February 19, 2002

JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD

In the meeting of Assessment Appeals Board Number 1 of the City and County of San Francisco, Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 9:50 a.m.

Present: Ronald Chun, Frank Mahoney and Hayes Miles

Quorum present

Chairperson: Ronald Chun, Presiding

The following listed applicant(s) for change in the assessed valuation of property affecting the Assessment Roll for various years being present and heard, the Board took certain actions, as specified under this date, on the original of the respective applications(s):

RECESS

There being no further business, the Board, at the hour of 10:30 a.m., recessed to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

RECONVENING OF THE BOARD

The Assessment Appeals Board 1 reconvened at the hour of 1:35 p.m. for a special meeting, status conference.

Present: Frank Mahoney, III

Quorum not present and not required for Status Conference

The below listed applicant(s) for change in the assessed valuation of property affecting the Assessment Roll for various years, appeared before the Board for a status conference and discussed the following issues:

1. The parties confirmed that this is a possessory interest, redevelopment agency project. The City of San Francisco leased the land to Millineum Partners (the long-term master lessee), who developed the project. Millineum Partners then subleased the property to Metreon / Sony.
2. A discussion was held on the status of separating out personal property from the original cost of construction when the project was completed in 1999. Long term Master Lessee is Millineum Partners.
3. The taxpayer provided documentation in January 2002 to Assessor’s office as part of the process in determining value using the income approach to value, versus the construction cost. The taxpayer indicated that he is having difficulty in providing actual cost accounting from the parent company located in Burbank, California.
4. The Assessor acknowledged that the property is a unique property, and as such, is faced with the difficulty of determining the appropriate method of valuation to use to establish and set the 1996 base year value. The current roll value reflects partial completion of the project.
5. It was recommended by Commissioner Mahoney that the personal property division of the Assessor’s office attend the future scheduled hearings for these applications.
6. The parties felt that two hearing days would be sufficient time to present their case before the Board.

There being no further business, the Board, at the hour of 2:27 p.m., recessed to reconvene on Wednesday, February 20, at 9:30 a.m.

Gloria L. Young

Clerk

Dawn Duran

Administrator

Approved by the Board on Friday, March 22, 2002