that the a.t.m. walk-up facility would be more on the side street which is clayton street versus haigth street and the sidewall width is 15 feet on clayton and wider sidewalk versus haight which has a 12-foot width. some of those are the considerations to why it was not set back. and to date the planning department hasn't received any phone calls or letters from the public in opposition to the project. there was just one email requesting information on the restaurant use itself. and the planning department's preliminary recommendation is approval with condition. and basically the department believes that the project may be necessary or desirable and there is not overconcentration of a.t.m. walk-up facilities in the area. it will serve the neighborhood by being open 24 hours a day.

and it seems what reasonable that although the a.t.m. could have been set back and placed at the property line, it appears somewhat reasonable given the sidewalk width and that it's on more of a side street, clayton, versus haight street. this concludes the presentation and i am available to answer any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. samuel deb appears on behalf of the project applicant. just in response to commissioner moore's concerns, the district technically includes haight and clayton is a secondary

thoroughfare and the 3-foot setback shouldn't be necessary. additionally as sharon young stated, clayton is 15-foot wide sidewalk. so it's -- haight is 12 feet and with the 3-foot setback that would be required from the ordinance, on haigh street you get 15 feet which already exists on clayton street and is the secondary with substantially less pedestrian traffic. important to note this a.t.m. has been functional at the site for over 10 years without any citizen complaints. furthermore, the building is historically significant and opening up the building to accommodate a 3-foot setback would certainly alter the facade and destroy the historical character of the building. structurally there's a question as to whether or not it would be wide enough space between the existing sheer wall for the

stairwell and the window which appears on clayton street to accommodate the width for the setback opening. also, the store is -- the store's floor t hobson's choice floor is lower than the sidewalk on clayton because it has a slight incline, so there would be some structural difficulty in accomplishing the setback in a way that would be efficient. and even assuming all those structural obstacles if it was structurally possible, the setback would require opening the existing wall and taking out the existing foundation and putting in a new perimeter foundation and a new header, reframing the walls, uncovering the floors. we don't know exactly what's under the floor under hobson's choice. that would potentially present additional complications and waterproofing and all which would cost in excess of $20,000 to $30,000. and al for probably for those reasons the landlord has refused

to allow that structural work to accommodate the 3-foot setback which is why applicants have proposed a conditional use permit. vice president olague: thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner lee? commissioner lee: move to approve. >> second. vice president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: they did answer it very well the situation here. and what is different and why this does not need a setback is that what you are trying to do is not infringe upon the sidewalk width and with the 15 feet already there, you allow your 12-foot sidewalk that is apparently what we desire as haight is a narrower sidewalk and seems like it's a position.

plus, apparently there was for many years an a.t.m. there that was worked without benefit of a permit. it seemed to be one that had a lot of activity. and finally, i think it is a little bit disturbing that there's so few banks in that area. and that might be something that we might want to encourage in the future is to have more banks and financial services in that area. because apparently there's only one bank and two that are quite a ways away. i'm supportive. vice president olague: commissioner moore. >> could i have the architect answer a couple of questions for me? >> i am not the architect. commissioner moore: you spoke as if you are. you made statements which acted as if you are an architect. in the drawings i see, i do not see a structural impediment, but i am interested to see what was there before. there is no picture here. i would like to see what people

-- what they were as unapproved a.t.m. was it in the same wall? we never had a picture of that. it is in the same spot? we have a rule that a.t.m.'s should be set back for sidewalk reasons and they are becoming like graphic advertisings and moving out of a small functional box into something that loudly advertises banks. that particular issue has never been taken up by the planning departmentos because i do believe that moved into the poster size advertising realm. the reason why i'm saying it here is you come around the corner, i believe that the corner expression of the restaurant is very much in

keeping with what we would like a corner to be, but adding an a.t.m. without setting it back into the solid part of the wall and is very inappropriate to me. and i would very much like to see a recessed a.t.m. for that reason. it goes with the expression of the building which is more victorian looking building and you said it was of historic importance and putting the a.t.m. on that wall, i believe we are cheapening the expression of the building and i don't believe it's in anybody's interest except having a properly sited and recessed a.t.m. at that corner if we need to have an a.t.m., so i cannot support this solution. i understand you are saying it is more expensive, but that's the way it goes. i cannot support this particular application. olague commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i understand commissioner moore's

concerns, but i disagree given that the 15 feet is the same because of the width on haight street is roughly the same and the lack of banks available and 24-hour cash opportunities actually was pretty surprising to me. and the volume of withdrawals from the previous a.t.m. definitely indicates it was a high use or highly desirable and needed a.t.m. so i actually am inclined to support this one. and give the project sponsor the hardship they claim in recessing it. olague commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: the sidewalk, i believe, right where the a.t.m. is going to be is nowhere near 15 feet wide because there are planters in front of it, which effectively reduces the sidewalk width to about 8 feet. vice president olague: call the question. all right. commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval.

commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and sugaya vote nothing. >> commissioners, you are at general comment to fall within 15 minutes and each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> i have one speaker card. >> paul wormer. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. fist let me say thank you. i have heard a lot of issues of concern to myself and others

that have been considered or will be considered and it's good to hear that those things are making it to the top. i did have one request and i was here before on this issue relating to cpmc and one of the things that would help us is if cpmc and some planning expert could participate in neighborhood meetings to answer questions with the clear understanding this is not a public comment period. this is not the formal input but to enable the public to ask clarifying questions and the neighbors have one specific set of concerns and in pacific heights we have very different set of concerns for the pacific site buildings. and similarly, i expect the davies folks have some concerns and st. lukes have a different set of concerns. i don't know if there is a legal impediment to this when i had

the discussion with cpmc, they first said yes and then, oh, no, mea staff have told us we should don't this and are upset about it. please, i would like to get some clarification on that request. is there some legal impediment? i understand that can't get discussed now but perhaps someone from planning could contact me and help me understand what's going on. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> i'm sorry, i want to add congratulations to the two re-appointed commissioners and to the new grandfather. >> thank you. olague r is there any additional public comment? seeing none, this category is closed. >> thank you. commissioners, you are ready to start your regular calendar with item number 8. case 2010.0499u, development stimulus part ii. >> amy rogers, and that item is

titled development stimulus part ii and contains two resolutions and a joint facilities agreement between abag and the city. as a resolution this, item is not required to come before you but it has been asked from the mayoro bring it before you to get your feedback and thoughts on the issue. the first entitled the area plan infrastructure finance committee introduced by supervisor maxwell would establish the finance committee to supervise a study to develop policy on the use of the i.f.d.'s in the newly adopted planning areas and the steps to take to establish an i.f.d. and supervise the formation of one pilot i.f.d. in rincon hill. the second resolution approving the formation of a c.f.d., community facilities district,

and financing by abag. this resolution was introduced by mayor newsom and south korea duffy and with the issuance of a special tax bond for city impact fees and also approve the form of joint community facilities agreement and grant authority to city officials to implement that. so. i go through the department's analysis and recommendations, i would like to introduce michael ya yarney who will describe the intention behind the resolution and more of the specifics and technicalitieses about how the two districts would work. >> thank you. michael yarney, happy to be here this afternoon. and as anmarie mentioned, there

are two separate resolutions and i would address the area plan infrastructure commission first and then address the citywide c.f.d. resolution second. i do want to elaborate a little bit on the reasons we're having the resolution forming this committee. the area plan infrastructure finance committee or the apif. there was a previous committee you may remember the eastern neighborhoods structure finance group which was created to specifically come up with recommendations for ideas to finance the significant deficit and infrastructure monies that the planning department identified and not only eastern neighborhoods plan but in other recently adopted area plans as i think all of you know very well, the impact fees only cover a portion of the identified infrastructure need. and we have been interested in

our office working with the planning department and the capital planning group to find other tools to finance infrastructure development in the neighborhoods. and we can have what we all call complete neighborhood development. so the recommendations from that report were that a consultant study be done on the eastern neighborhood on the implementation of an i.f.d. and the potential implementation of a c.f.d. this committee that will be formed by the resolution will implement those next steps. it's also a special opportunity because of rincon hill and there is a specific project developer of 333 harrison street that has offered to cover the costs, the consultant cost and the startup costs for the pilot i.f.d. that we're proposing on rincon hill. so this committee that's being formed would oversee the

recommendations of the eastern neighborhood group and oversee the rincon hill i.f.d. most importantly, this committee would be charged with setting the policy criteria for when to use i.f.d.'s in the future. the reason that is important, i'm going to take two minutes to explain what an i.f.d. is and if you have any questions, please interrupt or i suppose you can ask me after the presentation. and an i.f.d. is essentially a tax increment finance district but taken outside of redevelopment. unlike the rather involved and legally complicated task of creating a full redevelopment area, this allows the city to have the benefit of tax increment financing without that procedure. the benefit of the city is we finally have a policy carrot to offer neighborhoods, if you will, that have accepted substantial upzoning and planned development within their areas. and as you know, we talked a lot

about if the neighborhood accepts growth and this is a tool to do that. and that that allows the infrastructure to get built sooner, it's a stimulative policy. i like to think of it as a stimulative policy on the public side. and we would be able to do more infrastructure sooner than if we go with policies as usual. a little more background, the city of san francisco normally gets 64.7 cents of ef net new property tax dollar and the remaining 35% goes to a host of entities, the educational revenue augmentation fund which is a state fund, the san francisco unified school district, the community college district and the bay area air quality management district, so 65 cents of every dollar of new tax increment flows directly to the general fund. the idea on the table here,

remember, this resolution doesn't create the i.f.d. but just createses the committee to study and come forward with a policy. we would be looking at what the appropriate percentage of set aside for an infrastructure fund would be. and to give you a preliminary idea on rincon hill, we have looked at numbers with the help of a special tax consultant. if we were to set aside 35% of the net new increment, just 35%, so not even all the money the city would receive but a smaller portion, we could support over the lifetime of the build out of the rincon hill plan an initial bond offering of $20 million and pmillion for about $76 million f infrastructure money. from an annual perspective, we would look at revenues of about $252,000 at the inception of the district annually to at the end of the district about $8.7 million annually. that is a lot of revenue that

could go to infrastructure. that is just to give you an idea. we'll, of course, come back when the committee is foornld we have a more concrete proposal. unless there is any questions, i would like to move on. >> i would like to ask here and there is a little confusion. on the infrastructure finance district, as you mention, tax increment financing outside of redevelopment. and so that new tax above and beyond the tax base is generated by the new construction and the new projects would be used towards the infrastructure is what we're proposing here. >> we would divert a portion of the tax increment above and

beyond the baseline that's already here today to specifically fund infrastructure in that neighborhood. >> even with the incremental, a certain portion of that already has to be committed to bart and schools and others and we only have a certain percentage of that already that we can have discussion over. >> that is correct, although technically if the city wanted to ask for more, we could. as a policy matter, we don't want to do that. so we would as a policy matter let bart, school district, etc. -- >> we use our 65 cents on the dollar and that is what we would be able to use of the increment only. >> correct. >> and then you said issue bonds, but i think we're talking about the second part or the first part there's bonds being issueed? >> so in one of the advantages is the city could issue bonds based on that future tax revenue

and that would allow us to do infrastructure earlier than we would otherwise. it is possible to do a pay as you go where we could rate and collect the annual revenues and build one-off infrastructure projects but often people want to see the infrastructure earlier. that's the idea. commissioner antonini: that makes a lot of sense because you issue the bonded a the bond is based on the projected tax revenue over the 20-year course of the buildout or whatever it would be and as long as we have good reason to believe that that's money that is solid and the bonds would be obviously good bonds and we get our money sooner to be able to start doing it. okay. that is understood. thank you, michael. vice president olague: commissioner moore. >> i have a brief question. the idea itself is very intriguing. i don't understand every aspect of it, but why did you choose as a pilot project rincon versus any other? is that the most needy one or the most immediate one or is

there a reason that you could lay out for us of why that is a pilot project? >> the reason is really simple. we have somebody willing to pay for it. we have no money, no budget to do these things and we actually have in this case a public part and a project sponsor who is willing to underwrite the substantial transactional cost of creating and forming the district and so we wanted to take advantage of that to try out a pilot. vice president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: under one of the modifications there was a statement i was going to make but it's already in here with respect to studying the long-term effects of the financing program and the effect on the general fund it, because my fear also is with tax increment that it doesn't -- since it's not flowing to the

general fund it, and it is being specifically diverted in a sense. in a good way. but with the long-term effects that has on the general fund position. the consultant study will look otoexactly that. moore rr would they study the homogeneous neighborhood versus eastern neighborhood versus market octavia of how that hinders or enhances and obviously in a severe housing crisis. and rincon hill particularly addresses a particular housing type and are we going to be able to get some reading of how to track from oh more mixed use, multi-use projects within the city? >> that last bit, you said, to

detract? commissioner moore: how it would affect. >> i am not sure that the notice is create it and get better at doing others. and we have pledged if we sponsor one in the eastern neighborhoods, we would love to initiate that now and will lay out what needs to be done in the eastern neighborhoods to create the tool kit, if you will, and all we need is the money to launch the formation of the district. there is a bunch of legal work, frankly, that is required to do that, and that is the only obstacle for doing this and other neighborhoods. and we want a citywide policy so we're not doing these things in an arbitrary fashion. vice president olague: commissioner lee?

commissioner lee: i would to acknowledge that if you can think outside the box to produce additional revenue fund, it's got to be you because this is a good way of funding public works projects outside the general fund to fix the potholes, the sidewalks, the infrastructure and create jobs, but i have to say i am amazed every time you come here you have stimulus one, two, and three and somebody public has never done before and i think the city should acknowledge the work you have done with this and you got someone to donate money to do this which is very important given the next several years that we know we will have a slow economic growth. i want to thank you. vice president olague: i have a question and i know this is at the board in a week or -- >> two weeks. vice president olague: yeah.

i guess my question is, and if you can answer that one first. >> i would remind that i haven't gone through the analysis or recommendations, so i would like to provide more information. vice president olague: for mr. yarney, i went through it a couple of times and didn't get a chance to focus on anything. but my question is, how would these committees interface with the cac's? and have the cac's weighed in on it? i know they were charged with the allocation of the infrastructure fees, at least that's one of their roles, right? how does this all work together? >> they interface two ways. one is this resolution creates the committee. we have a ways to go

unfortunately, but we do. and this is just the committee to create the policy and support the study and to guide the formation of the pilot. the first way to interact from the existing c.a.c.'s and the market octavia c.a.c. and two at-large community stakeholder seats. and in a direct way those people will be involved in the process and guiding this policy. so that is the first thing. and i imagine whatever infrastructure money we get would be pooled together with impact fee monies and grant monies and be managed strategically. and so given we do have a process for the c.a.c.'s to provide input and i forget what it stand for right now, but maybe director ramp can clarify and the acronyms and to the

capital planning program. so they are going to be receiving that input from the c.a.c.'s on a regular basis and this would supplement other monies that are already coming in or we hope that will be coming in in the future. and i hope they have a say in what projects get built and what the priority of the projects. vice president olague: that makes sense. and the budget review was sort of limited right now but i don't know if that's going to change in the future or not. they might be more advisory to us. >> does the director want to comment on it? >> i think the role is in both of those area plans was to weigh in on how monies should be spent towards infrastructure. what michael is talking about is a way of funding those. that would happen before that

and the c.a.c. would weigh in on how to spend this money once it's collected through this mechanism. vice president olague: okay. thank you. i have to talk about the c.f.d. and i'll be quick. that concludes my presentation on the area plan infrastructure finance committee resolution and going to speak as briefly as i can on the community facilities district although it is more complicated subject. briefly, what is it? well, the melaruse is a public financing tool, not a land use policy per se, not zoning. it's a public financing tool that is a creature of state law and this thing is authorized by the state and i believe in the early 1980's in response to prop 13, so it's been around for a long time. and what this resolution does