anyway. is that correct? >> commissioner antonini, i think the ceqa findings, if the commissioner were to approve the 37 parking spaces, the ceqa findings are correct. i think staff would like the commission to adopt a motion of intent on the c.u. approval so that staff could go back and correct and change some of the findings because the c.u. findings are based on the lower amounts of parking. if the commission approves the project as recommended by the department with the lower amount of parking, the ceqa findings, it's just a question of correcting the two paragraphs about parking as well as the title. so that you could -- the commission could just approve the ceqa findings with that direction, and that's easily correctable. and the c.u. motion could be

adopted as is with the lower amounts of parking. commissioner antonini: and if the motion were to pass with the higher amount of parking, could that be voted on today? >> the commission could adopt a motion of intent. i think the staff prefers the commission adopt a motion of intent so that those findings could be changed to reflect the higher levels of parking. commissioner antonini: my motion for continuance is based on the fact more than likely there would be a second hearing on this, too, unless it happened with both motions -- >> no. commissioner antonini: kid make the motion if nobody seconds it. they don't have to second it. but i would move to continue the item until the next available date. president olague: i wanted to comment we do this all the time. if the staff comes before us with a c.u., and we adopt a different vote, if our vote is different than the c.u. that came before us, then we always adopt an intention to do

something other than -- this is not something unique to this project. in other words, we do this all the time. so i don't see a -- if there's a second to continue, i don't know if there is, but i wanted to point out that this is not unique to how we do things here. and what the city attorney -- commissioner antonini: maybe you could give me a date. >> the first open date i'm showing is june 2. and commissioner antonini -- commissioner antonini: continue to june 2 would be my motion. president olague: is there a second? there isn't a second. >> the motion dies. president olague: commissioner fong. commissioner fong: i'm not sure. this is a tough one and confusing one. i think it's a really handsome project. i congratulate the architect on it, i'm in support of it and think it will be a successful project regardless of what the parking comes out to be and will compliment the other

project we approved just across the street and it's going to enhance what i think is a great sculpt chur art piece there on dough lower es -- on dolores in the corner. as far as parking, looking at the mix of units, i am supportive of the one to one and think it's a higher end, higher quality project, and it's going to call for that in this particular case. a lot of discussion has been around kids and youth and baby strollers and all that, but i think i can foresee this particular building project, having more mature people who may need cars as well and may not be able to hop on a bike to and from work or wherever they go. again, i'm not sure where we're all at but i'm in support of one to one ratio. president olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: yeah. i think i made my point. the f line actually goes on market street so it's not even a block and you have a block

away an underground station that takes you downtown, plus you can go out to noye valley and anywhere in the city is transit rich and there's few places that parallel this. i think the market octavia plan was a social experiment to a certain extent. the neighbor neighborhoods said they were willing to take development but not willing to take cars. as a commissioner i want to support the experiment that will hopefully prove we can be a more sustainable society in the future and i think this is what has been voted upon and what's been decided and how this community has embraced development, and contrary to other parts of the city where we can't get them to embrace development at all, i want to support this social experiment we've all agreed to and with that i move to approve the ceqa findings and the actual project. >> commissioners, just for point of clarity for me, there's a motion on the floor from commissioner antonini that

-- for approval of the project. for one to one parking and was seconded by commissioner miguel. so it's a valid motion on the floor. commissioner moore: commissioner antonini made a motion to continue but the other motion -- [inaudible] >> it still stands. president olague: thanks for that. >> the motion still stand. that motion is on the floor. that's for approval of one to one parking. so i'm asking themaker of the motion s is that still valid? commissioner antonini: that's still valid. might as well vote on it. we take positions. >> at that point you separated the items. president olague: because there was so much confusion i was hearing from people. >> we were only voting on a, a motion to approve with one to one parking. president olague: right. so on that motion, commissioner, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden?

>> no. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> no. >> the motion fails on a 3-4 feet have commissioner moore, borden, sugaya and olague voting against. now, commissioners, you can do something else. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i'd like to suggest since we've clarified the issue of parking we take the ceqa findings with the corrected wording regarding the lower parking and approval of the project as one motion which i'm making based on staff recommendation. but before i make the motion, i'd like to make an additional comment. i'm personally very disturbed that the issue of parking is starting to involve the discussion of income, creed, and color. and i'm very disturbed about

that because -- that the project is a better project deserving higher parking is something i personally do not want to participate in that discussion. it is very upsetting to me, and i think it's inappropriate for this commission to let a policy discussion about the importance of cars in this community detour into talking about there might be better projects which deserve parking and others which don't. i don't believe that the market octavia plan is created around a social policy which has shades of who deserves and who doesn't, but it's a forward-looking document which i think a community, which according to the well-phrased sentences of commissioner borden is a social experiment and environmental experiment which we all approve for that reason. so any discussion which starts to shift that into something else, i believe is not appropriate for this commission to have. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i tend

to disagree. that wasn't my interpretation of what was being discussed here. we oftentimes will look at projects and realistically look at projects that may be, for example, for lower income seniors, and we think there's probably a small chance they're going to have cars and therefore we approve them with little or no parking. and also, we look at projects that probably will be condominiums, may be selling at a higher price point. and the chances of people having cars, although this isn't always the case, is probably somewhat higher. so i think that's all we've been saying in this. it doesn't mean you would give more parking just based on income levels, but you look realistically at the -- what kind of project you're looking at and try to forecast how many people would have cars. and the reality is, as was pointed out, oftentimes car ownership is something that people have at all income levels because it's really necessary to have a car. so i didn't hear that at all. i disagree.

commissioner moore: perhaps i overheard it. i couldn't stop from overhearing it. maybe it's my own sensitivity and we need to come to terms about cars in this society around a different set of objectives. but i apologize if you felt i was attacking you. commissioner antonini: you didn't hear it from me. president olague: i believe there are people from all income levels, some who prefer cars and some who don't. you can't make an assumption. it's a lifestyle choice and a lot more complicated, values based, all kinds of issues why people own cars, you know. maybe some day we'll have a hearing on that and be here until 3:00 in the morning discussing it. >> only after a year and a half. president olague: yeah, after we're both gone. july of 2012. ok. is there a second? i don't have a second to the motion. president olague: second.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the project per staff recommendation with .75. and that is for both the ceqa findings and the conditional use request. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> no. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passes on a vote of 4-3 with commissioners antonini, fong, and miguel voting against. on the variance. >> thank you. dan snyder acting zoning administrator here on behalf of scott sanchez. first off, commissioners, i'd like to close the public hearing on the variance as well. what i would like to do in this case is take the matter under advisement. i would say that i am inclined

to grant the rear yard and front setback variances. there's some unanswered questions with respect to the dwelling unit exposure variance, so i look forward to working with the sponsor and with staff to get these questions answered. just really quickly, some housekeeping matters. no decision is final on these variances until a letter is issues. that letter brings with it a 10-day window during which it may appeal to the board of appeals and if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please give their name and contact information to the secretary or to staff and we'll make sure you get a copy of it. thank you. >> ok. thank you very much. commissioners, you are in recess until 5:00 p.m.

>> the director of the redevelopment agency is here to talk to you about the status of the current issues of the planning department. we will be able to answer questions and then we will be able to get into the discussion about treasure island after that. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i am from the redevelopment agency. i am going to try to give you the version of the story. i can speak for days on this. one version gives you a snapshot of what the governor is proposing. this is what the responses have look like -- looked like. particularly from the city and county of san francisco. we can finish up with a little bit of conversation about the implications to san francisco. that depends on what actually happens. we will start within this proposal. there are a lot of pieces of the government that proposed to it get these redevelopment agencies.

the first is the elimination of redevelopment agency's effective july of this year. the second is the abolishment that they have an existing complication. that is financial in danger. some are contractual in nature. there is a desire of going through the process of trying to underline the agreement. that would be difficult to do. the third component of the governor's proposal talked about the creation of successful entities that would be responsible for carrying out the obligations of financial and contractual agreements. if you look at how this is put together, the success it is agreed viewed as a shell.

the fourth piece is quite interesting. it has not gotten a lot of oxygen so far, in the media and the debate in sacramento. that is the notion that a local jurisdiction would be given the authority to go out to the voters and ask for new taxes in order to engage in economic development. they would be able to get those funds and create these funding streams with 55% voter approval rather than two-thirds voter approval. there are other pieces in the proposal. those are the four major components. that proposal was released on january 10 of this year.

i know because it was my birthday. there have been responses all across the board. the two main ones in sacramento are the california redevelopment association and the california league of cities. they took a pretty hard core line in response to the governor's proposal. they told their members not to negotiate. it was a bad idea and it was illegal and it was bad public policy. the top 10 largest cities in the state took a more nuanced position. san francisco was included in this. in a budget climate where there is a $26 billion deficit, child-

care, k-12, and other health and human services are on the table. the notion that redevelopment would be a sacred cow would be a tough pill to swallow. it would be tough to negotiate with the state. negotiating around the end of redevelopment. they ended up meeting with the governor. this was shortly after the proposal. they were coming up with alternatives. our office, along with agencies that represented other cities spent quite a bit of time coming up with alternative proposals that spoke to three issues. one was an immediate way to alleviate the problem in regard to the state budget in the

fiscal year. you think about ways to adjust the redevelopment that is financed in order to create longer term funding streams for the schools. there is a portion of property tax that gets diverted from schools would be alleviated. we have spent a fair amount of time talking about reforms. at the end of the day, a package was put together that refinancing could get more than $1.7 billion to the state to this fiscal year. tens of millions to schools over the next few years. some reforms have focused in on affordable housing reductions, greater transparency, and limiting the size and scope of redevelopment in the state. that proposal did not get much

momentum in sacramento for a variety of reasons. two of which are important to note. ironically, the proposition that was passed by the voters in november basically said that the state cannot take money from local governments in order to balance the state budget. it turned out to be a problem because we could not give money to the state for constitutional reasons. that was pretty ironic. the state is not allowed to finance or balance the budget. beyond the constitutional issue on financing, it was made clear at the governor's office that they did not have an interest in

financing the state budget. that became an issue that we could not work past. all totaled, in addition to the proposal, the big tent city mayors came up with, there were probably at 1.27-30 alternative proposals floating around sacramento. there are two that seem to be under consideration. one from the california redevelopment association and one from the city of long beach. they mirrored one another in a couple of ways. they are both voluntary. they are both a two teir

structure. another tier has to deal with the portion of redevelopment that goes towards affordable housing. this proposes a voluntary one- year breach direction of affordable housing at 20% directly to schools. the long beach proposal gives a longer-term of the reed direction of the funds, a portion of which would go to the state to help balance the budget. another portion would go to a new statewide fund. the city of san francisco at this point has not officially gotten behind either one of

those alternative proposals. i think the posture is to see if either one of those gains momentum. to see it if that will work for us. the two-tiered structure of the affordable housing component is the one that we have the most harbor around. we rely so heavily on that to produce affordable housing in the city. the real direction of those funds is a cause for pause for us. in terms of status, there has not been much action over the last couple of weeks. the reason i say there has not been that much action is that the governor has not voted to eliminate the redevelopment plan.

this ended up one vote shy of the two-thirds that was necessary to pass the governor proposal on redevelopment. the way this is put together is that it requires a two-thirds vote. they could propose the elimination of redevelopment. they also proposed the redevelop -- redirection of tax dollars. in the senate, the governor is even further away. they could get to the 2/3 if necessary. there is speculation that the governor may redrafted this bill if necessary to focus on the elimination of redevelopment and not affect the property tax dollars. that will lessen the financial benefits to the state in a scenario like that. it would be about whether they would lose the vote and get a

majority under that scenario. where things are right now, we anticipate a pretty prolong state of uncertainty. in some ways, that is better than the elimination. in a lot of ways, and that is not a good scenario as well. the uncertainty, and just from a personal perspective, is very tough on the agency's staff that are wondering whether or not they have a job in the future. just as importantly, the uncertainty creates a very difficult situation for us in terms of negotiating new deals and negotiating things we have already negotiated through the pipeline. the uncertainty is not good for the bond market. the uncertainty is not good for investors who are looking and at investing in projects with a

public and private partnership. the uncertainty over the last few months has meant that we have to spend more time clearing out our pipeline then working out deals in the future. in terms of implications to san francisco, i think some of them are already coming to pass, even without the votes that take place in sacramento. in areas like the valley where we are in negotiations you can see the development. that makes negotiations pretty difficult. negotiations with affordable housing developers and we have a large land area deals as well. i want to close by talking a little bit about where things currently stand in terms of the

specifics of the bill that is associated with the governor's proposal. that has implications for san francisco as well. when i talked about in the beginning was the four components of the gov.'s plan. the two metal components is how the existing obligation is to find and talk about. as well as what the role and responsibilities are. i just raised a couple of examples. if there is a very narrow door of obligations and commitments, which could see a situation where only portions that we are working on in the city and county of san francisco make it to the other side. i want to emphasize how important this is. we have gotten what we believe

is an existing obligation in terms of commitment of the money for and tax commitments for infrastructure and things like that. what we do not have place are the subsequent dea's with non profit housing developers. we do not have in place right now, we have to bond into the future the affordable housing. that is under that this position and development agreement. the worst-case scenario is a scenario where the project gets through the door. you can issue bonds into the future to meet our affordable housing obligation. that is a very important issue

that i think is very important for everybody to understand. related to that is the powers and responsibilities of the successor entity. if they do not have the ability to bond or the language is so ambiguous that whatever gets adopted, it is unclear to investors whether the bond commitment can actually be met, the process has stopped. we will have obligations and contract in place. we will not have the mechanisms to implement those contracts. the other thing that is important is the two issues that relate to this commission. they are completely silent on the issue of entitlement. if the entitlement is not clear, and development stops. there is still quite a bit of work to get done to make sure

that if this is something that moves forward, it moves forward in a way that allows us to implement what we think is important and enforceable obligations that are currently in place. i will stop there. the implications are pretty broad for san francisco. there are no actions that are going to be taken within the next few weeks in terms of what we're hearing. the governor is focused on an extension of the tax rate. we will see this come up again in june. thank you. >> thank you. that is very informative. a couple of questions in regards to successor entities.