that was done which places san francisco in the top five cities top five cities of opportunity. if you go to the website, it is www.puc.gov, i think. there is an extensive amount of information at their, i think. that people analyzed to see why the san francisco is redid so high. i think a lot of people were surprised. but like all rating systems, they are ultimately suspect. commission president olague: a couple weeks ago, i asked for a password -- there was a study that the study the migration within the city. i still love not seen a copy of that. i would like to receive a copy

of that. i would like to discuss, at some point, we mentioned a few possible topics for discussion up here. but commissioners and members of the public of course at these meetings. it would be nice if they look at the calendar and start scheduling some of those policy discussions that have to do with parking and tourism and all of these other topics. hopefully -- maybe in july we can start calendaring at least once a month. well, that is it. >> commissioners, that will places under the directors' report. item eight, director's announcement. >> the evening. we received -- good evening. we receive one award, and a

second award for the shipyard plan. that is one of the times we have seen the environmental impact report receive such an award. i was very pleased with that award. i did want to mention the website. we are very pleased with the website. it was actually funded by the planning, allowing us to higher temporary staffers. the glitch was partially due to a miscommunication with the city will of the website before we were ready. [laughter] and so, we had to make some final changes. we were able to correct the glitches. as we speak right now, there is a hearing on the high-speed rail authority in sacramento, and several cities that are there. one of the issues being discussed is what they call the

initial operating segments. i think we have been urging high-speed rail to think for some time about the san jose to san francisco corridor, such that you would only need two tracks instead of four. it is clear from the study that four trucks are not needed for a number of years. it probably helps us in these discussions with the communities in the peninsula who are, understandably, concerned about this. there are city staff today at these hearings to testify in support of having that first segment. that piece of the whole system we have been working closely. a i think it has been a good

introduction dept. tel effort. so, i am very hopeful we can make progress on this. one of the things that is interesting is the discussion that we have. if you look at the long-term picture of the growth of the state, it really comes down to what type of transportation syste employing in 20 or 30 years down the road to accommodate the growth? if you compare a high-speed rail to other means such as expanding airports or highways, a think it is an interesting way to frame the discussion. that really is the choice. expanding airports and highways is not palatable to a lot of people. it is an interesting discussion i think we should be having on a broader, long-term policy. finally, i just wanted to mention with respect to the preservation hearing on monday, i think the commissioners for attending. i think it went on for about

four hours. >> we stayed within an hour and a half. >> and we will follow up with the supervisor on this. i spoke with the commission about this yesterday, the idea that i had proposed a while ago of a summit discussion on preservation issues. i would still like to pursue that. i would just offer to the commissioners, not necessarily today, but to give feedback on how that should be structured and how we move forward. i am going to approach a couple of sources for funding such an event and we will let you know how that goes. and i think that is it for me unless there are any questions. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: director ram, thank you for your report.

it would seem that the two- track development would allow for phased development. >> just for the benefit of the public, i would like to remind everyone to turn of the mobile devices that might sound off during the proceedings. if you have a call, please step aside. commissioners, that places us under item nine, -- a review of the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. >> [inaudible] i am here to give you your weekly update on the planning and when used by the supervisors. -- and land use by the supervisors. this concerns action items associated with the treasure

island project. first, at the request of supervisor wiener, the land use committee held a hearing to consider the impact of historic preservation policies on public policy goals. staff the the board of supervisors and the public through a presentation outlining where in the planning code in general plan historic preservation is relegated above the local level, as well as parking policies and requirements, which are two different things. in addition, other city departments presented, including the library, in mta, the mayor's office for housing. as you have heard, there was a large turnout for public comment on both sides of the issue. members of the board were willing to plan on a wide range of topics, including the ethnic

and cultural diversity of staff and consultants working on historic preservation surveys, the number of -- and a specific project question related to surveys. at the informational hearing, it was continue to the call of the chair. the land use committee also heard four items related to the treasure island project. there were the ceqa findings, the general code amendments, planning code amendments, as well as soon amendments. all four members -- all four of those items were forwarded to the full board of supervisors. at the full board of supervisors, there were three items i wanted to draw your attention to. the first was the determination of a type two of stale beer and wine license was appropriate in

district one. the board passed a resolution in support of the license transfer. second, this was the street vacation assisted with the northeast library. before it passed the resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to vacate the one-block section of nathan street between lombard and columbus, they set the hearing date for june 7 for that item. and lastly, the board heard the appeal of the conditional use authorization for project 1268, a project you never quite a few times. the board voted to modify the conditional use approved by the planning commission. the project was to be developed -- was to develop four dwelling units.

the board added -- this is an rh3 district. they added three conditions. to minimize the height of the proposed elevator penthouse, to minimize the height of the building and to cap the height of the building. i have more information. in terms of interest -- introductions, supervisor david chiu introduced an amendment to the planning code. there are 11 components to this introduction. his amendment would increase the amount of principal-permitted parking spaces, make off streets parking requirements in the van ness a special district,

eliminates minimum parking requirements through chinatown makes use and the -- mixed views and the north beach commercial district. and then the restrictions on of street parking rates and extend them to other zoning districts. to increase the permitted use for the corner commercial uses in rto and rn districts. to modify parking requirements in the waterfront special use district. to modify controls for accessory uses in commercial and residential districts. to permit certain exemptions from exposure and open space requirements, and finally to modify requirements and various views districts.

this is in the process of getting forwarded from the board to planning. lastly, the board of appeals did not have a hearing last week, as commissioner sugaya mentioned. commissioner antonini? >> commissioner antonini: i had a few questions about supervisor chiu's legislation? are these all planning code modifications? that is why he lumps so many together, because they will all come before the planning commission? >> yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> commissioners, the places as on item 10, for 1355 sansome

street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the department's staff. this concerns 1355 sansome street. the school would expand their facilities in an existing four- story building to a three-story building. the school offers graduate degrees in business and has an enrollment of approximately 250 students which would grow to 520. they have a full-time staff of 12 and four part-time employees. we've been meeting with neighbors concerned about parking in never reached an understanding, including the removal of a forecourt from

their plants. the project sponsor is here and can address in more detail the details of that agreement. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is lee molton. we were here two months ago. we were approved. neighbors have expressed concerns about parking in the neighborhood. they appealed our permits. we met with them of public meetings with them twice. on april 12 and april 20. we have had communications during that time. during that time, their appeal has been withdrawn and we have

entered into a memorandum of understanding that lists several points we are sharing. let me go over some of those. our shared goals between the neighbors include to reduce the school's effect on neighborhood parking. we want to maintain peaceful, clean, safe, and functional neighborhood. we want to be part of that neighborhood, not just floating by ourselves. we want to maintain an open and direct conversation between the two. so, to accomplish that, there are several items that will benefit not only them but the entire neighborhood, understanding the impact of coming down the line with america's cup, baseball, etc. and the main thing was to change the parking sticker from two hours to one hour and extend

that into the evening, so, if they in fact want to do that. we are not in opposition to that. all students, faculty, and staff are encouraged not to drive. faculty who do drive are given underground parking. any staff are given credit for using commuter transit and all students are encouraged to either walk or take public transit. we encourage you mta to switch to -- switched the no. 10 bus to service the plaza, which they abandoned a couple years ago. we will encourage a loophole -- a local bike share program. we are going to have installed 15 to 18 bike parking spaces that are protected and supervised.

also as part of this agreement, we have removed the fourth floor from the i.m.p. commission president olague: thank you very much. >> thank you. commission president olague: to be have any neighbors to discuss that? let's not. i would like to open it up to public comment. lisa tenoprio. >> i think lee did a great job, but i wanted to add a few words in terms of our desire to have a good relationship with the neighborhood and the effort we have made to really partner with them. in addition to the things we have covered, we have done a few things above and beyond to build that relationship, such as

identifying a security relationship within the building. we came up with are really creative idea, because our students are business students, to support a contest where we let the students come up with great ideas. how are we going to take moving alternate transportation methods and come up with great ideas and invest in the best idea. we've also talked about how do we integrate our neighbors in our orientation process? we conduct tours with our students are maybe facilitate these family dinners when our students are international so they bring an interesting perspective that would be good for them. we did a survey of our students. we surveyed 100% of our students today, and only 14 of our 250 students own cars. of that, on the four drive. even so, we want to do our part to mitigate what ever inducted

would have on the parking situation. commission president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to approve the inp. commission president olague: thank you. >> [unintelligible] >> ok. this is under general public comment. commission president olague: you go to the microphone and you have three minutes to speak about an item that is not on today's agenda. >> let me read it into the agenda. at this time, the commission will entertain items of interest

to the general public with except to agenda items. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. this portion of the hearing shall not exceed 15 minutes. i have no speaker cards. commission president olague: you have up to 3 minutes. >> this is not on the agenda, but you know the uc-berkeley extension -- i do not know -- commission president olague: into our name, ma'am? >> serra. you know the mural and everything? there were birds that nest in industries and migrate. everybody in the neighborhood knew. they chopped down all the trees overnight with no notice to anyone. and i hear they want to put some apartment complex there were something. the environmental impact -- i

love earth. i do not know what they are doing. i do not know where the birds are going to nest. commission president olague: i think you might be referring to -- maybe a member of staff could chat with this woman? this is probably 55 lagunda? >> that has been a plan for eight years or more. commission president olague: i don't know if any of our staff has time to fill you in. >> could i talk about the cell phone tower thing on 33 mercy -- commission president olague: 33 baker is a leader item on the calendar. >> way later?

commission president olague: yes. >> should i come back later? commission president olague: it is up to you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public men -- public comment is closed. but sonny regular calendar, item 11, 2010 developmental impact alert and the implementation committee annual report. >> good afternoon. in department staff here to talk to you about two different reports. the interagency plan implementation committee report and also the developmental impact report. i am joined by three colleagues from the comptroller -- controller's office. they are here if you of questions.

the thing that pulls together these three items is they are all about developmental impact fees. the first is the implementation plan committee, which we call ipic, which is actually the result of an interagency committee that focuses on how we make the committee improvements identified in a recent plans move forward. it is important to us, as you know, but looking at these reports. we have not had a lot of revenue generated due to the economic situation. so, the ipic has been doing great work in finding other ways to implement the infrastructure identified in the plan. we have received a number of grants, including transportation grants. in market octavia, we made

pedestrian improvements that's -- at haight. we did the 24 mission plaza. we have a grant to do the bart station there. and fulton street, which was identified as part of the plan. part of the work is to take a look at some of the planning structure and identified more specific infrastructure projects, especially in the eastern neighborhoods. there was a call for transportation improvements, figuring out what those were, that is work we are still doing. that has recently been adopted in the mission streetscape plan. the octavia boulevard circulation study -- i think two

or three very specific infrastructure projects will come out of that, and that helps us when we are looking at grants, to have a very specific proposal we can show. you approved an in kind agreement for a new park and reestablished in new financing tool, the infrastructure financing district, which is a way to improve incremental property tax to fund infrastructure improvements. in the coming years, we will be able to work on developing additional isb's in different parts of the city. market octavia cac is a little bit further along. they have a list of what projects they see as their priorities we are in the middle of figuring out what the

process is that we have. that is the high level summary of the ipic report. this report is a new report. this is the first time we have done it. we also tried to clean up how we administer the city, how we administer all the various impact fees. if you recall, we put them all in one section and tried to make them read consistently. we tried to do all the monitoring in one spot. i think there was a lot of good lessons learned and a lot of good relationships between all the agencies involved with impact fee collection. as you can see, it is a fairly good summary. there are about 23 plants covered in here. there are also city-wide fees, the inclusionary housing program

and some of the downtown area specific fees, and the report covers the expenditures, and if you're looking for more detail, it tells you which sponsored paid each fee to get to the sum total. and the controller's office is here to ask if there were additional questions. and the last piece of information i would like to discuss with you this as part of our article for -- article 4, we have a directive to index all of the impact fees annually, and that happens as part of our annual reporting process. so, all the fees are tied -- i think i wrote the name of this. it is a very long name. the annual infrastructure cost insulation estimate. generally, the idea is, if we kept the keys at the rate the

they were when the establishment them, in five or 10 years we would not be able to build the same amount of infrastructure. it became effective may 1. in the project sponsor who has not paid their fees, regardless of when they were filed, will pay the new fee rate. there is a memo in your packet that shows the new table with the new fee rate. for example, the existing fee was $8.60 for one area for a gross square foot. it is now $8.86. it has gone up 26 cents. this process in the future will become effective january 1. it took us a little while to get it going the first time. if anyone has any questions, i am available and the staff. commission president olague: thank you. >> thank you. commission president olague:

thank you for your work on this. we plan to have the tears of the -- chairs of the cac present before us. is there any general public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i commend you for your diligence. i have a hopefully easy question for you. is this on the web so that people tenderly immediately see how it applies to them? it is a great tool. it would be digitized by district and anybody that doesn't want to keep all of this paper could immediately see how it works. >> part of the consolidation was the department of building inspection. in the project sponsor that is in