as a state agency uc is exempt from paying local property taxes, however, uc is still subject to third-party contractual obligations such as the south opa. section 14.7 of the south opa problem hints the prohibits the transfer of property to a tax exempt entity without the consent of ocii and the city to transfer without such an agreement in place. the primary intent of this section 14.7 was to ensure that the ability to fund construction of the infrastructure and affordable housing required under the south opa was not negatively impacted by the purchase or leasing of property by tax exempt. blocks 33 and 34 are currently subject to a pilot agreement which requires a tax exempt entity to make these payments in lou of property taxes and make any required cfd payments. ieu of property taxes and make any required cfd payments. given its tax exempt status as a to make one time lump sum payments instead of annual payments over time as required by the pilot agreement. these payments are detailed in a memorandum of understanding unrelated agreements which were approved yesterday by the as follows.

however, given its tax exempt status as a state agency, uc and ocii have negotiated one-time lump summents 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

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.

and through this assignment assumption release or this series of transactions in the case of 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