talking eight parking places and the planning department has certified that there is a deficit of 23 parking spaces if this building goes forward as planned. and the 9th street corridor, actually between market all the way from brannan is used to access highway 101 and there is a steady flow of traffic at all times. i learned by contacting the department of public works, bureau of street use and mapping, that there are going to be curb ramps put on all four curb at folsom and 9th street and that the sidewalk is due to be expanded, expanded like about 6 feet so that there

are going to be at least one to two parking spaceses removed from the few that we already have. i have nothing more to add to that except that the idea of people circling round and round and round and round to try to find a nonexistent parking space to go where they live is a bit absurd. and to go round and round and round and round to get to a restaurant that has no parking spaces is even more so. so, with that i don't want to take up any more of your time because i'm very anxious to see what the other side has to say, and i do value your time very much. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions he to the appellant? if there are any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant, please step up. commissioners, ray [speaker not understood], san francisco open government. i think we need to come to some sense of reality regarding automobiles and parking in this

city. you can't keep cutting spaces from residential areas and expect the city to be in any way habitable. many of the apartments that are in this city right now, in fact, a vast majority of them have no parking and, therefore, the residents are relying on street parking at all times. i myself know what it is like to come home from work at 11 o'clock at night and have to drive around 18 blocks to find a space where i leave my car knowing that it's in an area now where i'm going to probably come back and find my window smashed out. i really have a hard time understanding why anybody would want to build a building like this and not increase its long-term value by having parking. having parking in the building makes that building more valuable. you can either give the spaces to the residents or you can receiptction them out or you can do something else. and what it does is give you

additional income, additional long-term value of that property. ~ rent and in addition, it helps your neighbors. it doesn't put them in the position of having to deal with the fact that you didn't want to pay for parking for your own building. and that's really what the choice is. it is a choice between people who want to build a building and intentionally leave out the parking and say to their neighbors, well, tough luck, you're just going to need to deal with it. or people who are more farsighted and willing to say, you know, it is also in my best interest to build a building that has parking. i will have an easier time getting high rents and better tenants because they will be able to afford to have parking and at the same time i will be servicing the neighborhood by not hoisting my lack of parking on my neighbors. >> any others wishing to

comment? ♪ park it up park it up give it a try won't you park it up park it up city give it a try don't make us drivers cry don't make a grown man cry won't you park it up ♪ >> colleagues, any other members of the public wish to speak in support of the appellant? seeing none, why don't we now go to the planning department. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. i'm [speaker not understood], a senior environmental planner with the planning department. with me today is victoria wise, the deputy director of environmental planning and kay [speaker not understood] who is the environmental coordinator for the mitigated negative declaration which is the subject of today's appeal hearing.

on may 12th, 2014, you received a detailed memo responding in detail to the issues raised in this appeal. the decision before the board is whether or not to uphold the department's decision to issue a mitigated negative declaration or to send the project back to the department for additional review. i'd like now to turn the presentation over to kay [speaker not understood] who is briefly address the main points in our appeal response. >> thank you, noni. president chiu, members of the board, i'm [speaker not understood] of the planning department. to continue, the department found that the proposed project

would not result in any significant effects on the environment that could not be mitigated. thus, a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. it further includes the merger of existing, two existing lots on the subject site. demolition of two existing one story, approximately 15 foot tall buildings currently used for storage. and construction of a five-story 55-foot tall, approximately 18,700 square foot mixed use building containing 15 dwelling units and approximately 2,900 square feet of ground floor commercial use. the department's responses to the concerns raised by the appellant can be grouped into two primary points as outlined in the appeal response. to summarize the points, i will address despite [speaker not understood], the fmmd adequately recognized the impact relative to parking and found that the project would not result in any significant impact with respect to parking or transportation.

and despite appellant's a sr.tionseses, appel apt's due process rights were not violated during the 2012-2013 planning commission hearing. it asserts the project with respect to parking had not been adequately analyzed in the smmd and raises concerns about a loss of availability of on street parking in the project site vicinity. at discussing [speaker not understood], the project will result in a shortfall generating parking demand of 8 spaces and long-term demand of 16 spaces based on the planning department's analysis impact guidelines for review. it will not result in shortfall that will create hazardous conditions [speaker not understood] bicycle or pedestrian, or proposed park, parking demand [speaker not understood] and parking spaces within the reasonable distance of the project vicinity. the appellant has presented no

substantial evidence demonstrating further -- the potential is parking shortfall would result in a significant transportation impact. the potential parctiontioning shortfall that may result is generally considered to be [speaker not understood] rather than the physical impact of the project under c-e-q-a. since the smmd was published november 7, 2013, changes have been made to state law so that the esthetics in state law [speaker not understood] for project that meets certain criteria. as discussed in the appeal response, the project meets all criteria therefore an eir if prepared for the project would not be considered adequate in terms of parking for impact under c-e-q-a. the appellant also asserts that her due process rights were violated because she was not given the

opportunity to rebut. her testimony october 12, 2013 planning commission hearing, the appellant's due process rights were not violated. during the october 24, 2013 planning commission hearing, the appellant was provided with 10 minutes before the planning commission to provide her concerns about the pmmd and equivalence with the planning commission rules and regulations. [speaker not understood] and/or sponsorses, rebuttals are not included as part of the hearing process. the appellant did not specifically request a rebut before or during the hearing. therefore, the appellant's due process rights were not violated. in conclusion the department has found that [speaker not understood] the proposed project will not have a negative impact [speaker not understood]. staff believes that the appellant has not provided any substantial evidence to refute the conclusion of the smmd.

further environmental review would not change the results. regarding environmental effect nor provide additional information for review topics. the planning commission upheld the planning department's [speaker not understood] of the october 24, 2013 hearing. for these reasons, the department, therefore, recommends the board uphold the fmmd and deny the appeal. that concludes our presentation. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to the planning department? okay. at this time why don't we hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon [speaker not understood] consulting. we started the design of this building a couple years ago, 2-1/2 years ago and we have gone through extensive

environmental study, whether it was historical or [speaker not understood] residence and design of the building. we work with the planning department to come up with what you see before you. the issue of parking, you know, we looked into it and how we felt was that with the two exits required,edth lobby it take, the residential lobby and the parking entrance, furtherance of parking in this building would eliminate the commercial unit at ground floor. and having worked on my office around the corner from my building, i know how important it is for the businesses, you know, at the sidewalk level to develop and we basically decided to do this with no parking. we are following the city's transit first policy and we

feel that this building is a good addition to this great neighborhood. i'm available for any comments you may have. thank you. >> thank you. are there any members of the public that wish to speak in support of the project sponsor? okay, seeing none, at this time, the appellant, ma'am, you have up to three minutes to provide any rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. this time i'm going to be able to show you pictures which, although a bit dated, will give you a measure of what this particular block look like. this shows where the building is located.

immediately next door, this little white thing, it's called a fire hydrant. it's not going to go anywhere. the fire hydrant has with it a red zone for the fire hydrant which isn't going to go anywhere. there is no parking there at any time. the restaurant that i was talking about at the end of this block and this is the apartment building where people live. this is the parking lot and there is a furniture store. there is aden tal building. ~ there is a dental building. as you can see, there are a number of businesses already vying for the extremely limited parking, some of them creating their own parking if you under what i'm saying. and it's amazing that they haven't been ticketed yet. i haven't made my phone calls. across the street there are

even vibrant businesses, but we don't have pictures of them. there is a mattress store, very environmentally friendly. we have asia which is at howard and 9th street which has valet parking in the neighborhood because the valets have to put the cars there. it's very, very limited parking. the amount of traffic, it doesn't matter if you are out there at 10 o'clock in the morning or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. they always -- i wonder where these cars have come from, whether scotty has beamed them down or other galaxies have come down. but there always, always, always is this traffic that's going on. i read that this area is adequately serviced by muni, even though i am an mta person and on the mad committee for

muni which addresses access and disabled issues. muni doesn't adequately service anyplace and the only bus we have nearby is the 12 which runs when it wants to. otherwise people have to walk down from mission street and take the 14 which run when it wants to and has seats available when it wants to. i agree with this gentleman. we didn't even talk before this meeting that the city really does need to take a long hard look at the reatv of transit first. i cannot envision anyone being able to afford to live in this building and walk. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions to the appellant or anyone involved in today's hearing? seeing none, this hearing has been held and now final. [gavel] >> the matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor kim. >> thank you. and i want to thank both

parties for attending the hearing today. i wanted to acknowledge some of the concerns that have come up about the project that i do think overall the direction of the city and certainly this board has been in reducing the number of parking spots when we are building residential buildings, particularly in parts of the city that are transit rich and also accessible to pedestrians. i lived two blocks from the project and i think it is certainly possible to walk and live in the city without a car. but i do want to address with ms. die son. it certainly is not serviced by sfmta. i don't think it is aligned to say servicing this block nor the 13 mission alone, i think there is more that we can do around public transit in the arena. but that's not what is before us today. what is before us today is on whether this mitigated negative declaration appropriate and i believe that it is so.

so, what i will be making a motion to move forward item 17 and 19. and to table item 18. >> colleagues, supervisor kim has made a motion as she describes. is there a second? seconded by supervisor mar. colleagues, can we take this motion without objection? without objection that shall be the case. [gavel] >> why don't we now call items 20 to 22 on the mission bay south agreements. >> pursuant to a motion approved on april 29th, the board of supervisors will convene a committee of the whole for items 20, 21 for a public hearing of persons interested in the proposed resolution of the board of supervisors acting in its capacity as the legislative body to the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency approving provisions and agreements and [speaker not understood] supportable housing obligation which would affect the transfer of [speaker not

understood] in the mission bay south area to the university of regents of california. and mr. president, item 22 as well? >> yes, plea. >> item 22 is a resolution consenting to the transfer of block nos. 33 and 34 in the mission bay south plan area to the regents of the university of california, as a tax exempt entity, for the future development of up to 500,000 gross square feet in the mission bay south redevelopment project area; and making environmental finding under the california environmental quality act. ~ as a tax exempt entity. >> thank you, colleagues. this is a hearing with regards to the proposed resolution related to redevelopment and the mission bay south agreements. let's first start hearing from our district supervisor, supervisor kim. >> thank you, president chiu. the items before us today is to support and allow a transaction. to allow the office of community investor cii to transfer blocks 33 or 34 from salesforce.com to ucsf. after the decision by sales force to locate offices downtown, in mission bay and express express concerns about the campus. the key portion of the mission bay south redevelopment area plan.

this transaction will allow ucsf to expand their campus in mission bay, but there were negotiations that took place regarding the payment of pilot of ucsf is both the nonprofit that is obligated under this redevelopment area plan to pay fees. so, there's was a negotiation. ken rich is here from mayor's office of economic development and we also do have christine ma her from ocii to present on the item to discuss the negotiation and what will come forward from the proceeds from those funds. >> thank you, supervisor kim. before we proceed on this item, it was just brought to my attention by deputy city attorney apparently on the last item we actually had gotten the numbers wrong. so, if i could ask for deputy city attorney, i think we need to rescind the vote and recast the vote to properly affirm the approval of the mitigated negative declaration. but anything else you want to add to that? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. so, the board voted to affirm the final mitigated negative declaration which was item 17, and to table the item 18.

but you also adopted item 19 and that item should be tabled as well. >> right. >> so, colleagues, if we could briefly go back and recall that item, and supervisor kim, if you first want to make your motion to rescind your motion. >> i will make a motion to rescind. my pool jai for that. second by supervisor campos. without objection, that should be the case. [gavel] >> supervisor kim, if you want to make the motion as provided by city attorney givner. >> [speaker not understood]. >> colleagues, you want to take that without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> now back to regarding the item of mission gay. ~ bay. with that we have [speaker not understood] related to citith agencies. i want to welcome mr. rich from oed. >> good afternoon, ken rich from oed. my office is representing the city.

occ, office of community investment and infrastructure. to negotiate to action with cssf. i want to thank the members of the budget committee for bearing with us as we explain. how this transaction needs to occur, i think we edved up with a deal with ucsf that is good for the city and good for mission bay and good for ucsf. the agreement with ucsf provides funds for housing that are greater and come to us sooner than what we would have gotten with oci would have gotten for use in mission bay if a regular taxing entity had been on the property. in addition, ocio received money to go to infrastructure in mission bay. that is expected on this property. the ability for ucsf by building this new large facility in mission bay to release several properties they currently own and rent around the city were put back onto the

tax rolls for funds -- including a portion of which would go to the general fund, far in excess of ocii is not able to collect through the dissolution procedure you'll hear about in a minute. lastly, this allows ucsf to consolidate more of its activities in mission bay which makes sense for a number of reasons that i think the board is well aware of. so, with that i'm going to ask christine ma her from ocii to come up and stake you through the detail. we have staff from ocii as well as ucsf afterwards for any questions that you might have. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the board is being asked today to act in two different capacities. first, approving as a legislative body as a successor agency to the former agency,

changes to the affordable housing obligationses and mission bay south. namely, the up front payment of the 10.2 million rather than ongoing payments in lieu of taxes through 20 43. and secondly, consenting as a legislative body of the city to the transfer of blocks 33 and 34 from sales force to ucsf with an up front payment of 32.1 million. l i'd like to start the presentation with a quick introduction to the site as we're talking about today. as you can see on the slide blocks 33 and 34 are located on third street in mission bay south across from ucsf medical center and campus sites. the site which is about 4 acres, can accommodate up to 500,000 square feet of office and commercial uses. this next slide gives you a quick overview of the framework that governs development in

mission bay south. the south is governed by the south redevelopment plan, the south owner participation agreement with fossil, the master developer, and related agreements. under redevelopment dissolution law, ocii is required to allocate funds that it receives to the fulfillment of its enforceable obligations. in mission bay south these enforceable obligations are primarily public infrastructure and affordable housing. ocii is required to reimburse fossil for the cost of constructing the public infrastructure and in the south and ocii is also required to use a minimum of 20% of tax increment generated in the south for affordable housing. units will target low-income families, formerly homeless families and individuals and seniors. the south opa was amended back in 2005 to include a requirement for a payment in lieu of taxes agreement or a pilot on many remaining parcel in mission bay south including

blocks 33 and 34. upon transfer of the parcel to a tax exempt entity, the pilot requires a payment in lieu of the full amount of taxes that otherwise would have been assessed. alternatively, the pilot allows ocii and the city to consent to a transfer to a tax exempt sept it without a pilot in place. ~ entity the primary intent of the pilot was to maintain ocii's ability to maintain infrastructure and affordable housing with tax increment even if properties were purchased ore leased by tax exempt entities. i'd also like to note that since dissolution, ocii can only use funds that it receives under the pilot to fulfill its enforceable obligations in the south which again are affordable housing and infrastructure. next some background on ucsf and the proposed transaction. as traditionally mentioned ucsf currently controls 57 acres in

mission bay for its campus and medical center sites. the university is now proposing to acquire blocks 33 and 34 from sales force and develop up to 500,000 square feet of office space and related parking. under the california constitution, university is exempt from local land use and redevelopment regulations and from local property taxes. however, ucsf is subject to third-party contractual obligationses that run with the land, in this case the south opa and the pilot agreement. under the pilot, if uc were to pay the full amount up front, it would pay approximately 39.8 million, which is the net present a value of the taxes that a taxable entity would owe for a similar development program. however, given its tax exempt status as a state agency, uc and ocii have negotiated one-time lump sum payments

totaling 32.1 million instead of these annual payments over time. the affordable housing payment is a one-time lump sum payment to ocii of 10.2 million for construction of affordable housing and the infrastructure payment as one-time lump shim payment to fossil of 21.9 million for public infrastructure. in addition, uc has agreed to pay the special taxes authorized in the oci number 5, for parks and open space in mission bay south and csd 6 which helps fund infrastructure in the south. uc estimates the net present value of these payments is approximately $10 million. although uc's proposed payment is what would be less than owed under the pilot it is substantial in the affordable housing program. first the payment is 6% or approximately $10 million more than oci would have received from a taxable entity. second, the payment is up front and will provide immediately available fund for the

production of affordable housing in the south. currently there is approximately 750 units left to be built in mission bay south. the affordable housing payment will allow for two affordable housing projects to be built in the next five years rather than two in the next 10 years. and there is no impact to the housing trust fund. these two projects that we're talking about are blocks 6 east which will be 135 units of family rental housing or 27 units for formerly homeless families and block 3 east, 101 units of supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. in addition to the affordable housing benefits, the transaction will also generate a benefit to the city's general fund over the next few years. ucsf anticipates that development of blocks 33 and 34 will allow for the consolidation of its operations and relocation from other sites in the city. if taxable entities were to take over these spaces, then the return of these properties

to the city tax rolls could generate new general fund revenues to the city and tax revenues to the other taxing agencies. the net present value of these revenues is an estimated 16.2 million which was vetted by ocii's consultant oha [speaker not understood] and reviewed by the budget analyst. of the 16.2 million, approximately 9.1 would go to the city and of this 9.1 approximately 6.6 would go to the general fund. while these revenues are not guaranteed, uc stated purpose for purchasing the site is consolidation of its operationses to mission bay south. it is currently paying below market rent on several lease he he he set to expire in 2018 and 2022. upon expiration they plan to move operations to mission bay. even if for some reason uc didn't give up all this lease space, it is likely there would still be a benefit to the general fund because 16.2 million is double what is foregone into the pilot.

in addition [speaker not understood] which will free up additional tax revenues was not included as part of this analysis. in closing, i'd like to just quickly point out that there are some additional policy considerations for the board to take into account. that is ucsf is the second-largest employer in the city and its substantial contributions to the city overall economy. that concludes the presentation. representatives from ocii and oewd, [speaker not understood] economics and ucsd are available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions to city staff? is there any further discussion? if not, why don't we hear from members of the public that wish to speak on this matter. please step up. good afternoon,