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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. >> 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 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 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 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? 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. 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 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? >> 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 >> we will proceed to item nine and case 2010.0355 tz. >> good afternoon, commissioners. sarah sullivan from the planning department. the item before you this afternoon is an ordinance introduced by supervisor dufty on 800 market street as the lgbt community center. it will create a special use district and remap the special use district for that to be reflected on the special map. on the top floor of the building

currently in zoning controls and do not permit many uses up there and essentially this will allow a full service restaurant, bar, and other entertainment uses and as long as it doesn't -- as long as it's not over 7,000 square foot, and outdoor activity will be permitted on the top floor and there are several operational restrictions on this. and the hours of operation and some noise control restriction as well. and essentially that's what it's allowing to happen with the building. the range will be for community to serve the lgbt to go to the historic preservation commission yesterday because it is individual landmark 233. and they unanimously recommended approval of the request.

one last thing, i do want to note that the department is in support of this. we are recommending one slight modification. it is a technical issue and it is cross revensed. and supervisor dufty's office is here and i am available for questions. >> commissioners, very good to see you. and i will speak very briefly and we will answer any technical questions and from our office, i apologize for supervisor dufty's absence. was here but is currently chairing a committee down stairs so i am here in his office. this is a small piece and a modest proposal we believe to help the center have some

financial flexibility, one of many pieces we have participated in earlier this year. we provided essentially a loan to the center that allows them to save money on their interest payments over the period of the next five years. in addition we have helped the center with their economic programs whether it be the transgender economic power initiative, providing job services or the economic development program with the center. and so we think this is a modest proposal and one that is exciting not only for the center but really the neighborhood and will allow the building to be used by many people who are coming to not only to eat there and current uses and a number of people that are currently using it. we're certainly excite about this proposal and would love to have the commission's report. i'll have rebecca r orbing lshg

rollfs come up now. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. essentially we're asking for the ability to bring in commercial tenants on the third and fourth floor of the building. the reason that we are looking at this is the center has historical challenge. we're 8 years old and a relatively new organization that opened in 2002 and we have had many successes and developed great programs and services and done value to the community and welcome 9,000 visitors every month. we have about 3,000 events ef year and we include economic development and community support and support for children, youth, and families. one of the challenges is the building it operates at a significant loss due to the building design and relatively low buildings and the building is relatively expensive to map

tan and we carry the mortgage from capital debt from the construction period. and the building runs at an $83,000 a year operational loss. when we add in the debt service, that goes to $236,000 a year loss on the building it. and we're looking at self-efforts to increase the financial stability of the center. and one of those is a way to maximize revenues and to better utilize the space and one of the significant issues is to bring in long-term tenants. and to allow us to move other activities there and to maintain the current level of activity and surfaces and benefit to the community and increasing the revenue by about $100,000 a year the first year of the lease to

$160,000 by year four and five. and this gives it significant financial benefit to move towards the building being more self-sufficient and importantly moves us away from there and will cooperate to be constrained for obviously the near future. we think this is a smart solution that utilizes the resource that we have and that maintains the benefits of the community while allowing us to accrue a much stronger fingerprintsial ability. there are opportunities to tie a restaurant or commercial use of the building into the center's functions and that bripgs more folks into the building and creates more familiarity with the programs and services and we would also be looking for ways to tie a job training program and other services that might have a programmatic connection

to the center so make sure whatever commercial venture is brought in that there is a strong benefit to the community as well as increasing our long-term stability. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. we also have a number of folks who are here to represent the scepter. i wonder if you will be willing to stapd up or raise your hand. i know in the interest of time we won't ask even to speak, but we do enjoy strong support for this proposal and for this potential reuse of the building. thank you. vice president olague: we have a couple of speaker cards. if anyone wants to speak, you are welcome to. >> she had to leave for a medical appointment, so my apologieses. and roberto, do you want to

speak? >> good afternoon, commissioners. the director of community development programs for the center and i wanted to give you a quick snapshot of the different services and programs we offer to the community. currently7% of the visitors reside in san francisco alone and we reach a diverse cross section of the lgbt community. and as rebecca talked about, we insure individual of a link to a wide variety of services and off a safety net service program with artistic self-expression programs for homeless, lgbt use and provice programs to help individuals find employment and build their assets and also start their own small businesses and h.i.v. prevention services to newcomerses and assist families visiting the building to enjoy free child care services and that is another tie-in to a potential tenant on the fourth floor. we offer a variety of cultural and artistic exhibitions throughout the year and function

as that physical space where the community comes together to celebrate our victories, to mourn our loss, and to really organize for our future. for many our services are a lifeline. this is the place that they come to to emerge from isolation and to further develop the personal and professional skills. as rebecca talked a little bit about, the current economic climate has shrunk in public dollars for the current services. we have incredible partnerships with a variety of different city departments to support the different programs that we have. and this will really help support our efforts to focus our fundraising on our programs and services. so again, i want to thank you personally for your consideration and hope that you can continue supporting the center in this way. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya?

commissione