representing the rincon hill process. there was, i think, a development. this is for the recreation and parks to arrive at this. i am under the impression that that analysis is with the adoption of the plan. >> -- chair chu: that would be good information to be provided to our office. whether or not if you had an rf

d, should there not be a real investment, other things would be possible. -- should there not be korea investments, other things would be possible. we are really, in a way, giving additional benefits to an area that would not necessarily need it for the project to be completed, right? so in terms of helping us think about this, what is the developers' portion? there are the impact fees. would we not be able to purchase the land? it has been entitled. that project development is happening. it is going to occur. we are not arguing that we need to make this development for it to happen. it is going on. an extra amount of allocation, in terms of dollars to provide

public amenities, is it that we cannot possibly provide the public amenities with these? >> i can answer this question precisely and been more generally. precisely, in the case of rincon hill park, we have a relatively small window of opportunity. the parcel that i have mentioned on harrison, they have to justify their financing this month, in february, and there are two approaches. they have to demonstrate to the lender that the city is committed to forming an infrastructure financing district and ultimately issue bonds. in that case, they can justify it to their lender that the ultimate purpose -- purchase of the property and then the dedication of that park. i have to emphasize that the park is not a condition of the approval of that. because of the crash, there were additional impact fees in the

wind, and he'll plan to pay for it -- indeed -- in the rincon hill plan. it is a classic problem with impact fees. the only arise when the development happens. it is very hard for us to do pro-active acquisitions when we cannot bond, and so, the impact fees again, to rehash, the impact fees collected at rincon hill today are insufficient -- insufficient for that park. and then finally, in response to a broader question about will the development happen, my educated guess is that this development, all of the development at rincon hill will

develop, but i think the question is at what rate, and at what quality? if we as a city signal to the private market that we are serious about building the infrastructure that we proposed and promised, it should, in turn, encourage private investors to accelerate their projects, and that could be in the form of an equity investor in saying, taking a second look at a project that they initially said, "i am not going to look at financing" for the next five years. they may actually reconsider that, and so there is money there in terms of transfer taxes and property taxes that would be coming sooner to the city and therefore benefiting the city's situation sooner rather than later, so i do think there is a fair argument to be made that even though nine of these 10 projects are already entitled, and i think even though that i

think most reasonable people assume they will go, this particular ifd could accelerate this process, not only benefit in the people live in the neighborhood but also benefiting the general fund, because this money would be received sooner rather than later. chair chu: all right, and then the final question is just a very simple administrative question. there is the issuance of the bonds, extending oversight of the situation. who does that? >> it would be the board of supervisors, and we have been working with the budget office and the comptroller's office. bolten in may, when we get to the point that this board decides they want to make an allocation of an increment to the special fund, we can look at more accurately how that goes -- ultimately, when we get to that point.

chair chu: i understand that we have to finally give approval, but where does this sit administratively? the expenses for it, etc.? have we considered where that would be? because we would have to allocate with the tax payment would go. >> maybe mr. wagner can respond to that. >> madam chair, that is a good question. ultimately, it would go through the normal budgetary process outlined under the charter, so before we made any allocation decisions, we would need to look at exactly where the expenditure budget would be in how the mechanics of that would look in the budget, but i do not think

we have gotten that far to determine exactly where that would sit. we would have to work with the comptroller's office and draft the appropriate legislation that would be submitted to the board. it could be at the department. it could be at the parks department. it could be at the other location. chair chu: ok, so one is just a technical part of where it sits in the budget, and that can be resolved fairly easily. if an ifd is created, at some point in time, somebody has to craft what those items look like to bring them to the board, so who has that administrative duty to figure out which projects are being expensed, where the ifd monies are going, so regardless, there has to be some kind of project management.

>> there is something that, frankly, i do not remember what the acronym stands for. recreation and park, dpw, another, they meet regularly on the infrastructure projects, and right now, that agency group informally is doing exactly what you're talking about. they are looking at each project. they are looking at the individual infrastructure projects proposed in the area plan. they are deciding which deserve to be developed in more details schematically and in terms of structure drawings, and it ultimately are deciding which agencies will head of the project management. i would suggest to this committee -- will head up that project management. i would suggest to this committee that be refined and

clarified, because this is a multi agency and multi disciplinary process, but who has responsibility, that is not clear. chair chu: ok, i think that is something that is one to be fairly important for us to clarify as we go forward. one concern i have about going forward, not necessarily with the pilot, but used frequently or to the extent that they are used more broadly in the future, i do not want the city to create another -- and the agency. we cannot afford to have another staff of two budget people. that would be a very difficult thing for the city to maintain, so i would really like some thought around how they would really do this work in the best way possible and in the most efficient way possible, so, ok. any other questions? ok, why do we not open these items up for public comment? is there any members of the public who would like to comment on items 8 through 16, please

come on up. >> i am a tenderloin resident. what is being proposed is a private park for the rincon hill area. one part has been chain link to and locks, and seniors, disabled -- one part -- park has been chain-linked and locked. you need to go slow on this proposal and reject this pilot program until there is more answers to the questions you and of imposing. thank you. chair chu: are there other members of the public to speak? and i would like to ask you to line up in the center aisle, so

we have an idea. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the rincon hill association. the guidelines that were being presented today. what i see here is not necessarily the property value boost for the residents. the condominiums were built in 1991, and following the earthquake, we kind of hit the reset as far as tearing down the embarcadero freeway, etc. how many folks have to die crossing harrison street to their homes along harrison street, where there are thousands of people who live there, despite the bay bridge bringing in 2 flandres 60,000 cars every day, the air pollution that comes from those cars -- the 260,000 cars every day.

for 20 years, they crest towers have been there. so have all of the buildings -- for 20 years, they crest towers of been there -- bay crest towers. it is lower than the check that i write for my 400 sq. ft. studio. the 57% of what is left in the general fund, i guess will grab up. the infinity towers, it just one building. how much residential property contribute $8 million every year to the city? on rincon hill, another $5 million. there is not even a continuous sidewalk. there are 1000 kids in the area. 300 kids live there. there are more of the various child care centers. please pass this.

thank you. come through on your promise. chair chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- and i am with the development term that is building harrison. some issues. first of all, about the park. that park was basically designed by the neighbors. there were eight major meetings conducted by is a bow wave -- by isabel wade to serve the neighborhood. secondly, from a cost point of view, it is not just the city that is concerned about the maintenance. the fha, where i have just come from, they are extremely concerned.

there is a sinking fund that cannot be touched. they will restrict any fees coming from the project. everybody has influence over this park, making sure in this properly run. we need to have something that will work from a public park point of view. chair chu: just a question. >> we have to work up the details.

we have already had a bunch of these. chair chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] i believe we have a number of amendments to make. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: yes, i would like to make the amendments that were brought up by mr. yarne earlier. chair chu: yes, we will be amending some of these but not all. so why do we not take that? my primary concern with an ifd in any diversion -- and any

diversion is just to protect the general fund, because we have major shortfalls coming up. these are actually very real impacts to many of our residents, whether we're talking about service cuts or other cuts to our service operation. these are things that we have to consider with every approval of tax increment dollars, whether through redevelopment colleague to another place or an ifd. so this is a serious consideration for me. one of the reasons i will be supporting this package going forward, however, is because i do believe there are good parts to it. part of this process is going to have the discipline of understanding with the ongoing maintenance need of this project will be. this is very important to me, and i am very pleased to hear the private developer come and speak about the commitment to make sure that the rincon hill

is paid for by that finding, as this is crucial. however, i do still have some concerns that i hope the department or the office of economic work force development and others will be able to address for us. one is a deficiency question from city planning. i would like to get some more information. second of all, in terms of the incineration, if you want to reiterate that, i am not interested in creating a said the redevelopment agency. that is not something i think would be in the best interest of the city, and i would like to see how we plan to administer these kinds of programs going forward. supervisor kim: first of all, i just want to thank the supervisor's office and mr. yarne and others for the amount of time and effort that was put

into being creative about how we use these tools to build infrastructure for the city. one of my major concerns when i was running and campaigning was how we fund structure, as we bring in an influx of residence, particularly into district 6. i am very interested in how we can use this in the future. i share some of the concern's upper chair chu -- concerns that chair chu brought up. many will want to hear about this tool. mr. whitaker talked about this. it has not been defined yet by the city, but when you go there, i mean, the sidewalks are very narrow. it is hard to walk around, where you are putting residence in an area where there are no parts, no street skating, and i think this is an important step in addressing that deficiency --

where you are putting residents in an area where there are no parks, no street skating -- streetscaping. i very much want to be a part of the process. thank you. chair chu: fake you, supervisor kim -- thank you. if we can have a motion to take these forward to the board and to send forward some as is with recommendations? without objection. and then, for item number 16, which is the hearing, we can continue that item to the call of the chair? without objection. are there any other items before us? thank you. we are adjourned. [gavel]