be residents of san francisco. >> -- >> i believe the mayor's office, because of the scope and nature, it will not be city staff as was the case the oversight board given the nature of the approval of bonds, land use at the time, three of those seats were filled by department heads; in this case the mayor's office is committed to diversity and being responsive to stakeholders in those communities. the appointments have not been made. >> i was trying to understand -- >> i think they will be real people.

>> it seems a little bit redundant. i don't get that. >> it to function of state law, this redundancy. >> the reason for this new commission is that state law requires a system where there is a function separate from government. >> for all intents and purposes, it is still government. >> we are faced with this strange, new lab, to have a separate entity, and we have to set up something to oversee that function. >> at the end of the data still the city's agency, and the city making the appointment and i don't get it. i guess it is not for me to get. >> state law. we are trying to live within the four corners here. >> thank you for your report. i have a couple of questions. under redevelopment, 80% of the tax increment was

to flow back into the redevelopment area. with the dissolution, we were told that absent any substitute agencies this money would flow into the general fund of the city or county; in our case the city and county of san francisco. under successor agency, with a redevelopment funds or criminal tax funds clawback of the area or to the general fund? >> the answer is yes and yes. anything with the tax increment, 60% infrastructure, -- down the line to the district.

in those areas funds do flow pursuant to the contract in place to the taxing entities, in the format described, 80-20%. -- it requires an increment in infrastructure to make it happen. 100% of 0 is 0. once development happens, we are looking at changes to state law to try to capture the increment and the upfront investment required to make that kind of brownfield site go. and flow through the general fund. all things considered obligated, they have underlying contracts; if for some reason the tax increment would flow to that obligation or contract and when paid off like a bankruptcy is done and it can flow to the normal distribution.

over time as the debt is paid off, outstanding bonds, other uses pursuant to the contract of the surviving areas, it would be under the normal distribution. hierva buena is one, golden gateway is another; obligations until the contract is complete. >> where there is a contract and money to flow it will flow to the same manner; and new funds will flow to the general fund once there is something to flow. the corollary to that is part of prop c is capture of redevelopment funds for specific housing. with these funds like golden gateway or hierva buena, who finish their funding with

infrastructure and housing within the area, or would that money be taken out of project contracted? >> your absolutely right. there are outstanding bonds that you described; as those get paid off the delta between those as part of the capture. >> this is changing nothing in regard to prop c. this is dealing with pose redevelopment money. for lack of a better term, redevelopment areas. my second question, members of the commission for the successor agency, are they it will? are they term appointments or indefiniete?

>> they are staggered appointments. each of the members will serve for a term of four years at the pleasure of the mayor without compensation or reimbursement. >> they are terms, but at the pleasure the mayor. presumably that those areas that did not reach the status of the development such as treasure island, would be able to be infrastructure finance districts; the successor only deals with those areas that were already established as redevelopment? >> yes that is correct. >> my final question is, what oversight of the planning commission have on these areas? we used to have design oversight to some degree. we obviously have oversight

over on adjoining areas even with presidio and others in terms of transportation and impact of traffic. >> are there any amendments for those design developments, would come to this commission. to the extent that any of these areas have applications that come to this commission we have established agreements with the department for review not only the horizontal infrastructure of the design of buildings; there is a process of each of these areas has for the planning staff and commission. >> thanks for the presentation. [indiscernible]

those projects may not have happened without redevelopment. it will be interesting to hear how it's going to work. there was talk when the governor was proposing to eliminate redevelopment about some successor -- not the successor agency -- but some ability for cities and counties to take advantage of some of the tools like infrastructure finance district, are we seeing that at the state level? >> certainly at the legislature there were two infrastructure proposals -- steinberg using existing redevelopment law, but with a smaller tool, not taking the school share. the governor vetoed those bills on saturday. his rationale was he wanted

cities and counties to focus is winding down and up the dissolution law. we are hopeful that we will take another run at the next legislative cycle; it was not time yet in the governor's view, but there was another support for another finance tool that was much more narrow. >> thank you for the clarity of your presentation particularly with such rapidfire in such short time. actually in your last round of answers you did already touched on the question i had , with the end of redevelopment we lost a large number of planners and designers; you answer that planning under specific assignment will continue the legacy

particularly because we do not have redevelopment laws that govern the physical outcome which means that many of these projects have to be transition to the actual codes and district in which they occur. is that a correct interpretation? >> if the underlining zoning in each of these large plan areas does not have the appropriate sud or planning code then yes, prior to expiration of these areas, planning staff engage in a process where they would be a rezoning of sorts. >> in the three large areas that the successor agency still has jurisdiction over, zoning would be the same as it was. the zoning is still in place. redevelopment plans are still in place. outside of those areas it does revert to the department. >> what i am interested in is

to see redevelopment switching into institutional memory of the planning staff, that is my interest and questions i'm posing. the second part of what i'm saying is for example, implied update of institutional master plan such as ucs were to occur under thef watchful eye of the planning department. >> they are exempt from our normal entitlement. >> under redevelopment -- >> i don't believe that is correct. >> state agencies are exempt.

but there are other mechanisms whether contractual, the private party within ucsf, the planning staff in the successor agency staff are working with ucsf, what is your plan? how do you expect will forward? how does this relate to existing zoning? >> i am comfortable with the checks and balance based in your presentation. >> commissioner -- >> i guess for the benefit of the public, treasure island has not been mentioned. commissioner -- mentioned it but it is not among the successor board and successor commission's jurisdiction because they have a separate redevelopment. or what has happened with that?

>> treasure island is redevelopment with a small " r". in light of this uncertainty, in 2011, the governor signed it into law, june 28, 2011, the mayor's office team, working with the development partner -- this is uncertain. it looks like the governor will abolish the development but there is another tool, infrastructure district. >> thank you commissioners, appreciate your time today. >> that will conclude item 5,

on the successor agency. commissioners you are now at your 15-min. general public category. this is a time where members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall in your area. agenda item may not be addressed. december the public and address you for up to 2-3 minutes each. keep in mind that there is a time limit. >> i read an interesting thing in the paper. we have 37% of the citizens of

foreign-born; it is nice to see reflection on this board, so when people come to san francisco from some of the places. we see that this weekend, sailing races, baseball games, disney cruise ships, bigger skyscrapers, million dollar jets that we heard flying atop of us. the zoning ap, market street, i hope you guys put a little fitness app in there, like we have on the marina. i would like to call attention to a place where the light is not shine, three blocks away from union square; one block away from where

oracle is hosting -- this we can then have hired security guards and police officers to wash their block. at the place where it is okay to smoke and trade crack, it has crippled our city, society and humaniy. alike to i would like to invite you to read with us at 4070 farrell. thank you for your work. additional public comment? >> david -- i do not fill out a

speaker card. i want to recognize brian smith and his good work for the department. he left last thursday due to family employment situation. he was the it manager for city planning. he did a great job responding to public requests, managing operations and doing a lot of the things that made your work possible in the work of the other planners. i want to thank him publicly for his good work and i look forward to filling that position with someone hopefully nearly as capable as that is even possible. thank you. >> any additional general public comment? seeing then we will onto the next item. >> commissioners you are now at public comment on agenda

items where the public hearing has been closed. at this time members of the public may address you on item 6 on your calendar; it has been heard in the public hearing, the public was allowed to testify, and the hearing was closed. before you take your final action, the public is allowed to speak once again on this item. i do not have speakers. >> calling for any general public comments on item 6? the public hearing portion is closed. >> you are now in the category of consideration of finding senior final action. the public hearing for this category is closed. it is case 2012.0206c, for 2299

market st., request for use authorization; on september 20 the commission passed the motion of intent to approve this project with conditions, vote was 7-0. i believe staff was [indiscernible]. mr. smith, your item is up. >> indefinite commissioners. michael smith. planning department staff. on september 20th, you voted by

a vote of 7-0 to approve the project for 2299 market, request for u size limit, exceed 2900 sq. limit for upper market; the motion has been revised to reflect your sentiments and i am available for any questions or comments that you may have. >> thank you. is there any general public comment? commissioner antonini. >> move to approve with the conditions. >> second. >> the motion is for approval. >> one second. commissioner -- >> didn't we have a long discussion of the temporary certificate of occupancy related to something?

i don't remember what it was. >> it had to do with a date on when the clock should start. the project sponsor suggest another time. people don't get final certificate of occupancy; i suggested a temporary certificate of occupancy. whoever made the motion incorporated that into it. >> is that in here? >> it was not included as a specific condition of approval. if you like to do that i can do that. >> yes. >> the maker of a motion is amending the motion to make

sure that the approval is based on the temporary certificate of occupancy. >> five-year clock. >> i thought that was our understanding, temporary as opposed to final certificate. >> i can't find the language to the five-year. >> [indiscernible] not to seek your retail tenant for a period of five years. it was a side agreement, already agreed to. >> i thought you wanted to have it in our actual motion. can we add that in right now? >> it has been amended. >> without amendment, i am assuming that the maker and second are in agreement wit the amendment.

(voting) thank you commissioners, the motion passes anonymously. >> the commission will take a to 20 minute break, come back at quarter till 2. >> the commission is taking a 20 minute recess.