved the bonds. And we've sort of reauthorized or carried forward the issuance authority into the fiscal year 2026-27 budget with commissions approval in April 26. And we expect the City Board of Supervisors to approve our budget next week at their hearing on the 28th. The estimated sources and uses here are shown as of June 30th, and we have members of the financing team on the line and the underwriting team here in person who helped to prepare these numbers if there are any questions. The not to exceed numbers presented on the prior slide include cushions for potential cost increases and reserve funds. The sources and uses numbers in the table here are our best guess of what the financing numbers will actually look like. So you can see about $40.5 million of 2026A bond proceeds, and that will fund $40 million in projects and fund various costs of issuance and bond insurance. For the 2026B refunding, we anticipate issuing about $131 million of bonds. We have a reserve fund for the 2014A bonds, which we currently hold, which will be liquidated and used as a source in the refunding when we refund the 2014A bonds. And we'll use all those funds to put into a refunding escrow to pay off the 2014A, 2016B, and 2016C bonds. And the remainder of the funds will pay for various transaction costs and bond insurance. You can see here for the 2026b bonds the expected savings that will be generated. So the outstanding bonds pay an interest rate of 5%. And we anticipate that the refunding bonds will have an interest rate of about 4.2%. So that reduction in interest rate allows us to generate debt service savings over time, which we estimate a total of $20 million over the next 17 years, which is the period over which the bonds will be amortized. And the key assumptions driving that number are the bond proceeds you saw on the prior slide, the anticipated borrowing rate of 4.2%, and the underwriter's spread, which is 0.3%. The proposed action before you today is to approve the preliminary official statement, which will turn into the final official statement once the bond pricing occurs and the final numbers are known, and the continuing disclosure certificate. So the POS is the disclosure document released to potential investors before we sell the bonds. It informs them of all material information. And it has to include any information that would affect a reasonable investor's decision to buy the bonds. So as new information becomes available or things change in the project area, we will update that document to bring the latest information to investors. Once the bonds are sold, we will fill in the missing dollar amount and number information in the final official statement. And then once the bonds are issued, the Securities and Exchange Commission mandates us to continually disclose information to investors of the bonds and actually publicly on our website in the event that any conditions were to change which would affect the credit. So anything in the Mission Bay South project area, anything with revenues coming in or debt service. As Director Keselowski mentioned, this is the final approval needed before the bonds are issued. So after the item is considered today and the Board of Supervisors considers our budget next week, we would move towards selling the bonds in mid-September and then closing the bonds and receiving the funds in mid-October. And that concludes the presentation. Happy to take any questions or comments.

Thank you, Nick. Madam Secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment, question, or concern?

If there are any members of the public wishing to comment on this item, please dial 415-655-0001, enter access code 26635287582, followed by the pound sign, then the pound sign again to enter the call. Please press star, then three to be placed in the queue. If you're already listening to us by phone and would like to provide a public comment, please press star 3 and we'll begin by inviting members of the public in person. If you'd like to provide a comment, please come up to the podium at this time. Seeing no members of the public in person wishing to comment, moving over to our remote participants. Again, if you'd like to provide a comment, please press star 3. Madam Chair, it does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to comment at this time.

Hearing no further requests to speak on the item, I'll close public comments and turn to my fellow commissioners and see if we have any questions, comments, or concerns. Fellow commissioners, Miller, Vice Chair?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just noting again, over $9 million in savings, net present value estimate in savings. That's fantastic. It's great to see that happen. I support this.

I do, too. It makes me smile. All right. Anyone else? No further? Madam Secretary, we're going to, may I get a motion, please?

Commissioner Hakimiso moved.

And second?

I'll second that motion.

Madam Secretary, please take roll.

Motion made by Commissioner Hakimi, seconded by Vice Chair Miller. Commission members, please announce your vote for item 5E when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi? Yes. Commissioner Lim? Yes. Commissioner Shaddix? Yes. Vice Chair Miller? Yes. And Chair Scott? Aye. Madam Chair, the vote is five ayes.

Motion carries. And approving a variation of the rooftop.

Next is agenda item number 5F, approving a variation to the rooftop mechanical screening development control required by the development controls and design guidelines for the Transbay Redevelopment Project for Transbay Block 2 West, Transbay Redevelopment Project Area, Discussion and Action Resolution Number 19-2026. Director Koslowski.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, members of the commission, members of the public. This item is granting a variance of a design screening standard of mechanical equipment. It's on the rooftop of one of our affordable projects on the block of Transbay Block 2. The mechanical equipment on the top of this building is not fully screened so as to obscure it from the public right-of-way. And staff is recommending granting a variance instead of mandating further construction to add screening. To present this item is Alok Fayis in our design review division. Alok.

ALOK FAYIS, Thank you, Director Kozlowski. Good afternoon, Chair, Dr. Scott, commissioners. My name is Alok Vyas, and I'm a senior planner in the Design Review Division. Today, I will be presenting the variation to the rooftop mechanical screening development control for the Transpay Block 2 West. Today's requested commission action is to approve a variation for the Transbay Block 2 West project of the rooftop mechanical screening development control required by the Transbay development controls and design guidelines in the Transbay redevelopment project area. This elevation is from the commission-approved schematic design for Block 2 West, showing the facade along East Clementina Street, which will front the future Transbay Block 3 park, and showing the location of the rooftop mechanical equipment covered in my presentation today. This slide shows to the left the development controls for podium and mid-rise buildings from the Development Controls and Design Guidelines, commonly referred to as the DCDG. Control number five requires rooftop mechanical equipment to be screened from public view and from neighboring buildings by enclosures, parapets, setbacks, and landscaping or other means. Any enclosure or screening is to be designed as a logical extension of the building's design and further comply with section 141 of the planning code. On the right is the approved schematic design conditions of approval number 14B, also requiring similar screening for the rooftop mechanical equipment with the exception of solar photovoltaic infrastructure. Here is a pedestrian level view of Block 2 West on Beale Street looking southwest and showing the two visible equipment in yellow label and the adjacent metal screening in white label. The DCDG prescribes the process for granting a variation and requires developer to justify three conditions. practical difficulties for development, creating undue hardship for property, and unreasonable limitation beyond the intent of the redevelopment plan. Chinatown Community Development Center, who is the project developer, submitted a written application for variation. The application is required to address two topics. Number one, state fully the grounds of the application, and number two, state facts pertaining to the requested variation. Regarding grounds of the application, the developer has provided a narrative of how the deviation from the DCDG control occurred. The approved screens on the roof floor were included in the construction contract. After construction start and during the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, design build, and modeling coordination, the orientation and design of water tanks and piping was finalized. the developer was not aware that the final design was visually unacceptable. In response to pertinent facts, the developer has provided an overall assessment of additional project costs over $300,000 and delays if the screening were to be enforced. it would require substantial roof redesign, penetrations to existing roof slab, waterproofing, and structural rework, in addition to remobilizing of multiple subcontractors. OCIS staff have reviewed the application of a variation and has three findings. With regard to practical difficulty, undue hardship, enforcing the requirement now, post-construction, will necessitate substantial redesign, construction work delays, and the need to remobilize multiple subcontractors. The roof floor area demonstrates unique physical constraints and extraordinary circumstances due to the required regulatory clearances for building equipment maintenance pathways and green roof coverages. There is also no material detriment to public welfare or neighboring properties or any improvements in the vicinity because the water tanks and pipes are set further back from the railing to draw minimal attention. The focus remains on the design of the low-rise massing facing the public realm. The regular box shape of the corner mechanical unit also does not detract from the overall facade. Both equipment are shielded from the adjacent Lumina development. OCS staff presented the variations and findings to the Trans-Based Citizens and Advisory Committee at their regular meeting. The committee members asked questions to understand the background of the variation request and subsequently expressed no objections to the staff advancing it to the Commission. This concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any comments or questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment, question, or concern?

At this time, if there are any members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please call 415-655-0001, enter access code 26635287582, followed by the pounder number sign and the pound sign again to enter the call. Then press star then three to be placed in the queue. If you are already listening to us by phone, please press star 3 if you would like to provide a comment. And again, we'll begin by inviting members of the public in person. If you'd like to provide a public comment, please come up to the podium at this time. Seeing no members of the public in person who would like to provide a comment, moving over to our remote participants. Again, if you'd like to provide a comment, please press star 3 on your mobile device. Madam Chair, it does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to comment.

Thank you. Hearing no further requests to speak, no concerns. I'll close the public comment and turn now to my fellow commissioners for any questions, comments, or concerns.

Commissioner Shaddix. Thank you. I do have just two quick ones. In this statement, the developer was not aware that the final design would be visually unacceptable. Who are we talking about? Unacceptable to whom?

For the unacceptable to the conditions outlined in the DCDG and the conditions of approval, which is looking at it from the public realm.

If I may add to that, Commissioner? So the design standard is sort of a subjective standard. Number one, it has to be visible to the public, either from the adjacent park or from the neighboring building. And so the attempts were made to sort of ameliorate the visual connection between the person who's observing it and the staff here at OCI, the determinants of that. The developer, I believe, is the Chinatown Development Corporation, CCDC, who had produced the project and their contractors. And they submitted for basically an inspection by staff. And they go through that and give them feedback and punch list comments.

OK. So I guess my comment to that is that somebody who lives on not a high rise, but fifth floor, as developments start, we're starting to see rooftops. And I know in that area in particular, there's a lot of high rise living. So we're all starting to be subject to our neighbors' roofs and stuff. So I mean, it says here that the CAC was fine with it. So you presented to them, and everybody was cool. then, you know, I can't argue with that. It's their neighborhood, not mine. All right, let's all head. I appreciate you. Thank you.

Commissioner Hakimi.

Mine is more logistics and just visually to understand what happened, if I may. So number three, how do you call it, slide number three, that was the original design approved? Am I understanding that correctly? Yes.

Yes, and it had an outstanding condition.

So what the issue is, in front of that area that is grayish on top, now there's a water tank and a mechanical unit that was not accounted for when the design was submitted and approved?

That's correct.

So what we're looking at today is number five. That's what it's going to look like.

Yes, that's the view. That's the real view.

So basically that screen that you have for the metal screening on the side, that's not going to exist for the other two areas that we're dealing with, the water and the mechanical unit.

In the DD phase, we did screen a lot of equipment. These things popped up during the construction documents as part of the design bill. So those are the only ones. These are the only two equipments that are not screened yet.

And the picture doesn't really show. So you're saying that's actually far out. That's not as much of an issue.

It's not as imposing. It's more of the front look, which is the townhome block that is more visible.

I'm more visual, so I wanted to make sure that I'm understanding. Certainly. Thank you for answering my question.

Commissioner Kim.

Okay, I have a question. I've been in the mechanical business for 50 years, and if I look at this, I'm doing this job, I'm going to get shot because this is embarrassing. Everybody should know, even though design-build contractors should know that you cannot see these. You should have a screen to cover all equipment. And this, to me, this is not acceptable. I think it's the fault of the designing and the design-build contractors. Because if anybody who understand and known the ordinance about screen, this is embarrassing. I don't have a problem with Bill 50 years ago. But today, when I see this, it's an embarrassment.

If I may, Commissioner Lim, thank you for stating that. We don't disagree that this was an error on the developer and the contractor's part. Nonetheless, it's built, and so our post-construction options are to penetrate the roof again with more screening at the waterproof and all those kinds of things, additional expenditures. And we didn't think it was in the public's interest to have further expenditures on the project for this minor impediment into the zone of view. They did take some actions to paint it and try and blend it in better. So they took some attempts to try and improve the visual aesthetic, if you will, of the equipment.

I expressed my opinion. If I was doing the job, I have to be asked to cut it down or do something. So I know you try to save money, but to me, it's embarrassing. I'm only one of the five votes here.

Commissioner Lim, I do agree. That's why I was asking visually because it doesn't make sense to me that how did they – I just want to clarify my comment. That's why I asked because how could they have missed it when they designed this? But at this point, I don't know what we can do because we just can go on the record that this really should have been the responsibility of whoever designed it. They should have got the cost to fix this. But it sounds like it's coming back. I don't know what the legal situation is and why we kind of have to –

To me, it's not the developer's fault. It's the designer and the contractor.

They should have paid the cost.

Yes. I mean, they have 3D modeling. They could check this. But somebody dropped the ball. It's a big one. It's embarrassing. The people knows construction and known design, and this should not happen.

I just want to add, going forward, as we build more high-rise projects before you, we'll be more cautious. And there are two steps we are already taking right now, which is to include the conditions of approval on the plan sets, the permit sets, so everyone is aware. And during construction, the drawings phase will be extra careful, and we'll look for these things.

I can accept that, what you're saying. I'm sorry.

Is there anything at all that could be done to rectify it?

Madam Chair, yes, we've done so already. This is a process that presented itself during construction, and they painted it to blend it in better with the architecture of the building, because that's essentially the standard. The screening itself is visible. The screening is not invisible. So it's not as to make the rooftop mechanical equipment disappear, rather to have something that is architecturally related to the building. And so we attempted to do that through paint. And while it still remains visible, it does improve the aesthetic. We don't disagree with any of the sort of fault laying of this being on the developer and the contractor's responsibility. As Alok said, we're going to be looking for better coordination amongst the design professionals so that this doesn't get repeated in the future. This is not something that's... happened, to my knowledge, in any of our projects recently. Of course, there's always construction issues that come up and they generally are dealt with. But this one, we didn't think it made sense to invest additional public funds in what is a nominal visual sort of appearance on the top of this building.

Is there anything that could be done to the designer and contractor So that they know this should not have happened. Some kind of a... They should pay for.

Yeah. Something. What should they pay for? It should be the architect and the contractors. But there's... What would be the... For design build, they have that insurance coverage.

We can look into it, but there's nothing to pay for. They've paid for the construction. They've paid for everything. It's not as if there's something. And we fund them, of course. It's our construction loans that pay for this.

But they have insurance for that. They have errors and omission insurance, to me, that fall into that. Because I'd be embarrassed to tell my granddaughter, walk over there, oh, look, this is our new project. Oh, it's ugly, all this pipe.

No, we understand. Again, we considered a lot of these options. There's the construction loan closing. This is a building that is complete, a building that is being occupied. We need to close out the construction so that we no longer continue to pay construction interest as part of the project. If we open up the roof to put in two metal screens, that would delay things by some amount. So we looked at all these different options, and we didn't think that it was in the public's interest to, again, further invest public money into it.

It's not public money. Like I said, you go after the errors and omission insurance for the designer and the design-build contractors. Okay? There's a cost tender to their insurance company. They should take care of it. As far as when to start, you could start any time after everybody moved in. Do you agree with me? Yes.

Director Kozlowski. Go ahead. Director Kozlowski.

Vice Chair. So at this point, the building has got the COO, the certificate of occupancy.

I believe we have a temporary certificate of occupancy. And we're pursuing the final certificate of occupancy.

That's OK. Do that afterwards.

I agree with your comments about this should have been caught, Commissioner Lim. It clearly should have been. But I appreciate that you're putting steps in place to see this is not repeated. And I'm concerned about spending the $300,000 for a visual thing that may not impact many of the neighbors. It is an industrial-looking project. roof, and it's great to mitigate those, but I understand the cost and the time and tying up staff with legal action I think would not be in the best interest. But I appreciate that we have steps in place that will not be repeated.

I think what I'm hearing from Commissioner Lim is that it shouldn't cost us, but it would cost the designer, contractors, and architect because of their insurance coverage would take care of it. Is that, Mr. Victor, does that make sense?

So without having the contract before me, without having the insurance certificate before me, I can't really opine. I don't know what's in it. So it would be something you'd have to take a look at. Insurance companies are loath to just hand over money. So usually there would be some. They're not in the business of just giving out $300,000 because we complain. So we would have to have a strong case based on the contract we have, the contracts that exist, the loan agreement, all of that. But we'd have to take a look at it. I can't really opine without having seen those documents.

And to your knowledge, you think it would perhaps cost us something to investigate and start

We'd have to take a look at everything. We'd have to take, I mean, if that's the case, I mean, if you're asking if there's a legal case here, it's just really hard to say without looking at all the documents and seeing what's happened, what the facts are, and then see if there's something that they could, there's some legal obligation on somebody's part to make up for the cost of making any changes.

I would like to speak. If the cost to put a screen there for $300,000, I'm sure, the insurance of error and omission combined with the architect and the design-build contractor, they could easily come out with their money. If they don't want to do that, hold their retention until we settle, we agree to.

Again, I'd have to see the insurance documents. I just don't know if that's the case or not.

You're sitting in for. I get it. I get it.

I'm going to go next if I can. Commissioner Shaddix.

So I definitely agree with Commissioner Lim and Commissioner Hakeem, but I also agree with Vice Chair Miller that seeing the project moving is probably more in favor of that. For the only reason that the CAC weighed in on this and they had no objections, that would be the only reason that I would be OK moving this forward. But it is a gross oversight. And that just, again, I live in a higher, not on a high rise, but I live on the fifth floor. And seeing rooftop exposures is something that is a real thing for people. That's the new housing. People are living in high rises, and you're seeing your neighbor's roofs and stuff. So I wish it wasn't that way, but I'm OK that because the CAC voted to approve it, then I would be OK moving this forward. That's just my opinion.

May I add my? I agree, as a lawyer, I agree with Commissioner Lim. However, As responsibility to move this project forward, I also understand the dilemma we're in, that this somewhat minor issue of what it looks like right now should be kind of handled and moved forward. Because from what I understand, reading originally that this is a fully, the 100% is affordable housing. So we want to move that because of all the housing crisis. I get that. I don't know if we should waste time on going back and forward. I don't know. That's a part that I'm not quite attached to. But I want to know if there's a reprimand. Is there a reprimand for the design and architecture group that have done this? That means we shouldn't be working with them again, or at least be on high alert if we do. The second thing is the legal documents. Then if we've never had this, this happens. When you do legal documents, things come up that you revise your documents. So we should have provisions in there that if this happens, it be on their dime. And if we don't have that in our contract, then we should have that in our contract. If this ever happens again, it be the designer and the architects die, not the people. So that's my comment.

I agree with that as well. There should be some type of a fine fee or something so that no one else comes behind this looking at it and say, well, they got away with it. We can do it too. Or you let them get away with it. So we can do it as well.

Now, to me, this is sign 101. You've got to have a mechanical screen, not only in San Francisco, everywhere else. So for this kind of careless oversight, it's unbelievable. I can't imagine it happened to this commission's project.

Well, we appreciate the feedback. These are good points. And let us look at what is an appropriate response to them. And we will update the commission in the future on this.

I know how to do that.

If there are no additional questions, we'll need a motion and a second for item 5F.

Commissioner Hakimi. So moved.

May I get a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please take roll.

Motion made by Commissioner Hakimi, seconded by Commissioner Shaddix. Commission members, please announce your vote for item 5F when I call your name. Commissioner Hakimi. Yes. Commissioner Lim. No. Commissioner Shaddix. Yes. Vice Chair Miller. Yes. And Chair Scott.

Aye.

Madam Chair, the vote is four ayes, one nay.

Mm-hmm. Madam Secretary, please call the next item.

The next order of business is item six, public comment on non-agenda items. If there are any members of the public wishing to provide public comment on non-agenda items, please call 415-655-0001. Enter access code 26635287582, followed by the pound sign, then the pound sign again to enter the call. Please press star, then three to be placed in the queue. An automated voice will let you know when it is your turn. And if you are listening to us by phone, please press star three to submit your request to speak. We'll begin by inviting members of the public who are here in person to come up to the podium if you would like to provide a comment on non-agenda items. Seeing no members of the public in person wishing to comment, moving over to our remote participants. Again, if you'd like to provide a comment, please press star 3 on your mobile device. Madam Chair, it does not appear we have any members of the public wishing to comment at this time.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the next item.

The next order of business is Item 7, Report of the Chair. Madam Chair?

I will just share in the last two CAC meetings that I attended, I was just overly informed in such a wonderful way by Channing, Elizabeth, and Inder. And they did a wonderful, wonderful presentation, Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard. And I'm just proud to say it was clear and very informative, and folks left feeling well informed, and just so glad about being there at this time. So you're carrying on in such a wonderful way. Pam may be gone, but the work is still of good information that allows the people to go back to their organizations and churches and community and share the possibilities. and what's happening in the phases. So I was thankful for that and even last night I went back to another and we had asked and it's been some years we've been asking for information and it was the very first MOHCD that I know of where they came to a CAC meeting and giving information on first-time home buyers. And it's such an amazing, what do you call it, animated? such an amazing animated booklet that gives clear information, handheld information that makes it inviting to even look at it and think about it. Because folks were saying, I wouldn't even think about it. Because they didn't know what it meant and where it would take them. But this is amazing. And I'm happy and hoping we get more of these to pass out to our nonprofit. communities to put in places, send to the churches, and use as a model for speaking to our communities, as well as the opportunities for home rentals and what that pathway looks like. And then, again, with links, Juneteenth, it's a lot that was given out.

Madam Chair, may I ask for one of the copies you've distributed to the commissioners, for one of those to be placed at the table for the public to see?

Of course. Would you? Okay. And you can give it over here.

Lucinda, if you may. And then please, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, for interrupting. Please continue.

Okay. The amazing thing, there was over 7,000 people at our Juneteenth event. And links with the neighborhood, our Crawford, Madrid, and Lynette and his whole team. They were in a huge tent, beautiful tent, gave out t-shirts and swag things. It's what they call it. And shared information and announced over and over about the COP program. And they got a better understanding. Hundreds ran to the table. It was really quite hilarious. Many of them said, I didn't think it was real. They'd hang up on the person calling. They didn't know what it meant. And when I say hilarious, It was hilarious, but it was heartwarming, because the whole time we were there, folks were running to the table, running back and getting other hundreds. And they had lots of giveaways, and they did sign ups for people, as well as the descendants, and explaining a little bit about that. information on what they were going to ask the city to do, because right now it's just a state benefit for descendants. And that was made clear that we need something to change with that, because they're running out of space for this descendants. And we're going to need to be able to use the city's properties to put people in that deserve it. And so they're working on, I mean, literally, they had meetings right there Juneteenth on the picnic grass. And just very excited about what OCII is doing. is doing and providing. And they want to know if the city can help with that. There was also a Juneteenth announcement and presentation at the heritage site. The mayor was there ribbon cutting. And so in the theater room, there was another presentation, well attended, and many leaders with questions and wanting materials. So to get information that's clear and helps a person to understand what you're saying, breaking it down in their layman terms. It was done. And Lynette Mackey was amazing. But there were a lot of leaders, a lot of leaders from senior centers as well as outreach centers for communities. It was well received in some of the churches and pastors. So I'm very proud. And to say, when we know and think we have numbers, there were folks there that were a part of a family, and they had siblings. with a CLP, but they kept being told they were not on the list. And so Lynette was there to help them know what to look for and what to say and to speak for them. And Cora, amazing. at that picnic. I'm saying I wish we had more of a presence like this. If we had Cora even there last night and in some of our CAC meetings when folks had questions, that would be very helpful. But it went over unexpectedly. Very well. Very well. So I'm excited about, you know, 2026, what OCII is doing, the information going out, the follow-up behind it, and what LINCS is doing. So well needed. We thought maybe it was ending up and winding down, but it opened up a Red Sea. So I'm grateful, Thor. Thank you so much. And commissioners, thank you for the things that we're able to help provide and make the possibilities a reality. Thank you so much. My report. Madam Secretary.

The next order of business is item 8, report of the executive director.

Sorry. May I just? Excuse me. I'm sorry. May I? Sorry about that. I just wanted to say, this really made my day. I sit on the equity council at the planning department. And to see this live and get your feedback means a lot, because there was a lot of back and forth about how to make this accessible. because they've never been able to get the audience to understand. Very complicated process. And this is wonderful to see. So thank you for your feedback. It's nice to see this.

Now, you just made me remember something. There was also a huge announcement that there is an opportunity for homeowners to have their roofs repaired. And it was a special project, special program, lots of paperwork. But the amazing thing is, it's a forgivable loan after five years. And they just broke it down. And literally, that was great news, as well as first time home buyer down payment. information that was carefully, slowly released and given out. And folks are very encouraged, excited, and I'd just say recharged with open ears. Yeah. Thank you.

Shall I call the next day?

The next order of business is item 8, report of the executive director. Item 8A, Transbay Essex Hillside Maintenance Request for Proposals, discussion. Item 8B is issuance of a request for proposals to develop, own, and operate affordable rental housing on Candlestick Point, North Block 7, Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area, discussion. Director Kozlowski.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Commissioners, members of the public, before I get into the two agendized items, I just wanted to mention two things. Number one at the table for the public but also in your binders are the previous outreach communication and flyers that the Certificate of Preference Outreach Program, LINCS, and NCLF, the New Community Leadership Foundation, have been using to promote their different workshops. At the last commission meeting, I think there was some discussion about this outreach, and folks wanted to get a copy. So we wanted to make sure you were aware and that you had a copy of that. You're welcome. I also wanted to introduce, not introduce, but just have a little information about a new community-led pharmacy that's opening up in Bayview Hunters Point. It was recently announced by the mayor in concert with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, OEWD. We have a representative here from the mayor's office, Larry McClendon, who's in the audience. He'll come up and speak. But I just wanted to acknowledge the work that has gone on in Bayview to establish a pharmacy. The two pharmacies that have been in the community have closed, one more recently, a few years ago, but then one previously. And so there's no viable pharmacy. It's in the neighborhood. And so I wanted to invite Mr. Larry McClendon. If he could just say a few words about it. I think it's important to get this information out to the community about these positive things that are going on at Baby Hunter's Point.

Absolutely. Larry McClendon. I'm with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. Thank you, Madam Chair Scott and OCII commissioners for allowing me to brief you on the pharmacy. I'm excited to see what we're doing. I've been with OEWD for 10 years. Alongside the mayor's office and OEWD, we funded nine new businesses who are coming to Third Street to bring vibrancy, fill vacancies, and fill gaps. And the one I'm most excited about is the District 10 pharmacy. This District 10 pharmacy is designed to be a neighborhood pharmacy that really caters to the seniors and the most vulnerable. It was an accident that we landed in walk-a-distance of three different senior housing units. The location is 5668 3rd Street, two blocks away from the George Davis Senior Center. It sits below the Armstrong Senior Center Senior Housing Living and right across the street from another bridge on senior living units. And so this was very intentional on our end. OEWD and the mayor's office was happy to award $100,000 to the George Davis Senior Center. They will be running the pharmacy, which I'm super excited about, because it's a nonprofit that supports clients of and within age, it is probably no surprise, but it should be a surprise, that most of the chronic diseases are codified in 94124. And that is something that we're trying to solve in many different ways. Since the pharmacy closed at the Walgreens located on Williams two years ago, our office has been working on a solution. And through and over the two years, after seeking multiple different partnerships with other departments, we landed on the best way to make something sustainable is to put it in the hands of people who are deeply connected to community and the clients that they serve. And the George Davis Senior Center was the perfect client. I will also be happy to report that I personally dropped off their check, so they have the money to start build out. And then build out will start August 1 of the pharmacy. And I want to shout out Kathy Davis, who's the executive director of the George Davis Senior Center. And then Joffrea Morris, who is the lead from the George Davis Senior Center on building out the pharmacy. This process is going to happen fast. Community deserves for economic development to be felt through different changes. And this is filling a tremendous gap. So thank you, director, for giving me the space to update the commission. I'm happy to report that there's a lot of movement around this. We've been getting a lot of feedback inquiries from media. So I think it was the right call to make sure that this commission got the information directly from OEWD. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Larry. And if I could just close with, this is not one of our projects now, but this was one of the projects that we had done many years ago. We're not funding this, but the city's sort of broader work in revitalizing and improving and having the vibrancy of Bayview be illuminated. I want to also acknowledge Commissioner Shaddix. His organization several years ago had started the restoration of what was a vacant site at the time. And he's not involved now with it, but I just wanted to highlight his early work just to stabilize that particular block, which is adjacent to two of the senior developments we had completed many years ago. So thank you, OEWD, for your partnership, and Larry, for your great work all these years.

Absolutely. And economic development on 3rd is involved. I don't want to, it's always involved in the development and opening up spaces. So I also thank EDOT and Commissioner Shaddix on his commitment to 3rd Street. It's unmatched. I'm saying that as a real effort, it's unmatched to the commitment to what we do in economic development. So I appreciate you.

Thank you. Any questions? I have a question.

I don't.

I have a question. Will this be Let's see, over-the-counter meds and things that are needed are just only prescription?

There's going to be both. So we will be filling prescriptions. I said we. It's not mine. It's George Davidson. But I've been in it. So I feel a lot of ownership over it. The pharmacy will be filling the prescriptions. Pharmacist Partner has a database of all the prescriptions that are filled in the actual neighborhood and within the city and county of San Francisco. They will carry all of the medications that are prescribed on a regular basis. They will also be doing health education. They have a future plan on doing a food pharmacy element where combating medical with food. So when I say neighborhood, community, pharmacy, it is catered and centered around what people actually need. When you think of a health care, it's just not filling prescriptions, but really meeting the needs for the folks who live there.

It's an answer to prayer. Oh, my god. I cannot believe it. This is wonderful. Amazing.

Thank you very much. Any other questions?

Commissioner Shaddocks. Sorry, I just wanted to jump in real quick. It's your time. But if I had known you were going to speak today, Larry, I would have brought a picture of you and I in shorts and flip flops and masks because it was COVID hard time and big time COVID going through those spaces, figuring out what we were going to do with those measuring, just looking and seeing what conditions those spots were in. So that 10 years later, here we are, all of us. And so your work needs to be shouted out big time. And I've had a front row seat to your decade of work on Third Street. Our work. Our work. I've had a front row seat. And you've done incredible work. And so I wanted to thank you in this public format that you're an incredible person. And we're happy to have you on Third Street.

Appreciate you.

Your presence is amazing. And it's meeting a hardship. It's been difficult, even for myself. I live there. And to have to travel across town and just so much. And then they say they don't carry it. And then you go to another pharmacy. They sent it to another pharmacy because we're new to them. So this is going to really solve a hardship. It's going to help with it. I hope we can open another. Because all our pharmacies, when we had two good ones, They were packed.

Yep.

And there were always long lines, long lines. And that was hard, especially when you were sick. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you for this news.

No problem. Thank you so much. Thank you, Larry. Thank you for sharing your time with me.

Of course. Thank you so much. Commissioner, if I may, I have some other items in the report that were agendized I'd like to share. go through so The next item will be presented by Ben But it's a an advertising by advertising a contracting opportunity for maintenance of a small OCI owned open space parcel it's a sloped section of Essex Street near Folsom near one of our affordable housing sites and And the long-term plan for this small piece of property is for it to transfer to the city for long-term usage as part of some of their bike improvements, perhaps some of them coming from the Bay Bridge itself. And Ben Brandon is here, the Transbay project manager, to talk about it. Thank you.

BEN BENDEN- Good afternoon, Chair Dr. Scott, Vice Chair Miller, commissioners, and thank you for the introduction, Director Kozlowski. Again, I'm Ben Brandon, the Transbay Project Manager, and I'll be providing an overview of a request for proposals that we intend to release for the maintenance of the Essex Street hillside property that OCII owns and manages. The Essex Hillside is an approximately 10,600 square foot area of vacant land that was a formerly state-owned parcel transferred to OCII, herein referred to as the property. The property was transferred to OCII following the adoption of the Transbay Redevelopment Plan. It is situated in the southwestern portion of Zone 1 of the Transbay project area and is shown here as the orange parcel outlined in red. More specifically, the property is located adjacent to the southern property line of the OCII-sponsored René Cazenave Affordable Housing Development. It is west of Guy Place, east of Essex Street, and north of Lansing Street. As you can see, the property abuts the East Cut Community Garden, which has been in operation since mid-2021. The community garden sits between René Cazenave and the Hillside Open Space. OCII is responsible for monitoring and maintaining the property and has hired qualified contractors to provide these services. The personal services contract with the existing contractor, Forrester and Kroger Landscape Maintenance Incorporated, expires January 31st of next year, and therefore staff plans to issue this new request for proposals for monitoring and maintenance of the property. In accordance with the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Streetscape and Open Space Concept Plan, the property has been designated for future park use. The property is required for the City and County of San Francisco and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Skyway Project's off-ramp landing site. The Bay Skyway project is the Bay Bridge western span bicycle path that would enable cyclists to traverse San Francisco Bay by bike, but the project is delayed due to its dependence on non-OCII future funding. Until the Bay Skyway project is ready to proceed or OCII transfers the property to the city, whichever occurs first, OCII is responsible for its maintenance. Consequently, we hire qualified contractors to manage the property on our behalf. Again, the current contractor with Forrester and Kroger expires next year.

Here's a picture of the property.

The hillside is planted with wild grasses, brush, and trees. The wild grasses, brush, and branches from the trees located on the property at times will overhang Guy Place, and therefore they need to be maintained. Also, due to the property's publicly accessible location, the site needs to be monitored for litter, graffiti, and any encampments. Here are two additional photos of the Essex hillside. The first is taken from the top of the hill by Guy Place, and it's looking toward the Essex and Folsom Street intersection. The second picture is taken from the bottom of the Lansing Street stairs, which are on the hillside, and it's looking up towards Guy Place. The monitoring and maintenance services of the property include grass and weed cutting, weekly inspections for trash, graffiti, and illegally dumped items, weekly trash removal, and periodic tree trimming. To alert contractors about this opportunity, staff will outreach directly to local business enterprises, notifying them about the RFP. We will also announce the RFP's release at each of our Redevelopment Project Area Citizens Advisory Committees. And finally, we will be sure to inform the Hyper Local Contractors Association and African American Contractors Collective about this opportunity. We intend to release this RFP in mid-August, and the deadline for contractors to respond is mid-September. We plan to make our contractor selection in mid-October, after which we will begin negotiating a new services contract with the selected firm. That services contract will need to come before this body for approval consideration before Forrester & Kroger's existing contract expires next January. This concludes my overview presentation of the Essex Maintenance Request for Proposals. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about the RFP or the property itself. Thank you very much. One last point. If you're curious about the Bay Skyway project that I mentioned during the presentation, I do have two pictures to put it in context for you if you want to see that. So just let me know. Thank you.

Madam Secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide a comment for item 8A?

If there are any members of the public wishing to comment on this item, please call 415-655-0001. Enter access code 2663-528-7582, followed by the pound or number sign, then the pound sign again to enter the call. Press star 3 to be placed in the queue. For any members who attended in person and would like to provide public comment, you may come up to the podium at this time. Seeing no members of the public wishing to comment in person, moving over to our remote participants. Again, if you would like to provide a comment, please press star 3. Madam Chair, we do not have any members wishing to comment on this item.

Hearing no further requests to speak on the item, I wish to close public comment for item 8A. Fellow commissioners, do you have any questions, comments, or concerns for item 8A? Commissioner Shaddix.

I do, but I just realized I had the RFP right here in front of me. I was looking at the short version. Sorry. So my other question, and only question, is does the maintenance agreement, does that include the garden there? Are you helping those folks out over there? That is a great question.

And to be clear, it does not. So the garden there is managed by the East Cut Community Benefits District. We entered into basically a property control agreement with them whereby we gave them use of that property free and clear for no charge. But they're responsible for 100% of the maintenance of the garden and its operations. So they do that completely independently funded on their own. And we just renew that agreement when their time limits are up. It was in increments of three-year periods of the renewals for use of the property. So the Essex Hillside, at one point before the community garden was there, that site where the community garden is was part of this maintenance agreement. The Forrester and Kroger contract that is currently in place, they did originally have responsibility for cleaning that area. And then when the community garden went in, we extracted that area from their area of responsibility, if that makes sense. Commissioner Shaddix.

Vice chair? Thank you, Ben. We had a great tour of that site. And I look forward to that crossing on the bay, take a bicycle across the bay. That'll be great when that eventually happens.

Did you want to see a photo of what the renderings show? Sure. Thank you. So I just brought two. This is a shot from the island, looking back towards the city. And what needs to be built, and why this thing will be so expensive, I think they're currently quoting over a billion dollars or something like that, is because they need to build a cantilevered section that will hang off the northern end of the bridge. and then traverse the entire span, right? So currently, you can ride your bike from Oakland all the way to the island, to Yerba Buena, but there's no way to get from Yerba Buena on to the city. You have to go back. So they call the Oakland section phase one, and the city and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission are currently exploring how to fund phase two, which would bring the bike path across the Bay Bridge to the landing site. Now, the second photo I have is this is the Essex Street hillside showing what their prospective landing would look like. So it would come off the Bay Bridge, and the track would wind down along the hillside to terminate on Essex. And it would directly connect to our bike paths on Folsom Street, which we installed through the Folsom Street project. And then also, you could take a bike directly into the transit center. So that's the long-term vision for being able to add cyclists who can now connect all these different transit opportunities. And so we've held the property just kind of vacant. We had once planned on developing this as part of the future under-rent park project, but because the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the city had earmarked this site as their ideal site for the Bay Bridge bike landing, we've just been asked to hold the property, continue to maintain it until they can develop it. As I said in the presentation, we may transfer the property to the city of San Francisco ahead of that project. That's still something that we're in discussions with the city about. But we maintain it up until the point of that transfer. If we do transfer it to the city, it becomes their responsibility for maintenance.

Commissioner Lam.

Question. I would like to know what's the dollar amount for this RFP?

So what we've done in the past, and the way that I'll frame this is we release an RFP, and we have all of the respondents come in with a proposed budget. The current budget right now for Forrester and Kroger, they bill the agency about $2,600 a month for their services. And then there's a $43,000 contingency that's on top of that that is over the life of their three-year contract. I see. So what we'll do is when they respond to the RFP, they'll all provide a budget. We'll look at that budget, and it will be weighed against all of the other criteria that we're looking at to identify the scoring and who is the optimal firm.

Have they thought about a double-decker? Oh, Commissioner Lamb? Did you have further questions, Commissioner Lim?

No. He doesn't have any questions.

But that was a part of my question. Had you thought about or have the designers or whoever does the architect thought about the double-decker bike?

So just to be absolutely clear, OCII has no involvement with that project. I'm being explicit. And that's why I said in my presentation that this project is dependent on non-OCII money.

We have nothing to do with it. Further, I don't think the design has advanced. So I don't believe the design has advanced very far. So Chair Scott, if there's an open house, I'll make sure you get the information so you can go give your design input. It'll be the Chair Scott double-decker design.

I would echo what Chair or Executive Director Kozlowski just said. I think this is their concept design, and it has not been advanced far because they have to secure money to do all of that. Any other questions about the RFP, though?

Okay. Anyone else? Commissioners? All right.

Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Director Keselowski, would you continue?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We do have one other item, and that would be then the end of the director's report. The next item is a advertisement for development opportunity. It's a big deal because it's in Candlestick. Candlestick is restarting. You're familiar with all those approvals we've provided over the past. two years. This is the first 100% affordable project since the restart that we are planning. It's at a site that's across the street from Gilman Park, if you're familiar with that area. Gilman Park is at the intersection of Aurelius Walker and Gilman. And I'm going to leave it all to Channing Jackson, who's going to explain to you. Channing is in OCEI's housing division. Channing.

All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Dr. Scott, Vice Chair Miller, and commissioners. My name is Channing Jackson. I am the Assistant Development Specialist with OCII, and we saved the best for last. Today, I'll be presenting the request for proposal, our RFP, for the development of Candlestick Point North Block 7, also referred to as CPN7, an affordable housing opportunity within the Candlestick Point Redevelopment Project area. Before discussing the project itself, I would like to provide some context on why this site is significant. CPN 7 is one of two affordable housing sites within Major Phase 2 that has been designated for OCII-sponsored affordable housing. While it was not originally included in the Major Phase 2, it was later incorporated through the approved development entitlements for the area. creating an opportunity to deliver additional affordable housing as part of this phase of redevelopment. The goal is to develop approximately 100 permanent affordable homes for families, although the current Zoning would only allow for roughly 60 units. Staff is recommending rezoning the site because we feel, through some research, that we can comfortably accommodate approximately 100 units. This approach would maximize the number of affordable homes while also improving the project's overall financial feasibility. The project would prioritize preference holders, primarily households displaced through redevelopment in the Hunters Point community, while also serving other low-income families in San Francisco. Overall, CPN-7 represents an important step towards expanding affordable housing opportunities within the Bayview Hunters Point. Before focusing primarily on CPN 7, I'd like to step back and provide some broader context on the overall candlestick point redevelopment. At full build out, the candlestick point redevelopment will deliver more than 7,000 new homes, approximately 3 million square feet of commercial space, 16 acres of new parks and open space, along with community and cultural facilities, and a new network of streets and utilities across seven major phases. This is one of the city's largest redevelopment efforts and represents a long-term investment in creating a vibrant and mixed-income neighborhood with housing, jobs, open space, and community amenities. Today's item focused on one important piece of the larger vision, one of OCII's sponsored affordable housing opportunities within the next phase of development. The next phase of redevelopment in major phase two will deliver more than 675 homes, including 41% below market rate housing, along with 750,000 square feet of commercial spaces. Just as importantly, this phase includes the backbone of infrastructure, including new streets, utilities, and public improvements that will unlock future development across the remainder of the Candlestick Park site. point site on june 16th the board of supervisors approved the major phase two final map establishing the development lots public right-of-ways utility easements needed to move the phase forward the city is currently completing its final review of most permit sets with infrastructure construction estimated to begin later this year. Vertical construction of buildings will follow once infrastructure is complete. As shown on the map, the two parcels identified in the blue stars are OCII-sponsored affordable housing sites The first would be CPS11A, which has already been approved and is designed for 178 affordable homes. The second one, which would be CPN7, the project before you today. Through this RFP, OCI is seeking qualified development partners to design, finance, and construct a new affordable housing development on this site. CPN is approximately 0.8 acre site located at Bill Wash Way, recently renamed Giant's Drive, at the planned extension of Ingersen Avenue and Aurelius Walker Drive. The site is centrally located within major phase two and is well positioned to support a family-oriented affordable housing development that will have access to future neighborhood amenities, transit connection, parks, and commercial uses as redevelopment continues. The RFP requires applicants to assemble a development team with the expertise needed to successfully deliver the project. The affordable housing developer will serve as the lead entity responsible for financing, development, and overall project delivery. Applicants must also identify a community partner that will support community engagement and resident outreach throughout the development process. and may also serve as a co-developer and our service provider. The team will also include a lead architect, a property management firm, and a workforce and contracting action plan lead responsible for maximizing local hiring, small business enterprise participation. Together, these team members will ensure the project is financially feasible, community focused, and successfully delivered. The RFP seeks proposals for a high quality affordable housing development serving preference holders with certificate of preference and low income families. Staff recommends a project of approximately 100 rental units. The development should primarily consist of one, two, and three bedroom apartments with a limited number of larger four and five bedroom units to accommodate larger families. The overall unit mix must average at least 2.5 bedrooms per unit. Affordable units would serve households earning up to 6% of area medium income with an overall average of affordability at or below 50% AMI. Applicants should assume a parking ratio between 0.6 and 0.8 spaces per unit, along with bicycle parking per unit. Staff believe this project strikes an appropriate balance between maximizing affordable housing while maintaining feasibility and well-designed project. Proposals will be evaluated using criteria that reflects OCI's priorities for delivering successful affordable housing development. Staff will evaluate the overall quality of the housing proposal, the strength of the community partnership, financial feasibility, and the development team's experience delivering comparable affordable housing projects. Applicants will also be evaluated on their plans to workforce development, local hiring, small business enterprise participation, as well as a long-term strategies of property management and stewardship. These criterias are intended to ensure the selected development has both the technical expertise and community commitment necessary for project delivery. And we plan to release the RFP on Thursday, July 23. A pre-submittal meeting will be held on August 19, and proposals will be due on October 8. Following proposal submission, staff and the evaluation panel will review and score applications and conduct interviews and provide a recommendation to the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizen Advisory Committee. and as well as OCII executive director. Staff anticipates returning to the commission later this year with a recommendation to enter an exclusive negotiation agreement and approve a pre-development loan with construction currently anticipated to occur between 2029 and 2031. This concludes my presentation, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Channing. Madam Secretary, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to provide question, comment, or concern on item 8B?

If there are any members of the public wishing to comment on 8B, please call 415-655-0001, enter access code 26635287582, followed by the pound sign, then the pound sign again to enter the call. Please press star 3 to be placed in the queue. Inviting any members of the public who are here in person who would like to provide a comment to come up to the podium at this time. Seeing no members in person who wishes to provide a comment, there's also no members of the public remotely participating who wishes to comment. Madam Chair.

Hearing no further requests to speak on the item, I will close public comment for item 8B, commissioners. Fellow commissioners, do you have any questions, comments, or concerns? Vice Chair Miller.

Thank you, Chani and staff. This is great news to see movement at Candlestick. No, that's okay. I just want to thank you for the efforts to get this moving.

It's an exciting time. And Commissioner Shaddix?

Where is Channing? There you are. Channing, thank you so much. Director Kozlowski, I'm stuck on the income and restrictions. Can you walk me through that just real quick? Just give me the dollar amounts if I can. So up to a maximum of 60% MOHCD area medium income, provided that the average AMI of all affordable units is at or below 50% AMI. I'm just trying to translate that sentence.

So it can go as low as to 30%. So we know that we don't have at the time, once a developer is selected, we will encourage them to go out for subsidies so that it can go below the 30%. But at this time, what we have scheduled here is going at least from 30% to 60% AMI.

Commissioner, is your question what are the incomes in those ranges?

Yeah, if it was a dollar amount, and I got what she was saying, but if it was a dollar amount.

Yeah, so you perhaps saw in, we have a table to show you, but you perhaps saw the construction schedule. It'll be the incomes around that time. It's a future income. So what you're looking at, Channing's about to go through with you, is just today's AMI levels. So that will give you some sense, but just know it's not these exact amounts.

Oh, OK. Was that to come and I jumped the gun here? Sorry. No, no.

That was a great question. I wanted to be able to go there. If the question came up, I wanted to be prepared to answer it. So if you look here on the site, so if a family of four is applying what today's AMIs are, they could make at least $81,000 to qualify for the house. for the building as of today as of today but it looks like with the well never you never know okay that that question yeah and so that's why we once a developer is recommended and and selected we are highly encouraged them to for a deeper affordability is to go for additional subsidies like project-based vouchers if if some are available that makes for deeper affordability

OK, sorry, I get so caught up in the numbers. And then just a last comment, that parking ratio. That was my comment. It's going to be tough. That's why they hire smart people like you. Yes.

So the range is 0.6, 0.8 is some of the highest in most of our projects. And so we're trying to really put the estimate out there to our developers that we want to see. parking and at the ratio in between 0.6 and 0.8 spaces per unit.

Yeah. Vice Chair Miller. OK. Channing, I cannot thank you enough for your presentation. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Thank you. But you just did an excellent job with laying this out. I'm just grateful because I get tons of calls for families. We don't have a like 50 years ago, families with six and eight and 10 kids. But we do still have some that are looking for housing, affordable housing, that will at least have four to five bedrooms. And it's a deep need. It's a deep need to see this. And you said limited number, but do you know about how many four or five bedrooms?

That's a great question. Dr. Scott, we are, one of the things, once a developer is selected and recommended, we will be able to walk through the design and see what the actual need is. But we do plan to have a certain amount of four and five bedrooms within the project.

And then as you were just speaking on the parking, that's so huge. It's like they... grab the apartment because they want to be housed. They need a roof over their head. But the problem is they get $300 a month for ticket fines because of parking. And they've got to go to work. They can't take the car to work. There's no parking downtown. And because the car is sitting there, they get these tickets. So here they are again. tossing, do we buy food or do I pay the tickets? If I don't pay the tickets, the car is taken away. Then I can't drop the kids off or pick them up. So this is something that we're hard pressed with. And I hope we can come up with better solutions with our parking and allow at least one car for a family. When I go into other areas and there is a parking garage and the housing and the people are happy, it's like, why can't we do this in our communities? And that's the question that's being asked in our meetings. and town hall meetings. So I'm hoping that something can be done to really consider giving parking. It's just as important as the housing. and to take away food from the table. And thank God there's the Kathy Davis and Rafiki that's giving out good, fresh food. But how long will that last? And can they get to them without a car and carry this back to their homes? So I think we need to really do some sitting, thinking, and designing in a way where we can, even if it doesn't include a couple of units, they need that parking just as bad. So I'm hoping we can do more of this instead of We've got your house, get you in there, and no parking. And it creates a lot of depression, a lot of depression. So thank you so much for that. Thank you, Channing, for your presentation. Look forward to hearing more from you. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners, that concludes the director's report.

Just one quick comment. Please, go ahead. I just want to say thank you for this presentation. This is officially my first project that I'm going to start off from the early on. So I look forward to going through this with all of you and learning. And thank you for all this.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, please call the next item.

The next order of business is item nine, commissioners' questions and matters. Madam Chair.

Commissioners, do you have any questions, matters that you would like to discuss, bring up? Any concerns? Okay. Madam Secretary, if there are no questions, comments, or concerns, please call the next item.

The next order of business is item 10, closed session. There are no closed session items. The next order of business is item 11, adjournment. Madam Chair.

Commissioners, make a motion, please. I'll make a motion. And a second. I'll second. Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much.