ownership. and so i encourage you to take the money and run. thank you, any questions? >> i am sorry. >> i could not hear you. >> well, it is all right. >> thank you. >> all right. so next, the affordable housing payments. and the previously mentioned, it will make a payment of $13.85 million for the development of affordable housing in the project area as a down of approval of this variation. and the payment has been met in the additional revenue that will accrue to the developer if the 11 on site units were converted. and this amount is based on the analysis by the group that took into consideration, the exact location of the 11 on site affordable units within the project in order to determine the value consistent with other

come parable high-rise sales prices. at the hearing on september 12th, the commission inquired whether the 13.85 million is reflective of today's values given the price increases that have occurred, since the analysis was finished. >> it is difficult to say how much real variation there will be in the values for a number of reasons, first the project is unique and it has a variable set of come parable property and there has been evidence of significant activity and price increases in the middle of the market, there is less evidence at the high end of the market where this project is located and therefore it is difficult to say how much if any the values for this project would have increased over the last year. and second, the value of the

bmr units may also increase in the near future as the incomes are expected to rise, and such increases in value could mitigate the increases in value for the market rate units and third the analysis is based on the project that is still under construction and it does not exist, and it is at a certain, fixed point in time and so it is impossible to really know exactly what the market dynamics are going to be at the point in time when the units are actually sold. and mr. corn well concluded that given the above considerations the analysis is still valid today. the affordable housing payment, which is about 2.5 times the amount of the affordable housing fee that will be paid for the city's affordable housing program will help oci, meet the affordable housing obligations in the transbay, and initially the staff estimated that up to 55 stand

alone, affordable housing units on the public land parcels could be funded on the payment, with the assumption of $250,000 per unit in subsidy, and however, based on the review of the stand alone, affordable projects under way in the project area, currently, the majority which are rental, it could be reduced to $200,000 for a rental project, for example, the sponsor for the transbay block 8 is required to develop a stand alone affordable project that requires no more than $200,000 per unit in ocii subsidy and therefore, if ocii were to use the 13.85 payment, with the transbay block 8, the payment could subsidize over 69 affordable units which is a net increase of 68 units over the 11 that would be generated by the project on site.

and at the hearing on the 12th, the commission expressed concerns about whether approving this variation would set a precedent for other housing projects. it is unlikely because the project is so unique, it is the only approved or proposed mixed use of housing development in the entire area and it has the smallest number of residential units of any high-rise building in the area and residential units are located on the upper 15 floors of the 52-story tower and then if we look outside of the project area, they already have the option of what the transbay cannot currently do.

and then, finally, the next steps, the approval today is subject to approval by the board of supervisors, in its capacity as the legislative body for ocii, and because it is constitutes a change to the program, the planning commission and the board of supervisors will be considering a development agreement with the developer that will be consist he want with this acion and will provide the leap for the plan that is in the planning code and require the developer to pay the housing fee to ocii and the agreement also requires the developer to participate in the community facility's district that was authorized by the board of supervisors, the items are schedule for the planning commission on october 16th, and the land use committee of the board of supervisors on october 20th. >> and that concludes my presentation, and we have representatives from the developer, jay, paul here as well as myself and maria

available for any questions that you might have. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> madam secretary, do we have any speaker cards? >> we have two speaker cards. >> april, and marty. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is april and i am the legislative aid for supervisor jane kim whose district is a district for 181 freemont and i am here to experience our support for this variation from the transbay, redevelopment plan, in general, the supervisors supports on site affordability, and but that just something that is important to her that is related to mixed income neighborhoods and i think that this is a unique circumstance that the supervisor has examined carefully with the advice from the staff, and this is a variation that would yield

at dishal affordable units in the project area moving forward on our 35 percent goal for the area, this is a unique circumstance in which the supervisor supports this change. while i agree with the staff position that this is unlikely to set a precedent for other projects in the project area, i do feel the supervisor feels that this is an important precedent in the unique precedent that set and that relates to a developer, that is able and willing to pay a higher fee. and so, i think that in that case, the ability to have additional affordable units is one of her overriding considerations. and so, thank you again, for having the opportunity for our office to speak in support of this item and we ask for your support as well. >> thank you. next speaker? >> thank you, my name is marty

with the council of community housing organizations and i just want to let you know that we are support of it variation. and as april mentioned earlier, we wanted to make sure that this does not set a precedent for in general buildings, feing out and it does set, i think an interesting precedent in both how we got to the number, through an independent third party review and got looked at opportunity costs and a precedent that where, typically in inclusionary housing, when the developer pays the fee, city wide, and not within the redevelopment areas, it averages 250,000 a unit and this is averaging 1.4 million per unit and it let's us know how much a gap there is in what we have set already. and what is available in particular, and luxury projects. and i do want to mention a couple of issues to flag, and as i said before, we support

units be provided on site, typically and this is a unique situation that we don't want to lose that 15 percent on site and the question that perhaps the commission might want to look at and what are the hoa dues, in the projects as you look at other buildings that will have on site home ownership and is it preferable to build those units off site, where the bmr units are paying their own and setting their own and paying their own hoa fees. and so thank you very much and again, we want to say that we are supportive of this and we want to be sure that it does not set a precedent for all projects being out. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the public. >> no other speaker cards. >> we will close public comment. and turn it to the commissioners, commissioner singh? >> yeah. thank you. and madam president, and i have

gone through already targeting this, and actually, i like this project, now, and i don't know before and also, i agree that it counts enough and so (inaudible) so i think that i like to move this. >> commissioner do you have any questions? >> no i just would like to second that. >> thank you. >> and the motion has been made and seconded, could you call the roll? >> commissioner singh, >> yes. commissioner bustos. >> yes. >> and madam chair. >> yes. >> three ayes and one absent. >> item five, consent agenda, approval of minutes, august 19, 2014. >> madam chair? >> yes, i believe that first we

need to call for public comment? do we have any speaker cards? >> i have no speaker cards. >> so there is no speaker cards and are there any comments or questions, edits to the minutes? >> i move the minutes. >> motion, by commissioner singh. >> second. >> i think that it is appropriate for commissioner bustos to second. >> yes. and so the motion has been moved and seconded call the roll. >> commissioners announce your vote when i call your fame. >> commissioner singh? >> yes. >> commissioner bustos,. >> yes. >> madam rosales. >> yes. >> three ayes and one absent. >> next item. >> next order of business is regular agenda, 5 b, resolution authorizing and direct concern actions to be taken with respect to the election of the city and county san francisco community facilities district no, 2014-1, transbay transit center and, transbay redevelopment project area and

discussion and action, resolution number 84-2014. madam director. >> thank you, madam secretary, commissioners the board of supervisors recently completed a number of steps to fill the district in transbay, and it will cover the entire transbay redevelopment project area and your jurisdiction as well as planning and as we know in the other project areas, these special tax districts are critical to implementing the over all vision for the project and the infrastructure and the improvements and the marks and the like and with that, i would like to ask, sally our deputy directors for the programs and project management to present this item. >> thank you, director, and good morning, commissioners. and so, today i am here to seek approval of the resolution, authoritying the executive director to execute a ballot in favor of the city transbay, transit center and ocii currently owns a parcel of

land, known as transbay block one which is planned to be sold to private ownership and will be subject to the tax. >> before going to the specifics of the cfd, i wanted to give you an over all time line for the adoption of this proposed district. and the board of supervisors has already taken several legislative actions in september, to approve the resolution of formation, and the resolution of determining the necessity to incur the debt and the resolution for calling for the landowner election, and then, the final hearings are schedule for december of this year. >> also, a little more background, just in general about transbay and the key plan dates. and there has been a long standing goal, to expand downtown south of market to the area around the transbay transit center. and the city has been engaged in planning these efforts including significant public out reach and engagement for the area surrounding the center for ten years and our focus for

this work is to build up the transit oriented growth under the new transit center and to help to pay for the center as well as a downtown rail extension, from the fourth and king, cal train station and sometimes, it is referred to as the dpx. and so, here is some key milestones that have occurred in the area when some of the planning work and the plan itself and the redevelopment plan was created in 2005 and the various, review and the planning steps in 2009, there was a draft, transit center plan released but that was finally approved in 2012. so, in an overview of the cfd, but that transit center plan as i mentioned was adopted in 2012, included a requirement that the major new development will be required to join a community facilities district or a special tax district and established the general terms for the rates at 0.55 percent, of the value, and a term of a

maximum of 30 years. and i have called for in the implementation document, the city has done a study to develop, a rate and method of a portionment of those taxes or an rm a and based on an updated valuation study performed by the concord group. and that included looking at how the taxes will be assessed on major new development and required by the planning code. and it assumed that the existing development does not pay and that the tax based and the taxes based on land use, consistent with the value is described in the transit center district plan and based on that evaluation performed by the group and the land use category and residential, and looking at those for sale and rental and the office and hotel, retail, and the initial maximum special rates for each property, based on a fiscal year of 13, 14, base rates and the base rate increases by an annual

infrastructure cost inflation estimate each year and which is consistent with the impact fees and there is a gap and a floor of a 4 percent change. and after project receives its certificate of occupancy and then there will be a maximum rate of 2 percent each year. there are exemptions and the affordable housing is exempt and child care space for instance. >> and so here is a map showing the cfd boundary along with the transbay redevelopment boundary, if you can see the outline in red is the cfd boundary and then, you can see sort of the gray lines within that of the transbay plan, and zone one, which are the public parcels under ocii jurisdiction and it is indicated there, and sort of at the bottom of the plan area and then in zone two, are private parcels under the jurisdiction of the planning

department and so within that boundary were rezoned through the center and district plan and they got significant height increases on several parcel and previously they topped out at 550 feet and now, multiple development parcel cans go up to 700 feet or above. and they also removed, the density limits which has allowed more development on parcel and as part of the adoption of the plan and the up zoning, the code was amended to require new impact fees and participation in this melarue district by the new development. and here is a closer out, more detailed view and you can see that the initial parcels, are shaded in there that are, the initial ones, and then, the, and they would vote on the cfd and that includes all of the publicly owned parcels and then all of the parcels that have already entitled projects, and have joining the cfd as part of the entitlement requirements

and the future an nexation is the same as the boundary and as property jects get in this boundary they will be required to annex into the existing cfd, but the future parcels don't vote yet on the formation of the cfd. >> so, and now i will talk about the plan for both the revenue and the expenditures within the cfd and it will primarily pay for that downtown rail extension that i mentioned, but from the fourth and king, to the new transit center and along with a lot of street and open space improvements, and this is going to supplement the tax fees and revenue and there is a list of eligible capitol projects in the cfd legislation and specifically those items are funding the train box, that dtx extension and the roof top park on the transit center and a lot of public realm improvements to serve the pedestrians coming and the new development and the

intention, really is that we do anticipate that there will be a large number of pedestrians coming to this transit terminal and this new development and moving between there and market street and so it is paying for a lot of those public improvements in that area, and the planning department and the department of public works are working on a detailed street scape plan including the detailed cost estimates of what that will take. >> and before the issuance, and that will be issued after the district is formed, and after the first certificate of occupancy is issued. and each bond issuance will then be secured by that special tax payment with a cap of up to 1.4 billion dollars. there is in terms of government and administration, of the cfd, that will be governed by what is called a joint facility agreement, and the board of supervisors then is also, responsible for forming the district. and once that district is

formed, the board must approve bond authorizations as well as a capitol plan and a budget through its usual board processes. >> the capital planning committee will approve a plan and making recommendations about the plan in the budget and the city's director of public finance will be responsible for projecting those bond renew and recommending issuances and recommending tax commitmentments for the specific project and based on those revenues there will be a committee that will meet to develop a five year capitol plan, spending that and consistent with that agreement. and this would then be recommended to that capitol planning committee for the approval and you can see that there are several steps and reviews to be sure that they are in step are the revenues. >> so, as i mentioned the final steps are to hold the election for the formation of the cfd and the board of supervisors will take the final legislative

action in december. and so, with your approval today, and then the executive director will be authorized to execute a ballot since we own the block one which is within the district. >> and so that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions about this matter. >> thank you. >> do you have any speaker cards. >>vy no speaker cards. >> okay. no conversation, and discussion? comments by commissioners? >> i just want to know about this. 1.4 billion, bonds. can you explain that? >> one second.

so the, and the 1.4 billion is the maximum amount of debt that be issued and the question of what it will be spent o >> right, and so that was that list of item primarily and the train box for the trains coming in to the terminal and a lot of street scape and there is a capitol list that is included in the legislation and then as the district goes forward, the city's capitol planning committee will be reviewing things to determine, what this specific uses will be for each bond issuance. >> and do you know if a vendor is going to or what wither going to issue these bonds? >> well the city will issue them and so it is not an ocii controlled cfd, it is a city and, we will be taking action because we own a parcel of land within the district. and so, once the first project gets the cfo i think that was the point at which, they can issue the debt. and i am not sure if i know

exactly, unless the director has a sense on when the first bond issuance and i can find that out. >> and i believe that the first project will get a cfo about a year, or a year and a half from now. so, after that, building gets its certificate of occupancy, and then, you know, all of the other steps will have to happen and the city will start to issue the debt. >> okay. >> do we have any other questions? >> no i would like to move the item. >> before we move that i just have a question and just because it is interesting to me and you have explained how ccii would cast our vote and with respect to the other property owners in the district, if it is a private company let's say jay paul or anyone else, how is it that they do, and do you know? do they go through the board of directors? >> i think that it probably would depend on how each development and entity is controlled, and so they will have their internal, you know, review process and how they

cast the ballot and that i think it depends on the type of that company, with the property owner. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and i have no other questions. >> the motions are made by commissioner bustos and we have a second. >> second by commissioner singh. >> call the roll. >> announce your vote. >> commissioner mondejar, absent. >> singh. >> yes. >> bustos. >> yes. >> madam chair, rosales. >> yes. >> three ayes and one

>> roll call coucilmember circo commissioner josefowitz commissioner stephenson commissioner wan we have the introduction by the commissioner in the opening remarks please final this is san francisco director ralph. >> thank you, monique and thank you, everyone for coming together this is a very special meeting i think we're excited to be here at the commission i'll