controls which would have an impact to you, the redevelopment plan would be supplanted. the main components of that are in the zoning will remain. they will just be housed within the planning cut. -- code. the trust property and planning commission will have control over vertical development. we have talked about in the past, the jurisdiction, the planning commission would look at the vertical which was a majority of the improvements. he's a zoning designations, you see the marks show of the trust's properties in the area

is significant. but to the development is in a non-trust area. the yellow being the proposed housing. who reviews and approves projects as they are built on the island, in order to have approval over vertical development, what would come to the planning commission would be anything that deviates from 10% as well as major project. or a commercial property that adds 25,000 square feet. projects of that nature would come to the commission for review and approval. this is the phasing plan to remind you that the project is built out over 10 years or 20 years in various phases starting at the island and radiating from

there. that is the presentation. if you want to stop and answer questions, or if you want us to keep moving -- president olague: stop here? commissioner antonini: very good presentation. i think it is good that treasure island has not moved into the position of already having the redevelopment agency in place, because one of the requirements is not to already be in place. how is that true? >> that is a good catch. i did not mention that. if you have ever been a redevelopment project area, you could not issue them in that area. there is an ability to go back and become a redevelopment project. commissioner antonini: i think

your initial plan is the best. there will be a lot of discussion about auctions because what we are trying to do is create a community. he wanted the entities that are out there, the way it is structured, we are putting a significant amount of affordable housing out there, which is very good. in dodge i will stress that we have put in the agreement with the developer had the ability of the funding is available, we are able to go back and change the state law. commissioner antonini: it gives you the option because there is a lot of uncertainty. at least you have a plan in place that essentially brings the thing for word and could be appealable to those that are investing. nobody wants to invest in

something that has no certainty. commissioner moore: they are reasonably new as a tool, i had to practice to spell out what the acronym means. in san francisco, there is only one that i am aware of. is that correct? since this is a new tool in california, it has been used for many years in florida and does not have a particularly good reputation there. [laughter] you said that, i didn't. >> my mother lives in florida. i am kind of curious, there will the other projects standing in line to be the same thing. and my understanding was, that

is a very limited understanding, your joining properties to the blocks. there is a property tax for this particular ifd. >> you have to be in the district. the find the district. we define the district as treasure island. it included those properties. >> treasure islcommissioner mooe island needs to be ifd'd. >> in the hill, it is everything in the ifd that contributes. commissioner moore: i thought it was adjoining properties in the area. >> you have to be in the area. commissioner moore: using

treasure island, treasure island itself contributes. be protected property taxes create the ifd. that's good. at one point, somebody said that the ability to be a capable agency or entity would help create an ifd on treasure island. >> the port's got special legislation. basically enabling it to be able to issue bonds. and giving some favorable changes to the existing law, many of the things that we go after, which talk about the 30-

45 years. the change that purport law. the ports just got the ability to issue them with some favorable items in the statute. it can issue bonds associated with pier 70. it was able to expand its ability to get out of the share. there is a president to getting beyond it. commissioner moore: to infrastructure financing plans require voter approval? >> they do. where you have residents, they would require those residents to

vote to authorize. so on treasure island where we have the transmission housing plan, we would not create the district until there were no residence in that area. we would not create one ifd. we would create 45 that mimic the development phases. it might contain a portion of treasure island by the portions of the island. but we would not create that until we implemented the transition plan had relocated residents. commissioner moore: i understand what you're saying. many of the infrastructure improvements are systemwide. how can you do that?

i am talking about the perimeter, the wall improvements, basic infrastructure to the facility that is an island along system. how can you create districts and still build the entire length of t>> before, we were talking about him coming from outside of the district coming into the district. increment has to be created within the district. it can be spent outside of the district. you can create the district that is a smaller area, but you can spend the fund outside of the district. >> with the city probably looking ha in many areas for infrastructure financing, how many of those things how can

they take on? unlimited? >> redevelopment is the same type of tool where we looked to use redevelopment project areas. there is no reason why we could not use that model, too. we got the changes we needed for affordable housing, but it is a pretty flexible tool that we can use throughout the city. >> there is a staffing issue for us. we will clearly need more to have to do this. but the point is well taken, since the money is generated within the district and used within the district, it is very similar to what happens in redevelopment. you could create several of these if the city chose to move

in that direction. commissioner moore: sorry to be asking some of the rudimentary questions. -- so many rudimentary questions. commissioner sugaya: would it require property owner approval? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: you would drive boundary and asked if they want or don't want it? in terms of the encouragement that is generated, is if it generated after a base is established just like under a tax increment? that they still generates income for the general fund? ok. >> there are private property owners that voted to initiate. we are the property owners.

commissioner fong: i think this model might become pretty popular statewide. a little bit on your first recommendation, if you did not produce affordable housing, you touched on how to catch back up to certain points. can you go a little bit further about how that might work? if you get to phase one, what are the triggers? or would it happen in phase one, but not phase 2? >> there were 24 lots designated for affordable housing. under the 25% scenario, there are 20 in total designated for affordable housing. we would try to structure so that there is one law perfect.

we have a request to try to push that out further. it gives us more time initially to lobby the state to try to get some of the funds back. to get back those for affordable housing. so we would not give up the affordable housing lots. commissioner miguel: because there is no confusion that might become popular throughout the state, could you go back over the fact of why san francisco is in such a unique position? and why it probably would not become popular around the state? >> aledo from 80 cents to 65 cents.

commissioner miguel: that is the city and county. >> it could give you a significant amount of revenue, but not nearly as much as we could do under redevelopment. that is exactly right. commissioner moore: could you clarify in terms of the navy, how do you define property prior to taking ownership? >> the property is owned by the navy. we have negotiated a conveyance agreement where they will transfer the property to us. that is a negotiated agreement

that is part of the package of approvals. that is transferred and owned by the city. it is now the city. but they will have the ownership of the property. the property will be redrawn, lines will be redrawn so that there are seats -- streets and parks that are owned in development parcels. after the improvements and the infrastructure development, they will transfer the land to the developer. >> when redevelopment ceases to exist, as a redevelopment agency, how do you redefine the legal basis of the transition or whatever you want to collect? >> we have the same questions. it was created prior to

[unintelligible] it was a non-profit public benefit corporation. it was created prior to the state law that was adopted that gave the city the authority to designate it as a redevelopment agency. if it is stripped of its redevelopment power, it goes back to what it was or currently is. it loses those redevelopment power, but it is retained as a nonprofit or public benefit corporation. the state law is interesting even if the development powers go away, it is a trust the of the trust property. >> i knew that this was a concern of the commission. they will continue to insist as a public branch of the city. it is very similar to the port.

it has its own commission or authority to do certain things. it is still a public entity that will own the land. it will not have redevelop the powers. that is the difference here. which is different than what happens in the other redevelopment areas. they are owned by the redevelopment agency that has to go away and we have to figure out who owns the land. it existed as an entity before it became a redevelopment agency. >> i am speaking not really with any legal experience, but it would require some explanation to the citizens of san francisco. the creation of treasure island having been out of sight for many years. it started before, i believe that somebody needs an explanation of how that transfers itself. i am not trying to put any

unnecessary questions into it, but i don't think the public understands what all of the new stuff means. >> we can ask the city attorney. they have looked at this question extensively. she is still here to talk about this. it is obviously a question we have looked at. >> i definitely would like to know what to say. >> it was created prior to becoming a redevelopment agency. >> but people don't remember that. >> i am not sure if they remember are not. that is kind of what happens. commissioner borden: with an ifd, the basic value of the land is the value of the anticipated

housing? or is the value at that moment? >> you cannot issue these bonds until you have a tax increment. commissioner borden: not until you have built the housing. >> the vertical housing projects have to be built. the same premise in mission bay and the shipyard. the developer has a front the money. they get reimbursed. when the projects are built. commissioner borden: in the first phase, it will probably be pushed further down? because we have to generate -- >> exactly. we had to wait for them to come in to build affordable housing unless we were able to access

other resources. most likely, it would have to wait until that increment came in. commissioner borden: fluctuations of the market and market value of the house and what impact of the amount of revenue we could generate? if things were going really well, we could squeeze out more affordable housing because of the market? har redevelopment areas where they bought the capacity and values have come down. commissioner borden: i don't remember, looking at what we have examined, what was the range of the overall housing units? i am just wondering if there is flexibility to up any of the market rates or achieve more

affordable? >> we looked at possibly increasing the density. it would necessitate going back in redoing the eir. commissioner moore: is this the only time where we will be able to ask questions? are you planning to have follow- up meetings? this is very complicated. i have questions regarding the options you have developed to date. i reflect on raising issues about trust uses. your decrease in what is preferred trust uses, open space. for example, you are suggesting to a limit a the regional sports

park that would reduce transit subsidies and half of the funding. part of these things are the preferred public trust uses, that means that the emphasis on housing becomes even larger and disproportionate of what is required. are you seeing a further push back on those issues? i assume you are trying to deliver the project in a different way? >> we would have those conversations. if that was the option that we landed on. but obviously, that would necessitate having those conversations. it would not come from increment funding. we would have to go out and seek

other funding whether it is future general fund bonds, whether it is going back to the conservatory a model. we would have to build the park. there are the trust uses and it would remain trust property subject to limitations on future use. >> in the same thing a applies to reducing the transit subsidy with he oriented project that you're trying to the least describe the project that would weigh heavily on the critique that there are too many cars. there is a shift in balance here that i am concerned about. what other alternatives are you considering to got further emphasize what some of the critiques of the project are? >> that is why we proposed the recommendation that we did.

it has financial benefits, but on the transportation, we don't believe it will have an impact on the eir. we think we can get the transportation program with a 20-million dollars subsidy -not knowing what costs will be in the future. again, we think we can do that with a reduction of subsidy. is there more risk? yes. we have to negotiate agreements with transit, but we would commit to maintaining the service we have proposed. president olague: would you like to add anything? it is of you. since you were here.

>> i am here just to feel that the questions that you might have. >> right now, where the market rate housing and a certain percentage would come on, how would this approach change that? you are much more dependent on the value of that property for how much affordable housing you afford to build. >> affordable housing is a combination of developer contribution, so we would be looking to shift the balance as much as we could without hurting the rate of return. i don't know exactly how it is structured, but that back-and- forth we need to do, a lot of the money was coming out of increment, presumably, whatever the limits are, the developers are paying for more of the

affordable out of their proceeds. i would just say, from my standpoint, i think to the extent that we are able to squeeze additional funding or other tax revenue of any sort, it would be important to explain or have explicit that the first call on those funds is affordable. the ferry terminal is a good example. rather than leaving it to chance, i am sure that we will talk about this. we are anxious about the fact that there is a significant structural deficit to the affordable at this point. we understand why, but let's be explicit. if we get better results than where we currently are

anticipating -- commissioner moore: the portion given that every% matters is a reasonable or sizable percentage. how can you be sure that not every other city in california will try to do the same thing which in the way, defeats with the government is trying to do. >> i am not wildly optimistic about the chances. i would rather broadened the concept to talk about tax revenue broadly. i think we have to look at all of the different agencies that will receive tax revenue from this and think about what it means. one of the challenges that has always been the challenge, there city-wide resources. i believe other facilities will be used broadly. it would be my hope that we can

look to a more broad constituency in terms of filling those voices. you are right. we have a very unique example in which we can say but for this intervention, there is no funding in the absence of the project. but once we get to a place where we have the project, we can help backfill. there are certain cases, military bases that you have to overcome such a huge structural hurdle, we can say to the state, if you don't put the funding in, we don't have a project. we are clever enough that we have gotten past that hurdle. it lowers the incentive to be an investor. commissioner moore: i looked at san francisco being one of the

most active in the state. we have a lot of that visitation valley. including the restructuring of the eastern neighborhoods, we could almost say that each project is a candidate of merit for being able to keep the project. how do we prioritize within the city itself looking at possible projects? how do we do that? >> we were having this conversation yesterday, that we are looking at these bills. your 100% right. the state will not turn around and say, sorry we took away redevelopment. you are right. the question we're asking is, under what circumstances is the state -- i don't know if it is 100% or a portion.