A place of unique neighborhoods, progressive values, and innovative industry, San Francisco is growing. The city’s creative culture and dynamic economy continue to draw new residents; as of 2015 the population was 864,816, up 11% from 2000. Plan Bay Area, developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments, projects San Francisco to grow by 90,000 housing units and 190,000 jobs by 2040. As the city’s density increases, having sufficient infrastructure to support all residents in all neighborhoods becomes more challenging but also more important. 

Real estate developments along the city’s waterfront, the creation of new neighborhoods, and preparing existing neighborhoods for anticipated growth will increase the City’s infrastructure portfolio along with its tax base. Eastern Neighborhoods, Mission Bay, Candlestick Point, and Hunters Point Shipyards are just a few of the high-growth areas changing the face of San Francisco. Many of these developments and projects have distinctive funding mechanisms, including dedicated development fees and developer agreements that target improvements in areas of especially high growth. These projects seek to create well-planned, safe places to live, travel, work, and play.

While many things contribute to the local economy, this chapter includes departments and programs whose primary objectives are to improve San Francisco’s wide-ranging economic base and plan for its future growth.

Port of San Francisco 

The Port of San Francisco is responsible for the 7.5 miles of San Francisco waterfront adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The Port manages, maintains, develops, markets, and leases all of the property in this area. The Port’s operating portfolio is composed of approximately 580 ground, commercial, retail, office, industrial, and maritime leases, including leases of many internationally recognized landmarks such as Fisherman’s Wharf, Pier 39, the Ferry Building, and AT&T Park, home of the San Francisco Giants baseball team. 

Port lands must be used consistently with public trust principles for the benefit of all California citizens, to further navigation and maritime commerce, fisheries, public access and recreation, environmental restoration, and commercial activities that attract the public to the waterfront. Urban waterfront developments, including the new Southern Bayfront neighborhood developments proposed in the Mission Rock, Orton, and Forest City projects require detailed coordination, review, and approval of many government agencies. In recent years, the Port has also secured State legislation to allow non-trust uses of specified Port lands and created Infrastructure Financing Districts to support waterfront improvements. Such advances were made possible by developing a common understanding with partner agencies of project objectives and implementation requirements to restore historic structures and improve the waterfront for maritime and public use and enjoyment. 

The Port’s Waterfront Land Use Plan guides the integration of public and private investment to improve the waterfront for broad public use and enjoyment. It includes a comprehensive public access and open space plan that integrates with the Port's varied maritime industries, and offers opportunities for new public-private partnership projects.

Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure

The Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) is the successor agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, which was dissolved in 2012 by order of the California Supreme Court. OCII is authorized to continue to implement the Major Approved Development Projects, which include the Mission Bay North and South Redevelopment Project Areas (Mission Bay), the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area and Zone 1 of the Bayview Redevelopment Project Area (Shipyard/Candlestick Point), and the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area (Transbay). In addition, OCII continues to manage Yerba Buena Gardens before its formal transfer to the Real Estate Division in 2017. 

The Mission Bay development covers 303 acres of land between the San Francisco Bay and Interstate-280. The development program for Mission Bay includes market-rate and affordable housing; new commercial space; a new UCSF research campus and medical center; neighborhood-serving retail space; a 250-room hotel; new public open space; and myriad community facilities. 

The Shipyard/Candlestick Point comprises of nearly 780 acres of abandoned and underutilized land along San Francisco’s southeastern Bayfront. These long-abandoned waterfront lands will be transformed into areas for jobs, parks, and housing. The development will feature up to 12,100 homes, of which nearly one-third will be affordable; nearly 900,000 square feet of neighborhood retail; and three million square feet of commercial space; and 26 acres of parks and open space. 

Transbay development includes the new Transbay Transit Center (TTC) and 10 acres of former freeway infrastructure, which OCII and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) are developing into a new, mixed-use neighborhood surrounding a state-of-the-art, multi-modal transit station. The TJPA is responsible for constructing, owning and operating the new TTC, and OCII is responsible for the development of the surrounding neighborhood. At full build-out, these publicly-owned parcels will be transformed into approximately 3,300 new housing units, including nearly 1,400 affordable units, three million square feet of new commercial development, and 3.6 acres of parks and open space. 

In 2017 several assets will transfer from OCII to the Real Estate Division, consistent with OCII’s recently state-approved Property Management Plan. These assets include open space in Mission Bay, Yerba Buena Gardens, commercial and parking facilities in the Fillmore, and other properties. The transfer of Yerba Buena Gardens will be accompanied by a master operating lease with a newly formed non-profit (Yerba Buena Gardens Conservancy or YBGC) who will be responsible for maintenance and operations under a Board of Directors that will include appointments from the City & County of San Francisco and work with Real Estate staff to ensure proper management.

Treasure Island Development Authority

Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island (“TI” and “YBI”; collectively, “the Islands”) are in San Francisco Bay, about halfway between the San Francisco mainland and Oakland. Treasure Island contains approximately 404 acres of land, and Yerba Buena Island, approximately 150 acres. In early 2003, the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) and the Treasure Island Community Development, LLC (TICD) entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and began work on a Development Plan for the Islands. 

The Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Development Project will create a new San Francisco neighborhood consisting of up to 8,000 new residential housing units, as well as new commercial and retail space. The Project will also feature new hotel accommodations and 300 acres of parks and public open space, including shoreline access and cultural uses. Transportation amenities being built for the project will enhance mobility on the Islands as well as link the Islands to San Francisco. These amenities will include new and upgraded streets and public byways; bicycle, transit, and pedestrian facilities; landside and waterside facilities for the existing Treasure Island Sailing Center; an expanded marina; and a new Ferry Terminal.

Planning Department – Neighborhood Development

Through various planning efforts, such as Community Plans, Redevelopment Plans, and Development Agreements, the Planning Department helps San Francisco to create a built environment that will support our own growth. The City has developed specific Area Plans where current development is concentrated. These Plan Areas are Balboa Park, Eastern Neighborhoods, Market Octavia, Rincon Hill, Transit Center, and Visitacion Valley. New infrastructure projects planned in these areas include improvements to transportation networks, streetscape enhancements to create inviting pedestrian corridors, new open space areas that provide access to recreation and sporting activities, and other categories of projects that will improve quality of life in these areas.

Economic + Neighborhood Development Accomplishments

Port of San Francisco

Awarded the first contract for the Crane Cove Park Project Phase 1, a nine-acre project which will include preservation of the historic ship building slip-way and two historic cranes, a variety of landscape and plaza areas, and 1,000 feet of Bay shoreline open to the public. 

Completed the Bayview Gateway, a one-acre green open space located at Third Street and Cargo Way near Pier 90 to serve as an entryway to the Bayview neighborhood. This passive open space with drought-tolerant plants and fruit-bearing trees was designed to reflect the natural and cultural history of the neighborhood and to be compatible with the Port’s cargo and maritime industrial operations. 

Executed a lease for the 20th Street Historic Buildings Rehabilitation Project with Orton Development that will include a total investment in these previously backlogged, unfunded buildings, and established the first Port Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) as the first step in the Pier 70 Historic Core Rehabilitation Plan. 

Repaired the Pier 35 Bulkhead Building, upgrading two elevators and completing essential water intrusion work in several areas in the Pier 35 bulkhead and shed buildings. Pier 35 is a historic building and serves as the Port’s secondary cruise terminal with office tenants in the bulkhead building.

Major Expansion Projects

Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point: Completed nearly all of the horizontal development of the Hilltop area and 208 (of the 898) housing units are complete; in addition, the Alice Griffith Project, which will include 122 units of replacement and affordable housing, will be complete in early 2017. 

Mission Bay: Constructed 4,795 housing units, including 822 affordable units and more than 1.9 million square feet of commercial, office, clinical, and biotechnology lab space with another 1 million square feet under construction; in addition, 60% of the UCSF campus has been developed including the first phase of the UCSF medical center, and more than 10 acres of new non-UCSF parks have been completed. 

Transbay Transit Center: Constructed or currently constructing over 2.1 million square feet of office and 1,812 residential units, including 569 affordable units. 

Treasure Island: Completed the first and second transfers of property from the Navy to TIDA and the first transfer of building development parcels from TIDA to the Treasure Island Community Development (TICD), and began the demolition of existing structures in the initial areas of development.

Neighborhood Development

Eastern Neighborhoods: Constructed improvements on Bartlett Street between 21st and 22nd Streets, completed a new park in Showplace Square, and will complete construction on a new park at 17th and Folsom Streets in early 2017. 

Market/Octavia: Completed the Hayes Street two-way project, which included the Central Freeway dog park, skate park, and McCoppin Hub Plaza, as well as pedestrian crossing enhancements along Franklin and Gough Streets. 

Balboa Park: Extended the Lee Avenue and Brighton Avenue Public Access Easement, which enables pedestrian access from Ocean Avenue to future development on the Balboa Reservoir site. 

Rincon Hill: Completed design on Guy Place Park; the first phase of streetscape improvements along Harrison Street will be designed in 2017. Both projects are projected to begin construction in 2017. 

Created new guidelines in collaboration with the Human Services Agency (HSA) that outline a new RFP process to select child care projects that add care capacity. These projects will be funded through impact fee revenue, and HSA has issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for child care centers within the Market/Octavia area. 

Initiated two community-based grant programs for the Eastern Neighborhoods and Market/ Octavia Plan areas, funded with impact fees.

Please see the Departments page for funding tables for each individual department.

Please see the Departments page for funding tables for each individual department.

Please see the Departments page for funding tables for each individual department.

D. Methodology and Assumptions

Capital Plan Methodology

Under direction of the City Administrator, department staff annually assesses facility conditions, determines cost projections for renewal projects and proposed enhancements, and analyzes available funding resources to prepare a 10-year capital plan.

Through a series of meetings the Capital Planning Committee reviews proposals, staff recommendations, and documents toward the development of the Capital Plan. These reviews do not, and are not meant to, replace the authority of department commissions’ or other oversight bodies under the City Charter and other codes. Rather, the 10-year plan is meant to provide a forum that examines capital needs from a citywide perspective and to foster a dialogue on those needs between stakeholders, commissions, the Mayor, and the Board of Supervisors.

Staff uses two approaches to collect data for the Plan. The Facilities Renewal Resource Model (FRRM) is used to collect information on the state of repair for major facility and infrastructure subsystems (also known as renewals) for all of the General Fund departments. The Airport, Port, and MTA have implemented this model for their facilities as well. In addition, General Fund departments submit enhancement requests using the Capital Planning and Reporting system (CPRS). Each proposal is reviewed by professional staff (e.g., architects, engineers, analysts etc.) and categorized as a funded, deferred, or emerging need.

Facilities Renewal Resource Model (FRRM)

The City uses the facility life-cycle model to predict annual funding requirements for General Fund department facilities. The objectives of the facility modeling effort are listed below:

Develop a budget model to predict relative annual funding requirements for facilities renewal and document the existing backlog of deferred maintenance in a consistent way for all departments.

Provide a basis for a funding plan that will first address adequate resources for renewal and then a reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog.

Create consistent and comparative data among departments for determining funding allocations and targets for addressing renewal as a part of operating or capital budgets.

Deliver a cost model to each department with associated staff training so that facilities renewal and deferred maintenance needs can be updated annually and progress in meeting those needs can be measured.

Provide a planning tool for departmental use which provides a useful life “systems” profile of each building as a way of predicting future funding needs or packaging projects to leverage fund sources.

Develop a credible model to assess needs consistently and to focus on total funding needs and strategies.

The model uses building information (gross square feet, construction date, facility subsystem type, etc.) and an approach based on subsystem life cycles and replacement costs to estimate the backlog of deferred maintenance and future capital reinvestment needs. Shown here is an example of the 10-year renewal forecast report generated by FRRM for a particular facility. This report, one of dozens available, shows subsystems within the building that need to be replaced during the next 10 years and the corresponding cost (in thousands). A variety of other reports are available for further analysis.

Each department maintains the model, with the capability of summarizing information at both the department and citywide level. The model has a great deal of built-in flexibility that allows the City to enter new data and even change the underlying assumptions in future years.

The FY 2022-31 Capital Plan reflects renewal data collected from August through December 2020 and includes detailed information for each General Fund department. These findings are summarized in the renewal graphs and the renewal line of the financial summary schedules for each of the General Fund service areas found throughout the Plan.

Capital Plan Assumptions

The FY2022-31 Capital Plan uses the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate (AICCIE) of 3.5% as the escalation rate for the first 2 years, followed by 5% for the remainder of the Plan.

Fiscal years (FY) in the Plan refer to the calendar year in which the City’s July 1 to June 30 budget cycle ends. For example, FY2022 refers to calendar year dates from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.  Dollars are listed in thousands for all financial schedules unless otherwise noted.

For all planned General Obligation Bonds, the financial schedules show the total bond amount in the fiscal year during which the bond is to be approved by voters. For example, a G.O. Bond proposal on the November 2023 ballot will appear in FY2024 of the financial schedule.

The General Obligation Bond Program assumes a reduction in Net Assessed Value of 4.83% in FY2022, and growth of 5.89% in FY2023, 5.92% in FY2024, 4.64% in FY2025, 3.99% in FY2026, 3.37% in FY2027 and FY2028, and 3.38% annually thereafter.

When issued, G.O. Bonds proposed by this Plan will not increase voters’ long-term property tax rates above FY2006 levels. In other words, new G.O. Bonds will only be used as funding source when existing approved and issued debt is retired and/or the property tax base grows.

The General Fund Debt Program assumes that General Fund discretionary revenues grow 16.75% in FY2022, 8.39% in FY2023, 5.48% in FY2024, 3.99% in FY2025, 3.94% in FY2026, and 2.70% annually thereafter. In addition, the General Fund Debt Program assumes that the amount of General Fund revenues spent on debt service will not
exceed 3.25%.

Jobs Creation Estimation Methodology

In an effort to better evaluate and prioritize capital projects, local governments are examining not only upfront financial costs but also their contributions of direct and indirect jobs generated by the capital investment. The City and County of San Francisco’s FY 2022-31 Capital Plan estimates nearly $38 billion in capital projects during the next ten years, which will create nearly 170,000 San Francisco jobs. A job is defined as one job year of full-time work. For example, five people employed for four years equals 20 job years. This jobs estimate is based on the REMI Policy Insight model which attributes 4.48 San Francisco jobs per million dollars in construction spending. This is exclusive of the additional jobs created outside of the City and County as workers
and materials migrate in from surrounding areas.

Customized for San Francisco, REMI has the unique ability to determine the effects of taxes and other variables on the local economy. As a result, the Controller’s Office of Economic Analysis uses this model for analyzing the economic impact of pending legislation. The table below summarizes the number of job years from the REMI model based on $1 million of construction spending in San Francisco.

Estimated Jobs Created from Construction Spending in San Francisco

Source: Economic Multipliers from Office of Economic Analysis, Controller's Office, REMI Model Outputs

Infrastructure Finance Districts Criteria

The following threshold and strategic criteria to guide the use of future Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs) in San Francisco were adopted by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on February 18, 2011. These criteria are in addition to those in IFD law (CA Government Code section 53395 et. seq.)

The Guidelines are organized into two sets of criteria: (1) minimum “Threshold Criteria” that must be satisfied for an IFD to be formed by the BOS and (2) “Strategic Criteria” that may be considered when deciding whether to form a future IFD. These policy guidelines would not apply to any existing Redevelopment Area (IFD law prohibits it) or to any property owned or managed by the Port of San Francisco.

Threshold Criteria:

Limit to areas that are rezoned as part of an Area Plan or Development Agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and also adopted as a Planned Priority Development Area (PDA) by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are locally-identified, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. They are generally areas of at least 100 acres where there is local commitment to developing more housing along with amenities and services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. To be eligible to become a PDA, an area has to be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. Designation of PDAs expresses the region’s growth priorities and informs regional agencies, like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which jurisdictions want and need assistance. Planned PDAs are eligible for capital infrastructure funds, planning grants, and technical assistance. Linking creation of future IFDs to areas designated as PDAs will allow the City to leverage the increment generated by an IFD to increase its chances to receive matching regional, state, or
federal infrastructure and transportation grants.

Limit to areas where a rezoning results in a net fiscal benefit to the General Fund as determined by the Controller’s Office. Specifically, the City must demonstrate that any added General Fund costs generated by the new service population projected to result from the growth supported by a rezoning are offset by greater General Fund revenues, resulting in a net fiscal benefit or surplus. As a general rule, this would mean that use of IFDs would be limited to areas that received substantial & quantifiable upzoning, based on actual net increases in height, bulk, density that result in greater developable FAR than the previous “baseline” zoning, or through liberalization of land use and permitting provisions that increase the certainty of entitlements and the value of property.

In general, restrict the maximum increment available to an annual average of 33-50% over the 30-year term of the IFD, and in no event allow the annual average increment over the life of the IFD to exceed the projected net fiscal benefit over the life of the IFD. This maximum average cap would include annual pay-as-you-go monies and bond service payments or some combination of both. The maximum average increment cap may be increased to 50% to fund neighborhood infrastructure that also provides clear citywide benefits, like an extension or upgrade of a MUNI light rail line or the development of a City-serving park. In any event, this policy would guarantee that an IFD diversion should always be less than the net fiscal benefit, guaranteeing that there is at least some again to the General Fund in all circumstances. This policy would not prevent the “front-loading” of increment in the beginning years of an IFD to allow for bonding and the acceleration of construction of neighborhood-serving infrastructure, especially since accelerating delivery of infrastructure should have a correspondingly positive effect on property tax revenues for the General Fund.

Limit to areas with documented existing infrastructure deficiencies. Because the City has not developed universally-applied and objective citywide standards for assessing the sufficiency (or deficiency) of existing neighborhood-serving infrastructure, BOS-adopted planning documents (like Area Plans) that qualitatively and/or quantitatively describe such deficiencies will suffice until new citywide standards are adopted at a later date. After the adoption of a new IFD policy, the Capital Planning Committee should be tasked with developing a systematic and quantitative set of criteria or standards for assessing existing neighborhood infrastructure deficiencies in the following areas: (i) neighborhood parks & open space improvements; (ii) “Better Streets” streetscape & pedestrian safety improvements; (iii) bicycle network improvements; (iv) transit-supportive improvements; (v) publicly-owned community center and/or child-care facilities. Furthermore, the CPC would need to adopt citywide standards to avoid the use of IFD funds for “gold-plated park benches” or facilities that far exceed citywide norms for cost and quality.

Limit use of IFD monies to individual infrastructure projects where a source of long term maintenance funding is identified. Within an IFD, limit expenditure of IFD monies to projects that have identified a separate source of funding for ongoing maintenance and operations. In some cases this could be through public-private agreements, such as a Master HOA agreeing to maintain a public park or a Community Benefit District agreeing to fund long-term maintenance, or via the creation of a new supplemental property tax assessment district, like a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.

Strategic Criteria:

In general, limit IFDs to parcels without any occupied residential use. The City may want to exclude parcels that contain existing occupied residential structures. This is because IFD law requires an actual voter-based election if there are 12 or more registered voters within the proposed boundaries of an IFD. If there are less than 12 registered voters, the law only requires a weighted vote of the property owners, which, in general, should reduce the complexity and time required for forming a district. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where a voter-based election may be both desirable and manageable.

Use IFDs as a strategy to leverage additional non-City resources. As noted in Threshold Criteria #1 above, IFDs should be used as a tool to leverage additional regional, state, and federal funds, thereby serving a purpose beyond earmarking General Fund resources for needed infrastructure. In particular, IFDs may prove instrumental in securing matching federal or state dollars for transportation projects.

Consider adopting a limited policy of “overriding considerations” for situations where the BOS may have adopted zoning that purposely restricts or limits the economic “highest and best” use of a given area, thereby limiting or reducing the net General Fund benefit derived from a rezoning, but where other social policy objectives might dictate that some IFD revenues be spent on supportive infrastructure.

Capital Plan Methodology

Capital Plan Assumptions

• The FY2020-29 Capital Plan uses the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate (AICCIE) of 6% as the escalation rate for the first 2 years, followed by 5% for the remainder of the Plan.
• Fiscal years (FY) in the Plan refer to the calendar year in which the City’s July 1 to June 30 budget cycle ends. For example, FY2020 refers to calendar year dates from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020.
• Dollars are listed in thousands for all financial schedules unless otherwise noted.
• For all planned General Obligation Bonds, the financial schedules show the total bond amount in the fiscal year during which the bond is to be approved by voters. For example, a G.O. Bond proposal on the November 2018 ballot will appear in FY2019 of the financial schedule.
• The General Obligation Bond Program assumes growth in Net Assessed Value of 6.49% in FY2020, 4.51% in FY2021, 4.31% in FY2022, 4.03% in FY2023, 4.03% in FY2024, and 3.50% annually thereafter.
• When issued, G.O. Bonds proposed by this Plan will not increase voters’ long-term property tax rates above FY2006 levels. In other words, new G.O. Bonds will only be used as funding source when existing approved and issued debt is retired and/or the property tax base grows.
• The General Fund Debt Program assumes that General Fund discretionary revenues grow 4.50% in FY2020, 3.79% in FY2021, 3.15% in FY2022, 2.97% in FY2023, 3.19% in FY2024, and 3.50% annually thereafter. In addition, the General Fund Debt Program assumes that the amount of General Fund revenues spent on debt service will not exceed 3.25%.
• The Pay-As-You-Go Program assumes General Fund and Senate Bill 1 Street Repaving as revenue sources.

Jobs Creation Estimation Methodology

 Source: Economic Multipliers from Office of Economic Analysis, Controller’s Office, REMI Model Outputs

Infrastructure Finance Districts Criteria

1. Limit to areas that are rezoned as part of an Area Plan or Development Agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and also adopted as a Planned Priority Development Area (PDA) by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are locally-identified, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. They are generally areas of at least 100 acres where there is local commitment to developing more housing along with amenities and services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. To be eligible to become a PDA, an area has to be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. Designation of PDAs expresses the region’s growth priorities and informs regional agencies, like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which jurisdictions want and need assistance. Planned PDAs are eligible for capital infrastructure funds, planning grants, and technical assistance. Linking creation of future IFDs to areas designated as PDAs will allow the City to leverage the increment generated by an IFD to increase its chances to receive matching regional, state, or federal infrastructure and transportation grants.
2. Limit to areas where a rezoning results in a net fiscal benefit to the General Fund as determined by the Controller’s Office. Specifically, the City must demonstrate that any added General Fund costs generated by the new service population projected to result from the growth supported by a rezoning are offset by greater General Fund revenues, resulting in a net fiscal benefit or surplus. As a general rule, this would mean that use of IFDs would be limited to areas that received substantial & quantifiable upzoning, based on actual net increases in height, bulk, density that result in greater developable FAR than the previous “baseline” zoning, or through liberalization of land use and permitting provisions that increase the certainty of entitlements and the value of property.
3. In general, restrict the maximum increment available to an annual average of 33-50% over the 30-year term of the IFD, and in no event allow the annual average increment over the life of the IFD to exceed the projected net fiscal benefit over the life of the IFD. This maximum average cap would include annual pay-as-you-go monies and bond service payments or some combination of both. The maximum average increment cap may be increased to 50% to fund neighborhood infrastructure that also provides clear citywide benefits, like an extension or upgrade of a MUNI light rail line or the development of a City-serving park. In any event, this policy would guarantee that an IFD diversion should always be less than the net fiscal benefit, guaranteeing that there is at least some again to the General Fund in all circumstances. This policy would not prevent the “front-loading” of increment in the beginning years of an IFD to allow for bonding and the acceleration of construction of neighborhood-serving infrastructure, especially since accelerating delivery of infrastructure should have a correspondingly positive effect on property tax revenues for the General Fund.
4. Limit to areas with documented existing infrastructure deficiencies. Because the City has not developed universally-applied and objective citywide standards for assessing the sufficiency (or deficiency) of existing neighborhood-serving infrastructure, BOS-adopted planning documents (like Area Plans) that qualitatively and/or quantitatively describe such deficiencies will suffice until new citywide standards are adopted at a later date. After the adoption of a new IFD policy, the Capital Planning Committee should be tasked with developing a systematic and quantitative set of criteria or standards for assessing existing neighborhood infrastructure deficiencies in the following areas: (i) neighborhood parks & open space improvements; (ii) “Better Streets” streetscape & pedestrian safety improvements; (iii) bicycle network improvements; (iv) transit-supportive improvements; (v) publicly-owned community center and/or child-care facilities. Furthermore, the CPC would need to adopt citywide standards to avoid the use of IFD funds for “gold-plated park benches” or facilities that far exceed citywide norms for cost and quality.
5. Limit use of IFD monies to individual infrastructure projects where a source of long term maintenance funding is identified. Within an IFD, limit expenditure of IFD monies to projects that have identified a separate source of funding for ongoing maintenance and operations. In some cases this could be through public-private agreements, such as a Master HOA agreeing to maintain a public park or a Community Benefit District agreeing to fund long-term maintenance, or via the creation of a new supplemental property tax assessment district, like a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.

Strategic Criteria

• In general, limit IFDs to parcels without any occupied residential use. The City may want to exclude parcels that contain existing occupied residential structures. This is because IFD law requires an actual voter-based election if there are 12 or more registered voters within the proposed boundaries of an IFD. If there are less than 12 registered voters, the law only requires a weighted vote of the property owners, which, in general, should reduce the complexity and time required for forming a district. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where a voter-based election may be both desirable and manageable.
• Use IFDs as a strategy to leverage additional non-City resources. As noted in Threshold Criteria #1 above, IFDs should be used as a tool to leverage additional regional, state, and federal funds, thereby serving a purpose beyond earmarking General Fund resources for needed infrastructure. In particular, IFDs may prove instrumental in securing matching federal or state dollars for transportation projects.
• Consider adopting a limited policy of “overriding considerations” for situations where the BOS may have adopted zoning that purposely restricts or limits the economic “highest and best” use of a given area, thereby limiting or reducing the net General Fund benefit derived from a rezoning, but where other social policy objectives might dictate that some IFD revenues be spent on supportive infrastructure.