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 the department of building inspection was late in joining the planningin fact, tht was asleep. so many rental units were taken by the university, depriving poor san franciscans in areas such as bush, sutter, and i do not see many litigation factors addressed.

i think she was defending the flower market. and i was at one of the meetings. we stopped them from doing that. the other factor that hasn't been addressed are the bus is the file over the place. -- buses that fly all over the place. i hope the litigation measures are detailed. [chime] supervisor maxwell: anybody else? >> there has been really excellent work and i think you will need to understand that. the other people that have been

working on this is the thankless task of the eir. you have a really able staff dealing with this. i would ask this board to continually report to the new board. we have found out that this institution only works if they are really under public scrutiny. the question that i have is the interpretation that dwelling units can be converted and we have this huge problem because the code needs to be changed. i do not agree with that. the main obligation is that they first must disclose that they intend to buy things in them and

not occupied them until they have an institutional master plan. all of the housing that they acquire and occupied before the have any institutional master plan hearings or any institutional master plan cannot be occupied on changing to a dormitory. i contend all of that is illegal and at some point in the city attorney will have to sort this out because there is an institutional master plan obligation. we have got to force this institution to centralize. this is where the i.m.p. comes in. not to spread all over the city that no one can control. and what we have tried to suggest -- [chime] thank you.

supervisor maxwell: any further public comment? supervisor chiu: i want to thank the planning staff for all you have been doing. i of the academy has been working with other community partners to really figure out what they need to do to come into compliance. i wanted to express my appreciation and a think it is a good thing for us to continue this item so that we can monitor that. i'd just wanted to express the appreciation. supervisor maxwell: i think this is the best report we have ever had. it is very thorough and i want to thank you for your presentation as well as the information and the content. >> we appreciate the support of the committee and we will be

returning frequently. supervisor maxwell: the university is a very important player and i think it is important that we keep the relationship. supervisor mar: i wanted to thank cristina and scott for their important work. i think there is progress being made. supervisor maxwell: we will continue this to the call of the chair. item #6. >> creating a comprehensive and consistent street frontage control. supervisor maxwell: we have been asked to continue it to the

color of the chair, but if there is anyone that would like to speak on this item, you may do so at this time? anyone that would like to speak on item number six? seeing themnone -- supervisor chiu: is there anyone here to answer questions on any of this? i will forward a couple of questions over to planning. supervisor maxwell: we will continue this item to the color of the chair. item number 7. >> amending the planning code to update the facilities and infrastructures. supervisor maxwell: the purpose of this ordinance is to modernize the fund to bring it

into greater consistency with the greater impact. most recently, planning staff has been engaged in an ongoing effort to standardize the terminology and procedures used across the funds as much as possible. we are proposing to utilize the planning commission's recommendation. it will have the result of a response to the wishes to meet the obligation for the direct provision of infrastructure. planning staff will present and will present the amendment before us today.

the city attorney has informed us that the amendments are not substantive and we may act on this today. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. sorry i was unable to answer questions on the previous ordinance. i can talk to you about the ordinance before you today. supervisor maxwell gave a great introduction. since then, a number of programs have been established throughout the city in the planning department has actually gotten focused on making sure that we treat them the same way. they all have the same option. it makes it easier for us to administer the fee, trying to decide what project like to bring forward to the board of supervisors. in-house we have really been

looking at the consistency of the projects of that time. we appreciate the introduction of this legislation as it brought everything up to date. the amendment before you -- it also brough -- references a study. i have another copy if that is required. the changes are primarily clerical in nature and have consistency for you, the decision makers, and administering the fee for developers and for the community. i am available for questions. supervisor maxwell: questions or comments? yes?

>> just a few technical issues. you're moving a group of amendments and there is a summary of the 10 amendments that are being proposed today. i have three small additions to that. for the amendment of the whole that is dated to de's de, in editions the amendments on the summary sheet that is available, there are also a general plan consistency and priority policies because those were not in the planning staff report. there is also a paragraph, one

aerror. it should read january 4th, the 90th day of the review. supervisor maxwell: all right. supervisor mar has a ques tion. supervisor mar: does prop 26 affect this? i'm just curious. >> through the chair, yes. this is a fee thtat is a condition of development and is not impacted by proposition 26. i can walk through the amendments, but i think you have them before you. supervisor maxwell: why don't

we open this up to public comment? [reads names] >> i have been given two minutes. i have been following this for a long time. initially, the fees were decided upon. little hollywood would get a million dollars. somewhere along the line, it seems to be getting the bulk of the monies. what really amuses me is that we have a line that goes into divides bayview and visitation

valley. but somehow, the boundary lines were changed without having one single meaningful meeting. it goes clear across a little hollywood, all the way under this little tunnel include executive park. if this is the way we are going to do business in this city, and if this is the way the city attorney is going to agree to foster something that the community doesn't agree, it is on you. this matter came before the planning department and it was going somewhere. there were some entities that the planning department that had to rush to the district and supervisor's romom.

this is not going to a good place anyway you look at it. if the board of supervisors agrees with the devil's workshop -- [chime] supervisor maxwell: next speakers, please. >> i am with the valley greenway project. i am basically dealing with shlage lock and leland avenue revitalization. thank you, supervisor maxwell. i am speaking on behalf of the board members that could not be here today. historically, our committee has

been woefully neglected, suffering from a lack of infrastructure. we have been struggling with retail open space and a new housing to our community. with a proposal, it became clear that the existing infrastructure could not support the influx of new population. we welcome the new developments, but there has to be approved of the infrastructure. and with the help of the developer's feet, all of the visitation by neighbors -- with the help of the ordinance, we have the but the beautiful and visionary streetscape improvements ha ha. -- on leland avenue. which is going to