working down the street. i think you will see a significant increase of in jobs and housing. the latest element of its is those headed across the base and to the housing that is down in mission bay, it was recently opened and that is a fairly significant number of people. president olague: any public comment on this item? >> i am really hoping that this plan does what recent plans haven't done, to take a very close look at transportation infrastructure and already it is to support growth.

the city has been coasting for many years on investments that were made in 1970. both of them have served us well. they are really purging capacity. if you were there in 2008, the stations are bursting at the seams. any of these recent plans really haven't done that. it was frustrating being part of the discussion when you are saying that the community benefits package needs to include capacity. there is a great cautionary tale. they did not believe in public infrastructure, but they believe in financing and development. it was a kind of very short

railway like the subway. it could not very many people. they had to double the length of the platform. much easier to do with an elevated system that a subway. we have to extend the underground. i don't want to make that mistake again. we have to be smart about making sure that the public transit is there. it is not a high capacity subway. it will not carry a lot of people. it will make sure that the amount of growth hue are anticipating can be accommodated. as development happens, investment flows towards buying incremental capacity. the that those original

characters -- the of that goes to regional. even though we charge the [unintelligible] probably not paying as much as they should, but it is not going where it should go. really integrating land use and transportation will be the thing that we do with this plan. the way that it was built off of a very transit first kind of perspective, rather than the more recent plans which tended to separate land use and planning, to the discredit into disfavor of both. president olague: any additional public comment? >> i want to follow up on what

thomas said. the downtown plan has resumed a massive increments, and they also were assuming that most of the growth would have been north of our history. i went through all three rounds as well as eastern neighborhoods. the planning department kicks over the local transit issues and the mta does not follow through. we have not added a massive infrastructure. we're waiting for the solution. we don't have a transit system south of market. they are long walks. it is a long walk to the streets. that is not factored in right

now. i can take you down third street. as you go through mission bay, we have the t-line, but no connecting. we do this all the time. it is a wasteland for transit, but whatever was going the walk. it is hard when you are walking uphill with groceries or you are a senior citizen or you have kids. we have done all of these studies for these tiny little segments that are just a tiny little bit. it is not the solution. south of market has cracked transit -- crap transit. the planning department has as much responsibility as muni does. you working the problem down the road while you are adding he

density and we don't have the transition. i challenge anyone to use it as your way to get around all over the south of market and you will find out you can't military >. >> i was shocked to find out the mta cut the number 12 bus service . instead of going down to the waterfront, it is on second street where the 12 stopped going east word.

there are 32 kids living there. a lot of the folks that bought units where i live, they're not as mobile and agile as they used to be. while a has been cut out over the years, there is still an incline. president olague: any additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> i wanted to let the commission of that the team is here today, and sarah will be overseeing the effort. >> commissioners, we can move forward to item number six, the

demonstration of the property and information. >> awarded to tell you how excited i am about this new technology that the department has on their web site as of this week, i believe. this presents a wealth of information for the public to use that otherwise would have taken a lot of time or required a trip down to the planning department to find out. because of the changes, we will be able to prepare this information and make it available to the public on line. we are quite thrilled about that. it is probably the most important iteration of the recent improvements to the web site. >> brian smith, the director of itt. thanks for that introduction.

we are very excited, and it is my pleasure to show you the property information that. a couple of things came together. it is our application, and some cloud technology to be able to push our information they the to have that available on line. i will go over here and go through some of the benefits of having the information available. we have also holding it with homebuilding information home inspections as well. and there is a direct a blank half of our main page. you can get to these advances go

property information map. one of the really neat features about this is that you can early -- really click in. if you don't know the case number or the property address, if i were to go to the search here and hit enter, he will bring you to the exact same of patients. and the other addresses it is also known by. it is really an amazing search of venue here as well. and we have a bunch of tabs your that will give you the information. there are some links right here , you can get that information.

you can go down again to other matters and have both on top of each other if you like. it is very quick, very robust. the assessor information is down below here. it is also a nice feature. it comes down to other regulations that relate to the planning total. it will bring up the information that is relevant to that. we get in the preservation information. the landmark no. 21 is great. we also have a bunch of survey field forms the you can get the animation and just by clicking the link as well.

here is an old form that is also pertinent to this information here. you can see the latest projects, and project information. we link the planning information center here for information. if it is a relatively your project case, it is certainly nice to have. willing to the building permits as well. you can come here and look at some of the quick information. it goes to the website and pulls of in-house the building permit information as well. the other permits are miscellaneous permit. as you scroll down, we have had complaints related to the planning department.

as far as the vacco is, if you are not sure where you're going, but you have a street or an address that can get you close, you can move this icon around and placing it on the parcel that you would like and get that information as well. you can tie that in and it brings you to the church. there are a couple of tabs here that are nice. the preservation haphazard who gets you to more survey field forms.

if he wanted to use a case number, there is an example. the reason i am pulling this up is because under projects, where an of linking all of our commission agendas on line. this is a your case. you'll be able to click on the commission packet as well. we will be joining or adding more information. [inaudible] we will be progressing this and moving in for for the public, i think it is a great tool.

if you have any questions, feel free. commissioner miguel: i went on the web site and play around with that. the number of addresses and and by moving the icon, it works beautifully. the information is very fast. it is very complete and it will service the city very well. commissioner antonini: is a san francisco property information that? -- map? >> propertymap.sfplanning.org. the main page has a banner that rotates. the banner is clickable. there is a hyperlink down at

the bottom. commissioner moore: you are suggesting is really easy. the only question is, will you be continuously updating? >> currently, there is about a too weak or 30 day delay -- two week or 30-day delay on lag time. it is relatively new right bell. building inspection does go back to their page. commissioner sugaya: i did go on line during the week and it

works great. but how do we report what we know our errors? >> there is a link on top. there is also your feedback right there. it is directly to the analyst. commissioner sugaya: you mentioned sri. are we using that technology? >> the enterprise license agreement to place about a month ago that allows us to configure that. >> i wanted to thank brian and the gis analyst that has done the work done this.

i think it will allow the public to get a lot of information much more quickly. it really helps that. i want to thank staff for putting this together. president olague: public comment? public comment is closed. >> we can now start the 1:30 calendar. proposed for a continuance to april 21, 2011. item 8, the fairmount hotel. to june 23, 2011.

further on your calendar, item number nine, a repeal of preliminary negative declaration, please note that the appeal has been withdrawn and this item is no longer before you. with that, i am not aware of any other item proposed for a continuance. president olague: public comment on items proposed for a continuance? commissioner miguel: i move the items for a continuance on the calendar to the dates specified. >> on the motion as the have been proposed -- [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners. those items are continued. you are on item number 10.

an informational presentation on the development of the idea of the financial district partnership. >> it is could be in front of you today. before you today is an informational presentation about the proposal for the infrastructure partnership. it is an initiative sponsored by the planning department to combine the benefits of public facilities and the recently approved infrastructure. to accelerate development of the public realm set forth in the master plan. this is a presentation by oewd.

it was generated as we were discussing a the lansing project. we will continue to update you on the proposal. michael is here to give you a short presentation about the proposal. >> the afternoon, commissioners. i have hard copies of an informational memorandum. i also have extra copies for the public. i would like to emphasize what he said. this is an informational item and i hope to return at a later date when we can refine this idea further. i thought would be worth while to outline what the partnership potentially looks like.

if you look at the slide before you, there are four goals to the partnership. the first is to accelerate the build up of the public realm. the second is to achieve cost savings to the public. the third is to stimulate a market for bond financing. the fourth is to provide a template. the neighborhoods using this model, it would be helpful to briefly touch on some of the key themes, the key facts about the infrastructure financing plan.

i know you have been getting a lot of information on here lately. what you see here on this chart as a reminder that this proposes to access the tax increment that is otherwise going to the general fund. it represents about 57% of the incremental dollar. others are proposing a larger share. there is an active debate about how much affordable housing we can support with the reduced share of that high. the debate that is going on in sacramento is how much of the pie is enough? we are pursuing a pretty modest proposal that does not use a significant portion of the new increment.

i wanted to remind you of what we were talking about. this plan contains 17 parcels and 10 potential projects sites. nine of the 10 project sites already received entitlements and they comprise about 2500 units of housing. we anticipate completion and absorption of all of those projects sometime around 2022. here is the back of the -- a map of the ifd where you recommended approval. there are 17 parcels, but there are actually 10 development sites. nine of which have already received entitlements.

if you look to the left, you will see the landing site. -- lansing site. another reminder of what the scope of public improvements that we are discussing to finance, there are three new parks. the infrastructure plan includes be redesigned of pretty much all of the streets in the area. bill received essentially a better streets redesign makeover. all of the design work was done prior to 2005 and is included in the master plan that the planning department published which was approved by the board of supervisors in 2005.

we updated the estimates as part of the proposal, and we are looking at about $32 million of improvements. we anticipate that about 52% will be funded by infrastructure impact collected from the project. and the gap will be funded by an infrastructure financing district. either bonds, or pay-as-you-go financing. we have the $22 million of bonds. we have a bonding capacity of $22 million.

what does that represent? the next increment is relatively modest compared to the way typical redevelopment area workes. over time, as projects go on line, you can see how that large green portion is being untouched general fund increments. between the blue and the dark green is the total income and that we expect will be used for the public from investment over time. that is both principal and

interest spread out over the years. the blue bar is the existing base line of property taxes. finally, this is important. this graph of the dark orange is the surplus of the general fund. this is rather miserly. it is only a small portion that comes out quite ahead. with that being said, this is an informal idea. the idea was generated with the project sponsors. we realized there was a potential opportunity to accelerate the public realm by the infrastructure impact fees.

the idea here is that the whole might be greater than the sum of the parts. if we went ahead and negotiated with the developer to point to $5 million, improving the alleyways and starting to contribute to one of the parks, that is a great thing. we can get the work done really. we don't have to wait around for it to go through the process to issue the money. the agreement is attractive. there will be the density support of the infrastructure right there. that is one of the appealing things about it.