If anyone else is interested, here's an answer I got from a different grammar site, which I think answers the question:
What kind of complement (to-infinitive, bare infinitive, or an -ing form) goes with what verb is not something that can be determined by a grammatical rule. It is just a fact of English that it's 'look forward to + -ing' form, but hope/hoping/look/looking + to-infinitive, and that's pretty much all that can be said about it.
Look forward to
The traditional view is that look forward to is a phrasal verb which takes a gerund (-ing form) or a noun phrase as a complement. CGEL, however, takes the view that constructions that are traditionally called phrasal verbs 'despite their idiomatic interpretations, do not form syntactic constituents' and so they 'do not use the term "phrasal verb" in this grammar' (p. 274).
Instead, CGEL analyzes the phrase as belonging to 'Constructions containing verb + intransitive preposition idioms' (p. 286):
 iv verb - prep - transitive PP We look forward [to your visit].
Here 'Prep' stands for 'the intransitive preposition functioning as a complement of the verb.' 'PP' means 'prepositional phrase', in this case to your visit.
Note that according to CGEL, 'to' belongs with the complement (it's the head of the prepositional phrase), not with look forward; this is why they say that look forward to is not a syntactic constituent.
Hope is a catenative verb. Different catenative verbs take different kinds of non-finite clauses as complements (to-infinitives, bare infinitives, and/or present participles/gerunds), and there is no rule that can predict what kind of complement will be correct for any given catenative verb; hope happens to take a to-infinitive, and that's all that can be said about it (at least in the present state of our understanding of linguistics).
True, there are some tendencies in what catenative verb takes what kind of complement. However, these are tendencies only, and 'we could not, for example, predict that anticipate would take an -ing clause complement, and so on. Thus there is no getting away from the fact that the lexical entries for verbs must specify which kinds of complement they take and, where more than one is involved, the semantic differences (if any)' (IGE, pp. 210-211). Wiktionary has a list of catenative verbs grouped by what sort of complement they take.
By the way, I’m looking to present tomorrow is perfectly fine; see 1Bi, below.
Like hope, look is a catenative verb, and it is just a fact of the English language that it takes a to-infinitive as a complement. True, look does not appear on that Wiktionary list, but it does appear on a list in CGEL, in two incarnations (p. 1240): as type 1Bi and as type 1Bii, explained as follows (pp. 1227-1228)
1Bi: Kim looked to leave. (In Merriam-Webster, this is meaning 4b, 'to have in mind as an end' <looking to win back some lost profits>
1Bii: She looked to like it. (meaning more or less she seemed to like it)
The difference is that 1Bi has an ordinary subject, whereas 1Bii has a raised subject. That difference is explained in CGEL as follows (p. 1194):
The semantic difference between the two kinds of subject can be illustrated with the verbs hope and seem:
 i Liz hoped to convince them. [ordinary subject]
ii Liz seemed to convince them. [raised subject]
In Liz is an ordinary subject in that it is an argument of the verb: hope denotes a psychological attitude on the part of someone to some situation (here Liz's attitude to the later, potential, situation where she convinces them). But in [ii] Liz is not an argument of seem. The meaning is something like "Seemingly, Liz convinced them"; seem has a modal meaning, serving to make [ii] weaker than the unmodalized Liz convinced them. Syntactically Liz is subject of seem, but semantically it relates only to the subordinate convince clause, not to seem. Liz in [ii] is then a raised subject: the verb that Liz relates to syntactically is higher in the constituent structure than the one it relates to semantically.
In [1i], Liz has two semantic roles, as experiencer of hope and as agent of convince; but in [ii], Liz has only one semantic role, as agent of convince. The difference is like that between [68i] and [68ii] of §1.7 (Pat persuaded Kim to travel by bus and Pat intended Kim to travel by bus), and we will again say that the missing subject of the non-finite clause has a controlled interpretation in [1i] and a raised interpretation in [1ii]. Verbs like seem which take a raised complement are called raising verbs.