plan documents so we'll make that change. >> could you repeat that? >> wherever it says assessors blocks it will say 33 and 34. they're not actually assessors blocks. a: okay, thanks very much. >> good afternoon. i wanted to speak briefly to the benefits that the university is going to be general generating as a result of mission bay and this site. we are acquiring this property blocks 33 and 34 in order to consolidate existing operations at least and remote sites here in san francisco. we expect that we will be vacating in the next two years over a little less than 200,000 square feet of leased space elsewhere in san francisco that

is currently not generating property tax revenue for the city. as a result of our vacating those properties, we're estimating that there will be a net present value of $12.7 million of new property tax revenue flowing to the city that would not otherwise be going to specifically to mission bay, but be going to the general fund i just wanted

to speak to some of the ben efits. sgh thank >> thank you very much. anybody else want to keep talking on this project. any comments right now or should we go to many mr. rose's report. >> i think the department has clearly brought out the question that we have raised in our report. on page 9 in our table we show that the estimated pilot over 30 years is 39.8 million. the payments that you see would make the one time payments total 32.1 million so there is a gap of 7.7 million, so we state on page where is that

32.9 million going if we don't do this? it would go to the former ocii, the [inaudible] agency. i think when i had been briefed on this it was uc didn't have to pay anything and this was kind of a gesture so maybe we can have a discussion about that. >> tiffany, for the record. this is a private property transaction. you see the state agency exempt from all local redevelopment regulations, but for this tax payment agreement between fossil mb, who's the master developer, they own the property and a subsidiary of alex san dree y'all those tax payment agreements run with the land.

it ran did not want to not file

for a tax exemption on the property it had to make these payments under the contractual obligations. it is -- to your question, where would the money go?

the money goes for affordable housing and infrastructure, and it is no small matter, the increase to affordable housing. what that means in mission bay, rather we can accelerate the affordable housing development. it matters and matters in our budget discussions with the mayor's office and community. instead of building one affordable housing project in mission bay through this tax increment we can actually build 235 units. the first one issuing an rfp, 100 units father mily and very critical the next rfb you'll see no our budget it's the only citywide capital project left in the pipeline to date right now, new project for supportive housing and that would be in mission bay and it is those very payments from uc that actually make that happen.

and then the parks, i think that's the sustainable streets, that's obvious those get built with no hit to the general. >> i guess two questions. one i'm confused more on upset here that the comment in my office before being briefing ed on this is they wouldn't have to pay anything if they didn't agree to this, uc could get off scot-free. if that's not true it's not true, but i don't appreciate the preefing i had briefing i had before. >> uc is a state agency. typically would not have to pay anything, but it is only because of this private tax payment agreement that flows through the land from private property owners -- >> i was being briefed on this project specifically. i understand you weren't there. >> i'm sorry if there was any

miscommunication on that. >> why 32 instead of 39? >> that's the number. the report is completely accurate and valid. the balance of that payment in ses sense essence is just property tax that goes through distribution. uc doesn't pay property tax so it's money that's left on the table, but it is a policy consideration because of the increase to affordable housing and consolidation. this will enable uc to consolidate. they are a vic tim of its own success in mission bay in order to grow, expand. they're a magnet for bio tech. we didn't have it in the city

in 1998. it is because of uc that it's spilled over to dog patch and the other parts of the city. it is because of uc that we have that those benefits. >> uc now occupies in rented

and owned space all over the city and we have representatives here that can go into the details. they occupy space all over the city. there's no property tax coming from it, they'd vacate those spaces and move all their operations to the -- >> do you have a list of those spaces and what we're talking about in terms of property tax dollar value? >> i think [inaudible] has that if you'd like her to go over

that. >> i mentioned in the remarks that this year and next year we'll be vacating nearly 2,000 square feet of lease space in san francisco and consolidating those -- and relocating those activities to our own sites. that 200,000 square feet will be generating in present value terms, $12.7 million of new property tax revenue for the city. >> has our department of real estate evaluated this site and provided us with documentation for this particular site? do we have that confirmed by the department of real estate that this is potentially the added value of those particular sites? frnths >> mr. rose. >> if i understand what the department is saying, uc occupies leased space.

the owners of the leased space are paying property taxes to the city so i don't understand the thrust of the comment. >> i get the point. >> ma'am, to the chair, i just wanted to advise that the university received a rebate on those property taxes so even though essentially those properties are exempt from property tax, even though the owners do make payments, the university receives those payments as a rebate since we are tax exempt so therefore, the city is not receiving tax revenues from those properties that we lease. >> clearly we're not going to get that resolved today. i want to make a couple comments and have a couple questions. i have some concerns about this

mrr item. particular item. i know mission bay over many years has been in new neighborhood that's being created and it's coming along, a number of buildings, a number of people and clearly significant infrastructure needs and transportation needs. my biggest concern is that we are dealing with a lot of challenges around our our transportation in san francisco?

on top of that parks et cetera, the proposed project, uc's proposed project to 500,000 square feet is fully studded ied and within the scope of there are no new transportation impacts that are associated with the development of this particular project. when we talk about infrastructure, i think it's

the tee line itself, that entire leg and stretch patent wires, rerouting across the bridge there, across the creek, all of that was paid for. there was a agreement that the master developer er built and developed. >> i understand that. i'm just -- you know, ucsf is not obligated under state law to pay taxes to the city and county of san francisco. we know they bring -- i'm not disputing those particular facts, but what they haven't done is contributed in any capacity to our public transportation system in general. and so what i'm saying -- i'm putting that on the table because, you know, that's what i'm mosted concerned about.

>> let me try to address a piece of that. first of all, i believe, if i'm not mistaken, that the funds towards -- the funds, as part of the pilot that uc is paying towards infrastructure are going to repay the developer for having already built the tee line so part of that infrastructure payment which we are getting from them, the funds are advanced before this, built the tee line. i also want to address -- i think you also may be referring obliquely to the dechl fee development fee and as you know uc is exempt from that, but i want to confirm for committee today that is the position and has been communicated to all the developers we've talked to. uc as a state agency is exempt

but we expect to collect the tidf from anyone else including the remapder mainder of the sales force. we expect to collect that from them. i think those two are important points, that the infrastructure payment is going for the tee line. and two, it will be paid. there was a ten year exemption window, which has ended. >> thank you for telling me what i already know. i think the problem i'm having is the fact that we are considerable y short as it relates to transportation in our city, in terms of many of the development projects all over the city. we're not collecting enough for transportation, period. i'm not suggesting that is the developer's fault. i think the city needs to do a better job about collecting

those fees and allocating them, but in this particular case i'm not comfortable leaving upon knee on the table that could otherwise be used for this project in the long run. money on the table that could otherwise be used for this project in the long run. you're providing a discount because they're willing to pay these dollars fron. upfront. s upfront. i'm not sure i'm convinced it's worth. it. i wanted to put that out there. $7 million is a lot of money. it may not seem like it, but it is over a long period of time, and it could have a lot of impact on our transportation system and i'd like to see the entire dollar amount come to the city, and specifically that remaining difference of

potentially 7.7 be used for transportation. i'm not is certain i feel comfortable moving forward without having sufficient information on how these things -- how this could actually be a better deal for the city than what's being proposed. >> supervisor wean iener. a: thank you >> thank you mr. chairman, i' always happy to have colleagues advocating for changing our city's woeful, terrible history of planning funding. [inaudible]. it's the only impact fee with compensatory damageses exemptions you can drive a truck through and not

adequately negotiating with developers to make sure they're paying impact fees while we aggressively negotiate for every other fee under the sun, but not transit, even though we know our city is going to struggle if we don't shore up this system and expand its capacity dramatically. i did, when this came forward, i immediately had concern that yet again, we have a project coming to the board of supervisors, a major project, a 500 car garage, a project that's going to have significant transportation impacts, yet again, a project coming with zero dollars and zero cents of transit impact fees day tached to it. attached to it. i sat down with ucsf and we talked about the unique situation here because uc is a allowed to own whatever they

want to own and are not required to contribute anything in terms of the infrastructure of the city and so i was told our hands are tied, there's nothing we can do, it is what it is. i've found that very frustrating. we know when supervisor kim introduced this resolution, a lot of big discussion, about 30 percent affordable housing. that's great, but the fact you can get that high on affordable housing and have zero dollars going to transit. i guess my question is, given the discussions that we had where i came away that we were truly handcuffed on this. it wasn't a negotiation. the rules are what they are. it's set, we have no leverage, but noi now i hadn't focused on this $7 million differential, but now i'm reading in the budget analyst report the reduction of 39

million to 32 million, in terms of the budget analyst report, it was conveyed ed it was a good deal for the city because of the generation of benefits in terms of different jobs and developing bio tech industry. that sounds like a negotiation to me. i don't know if it was lost in translation in the budget analyst report, but i'd like to know, was this a negotiation or was this not a negotiation, because if it was, if the city had leverage, if we're leaving 7 million on the table because of the admittedly wonderful contribution that ucsf makes to the city, i think that's a different thing than we came in and we have no leverage to do anything.

i >> as i understand it, the department is not disputing the fact that they haven't -- there is an obligation to pay the pilot over 30 years. that's the 39 vpt .2 million. i said it is my understanding because this is a negotiating deal because otherwise they would have had to pay the pilot and they came up with the 32 million. we're not saying that