-- and there are mounted together at the top. this was the intended that was needed. we looked at a lot of other ones and they were a lot taller. these were the smallest available about -- available. >> would you put this -- would planning approved this? >> planning has approved this configuration on many good an excellent view streets. this was part of our building out of the network. i think we have about 20 of these configurations are around the city. they have all been approved by planning with the exact same configurations. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners.

the comment from the applicant -- i mean, the appellant. as it relates to as fedex. they can be addressed in this -- as the relates to esthetics. they can be addressed in the future. planning will need to evaluate and make findings of this facility upon renewal. when they renew under article 25. planning might impose additional conditions. we do not know that at this point. moving forward, it is possible. as it relates to the confusion, it appears the letter dated august 25, 2010 refers to one antenna. at some point, between august to january, unchanged from one

antenna to to antennas. -- a change from one antenna to two antennas. the second case was also appropriate. that is where the confusion lies. right now, the permits were issued under administrative code. upon renewal, up one falls under article 25, there'll be additional reviews from the plant -- from the planning department given that it is in a residential zone. unless they change equipment, the health department has reviewed and determined that it is correct and appropriate. it has satisfied the fcc regulations. the department will go back and verify the height given the

concerns of the appellant. that the appellant has expressed concerns of people hitting it by jumping. we will try to work to make sure we find a way to possibly move it higher if that is the case. i am available to answer any questions. president garcia: it would seem like redwood is giving off that color. >> [inaudible] >> could be required -- could be required that they painted some color that would match? that is a lot to absorb all once. they have a low height on the

base. something that is not yet painted. they have that natural look to the wood. bat is creating some of the problems having to do with aesthetics. is that possible to work and to some tort of -- some sort of regulation? >> the department will require that they painted the equipmente color of the existing put to the best of their ability. we will verify that the requirement. right now, -- the permit was suspended, said they had to cease operations. that was one of the reasons they were not able to move forward. president garcia: thank you.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: something does seem a little unfair. i live in an area where all the facilities are underground. and i think there was a time when, if you lived in an area that was and, if you got together with your neighbors, you could achieve that. i do not think that is being allowed right now. that seems a little bit unfair. i would agree that the esthetics are not great. it seems as though the department of public works is going to do what they can about that. i am sincerely confused as to why so many people who have backgrounds in sciences, pier

and have thus think that perhaps week -- come up here and have us think they perhaps we do not know what their needs to be -- i cannot go out independently to determine that. i have to hope that fcc and dpw -- i have to think that they are giving misinformation. having said all of that, i think you know where i am leading. i intend to uphold. >> i am troubled by the aesthetics and the fact that for some reason, we do not have underground in this neighborhood. we heap on more ugly utility or antennas.

this street already has a lot of wires. i think we can do better on the antenna that is on top of a poll. -- pole. i would lean towards denying the permit. >> i guess i did not see any basis for overturning the permit at this point. i certainly sympathize with the concerns regarding this fedex. i do not see any evidence --

esthetics. i do not see any evidence, and i've read some information in the past about these particular antennas. they go up all over the city. they have gone up in my neighborhood as well. i did not think there is any basis that conclusively shows they are dangerous or that they are posing a risk to the public health. i think the process is going to be different going forward. there will be an opportunity for due process when this permit expires and has to be reapplied for. that will be the forum for this neighborhood and these appellants to bring these concerns into a due process hearing of some sort. i do not see any basis for overturning the permit at this point. >> i do not have a lot to add.

i would echo the sympathetic position that we have. at this time, i do not think there was anything improper done in the issuance of the permit. president garcia: i would move that we all pulled -- uphold and denied a permit because they are compliant with all codes and regulations having to do with installation. do you need more?

>> we have a motion from the president to uphold this permit. president garcia says on the basis that this permit is compliant. president garcia: correct. >> on that motion -- the votes is pre-one. this permits is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> since item seven has been withdrawn, there is no further business. >> thank you, good night.

supervisor campos: good morning manalapan to the tuesday, april 24, 2012 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority. if my name is david campos, the chair of the transportation authority.

the vice chair is commissioner scott wiener -- the de klerk is erika cheng. i want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff, bill and charles. madam clerk, have roll-call. >> supervisor avalos present. supervisor campos present. supervisor chiu present. supervisor cohen present. supervisor elsbernd: present. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor kim: present. supervisor mar: absent. supervisor olague: absent. supervisor wiener: here. >> march 27, 2012 meeting, approval of minutes and said. action item. supervisor campos: is there any public comment? seen none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. we can have a motion on item number two.

motion by commissioner cohen. a second by commissioner elsbernd. we can take that without objection. please call item number 3. >> treasury report. and -- shares report. and information item. supervisor campos: thank you very much. we have had a pretty busy last few weeks since the last time we met as a commission, and i especially want to highlight a very important development that took place. we had the approval by the california high speed rail authority of a new business plan which actually incorporates the memoranda of understanding for early work on high-speed rail corridors in both northern and southern california. i especially want to thank commissioner wiener and his staff, my staff, and executive director for the work we have done in collaboration with other agencies to negotiate a regional

agreement with the ntc and our caltrain corridor partners. as a result of that collaboration, we now have a memorandum of understanding that fully reflects the importance of -- high-speed rail and it will ensure that caltrain is electrified in the downtown extension is actually built. i am proud to report that because of this work, the project will be delivered at least a decade before originally proposed by the authority. this is truly a major victory for san francisco, because it not only puts the downtown extension on the top of the regions of birdies, but it also ensures that our interests are fully protected. it is once in a lifetime opportunity, which i am proud that we were able to seize that opportunity. the second point i want to make with respect to high-speed rail

is that even the we have had that very important development, the work is not completed. we still have a number of issues that need to be sorted out. among them is actually the way which high-speed rail will enter san francisco. this past week, there was some work done around this issue, and i want to thank the mayor's office, jillion, as was the office of supervisor wiener and my office. we work together on an application to the federal transit administration, which if we are successful, we will receive a grant that will allow us to carry out a $1 million study by the alternative alignment's by the high-speed rail to connect the city and region the transbay transit center. this is a continuation of the work that our executive director and his staff have been doing in terms of exploring alternatives. that not only ensures timely completion that lowers the costs of the project.

i want to thank the county transportation authority staff for the prompt response. i know the deadline set were implicated were pretty short. i have to say that we certainly have high hopes for this grant. depending on what happens with the grant, the matter would come before the county transportation authority for full approval. so you'll be hearing about that in the very near future. the grant would have to be matched with prop 2 funds. the hope is we will continue to engage our partners at the transbay jpa, mta, ntc, caltrain. on the federal front, there was a development. it was actually an amendment that was introduced into the house version of the surface transportation act. the amendment was introduced by a representative from elk grove. this amendment, if successful, would threaten court eliminate the $942 million, and it starts

funding for the central subway. i do not know the people fully understand the magnitude of what is being proposed. we're working with the mayor's office here at the county transportation authority, with the federal transit administration, and our representatives in washington, d.c., to make sure this amendment is not successful, and that is something we all should watch. i know the central subway is a priority for not only the authority but for this entire board of supervisors. finally, a very important piece of good news. i think this builds upon the work that has been started between our executive director and the new director of transportation that the mta, ed reiskin. they have come to an agreement and understanding for a preferred alternative for the van ness rapid transit project. i think a number of you, especially those whose

districts are geographically impacted by this project have been briefed on this, but it will be a hybrid of alternatives three and four. this would take advantage of the best features of each one of those alternatives and minimize impacts and costs. if all goes according to plan, we will have here in san francisco, plus rapid transit running in the center of the van ness in just a couple of years. i know that the executive director will have more details for all of us, and as this matter progresses and as the lead agency here in the county transportation authority, we actually get to vote on the environmental document for van ness and brt, and we expect that that will happen in -- sometime in may, in our may meeting. i know that plans and programs, the chair of that committee, commissioner john avalos, will

be scheduling that hearing. i believe that is for may 15. this is a very important development. i want to think the two agencies commit the mta and the ta for working together. i think it is important to be on the same page for these kinds of projects. the last thing i will say is that today we will be getting a brief report from staff on some of the projects that the county transportation authority is funding in the district's two and 10. this is an opportunity to highlight some of the work that is being done in the individual districts that we represent and so our constituents are aware of what you're doing for them as a member of this authority. unless you have any questions, i will open it up to public comment. >> you spoke on a number of

topics, three or four, and i want to focus on the transbay. is there a way that we get an idea now, because we have spent so much time on the planning of the trains, the high-speed trains that would go from san francisco to l.a., and now for some reason you are shortening that distance, so what happens with all the planning -- i mean, the drawings of the various platforms? where can we get that information? what happens is we come here to several committee meetings, this meeting, and if you listen to what happens at the transbay meetings, they talk more in terms of some project or some type of construction with some

timelines, the public should know exactly what is happening, with what type of a model with our train system. you keep on saying now, and it looks as if caltrain will play an important role coming to san francisco, so all i am asking is that on some sort of website we get the latest information. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. da costa. if staff and follow-up and make sure he gets that information and to the extent that there is any information we have available, that we can also make available to the rest of the public, we would be happy to do that. any other public comment? public comment is closed. call item number four. >> number four, executive director's report. this is an information at a. >> thank you. we will hear from our executive director. i want to thank our executive director and his staff for all the work that has been done.

>> good morning. my report is on your desk. just a few comments, it certainly has been sort of a red letter month in the way some of these big projects have finally congealed. i want to comment very briefly on the fact that congress is now poised to take a look at the senate version of the bill to reauthorize the surface transportation act. this is a big deal which is becoming a smaller and smaller deal as the clock ticks, because it was supposed to be a two-year bill, but that was ending in september 2013. because we are getting so late into the conference committee, by the time there is agreement, and i hope there will be agreement, it will probably be a one-year bill.

let me reiterate what i said before. there is no way to run the infrastructure investment policies of the country on a one-year or two-year bill. we need a multi-year bill. it is difficult thing to do today in congress because of the difficulty with approving new revenue, and i am afraid we're going to continue to do that. and as we continue to see that picture stretch into the future, the activities of authorities like this aboard become more and more important. because a larger share of the revenue that is available is actually directed and spend at the local level. it does not, however, make up for what the federal government should be doing, or for that matter, what the state should be doing, but that is the reality we're living with. it is even more extraordinary that we still have some major pieces of progress to report.

the chair's report already attests to that. so we will keep you posted on the progress of the conference committee, and we're hoping at least we will have 01-year bill. the topic i want to highlight today beyond that is confirmation that there will be a closure of the existing oil dried starting on april 27 for a long weekend. come monday, all of the traffic will be in it the new alignment, because the first half of the project is finished. that is a major milestone for a project we have been working at for the last 15 years, and we're delighted to see that happen. i expect there'll be some kind of celebration of the opening of the first half at some point in may. i will keep you closely posted. i hope that all of you can attend. i would like to just follow up on a couple of issues that come from the last board meeting.

we had a question related to the schulta block -- a particular site in the future of the development on that site, opposed the demise of the redevelopment agency in california. i wanted to reiterate that, following the request from commissioner olague at the last programs committee meeting, we have been making contact with mayor's office. i spoke with the director of planning. we have had contact with development. while i cannot give you a definitive answer, i can tell you that the city family is working proactively to try to find a way to move the project forward, even outside of the redevelopment process. i reiterate the background that projects that were under contract at the time that the

change took place were protected, but this project did not have a contract. therefore, it found itself in limbo. we continue to work on it. the rationale for which the decision authority has a major stake in this is of course that there's a major investment at the south end of the third light rail line. there is an investment plan for a multi-modal transfer station at the bay shore station of caltrain, where we connect with the third straight line. it makes no sense to make all of that investment and not have the land development, the neighborhood orientation that the project would have brought to the picture. we continue to believe that we can energize that conversation and the good advocates for the right kind of development there by the decisions this board will eventually make on infrastructure investment. i would like to also second the

comments that the chair made. page 3 of the report, there is a drawing that shows what the recommended alternative for, locally preferred alternatives, would be for transformation -- transportation authorities that and mta. i am delighted that we were able to come to this agreement, because it paves the way for the approval of the local alternative, the completion of the environmental document, approval of the document, and it clears the way for us to really focus on delivering a van ness brt. and the challenge for us now, strike that down, the schedule for the project, and we are 120% committed to that. i know that i can say that for ed reiskin as well. i am happy for the partnership we are able to obtain on that. one of the key things on this

alternative is it would allow us to operate van ness brt with the fleet we have without the need to acquire a vehicles with the doors on both sides. from a cost standpoint, it is a major step forward that reduces costs and makes the project much more viable, much more interesting, and much more regulable -- replicable in other corridors. geary brt will follow suit quickly after that, because this project will set the stage for how the geometry of the streets will do that in the other corridors. the last two things i would like to do is for the public that may be watching the proceedings today, there are going to be public meetings on monday, april 30, at 6:00 p.m. on the better market street project. ideas that have been developed over the last several months bit of that will take place at our offices at 100 van ness, 26 floor.

that is monday, april 30, 6:00 p.m. and then on and the caltrain bridge project, which is something we have been working on with supervisor cohen's office, that is replacing a bridge with a berm, requiring a street closure. there has been an amount of effort to reach out to the community in the area. there will be a meeting actually tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. at the southeast community facility commission building. and we encourage people who are interested in that project to attend that meeting to find out the characteristics of the proposed alternatives, one of which is the closure of the street. i will skip over the other items in the report. i am happy to answer any questions. supervis