regarding corporate rentals, of rental housing? >> in this case we are not planning to do so. amendment to the administrative code. of course you can hear it if you would like, an informational item. the department will not be responsible for enforcing this new ordinance. the enforcement capacity would go to dbi. we enforce it parallel requirement in the planning code. this would strengthen the cities capacity to enforce i giving a specific portion to dbi. >> i would like to do that if it is possible. there are issues here -- there's a time period of 30 days, differentiates between one of the other. there are other concerns that are important that we hear what is being proposed as possible. i would love to have it is the other commissioners feel so inclined because we deal with this issue all the time in one

form or another in regards to housing. the other thing i wanted to ask you about, you mentioned the board action regarding the companion legislation to the measure that is on the ballot in november, measure c, from what i'm hearing, they reserve the right to change the law back again in the future. t it would seem to me that i don't understand how voters could vote with the understanding that this is been passed. the reserve the right to change it back. people need to know that this provision exists. one the be inclined to take a position based on what has been passed. >> there are interaction between the ordinance in the charter amendment. the charter amendment itself does not affect the 5-9 unit

specifically. but the charter amendment would do, it would say the come january 1 of the new year, controls in place at the time are in some respects frozen, and cannot be made more cumbersome for developers. in this case, on the first of the year, the inclusionary requirement for 5-9 buildings will still be intact; the ordinance that the board voted on this week would remove the inclusionary requirements of those 5-9 buildings after the first, 2013. and so because that date has been moved out, they would have the ability to make just that section for the 5-9 buildings, they can put it back into place. >> thanks for the explanation. it's a little bit confusing what they are doing. >> back to the corporate leasing, that only applies to

corporations that lease their property? not the ones they already own, right? >> yes. this would specifically target -- there have been some allegations that large corporations are renting blocks of residential buildings and then maybe renting it for longer time but the people living in those buildings are only staying as if it were a short-term occupancy of 30 days or less. this would make it clear that if the corporations renting it, if the actual occupancy is less than 30 days, that is not permitted by our code. of the hearing supervisor chu said he wants to look into other related aspects which will be before you for hearing if he does introduce that law. you like to do at the r&b where individuals are landlords may be leaving directly to tourists, what we consider residential

housing. >> it is not applied to corporate owned units? >> it may apply. >> can you clarify that. for example my condominium association, there are corporate owned units; those units are used on a temporary basis. >> that may fall under this law; i will look into that and get back to you. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. >> good afternoon, tim fry, planning department here to share two items from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the commission her public testimony and discuss with staff, the mayor's office of economic and workforce development's decision not to fund the request by the mission dolores

neighborhood association, not to develop a mission dolores national registration. the mayor raised two issues. funding the level of outreach; two, concerns raised by the planning department when the neighborhood association survey the neighborhood a couple of years ago. the department specifically had questions about integrity and the boundary justification. like i said, after public testimony and discussing with staff, the hpc wrote a letter to the funding committee; there is a project that could be funded that could one, expand the level of community outreach which we are happy to provide assistance, the second is to expand the methodology raise the concerns by the planning department staff and we will work with

historic preservation commission to outline those items that should be included in that methodology for when the nomination is completed; we are reviewing it as part of the local government responsibilities. the second item at the hpc is a confirmation of the nomination of the -- building located in the sunset district. in my last report the building was occupied by henry dolger in the soffit area for over 40 years, significant not only by the association with mr. dolger but also by -- the deco design. hpc unanimously approved a nomination, schedule for a final vote by the board of supervisors sometimes before the end of this year. that concludes my report. i'm happy to answer questions. >> mr. fry, could you clarify

something for me? i've been the recipient of a number of phone calls, not dolger but the previous one. didn't the hpc take action about the boundaries of what the historic district should be? >> at yesterday's hearing ? >> previously. >> the phc revisit took action on the boundaries of the survey but we have not seen any national registration justification; the hpc the planning department hasn't commented on those boundaries at the time. >> then how is it that the planning staff can take a position with respect? do we staff the historic preservation fund committee? >> planning department? >> that the fund committe seek

planning department's input? >> they share requests with the planning department before they hear them at the meeting. >> the fund committee, with respect to the national registration nomination application? >> we did review the application and gave the fund committee advising the ballpark number of hours required to process the application and bring it through the review and comment process. we also did raise similar issues that we had when the survey was reviewed by the historic preservation and the department couple of years ago. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. would can move forward now to item five on the calendar, information hearing on the

successor agency to the former redevelopment agency. >> thank you secretary avery. amy rogers, putting the pardon staff and we are honored to have a couple of subject area experts to help us with this item, tiffany -- executive director of the sector agency. the presentation will start with jason elliott, the manager of the mayor's legislation office. >> good afternoon commissioners and director. jason elliott for the mayor's office. we are happy to present this item; also to happy to report but the mayor did sign this ordinance this morning. i will leave most of the presentation to director -- who is behind me.

thank you for your attention to this matter. state law, when redevelopment was abolished or dissolved with ab 26, the city had to scramble to provide a structural response, how to implement the projects that existed? the city pulled together in an extraordinary way including the board of supervisors, the mayor's office and apartment, we put together a group and were pleased with that. the state came along with a piece of legislation called ab 1484, which was intended to be a cleanup and clarify piece of legislation. speaking frankly it did the opposite for us. it was not clarifying. it created another situation for us when we had to go back and reestablish all the structures of governance. the board of supervisors needed

to recertify, only delegate a lot of the authority that the delegated back in january to the oversight board to this new board. it seems redundant. in a way it is redundant. what we did ask for and fought hard for and received was permission from the california department of finance which is like the governors budget office, to bring a number of implementation functions back inside the city. ab 1484 in july said everything had to be completely separate, legally and functionally from the city. we have so much more going on than any other place in the state, 20 billion dollars, of and limitation activity. who wanted to have

accountability over that here in the city, and making sure that the housing and public amenities were built according to the original plan. who wanted accountability and oversight. we asked for and received permission for the state to move forward with the ordinance that the board considered, and we are presenting to you today to bring all of that back and the city, in a structural way that i will let tiffany explain more. i want to thank you for engaging with this; is a complicated subject as you now. we do not want to redo this and redo this -- it was a situation we would provided by the state. again the city pulled together in an incredible way to make sure that we work going to protect the legacy of the redevelopment agency and make sure everything got built the web was supposed to. i think the board of supervisors, the mayor's office,

director ram, we are in a good spot again knock on wood. i have to run in about 10 minutes. thank you for giving us the time. >> good afternoon president, commissioners and director. thank you for the introduction mr. elliott. tiffany -- director of the redevelopment agency. redevelopment was abolished, february 1.

-- -- anything with the contract, something valid under state dissolution law, all of the payees associated with those contracts must be painfully lifted out, line item by line item, with source of funding on a schedule. that schedule is approved by the oversight board, the state department of finance every month. this test import -- jason indicated -- our surviving major redevelopment projects, equivalent to 20 billion, candlestick phase 1, and 2, mission bay, state -- transit center, all part of one redevelopment plan and other true wind-down

activities honoring our commitment throughout the city whether in the third street bayview corridor, like a bankruptcy, wind down pay off the debt so the tax increment in the series is available for distribution to the taxing entities, city, county, bart, schools. free up the taxes generated for distribution to the other entities. in the case of san francisco we do have a lot at stake. a number of these area plans which the commission approved the board approved as i indicated, made or approved, hunters point, mission bay, trans bay, another obligations that need to be implemented, they are in many cases 30 year plants. mission bay, hald done. trans way, just getting started,

going for the terminal, housing production, infrastructure needed along folsom, is getting started, 700 acres still left to be done over the course of 20-30 years. what 1483 did, because it is a separate legal entity, apart from the city and county of san francisco, acknowledged that the surviving obligations and successor agencies in fact are not part of the city and county of san francisco is adopted on february 1. on june 27, when the governor signed that bill into law, so-called clean-up, we had to revisit the decisions that the board and the mayor swiftly took in january in

order to make sure that we could keep going. that is the role of the agency, stepping into the shoes of the former redevelopment agency for the surviving contract to finish and wind down. unlike redevelopment pre-dissolution, the scope is narrow it is not a policymaking body; those policies have already been made by other bodies. the board of supervisors the legislation to create these area plans. narrow scope. winds down over time. the other issue that jason touched upon is the staff, the staff became staff of the city of february 1. anyone who was still in what is called an r class, working on surviving projects rather than being staff of the city and county of san francisco their staff of the

separate body governed by a five-member commission appointed by the appo inted by t hemayor with two specific seats for the districts. the primary districts for these areas; important for the board and approved by the mayor that the district included actual residents and stakeholders the successor agency commission. s in terms of the planning commission role, it is an change of the legislation, unchanged pre-dissolution when the board adopted resolution 1112 the creators oversight, that has been peeled off because state law has required it and the state department of finance has required that this

oversight body simply just do fiduciary oversight, review and approve the payment schedules and other required functions under state law and a separate body governed by the structure under the city and county of san francisco, the board appointment -- rather the mayor appointments of those five seats goals of the normal board appointment processes all other commissions and boards. the board retains its authority over the redevelopment plans. pursuant to the contracts in place. a preparation of taxes, tax increments of the annual budgeting process, the board retains the authority. director ram has a smaller scope when he sits on the oversight board; the other successor agency

commission implements the plant, and the land use authority pursuant to the previously approved document by the commission and the board. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions as is mr. elliott. >> do we take public comment on this? we are opening the public comment. if any. seeing none -- commissioner -- >> there's been somewhere in the news, potential for ucsf to come up against square footag limitation, and possibly they could come up for an increase.

would this new commission be involved with that? the board of supervisor has to make the final decision. would the oversight commission make a recommendation? >> yes, ucsf and the successor agency have been working together; they are addicting of their own success. the buildings they have built within the 43 acres of mission bay south, will be maxed out on the envelope; they are not looking to expand on other sites in mission bay but within the existing site. the adopted a long-range plan and environmental plan document; mission bay has an environmental document that governs the implementation. there are contractual agreement between fossil and --

and ucsf that would in fact limit ucsf's ability to grow and expand such that it would change the scope and nature of the entitlement. back in 1998, those vested rates -- fossil, cappelas, on the majority of the land and through the negotiation process the land was donated to ucsf to allow it to grow. in terms of coming back to this commission and the board, we are still working with them on their plans and proposals, whether a review based on environmental what is needed and what is necessary , and whether that would trigger any approval or change in the redevelopment plan. it is still a work in progress.

the successor agency commission would have a role. as will the oversight board. it changes the level of increment; anything having to do with money, there are more steps rather than fewer with the creation of this new board. the board of supervisors in the and overseeing it all is the state department of finance. >> i am not clear about staffing. how does it work? separate staff that only staffs the new commission? and staff of the oversight board? the oversight board the only fiduciary responsibility, yet the commission is policymaking. for us the planning department, they do the work and make recommendations. we are the part-time people. how will that work in the system.

i am not understanding it. >> understate dissolution law, the oversight board is entitled to select staff, to engage staff. the staff of the successor agency commission, repairing these obligation payment schedules for the review and consideration; i staff the oversight board; the new successor agency commission would select a director, a staff, the existing staff is there, governed by the successor agency commission. the way to look at it, it is similar to hpc; the successor agency staff would staff the oversight board. it is the successor agency

commission that would govern all activities of the successor agency staff including the director and day-to-day operations and management. >> so there will be two directors now? one for the oversight board, one for the successor agency, or one person can do both? >> not necessarily. it is the oversight board's option to provide their own staff if they so chose. the successor commission can select the tone director. >> it is essentially the same procedures. it is confusing because essentially for all practical purposes, it is like to be the same staff. if tiffany is chosen as the director she will report to two different commissions. same amount of work.

the work is now -- most things have to go to two bodies instead of one so it is confusing. it will likely be the same group of people and send direct reporting. the oversight board with respect to financial matters and the successor agency commission with regard to project implementation matters. >> and how often with these -- each of these boards and the commission be expected to meet? is it going to have more of a regular schedule like we and the commission have? or ad hoc? >> because there are these new statutory deadlines, due diligence reviews, audit, filing deadlines, we have met with great frequency. the oversight board in order to make those statutory

deadlines there are regular meetings of the oversight board, typically twice a month. we expect the successor agency commission in order to be helpful to the public, to establish regular meetings of the new successor commission, and to the extent that there are special meetings needed, we would have special meetings. >> the whole system seems a little bit bizarre to me. i don't see how you get cost savings. i thought one of the reasons we were getting rid of redevelopment is to reduce overall cost from the state level obviously, but from the local government level that is bound to be some sort of reduction. >> there was a reduction. other folks opted to move on to something else in the private sector, of 112 positions there were about 50 -- whether

layoffs because of the state law -- not all projects survived. not all projects have an existing contract, or something recognize the the state where we can continue to implement it, and drawdown the funding source. the work in soma, sixth street, third street, we partner to do small business loans, midmarket project was coming back again, a survey area, no agreement in place that would allow to move forward. there was no contract in place. the oversight board still has to approve the minister the budget, the staff.

what are the staff cost? the oversight board in fact could reduce costs if it disagreed with those administrative costs. is the same staff doing more work. it would have to approve administrative budget and the budget would be sent for approval to the oversight board; it also has to go through a process again like every other department, annual appropriations, use increment, in indiana can say up or down i disagree, and they could say no, reduce reduce reduce. two would be from district 6 and one from district 10. >> all of the five