tv [untitled] July 29, 2010 2:00pm-2:30pm PST
3:00 pm
a lot of developers will say it doesn't affect the sales price. that is why that i can lie c.f.d. and be put costs onto a bond that is paid off and not see it affect the sales price. if you are a purist, you say every single assessment means that the price goes down. honestly, the reality is probably somewhere in between. the sales price microbiologist so to some degree absorb this assessment, but my experience is usually it is the long-term homeowner that pays this over time. as far as the question about equity, to me the question is answered by the fabbing that a homeowner gets disclosure when they buye unit, so if they don't like buying the unit with an additional $500 a year assessment on it, they don't have to buy the unit. this is a front-end proposition. this is not happening retroactively. that is what hopefully will
3:01 pm
cover most of the issues raised and i am here and the city attorney as well. vice president olague: and commissioner antonini has a question and we'll open it up for public comment. the public may also have questions if you don't mind waiting around to address them. commissioner antonini: just briefly, michael, you made it clear if there are fewer than 12 registered voters on the i.f.d., then it needs a 2/3 vote of those owners prorata to the ownership. so generally we're looking at areas where there isn't anybody living at the present time and the owners would be the individuals or corporations that own the land at that time. so it's the chances of there being more than 12 is pretty slim. and if there were more than 12, i would assume there would have to be approved in a different
3:02 pm
manner. >> it would have to be voted by voters at that point in the district. literally if you had 14 voters, you would have a vote of 14 voters. you have to get 2/3 of the 14 to approve the i.f.d. >> and under 12, you still have to get 2/3. >> 2/3 of the weighted assessed value -- commissioner antonini: prorata 2/3. thank you. vice president olague: ms. rodgers. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm going to go through our recommendations before i do the i.f.d. and the c.f.d. is a bit confusing and a one-word summary of each. starting in the same order as mr. yarney,the i.f.d., infrastructure finance district for those familiar with redevelopment tax increment, this is a similar topic. for the rest of us, briefly, it allows a portion of the increment of the property tax revenues above the tax level at the outset to be pledged to
3:03 pm
taxes and bonds and those are used to fund a specific project. for this item we recommended that we have considered two issues. first, that the city seek additional funding to extend the pilot program to all eastern neighborhoods. in addition to the pilot i.f.d. proposed for rincon hill, it is important that the new committee will taxed with the development of an i.f.d. for the whole eastern neighborhoodses. funding for this additional study should be identified in the short term by the committee. this is important because eastern neighborhoods has an existing infrastructure deficit that the city could address by establishing a larger i.f.d. for your information, the department continues to look for grant funds by the larger i.f.d. and may have access to other funds. number two, insure they study the long-term effects on the fund. as commissioner sugaya brought up, capturing an increment in new and increases in property values for the specific limit of
3:04 pm
a limited geographic area diverts funding that otherwise would have went to the entire city for larger services. a portion of this new increment is made possible through the zoning changes and other improvements that came out of the area plan. however, only a portion of the net increase in property revenues should be diverted into the area planning needs. this would enable and continue and to ensure that it continues, and make sure that the city services. and now looking at the c.f.d., community facilities district, briefly this is basically a layaway plan for your existing development impact fees. it's that simple. for this item, the department had one recommendation. if the c.f.d. can't fund all the identified projects, the city
3:05 pm
should not collect 100% of the funding through this mechanism. we made this recommendation in response to the issue that c.f.d.'s may not be able to fund certain things like private child care or the administration of funds. after discussing this further after the publication of our report which the city attorney got late, it seems like our recommendation is one potential solution. another way to resolve this issue is at the same time that each project chooses to enter into the c.f.d., the city would evaluate the specific limitations of the law at that time and address any constraints to ensure that the city is able to fund our needs. the department is satisfied with this approach. in addition, as mepgsed, the c.f.d.'s only make sense for large projects or pools of smaller projects. therefore, our expectation is that there will be more flexible funds from other projects that can be used for implementation and child care and other costs and ensuring that all our needs
3:06 pm
can be met. and the report also identifies two points that are not modifications and issues with the c.f.d.'s for your consideration. first, as michael yarney mentioned, those shift from land owner to resident. experts do not agree on which party the landowner, developer, or homeowner, absorbses the cost of the development impact fees that we have put into place. from a policy perspective, the landowners could absorb the costs and land values have risen significantly over 20 years. if developerses and homeowners have those added costs, new development may be stalled or delayed. by amortizing the payment, it is possible that the citywide c.f.d. could shift the impact away from landowners and towards homeowners, but as described, when viewed as a stimulus policy, this proposal would help
3:07 pm
spur development. and number two, the proposed citywide c.f.d. does not create a new funding source and merely finances the cost of existing infrastructure impact fees. the eastern neighborhood working group reports also proposed that c.f.d.'s be used for an addtive source of funding in addition to the impact fees were already getting and in addition to existing property taxes. it would need to be approved by 2/3 of the voters and would be in addition to the proposed citywide c.f.d. thunderbird proposal. the issue being if the property opts into the it in the existing fees, would this reduce the desire or ability of additional owners as an addtive source of funding as recommended by the working group? commissioners, that concludes our presentation for you. for this item, the department is
3:08 pm
asking that you move to recommend approval with modifications and considerations to the issues we raised in the report and we would al recommend modifying the recommendation for the c.f.d. and he can help with language if you would like to include that in your motion. vice president olague: like to open it up for public comment. >> i'm going to jump in front of steve because i have a meeting i'm late for. peter cohen. i want to talk about both of these, but i only have a few minutes. i want to talk about the finance committee. i was fairly involved in look agent the iterations of that proposal and participated as an
3:09 pm
appointee to the earlier version of it. and would be interested in being appointed again at the market octavia c.a.c. representative. i have a couple of picky things on this. number one, market octavia c.a.c. is very subordinated in hasis on eastern neighborhoods in rincon hill and i hope we get past the point that one planning area is seen as more important than other. this is an area plan infrastructure finance committee and the use of the infrastructure finance district or the other funding tools town of equal and hopefully myself or one of the other c.a.c. members investing a lot of energy and time for this committee written to benefit rincon hill and other eastern and i have talked to the sponsor as well as michael yarney and if there is a suggestion to expand the pilot, why only eastern neighborhoods?
3:10 pm
again, it is puzzling to me and i would rather see this be an i.f.d. pilot for rincon and the future use extended to all other plan area, not just the eastern neighborhood and leaving market octavia in the dust. sorry to sound parochial but this is often the way things work. if you are in phase two, you are in a very distant phase two. when it comes to the melajerusalem, i have to admit it is a complicated proposal and i am relatively agnostic on what it does and i had a long conviction with michael yarney and some of my questions were answered. one of the things fundamentally that i would like to make sure is inclusionary housing are not an melarusable thing. we went through that argument in fee deferral and the back door
3:11 pm
changes policy by encouraging certain developers and if it's just a financing tool, nothing else will change, i have that answered as a no is not included. beyond, that i am very interested to know where it's going to apply and ask planning staff to give a list of all the potential projects in market octavia and eastern neighborhoods that this would probably be used for and i guess that's a big ask and not enough time to provide it. but i would like to see that kind of information of where is this really going to apprelevan to our particular planning areas. thanks. vice president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon,
3:12 pm
commissioners. i would like to speak in favor of both of those commissions. and you will remember that the part of the property that the 333 harrison site is being built on is going to become a park and this is property that the developer is buying from caltrans and we have to buy the entire piece of property that costs to the land and development of the park is then in the $5 to $8 million range and there was a hope that there would be impact fees from other high-rises in rincon hill to pay. that park and there's only one of the five or six towers approved for rincon hill and none of the unbuilt projects have paid the impact fees. what this i.f.d. will do will be to allow the land to be bought from caltrans so we don't lose that opportunity and the park to be developed earlier than it
3:13 pm
would otherwise be developed. that is why the developer of # 33 harrison is willing to pay for the cost of the i.f.d. to get this process moving quickly so that this park can be developed and opened to the 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
3:14 pm
fees and that are teetering on the brink of being able to move 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
3:15 pm
cost to a buyer per $100,000 over 20 years, calculated at 30 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.
3:16 pm
>> is there any additional public comment? >> 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.
3:17 pm
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 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
3:18 pm
called the staff and said what is the plan for land use? the two calendars are out and is 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.
3:19 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. we have been following this since it came out and in our 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
3:20 pm
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 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
3:21 pm
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 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
3:22 pm
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 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
3:23 pm
to buildings that heretofore had nothing on them and understand 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
3:24 pm
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 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
3:25 pm
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 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.
3:26 pm
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 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
3:27 pm
us the trade-off and to fund the 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
3:28 pm
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 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.
3:29 pm
vice president olague: to the 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 an
119 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV2: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on