streets. i have had the challenge of trying to park there athile goi dinner. it is very difficult. i do know it slopes on two accesses, one downhill and one sideways so it's like a mystery house. i'm not going to try to play architect but file like you have a lot going on here trying to squeeze it into one site. so i'm not sure how we want to move forward. trying to do an awful lot on a very nice site, but a tight one. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i would like to agree with fellow commissioner's comments. i think it's a little bit overscaled compared to the other buildings in the neighborhood. one of the factors i think in the neighborhood that had some diversity, if want to call it that, on this side they're almost all flat-roofed. i think they're one story over garage, maybe two.

across the street you have similar maybe size but because of the gable, you gain some height. and i don't know if you can play with the design in some way in that manner to make an appearance of the building less bulky and -- and i don't know about -- i'm not so opposed to trying to get three or four units in here but if it doesn't result externally in a building that's compatible with the neighborhood, then you may have to drop back to two single families. also parking seems to be a big issue. i don't think seven spaces is a starter for this commission. i can't speak for the rest of the commissioners. but if there's going to be four units, i think that probably five is going to be about the max that at least this commissioner would look at. and if you're going to have

fewer units, obviously, you're going to have fewer parking spaces. that's all i have for now. i haven't been in this neighborhood for a number of years. i used to live on the north slope of bernal and used to drive around the hill and stuff. a little bit familiar but it's been a number of years. but i do remember the neighborhood as having very narrow streets and actually kind of liked it that way. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to suggest we take discuss and review. there's potentially a split here, one way is not approve this project. very simple. another one is to spell out specifically what the preconditions are for redesigning this project, because many of the -- many of the basic assumptions for this project are not defendable. the most important one to me is

starting with the engineering, the civil engineering and accurate information beyond wors and architects know how to do that, which tells us that the grades, cuts molding of retaining walls work with street safety, pedestrian safety and drainage requirements, three important civil issues, which all will be altered by cutting back the retaining wall. the next one is not just like small-size cars but whatever fits into this constrained situation parked full-size cars with the proper transitional grade coming forward, not backing into this public right of way so the exit and egress into this garage is safe and compatible with where this particular building is. that means it yields a smaller building, that is really all we need to know, as much as we support identification but

everything has its place and its time. if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. but i'm very kind of unhappy that words are being used to justify something which really is not substantiated by the board and any of us can see the garage door is not open and you don't build a house for ownership or rental by saying, you're going to be driving a small car. that's not the way the real world works. so you have to be sizing this project to what fits the size and what works technically. and perhaps somebody can help me here, i'm prepared to send it back and not deny it because it would take a year for these people to come back, correct? >> correct. if we denied the project, it would take a year. if you want to continue it, we can continue it for a couple months -- a month. commissioner moore: can you help us with this particular -- >> if the project were to be denied, they could not apply for a like project for a year. they could come back with a

modified project that addresses the commissions concerns within one year and that would be provable. commissioner moore: if this were modified and requiring major modifications, would it have to conform to the 2010 or previous building code? >> this building code was submitted in 2009 and under the building code, it depends on the date the application is submitted. so it would be subject to the 2007 building code rather than the 2010. if the application were denied and they were to resubmit in 2010 or 2011, they would be subject to the newer building code. commissioner month moore: but the architect could decide voluntarily to make it comply at least on the stair issue and on the door issue to comply to 2010? >> i believe that's correct. commissioner moore: that's a solid point and not a deal killer. >> if i could add a few small notes about the parking issue because parking here in bernal heights for new construction is based on the square footage and not the number of dwelling

units. so even if they went down to two dwelling units, if they were the same size, they would have the second parking space requirement. in bernal heights, they allowed the first required parking space to be full sized and subsequent parking spaces to be compact, compact at 127 square feet as the neighbors had noted. so i would like to know from commissioner moore if that would be acceptable, the compact space would be acceptable? commissioner moore: it just has to be a car space which works. that's -- and 127 does work with opening a smaller car and side doors. it's really right sizing the project. that's the challenge here. and what that means, don't know. but i would say to send it back and right size the project. president olague: you want to make a motion to continue for the end of june? commissioner moore: yes, not to wait until it's submitted. president olague: you want to make a motion to continue until -- what date were you thinking?

really the end of june is what we're looking at. maybe 90 days or would you be ok with -- don't know. commissioner moore: i would say it takes easily, some complicated in here, it would take four months to do this. this is not an easy project. president olague: so we're looking at july. >> july 14th or july 21. >> 14th. president olague: july 14th. is there a second? >> second. president olague: commissioner moore, those were sort of some of your instructions. commissioner moore: from what everybody else else was saying. great. commissioner antonini: i would like to see this project go forward. i would like to see it go forward. it has to be revised as we pointed out because this would be a great addition, underutilized space. going to be a great view out of

there and it has a lot of other benefits. but i think we made it pretty clear as far as the parking has to work out so the people exiting the garage can do so in a safe manner and also as far as the number of parking will kind of be a product of the square footage might be somewhat reduced, which might put new compliance with bernal heights or the number of units may be changed to a smaller number of units. they may be fairly large units as was pointed out by mr. sanchez, they may have the same requirements but the commission has the discretion to allow a variance for fewer -- ok, the zoning administrator would be able to do that if they were, you know, downsized and there was enough room for people to maneuver in there. it might be acceptable to have someone fewer numbers of parking spaces. i have to see what the neighborhood says. and what the neighbors weigh in on it.

but there are three bedrooms and two bedroom and nice family-sized homes which are good and we need those. hopefully we can get something worked out that means those requirements for july. i'm going to throw something -- i am going to throw something out that don't know if the f they will be happy about. i took a look at that open space and don't know why the lots were emerged and one four-building unit wasn't designed? >> the zoning it rh-2. you may be able to exceed that based upon the watt size but that would be through a conditional lease authorization. we haven't done the calculations. at most maybe three years. vice president miguel: i think it would solve a lot of problems. commissioner sugaya: i was going to suggest since we have time here that the project sponsor should be discussing whatever

changes are being made with the neighborhood. in this interim period. director rob? >> i just want to understand -- most of the discussion has been about the parking. president olague: i think it's too bulky personally. >> you want to reduce the buildings. >> overscale with the existing neighborhood. seems a little out of character to me. i think if they can work with that, that's what i would like to see, a reduction in square footage and potentially reduction in parking that would be required based on that. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i felt that the neighborhood was really not trying to not have a building here. and i think the discussion of architecture might have to go the same way.

didn't eelly come to all aspects of the project and talk to each other and then we can, if there's no further major d.r. issues take that guidance also. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'm ok of it having the three floors on the downhill side because of the top ography. it may involve perhaps having living spaces more on the bottom and parking up more towards the top. i'm just throwing that out as probably the -- not the most desired way to do it but it might be a possibility. president olague: it's not just a question of the parking, but how this architecture or this building does or does not conform with the existing neighborhood and i don't find it to be necessarily contextual or compatible with what's there. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: it would be really great if things coo get worked out in the interim -- could get worked out in the

interim period. president olague: that would be fantastic, with the neighbors. yes. commissioners, motion on the floor is for continuance to july 14th. i'm assuming the public hearings will remain open. president olague: yes, that's correct. >> on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. aye. >> thank you, commissioners. >> on the matter of the variance we will continue that to the same hearing date of july 14, 2011 and public hearing will remain open on that. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, with that we go to item number 16. >> we go back to item number 6. >> thank you for allowin present the board of appeals summary hearing. they had a very late hearing last night. three items of rell convenientsy to the commission, 1338 filbert street was a jurisdiction request. this was building permit application filed pursuant to the c.e.u. the board continued this from last week's hearing for a final vote. additional information they absolutely denied the jurisdiction request, finding the permits were issued pursuant to the c.u. and not within their purview. the second item was a rehearing request for 3929 caravel street

so the planning commission had approved, board of appeals denied it and they had a rehearing request last night. the board denied the rehearing request, finding there was no information that would justify a new hearing or request. the finalizing for des derio street. this is a building permit for chase bank to open at the subject location. this is the site that the planning commission had heard conditionally formula retail battery plus store. the chase bank, the planning department administrator has determined banks are not subject to the formula retail controls and this is how the formula retail controls have been applied consistently since they were invoked in 2004 and they have the uses for the bank however condition for formula retail aspect of a bank. it's always been related to the financial services itself. so the board did hear this appeal last night. they ultimately continued that we during the course of the

retail process, we found a small issue with one of the a.t.m.'s and that had triggered a notification requirement so we're working with the project sponsor to try to get that issue resolved and the board will have a final hearing on that next week to decide whether or not they will take action to resolve that issue for us. but what i really wanted to mention to this board is i think some bad news, and lawrence cornfield, the deputy director department of building and inspection, i think many of you know, he's been representing the department of building and inspection at the board of appeals for more than 20 years. >> he's amazing. >> completely amazing resource and it's been unfortunately last night he indicated that he would no longer be representing the department of building inspections at the board of appeals and that he would in fact be moving to the city administrator's office to continue work on seismic safety, which is very important work, especially considering the recent disasters that we had. i just would like to say personally it's been a privilege

to sit next to him during this time. the last four years i have been working and sitting next to him fword of appeals. he's as dedicated a public servant as anyone i have ever met and personally a role model for me and i will be very sad to see him go. he served the board exceptionally in the years not only as technical adviser on the building code but i think guiding them with wisdom overall. one of the things i learned from him was to not look simply at your code, planning code or building code, but to look more holistically at the municipal codes and see how the whole city functions together. he's been really prominent in bracing that and trying to bring all of the city family together. his work and sharing his knowledge is exceptional as well from his brown bag lunches that he gives, trainings for staff. he's given trainings for staff on the building code and also as many of you know, his tv show. he's on sfg-tv. he's always been a resource for the department.

any time we had a question about building code, the answer is always go ask lawrence. we will miss him. we're happy for him to be able to continue the important work he's doing on the seismic safety and look forward to all of the progress that he makes and we will wish him well in this position. thank you. president olague: thank you. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes. since you mentioned seismic, if i may, my son opened a store for his firm three weeks ago in tokyo. and i e-mailed him asking whether he's heard anything from staff, and it was a two-sentence answer that i thought you might be interested in, which came in this afternoon. this is in tokyo. they are all good but shaky. supplies are scarce. few trains, worries about

aftershocks and now radiation. meantime, we're in the middle of a sales market, not expecting it to be a stellar season. so that's from the middle of tokyo, at any rate. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: just to support what mr. sanchez said, my four years on the board of appeals, mr. cornfield was a stellar representative of the building department and the city overall. so the board will miss him in more than one way. i won't go there. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: we couldn't find ourselves at a better time to take the leadership on this newly emerging issue because he's been outstanding on all structural engineering issues for years. president olague: thank you. commissioners, we're proposing to do something a little different tonight.

we would like to take item 7 and 16 together. >> commissioners, i thought these were related and the reason for some of the proposed changing of the scheduling is directly related to the state's vote on redevelopment agencies. so i thought if we can talk about these items together, because we can do that, that would be fine. i don't know, rich, maybe just to start i could say you probably know that the state has been voting this week on the proposed -- governor's proposed budget and including the trailing legislation on the proposed elimination of redevelopment agencies. yesterday the state senate voted to eliminate redevelopment agencies per the discussion we had last week. i'm sorry? that did not happen? you may have more updated information than i. maybe you should come up and talk about that. ok. >> we know the legislature hasn't passed it yet so the

assembly was considering it today and yesterday and they didn't pass it. >> the senate voted yesterday, no? >> that was my understanding too but there was some confusion on that. it's our understanding if there was one vote they needed in the plea to pass it and they still haven't got that vote. they haven't pass td but it's still under consideration by the legislature. >> my understanding is that the senate voted yesterday, is that not true? >> that was mine too but i have heard kind of varying interpretations of that. >> go ahead then. >> so it's still an issue before the legislature. it hasn't been passed but it's close to being passed or they are one vote shy. we don't know if they will get that vote. they've adjourned for today. supposedly adjourned for the weekend but can't confirm if that's the case. so we are looking at the bill and obviously interpreting it for the various projects under

redevelopment. i don't know if you want me to talk specifically about t.i. so for t.i., it obviously, the bill is passed redevelopment in the tools of development would go away. we would not be kind of be able to slip into what's being called the successor agency and allow t.i. to continue under the rules of redevelopment. we would have to change things. in given the fact that we may not know if this is going to pass or we don't know yet, there's just a lot of uncertainty about the future of redevelopment. it's just not a tenable situation for t.i. to continue under a redevelopment tax increment financing law. so the reason that we've asked to kind of continue today's regularly scheduled hearing where we're going to talk about the various plans, is we want to come back to you as soon as possible, and we anticipate the april 17th hearing, to kind of talk to you about a new financing model for t.i. and that being infrastructure

financing districts which you heard about in the last couple months. it's a viable alternative for t.i. it works for t.i. it's the same type of t.i. model we have for tax increment in that you use future property tax increments to fund public improvement. and we don't anticipate any of the land use or kind of a built environment proposals for t.i. to change. we expect them to remain the same so the i.r. that's before you, there would be no change to that. land use plan or design for development, no change to that. what we are talking about is a change to the financing model. and there's two significant differences. there's a lot of differences between i.f.d.'s and tax differences but two significant differences. one, there's less increment available to these projects. under tax increment financing, there's 80 cents that is available that can go back to finance the public improvements as well as affordable housing.

under i.f.d.'s there's 65 cents and maybe even less, depending on the funding of some of the general funds obligations like the children's funds, et cetera. so there's less money is the biggest difference. the second is there's imentations on, one, there's no requirement to fund foordable housing as there is for tax increments for i.f.d.'s and there's limitations on the funding of affordable housing. on most instances you can't fund affordable housing unless you actually have replacement housing. those being the two main differences, we think there will be kind of a reduction in the community benefit, public benefits that are generated from the project. but knowing that this was coming, we have been working over the past weeks to minimize that, kind of creative ways to

get, if not all, a significant amount of the public benefits we presented to you in the past and what we anticipated from treasure island in this new financing scheme. that's what we would like to bring to you at the next meeting, as here with kind of the world under tax increfment financing and here's the new world under i.f.d.'s, here are the changes. and we believe those to be, you know fairly minimal but yet significant. so we haven't briefed our title board on this yet, the changes we are proposing. we're going to do that in the next week. so we would like to come back to you after that hearing and present these changes. there's also structural changes on how this deal will be done. we don't have a redevelopment plan anymore. there's structural things that we have to change in the transaction so we can kind of walk you through. and then we would like to go

back to our regularly scheduled briefings on the project itself. president olague: fine. thank you. great. so you're basically asking we continue this discussion to april 7th? it's already on the calendar. >> yes, joint hearing, we wouldn't need the joint hearing. president olague: changes the whole conversation. it would be important for us to be informed of what those changes are. ok, that's fine. >> if i could add, two weeks ago at your hearing, you approved initiation of -- for a date on or after the 7th of april and we would like to propose that, that hearing be the 21st. it hasn't been advertised yet so there's no need to take action on it but that would be the proposal on the table.

president olague: we had cpn. c information scheduled for that day. we have to look at the calendar before making any commitments. >> that would be our proposal. information on 7th and hopefully adoption on the 27th. president olague: we'll have to look at the calendar. i think it's pretty overwhelming at this point, so many unknowns that we need to look at that. ok. >> that concludes our presentation. president olague: great. thank you. commissioner moore, take commissioner comments and then we will go to public comment. >> commissioner moore: the only thing which i think is missing to make this transition whatever form it will take is completely understandable to the public is we're here in executing end of being responsible to the public for whatever the changes are and there are so many that i'm not even sure they can all be retained in the existing

documents which obviously all use the wrong references, all of the wrong words, et cetera, and part are even anchored in legal situations. so you need to kind of do almost like a 24/7 in order to meet of what the public will ask you to explain. it's very difficult, very unfortunate timing. it is what it is. i assume it is one with momentum but the accountability to the public i think is the most difficult thing to bridge. >> i think the good news is things we have been talking to the public a lot about transportation plan, ferries in the transportation subsidies, transition housing plans. none of that will change in any material way. certainly the documents may need to change where they reference,

redevelopment in reference -- we anticipate t.i.d.a. to be the agency that enacts these are we are working on a plan to go honestly put this back out to the public and go talk to the public through here and other necessary meetings. commissioner moore: i think you were simplifying a little bit the trust factor. redevelopment is an established mechanism we have used for i am not sure, 50, 60 years, and that's one thing. now it's part of the development and it is something else and i'm not trying to put a question mark into the aspect but there is a shift in how will we engage. and that breaks down on many, many, many levels. i don't want to kind of scare you. all i'm doing is posing a positive challenge to you that will take a really wholehearted effort to answer questions that whatever the transfer is, it is

a transparent and clear one and some things might have to change. i don't have that few from 30,000 feet down. i don't. some people here in the room do. so whatever. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'm not sure if i'm interpreting this correctly but one of the differences as i hear it between the infrastructure financing district and tax increment financing as you pointed out was a lower amount of money that would -- lower percentage but it sounds like there might be some elimination of some of the requirements of redevelopment had that sometimes might be nonincome generating requirements or low income generating requirements, not speaking to the desirability or need. but you might have compensatory relaxation on some of the things that might have generated some of the cost it's i'm hearing what you're saying correctly. >> rig.