accomplish and put a dollar like no rincon hill like the plans call for overcame we went through an experience matching the projections to summit the impact revenue to have an understanding of the gap and this information will help us to solve the problem one of my colleagues made this graphic that summarizes the market octavia and eastern neighborhoods what that experience reminded in for impact fees across the projects over the next 10 years it's $141 million of that mta rec and park and dph noah funds are european fund in the order of $200 million plus leaving the gap and noah says a lot of that is 5 years and out we don't have

a funding strategy in mind but the other funding that the agencies really understand in the first 5 years maybe become available in the next 5 years with that, staff is available for questions. >> supervisor scott wiener do you have a question, please. >> thank you and thank you for the update my question is more is not about in the plan areas but really just i think not really a question but stating facts about our citywide impact fees and particularly the transit impact development fee or t.i.d. f so just for the benefit of the public the t.i.d. f didn't apply at all to residential development; right? >> yes. that's correct. >> so all the unit going up in

different parts of the city are not subject to the requirement of foes the residential requirements are not paying the fees. >> part of that they're paying. >> part of the area plan fee. >> but in terms of that no. >> if you're building a commercial office building you're paying the t.i.d. if but residential not. >> that's correct. >> and two floors of commercial and 50 floors you're paying on the two floors that's commercial. >> that's correct but in this southern certain plans people go to transportation. >> in terms of of the amount of that the amount is going to transportation it paltz in comparison to the citywide impact foes.

>> it depends on the district what the rate it in some areas it is barely comparable and some not. >> for example in market octavia or in eastern neighborhoods we're projecting or excuse me. collected $7 million in district impact fees in the 2014-2015 fiscal year of that will $7 million how many went to transit. >> i think it is minute. >> in the frontalss we have a significant amount going to the 16th trojan project so we've put an amount of money to the engineering project and dedicated i don't have that number in front of me but 40 percent of the revenues that go

to the future. >> future. >> i mean the 16th street transportation. >> but thought $7 million that was collected last fiscal year how much was dedicate to transit? >> what we do with the impact fee we round up every 5 years the eastern neighborhood have thirty or 40 percent goes to transit but the point you're trying to make the citywide experience of contributing to the transportation fund is really only on a residential basis in eastern neighborhoods and market octavia in eastern naktd neighborhood that is about 40 percent and market octavia is 20 or thirty percent. >> and if when you're paying if you have a project if the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia and paying the impact fees for the sgroenz 0 e zones the market octavia does that

were replace or in addition to the citywide fees for the childcare and, etc. >> it is well, in addition to the citywide fees that's correct they're all paying a higher rate. >> in addition to and so i'm i understand that there are those zone impact fees that some of which go to transit but it is not a replacement and in the end if transit impact fees apply to residential that will dwarf the market octavia or eastern neighborhoods zones from those produce for transit would you ago. >> i'll have to look at the numbers when you in terms of good i didn't they show of areas may the fees it is a quarter of the city. >> if you look at 9 development

going on in the city right now do you get a sense of what percentage of that is residential versus non-remain. >> that's a great yes, we have a sense of that project basis but not per square feet so residential is - >> i'll bell e bet it's overwhelmingly residential. >> that's correct. >> maybe the second-story but specifically. >> do you only u downtown for sure. >> my point we're leaving an enormous amount of money on the table the 2014-2015 all the impact fees went up the last fiscal year not surprising so we've collected 12 and a half million dollars for the impact fee embarrass that to $40 million for affordable

housing and we're collecting $40 million for affordable housing one hundred thousand percent to support that we need more it shows how it is deeply prioritized funding is in the city and frankly it's ridiculous and unsupportable that the t d i f didn't apply to the residential this is not our decision but our decision and the mayors decision i look forward to eliminating that. >> thank you very much supervisor kim. >> thank you supervisor cowen and thank you so much for the presentation and it is also great to see the successes we've accomplished with the using the fees to help fund many of the open space transportation projects as well as what is in the what else is in the plan i had a couple of questions

starting actually with the rincon hill i know this is the first program to start looking at impact fees structure and i'd like to talk about this is a neighborhood that in some ways it feels like we're building in the ground up not a lot of infrastructure and we're putting a lot of primarily residential building in that neighborhood and, of course, to the north of that a mixed use commercial residential what the transit plan now we're in place and development is happening and tremendous need of construction in the area yet a gap exists between the impact fees and the non impact sources for the capital improvement the economy has exploded and high-end development is occurring in the

area we're finding the medium home prices for the condos are way above one million dollars for units i'm curious we're not charging for recreation and open space for example, we have a need for open space in the area and it is significantly rincon hill and market octavia are lower for example the thought processed behind. >> in the original about the impact fees with the plan we worked out the value of the land at the time and the city was occurring through the development we want do to set the impact fees at this point that the housing and office space we're falling for will move forward and we'll be able to have a funding of a reasonable amount of infrastructure rincon hill is different when we adopted the

plan we had a release to fund one hundred percent of the impact revenue it's not a clear understanding of the eliminating the infrastructure and the value that was considered the type of construction when you alluded to support the generous fees i'm sure you're aware of there are two specific areas the rincon hill fee it what we're talking about today and the selma stabilization fee we're impairing to the eastern neighborhoods or market octavia so we did an assessment and feasibility analysis to match all those things together so i understand that and i know that we have maximum nexus we don't have necessarily hitting all the fees we want to make

sure that the development is feasible but given what we're seeing with sales of the unit in that area we're reconsidering did fee segment we're hearing i know you've heard this we hear so many from the neighborhood their thrift for infrastructure open space transit and, of course our costs of construction is going up as well as with the boon and development we're competing with private developers with the same finite universe of the construction companies now we have a better sense of what developers are able to bring in per unit are we do you think that is appropriate to reconsider the nexus for a number of reasons the childcare fees are at zero i know this is the first program and you have the stabilization fund with the feasibility will it be appoint to relooking look at the fees

given the dollars coming in we have the decisions within the community process so this citywide look at the nexus this is the next item or how we spend the money that is a thing the department took on but we do as much as we can you mentioned something about rising costs and couple years ago we had a index so the revenues when it's collected it we're doing the best to capture the interests across the city to build the infrastructure the impact fees are not responsive to the ups and downs of the real estate marketed so i i think i understand. >> we certainly heard from folks we want to relook at that and taking a look at we have a

sense of what residential units are selling for but certain residential units are not going to command the same level of money but we're seeing high wholesales many the rincon hill area and the residents want to see the developers put more of that back into the infrastructures for the residents moving into the neighborhood i had another question about i was noticing this is just in the bio annual report through the controller's office i wonder can you address that question it is on page 3 about the development impact fee summary with market octavia eastern neighborhoods and the c-3 district do you know if there's been an increase in projects between fiscal year

2012 and 13 and 2013-2014 for example, market octavia 13 in one year and next the impact fees tripled that year why is that is the developers building smaller projects in fiscal year 2012, 2013. >> good afternoon drew from the controller's office to some stent we can look at the specification as needed but i've attributed that to the value of the projects in those years as well as the subsequenting of the deferral fee a program to have a better impact collection. >> so it's not the size of the project only the increase in value that is truly amazing and i just point that out for the

members of the public for example, in market octavia 13 unit were built in fiscal year 2012 and brought in $207 million and in 13 one less and brought in $7.8 million attributed to the value of those projects going up over the one fiscal year primarily. >> i would say primarily but to get it do specification we'll have to look at it better i'll be happy to do that. >> and back to the planning department what's the do we look at the index because it is far below the rising costs of construction. >> there's a process explained in the admin code how we establish that index this is established every year with the blend of construction and the

unit interest rate so to perhaps we'll be holding the money in a municipal account and the cost of construction and the capital planning committee is responsible for derrick that interest rate annually that's how it is done. >> i think your office is certainly interested and in working an updating the foes we appreciate the nexus analysis i want to appreciate the balboa between both what we could charge and the nexus allows us to charge that the feasibility of construction we certainly don't want to dampen that feasibility side but i think we would like to see the balance as we say the value of what's created and the vendors are raking in profits per unit as newer resident move in there's a

frustration of the infrastructure didn't match what is speeded of the neighborhood like childcare and open space i know that is not you know from the planning department it is not that's a policy question but something our office is interested in pursuing. >> okay. great. >> is that it okay. good i've got a couple of questions while i'm most interested in the potrero hill and supervisor jane kim is interested in other parts of eastern neighborhood areas that touch here district what is the current gap for the infrastructure project because commissioner lee touched base on that a little bit can you tell us what that figure is. >> the last 5 before you is market octavia and eastern neighborhoods together i'm not sure we have the number

for eastern neighborhood sporadic e specific so for the steno year period but thought $108 million is for the shared neighbors it is $44 million. >> thank you very much so sorry so the funding gap for the eastern neighborhoods is $44 million over the 10 year period. >> oh, sorry i see what you're saying so the fill in gap is $44 million but when we include the pool of projects the funding gap for the eastern neighborhoods of the $188 million it is $144 million for the eastern neighborhoods it does that make sense so basically, the is slide we're looking at it identifies the $144 million in the impact revenue and 2 hundred and 36 in

other funds and $188 million gap of that $140 million in the eastern neighborhood and about the remaining 44 is in market octavia so that what we need over a 10 year period to complete what the departments and agencies feel is achieve able to support the growth is $140 million in the eastern neighborhoods. >> let's see we have a funding gap of $188.44 of that one hundred and 88 gap $44 million belongs to market octavia. >> that's correct. >> and the remainder is in eastern neighborhoods. >> that's correct. >> okay why yes, in eastern neighborhoods okay. >> okay. thank you that's a lot of money. >> so the other thing i want to

talk about what are some of the options the city has done to evaluate the funding gap what are some of the ideas generated. >> the effort it the effort i'm presenting before you looking at the city agencies and understanding the way this is my telling of it but the way mta operates they know about the state dollars that are coming up and they program that as a high-level so the conversation we're having with them to help to direct that problematic for the projects not affiliated towards this gap this is looking at the funding we know about maybe and starting to direct it where we're seeing the growth i think the sort of novelty working with the sf knowing a

lot of our agencies work on a state to - we're growing a lot of housing in the eastern neighborhoods we need to do the infrastructure planning with that in mind so over the past couple of years this beautiful but abbreviated chart is the beginning of that conversation with the agencies starting to look at their long understood sources and direct where the growth is happening. >> can you outline where the various eastern neighborhoods are in the capital plan and specifically interested in the priority level. >> within the plan p there are two ways first any project we think is nearly funded we put that in the agencies bit so rec and park is responsible for moving forward with mta is responsible for the 16th forward

so those are this funding strangles we tile u call those emerging needs the area plan calls for it. >> we think we have impact fee for it but know the city is committed to accomplishing it in the next 5 years so it stays in the capital plan and shows up as an emerging needs it is on the books to be accomplished but not tethered to a specific agencies yet. >> all right. so the mayor's office has a plan for making decisions on what projects move forward for the competitive grant funding our office is awe cul-de-sack dialed

into with the neighbors tangling through discussions their experience in the neighborhood as their needs they articulated are going to be met so i was wondering any other representation from the mayor's office besides the budget office or any other supervisorial offices that are watching this project >> we have the mayor's office of the budget at the committee but we do informational presentations we meet with a lot of supervisors as the issues come up and the cac meets monthly and matt is here from the staff i believe that - they hold community meetings regularly to conservator bring this confidence outside of cac but regularly like once or twice

annually to sort of reach that spot. >> okay. i have no future questions and my colleagues neither they having do but commenting. >> one other questions about the funding gap you've referred to in your last itself i wonder if if the funding gap is it accomplishing new projects in the eastern neighborhood. >> your question how do we define the need this is the area plans call for reaching a service level we're at with the new population so we try to figure in the next 10 years what infrastructure to serve the population in summary yes sort of using the nexus analysis as a way to filter that and to work with the

agency experts to balance that out with the projects. >> the nexus analysis includes the growth in the neighborhood. >> that's correct. >> great, thank you. >> all right. thank you let's move into. any public comment on item 1 seeing none, public comment is closed okay. colleagues given this is an annual item i'd like to make a motion we file this hearing >> thank you very much the motion is filed seconded by supervisor kim i guess roll call vote. >> on the item number one. >> you want a roll call vote vote. >> yes. please. supervisor kim supervisor wiener

and supervisor cohen. >> thank you. >> 3 ids. >> thank you very much okay this item has been dealt with the motion to file madam clerk call item 2. >> yes. item 2 an owners amending the planning code supporting the existing fees. >> the planning department is the sponsor of this welcome back. >> supervisors kirsten here to talk about impact fees this afternoon i'll present legislation by our planning commission on december 12th the citywide nexus analysis legislation and i think we've already had a really great conversation on a lot of the topics i'll reframe we completed the nexus study a requirement that you update the nexus study every 5 years each of the area plans has it's own nexus study

in an effort to make the program easier to generate a citywide analysis that covers the city it sets standards rather than a list of good to establishing the relationship between new residential and non-residential development and new infrastructure i want to make clear that nexus study doesn't look at transit it is is studied in a separate issue and not affordable housing we're talking about transportation matt haney streetscape and bicycles and open space and childcare facilities within the framework of this. >> so the legislation before you today as i said was adopted by the planning commission only december 11th and it does basically one main thing it updates the references in the different fees so the new

analysis so validing the fees but we also took this 80 chance to clean up how it operates a few administrative cleans up and only one change to the expenditures removing libraries we have conceded did branch library improvement program in agreement with the library we've felt it mating made more sense to direct the one percent into excuse me. to streetscape improvements rather than the libraries rehabilitation we dependent did not change the fee rates or the geometry i want to make it clear the eastern neighborhood fees are still in the eastern neighborhood and fees still in

octavia we've presented this to the market octavia cacs and had full support from them as well and staff are available for questions on this too. >> thank you very much thank you for that presentation colleagues, any questions on item number 2 no? okay. i just want to ask a couple of questions on page 12 of our report the nexus study the city will fund one hundred percent through the fee unquote how; is that correct there are continuous gaps continues to be gaps in funding patrolling for open space in the eastern neighborhoods create by an increased population >> i'm trying to catch up to our question. >> sure on page 12. >> in the report.

>> uh-huh. >> so the nexus study report. >> so what i think it might be referencing i'll talk through that help you he me but the way we establish the nexus amount if you can imagine how much the policy question we all answer it devil what will cap the total amount on what we think if rec and park sort of copes a standard of one square feet of park per person we'll set the nexus we use the understood references for rec and park to service the population as a way to mitigate this conversation about what amount is appropriate there's a legal reason we choose that beacon hill we can't ask the vendors to provide two