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 thinking about doing a project can go to them and figure out which are applied.

we're using our web site in the department of building inspections website to make that information available to all project sponsor. commissioner moore: including explain the rules? >> of these reports are also on line as well. commissioner antonini: think you for a very good report. a very interesting. i was reading the last part of it, and the adjustment impact. i would assume that all of these fees have the cost of living impact on open to them. if you are approving a fee, it has to have that at the front end, you would think. >> i am not quite clear on what you are saying, but most of the fees that we adopted recently, we had a different process for how to account for inflation over the life of the plan.

in this case, we have consolidated and looking at all of them at once. that feat was set with 2008 costs. this is 3% is helping us get closer to 2011 costs. commissioner antonini: i realize the effects of inflation, i was just wondering about when these fees were first implemented, there was mention that there would be a cost of living increase. and i also noticed that you use the construction cost index rather than the bay area consumer price index as far as the factor you're using for the additional amounts. >> this is an amount established by the capital planning community updated annually based on every local area. it is approved before we start using it.

>> we are sort of inventing this as we go to a certain extent. and the department, what this reflects is our commitments to plan implementation that we have not really gotten into in a big way. and what allows us to do is increase the expertise. bell wanted to thank them for all of their work on this. it is a good example of how we can work together to implement the plans to make sure that they move forward as planned. as a side note, i also sit on the capital planning committee. i am able to review this work as a member of that committee as well. commissioner sugaya: sorry if i missed this. but in terms of the implementation and use of the money, there are various organizations.

there are various organizations and groups that are involved in the allocation, let's say, of the funds that are collected. just out of curiosity, if we drop down to capacity, is that within the purview home of the puc? >> yes, they're hoping to be more in line with the collection process. there have with to the approvals. one of the goals is to show this commission sort of what happens with all of the developments. commissioner sugaya: in the downtown park fees and artwork, who is involved? >> i am not 100% clear and the artwork. but the downtown ft is managed by parks and iraq.

-- park and rec. commissioner sugaya: i am not so concerned about that, but the park one is under their purview? >> it goes for downtown area parks. commissioner moore: you are saying that this is not cost of living, but cost of construction? they have less to do with each other as the international construction industry and construction materials determine the cost of materials? be used to be quite different in the past, but not anymore. it is a more realistic picture. >> you are now on the item 12.

request for a conditional use authorization and request for a variance. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. you have before you at the request for a conditional use authorization. to construct a one-story vertical addition of an existing two-story building that was permitted on the residential care facility. the property is at 259 broad street. the project also requires a parking variance hot foreign of street parking space. it would function independent of the existing residential care facility and will have its own direct access to the streets. we have received an e-mail

correspondence from a neighbor that is opposed. for fear that it will exacerbate parking in the neighborhood. >it was determined it was out of character for the building scale. they recommend reducing the death of the building by 10 feet and setting back the remaining 13 feet of buildings. 5 feet from the west side property line. these recommended changes have been incorporated into the projects, and conditions of approval. on the overhead, i have a site plan of the property.

this area in yellow is the area we're talking about. once again, that is 10 feet right there. and also on the upper floor plan, this is how that would affect the floor plan as well. once again, at 5 feet by 13 feet. concern has also been raised regarding the design of the building and the potential to create illegal second drilling units. and whether there is a conflict of interest present, having a care facility operated. and a conflict of views. and how you keep them separate

and in compliance with the code? and our district controls. the department's response is that to keep them separate, if they were to abandon the residential care facility, we feel that the zoning district is enough to really control the properties. we have not added a specific condition of approval for further limitation. the dwelling units will have to be added to the main dwelling unit of the property. as far as residential care, it will have to amend the condition of approval