Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 22, 2010 2:30pm-3:00pm PST

3:30 pm
public and several years earlier or the land, in fact, didn't get lost because we can't afford to buy it number one. on the c.f.d. also it is a good idea to get this sort of citywide c.f.d. process started. and i was involved there and you can amortize the costs and the substantial cost of developing the district and having a citywide c.f.d. that's smaller project and the much. practical way and the smaller projects to have access with inexpensive money and pays the fees and that are teetering on the brink of being able to move
3:31 pm
forward. and that extense to raise the impact of equity fees cannot defer but finance through the c.f.d. district. and these are well thought out and good public policy and i urge your support. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to see more detail in the basic math of what the cost to a buyer per $100,000 over 20 years, calculated at 30
3:32 pm
years and at 5%. and in the projects i have been involved in and none in san francisco and reflect in the purchase price and what the price goes down and it's not that hard to figure it out. and i think that would be a good thing to show. and the impact on the general fund because it has what's valued as minor but easy to put on paper so we have a complete picture of that. i am glad to see this thing moving forward, though. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment?
3:33 pm
>> sue hester? who has copies of this legislation and staff analysis? as far as i know, neither of the eastern neighborhood c.a.c. which was canceled by staff for this month nor market octavia has had a chance to have any input on it. we are getting to the point where the people who spent years and years of their lives in planning processes are becoming irrelevant. they're not consulted. this is legislation, as far as i can tell from what was discussed, that has been developed between the client and mr. yarney and perhaps some other people of that level. it's going to be something that affects the broader community. ask anmarie who got her staff report and the legislation. i got it because i asked for it. it didn't come to me over the
3:34 pm
transom. i asked for it. who is at the table? who is discussing this? the issue of community improvement is a big issue for people in all the eastern neighborhoods, in market octavia, and even though they don't have a c.a.c. in the rincon hill area. it is people have spent years and years of community effort to develop real community, not just developers' projects. i would appreciate some feedback. i was shocked to hear the turn around time is two weekses and i called the staff and said what is the plan for land use? the two calendars are out and is
3:35 pm
it going to be before vacation? he said it all depends if everyone is totally cool with it at planning and saying it's all fine, maybe it can be the 9th but other than that it will go after the break. if you find the universe are the three of us that have testified from the general public and they lined up knowing these things and is that it? is this the only people that know about this and had a chance to dialogue on this? if it is, it's not really what i expect this commission to expect. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we have been following this since it came out and in our
3:36 pm
world we hear about this so-called economic recovery and see no evidence of it. and in that sense this as stimulative or economic stimulus is welcome, indeed. what we have heard in our analysis is that this is very modest and not used by a large extent but to the extent that it might improve the feasibility and break ground sooner on that ground alone it deserves to go forward. what we like about the i.f.d. and c.f.d. is there is an abundance of process and transporn si and it will have lots and lots of review and meetings and checks and balances into it. and this is not earth shaking or a silver bullet or something
3:37 pm
that could move forward. vice president olague: any additional public comment? >> i want to clarify something here. this is not legislation. these are resolutions, number one. two, there is a resolution to tomorrow a committee to oversee a consultant study and there is barely the beginning of a much longer process. there is some confusion that we are creating this overnight. this is simply the very, very beginnings of the project. vice president olague: thank you. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would like to speak in support of both of these concepts and also say that i appreciate staff's input on them, too. i would like to make a couple of comments in regards to, first of all, the infrastructure finance district and as we know from the beginning of the discussion a certain amount of the increment
3:38 pm
is already by law required to go to certain entities although we could challenge that, that is not challengeable here. and to the extent and infrastructure is the only thing that comes last and if you have driven your car on san francisco streets, you understand that. and sometimes it doesn't have the political cache that other things do and needs to be earmarked and is appropriate it can be incrementally and interest in seeing it work first on rincon hill and realistically that is probably the bet shot and they have some zoning that makes it easier to do it there in my opinion than it would be, not that it isn't a good concept for eastern neighborhoods, market octavia, but you've got
3:39 pm
some things in rincon hill that make it more coworldcom pellingo go forward and is clear we want it used as much as possible and some concern and what the pass on is to homeowners and what effect it might have and looking at that is fine. and in one of the publications like the chronicle or the business times and in san francisco had a net increase in the last year in assessed property values and the values seem to be strong and are adding to buildings that heretofore had nothing on them and understand
3:40 pm
that they are adding investment to them. and if it is an amount that is small over the 30 years and relative to the investment that is made, it won't be detracting to someone necessarily investing or buying. i would make a motion to sport this moving forward to the committees and generally going with what the proponents, that is supervisor maxwell, and supervisor dufty and mayor newsom have proposed and reflecting concerns that staff has voiced in there. but it is the beginning. that would be my motion. vice president olague: second. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i would agree with what was said. first, i want to thank the mayor's office and for bringing this legislation to us and this didn't necessarily have to come
3:41 pm
to the commission. and i thank you for that. and this is a companion piece and the impact on infrastructure and if you have a fee deferral system to help us deal in that area and i think that that compelling issue in rincon park is a case study in applying this legislation. and what this this is two resolutions and are issues to consider by the study committee when they look at how they draft the final i.f.d.. and i know mr. cohen is gone, but there is a seat for market octavia and as i understood this legislation, it wants to be
3:42 pm
inclusive of the area plans and not exclusive and to go forward to make it more clear and i understand that but other people may not have. and i understand that rincon makes the perfect pilot as a funding for a study and that is the critical piece missing for eastern neighborhoods and that this pilot with the formation of the study to look at the outcome will better inform a secretary or third pilot and as we have seen, not a lot of development in the area at this time. i go like the fact that the i.f.d. is closing a gap or increasing the structure and the gap is pretty substantial and
3:43 pm
starts us in that direction and am not worried about the earmarking issue. and i have seen this at the state level and whether or not they do their problem and put it on the ballot and a tough budgetary cycles and infrastructure loses out. no one wants to repave a street or more bus service and aids patients or other things are much more tangible and human things that people are concerned with. you have to earmark infrastructure improvements and makes sense to have those and choose to tax themselves and derive that benefit from the choice of the taxation. and the study will better inform us the trade-off and to fund the
3:44 pm
infrastructure improvements and the shee is the issues we have discussed and look at and grapple with and that obviously it will and we'll have a better sense of what the legislation will look like and will be brought back to us and what look like units per 100,000 and stuff like that. and i don't know what the timeline is on how soon would this study process begin? do we have a sense of that? >> the committee would be formed officially when the board approved the resolution. and one of the reasons we're, quote, rushing to the board on the august 9 was so that we can formally create the committee. and i would like to start over
3:45 pm
august. that would be my goal. >> good to know it's going to get started right away. vice president olague: commission esugaya? commissioner sugaya: i assume this is going to move forward and would like to be assured that we receive periodic reporting so we're kept informed along theway to the studies and how this is working and approved of or apprised of, whatever, and it might be easier if we revealed prop 13. it wouldn't be gyrating around this stuff every time where we want to build a street. vice president olague: to the
3:46 pm
extent you can get feedback from the different c.a.c.'s and a list of projects that might be impacted and if a list can be created or is available, i don't know what the status of that is, but since there was a request from the public. is there any other response? and commissioner moore has a comment. >> i do have one response to a question raised about assessments and remember the question was raised. we went ahead and did prototypes on several, if you remember when we came here with the fee deferral package, we had 10 case study projects or most were entitled and we had very specific information on and the unit council area and estimated sales prices and we went ahead and ran the numbers on the hypothetical c.f.d. for each of
3:47 pm
those projects to understand what if a developer was to enroll and what it would like like and the numbers assuming an average unit size of 1,000 square feet which is roughly in the ballpark for most of the project and sales prices between $850 to $700 a square foot which is, frankly, where a lot of these bojts are to be feasible. it doesn't mean they'll feasible yet, but what we see the an effective rate and the effective property tax rate is 1.14. 1.18 to on the high end 1.39% and this is an annual assessment per unit and on the low end to the very high end of $200 and
3:48 pm
that is one rincon tower and that is the outlay because it has a particularly large infrastructure burden. none of the other nine, by the way, even come close. and i'm happy if the commissioners would like to distribute a copy of the spread sheet with all the anymonumbers. and theed are 10 projects that could theoretically get use of this program. and it is about $200,000 to join one of the districts and usually it is a larger project.
3:49 pm
>> i would like to see mr. cohen's concern regard iing mart octavia is added to this list. it is in there now? okay. and the other thing that's a question and i'm not sure i am understand is what is the analysis? as abag indeed abag is a regional planning agency with, quite frankly, limited powers and they have a healthy public finance unit and the authorization from the state to create assessment districts and so we're using them and they are competent and have done in many
3:50 pm
jurisdictions and, if you will, they are the experts on c.f.d.'s in the bay area. >> what is in it for them? >> i think they cover the administrative costs and get a certain percentage of every one of the transactions and they are not a profit making entity and covering the administrative co-s. and in mainry suburban jurisdictions and also the mid plaza c.f.d. was an abag and administered district and a c.f.d. on 690 market street it was abag created and managed. perhaps, i don't know, maybe the city attorney can clarify that mission bay might have been administered by abag, although i'm not sure. and so there are a couple of
3:51 pm
examples in the nine counties part of abag. >> and a financial role and like the umbrella organization but no other organizations and looking for increased entities and pushing us hard to assume the responsibilities of what we are already doing and i want to know there are no other incorrect strings attached. >> definitively no, although they would say that the role is helping this advance that. >> another question is who
3:52 pm
funding this proposal? can you shed light obthat on that? >> they have the prequalified pool of real estate economic consultants that went through an extensive r.f.p. process and the planning department and others participated in and our intention is to select a consultant from that preapproved list to avoid lengthy delays. and the consultant will be reporting to the city and engaged and expenses will be reimbursed by the project sponsor just like a ceqa arrangement. commissioner moore: thank you. vice president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just a quick yes. was i correct in saying as we're projecting it would be available down the road to all the different areas of the city?
3:53 pm
we're starting out with rincon hill on one instance and the i.f.d. on the other -- >> i.f.d. and we have to come up with a policy that says we will have a neutral policy and if you have an area that has an up plan or increases development potential and fit the policy requirements and i.f.d. could be available for your neighborhood. commissioner antonini: that is what i was saying earlier that you are going to self-select and work where the zoning alouse it to happen. >> if a neighborhood meets the policy requirements, thektd apply and -- they could apply and seek to form an i.f.d.
3:54 pm
vice president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: in your short write-up in the commission calendar for today, you are saying that the committee would supervise the consultants and that the consultants would not develop policy. they should basically give tools to develop policy but not be in the business of policy development. is that just written in gist or what is applied here? >> certainly not written in jest and might not have been written well. the city makes the policy and the consultant will help us project that and once we have the information we can make intelligent policies and the
3:55 pm
consultant doesn't decide policy and the planning commission will make that decision. >> and for anybody who supports this that is particularly spelled out. and the draft policies. and find a serious conflict and nothing that i could afford. >> if staff can note that and i don't think there's any >> and it was in there. >> commissioner antonini?
3:56 pm
>> and you are now on and we're going to come back in literally 5 minutes and hear three items. and the ordinance on there and nine, 10, 11. and then we'll be taking a longer break. we'll take a five-minute break.
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm