before the warriors even thought about coming here and i was here when you had a black man, jim jepson was the head until he passed away. if it wasn't for jim jefferson being involved with mission bay and jim jefferson being involved in the fillmore and hunters point, we wouldn't have nobody involved in the projects. it's a new day. it's a new era and i don't have time for errors. until this agency lives up to its obligations in the western edition, i am moving forward with filing and getting a group of lawyer with an injunction to stop what is going on in san francisco. even a blind man, stevie wonder who see you are out of compliance. i'm not saying y'all personally. you look different up there, but it does not portray what is

going on out here. now, i hadn't talked to the president, but i was hoping and praying when we request to come before you all to make our presentation about what is going on here, you will have a different perspective. i'm here to speak on public comment, but i would be remiss if i didn't say what i had to say and what i feel and maybe get up to tell you all. it ain't over, it's just a new beginning. >> thank you. do we have any further public comment on this item? >> no other speaker cards. >> oh, one more. two more. [ inaudible ] >> oscar james. i might have put the wrong number down because i put "a" but i wanted to speak on this item. sorry about that. that was my mistake. oscar james again. i'm in support of the warriors coming back home.

i remember when the warriors were at the kezar stadium and the western edition at that time really benefited from it, even though the city would not build a new stadium for them at that particular time, the reason why they moved to oakland, but i'm glad to see them come back home, even though i may not be able to afford a ticket to see a game. i would like two things for this commission to do and for the warriors to do. try to make it possible for some of these grammar schools and junior high schools and high schools to participate in maybe a free day for them to go to a warrior's game. because that may be the only opportunity that they will have for go to a warriors' game. i think any program, project that comes into our city, where young people from these schools can benefit from going to at least to one game or one visit at a museum or anything, we

should look to make those possibilities a reality for them. the other thing that i wanted to say about the warriors or anybody else coming into mission bay. before it was any housing down there that was a redevelopment -- that was model cities area and always a part of bayview-hunters point and potrero hill and we were affected by that and with the new development coming in, i don't know what kind of boundaris that they came up with. but bayview-hunters point is still going to be a part of that. mission bay or anybody else, they jump on the bandwagon of bayview-hunters point and we suffered and had that project, with the shipyard and bethlehem

steel and all of that, our community was fighting for that. when they had the trucking companies coming down where that site is, where the old tick-tock -- i don't know if you remember the old tick-tock, by the bridge, all of that was bayview-hunters point area. so when you start thinking about community, small businesses, you think of bayview-hunters point, as well as mission bay. i am worried about my community. thank you very much. >> chester williams. >> thank you, commissioners. chester williams, i represent a program in the bayview called hp unity, a group of men who are focusing on the very issues of one of our members oscar james has just brought up. i will be very short. i had the privilege in my

freshman year of college for working for the golden state warrior and i have a lot of history what the team was about when wilt the stilt chamberlain was on it. as you plan and focus on this major design package that you hope to make san francisco that city that is almost a sports complex, which seems to be the new instinct now. you have to remember that everyone -- there should be an open diversity that everyone in the community has a way of being part of that, not just certain people in that community. we know that the focus particularly among african-americans that don't seem to have the experience to be able to work with people in a social area. people that are able to know how to use customer service, or how to deal with the public. a lot of our kids don't have

that, and they need to be able to learn those skills to be able to move further ahead. so i'm hoping that you kind of keep the needs of the low-income in mind as you focus on building new businesses, and bringing these kinds of things to the table in the next generation. because eventually, it will continue to have people like ace washington on your back because he will feel he is not being a part of that. and that has got to be something that you have to keep in mind. you can't just look at the big money that is coming in. magic has a big deal with billion-dollar partners that deal is probably going to call through. i called a buddy in l.a., an attorney who said it's a done deal and to push it through. you as a commission have to understand the needs of low-income people that are coming into the community. thank you very much. >> thank you,. do we have any further speaker

cards? any other public comment? thank you very much. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 5a, adopting environmental review findings pursuant to the california environment quality act and one, conditionally approving a memorandum of understanding with the regents of the university of california, a california public corporation. 2 conditionally approving a 5th amendment to the mission bay sales owner participant with focil-mb, a declare limited liability corporation and 3, approval of a lease agreement and covenant regarding asupposition of the mission bay south owner participation agreement with the regents of the university of california, a california public corporation and bay jacaranda no. 3334 llc, a delaware limited liability corporation related to the recent purchase of blocks 33

and 34, bonded by 16th street to the north, illinois street to the east, mar mariposa to the south and 3rd street to the west for future development of up to 500,000 square feet mission bay south redevelopment project area. >> thank you commissioners and thank you to the public who continue to join us. this is another proposed acquisition of property currently owned by salesforce.com a bay jacaranda is a subsidiary of sales force. they are proposing, because they are proposing to expand in part because mission bay is so successful. the work that has taken place to create the sense of community, affordable housing,

the infrastructure, all of the benefits, a key component of not just mission bay, but the city as a whole, the no. 2 employer in the city and county of san francisco, right behind the city. so we are pleased to see them continue to expand. however, in order to effectuate that, you see there are a number of series of documents proposed for your consideration; that would effectuate that proposed transaction, and, in fact allow us to complete this affordable housing and infrastructure program that is part and parcel for mission bay and i would like to ask christian maher, a real estate specialist in our division to work you through the item. >> thank you, director bohee. the items for you for

consideration are a memorandum of understanding a 5th amendment to the mission bay south owner participation agreement and release agreement. each of these documents relates to the planned acquisition of blocks 33 and 34 by ucsf for expansion of its reserve campus and necessitated by the university's exemption of a state agency for local land regulations and property taxes. before getting into the details of the transaction, i would like to give you a brief overview of the items that i will cover in the presentation this afternoon. i will start with background on the site, ucsf and the documents that govern development of the site, followed by discussion of the main terms of the proposed agreements; the findings of benefits that we are required to make under redevelopment law, environmental review and conclusion and next steps.

blocks 33 and 34 as director bohee mention ready currently owned by an affiliate of salesforce.com and comprise 3.8 acre sites. as you can see it here on the map bonded by 16th street to the north, illinois to the east, mariposa to the south and 3rd to the west. this allows for wide variety of uses including office, retail, laboratory and manufacturing. medical clinicks are permitted as a secondary use if certain criteria are met. blocks 33 and 34 are subject to a pilot agreement, which was recorded against the property in 2010 by fockil. >> excuse me, christine can you make sure to speak into the microphone.

>> sure. >> thanks. >> the purpose of the second opa amendment was to prohibit the transfer in mission bay south of property to a tax exempt entity without obtaining agreement from the entity in payment equal to the full amount of taxes that would have otherwise been assessed or obtain written consent of oci, if such an agreement was not going to be in place. the existing pilot agreement that is recorded against the property satisfies this prohibition by requiring any tax exempt entity such as uc to make certain payments in lieu of property taxs to ccii. now some background on ucsf, which is a leading medical teaching and clinical institution and the second largest employer in san

francisco. ucsf is exempt under the state constitution from local planning, zoning and redevelopment in furtherance of its educational purposes. it is is also exempt from paying local property taxes. as you also know ucsf already has a very strong presence in mission bay south. the city and master developer, donated 43 acres for its research campus and in 2005 ucsf acquired new property in the south for the new medical center. we'll refer to the map. on the map you can see the relationship of blocks 33 and 34, to the medical center, as well as the campusing. ucsf is now in discussions to purchase blocks 33 and 34 to expand the campus site. this will allow uc to consolidate some of its operations by relocating from other remote areas located

within the city. next uc has proposed development program and the purchases of blocks 33 and 34 will include the rights to construct up to 500,000 gross square feet and park spaces and one tower. ucsf has not identified the time use for blocks 33 and 34, but is generally proposing to develop with office and retail offices. ucsf will not construct secondary uses such as medical clinics without executive director approval as required by the plan and additional ceqa review as necessary. now a summary of the documents or agreements governing the sites. i'm on page 7 of the

presentation. blocks 33 and 34 as we mention ready subject to the south redevelopment plan, as well as the south opa and the pilot agreement and all of these documents are recorded against the property and would normally remain on title when the property transfers to a new owner. ucsf has requested the ocii's release under these agreements to reflect exemptions. these obligations primarily include annual payments in lieu of taxes, our standard design review and design approval procedures and contracting local hire and workforce programs. the release has the potential to reduce the amount of tax increment generated in the south plan area, which would thereby negatively impact oci's ability to meet it's affordable housing and infrastructure obligations in the south area.

so to avoid these potential impacts ocii has negotiated the memorandum of understanding, as well as related agreements as a condition to granting release from these obligations. now i will walk through the agreements that are before you for consideration this afternoon. the first of these is the mou between ocii and the uc regents. the mou contains the terms under which ocii would release uc from certain obligations under the south plan, the opa and the pilot agreement. some of the key terms of the mou first, the affordable housing payment. this is a one-time lump-sum payment from ucsf to ocii of $10.2 million for the construction of affordable housing. ocii hired alh to conduct an

independent analysis of the tax increment that would normally be generated by proposed development through 2023. alh's scope included a similar analysis and key assumptions used in the analysis and independent calculation of the estimated net present value or npv of the tax increment that would have been generated. the result of this analysis was an npv calculation of $39.8 million of total tax increment. the affordable housing payment is 25.6% of that total amount which exceeds the 20% ocii would receive if the property were developed by a taxable entity. next is the infrastructure payment. ucsf has agreed to make a

one-time lump sum payment to fockil. according to fockil, this payment is roughly equal to the il. according to focil, this payment is roughly equal to the value of the amount focil would have received if developed by a tax-paying entity. next the cfd payments, under the mou ucsf has agreed to pay the special taxes authorized by cfd no. 5, which funds the maintenance of parks and open space in mission bay south and cfd no. 6, which helps fund infrastructure costs in mission bay south. ucsf has also agreed it will develop the sites with uses that are consistent with the land uses in the south redevelopment plan. in addition, ucsf has agreed to substantially is comply with

the development development with streetscape plans and any variance will require approval by this commission. ucsf has agreed to make design presentations to this commission and ocii. finally, u ucsf has made a commitment to pay prevailing wages for all construction work. now the 5th amendment to the south opa. in order to effectuate certain provisions of this mou, ocii and focil need to enter into this 5th amendment, consenting

the transfer of blocks 33 and 34 by the current owner to ucsf subject to the requirements being met. ocii and focil will release the current owner pertaining to blocks 33 and 34 conditions upon receipt of the affordable housing payment and the infrastructure payment and execution of the mou and focil's separate infrastructure agreement. and finally the release agreement. ocii, the current owner and uc must enter in into the propose adgreement, agreeing supposed the effects of the south redevelopment plan, south opa and related development.

providing all of these documents will actually spring back into place if block 33 and 34 are no longer used for the educational purposes. under redevelopment dissolution lou amendments to enforcible obligations in this case the south opa are permitted only if the amendments would be in the best interest of the taxing entities. the acquisition and development of blocks 33 and 34 will provide significant public benefits to ocii, the city and the other taxing agencies. including the affordable housing payment that we just discussed, the payment actually exceeds the amount of tax increment that otherwise would have been generated and this in turn reduces the need for tax increment funds for the production of affordable housing in mission bay south. it also provides immediately available funds for the production of affordable housing and infrastructure as

opposed to payments over time. this will accelerate the completion of development and the related enforceable obligations and likely result in consolidation from remote locations in the city. these properties could potentially return to the city's tax rolls and generate new general fund revenue for the city and other taxing entities. these agreements do not propose any new capital expenditures by ocii or any change in ocii's method in financing the redevelopment of mission bay south. >> excuse me? can you talk up a little bit closer to the speaker? >> next, the citizens advisory committee. a presentation was made to the cac on march 13th. the cac was in support of the acquisition. and asked it be involved with the diagnose of design of the

project as it moves forward. now on to ceqa findings 1998 a final environmental impact report. staff has reviewed all of the agreements and therefore, no additional environmental review is needed that the time. the commission's approval of all of these agreements will be conditioned on subsequent approval by both the board of supervisors, the over sight board and ultimately the department of finance. the city's consent to transfer to uc f without a pilot agreement in place will be considered tomorrow by the

budget and finance committee followed by the board of supervisors in may, the mou, the 5th amendment and release agreement will be considered by the board of supervisors acting as a legislative body of ocii since the affordable housing provisions of these agreements are considered a material change to the mission bay affordable housing program. the 5th amendment will then be presented to the oversight board for approval in may, after which it will be referred to the department of finance for approval. once all of these approvals will have taken place, the regents have until october, 2014 to close escrow and make the affordable housing and infrastructure payments and after that from our perspective is the review of the exterior design and overall site plan by ocii, as well as the community. that concludes the presentation. there is a number of people in the audience who have representatives from ucsf, representatives from focil and

amy herman from alh, as well as others to answer any questions that you have about the transaction. >> thank you very much, public comment on this item? first speaker. >> there seems to be a kind of coming together here. karyn woods, chair of the mission bay cac and also a member of the ucsf community advisory group. so i can't get away from this stuff. [laughter ] the mission bay cac is very supportive of this proposal. we feel that the in-lieu payments are very good for mission bay they will

jump-start some of our affordable housing, and infrastructure development. i'm sure that both the mission bay cac and the ucsf citizens advisory committee will be involved in looking at design as this moves forward and i'm sure that ucsf will be involved in our transportation planning as we move forward and things really start coming together in mission bay. again, the cac welcomes your commission's involvement in this community outreach process and hope to see you at our meetings. >> ace washington. >> ladies and gentlemen i'm here clearly to show a parallel of the mission bay compared to the western edition. in your forward agenda, i will

speak about the leasing situation with yoshi coming up here. let me talk about this mission bay situation, just to give you a little historical. the cacs in this city were created by willie brown, okay? i am going to tell you when it started to take place the most powerful organization by the federal government to fight against the redevelopment agency, waapac and i'm on the straight and narrow road to show how we have been divided and how there is disparity in race in our community. now mission bay, you have all of these other communities that come up with the cacs that were put together by willie brown. now me and another brother that i know, randal edwards were fighting hard to get some recognition for the wapac that

we reinvented, but the city and county didn't want that organization involved. so the clever willie brown put together the cacks that are basically in my opinion, just basically rubber-stamped -- excuse me, rubber stamped for these developers and their intention was to look out for the community. i was at a ribbon-cutting when pelosi the definition of community is "unity." there has been disparity and cronyism and conspiracy. you say ace, why are you showing the parallel? the parallel is to show there was something put together by somebody who controls this city, which i feel is willie brown that put something

together to be in touch with each and every development in the city and county and san francisco and somebody has put the cap on the western edition and say don't worry about that. the western edition is mine and when i want it to be revealed, i will. that is what my assumptions and beliefs and studies show that mr. willie brown jr., the man has a bridge named after him is controlling the western edition. that is why we don't have any cac and we don't have cbd or merchant's association and that is why we don't have jack frost in the western edition. i'm just going tell you, because in my story, i am going to name the names and show the cases that ace has been doing. >> roscoe james

>> good afternoon, my name is oscar james. ucsf. to me it's one of the best medical facilities in california. i was born there 67 years ago and i wasn't supposed to live. i support them 100%. things i'm asking for, i know you can't force them to do, but i would like them to come up with a scholarship for some of the young people in our community, who want to go into the medical field. i also would like for them to recognize the certificate of preference when they do build these houses that the certificate of preference from the redevelopment agency be honored. and that is about it. i think they are doing a tremendous job. i like what they