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 the benefits aren't there. what we said was it's a policy matter, that's why we didn't recommend approval because there was this gap of 7 million, which uc would otherwise have to pay over over 30 years, this 39 million. there was an appraiser that computed the net present value and this was compared and the department stated that this hearing today, the budget analyst report was accurate. i don't think there's any dispute about that. >> could you respond to that, to what mr. rose just said? >> the budget analyst report is accurate, there's tax payment agreement on the property, it

provides for only two payments relative to housing and infrastructure because those are the covenants that run with the land. we believe it's a good deal for the city and ocii for the reasons stated that are accurately identified in the report and materials to the boards. >> in terms of the 7 million, what do you think the city got in return for that? >> i think the city is getting affordable housing with no hit whatsoever. you see is paying that so that's -- otherwise property tax increments that would flow through [inaudible] that money will not flow for infrastructure and affordable housing. the totality of that payment now -- >> timing issue you're saying? >> yes. >> so the city is getting that and uc is getting to pay smaller amounts. that's what it gets in return for that? >> in return we're getting

supportive housing built sooner, father mily housing sooner, parks for dog patch, getting sustainable streets. >> you see in return for what we're getting for the events money [inaudible]. >> yes, under the pilot. >> that that was the deal that was worked out there. >> yes. >> okay. and are you saying that -- i assume that was a negotiation in terms of we'll agree you pay this 7 million and change less and in exchange, you know, we get the money upfront. that was a negotiation, i imagine? >> within the context o. payment agreement run wg the land, yes. >> and are you saying it ing it would have been -- there was no way that that could have as part of that negotiation that transit could have been reflected in this in any way. it's completely illegal, would have been vetoed by whoever in

sacramento. is that what you're saying? >> paying transit, having a entity under the pilot pay transit, it doesn't -- in the state's eyes when they look at the box of the contractual obligations and what's on the pilot doesn't fit within the box, but accelerating affordable housing, check. it fits within the boxes i' 've said you can continue to do. structure for sustainable streets, roads, parks and the upfront almost 20 years now to create the p line certainly with a billion dollar project. someone had to do the upfront work and there was no hit to the general fund in that doughnut hole in mission bay. the private developer did that first. >> and i know that you know that right now with what we're proposing in this area, even

without the [inaudible] the t line is woefully inaid kuwait aid kuwait adequate to carry what this project is proposing. i think it's great there was a collaboration in terms of getting the t built, but the t is not even in the same universe as what we need in this part of the city and that's why i hope and think and know you understand what the frustration is and we have absolutely inadequate transit to sustain and that leaves us scratching our head when this happens over and over again. i'm glad to hear the statement that it applies to i know that some developers have taken to the position that it doesn't, which doesn't sit well with me, but we have a problem so i hope

you -- and i hope you can understand where i'm coming from, where i imagine supervisor breed is coming from in terms of our frustration level here. >> supervisor breed. >> i just wanted to express my frustration mostly because -- i know you've been doing this for a really long time. i previously served on a redevelopment commission. i know how these processes work and it's one thing to study this stuff in theory and talk about it and go over process, but it's another thing to start to see it develop and see the impacts and see that we are not adequately prepared as a city to deal with such a significant development as it relates to our transportation. i think that when we have these studies we need to look at reevaluating them when the

impacts start to take shape. this neighborhood is forming at a rapid pace, even though -- i mean, this is way before you and i even probably started working for the city, but we're now experiencing the impact. well, i was in high school, but we're now experiencing the impact. we have a lot of challenges in the area and yes, we are planning to deal with the infrastructure, we are planning to move forward with the affordable housing, but what happens when all this stuff is done is people like this as a supervisor get the complaints about inadequate community service or inadequate services or resources or what's happening in the context of their area. as i said before one of the biggest challenges too is the fact that as soon as we build a new neighborhood, then there's all this attention and support for a new area at the expension pension of pense of the old

area of the city. that's where my frustration is kicking in and the fact that we have a stat entity that's not obligated to pay taxes and that's hard to take. i really think that -- i mean, i'm no business person, but i think we should be walking away with at least what potentially this obligation is as it relates to being a good partner within san francisco. we're trying to provide the begs service, the best support, the best infrastructure, the best neighborhood and they're going to be using this neighborhood and not be providing any financial support long term for it, so i think at least they should be providing the full payment in order to fulfill that particular obligation as a good community partner and working with the city.

>> any other questions right now? let's move to public comment. i have one speaker card. anybody else, please step forward. >> good afternoon, corin woods. i'm hear wearing two hats. re

wearing two hats. transporation -- yeah, we have a whole eastern neighborhoods of rezoning that isn't adequately funded for transportation impacts. we have the water front transportation assessment going on right now for mpa that will hopefully be able to pin down what our needs are. we have also, though, what the mission bay plan projected to be preexisting services that would be provided for mission bay including the extension of the 22 down 16th street. that was supposed to be done by the city 15 years ago.

we don't have it yet. we're hoping to get it by the time the hospital comes. these were deals the city made that were supposed to happen and haven't. these were deals for example for the ballpark. the city said you pay the property taxes, we'll increase the service. you can't turn around halfway through and change the deal. it'd be nice, doesn't work. getting the money now for the infrasfruk structure and parts, getting the money now for the affordable housing is a huge boost for mission bay and really important to move what is in a sense a dissolving project towards completion. thank you. >> thank you. next two years next speaker, ea