>> 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 are doing.

but we need to have more people from bayview-hunters point, as well as mission bay, as well as potrero hill being hired more. i know the city has a new memorandum of understanding. we have a memorandum of understanding; that is a grandfather clause from 1970. which guarantees 50% community, 35% contractors, and we want that memorandum of understanding upheld with mission bay and any other project on the side of 280 to 101. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. okay so i would like to open up for questions for fellow commissioners? i know i have a couple. okay, i will start. so

i guess generally speaking i want to start with a couple of things about ucsf's mission and how they interplay with development. i think in theory i get it, when we talk about the spring-back provisions, and the sort of maintenance of the property for the mission of ucsf. but it starts to get a little bit fuzzy for me, when i was reading when would be the line over which we would determine that a use for the property wasn't part of ucsf's educational mission? they are such a large institution and do so many things that there are many potential educational uses that someone from the outside could look and say that is actually a

business, or some other type of entity. and so i guess i know that the plan hasn't been hatched yet for what the space will be used for, but i was wondering if someone could talk you alittle bit about what are the bounds on what an educational mission use look like. >> christian maher development specialist. if you don't mind, i would like lara yamyoshi would be better able to answer that question. >> thank you. commissioners lara yamyoshi vice chancellor. the state constitution defines the university's as teaching

and public service and the clinical care that it provides as part of its public service mission. as you know, we teach students and trainees in our professional schools and our educational programs are part of our mission. we also train residents and post graduates in our post-professional degree programs. in addition, we perform research, and our activities both in the laboratory environment, as well as in an office desktop environment are part of our mission. and then further that involves partnerships with other organizations and entities with whom we do research. but we are limited by how much of our space we can make

available to those other entities. particularly if they are for-profit entities. in addition, we provide patient care both in the inpatient setting and outpatient setting. and at mission bay, we would be providing such patient care both on our medical center site and we have outpatient clinics on the land north of 16th street where we'll be continuing to see patients and a possibility that we may have a clinic on the blocks 33-34 site as christian maher indicated that use would not be allowed without a secondary use finding by your executive director. so that is generally the parameters of our mission

as we anticipate performing it on this site. >> thank you very much. so i guess then my next question is about the space itself and then i have a couple more, but i will make sure anyone else wants to speak. about the office space itself, i understand there was one tower that is zoned in our documents for 160'. the podium building. in the analysis of tax increments it was split in two spaces, 275,000, 225,000 square feet and i was wondering does that still translate to their being only one tower? it was just a little confusing

to me. >> the analysis was done by alh urban economics and we didn't take into account building types in that analysis. we just looked at the amount, the 500,000 gross square feet that was being purchased from sales force and that was plugged into the analysis. there are obviously many different ways it could have been broken up, but the phasing that you see is what was provided by ucsf as expected what they could do on that site. >> i guess it does make a difference. one just for thinking about what the design will look like? that is later. and second, in the analysis the phasing is sort of -- they use the numbers that they came up

with their analysis per square foot on the analysis for the phasing and they put it out across like five or six years in their present value calculation for increment. so it kind of does make a difference. it's kind of material. it's millions of dollars. so i guess my question is then maybe it's for alh what were their assumptions there or maybe it's for ucsf, why was that the assumption that was passed to them? maybe ucsf. i will make it easy for people. >> commissioners, so we don't know exactly how we're planning to develop this site. but what we purchased from sales force was the right to develop one tower up to 160'

limited to a 20,000 square feet floor plate above the podium level. so it is our intent to develop the site with that in mind -- under those parameters. with respect to the phasing, we developed assumptions about development on the site with the intent of locate ing some of our activities that for example are now in leases that are expiring in the 2018ish timeframe, 2017-2018 timeframe and that it would accommodate some of those leases. that is where we kind of identified a timetable for the first building. we did not anticipate that we

would have the resources to develop the entire site at once. so we also looked at the major phase application that was filed by alexandria real estate equitis that anticipated two buildings on the site with a parking garage in the middle. now that with like a 300,000 square feet building on one end and 200,000 building on the other end. so we reviewed that design or at least that site plan to see if that might be something that would work for us, even without knowing exactly what we are planning to put there. with that in mind, we developed the assumptions that we gave to the city's economist, economic consultant, that is, to anticipate a phase 1 building of 275,000 gross square feet by

2017 and a phase 2 building of 225,000 gross square feet by 2022, with a garage developed by 2021. >> okay. i guess i'm just still confused -- i mean i understood what you said, but if your intent is to stick with the original plan that sales force would have it, karyn is shaking your heads -- so you are going to try to look at the design that you passed. >> yes. so you will recall that sales force had this million and a half whatever -- 2 million-square foot campus where they distributed their entitlement throughout their property. >> right. >> so for this particular

block, they had less development and more parking than what we are proposing. >> okay. >> so we are not proposing to conform to sales force's plan for this particular property, because this is separate from the other sales force property that you heard about earlier today. >> okay. thank you. that makes much more sense. commissioner ellington. >> since we are on this subject, i was a little confused on these exemptions, particularly under design review. can you talk about that a little bit more? and maybe you can include what happens if their design is outside of kind of the scope of what the area is zoned for? does that

trigger additional -- does the report say that triggers more tax increment dollars or goes back in front of the commission or how does that work? >> so as director bohee mentioned earlier on in the presentation, in mission bay, as you are familiar with, there is the standard design procedures that are in place. the major phases schematic design and all of that comes before the commission for approval. ucsf is exempt from -- as i mentioned from the local land use regulations. under this agreement though, they have agreed to comply with the redevelopment plan which controls the uses on the site. and they have also agreed, as i mentioned, to come to the commission, as well as the community to do workshops on the design.

and lastly, they have also agreed to comply with the design for development, the street scape master plan and signage master plan, which are really the documents that control what mission bay looks like. so they have agreed to comply with all of these documents. and if their design doesn't substantially display comply with those documents they would have to come before the commission for variances and make findings. >> i keep hearing the word "intent" and leaves me on edge a little bit, right? >> right. >> and i want to make sure and i'm glad that you answered my question. >> thank you. commissioner rosales. >> i had a question along those lines and thank you for that explanation. the staff memo indicates that one of the possible uses will be office and retail uses and i'm just interested in understanding if the retail

uses are kind of what compatible to what we see near the parnassus campus or talking about a different retail use? >> i will have laurie answer that, but these are all incidental to the primary educational core mission. >> i understand that. i was curious, what are we talking about when we talk retail? >> so since we need to devote most of our space and facilities to our core mission, it would not be appropriate for us to rent out our space to a destination retail tenant such as -- i don't know -- home depot or whatever. but as you know, at parnassus and at mission bay we do have smaller food operators and

tenants, as well as we have a walgreens pharmacy, for example, on our parnassus campus. so when we talk about "incidental retail," it would be primarily for the convenience of our employees, as well as for our patients and visitors. and that would represented a very small portion of the total space that we plan to develop on this site. >> thank you. >> at the same time, we do understand this agency and commission's desire to try and promote neighborhood retail whenever possible. so in our planning process, we will work closely with your staff to ensure that whatever retail we do develop is compatible with the rest of the mission bay area. >> great. thank you.

>> commissioner mondejar. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> so on your 5th opa amend it releases sales force from certain obligations of the south opa and are there any other obligations that they have released on? can you expand on that? >> i will ask kathrin riley to help me on this one. the main ones that we discuss ready being let go, but i will have kathrin answer. >> i just want to find out what other areas of obligations that are still there, that are pending? >> the short answer, they are released from everything. >> from everything? >> yes, the process that mission bay goes through you have the master developer entered into the owner

participation agreement. the opa travels with the land. so each time you sell property from starts with the master developer and in this case they sold it to alexandria real estate and the master developer retains the parks and other infrastructure. and then those development rights transfer along. so sales force is now selling to ucsf. the reason we're doing the release is that the opa states that if you are going to sell the property, you need to comply with certain obligations. and so sales force wants to make sure because we're doing the owner participation agreement and because we're allowing ucsf to be exempt from opa, and be subject to mou, sales force wants to make sure that they are covered and that they have a document that recognizes that we as an agency focil as the master developer and everyone on the same page that they are basically out of

deal. that is more a technical legal term, but the short answer that they will basically be released from everything. ucsf will take on certain obligations through the mou and the master developer retains those infrastructure, parks, other requirements that they retained when they started selling off this parcel. >> okay. through the chair, i would just add this assignment assumption release agreement is very typical -- that the way mission bay was designed and the reason we don't enter into multiple development obligations mission bay with many different affordable housing developers and through this assignment assumption release or this series of transactions in the caseof uc, as a state agency, mou, opa and release agreement from the transfer of sales force. very typical in mission bay. >> all right. a couple more

questions. i will start with the easier one first. the first one is the mitigation measures as part of the fseir process? it says that ucsf is going to do their own development and mitigation measure and then the executive director's responsibility to look at whether or not those were equivalent mitigation measures to what is in the fseir. so my question is more about process. so does the determination of equivalency, is that with the executive director or have to come to the commission? do we have to make new findings of equivalency? is that something that i just made up or should we do that?

>> i'm going to have the document being check in the background. >> you want to tell us where we are looking at? it's in the mou, section 333, mitigation measures consistent with the fseir. page 16. >> thank you. it's been a week since i have read this one. so the concept is we are relying on the mission bay eir. ucsf has not done any additional ceqa for this project, unlike their campus or the hospital. so for the commission to be able to make findings through ceqa, you need to rely on a ceqa document and you need to rely on the mission bay document with the mitigated measures.

in the future ceqa allows to you transfer out findings if they are found to be equal or better, basically. ucsf has requested -- they are in the process of doing a long range development plan eir. they are going to be looking at 33, 34 as well. and there is -- most of the mitigations that uc does in mission bay are pretty much the same or equivalent to what we do for the rest of the projects. both their original eir and the mission bay eir were completed. so the majority is similar. some like the transportation management plan where all of the private projects in mission bay are required to participate in the tma. uc has a similar process where they have their own shuttle system and they are own tma-based program, which is very successful. so this is one example where ucsf may come back to us and request that instead of participating in the

mission day tma, that they replace it with their tma. but because we don't have those findings, we weren't able to clear it as part of this approval process. we did write into it that basically you would delegate to the executive director to review the mitigation program and findings of equivalency. but also that no change could be made if it would affect the infrastructure plan. in this agreement it is written such that you would delegate to the executive director to make those findings and the thought process behind that, there will be very few that uc will come to us requesting. and the ones that they have, are the ones that we have already accepted and passed with the exist agreementwith the hospital and the campus such as their tma program. >> thank you. which leads me directly to my next question and thank you for leading it for me.

i was going to ask about the transportation demand management program that ucsf has? that is where i was going with the eir question. because that is a finding of a mitigation of transit impacts and what not. so my question is are we considering transportation infrastructure part of the infrastructure that could be impacted by the eir? let me say, what i am getting at, in the next section talks about them potentially expanding that to include the volume that would be in blocks 33 and 34 with people going there. would that inclusion of that volume and potentially an increase of transportation management program, would that impact the transit strait strait of infrastructure?

>> no. >> public transit? no. it's all separate. it would not affect the public transit and, in fact they are writing a letter of support to support the city's tep program for tiger grant to ensure additional funds for line 22 and to ensure that we have public transit in there. at this point we're looking at the private shuttle service which is privately funded, where there is basically it would be just a different connection with a shuttle service. instead of using the mission bay shuttle service and paying to them, they would expend and service this area with their sales result shuttle service, which is also open to the public. >> okay. >> again they need to prepare

findings and we need to be able to find it's as good or better. so if they come back and their findings show that switching from private tma would provide work service and would affect our ability to comply with the original ceqa, they would have to be as good or better and those are the findings that we would look at. >> last question from me, i kind of struggled with some pieces of that. i guess my main question is first on when you talk about additional development rights transfers, and if that were to occur, there is a section that says, "additional payment to the successor agency to account

for the impact of that transfer one housing program and related bonding requirements." does that payment -- is that basically saying if there were additional rights transferred to another third-party, that there would be a payment made through the agency again as compensation for loss of pilot? pilot money? and who would be paying it? >> so this is 3.4.3 right at the end? >> yes. >> so the background on this exchange of property rights similar with mission bay, we

don't have -- unlike other areas in the city where you buy a property and have a floor area ratio and basically one allocation to the property. mission bay has a pot of development rights. so under the existing -- even if uc was not to purchase this, similarly talking about sales force. sales force purchased pool of development rights through a planning process that then assigns it. you could have 400,000 square feet, 500,000 square feet, there is not a specific maximum/minimum. so the mission bay plan allows flexibility and ucsf requested similar flexibility within the sites that they control. so they have campus site, which is the land that was donated. it's the hospital sites two phases. x3 where they purchased land from catellus and from other owner. and then also know 33/34. campus site was kind of the original deal.

for the hospital site, ucsf as we reviewed earlier last year had entered into agreements to address loss of property taxes for infrastructure and affordable housing. 33/34 similarly we have the one-time payment. so we're okay with them transferring some property or some allotment between those parcels, because we have already addressed affordable housing and infrastructure. if they were to purchase other property in mission bay, and we're starting to lose property, so this is probably not going to happen. say they bought some of the remaining sales force land. that property is subject to a pilot. we would want to make sure that they -- we're basically saying that once you have cut a deal with us for affordable housing infrastructure we'll allow some transfer of development rights between those parcels as along as you can see show there is not a negative impact. basically it's as along as you are not creating an environmental impact, i.e., throwing 2 million square feet

into a single little parcel. so this section what it's achieving once you have cut a deal for affordable housing and you are part of the original campus site, you can move stuff around as along as you are not creating a problem your neighbors with regards to kind of your ceqa. if you are going to purchase a different additional property, you are going to need to come back to us and talk to us about your affordable housing and infrastructure before we'll kind of throw into the pool with your other sites. thank you. >> i have a question on the local hiring and workforce development programs. i am looking over the proposed mou and i see lots of language on local hiring, and prevailing wage and focused on the labor aspect of it, which is