type of funding that he feels is an appropriate, just thinking in that regard. commissioner borden: our own delegation to the legislature, senator laneno -- where have the talks and then with our legislative leaders? are they supportive? >> at the risk of having linda shut us down, there have been many discussions over the weeks. >> before you ask another question, let me just say, i believe there is enough direction here to calendar a discussion. i really don't want you to get into a discussion of an item that is not agendized.

>> and it would be moved into the afternoon? >> and we are trying to shift a treasure island to the morning session. the team -- or if they have noticed it for a later afternoon eating -- meeting. president olague: it might be possible to schedule them both for the morning. >> it would be appropriate. president olague: i think it is critical that we discuss this, because i was privy to a panel discussion earlier today and i was informed of a project that i did not really know where under redevelopment.

whose future might be questionable. >> if we can pull that off, we will also have to check with mr. blackwell. we will do everything we can to try to take that happen. -- maketha that happen. president olague: i think it would be important to put it on the calendar because it is timely. >> could i have feedback on the just of this meeting with mr. blackwell? i think it is fruitless to talk about saving redevelopment. i would like to know more about what kinds of projects --

president olague: we need to be informed of what is going to be effective. >> it might also be good if mr. shoemaker or somebody from the office was here. commissioner moore: contrary to some other commissions, to stay away from making this a right of the governor -- president olague: i think it is deeper than we even have a sense of, so we need to be proactive. it is about budget, staffing,

and these other things. commissioner moore: and priorities. >> now that we have clarified we are not having a discussion on that item -- [laughter] okay. thank you. commissioners, is there more on the board of supervisors? >> we made some changes in the department recently, iran will be spending some of his time -- aaron will be spending some time helping ann marie. he will be giving the report. >> march 7 through 11, there were three items at the land use

committee. it was a correction to the market and octavia plan. it would reflect the actions by the commission. the planning commission approved it on april 5, 2007. prior to the action by the board, some of the pages of the zoning ordinance were admitted. it was consistent with the commission's actions. it would correct this error. the committee recommended approval of the ordinance to the full board. the second was the upper filmore neighborhood districts changes. it would remove the current prohibition against new restaurants in this commercial district. under the proposed restaurants, they would be allowed by c.u.

at that time, you recommended approval but with recommendation. you also respectfully requested that they continue public outreach. the supervisors worked with the department and the appropriate neighborhood groups. they handled legislation in two ways. the legislation also amended to specify that the commission considered restaurants in this area, they consider whether or not they use a lunchtime service or daytime uses. with thsese amendments, the land use committee recommended approval of the ordinance. this one would amend article for

to lemonade confusion as to when requirements must be met with increasing consistency in the way impact fees are a minister. you heard this item on december 16 of last year. the mayor has amended it to include suggestions from the mayor's office of housing and the comptroller's office. there was an un-codified section. the land use recommended approval for the full board. the board heard the area plan waiver criteria for affordable housing. this would amend the existing waiver. as part of the proposed ordinance to amend visitation amendments. the planning department recommended the legislation be

approved as proposed. instead, the commission made a respect for recommendation that supervisor maxwell continue working with the parties on these issues. the board approved the ordinance on the first reading. there were three introduced last week. the first one was from supervisor campos regarding the authorization of historiit is me sign. this amendment would prevent a formula retail pet supply stores in the district. which changed the name of the subject to prevent prohibited use. an ordinance amending administrative code for commanding -- administration approval. unlike the other ordnances, this

does not amend the planning cut. we would like guidance on whether or not you like a hearing on this item so you can make recommendations to the board. because it is a change to the administrative code, we are under a 30-day time limit. it would have to be heard pretty soon. and a supervisor elsbernd requested a hearing on park merced. i believe scott will be doing the board of appeals. if i could get some direction on that, we can bring it back to you if you choose. commissioner antonini: this apparently is an extension or

new ban on formal retail specific to certain types of stores. regardless of the entity, is this something that would first come before the planning commission? what is going on here? >> has a 90-day time limit. commissioner antonini: we would have jurisdiction before they did? >> correct. >> the mayor did introduce an amendment to the advent of -- admin code today. to extend approval of large tourist hotels and condominiums. there is only a 30-day window. we are trying to get a sense of whether you want to have that come before you.

sounds like we will wait to do that. >> of the board of appeals met last night, they had a lengthy calendar. the first was the jurisdiction request for building permits that were issued pursuant to conditional use. the conditional uses were for parking and for a dwelling unit merger. the appeal was timely filed. the board of appeals rejected it because it does not have jurisdiction on building permits. those are supposed to be addressed by the board of supervisors. the jurisdiction and was to have

the matter put before the board of appeals. there was an interesting debate about the legal technicalities of the charter and how it might apply to the board of appeals. the board ultimately continued the item to get additional information. the issues raised were related to a retaining wall. this was part of the project and there were revisions to that on building permits that were submitted last summer. the building permits are not required to be submitted at the time the conditional use is submitted. it can be weeks or months, sometimes years after word. -- afterwards. the building inspection commission has some authority on appeals of building permits that cannot be appealed to the board

of appeals. this was what i found out last night. there might be some jurisdiction to address the technical issues. the second item was another jurisdiction request item. this was the property that has been there for many years now. the building permit was submitted in 1998. the project did not move forward. the planning commission approved it in 2003. there is a brief extension of the entitlement. they submitted several sets of plans. and they don't address the department's comments. we subsequently cancel the permit, and they sought an appeal on that.

the board denied the jurisdiction request on that matter. it was pretty clear that the c.u. had expired and they had come back to the commission for a new c.u. this is a certificate of appropriateness that marks the first appeal of the historic preservation action to the board of appeals. the acting preservation court later did an excellent job presenting the case to the board of appeals. there were interesting issues related to the cottage in the back that the department would support the rehabilitation or the demolition of that. they were going to rebuild something that they found was inappropriate. commissioner sugaya knows a little bit about the case.

it is similar to what you would see on d.r.'s. there was disagreement between the appellant in the -- and the hbc on how they were applied. they would have needed unanimous vote. the votes were split, so it was clear they would not get the votes to overturn. the board continued into may -- it to may.they have been very ct what the requirements are. the final one is a brief period there before the commission last year, and i believe the board of

supervisors upheld unanimously. that project and moved forward. that concludes my report. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. you are now on item number seven, case number 2011.0070i for 1355 sansome street. >> good afternoon, president olague and commissioners. the business school has submitted an institutional master plan for the san francisco campus at 1255 sansome street. it would expand the facilities in the existing four-story

building to 50,000 square feet on flour floors. the school has an enrollment of approximately 250 students and can grow to 520. they have a staff of 12. the department has received comments from the public concern about student parking since yesterday. the building has a parking garage. they recommend to not require a public hearing. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment period that we have a speaker card. -- public comment. we have one speaker card. >> i live on the east side of

telegraph hill. i am here as an informal representative of the neighborhood. we found out about this agenda item yesterday. i am hoping they will postpone this matter briefly so that we may meet withhold -- with holt and work out a resolution for the parking matter. president olague: is there any additional public comment? if you live like to address the commission. -- would like to address the commission. >> i am the architect and project sponsor for holt international business school. this is their second time

presenting a master plan. at that time, we requested 28,000 square feet and we are occupying that on two floors. the business previously have gone out of business and closed shops. holt has occupied the first two floors, and they are working third floor. they're talking to various people, their concerns about parking. 90% of the students are international based. they rotate through the campus every four or five months. they're coming from other countries in typically not arriving with cars or acquiring cars.

they rotate through the other four campuses around the world and in boston. the faculty has parking underground. they have access to the shuttle bus provided by levi plaza. we believe that there is a needed campaign to educate the students that it is really the front street parking for many folks that don't have a street. we need to share that with the students and make sure they are aware of it, to use public transit and use the shuttle. and if they drive, used parking off-street. any questions? president olague: as we close public comment, there will be

commissioners with questions. any additional public comment? >> thank you, president olague. manny flores. a couple of project that recently broke ground -- president olague: this is about the business school, but we will get to public comment. is there any more public comment regarding the business school? if so, please come -- >> good afternoon. i used to be a student at holt international business school. i wanted to let you know how this will actually work. we usually focus on mba's.

we have an mba that is in one single year. students spend most of their time in school. they leave sometime around 6:00, 7:00, or 8:00 p.m.. we actually spend most of our time inside the school. every four months, we have different locations in the world. they can rotate to the different places and get to get a little bit of international experience. their only here for for five months. 90% of the people that we have our international students. their families do not live here.

at the same time that the school opened, we open in the same region or area where we are right now. one of them is actually the fourth floor. in the advertising business or marketing business, you need to have a lot of clients coming in back-and-forth to your school. on top of that, it has been unoccupied for quite some time. one of them was the building that we took over. other businesses have opened at the same time. i truly believe it's not due to holt. other businesses have impacted the livability of parking in the neighborhood.

we actually conducted a small poll to see how many people are driving to school. of the students we have, only six students are driving. they are paying parking. we have the 14 employees in the school, two of them park. one is me. we also have parking right next to the facility because we are there all day long. it is something that we are using professionals from the bay area. [chime] president olague: we might end up calling you back up for questions. public comment is closed. commissioner borden: i am

satisfied with this institutional master plan. that there is a scale up for san francisco. it is interesting to see the you're looking for a site for undergraduate campuses somewhere. hopefully, it will be here. i follow commercial real estate, and it seems to me that the hours people are in school, the issue with the parking has nothing to do with the school and everything to do with the fact that the real estate market has changed. we would never ask them to require more parking, encouraging people to take transit. unhook i think they are unfairly being blamed on the school in that regard. i also want the public to know

that the institutional master plans on the action items. we are not really in a position to say that they can't do this. in fact, there is no action we are taking on this. the goal of the institutional master plan is that the city knows what is being planned in the aerospace for institutions that might be acquiring and buying space. this institution does not on the space. the purpose is for us to be aware of the growth and expansion plans. it is not for us to save and you must do these things or you can do these things. we are not even going to be voting, we just closed in the conversation basically accepting an institutional master plan.

commissioner moore: i would like to ask the student representative to follow on the thought that i was interested in. you were in the middle of a sentence saying they you have x number of faculty? >> the faculty that we have, we have 27. commissioner moore: where do you provide the parking? >> levi plaza. commissioner moore: they are part of the levi complex. thank you for the clear answer. people that come and want to talk are going down to the

building all the way down to fisherman's wharf. on the west side of the street, at night, it is occupied by people that have that sticker and pay for that sector. it is a scramble for people to park there. it is absolutely horrible. the reason i am saying that, i drive down there because i go to the bay club. it has its own system. the majority of parking is used by people that pay for the office use. those places identified that you can park there. there is a really strict and organized a system to let people

parked there. having said that, if the faculty is accommodated in the levi garage, i have to assume that the residual struggles are all about other people. there is a lot of fighting for free parking which is very scarce. i empathize with everybody that don't have any parking. with no ability to park nearby. we can sort this issue out. i think the school needs to have the active and production program to their students to be able to understand the complexities in that location. i love the fact that the building is being used by a school like that. it is very positive.