for the record thi this is e may 21, 2019 treasure island development authority infrastructure and committee meeting. item one call to order. (roll call). >> we have a quorum. >> i want to take this opportunity to welcome everyone, and those that are up and early working remotely, glad to have you here today. the treasure island infrastructure and transportation committee and staff and guests and partners in the audience. we are glad to have all of you here today. commissioners we are glad to see you. the next item on the agenda.

>> general public comment. in addition to general public comment. public comment will be held during each item on the agenda. >> are there any public comments? seeing none. >> item 3. consent agenda. 3a approving minutes of april 16, 2019 meeting. >> commissioners. okay. motion. >> i move the minutes of the agenda. >> so moved. i am going to second the motion. all iall in favor. minutes approved. >> item four. proposed changes to operation of shared public ways. >> thank you, commissioners, martin wiggins from tic is going

to introduce this topic. as we have been moving forward with design, we have had some additional thoughts on how to operate the shared public ways. i will have martin take it from there. >> good morning, chair richardson and committee. as bob mentioned. as we move closer to implementation of the first phase of treasure island, we have been looking at the operation of the shared public ways, and we are considering adjustments to restrict vehicular traffic and increase the quality of the corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. here to talk more about that proposal is our master architect anchor bet belcher. >> thank you. >> .

>> we are here to present, as martin suggested and pointed out, removal of vehicular traffic. as the proposal for the shared public way to increase or improve the overall character or use of the public way. treasure island street families. it is a singular identified street type that is running through the city neighborhoods in the north-south direction. actually someone who knows more about it is kevin conger. >> you are going to yield to kevin? >> i yield my time to kevin. >> okay. introduce yourself and we will start fresh. >> good morning, kevin conger,

cmg architects on behalf of the development team. sorry i am a minute late. let me back up. did you talk about the reason we are here? >> no, he just started. >> the shared public way, as you guys know, has been designed as a street, a city street that vehicles can drive on, but it is a curb-less street. pedestrians can walk down the middle of the street with cars and bikes, and there was a desire to have very walkable public realm on public island. the team pushed initially to have it be car-free. frankly 10 years ago when we got it approved the development team was nervous having houses where you couldn't drive to the front

door might not be good for sales, they were adamant it be a shared street. now 10 years later it has changed. now the development team thinks it might be better if i it is a completely car less street and better. that is where this is coming from. the design of the street physically is not changed. bikes will move down the middle. they are a type of vehicle so the physical design and separations for the pedestrians and the bikes is the same as it would have been for the pedestrians and cars. there is no real design with the exception there will be balls on them to prevent cars from turning down there. there are issues around

circulation and accessibility which we have been talking to the city departments to make sure there are no objections or concerns making this a car-free street. this is a diagram that shows how it was designed, to have cars driving down these shared public weighs in a one-way configuration. you can see at city side avenue, which is along the waterfront park. there was a cul-de-sac turnaround there, and on fourth street, which is the street furthest to the east -- i'm sorry to the south on the right of the drawing. that comes along the cultural park where there is a hotel site there. there is an issue how cars will get in and out if we preclude this vehicle configuration on the shared public way. the proposal is to have a public easement, car easement come through between the residential

parcel and hotel parcel as this drawing shows right here to alleviate the dead end set up if we took cars off the shared public way. that allows us to have the shared public way ped and bike only and not create traffic jams for vehicles. we have -- and this is a reminder of how the design is and will be, which is that there is a minimum 8-foot wide bike lane down the middle or which would have been a car and bike lane. there is a 20-foot clear zone for fire access. that is always the case. there is still pedestrian only on the outside of the shared public way separated from the shared zone by a strip of paving so the people with visual

disabilities can know which side of the line they are on. these are a few renderings what the design looks like. it has not changed from what is in the approved plan. we want to take cars off of it. we have had several conversations with some of the city agencies who initially we met with kevin jensen, the department of public works access coordinator, to make sure he wouldn't have concerns with limiting access with ability to drop people off mid block. he is fine with it. main entrances to residential buildings are at the lobbies, not on the shared public way so there is access to the buildings and unio union i universal desid drop off-loadings there. we met with the task force including m.t.a. and planning to have a discussion and make the

presentation to them to see if they have concerns. they have no problem. they think it is a better design because it is better for pedestrians and bikes. before we go to cab and revise drawings we are here to ask you guys if you have concerns or comments about it or reasons why we shouldn't make this an entirely car-free street. that is it. >> thank you very much, kevin. i'm sure we have some questions here. quickly, i guess the major issue that i will have, i understand the implications of limiting the vehicular access. you have to be some of the issues raised by the city agencies has to do with the drive crop or whatever for the -- dropoff for the handicapped. you indicated the loading.

i would love to see that clearly marked maybe another map later on to show some of the shared ways retail activities or something to really see what goes on will be very helpful for us here to gauge how we are managing pedestrian and also, you know, retail activities on some of those streets. >> yes, that is a good point. thank you for bringing that up. there is the allowance for retail and community serving spaces in all of the corner lots, in all of the tower lots at the ground floor. each has spaces for that. again, those will be served from fourth street and fifth street and diagonal streets, not the shared public way. we can bring a diagram that shows where those are and parking and loading spaces are. >> that would be very helpful. >> a number of questions.

first of all, some basic ones. i think in your presentation you mentioned the minimum used lane was 10 feet. what is the upper range of that? >> it is about maybe 14 in some cases, about 14. we are just doing that so the width changes. pinching it down. for vehicles it was minimum. for bikes it is minimum eight. we are trying to get wider and narrow to slow down bikes and make it look less like a bike lane so the bikes don't go too fast down the street. >> perhaps, bob, you might want to chime in. are the proposed public ways proposed to be more an alley or

the front of house for the buildings and then the vehicle access is really secondary façade along the vehicle-only streets? >> under the design for development, the buildings were not allowed to have garage entrances off the shared public way. that was one way to discourage vehicle traffic. lobbies were allowed, then for the residential units stoops to the shared public way. individual residential units entries on the shared public way are encouraged. as the design initial projects, the design has been developed, all of the buildings are finding it desirable to orient primary lobby entrances towards the major streets rather than the

shared public way. for those buildings with stoops, residential units with stoops, they are having an entrance to the shared public way but secondary entrance to the building or parking area of the building as well. it is not the only means of access to those individual -- those residential units. you can still access them through the lobby to those units as well as off the shared public way. >> the primary façade and main lobby entrance would be off the primary streets which are not shared and that is where the ingress and edegrees will happen as well? >> yes and all garage entrances off those major streets. >> if we go along with this and eliminate city side avenue and

avenue c as shared ways we are allowing vehicle access from those streets? >> so the shared public ways is just -- the numbered streets 4, 5, sixth are the wind row streets. those would be vehicle streets. it is just the meandering roadway through the middle of the residential development that is a shared public way. it will function more as a pedestrian way. i wouldn't call it an alley, but, you know, as more of a pedestrian realm than it was when vehicle traffic was allowed. these, as kevin mentioned, they are curb less. it is more drivable plaza than it is a roadway, and then every

block also has a square that it opens up to as it reaches the wind row street as well. >> it is better for pedestrian and cyclist safety to keep cars away. i don't have an issue with that. i am trying to understand how this proposed configuration may change the design or type apology of the block. it would be great to have more activation on the bike pad to the corridor so it doesn't feel like it becomes the back of house or the very quiet type of space, there could be potential safety concerns around that, too. then, you know, wondering, kevin, if you could walk us through how cyclists may be turning into the vehicular

street. in this current configuration, the bike pad streets are not aligned. in theory someone coming, i don't know the north or west, let's say -- i assume this is north. northbound on fourth and take the left to the by pad to fifth make a right turn and then left turn to continue on the bike path? is that how it is envisioned? can you talk us through the link? the underlying concern the turns are dangerous for cyclist on vehicular streets. having to make multiple turns in a short order seems not the easiest of connections. >> yes, let me get to this blowup to show what you are talking about. they don't align.

the intention is to slow everybody down. cars and bikes both. when we had cars on there to slow them down. it is the same with bikes. that crossing on fifth street here in this instance is a raised table top. that entire intersection so the cars on fifth street will go up and down. there is a pavement change. they will realize they are crossing an active pad and bike zone to slow the cars down. the bikes technically have to stop at the end of the shared public way to negotiate the turn across fifth to the other way. we know that they may slowdown. it is likely they won't stop. the idea is to make everybody both directions aware this is a crossing and to slow down a bit. it is important to note that we have separated bike facility on avenue c that is completely

separated from the traffic, an d we have two separated bike facilities on the city side one on city side avenue completely separated from traffic and bike on the park. the shared way is not the most eway to take. you have to go down to where you live or go slowly through there. the hope is it is a slow-moving primarily pedestrian space. >> that makes sense. the raised table tops will signal drivers they need to slow down they are entering a different realm. that is great to hear. when you say along city side avenue and avenue c there is a

separate bike facility a painted bike lane or how is that treated? >> the bike lane on city side avenue is vertically separated from cars. it is completely separated with the road, no interaction with cars. the shared bike pad promenade the waterfront edge is separated. there are two out there. one is ped only. it is a gravel space not that conducive for bikes. then there is an asphalt shared bike pad more for people on scooters and bikes and all the different ways of moving around that will be also for peds. >> that sounds much, much better than what we have right now. just one last question about like lay buys or loading zones on the vehicle streets.

can you talk us through where you have designed in for that because, obviously, the whole tnc activity has exponentially grown whether we design for it or not they are probably stopping at the lobbies. i want to make sure there is enough street for generous loading space. i see a couple places where it is recessed on city side avenue, perhaps a few more on avenue c. i wanted to hear your thought around that. >> there is a universally accessible loading zone on every block face, everying block -- every building block space. there are a couple exceptions where we weren't able to get that in. for the most part that is the standard the accessibility coordinator asked for an

accessible loading spot. we made all of the loading areas accessible, bigger and wider. nobody will be parked there. you can't park there. they should be available for everybody all of the time. it is going to be -- we know how the ride sharing is going and there is more and more of it. we are mindful we have enough loading spaces so cars are not stopping in the middle of the lane to have people in and out. as the buildings are designed we are coshednating with every ark -- coordinating with every team to make sure the loading spaces are preserved and they are not taking it out with a loading doctor doing something to disrupt the overall plan. >> thank you that is very thoughtful. >> thank you. >> the shared public way is new to san francisco and much used in europe and sometimes in asia

as well. i was hoping to see this experiment work, but if you take away the vehicular access, and i am sure there are people concerned about safety. one of the reasons why the shared public ways were safe was because you have different loads of transit sharing the space. everybody was a little bit more aware of each other. now, i understand the cars are going away. it is for emergency vehicles. now we just have the pedestrians and bicyclists. my question and also, bob, you mentioned, i would like to understand more. as the housing is being designed, and now we have two projects off the shared public ways that have either fully designed or almost complete. if there is no real use of that

and access to that shared public way. if the lobbies are on different streets, i am worried this becomes a little bit of a leftover space and your renderings show actually a different type of building than what i think would be on that shared public way. tell me if i'm wrong because what we have is actually five stories above, basically 40-foot with set back to 60-foot. >> right. >> there wouldn't be the access to those buildings from the shared public way? i'm asking. that is a question. what actually will be using the shared public way as being the entry to these buildings? >> so these two renderings are

pretty current. they are from a month or two ago. they are showing the proposed architectural designs the architects are working on at the moment. all of the architects with the exception of the meth un e building have the lobbies on the corner of the fourth and fifth avenue and the shared public way. there is active pedestrian. that building has the lobby on c street. all of the other buildings with the exception of the solo man have residential doors coming in and out of the shared public way the stoops or per chess or gardens on -- porches on to the shared public way as you can see in the renderings.

we have been working closely with them to encourage them to take advantage of the allowable encroachment to the right-of-way for the purposes of public seating and things to enhance the shared public way, and they all embraced that. we will have interaction between the public and private buildings. the only exception is solo man because they have a program with a single entrance. it doesn't work to have a lot of in and out of the building. all of the other ones will activate the shared public way. you guys will probably get an update on the architectural design when they have something feasible. it iit is really exciting. everybody is coming to the table on board with the design intent of this and the mission of this, and it is going to be really

good. >> that is really excellent. i am glad to hear that and to have a space that is just pedestrian. it is so rare to have that. it is good to see this added. thank you. >> than thank you, kevin. any other comments from the commissioners? so what i'm hearing, i requested earlier to have the map where you can indicate some of the, you know, retail activities to really see what is going on in those particular shared ways, you know, the proposed street. to be consistent all along we have been asking for signaling for the crossing. it is a discussion we have been having for a long time. especially for the disabled. now we have more of pedestrian opportunities on long some of

these streets. it would be great if you could also indicate what signals are going to be there so we can at least see how we are treating some of those crossings, especially bikes. visually impaired and some of the elders and categories. to wrap this up, i'm looking at your schedule. in june you will be up here, right? >> correct. >> then you go back to the m.t.a. and planning. will you becoming back to let us know the final decisions and recommendations? >> as you wish. >> where do we go from there? summer of 2019 is coming up. for the coordination with the architectural teams and then the housing department and approval process.

>> we are looking to the construction date of 2021. we are trying to get a bulletin. we have permitted construction documents. we need a bulletin to update. >> also the fire department? >> we are not changing fire. >> not changing fire so no permitting from them. >> right. we have time. we are just trying to get ahead of this so we can update the documents in the winter. we have time to come back to you when it is convenient for your agenda. >> this is great. in new york and other places this is great. san francisco we are pushing the envelope here at treasure island, doing things that we have never seen before hopefully to emulate us moving forward. okay. from the audience, are there any questions, please? seeing none. thank you all and your team for

being here. >> item 4 affordable housing and sustainable communities grant application update. >> last week i forwarded to the board members preliminary scoring that we had received from the state on our grant application, and a couple commissioners had raised some questions about the preliminary scores and the appeal we filed last friday. so i invited project manager from mercy to give an update on the preliminary scoring in the project. [please stand by]

. >> -- we applied in february, and it's a joint application with tida. we partnered with the mayor's office of housing as well as a community resource group to help with these applications. it is a big lift, and also, the mayor's office of housing provides the expertise of enterprise who does a lot of skill training for the asic application. so we applied for a $20 million grant and that will be divided with about $13.7 million for the housing piece. the transportation piece which goes to purchase five a.c.

transit buses is about $5 million, and then we offer transit pass subsidies as well as san francisco bike coalition for about $229,000. so we, as bob mentioned, received the first preliminary scoring from a.c. -- affordable housing communities grant, and we receive points on two pieces, and basically, that landed up with the point -- us with the points that we received in the points bucket. last year, all the tier two projects were funded, although we believe we did not receive some funding.

one piece that hasn't been given any points to yet and will in june is the narrative piece, so that may move us up. also, we're hoping that appeals will move us up just because we believe we had a really strong application, so the awards will officially come out in june, and we'll hear about our appeal in a couple of weeks. and if we are awarded, we will start construction at the earliest june of 2021. that is the update. >> yes. as you know, we have a lot of questions. thank you for that presentation, and this does not make any sense. so we, here, we're following actually all the housing initiatives in the state. you should know we're very

highly interested, and we hope that there could be more now generated -- next steps on financing. this particular, what we would like to have in construction is yes, we would like to go all the way to the top. this $20 million is a huge deficit and gap that we are trying to bridge out here, and some of the points that for mission control, if you look at the design and the standard of what we're doing here, all of those points are encumbered in mission control. who's going with you for the appeals? the written appeal? do you need people there at the hearing? do you need people to go with you to the hearing or what? >> so it was just a written appeal. there isn't a hearing that we

are invited to. we came up with the appeal in partnership with bob and the hole tida -- whole tida team. we believe we had the support and a really good narrative supporting our efforts. we also received a letter from a.c. transit, and we work with the mayor's office of housing, so we are hoping that that generates enough support. any other support, i'll look into it. >> so what do we -- what are we looking at? worst case. >> you mean, if the application drops and it doesn't receive more points?

then -- >> yeah. >> -- it wouldn't receive funding. >> commissioner chan? >> yes, can you just tell us the basis of the appeals? what was the difference between how you self-scored the application versus the way it was weighted? >> sure. so the major piece that we expected to receive more points on was the five buses that we purchased from a.c. transit. >> and was that the major point? >> yes. that was the major point, and then there was another point that was a clerical issue,

g.h.g. we had to certify the building would have greenhousing rating, which all mohcd buildings do, so we showed a letter from mercy housing, so we submitted in the appeal a letter. >> in your review of the appeal, it seems as though you've strengthened the appeal. >> yes. >> and it's within the department of community housing and development. >> yes. >> well, we wish you that the appeal will be successful so we can get the maximum number of

points because certainly this project deserves it. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> yes. just a quick question. so the buses -- the five buses that you purchased, is that what's impacting the category that's listed, the green buildings and renewable energy? >> no, no, so that one is the category that i just mentioned that we need to provide a letter from the architect. >> because i'm looking at that letter that shows maximum points, applicant self-score and then the initial verified score. i'm just curious where the buses would be -- like, which category is it impacting? other than the green building, the only other discrepancy is -- >> yeah, so it's actually under the table one. >> oh. >> yeah, it's a little confusing how they show the points.

but if you go to table three, it shows you how they reduced -- you're looking at the appeal or the points, right? >> yeah. >> if you go to table three, it shows you in the section -- the fifth little chart, it shows transit subsidies for residents, and then, it shows the g.h.g. emissions, the way they calculated it, and then table one shows it. >> okay. great. thank you for clarifying. >> thank you very much, again, for this. we know that the state has a lot of surplus, and this department of housing and community development, i would like to think we're all on the same page. we have the land, and the governor wants to building 3.5

units of housing, and we believe in that now. at some point, it needs to be conveyed that we really need the help of this agency to do even more. you know, we're going to keep coming back and it just really does not make any tense to do that -- sense to do that, so please keep us posts. >> this is a very important project for san francisco, and i do believe david chiu was the chair of the housing and transportation committee which this entity is a part of. >> we would definite ly

welcome any support we can get from the board. >> i think it's great to have the support of the support, so they make the decision, and we may need to appeal that again. there are so many things that we are going to have to do that are outside the protocol. >> last week ago or two weeks

ago at the board, there was an item that we -- we had calendared this item on the agenda but with the meeting running long, we didn't present it, so i wanted to go ahead and present it here. and it's not a time critical conversation but just a refresher on public financing structures for the project and how that interplays with our maintenance activities for the parks and open space down the road. so overall, the treasure island development program, as folks are familiar, is building 8,000 new homes, and 2173 of those will be affordable. and the 500 hotel rooms, about 500,000 square feet of retail and office space on the island,

primarily neighborhood serving retail and commercial space. and also, a tremendous range of public benefits. 300 acres of parks and open space, new transit equipment, we were just discussing a.c. transit buses, but also muni buses and ferry terminal facilities, and the transit operating subsidy from ticd, new police and fire station on the island, a range of community facilities and other infrastructure as well as for treasure island throughout the island, geotechnical improvement of the soil conditions and adapting for future sea level rise. [please stand by] for eligible

public improvements. so the first of that was to form one or more infrastructure and revitalization financing districts and to form one or more community facilities districts to pay for qualified project costs as well as for ongoing park maintenance. the -- as we went through the processes of forming, we've formed one master district over the two islands with the ability to annex in additional property as it is developed and transferred from both -- from the navy to tida as well as from tida to private developers. so in 2015, beginning in 2015,

we worked with the office of public finance and the developer to prepare the financial analyses to support the district foundations. took that to the board of supervisors and ultimately the various resolutions of formation were approved on january 24, 2017 along with the property owners to approve the district formations. so for people that aren't familiar with how these systems work, each year, property taxes are collected from properties, and that property tax collection includes both a 1% ad valorem property tax as well as other assessments, charges, or fees that may be levied on

the property. so part of that would be assessments, charges, and fees categories as opposed to the base property tax which is taken in to the state and to the local city and county. and that 1% tax is split, with 64.7 of it coming to the city and county of san francisco and 35.3 of it going to state and local and regional and -- agencies including b.a.r.t. and others. under the financing plan, the city has committed 50% of that 64.7% to the irfd, and an

additional 8% is subordinated to the irfd financing. so what that allows is that typically, when bonds are issued against an irfd, there's a 25% debt coverage ratio between the future projected tax increment revenue stream. there's a 25 -- we can only issue debt up to 80% of that revenue stream, so in case there's a dip in property values, there still is the ability to cover the debt obligation. so that 8% that flows to the city's general fund, we're allowed to value count to that as part of our debt coverage obligation so that we're still able to maximize 80% of the total revenue stream, even though some of it is going to the city's general fund. and then through the c.f.d.,

the c.f.d. actually levies a supplement supplemental assessment on properties above and beyond that 1% assessment and charges. so the irfd -- again, this is property tax increment financing which property tax increment is that change in value of the property prior to development, which in our case is essentially a zero valuation to the time at which the taxes are being collected. so all of that local tax revenue -- property tax revenue would count as increment for our purposes. and under the irfd, that tax increment is committed for a 40-year period, and we can

finance again that. the difference with other -- against that. the difference with other irfd is within our total district, we can have multiple project areas, and each of those project areas can have an independent 40-year clock. so within the next slide, i'll show you we have five project areas within our initial formation area, and each one of those will be able to collect over a different 40-year period, and with a development program that has a buildout expected of 40 years or more, allowing each project area to have its own clock really helps us maximize total revenues from the irfd. and one of the things -- real contrasting points between the r.f.d. and irfd, capital

financing, they can finance many of the same things, but an irfd can be used to finance affordable housing and cannot be used to finance things like parks and maintenance. the counter is true for the c.f.d. the c.f.d. cannot be used for public housing but can be used for public services. so we have five project areas. the district is formed over the entire island as potential annexation areas, but these first five project areas is what we were formed over. so just from these project areas, the projected value is we could have under the irfd a maximum bond principle amount of 780 million to reimburse

eligible infrastructure expenses with additional properties to be annexed as we move forward. subsequent to formation of the irfd, we did file a judicial validation action with the court just to proactively affirm that we had followed all of the formation procedures correctly. irfd, as i mentioned, is a new law that was passed after the dissolution of redevelopment, and ours was the first irfd formed in the state, so we wanted to take that extra step to make sure we had followed the measures correctly. and an affirmative judgment was filed in may of last year, so we've passed that hurdle with regards to the irfd. as i mentioned, the c.f.d. is a

supplemental special tax and it's based on the square footage of the property and the type. and as i mentioned, in contrast with the irfd, it can fund services and maintenance activities in addition to infrastructure but cannot be used for affordable housing. and our purposes here are multiple. as i mentioned, to reimburse eligible infrastructure costs for ticd, but also to create -- post that reimbursement to continue to finance future sea level rise adaptations and provide an ongoing revenue stream for parks maintenance and maintenance of other tida facilities. so under the financing plan,

the first 42 years of bond capacity are committed to developer reimbursements with a portion of that revenue stream going to parks and open space maintenance even during the capital or reimbursement period. as i mentioned post that reimbursement, we can use it to fund tida capital needs, including been y including but not limited to sea level rise. over the course of the first 100 years, if we need to rehabilitate parks, rehabilitate tida-owned buildings or the ferry terminal, those will all be eligible costs while it remains a capital c.f.d. under the formation it's

entitled to convert to a maintenance c.f.d. after we have a reserve of $250 billion. as a maintenance c.f.d. after conversion, the term is not limited, and under the formation of the c.f.d., it will continue in perpetuity as our source of funding for the parks and open space. for the initial c.f.d. formation, improvement area number one was just limited to properties on yerba buena island, and we will annex additional properties on treasure island as development progresses. so in terms of debt issuance get the district -- against the

district, we've been meeting with the office of public finance, the assessor quarter's office, as well as the tax assessor's office on a quarterly basis to review the status of transfers on a quarterly basis. and the first c.f.d. bond issuance is anticipated in 2020, and the office of public finance and tida will be required to go to the board of supervisors for authorization prior to each bond issuance, so the formation of the districts approved a debt capacity within the districts, but each issuance needs to go back to the board of supervisors for individual approval. and then, the irfd debt issuances will follow the c.f.d., allowing the -- when the properties have been developed and allowing us to maximize the increment from each of those five project areas that i mentioned. in terms of park maintenance as

described, the c.f.d. is expected to be the primary source of funding for the maintenance of parks and open spaces into the future. but because it takes time for the c.f.d. capacity to develop, the financing plan requires ticd to subsidize early years of parks maintenance and operations, so under the financing plan and the design -- the d.d.a., there -- a -- a parks maintenance account was credited with an initial value of $14,320,000 that has been accruing interest until it's drawn upon, and that is intended to subsidize park

maintenance services. so not in this fiscal year's budget, but next fiscal year's budget -- i'm sorry, the fiscal year 21's budget, we expect during the course of that year, the hilltop park will be completed and transferred to tida, so there will be a maintenance budget within the fiscal year '21 budget that we'll draft and review with ticd, and we'll start drawing against that maintenance account. for the financing plan, we can draw up to $1.5 million a year for the first three years and up to $3 million per year every year thereafter until the account is exhausted. so that recaps my presentation. any questions? >> thank you, bob, for that -- that's just a great presentation, and i'm sure the commissioners have a lot of questions. i want to -- so tida is

actually the pilot for the state concerning the r.f.d., we're the first one out of the gate. so i'm thinking here, as you're here, making your presentation, if the legislatures really want to be creative, they can amend the r.f.d. to issue bonds in there. it should not be limited to infrastructure alone, why not? it can be something, you know, that we really, really need to look at, and that will put san francisco, the rest of the state, to be able to issue their own bonds, and we can be building a lot. some questions i have for you would be really great. the office of public finance and tida, we are the ones that will be going to the board of supervisors for -- to issue the bonds, right, throughout these cycles, right? it would be great if you could give uta