enforcement and the hard jobs in the face of the most uncontrolled program i've ever seen in the city i look forward to being here next year thank you. >> is there any additional public comment okay public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> okay recognizing that i am speaking before people about have been at the hearing i'll make a quick comment and suggestion to the planning director and zoning administrator sanchez what have said we have all received before us and we need to fourth ways to organize the material comment and suggestions the eir itself doesn't address the policy issue behind and it is organization that is essentially assembling on campus without saying city of a campus in a woo the school recognizes so i don't know how

much the eir is going to be able to address that that is not a question being asked but one thing that might help refer the progress i don't know. i think this is going to come over 7, 8, 9 there's a lot of cruz and permits and actions to consider i'd like to see a way to tie them together so at least every case report for the cu request we see a map or other description of the other items in that file i honestly don't know it is growly of we don't have the policies in place to do that. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. a couple of questions as to understanding the dir as it's been presented my understanding from reading this we're considering the baseline

what difference exists day or at the time of the acquisition of the academy of the proposed and our analysis focus on the changes their approaching in the future we typically do with an environmental review we don't typically analyze it is that the case. >> we're analyzing everything that was it was basically from september 2010 when the loophole will that for this eir went out so september 2010 to the future which is generally 2020 but it is everything they've done at any of their sites since september 2010 we're looking at you know of they have made changed to their shuttles, etc. since 2010 that will be analyzed

for their environmental impact. >> aside from the record itself you're going to give the commissioners the notice - the existing sites technical memorandum which is going to try to tell us of changes that may have occurred during the ownership period. >> yes. it will look back to the time they've occupied the building and made changed we'll elevate those changes similar for any other project but it is an informational document we'd do this so if there's a historic document we'll prescribe it's an informational document. >> kind of like the historical

second in dirs that tell the history of the site it need not go back to the building when the building was first built but historical as to the ownership of the academy has occupied the building. >> so if there's changes made before a u occupied we've not analysis that. >> from the period of the occupancy to december of 2010. >> good, i got it i understand we'll be able to see 19 cruz that will come before us and finally you talked about the notice of violation and there are 3 properties that did academy appealed now 23 they've agreed to drop the appeals and approximately an actual appeal on 930 van ness; is that correct.

>> two pending with the release of stay and a at one of the 950 van ness quite honorable our path to establish a new deadline we have the february 25th publication date and work with the staff to find the next goal post to reissue with that deadline so that will be the goal moving forward and had discussions their council and i think at that point those appeals will be withdrawn move forward with the com pell compliance through the penalties and . >> a lot of the other ones there in compliance with the parts of the program. >> all kind of their rolled into the same issue of a big batch of the notice of violations with the penalty of

timeline spur. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> just briefly right to life only what commissioner johnson said what puzzle me it is difficult to do the entire dir with the absence of other institutions in the city has done and done well, that is submitting a institutional master plan, which sets forth the goals the institutional goals of the institution as well as its growth where and how including how they run their campus we've asked for this since 2006 and the eir now is as far as i tell unless you tell me audits without having an institutional master plan to bring future applications to the

context of the eir. >> if i may clarify the commission accepted an institutional master plan from the academy in 2011 that police station was made in 2006 but the commission harassed after expensive and numerous, numerous hearing the commission accepted and i'm sorry but that particular master plan that didn't have any vote it was totally unmemorable i believe this commission the new commissioners all need to get a copy in order to get themselves into what was said and the questions remaining as with these move forward looking at 79 dir as well as the project in particular and if the commission feels there are fwapz then this is the time to use the gaps and look for other tools to do this particular justice.

>> commissioner richards. >> excuse me. i have no history whatsoever where the academy of art i don't know anybody that work or goes there i'm approaching this from a balance point of view given that if i'm approach it fresh i hope the entitlement process and the enforcement fresh there are good things that happened in the past with the what is your name and address academy and not so go things the environmental impact report recorded on things to capitalize and hopefully become more efficient and operate better moving forward my take on thing is if this is a place to start fresh i want to make sure that everything comes clean and the aa u is letting us know if

there's 0 more effort in compliance that is weighing heavy on my decisions not future on what kinds of projects i'll are supporting i'm not sure the aa u as ethnics but that is a position that should be established i expect aa u is coming forward and ask the zoning administrator if he's discovered changes of use or changes in the operation or violation of what you've indicated that will weigh heavy on me i need you to start fresh as well as me. >> commissioner wu. >> i want to follow up on the questions of commissioner antonini and the comments of commissioner johnson i want to

make sure i said and to restate the eir is the date from september 10th we're sierra club setting that as baseline whether or not they were legal so the technical memo don't only receive to the uses before 2010; right? because everything is covered in the eir am i pd that correct so the building was carotid in 2008 is that what the technical memo addresses and no, it will address the operations of aa u prior to september 2010 and that excludes their shuttle system and every project that has a historic

review. >> if something changed after 2010 or was nothing changed after 2010. >> my understanding they maybe shifted the program around but if there's proposed changes at a property that's been opposed prior to 2010 we're evaluating that in the eir so for instance there's some sites in the eir that are project sites elevated they owned before 2010 but approaching to make changes to them so 2225 jerold is one of the sites they owned it i believe in 2005 by their come forward with a different. >> the question clae say the technical memo is addressing the impacts of the projects the sites in use before 2010

recognizing some of those are changed; is that correct? >> yes. by i also you know there has not been significant changes to the sites that are addressed in the memo. >> okay. >> okay. >> so this existing sites memo is the x factor we've not seen before because we're in the situation he didn't see the cu's before the eir was addressed; is that correct. >> it's because they are obtaining or seeking to obtain the cus after the commenced use so that's the issue. >> for the commission what do we see used is baseline we're using the sites 83 as the baseline it's different worlds

considered in the two documents. >> yes. it is but i mean the point to the documents will provide an overview of the impacts of the entirety of. >> maybe to clarify the urban forestry that's the environmental opposed? analysis you having can take any action you feel appropriate they'll be found as you would any other permits or entitlement actions you have the discretion. >> it gets to it so the existing sites memo that excludes the issues not environmental issues is that - >> the existing sites memo is going to appear - >> the existing sites 340e will

glow all the resources and transportation and population and housing and describe from the time aa u began occupying that site so to their own ongoing operations. >> it's hard to talk about them without seeing them but i see the two documents so following on the and a question how we see this come forward we should definitely have a map or understanding just the totality of the fees coming down but some consideration of use type; right? so if we see a number of issues dealing with housing maybe we could see the housing at one time i'm not sure it will work out that cleanly but it is important to see the land use

and policy issues as well and i think that can be dhufd along the geographyic lines residential areas we can find a way to achieve that goal. >> thank you. >> director ram. >> i can't resist talking about ms. hester's comment i have to acknowledge it i will say, i think this question i'll ask for the commissions thought over the next few weeks how we bring did you approvals to you clearly it didn't make sense to do 19 separate approvals but don't make sense with one so if we're doing that by geography e.r. zoning but i'll ask you to think about that so we can package those for our action.

>> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much commissioner wu i echo our question that you asked buyouts eir i know what's missing is my new job calls the intersection factual there are buildings they've permitting issues or operational issues we kind of want to see what would be there in the absence of aa u urging the spots because we have to draw a line in the sand we have to see when they started using it there's no point in the eir was would have happened and this emphatic u u a coming in and using it for institutional or residential i see that and this is missing unfortunately one thing in terms of off how to get our approvals to hang

together i'll madam chair a plug geographically here's why as we develop this cu applications done i'd like to see the attorney to opine quickly may not now but in addition to the land use we need to have information about how that property hangs together with the rest of what we're calling their canvas they have a shuttle system a residence they want to have housing that's the way out in the in the sunset i'm giving an example the cu makes sense oaring to the building and even though hours of operation and all the things with the land use when you add in they'll have to have a shuttle go out to the sunset from where are the

institutional uses are it doesn't make sense that is transit and that's an mta thing where the shuttles go not only the land use but how the properties are hanging together as a canvas that's my plug geographically versus the other types. >> commissioner hillis. >> a question on the institutional master plan rules can you remind us when they're due back when we get them periodically from the snuths. >> every 2 years we submitted an update in 2013 but the updates don't necessarily go to the commission if there's no exchange e change no need to come back to the commission we're coming up to you know 4 years now so i think we could

you know look at having want i mp come back with a fashion that will be helpful we'll time the eir certification hearing as well as the entitlements coming before you. >> when is the next time it comes back to the commission an non-update. >> section 34 i think it's 5 years i want to say i think it's 5 or 10 years it has to come back for another hearing mandate. >> and the master plan is a one year the eir that's the future growth that we're looking at. >> wait chelsea. >> so the i mp was not an approved document it's not what we're baigdz the eir on it is the basis for what the academy proposes for their projects

there's a distinction in the eir what to say the exact t the exact project it provided a framework formal the academy we're analyzing in the eir but there is is distinction between the two. >> which one being the more growth. >> i believe the eir does. >> oh the eir so all it assumes kind of a greater growth for students. >> not by a large measure. >> okay. >> i know that's an excellent opportunity to reconcile the two documents. >> and on how we hear them i think that housing has unique issues but coming off the market so in how this new housing is

being built i'll advocate for that being a separate issue when we take up the cus. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner bobbie wilson took the words out of any mouth i support a separate housing regardless of the dproem. >> i think i'll enter jefferson county when we see the list that prioritization will be targeted however, show itself so commissioner moore. >> so bringing it this into the maps of counter zoning presence of historic building, etc. will be helpful and giving the commission the previous institutional master plan will be very helpful you'll get to you feel about what they're trying to do. >> commissioner antonini.

>> i'm sure the everest as the memorandum will talk about how it is 10ur7b9d the students but you mentioned they plan to have 12 hundred nor employees and some more in the informational review it will 0 show i that i read in the business times they're in the top employers in san francisco that's positive in fact, the employees are not living in san francisco we have to you know your analysis will be able to deal with the impact of not only the students but the employees i assume. >> i didn't the eir will provide the existing settings for aa u including the number of employees they had in 2010 and the number of students they had

in 2010 and how the proposed project in the eir adds on to that so it will address you know the total number of housing unit that had been created by my they're proposed projections how many need to be built and the total number of employees as well. >> thank you. >> let me wake up and thank the staff this has been a long line of questions of interest that are of interest for the entire city to i'm looking forward for the continued dialog thank you. >> commissioners 3 places us on item 10 for the pavement to park just want this is an informational presentation.

>> thank you good afternoon, commissioners my name is la done or said i'm with the planning department design group i'm here from the same group the design fraup u group we're excited to be here today to talk about the pavement to parks program. >> go ahead. >> hello. >> so we're very excited about the opportunity to present the pavement to parks program and i would like to go over what we're going to be talking about our informational presentation and give an overview of the program and talk about a little bit about the project portfolio

and go into a couple of case studies and would like to leave the presentation with our strategic plan for the next fiscal years upcomingn so your program a based on the assumption it 33 percent of cd total area is made by streets we think about streets as public spacious instead of place for cars to go through the potential of the orderly space of san francisco so our program is also based on the idea of short-term actions that can take two long term changes in terms of the short term promotions that act as catalysts for the social prospective in the city our our program is set in the larger

context the policy framework of the san francisco pedestrian strategy of 2013 and it's based on the strategy calls for one pavement to park plaza per greater and the one parklets of the san francisco pedestrian strategy we base our designs and projects on the better streets plan an important document that was released in 2010 how it should be designed in the city and as a way to look at it the transportation and pedestrian and also more lastly our program will be become an important tool we'll weave in the work program

this was presented today by our colleague mr. mar 10 it looked at the neighborhood and how they can be changedful from community prarmgs prospective how our program can be a tool for the neighborhoods to be changing their quality of life and change they're old spades our goals based on the basic ideas of neighborhood interaction forcing interaction we see transportation as i said we imagine the potential of the city streets underutilized streets we courage the public safety and activity and also have we think about local

business as partners and how foster the relationship between the city's and the neighborhood and local businesses the program functions are many as you can see on the screen we're not going to go in depth we'll tall one that latter we facilitate and support of the community initiative to create the internal parking spaces so we look at sites and try to evaluate the sites and good places we definitely will be looking at the capacity this is one of our assumption to build the capacity in the neighborhood itself we as a role of development and advisory we advise community and designers on the final outcome of this project and we have also a role of enforcement of quality

control and provide leadership not only to the city but the country we get calls everyday from many cities in the u.s. and beyond our criteria of really is pretty strong we have a lot of projects we looked at the physical aspects and social aspects so the physical meaning is that a potential public safety and there is an area that doesn't have enough open space a road too wide or big for just for cars and so we looked at that and lack of education we think about social components of this project we looked at a definitely local interest we'll not look at the interest that are not interested at the local level we have a supportive community support when the community support is there it is well documented and built this

long or long term stewardship in the neighborhood we have consider land use and pedestrian activity so i come back later and talk about plaza so any colleague robin will talk about the next program thank you. >> >> we'll take a few moments to drill down into pavement to parks as we enter into our 6th year of existence it's increasingly important to be to how open spaces unequally are described different neighborhood are endo you do with parks and mraergd and pavement to parks creates new spaces where the community need them we work with a number of sponsors on both our parklets and increasing he