Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs study of tax‑increment‑style IFDs and citywide CFDs to fund neighborhood infrastructure
Summary
The San Francisco Planning Commission endorsed resolutions to form a study committee and allow the Association of Bay Area Governments to administer community facilities districts, aiming to pilot an Infrastructure Finance District in Rincon Hill and create a citywide Community Facilities District program to help fund infrastructure and speed development.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on July 22 endorsed city resolutions to study and enable two financing tools — an Infrastructure Finance District (IFD) and a citywide Community Facilities District (CFD) — to help fund neighborhood infrastructure and spur development.
Michael Yarny of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development told the commission that an IFD is “essentially a tax increment finance district but taken outside of redevelopment,” and described a Rincon Hill pilot that a developer has offered to underwrite. Yarny said a 35% set‑aside of net new tax increment on Rincon Hill could support an initial $20 million bond and a later $56 million bond, roughly $76 million for infrastructure over build‑out.
The resolutions would form an Area Plan Infrastructure Finance Committee to oversee a consultant study and policy recommendations for when and how to use IFDs, and authorize ABAG’s finance authority to administer Mello‑Roos CFDs for projects that opt into the program. Officials stressed these measures do not create districts on approval; they open procedural pathways and require separate approvals for any specific district.
Supporters, including developer representatives and housing advocates, said the tools could accelerate parks, sewers, and transit connections and dovetail with the city’s fee‑deferral program. “This is a way of funding infrastructure sooner than we otherwise would,” Yarny said, adding the IFD approach can help pool impact fees, grants and bond proceeds to deliver projects earlier.
Some commissioners and public commenters urged safeguards: study of long‑term effects on the city’s general fund, explicit roles for neighborhood advisory bodies, and limits on which fees could be financed through CFDs. Commissioner Sugaya asked that the consultant examine how diverting increments affects general‑fund revenues; staff and Yarny said the consultant study would cover that question.
After public comment from neighborhood advisory councils, architects and development interests, the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the resolutions with modifications and to ask staff to work with the city attorney and ABAG on clarifying language.
Next steps: the measures will move to the Board of Supervisors and ABAG for further action; the commission asked staff to keep advisory councils informed during the consultant process.
