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. we realize there was an opportunity to get this developer to participate and potentially find a bond purchasers. whether it is the general contractor or another interested party, i will buy an rfd bond. when the increment is instead of a small portion of the public from getting built out, we could double or triple

the size of the improvements. there is another advantage, it is not just that people will be able to improve and enjoy the public realm of the might be able to do it cheaper. we could do it all at once. that is probably the simplest explanation of how this would work. we will be working in good faith with the project sponsor to see if we can achieve such an arrangement. the result would be a significant improvement in the conditions on rincon hill >> we have one speaker card. is there any public comment on this item?

i wanted to express my gratitude towards the office of workforce development. we are sort of an orphan plan area at in that there is no official representation. i am very pleased and happy that we are the pilot area and we hope that this is a great success. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> i was able to hear a presentation last year when this idea came up to the board of supervisors. the time i reported this as a

pilot project to see if this could create some of the infrastructure that is needed. there has been talked about getting rid of redevelopment and talk about would these be a possible financing source for infrastructure. there is debate about whether some of that could be used for portable housing. i still support this as a pilot project. what i think that is being worked on is criteria. this is to fund infrastructure needs adopted in an area plan such as the eastern neighborhoods, the market plan. my concern is that there are always ways to abuse the best of tools and mechanisms. i want to show you a different map.

i will pass out a letter that talks about this in great detail. the port land is in yellow, the rest of the site is in red. a proposal is to create this for the project. this would take all of the land for the cruise ship terminal. they have projections of tens of millions of dollars. the fact that more than 20% would go to something other than the general fund when we are cutting programs desperately throughout the city. we're looking at the criteria for what is and is not in acceptable. i do not have a problem with

this. i think that this will offer a laboratory for us to look at this mechanism. i wanted to raise concerns about the other project which i don't think are appropriate. >> the use of the term we really raises questions for me. we seem to have abdicated these large projects. this is not the mayor's office, this is the office of economic development. it sounds like big plan areas have lots of slack to deal with

big developers. the planning department is out of the flow. you have a presentation but negotiations, the work is done between the developer and a staff member for an office that has the commission over it. this is a big problem as we are heading into an area where there is no redevelopment and that is coming. there is a lot more opportunity for the planning department becoming irrelevant. the big plans are done five, 8, nine years ago. the implementation is really not the focus of the planning department. we still do not have any transit.

we will have parked next to the buildings that are finding them. they will benefit from the parks and they will have a nice park right next to their building. at some point, the public needs to be at the table and you are at it right now. really, the seven of you. for whom will pay attention to how this all works out? we have 20 years of history. there was a lot of concern by the planning commission. we are now at a point where you approve buildings, a big buildings. basically, you walk away from it. the next round looks like it will be negotiated by an office with no commission and you will

have occasional reports. he says that we will be negotiating and dialoguing with the developer, my question is who is that? >> thank you. it is there additional public comment? >> i am the owner of the metropolitan. i want to follow up on what this lady has just said. when i bought into that tower in 2004 and here is the san francisco chronicle, the ideas on furled and then i have the original plan here which dates to november of 2003. this was very