is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. if i could ask ms. rodgers to come up, in case we have questions. the developer raised some concerns. could you walk us through the process they would have to go through for the special use district and changes to address their concerns? >> yes, we could. maybe if i could just back up a little bit. when the commission heard the neighbors say that they wanted the controls extended in this area, the president of the commission and our director met with a good number of people. easily over half a dozen to a dozen representatives. at that time, we scripted out what we could do and how much time it would take. it was clear that the residents wanted something that would go forward quickly. it was clear that our department has spent literally millions of

dollars on a 10-year effort, and we did not have an additional resources for another community- planning process in this area. with those demands and limitations in mind, the ordinance before you was crafted to apply as many controls as possible without triggering possibly a time-consuming environmental review. what happens is you have many of the controls but not all of the controls. controls would increase density. there is no changes to hight limit because those with all require additional environmental review. on the gold's jim -- gym property, the owner would be to go forward and pursue a zoning map and give it added height for the additional floor. a zoning map would cost money,

but even if the zoning map amendment were initiated by the board of supervisors, the procedures at the planning department is again to pass the cost of that review, including environmental review, on to any real property owner of interest. even in a rezoning map and then that were initiated by the board, in order for us to process the work, we would still be billing the property owner. as you know, nothing can happen by the board or city without a free its sequel clearance -- without appropriate ceqa clearance. supervisor mar: i appreciate all the testimony from the groups that are strongly supportive of this and other different stakeholders as well. supervisor cohen, do you have questions? supervisor cohen: i did not have any questions. supervisor mar: i guess i appreciate the community effort that has been ongoing since the

mid-80 -- the mid-1980's. community groups have been giving input on this, and my hope is that the development and others can work through the process with planning to get their needs met, but i see that since there is so much support from stakeholders, that i'm going to be supportive of this legislation. is there a motion on this item? would you make a motion? >> -- supervisor cohen: i make a motion to put it to a vote. supervisor mar: so a roll call vote on this item. it is a motion to support this item with a positive recommendation. so, roll call. >> on the motion, supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor mar: aye. >> the motion passes.

supervisor mar: thank you. please call item two, and we are rejoined by supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: if i could just -- i was reduced, but i was watching on tv. i just do want to indicate that i do intend to, separate from this legislation, introduced legislation relating to the zoning and that the property, and we will be having discussions with the planning department about trying to find a way within the law to make that rezoning work without tipping the project to the point of not being financially viable. thank you. >> would you like to call item two and three together? supervisor mar: yes, please. >> item two, resolution declaring the intention to vacate portions of the public right of way within the transit

center project area. item three, ordinance ordering the vacation of portions of the public right of way within the proposed transit area. >> good afternoon, members. acting director of real estate. before you today is the proposed vacation of interest in several streets in and near the proposed trans bay transit center, so it would be at the end of the day, a conveyance of rights from the city to the transbay joint powers authority. the primary purpose is to facilitate the operating and maintaining of the new terminal. the streets affected by the proposed vacation include net,, mean that, first, frameup, veal,

harrison, folsom, lamented, howard, second, and oscar alley. we have a lot of maps and background materials at whatever debt if you care to dive in for details, and robert beck is here to provide you some details as needed. the rights that would be conveyed are either below surface or above surface or in some cases within the st. rights of way both below and above. the city retains the operations of the streets, so this is just to facilitate the adjoining uses or underlying or above ground aspects of the construction project. this is the start of a lengthy vacation process. there are utility easements that

will be addressed as part of this process, so this simply starts the ball rolling toward future public hearings, and the decision in march for the actual vacation. happy to answer any questions you might have an whatever maps you would like to see. it is obviously a very expansive area. supervisor mar: for the public benefit and our benefit, could you put up a basic math and point out which streets or alleys we are talking about? >> i'm happy to do that. i will walk through the individual locations in order of the above or below ground, and i think mr. beck has some better slides that will give you visuals of exactly what is produced as part of the terminal project, so these are very two- dimensional map, but it at least shows you the sections of street. this particular map is for sub-

surface rights only. if you are standing on the street, you will really not be affected by these changes and these sections of street. these include -- on the left of this map is second street. i will slide them over so you can see they run all the way to fremont with one section here. those are the only sub-surface rights. above ground in yellow, shown here, two pages of these. these run from second street,

which is shown on the left. here, they run to fremont and a small section on beale. this last section, second street is on your left. small section on second and on harrison. the description of the actual rights needed are intentionally slightly larger than what we believe will actually be needed at the end of the date to allow the design process to unfold and very precisely defined the rights that will eventually be conveyed from the city to tjpa.

the design is ongoing. we have been working collaborative with the planning department. the general plan referral in this is to support this request. ordinarily, a general plan referrals are administrative in nature. in this case, the matter was taken to the commission for a full discussion and hearing on the item and successfully passed out of that process, so that referral has the commission's review associated with it. i will turn it over to mr. beck did you have any further questions or perhaps want to see more design of what would be existing above the street and below. supervisor mar: thank you. welcome, mr. beck. >> thank you, chairman, supervisors. as a director mentioned, the st.

vacations are to facilitate the construction of the new transit center, and we have here a section of the building -- can we come out a little bit? there we go. thank you. this is a section through the center of the building, but it illustrates several components of the transit center design, most notably the rail levels of the transit center. the new transit center, as with the original terminal, will span over first and fremont streets. these rail levels will also extend beneath beale street.

extending into the right of way on the south and the industry's trade on the north. that is kind of the physical parameters of the construction. i have other images i could show you of other elements of the encroachments or the bus route if you are interested. supervisor mar: no, i do not think that is necessary. >> ok. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. if there are no other questions,

let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward -- actually, there is two separate actions we need to take on items two and three. the first one is to amend on page 6 lines 1 to two, inserting the hearing date of march 1, 2011, back 3:00 p.m., and indicate hearing date of march 1, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. is there any objection to making that amendment? can we take this as amended to the full board as a committee report for february 1, 2011? without objection, so move. for item 3, can we move this forward to the board without recommendation for consideration

on march 1, 2011? great. without objection, colleagues, so move. thank you, everyone. thank you. could you please call item four and 5-eleven together? >> resolution adopting guidelines for the establishing and use of infrastructure financing district. five, ordinance creating infrastructure financing district and adopting a plan for the ring contel area. 6, resolution for the formation of an infrastructure financing district. item seven, resolution approving the infrastructure financing plan. item eight, a resolution calling for a special election for the infrastructure financing district. item nine, resolution declaring the results of the special election for the ifd. item 10, resolution of intention to issue bonds for the ifd.

item 11, resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for the ifd rincon hill. supervisor mar: i want to thank you for engaging the stakeholder group of community advocates and neighborhood groups, but also fully briefing supervisor kim, the new supervisor for district 6. thank you for doing that. >> thank you, supervisor. it is a pleasure to be here today. i'm going to try to be brief. i think we did a pretty exhausted presentation last week, but of course, i would be more than happy to answer specific questions. i wanted to focus if i could my presentation on the policies that were the focus of the stakeholder group over the last several weeks, if i may.

we continued to refine the draft policies, and i wanted to provide this in context. when we originally discussed launching a pilot project, it was always in the context of having draft policies to guide the future use in the city, and our intention is we hope to be able to use this tool in other appropriate areas, which may include some of the existing neighborhood plans like market and octavia, or the eastern neighborhood or the west side of the city. these criteria that i'm going to present our the culmination of a conversation that began almost

six months ago with key agencies, and including specific input from the capital planning committee. i was at the capital planning committee today, and that committee approved and recommended this package to the board today. i would also like to mention that the small business commission last week passed a similar recommendation. the five main threshold criteria, and these would be the criteria that would determine when an ifd would be appropriate, are listed on this slide, and i thought i walked with them. we are suggesting that these tools be limited to areas that have been rezoned as part of an area of land for development agreement, and that are also located within what we call a priority development area, which is an association of bay area government designation, which is

essentially an area that is close to transit and that is planned for more housing. this designation, which is regional, moves that area of in terms of priority for regional, state, and federal transportation infrastructure funding. one of our strategies is to leverage any ifd monies we have with outside sources. supervisor mar: can you give examples of areas that are designated for housing and transit? >> san francisco has more than any other city in the region. they are sprinkled throughout the area, which i believe now is nine counties. the majority of them are all long bart -- along bart or caltrain lines.

sort of along the corridor. the entire -- well, not the entire. a good portion of the eastern half of san francisco, where you would expect to see it, all of downtown, south of market, and the majority of eastern neighborhoods are within the pda. now, a new one has been proposed for 19th avenue adjoining right along the m line corridor. supervisor cohen: i am processing this -- i just want to make sure i'm processing this information correctly. it includes the -- >> southeast quadrant. the entire candlestick area as well as most of the bayview is within the pda. supervisor cohen: can you tell me what makes a neighborhood attractive to attract a foreign

ifd? >> i should clarify -- the state law does not have as many restrictions as we are proposing. it essentially says it has to be essentially a partially undeveloped area, and that is left undefined, but we believe that means lacking in infrastructure. that is about it. the moneys have to be directed towards public facilities, and, of course, you have to have a vote of either the property owners or the people, and it cannot be within an existing redevelopment area. the logical reason for that is we are already using tax increment with in redevelopment areas, so it would be duplicative of that. those are the broad restrictions if you will on the use of that at the state level. we were asked to restrict it further in san francisco,

primarily out of a concern of projecting -- protected the general fund. supervisor cohen: fast by whom? >> by all our partners in the city. their job is to make sure we protect our general fund monies. the concern is simply this is a very powerful financing tool, and we need to use it judiciously. otherwise, presumably, every neighborhood would like to have an ifd, and pretty soon, all the cookies in the cookie jar would be gone. we were proposing this as a smart growth carrot, a reward to neighborhoods that have been willing to accept growth and change, and it is essentially a social compact. the city saying we will prioritize a portion of our future tax increments to be reinvested in the very neighborhood that has accepted growth and change for public facilities that supports that destiny. parks, sidewalks, transit,

bicycle improvements, and the like. the term we used in the planning field is building complete neighborhoods. this is a way for the city to show its commitment towards that. it has the advantage, of course, that it can be used to supplement existing impact fees. your previous item dealt with the issue of impact fees. we never seem to have enough. so this is a way for the city to contribute to that. to the laudable goal of building better streets and parks and transportation infrastructure. supervisor mar: thank you. >> item two, if you look -- criteria two, excuse me, is further limiting them to study areas where zoning is projected to result in a net fiscal benefit to the general fund. this term is from the previous presentation i made. it has evolved in response to

feedback from committee members and stakeholders. the concern here was that by looking at an entire plan, we may overlook specific benefits. that is the set -- the best example i can give you is in eastern neighborhoods, where we had many diverse goals spread over a huge area. some portions work effectively downzoned to protect light industry. if you looked only at those areas, you would see a net fiscal - in the sense that development potential was reduced and next tax base was arguably reduced -- you would see a net fiscal negative. we do not want to penalize the entire area because there was a goal in the entire area. what this says is instead, we will look at a new definition, which is basically a half mile radius around a proposal ifd and

to the net fiscal analysis within that zone. to be specific, there was some of selling that allowed substantial new development. the ifd study area were to encompassed that generally and some adjoining parcels and blocks, and it would not necessarily penalize east soma for a separate decision that was made in, let's say, central waterfront. that is the reason for that study, but again, what we do within the area is we look at the zoning before and after. we do projections 30 years out and say this is the development we would expect compared to the development we would expect without the rezoning, with the original zoning, and they would net out all the associated costs. if there is a fiscal surplus, if the rezoning results in more money for the general fund, the

area would be eligible for an ifd. in addition to the restriction, we are proposing a maximum limit of 50% of available increments, and again, this is a cautionary policy. this board can alter these policies in the future if you feel you need more flexibility, but the desire here was to not give away the store. we would say no more than did the% of the available anchorman over 30 years -- that is cumulatively over the 30-year life. remember, this builds up over time. that does not prevent us from bonding or spending a lot on the front, and then pay it back later through bond payments. it just says that over the life of the program, we would spend no more than 50%. supervisor mar: i think you use the too many hands in the cookie jar analogy last time.

>> so we are saying only half the cookie, to continue that analogy. on top of that, we are saying that in no event should that 50% of the increment exceed the net available surplus. so it might be back some plan areas, our projected fiscal surplus amounts to something smaller than 50% of the available to increment. why would that be? let's say the amount of general fund costs associated with the particular plan are high, and it eats up a lot of the benefit. we do not want to be taking away from the general fund that are needed for city-wide services or even services in that area, so again, we can only use the surplus. that is a really important point. we are suggesting limiting ifd's to projects that address infrastructure deficiencies, and the change you may or may not notice -- i apologize. i did not want to distribute a

red line because it looks something like a blood bath. what was missing here is the term "existing." the reason that became a debate is because what is an existing deficiency? we are proposing to use these in areas that have new growth, and some areas that right now might be perfectly sufficient with and for a structure, without a residential population, when a residential population is added, may become efficient, whether it is parks, sidewalks, or bus stops. we wanted some flexibility with the use of these funds. the key element is we did want to apply universal objective standards city-wide as to what constitutes a deficiency. there is a concern i'm sure all of you are aware of about playing favorites with specific districts getting what some people called the gold-plated

park benches. we would be using the existing standard for what is good infrastructure so all neighborhoods would be treated fairly. finally, item five. we are suggesting that the use of ifd monies be limited to individual infrastructures with a long-term maintenance commitment attached to them. as you all know as well, we turned out to not have enough money from the general fund to deal with ongoing maintenance of what we have, said the budget office and the capital planning group thought that this was a particularly important threshold, that we do not spend the money until we have a source of maintenance identified, and it is important to identify that that source could be the board. the board could say we are going to prioritize more maintenance money this year and ongoing for a particular improvement. that is one approach. it could also be a cfd. it could be a public/private agreement. could be a community but of the

district that steps up and says it would maintain the streetscape. there are many ways to do that, but the point is we would not spend the money until we have identified each project, how maintenance would be taken care of. those are the five threshold criteria. in addition, the next slide, as i highlighted, the new criteria that came out of literally our meeting with the capital planning committee just an hour ago -- a question was raised, and it is a good question -- where does this implement bill? remember an ifd has never been done in the state of california. we would be the first city to implement one, which is exciting, but it also means we have to figure out some of the rules. it is not an independent entity. it does not have its own board. the board of supervisors manages it. that is an