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preliminary negative declaration, please note that the appeal has been withdrawn and this item is no longer before you.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 critical in my decision to purchase. i have paid over $40,000 in property tax. some of the things that i lot about it was a center block to allow us to get down to the embarcadero safely.

this was my decision. i am excited to hear what the previous presenter was talking about. and the next presentation, i will make some comments specific to the developer of the issues that they have on their previous project which is the metropolitan and serious unfinished business with respect to that. we have to do something to deliver to this. people come here to make it a community and i am particularly concerned about first street. there is a divide between this

project and the rest of rencontre hill -- rincon hill. >> it is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i have a question. we had this discussion with treasure island. i would assume that the 57 sense that we're able to utilize this is a product and we can utilize a higher percentage if we were able to use these for -- is that true? >> we are in the best position

of any city in the state. we have 57 cents to play with. many cities have even less. assuming that we development goes away, san francisco is actually in the best position to do the public improvements because most of the other cities don't have enough of a share. we're actually in better shape. this is applicable to any that might occur within the city and county of san francisco. this is not just restricted to a certain one.

that advantage exists anywhere in the city. >> there is an argument that we can increase the percentage up to about 64%. 65% if it is diverted before it is sent to the three special funds. this ranges from 57 cents to about 64 cents that we have to use. >> the timing might make it a higher percentage. you pointed out very well that part of this will be specific to the area in question which is a large amount but then as time goes on, the funds flowed into

the general plan which is the vast majority generated by the tax increment created becomes the lion share of what is produced. we are not doing this at the expense of the general fund and it allows us to divert a significant amount into the improvements. >> our fiscal impact study was done as part of the lengthy hearings which was peer reviewed by the comptroller's office. and there is also the additional costs related to fire, public health. all which will be accretive for

the city. we all sympathize on this. a portion of the money would have gone towards accelerating development of that public improvements, those trees, those parks and that sidewalk. i would like to say that the whole purpose of this partnership is to address what we believe is a deficiency. we have a great plan but we have not been able to implement much of the plan. this would address the concerns of the residents like that gentleman, jamie would occur, everyone else waiting for those changes. >> the requirement is that these improvements are made. you get those improvements at

the front and rather than when the units are sold or these other things that had to do with it the earlier ways that infrastructure improvements were made. >> yes, we will try to get more of them on the front and through this partnership structure. our office along the comptroller's office, plan department, budget office, is who we mean by "we." >> i see that -- is included even though the entitlements occurred earlier. i would assume that an existing project would not be part of the ifd.

>> , only future projects. this is not within the area plan, it was a special used district. those people need sidewalks. it would be helpful for them to contribute towards the build out. that was a distinction i am trying to bring up because i remember this coming up as a separate entitlement. i think the concept here is that it would be included because it would be part of the ifd. it would do its part to continue. we would need approval of the property owners and that is how these wor