our city does not have the foresight. now that we have allowed these rascals to come into our neighborhoods and destroy the aesthetics, now, we are planning what to do. it is a bit too late, but not too late. i'm in favor of this legislation. supervisors, be very strict with this. [applause] >> my name is jeff cooper. i'm a resident of the richmond and as of last week, proud landlord of a new wireless facility right outside my house. last week, we had a crew come out and install a wireless thing on top of our light pole, which sits right outside my bedroom window. i was able to finally find a copy of the permit that was pulled, and it is actually at my address. i was pretty shocked to find out that you can hold a permit of somebody's address without

notifying the residents that a permit has been told of their address. i have three primary grievances. i strongly support the legislation, but the first is just notification. we need to notify residents, especially when it is right in front of their house. second is the overall quality. these claims of public safety and in the aftermath of a hurricane or earthquake. if you come outside in front of my house and look what they have put up there, there is no way that thing is going to survive a hurricane or earthquake. it is going to fall over and start a fire, so i have strong concerns about the insulation quality, and i want to make sure that the committees or whoever is in charge, there is a permitting process and that these permits are reviewed and the quality of the work product that is done is reviewed. when i remodeled my kitchen, i had a city inspector come out weakly to make sure i did everything right, and i hope that is happening here as well.

my final grievance with the current system is just the overall lack of information. whenever i feel like there is -- whenever there's no transparency, i get worried. i have no idea what they put up in front of my house. i have no idea who call or how find out. what is it for? what does it do? just providing citizens with a little bit of information about what is actually being installed. this happens to be 20 feet from my bedroom window. [applause] supervisor maxwell: i have to ask you not to clap. that is one of the rules of the house. no clapping. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. i'm here in support of the legislation. i'm in support -- i'm also a resident of the richmond district. there's a anonymous on our block who have for the last 10 days watched a serious amount of

activity after-hours. on mark trucks, installation of heavy-duty equipment and wires on power poles on our block that are already significantly loaded -- unmarked trucks. we live in a corridor where least 12 blocks have had their wires buried underground in the last 15 years. i of lived in my home for the last 18 years, and we are told that for the last 15 years, the project has been on the books for our block as well. it got as far as 25th ave. we got as far as 26 ave. 26 and 27th avenue happen to be blocks in this district where the veirs overhead, and it appears to was that as a result, our wires are double loaded. there is so much equipment going on, and now that they have come

in, honestly, under the cover of darkness. it has been a very strange experience to listen to these trucks in the rain at 10:00 at night installing the equipment. it just does not smell right. let alone the safety concerns -- everything that has been addressed today by those here in support of the legislation. i echo that, and i also think that the way this project has been handled has increased our sense that something is going on, trying to bypass citizens' concerns over the safety and the aesthetic quality is very significant issue as well. so thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is windy robinson. for anyone who is not aware of

this, what the equipment is that we are talking about, here is an overhead from the projector. this is 8 feet from my house. this is the view from my front door. [inaudible] that is what i get to look at every morning. if you take a step forward, there is a side view of how big this equipment is. there are these huge boxes that buzz and crackle all the time. there is a thing on the side that you cannot see from this view that essentially doubles the size of the poll. there is about twice as many wires coming out of the poll because of the equipment, and on top of the poll, there is about a five-feet extension. basically, the square footage taken up beforehand by the poll has easily triple with the square footage of this equipment.

t-mobile has admitted in my case that they do not need to place in here. just like everyone has been talking about. it was put here in the dead of night with no notice at all whatsoever. t-mobile has admitted in my case that they do not need to have it in this exact place. there is many other places they could have put it, but they do not care. that has been their position. they do not care that it is 8 feet in front of my place. they do not care that, as many realtors have told me, this has reduced the value of my property 30% to 40%, which is what is happening to anyone with this is in front of their place, which is obviously going to impact city revenue greatly and lead to more layoffs of people and reduced salaries. for anyone here who has spoken in favor of the status quo, please quot-mobile your address -- please give t-mobile your

address. if you work for them, please make sure that they have these boxes installed in front of your place before you come up here and testify for the status quo. thank you. supervisor maxwell: thank you for that restraint. i appreciate it. [laughter] did not want you to think it was not noticed. any other public speakers on this item? seeing none, the public comment is closed. supervisor mar: i would like to thank everyone for speaking from the industry to the many residents, not just from my district, but for many others around the city. my office is going to work closely with mr. sanders and others in the city attorney's office to look at potential next steps, and i also wanted to say that from what supervisor avalos' office has expressed to us, there have been good conversations with the industry. the voters that people put up

today and last week are horrifying to me. the lack of public notice and lack of community input into the process is outrageous, and i do feel that the public was the right of way is a place that the federal government and state government have some say in, but we need stronger protections, not only raise issue of safety, but also esthetics and whether these boxes on utility poles are necessary and desirable, but it is a process that should be a community one from the local level in my opinion, but i know we have to be careful and legally defensible in what we propose, but the legislation before us is reasonable, and i do think the two-year appeals process makes a lot of sense to me. i wish it could be a shorter appeal, and i do think the industry's concerns have been listened to. on the claim of discriminatory treatment, i think that is totally ridiculous. that was made by one of the industry representatives. i will just say that from so

many residents in my district that have raised concerns over a long time, i hope there is much more we can do at the local level to protect the right of people to create more livable communities, and i do think that the proliferation of the antennas has been fast and furious, and it is really shocking at how they are being done, and i hope this legislation is a small step forward, as others said, to really protect our neighborhoods rights to have a say in beautifying our neighborhoods and to prevent ugly and dangerous boxes from being put up all over the place. thank you. supervisor chiu: i just want to express my thanks for all the stakeholders that have been working on this issue. obviously, i think there are some larger pictures that we have got to deal with. i know, certainly in my district, there are similar issues that my neighbors have been concerned about. i want to express my support for this legislation, and i'm happy to at myself as a co-sponsor to

it. supervisor maxwell: to the industry, i think you have heard a lot today, and you are always saying that you are pushed by the needs of the consumers and what consumers needs art -- and the consumer's needs are very important to you. i think you have heard today what consumers need and what they want and san francisco is not alone. i think all of our california people are concerned. if anything, this should push you to help come up with a device that does the same thing, but is smaller, and that you need to do all of the research and everything necessary to make sure that people are comfortable with it. i personally do not feel that we will be compromised in a disaster or earthquake. as somebody mentioned, one of the things they tell you not to do is to rely on your cell phone in those times, so i think we will probably be ok if we get a

better understanding of what to do in case of the emergency. with that, colleagues, why don't we approve this legislation without objection? so moved. all right. next item is item four, and this one will be sent out as a committee report. 3, wireless? >> yes, 3 needs to be sent out as a committee report. item four, resolution authorizing the planning department to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $83,529 from the national park service. supervisor maxwell: is someone here from planning just to talk about this? thank you. excuse me, if you could leave quietly, we are going on with our business. thank you. >> chief administrative officer for the planning department. this resolution would allow the planning department to accept

and expend the grants for $83,000 to designate historic properties and districts to the national register of historic places and california register of historical resources and city landmarks under the san francisco planning code. this would happen within the market/octavia area plant in partnership with property owners, neighborhood associations, preservation organizations, citigroup, and city commissions. there is a thick% max requirement, which would come from the general fund appropriated to the planning department that is currently being used on market octavia historic survey designation work, and we are available for any questions you may have. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, any questions on this item? public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, we will move this forward. hearing item 5. >> item 5, hearing on the status

of the academy of art university's noncompliance standing with the city's institutional master plan requirement. supervisor maxwell: there is someone here from planning that will present on this item. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. the director apologizes. he was not able to stay for this item. i'm staff with the planning department. when we last appeared before your committee, there was a great deal of interest in the academy of art's property, specifically the residential property. in anticipation of the questions we might get on the properties and the property list of the academy of art, including your acquisition of properties and specifically residential properties and how that might affect the city's housing stock, i e-mailed a list of questions to the academy of art.

the academy of art responded, and that is your first attachment. the attachments after the staff report is a response to the list of questions in terms of their property holdings. the academy of art, since its inception in 1929, has grown from a single facility to a 2010 fall enrollment of almost 18,000 students. specifically 17,711 total students. 11,182 students are on site students. 3207 are hybrid students that take both online and on-site class is. the remaining 6529 students are online only students. the fall 2010 enrollment is almost double the 2005 enrollment of 8715 students.

the 2005 enrollment of 5257 on site is contract with the 11,182 on site in 2010. the enrollment is more than double. 112%. 2010 enrollment as well is a 12.15% increase from 2009. there is an enrollment table, and if you choose to take a look at that, it is enrollment information that was given to us by the academy of art, and that is listed as exhibit 1. it follows the first attachment, and it does include the enrollment figures from 1929 through 2009. it has not yet been updated with the 2010 enrollment, but what you can see is that the growth of the academy of art has been quite modest from 1929 until about 1990. from 1990 to 2000, there is

quite a bit of an increase. in 2004, there is a change in about 2004 in that they are now offering online students and online programs, but if you could take a look at this 2005 enrollment, of course, the 2005 to 2010, it is more than double. we take a look also at the listings of the residential properties that are listed on the first attachment. the academy of arts has 17 residential properties. two of them are leased. the leased properties are 168 blossom and 575 harrison. the rest of the properties are 1055-, 1080 bush, 1153 bush, 1727 lombard, which is the most recently acquired property, 1900

jackson, 1960 octavia, 560 howell, 620 sutter, 625 sutter, 680 sutter, 736 jones, 817-825 sutter, 867, 2209 van ness, and 2201 van ness. those properties comprise 773 units, and that capacity is 1894. this is a little bit different than what has been previously submitted. the dead space is very fluid. if the academy of art is experiencing a large influx of students, they may take a lounge or study room or faculty room, and they will convert that to residential use. oftentimes, you will find that this number does fluctuate a bit. the academy of our properties

are a mix of dwelling units, residential hotel rooms, former tourist hotels, and live/work buildings. the most recent acquisition was the lombard properties, which was acquired in 2007. the academy of art began to acquire the properties in the 1990's. some of the properties began occupancy prior to the acquisition. the academy of art happens to have a housing director that is not an employee of the academy of art but of campus living villages. they are a property management firm that happens to specialize in campus housing. they offer campus housing to all full-time students that take at least 12 units undergraduate and nine units graduate. they currently offer housing to 1688 students for about 9.5 the

3% of all students or 15% of all hybrid students. i'm told this ratio is much lower than most post secondary institutions where demand is usually roughly 30% of the students. the housing costs by semester range about 3600 per share a room to over 5000 for a studio apartment, and those do not include the wheel plants. at the time the information was submitted to the planning department, they were able to accommodate all campus housing. there happens to be remaining 19 permanent residence in six academy of art residential buildings. these permanent tenants were living in the building prior to the academy of art's use of the

building as student housing. the academy of art states dated not evict any previous tenants. one of the concerns that the committee as well as the planning commission and public has had is the applicability of the rent control ordinance. before this committee, the executive director of the rent control board testified that it was assumed that the academy of art is subject to rent control. it is clear from our analysis of the enrollment at the academy of art will need to produce new student housing. of course, the committee reviewed the legislation last month regarding the incentive for the production of new student housing. specifically the exemption from the inclusion very housing requirements. unfortunately in the final

legislation, several modifications that would essentially give a legislative fix in terms of the planning code, were not included. however, we will be returning to the planning commission and of course to the land use committee on certain ways that we could go ahead and work with the planning code because at this time, you may recall that the planning code does not actually have a definition of student housing. we would also come back as well regarding modifications to administrative code chapter 41, which would prevent the conversion of residential housing to student housing. at this time, it is allowed if that residential housing was converted to student housing revert to residential housing, so we will be returning in the early quarter, and coming back to you with some of these legislative fixes to the

planning code that would conserve the city's residential housing stock. in terms of our enforcement program that is continuing, we told you that the planning department organized a coordinating into department task force. this consisted of several departments, specifically city attorney, public health, department of building inspection was also included. their code enforcement division, there housing division, electrical and plumbing divisions, as well as our planning department. we essentially inspected all 36 buildings of the academy of art. many notices of violation and correction notices were issued. we have worked with the academy of art. there were over about 100 -- specifically about 108 permits that have been approved, and work is either completed or under way to fix many of the safety problems that we had. there are additional permits

that have yet to be submitted to us and are being prepared by their expediter at this time. there's also significant progress on the environmental review. as you may recall how -- as you may recall, in february of this year, we sent a letter to the academy of art, and we were concerned that we have not received all the information we needed to start the environmental review. since then, we have received the bulk of the information that we have needed, and we have prepared and published a notice of preparation september 29 of this year. the planning department also scheduled a scoping meeting, and that took place in october of this year. the environmental review is well under way. we have been working with the academy of art as well on the signage. we have completed a survey, and we backed up their signs, and we

now have a very good handle on what signs can never be approved, which ones must come down, which ones are in compliance, and which science -- signs need to be submitted with additional permits as well. the planning department has not yet received an update of the institutional master plan. we've been told by the academy of our representatives that they are working on the institutional master plan, and that will be submitted to us, and much of that information however has yet to be submitted, but my understanding is that they are working in conjunction with the environmental review. i also wanted to report to you that there were some properties that were acquired after the environmental review and after our concern regarding the institutional master plan was pointed out to the academy of art. there were additional properties that were required,

specifically 460 townsend, 950 van ness, and 2225 gerald. these were acquired after the submission of the imp and eir. since these properties were in use without proper authorization, the department has taken action. we have issued notice of violation and penalties, specifically for 930-950 van ness and 960 farrell. the academy of art has regrouped its administrative staff in industrial design from 9:00 -- 930 to 950 van ness. the academy of art appeal before the board of appeals. they also requested a request for reconsideration. this was turned down at the board of appeals last wednesday. we will essentially be assessing the academy of art $250 a day as soon as we receive a written

cessation. is there any question -- if there are any questions, i would be happy to answer them. thank you. supervisor maxwell: supervisor chiu? supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you for the very thorough report. it is my understanding we are getting quarterly reports on the progress of the notices of violation. i think you went over the life safety issues, and i think in the last presentation, you talk a little bit more in detail about some of the violations. could you go more into some of the life safety issues with some of the student housing? >> of course. the residential properties were actually in far better shape than many of the academic and administrative buildings, but amongst the 36 buildings there were, i did not even know what the latest count was in terms of the notice of the correction as well as the years of violations

for the properties, but there were many instances where there were problems. a need for fire alarms. a need for sprinklers. there were often confusion in terms of where the accident half would be, so this is where they had to have signedage up, as well as clearly marked exits, hand rails, disability improvements, that sort of things -- they had to have assigned -- they had to have signage. there is probably roughly 70% of safety that has been completed at this time, but at least those buildings are far safer than they were, say, a year ago. >> i do see rebecca and some of the folks that are here today. is paul year -- here? i do not see him, but i appreciate the fairness of the

report, and it sounds like there has been progress, especially with the penalties with a notice of violation and really getting responsiveness from the planning department, and it sounds like the mission has been focusing carefully on enforcement as well. is that right? >> yes, supervisor. the planning commission has been quite supportive. they have been following our enforcement strategy with the academy of art with great interest, and they have made it very clear to our department that it is a very high priority. thank you. >> you did say that the environmental review, there was an oct. scoping meeting. what is the next step? >> the scoping meeting had roughly about 22 speakers at that meeting. they expect a draft eir coming out sometime this summer. they actually have a schedule that actually has certification

in the fall of this year. thank you. supervisor maxwell: thank you. all right. why don't we open this up to public comment? francisco da costa is the only card i have. there is anyone else, feel free to come up. >> supervisors, i was at the planning commission when this agenda item came. planning presentation is lengthy, but they start to address those rental units that were taken by the university of art, and how are they going to be replaced? what mitigation factor? i know