the third congratulations goes to director [inaudible] . he is mentioned in this great article. as we see the demise of san francisco, he has jumped in to establish a new oversight office. i am not sure if i am using the proper names, to which one of them was named, one of which is director williams who brings planning expertise, including a lot more to anchor a discussion that will require a lot of attention, particularly many of the project that will work on at the board for a long time. i see that as a very powerful step in the right direction as we all move in the discussion on the rise of redevelopment. not all cities are prepared as we are, and i wish everyone left on this difficult journey.

i have a comment to make on an ordinance establishing new guidelines for performance and other regulations regarding installation and placement of wireless communication. the city of burly gamingame on monday instituted a note ordinance. i have a copy of the ordinance to pass on as the city day -- city has compared with eight other cities are doing. i would give her the ordnance and acreage hurt to contact people in their planning department to see what has been looked at so that our own work can support what others have researched. that is, i think, it for me today. i wanted to thank the planning department for including the christmas pictures from the party. i thought it was very thoughtful. it brought a lot of smiles to my

face. the last thing i would like to share, [inaudible] is closed. they moved the catering business to another location. >> i apologize. i was not here. >> it there are no further commission comments -- commissioner sugaya: i spent my christmas hiatus so i have nothing to say. [laughter] >> thank you. with that, we can move on to director report, announcements. >> thank you. happy new year, everyone.

it is good to be back. if you will bear with me, i might lose my voice halfway through. i am still struggling with a cold. i have several announcements today, and i wanted to give you some information about the successor agency and the status of the redevelopment agency and how that will affect the city and the department and the titular. first, i wanted to offer our congratulations from the department to christina olague, we look forward to continue to working with her, and of course, the mayor. he gave an interesting and well as receive speech on sunday, and we really look forward to working with him over the next four years. secondly, i wanted to announce there are a number of intern's today. we have an unusually large amount of in terms that are helping us out of the current moment. they are unpaid interns helping

us out and volunteering their efforts for us. they are all working 18 hours per week on a number of projects. and let me travel off their names. you can stand if you are. andrew, casey, david campo, roman lopez and tiffany lerue are with the department right now. and [applause] several of them are working on land use surveys or of doing the information, which is very valuable to us, and something that can only be done on the ground. some of them are working on improvements to the public information website, researching the vacation rental website, and others are working on mapping are not useful -- national register historical district. most of them will be with us for

three months, and we're very grateful for that. >> where are they from? >> they are from all over the place. i'm sorry, i do not have the information with me. i wanted to give you a heads-up about a noticing issue that will affect next week's hearing. there are two projects that you will not be able to hear for reasons that are not clear to us, the san francisco examiner did not publish the notice. in one case it was not published at all. that is 8 washington. in another case, 1415 ocean avenue, the conditional use it was only partially noticed. it was a very unfortunate series

of actions. i do not understand it. these items will be continued to next week so we do not have to continue the larger notice. there will be a newspaper notice for both of those in time. it is a frustrating action when that happens, because we rely on the paper to make sure we meet legal obligations, and they simply did not do what was necessary, but we will have consent -- specific continuance hearings when you take action. another item i wanted to mention has to do with the wireless applications, which are obviously coming at you very frequently these days. there has been a number of appeals at the board as you know. the board of supervisors has

recommended the commission consider adoption of a new procedure related to wireless cases, and that is -- and has asked the department to implement a procedure on a couple of cases as part of their procedure on the appeals. it would require that applicants to hire a third party under the direction of the department to look at coverage and capacity issues. there would be a third independent party to look of the coverage and capacity issues. the board has asked the commission to add that as part of your regular submission application for the wireless facilities. until such time that that would happen and for projects already in place, the commission could consider adding that as a condition of approval. we can talk more specifically. there are a couple of cases today on the agenda.

we can talk more specifically about what those projects come up, but i want to mention that now because i think it may be a good idea for you to schedule a hearing to request us to add that as a policy matter if you think it is a good idea to do that. the board specifically made that request to the commission. it might be a good idea to schedule the hearing, have a discussion, and then see how you want to proceed. >> no. 5, i wanted to mention a housing trust fund that commissioner more attention. there was a meeting just before this meeting that the mayor sponsored was several supervisors, and scorto set up e housing trust fund. he has asked me to be on the trust fund. we will be looking at a number of alternatives for funding the affordable housing with the goal

of getting something on the ballot in the fall. obviously this is especially important in light of the disillusionment of the relati tt fund. and so that is a substantial loss of funding that we're looking to see if we can make up as part of this process. we will continue to update on the trust fund as well. i did want to give you a little bit of information about the redevelopment agency situation. as you know, the california supreme court upheld a minute 26 which requires the dissolution of the redevelopment agency. they struck down bill 27, which was the bill that would allow agencies to continue, have they made a certain payment to the state each year to make up for the loss of funds that would have otherwise gone to school

districts. the bottom-line effect of that is that all redevelopment agencies are automatically dissolved as of february 1. there is not even an action taken. because they are creatures of the state, the court ruled the state has the right to dissolve them since they have the right to create them. the a.b. 26 allows each jurisdiction to create a successor agency. the purpose of the successor agency is to carry out the contractual obligations of the redevelopment agency, the legally-binding contracts that were in place up until now. so in the case of san francisco's agency, the mayor has introduced legislation, and that happens on tuesday that what designates the city itself to be the successor agency. that agency would carry out

obligations, premier li three areas that have legally-binding development agreements, and that is the shipyard, hunters point shipyard, mission bay, and portions of transbay. primarily those related to the former freeway parcels, of which there is contractual obligations. that is -- the successor agency will have the power of design, entitlement review and all other actions. they cannot enter into new contracts. they cannot enter into new redevelopment areas or anything like that. they are only charged with carrying out obligations that were already in place. the successor agency, which is in fact the city -- i should say it also transfers the assets of the redevelopment agency, which

there are an art critic large number of properties and buildings. anall of the other assets will be transferred to the city administrator's office. the successor agency will be overseen by what is called an oversight board made up of seven members, four appointed by the mayor, and three others. one afforded by march, the school district, and city college. -- one appointed by bart, the school district, and city college. the mayor submitted four names, and i am one of those. the other members denominate no, the finance department with the city, and the union

representative for local 21, which is the union that represents the largest numbers of employees of the agency. what we're now going to have to work through is, in terms of the department's role, all of the actions we need to be involved in in areas that are not one of those three, the redevelopment adrienne -- areas that are not one of those three that will be under the responsibility of the successors. they have no legally binding contracts in place. we will take over the entitlement for those. in many of those areas we are ready to have entitlement. there is some conflict between the planning code and redevelopment code, so we will have to work that through to figure out how that will affect our work and how we move forward with what controls all of those things. there are a lot of unanswered

questions at this point. since it is not on your calendar today, it is difficult to have a discussion. if you want us to schedule a hearing on this, we can certainly do that in a few weeks. it may make sense to do that when we have a few more of the questions answered, six to eight weeks down the road or something like that. with that, i think that concludes my presentation, unless you have any questions. thank you. commissioner more: can we ask for clarity? i would like to ask under item four, independent expert looking at these applications. are there independent experts in the field are ready? i would be very interested in seeing that happen. >> i believe there are.

we believe there are experts that the wireless companies currently are not using. we have a number of names we come up with. >commissioner more: i would like to express my concern for the many great employees. i hope there will be room, even in your department, to give a home to some of them. >> we are certainly looking at that. thank you. commissioner antonini: a few questions. i want to get them out there. first, on the noticing problem you mentioned. is there any ability to get from what ever publication we are using to announce this coming in this case it happened to be "the examiner." i know from my work some years ago, we always had a pay stub

and then you would always have a draft of the actual paper before it was published. now it would seem fairly league -- easy to have that done electronically. >> we do get a confirmation that they have received our request. what you are asking for is proof of what will be published. in this case it is something that they did not publish what they were given. this is something that could be brought up at a future date regarding the universal planning notification process. one of the recommendations have been to reduce or remove the requirement for the newspaper ad. that is something we could discuss in the future. commissioner antonini: the ability to prove it would avoid these in the future.

electronically it should be able to be done pretty quickly today. a second question in regards to this idea of a third party to a body weight coverage capacity in cellphone and in tenant installations. who would be liable to pay for this? >> the wireless carrier would pay for it, but the department would oversee the work. similar to the way we do the environmental review work today. >> good afternoon, and wreak rogers. i will go over that iran might report as well. -- amm marie rodgers. nn marie rodgers. there will be a confidentiality agreement that they will not disclose data that they are

charged with confirming is accurate. commissioner antonini: thank you. we will hear more drink your report. third, there was mention of this by the mayor of further legislation that would impact legislation from the city, and i thought that sounded very promising that goes beyond what we currently have from prop k. >> it would require analysis to determine if there are jobs being created or lost with the proposal. commissioner antonini: great. my final question for those that were preparing this in regards to redevelopment, i think the obvious question will be how far along as a project have to be before it is allowed to move forward? that is something that everybody asks. second, when did the legally

binding contract have to be enforced for this to be considered in process? those are the questions everyone will want to know. thank you. >commissioner sir guyugaya: sin treasure island has its own separate agency, can you give us a status report on that? >> when this all started a year ago, treasure island decided not to go direct of being a redevelopment area. it had been designated by the city as the redevelopment agency, so they would automatically dissolved without particular role on february 1 as the redevelopment agency. that happens automatically, and essentially it is a moot point is it we're going that way anyway. the legislation that the mayor introduced does take away their

right to be a redevelopment agency as well. commissioner sugaya: secondly, on antennas' again, the board of supervisors direction was for capacity and coverage and does not address what we cannot control, the radio -- >> [inaudible] commissioner borden: just be clear, we of a couple of the antennas on our agenda today. does that mean we would add this to approval? >> we will discuss that and it will be up to you if you would like to add that as a condition of approval. it is really up to you. off >> than>> thank you.

>> ann marie rodgers back to give you the weekly report on the board of supervisors activity. this time it is a little bit of a look back at december. we did not have a chance to tell you about the december activities. there were a couple of informational hearings 48 washington and the california pacific medical center. -- 8 washington. i wanted to share details of the conditional use hearing detailed before the board as the board requested specifically we tell the commission about it. this was an appeal for wireless and 10 at 4109 mission street. -- wireless atenas at 4109 mission street.

the board hearings here was another matter with over 45 minutes worth of presentation. a great deal of new information was presented, including a survey from the appellate claiming nearly 72% of the neighbors disapprove of the installation. and they also provided an independent assessment by an engineer who questioned the gap in coverage as claimed by at&t. like the similar field of the been heard by the board the week before, members were concerned about the differences in the map that were given to this commission and the maps that at&t provided to the public on the website regarding capacity in coverage. supervisor campos question the ability of the city to assess the necessity. he stated it must be based on the independent analysis of at&t coverage maps. the supervisor urge the approval

of thed the approval of cu. supervisors wiener, compoampos, and cohen wanted to relay a message that they are increasingly struggling with the idea that these are necessary. they wanted to take note of the recent actions and make adjustments in our procedures. specifically the requested planning require an independent a valuation of capacity and coverage for future installation, and we do have the full language if you like to go over that later for your items. that was the zoning administrator. and we should do this as a matter of regular practice. when it came time to take action, supervisor campos was one short needed of eight to disapprove.

i think we have gone over this already. planning staff, in addition to the criteria, the art to consult with the appellate and the planning staff prior to the consultant. it this of all you later finds the data is not accurate, or the antennas would not improve the gap, then this see yoe cu woulde disapproved. this is all at the department's discretion to evaluate. with that, the board unanimously a vote voted 11-0 . we will make our final selection by closing business today.

as to have heard, the department will present a draft policy that would add a similar commission at a hearing that is supposed to be next week. so, while you will not consider the broader policy today, you can decide if you like to apply a similar condition to those before you today. that was last year. and this year the board heard of one percent signed requirement. the planning commission considered this ordinance on october 27. this week a committee board president did introduce the changes requested by the commission. the major modifications include the activation of the large ground source spaces with public art works and expanding the requirement to be city-wide. these were made after the city's office and mayor's office conducted additional our reach that requirement requested. this would only required on-site

are four residential buildings that are over 3000 square feet. our department surveys potential pipeline project show this would be a very low number of projects. now the on-site requirement would be expanded so the open spaces are required between 1503 thousand would be required to spend the first half million. the mayor's office have did speak in support of this change. speaker chiu submitted the change so it would require to all projects, not just city- wide.

this news city-wide requirement would only take in four projects over 75,000 square feet. the mayor's office that said they had not yet had time to consider the amendment. since it will include up at the special expanded feet, the item needs to be continued for two weeks before it can be heard by the committee. at the full board on tuesday they heard nominations for members for the market in octavia city market group. supervisor elsbernd nominated new members to the burkett. he asked the board vote of all the obligations on tuesday. he asked mr. cohen's nomination be set back to the committee for further discussion. he said he stated he had been nominated for low-income see, but was no wonder low income. sauc-- but was no longer low

income. on the motion to send his nomination back to the committee, the motion passed 6- 5. the committee will reach here this nomination in the future. the board also considered overturning a veto o. this would be of the sharply an ordinance. this week the board voted on whether they should override the veto. they need a super majority of eight, and over rights failed with only six votes. lastly, this week there was a sequa appeal for the certification of the modern art expansion and fire station relocation. this is the e.i.r. appeal of the project. they have remained arguments.

they argued it did not match the plan submitted to the department. they argued the visual impacts were not analyze and there would be impacts to present views. staff responded to these claims, and on a unanimous vote they upheld the certification and denied the appeal. the board subsequently voted to adopt the zoning ordinances that accompany the projects, and the project itself will be back before the commission for your approval consideration on february 2nd. there were a few introductions. you have heard our directors share his concern in the redevelopment agency. last year there was an introduction that would allow additional time in by which eastern neighborhoods could not file for eligibility for [inaudible] . we will review and analyze that and brin t