street that is not a historical resourced that will be limited to 50 feet, and that is pretty significant when you think about it. the only corner parcel that is not of a historic resource that will be limited to 50 feet, so we will be required to go for an sed. we did not have the certainty of the eir process that others are granted, so we support the guideline. we support the extension. we've been working closely with neighborhood groups, but we will have to come back. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar: mr. kaelin? -- mr. cohen, how's it goin'? >> we are obviously a major

supporter and hope to be part of the architecture with this. this is a long time coming. i think staff work hard to come up with a good solution to what we referred to as the orphan block. it was this last little part of the upper market. for a 20-some odd years, the entire stretch of the commercial district of copper markets -- this was back in the 1980's when the city went through a number of commercial district rezoning -- let's call it inadvertently or for a variety of reasons, that got split into two pieces, so this is really about reuniting the commercial district quarter and providing less certainty that the previous speaker mentioned. i do want to speak to, i guess, both the properties that came

before you. i think it is fair to say that at the planning commission, this has already played out. they expressly granted a grandfather of impact fees for the property because that was the primary thing being discussed. variants is common, but in terms of the other consistencies, i do not see any rationale when talking about the project sponsor before for carving out an entire property for what would otherwise be consistent control. when it comes to the site, the previous speaker, they work very hard with the community to get the support. i think most of us feel comfortable with a hike increase, but the planning department says this is not about height, but about the underlying zoning controls. i hope the project sponsor can appreciate that. thanks. supervisor mar: thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent the family that owns 2301 market street. we own the property and the business. as described by many in the community, we work closely in our neighborhood for the last 10 years. four years on the upper market design. this is our existing corner. you can see our building on a prominent corner of market. the aspirations of the community are fantastic. it inspired us to come up with several plants. this is a 50-foot height plan that is compliant with the present height. we also came up with a 65-foot height plan, which is right here. lo and behold, everybody we said take their pick, everybody came back and said this was the

better plan. they like the way it looks. it frames the gateway to the community, expands a very popular local gym, preserves local retail, and as rental housing. we support this extension, but without the height, which is a critical element of the plan, we will be limited to 50 feet unless we get an sed. the cost, the process, the bureaucracy would be prohibitive to us, and a project that has been worked on for many years in close coordination with the community and our membership and many supporters would most likely not move forward. we encourage you as a commission to move forward and support supervisor wiener as a legislative amendment or some other type of tick with the planning department to allow the proper heights to go forward without additional processes

that would just add opposite goals to an already complicated but well-supported projects. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the president of castro eureka valley neighborhood association. i'm not going to restate everything that has be said. really, all i wanted to say was we are fully behind this. the most important aspect of what has been talked about was the community really engaged in extensive process of looking at copper market and what we wanted in 2007. the community overwhelmingly said it wanted market octavia controls to extend up into the castro. unfortunately, that was never caught a fight, and this whole

process was just to codify it. in the interim, what happened is neighborhood residents, community members have had to engage each project one by one, whereas all we are asking is control so the neighborhood does not have to be constantly vigilant and have to work with each project sponsors so that we can all work under the same rules and guidelines. it has been a lot of work, and i personally do not feel that it should be my job to make sure that these things happen. that with the community decided on, really should be planned and codified. that is really all i wanted to say. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. we are here today to support the legislation. we have worked with these neighbors in the past. we work with them at the planning department on a variety of different projects. one could debate how and why we

got to where we are, but the fact is we are where we are, and there has been confusion. there has been misunderstandings, and change is always going to occur. as an industry, the only thing we can ask for is something to smooth and -- smooth the transition, and the grandfathering in does provide some level of certainty. if we could discuss that at the planning commission, there were some issues brought up, and that will be addressed at the commission. we are open to the legislation, and we support the grandfather provision moving forward. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. 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 suppleme