impetus for the legislation entirely, which came largely from efforts from staff to do that. if we could identify the elements of the ordinance that don't fit, that would help us. that is the entirity of the legislation, is to standardize different fee areas across the city. there is kernel a sferings -- conversation to facilitate going forward about that. the currently supervisor's office it happy to do that, and the future will be happy to do the same. but there is nothing in the amendments before you today that changes the boundaries or the fee amounts. we would like some guidance as to what sections people feel actually accomplished at. again, the boundary is the same as it was seven years ago when these discussions took place. that is simply a fact if you look at the legislation.

we would appreciate some guidance. we feel we have really expanded the menu of options for sponsors wishing to enter into an in-kind agreement. sponsors can do that on-site, off site, or they can pay the fee. we are dramatically increasing the options available to a sponsors, whereas before there was a limited section. we would appreciate that guidance. >> thank you, mr. lyle. well, i can tell you what things for me i think need further answers. certainly i was confused about the crediting for the neighborhood center, for example, at executive park, but it might apply to other instances, too. and whether 100% of it could be used as a feeoff set. thou i am hearing 50%, but maybe not. it is confusing as to whether

they can use the cost as an offset. >> with the proposed amendment. sponsors can seek 100% of their fee obligation waved. we have tied directly into the commission's own in-kind agreement policy, which you adopted in the last few months. sponsors have already come before you and utilized that and had up to 100% of their fee waved. that is the system we are tying into. again, the legislation before had only one or two limbed send ose, and now we are expanding that. >> mr. burke, can i ask you to comment? is that your understanding of how this legislation reads at this time? >> that is not my understanding. there is a specific provision that deals with the on-site community facility and puts a 50% cap on it. the specific trumps the

general. again, you are being asked to make a decision one way or the other on some legislation that you haven't seen yet. we are negotiating the provisions right now. i was very direct with you initially, and i will be direct with you again. what i am asking you to do is take full advantage of the 90 days, because that is the only way you will enable the various community groups -- and we don't have a preference for bayview hurnlt's point or vis valley. but we want to be in a community where everybody is shoulder to shoulder and moving forward. there is no reason for these amendments now. we would like you to continue the matter. if you send it to the supervisors and say we like the standard station, but we don't like the other stuff, who wants to bet me dinner that the ordinance that comes out of land use will be a whole lot different than the one you think is appropriate.

we are talking about sausage here. we got invited to the sausage factory at the last minute. and ingredients are being thrown into the mixer right now. i forget which one of you said it, but if this legislation -- and it may have been commissioner moore -- if this legislation is good legislation, it can stand on its own two feet. there is no reason why it won't pass next year. the other can't is the ordinance is on the book. the fee is there. we are not talking about a new fee. we are talking about changing the existing fee. >> ok. >> and it is a big deal. >> ok, thank you, mr. burke. i understand. >> sorry about that. >> that's ok. i guess my clarification is when you say and anyone says take advantage of the 90 days, but that 0 days expires at what time? does anybody have a comment on that? >> well, the ordinance was introduced september 28th, so

roughly the end of december. >> so what i'm hearing is the commission will have to make a decision on whether to take no action, take a supportive action with concerns or something along those lines, and certainly i don't feel comfortable approving it as written. we are not sure of its final form, but i think i would be supportive of the spirit of it and the standardizations that are being proposed, with real concerns about the issue of the funding, that specific issue, and then in general the funding distribution between various parts of the areas in concerns, that being visitation valley, bayview hunter's park and executive park, and how that is all going to work and understanding the nexus study. those would be any concerns. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner, were you just kind of drafting the parts of a motion? >> well, that was pretty close

to it? >> why don't you do that? i was just going to do it, but why don't we do it to go? >> the commission would vote to support the concept of the legislation proposed by supervisor maxwell with significant concerns about the present structuring of the revisions to the preexisting fee agreements, most specifically concerning the neighborhood center executive park, but any others that may fall into this, that that has to be looked at with greater detail. and certainly where funding goes. i make the motion, but i think that encompasses what we are talking about here. mr. burke? >> my concern is this. that if you adopt a motion that says you support the concept of standardization, you are taking action, and the legislation is going to go to land use on

monday and to the board on tuesday, and you ain't going to see it again. so my suggestion would be that you choose to continue this until some meeting in january, or to take no action and let the clock run so that we can all deal with this next year. >> ok, thank you. >> it's a trap. >> well, i probably would be more in favor -- even though a continuance does not allow us to take supportive action, i think we could say we are supportive of the concepts, but we would rather continue it because there are elements that are confusing. >> i want to be more specific and say i am supportive of the concept of standardization. anymore only supportive of the concept of standardization. everything else will happen at its time, whenever that is. >> correct. >> that is bringing executive

park more to the table with a more mature statement where we can really more clearly support how the funds are being used. >> we have no control over the clock on this. >> that is correct. >> certainly here or at the board of supervisors. but i personally feel, inspite of my concerns regarding the overall legislation, that we should support the standardization as the department has put it together. >> so my motion would be a motion to continue with findings that we are supportive of the idea of standardization, and we want to see the supervisor work with all parties concerned to -- >> if i may, you are making -- in my concept, you are making a confusing motion, because it is a motion to continue, which

would mean we take no action. >> right. >> but i think we should -- and then we have no control. we make no statement at all. >> commissioner, you could choose to continue with a comment rather than findings. >> all right. well, then let's do it that way. let's make a motion to continue, and rather than call them findings, the other part of my motion with a comment, and the comment is the supervisor should work with all parties to reach some agreement on issues regarding fees that were not -- that we don't feel at this point have been adequately addressed. >> you are referring now to the new supervisor, right? i hear you say that. >> well, the supervisor whose motion it is, and if it is after january, it would be implied it would be the new supervisor. but the legislation as proposed by supervisor maxwell.

i need a second, i guess. >> second, yes. >> continued to what date? >> january something, or february. >> february. >> february. >> ok, early february. >> i think there is a february 3rd date. >> ok, february 3rd. >> let me check to make sure of the date. yes, february 3rd. >> we were looking to move it along, but it's all good. >> that is five with me -- fine with me. >> was there a comment? >> i was just wondering how much is on the table here? are we talking about details like changing the boundary of the area? because that is what i heard earlier from testimony regarding bayview hunter's point. that is going to be a huge

issue -- not issue -- huge change. we would have to redo the nexus study. [inaudible] >> no, no, i know that. i am questioning the commissioners. and if that is the case, this won't happen until 2012. >> exactly. >> and in the meantime, the original $4.58 and whatever it applies to is still on the ordinance, and that would just continue to roll along. then we will miss the opportunity to impose a higher fee for broader public benefit. that is what the commission wants to do. >> supervisor maxwell, thank you for coming. >> thank you. i am understanding there is some confusion about this, and i just wanted to kind of give you an idea of why and where.

the purpose of this ordinance is simply to modernize the vis valley fund to bring it into greater consistency with the other impact fee programs in the city. with great community involvement and support, the original program was adopted in 2005. since that time, several similar fee programs have been established, and the city, including the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia areas. most recently, planning staff has been engaged in an ongoing effort to standardize the terminology and procedures used across the different community funds as much as possible, which is the motivation for this legislation. in that vein, we are proposing to utilize the commission's in-kind agreement policy, again at staff's recommendation. this will have the result of vastly increasing the options available to a sponsor who wishes to meet the fee obligation through direct

provisions of infrastructure. that is basically what wented -- what we wanted to do. since that time, the vis valley library is being built. it was through this fee that we were able to get moved forward. the pool has been finished. it was through the fees that we were able to get. vis valley has no big developments like bayview hunter's point, like the bayview district. they need certain things. leland avenue, i don't know if you have seen that yet, but it is remarkable. that was because of the fee. we were able to help pay for undergrounding. when you consider there is going to be a lot more people, and leland avenue is one of those wented to bring in to make this a complete neighborhood. we wanted to make sure we had this fund and that the fund was

the best that it could be, and especially -- it was one of the first. since then, as i mentioned earlier, you all have looked at things and tried to do a better job. i am understanding that, yes, you are going to be able to build a 5,000 maybe square foot room and get all of that. we said understanding that that was on the books, we will then make it so that will be by right. then if you want the entire amount, that you would have to go through a process. we were not saying that is not going to be the case, that you cannot have all of this, but that there would be a process. since then a lot more has come into the valley. we want to make sure that we were using our resources for the community and certainly for the new residents coming in as best we could, and that is why this ordinance. we were not trying to penalize

anyone. we said all right, we can kind of work with you on this. but we just wanted it to be the best that it could be. any questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> supervisor maxwell, thanks. i guess my concern is, number one, in regards to the smaller issue, i guess, in terms of the entire thing regarding the executive park center that they are proposing. i think my understanding was this was something agreed upon a few years ago. i sort of feel that process is finished, and they should have the 100% without more entitlements having to be taken. but the bigger issue is the funding distribution. i'm certainly very supportive of visitation valley getting the funding it needs to support the things that are happening there, but i guess i am not

clear as to the distribution of the funds between the various areas in your district, that being at least the ones we are talking about here of bayview hunter's point, executive park and vis valley. i guess that is where i have the concerns to make sure that everyone is happy with how the distribution is being done. >> that is exactly why we did it this way. if you remember, recently with the project, bayview was going to be receiving an awful lot of amenities. they were going to have transportation and schools. to make this a complete neighborhood, you can't just have devastation on the other side. since vis valley will be impacted by the traffic on bayshore, leland avenue will have more opportunities for people to shop, and we felt it

was important that we really do exactly what you said, and that is distribute and balance. bayview was going to be undergoing a lot of transition and with a lot of money coming into it. it already has. it is seeing a lot of differences. there is no third street light rail on leyland. there are businesses that have a lot more access to capital. that is why we were trying to make this a complete community. you leave one, and it looks like the other one. and because vis is tucked away, it has not gotten the exposure. it has never had the exposure. when i took office, we looked at, since home depot wasn't going to be there, we looked at what could we do. building is going on. people are going to the avenue and other places to go. that is why we felt it was important that we also make lee land avenue and vis valley a

place people would want to come to and >> i don't want this to be teh poohe poor stepchild. if we had a continuance, we are supportive. and if you move forward we would not be able to take a formal action. i think we expressed our concerns and would like to see this as part of the package coming forward. >> we have made recommendations and we will look at those. we will consider those recommendations. we would consider those. >> thank you, supervisor. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: our concerns

for all of the neighborhoods are equal. we don't feel that the information that we need is in front of us. i would say that bayview- hunter's point requies us to be vigilant. every step we take still leaves room for those waiting for 30 years to get what you are describing. >> bayview-hunter's point is a redevelopment area. there are changes being made as we speak. the different avenues and so, this is not just about this -- we still see this going on along

third street. this is being used to enhance the different shopping areas, and we have jamestown. the new development, and new money is coming in all the time. >> this is a large change in bayview-hunter's point. this will elude the community. but this is not to say that we will carefully track the legislation, and we will see this in time. >> this is what i am trying to suggest to you. right now this is not about this

project. this is about all the projects along third street, and the other things that are happening as we speak. there is a new library going in right now. there are things that are happening now. things are happening here all the time. and they're not waiting to hear this project. they do not need the funding. these are some of the things that are happening. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: we are going about adjusting all of these boundaries, and if that is what the commission is trying to look at with a greater picture, but also suggests that some time, in the future, this is

expanded within the community benefits package, the sources of funding have to be looked at. and this applies to the other parts that are currently under a different kind of program. and they will also have to be adjusted. and this should include everything else that is there. >> commissioner? commissioner olague: i just want to thank you for your service and that sort of thing. this is a difficult subject, as you know. >> and i want to thank all of you. i want to thank all of you so much for what you do for the city. bayview-hunter's point has been my passion and i would not try to leave something like that

behind. if you had 10 children, everyone turns their shoes over. and everyone knows that he is on hold. and we say, give them to joshua. there is not a lot of money to go around. we have to think about what people need. if they need the new library, and they need certain things on the avenue. and this is what we were trying to do. this is what we were looking at. we're not try to take anything away from anybody else. >> thank you. >> i would like to offer my thanks to supervisor maxwell. i am very impressed with what is happening along third street. and we're not just talking about the project, but the

things that have happened already, and the way that things are moving forward, with new things that have happened. the idea that this is continuing, we are wanting to move forward with this. and i think that i agree with commissioner sugaya. we have all these concerns about the boundaries, but with this legislation right now, certainly, in terms of funding we have to make certain about these questions that have to be answered down the road, somewhere. thank you. >> commissioner? there is a motion on the floor to continue. this is for the continuance of this item until february 3, when the recommendation that the supervisors continued to work with all people in the area.

and on that motion? commissioner anthony? >> aye. >> olague? >> miguel? >> sugaya and miguel vote against. it passes. thank you, commissioners. >> you are on item 8. >> we would like to thank you for your time. >> ok, item 8 is -- academy of art university enforcement program update. informational presentation and discussion on the academy of art university housing practices and progress on the enforcement program.

-- academy of art university enforcement program update. >> in our last update, we expressed an interest in the residential properties of the academy of art. i am wanting to give you an overview of the residential properties that are owned by the academy of art university. in addition to the information needed to return to you with, there is also a question for the academy of our university. this attachment is in the packet. the first few packages -- the first few pages have information that was previously submitted in march, when we suggested much information before it could start this process.

in 1929, -- ever since 1989 -- ever since 1929, we have grown to include 17 residential properties. if you look at the first page, the properties are listed. these are listed on the page, 1055 park, 1153 bush, lombard, jackson, 1916 -- octavia. 680 sutter, 736 jones, 860 sutter, 2209 daniette. -- van ness. two properties are leased by the academy, harrison and -- the rest were -- acquired in

the 1990's. the last was 1727 lombard in 2007. you will find a table submitted by the academy of art. this is a table that lists the enrollment. what i have done is i was taking a look at the enrollment from fall 2010, 17,711 students. of those students, 1100 of them are there, and 3000 are hybrid students, which also take on site glasses. -- classes. others are on line only.

this is almost double the 2005 enrollment of 8515 students. the 2005 enrollment is contrast with the 11,182 students in 2010 is more than double. 112%. the enrollment of 2010 represents an increase of 12.15%. and if you look at the enrollment table, you can see that there are modest increases in the enrollment until about 1990, and from 1990 until the year 2000, this tripled. and in 2004 there was a change in the enrollment, because we were offering class online.