the day began with the architectural review committee a second living zone and installation across in the art asian museum and temporarily installation the commissioner was supportive of the design prepared by a nonprofit works with high school students and they are developing a design is incorporates a chinese dragon with residential hotel from the asian art museum the second item the adrc provided the comment on revised pedestrian shelter for the brt in front of city hall as you recall the commission asked the mta to review and restudy a more streamlined canopy and

pedestrian structure within the medium to better reflective the architectural servicing and provided a - believes they meet the goals and direction that the full commission gave the mta that item will then be back before the full commission in june. >> then the it commenced with a short calendar one certificate of appropriatesness on saint lutheran church and the commission reviewed the academy of arts existing technical memorandum i'll be reviewing the commission was supportive of the departments work to date and throughout the schedule the outstanding items we'll be

bringing to the hpc was sufficient and particular that was related to the 10 sites that require certificate of appropriateness under article 10 and 11 that concludes my remarks unless you have questions. >> commissioners, that places you under your under general public comment not to exceed 1 minutes at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there are no speaker cards. >> >> any general public comment? okay not seeing any, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places us under our regular calendar

affordable housing in verse did care a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is monique mohan here to recognized the approval for the change of affordable housing for units in the rezoned divisadero and coner johnston when we arrives will provide comments so encouraging in first amendment district or ncd requires any housing project with 10 or more units is subject to the ordinance it recognizes that any properties proposal on divisadero and be nct that have

potential due to the rezoning from the project sponsor choose to pay the fee they'll pay equivalent of 25 percent of unit in the project of affordable units from the project sponsor choose the onsite housing 23 of the units constructed on the project as affordable housing and from the project sponsor wishes to provide unit on offsite in the principle project they shall construct 25 percent of all the units subject to the requirement of 3 or 4, 4 and 5 the amendment the higher rates from the charter will become effective there are 5 recommends that the department is proposing and reflected in the updated

resolution the department staff thanks the departments for brought to your attention and the second recommendation to make sure that the affordable housing fees generated through the development of the december verse nct shall be deposited and the same criteria the proposed ordinance names the following criteria one to increase the supply of the affordable in divisadero and two increase the supply of affordable housing within one mile the divisadero and fillmore street nct and 3 to increase the housing inform qualified housing in the city to date all affordable housing generated are deposited into the affordable housing fund this allows the city to maximize the funded to increase the affordable housing supply from the funds are restricted to the zoning district it -

furthermore this is sets a precedent and lowers the housing for the affordable funds through the department asked to amend it for the use of funds for the inclusionary program recommendation two to create consistency with the affordable housing fees the department recommends that the ordinance mirrors the trailing legislation for the inclusionary housing fee regarding the onsite and offsite inside the project that means that the project under 24 units are under the rate of 12 and more subject to the trailing legislation the department is recommending the change because as currently written the fees are lower pan than the inclusionary rates in

prop c june recommendation 3 - >> the proposed trailing legislation for the charter amendment voted on in june lowers the rates in the per diem depending on when a project is submitted and environmental evaluation or e e the rates are talked about in the slide none are dependent this ordinance is considered didn't grandfather any project therefore, in the case of a project that e has filed triggers a lower inclusionary that becomes effective this june for the divisadero and fillmore side in the past the department has recommended the grairthd for the projects in the pipeline the projects in the divisadero and fillmore nct are benefiting for

the development given that the department recommends that the projects are 50 percent increase residential density to the old nct zoning should be exempt from the trailing legislation in other words, projects that have 50 are subject to the onsite and offsite requirement if a project with an e application submitted has a promoted residential nct not a 50 percent increase in the old zoning the grandfather in the trailing legislation will provide two projects along the divisadero corridor they've submitted their e e application and more have an increase in the density subject to the higher inclusionary rates the fourth represents is

clarifying the determination of residential potential the current charter language the project through a special use district or another legislation adopted on november 6, 2012, receives a 20 percent great or two a 50 percent or greater increase in residential over prior zoning district to increase the affordable housing requirements the charter language proposed own the june ballot not includes this language and allows the supervisors to change it without a change to the charter given the language in the charter will change it references the language and in the old divisadero and fillmore commercial district will no longer need to do do calculations the final recommendation is to include a subdivision that

describes the fees for the nct and nickel and dime u fillmore it creates a new code section in the affordable housing fee given this fee a recommendation is this fee follows the same affordable housing program and a new section rather than a new code section and directs the public to one code that concludes my presentation. and the department asks the planning commission recommend the approval and the attached to that effect. >> and connor is here. >> i was here all along lurking with any friend alex. >> (laughter). thank you. i want to provide sorry conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. and provide a little bit of background at the risk of what many said pursue in november of

2012 the voters passed prop c that set the inclusionary in the charter and 12 percent onsite and offsite and return to prop c in a second in the fall of 2014 supervisor breed passed the nct along fillmore between bush and mcallister and the divisadero continue hate and 0'farrell both pieces of legislation were supported and the board of supervisors passed p them unanimously and supervisor breed passed the legislation rising the mcd to make them nct matt haney that density will be controlled by height and unbelievable and open space and closer requirements instead of a ratio in terms of more housing units will be allowed and the planning commission addressed

board of supervisors supported those unanimously and here's where 2012 prop c comes into play with the nct there are a dozen helps to create for affordable units oversee are a percentage of the total units you get more affordable housing unit and cheaper market-rate unit without height and bulk for buildings and in that respective nct are a great first step but were supervisor breed want to increase the affordable units and unfortunately under prop c that was not credit card possible and certain exception in prop c in the charter the inclusionary can be increased one, if there is a development agreement involved in terms of a redevelopment project or an ifd you're using property tax increment and 40 are more acres none of nct are 40 acres a project that gets public finance

can have a exception to prop c and the project with a density bonus or if the city as proprietary interest no way to include to increase the inclusionary requirement under the chapter, however, there is one other previously never used provision that says in other legislation or a special use district adopted after prop c with a greater under consideration in the residential flows e glows e gross floor or greater in the residential prior zoning you can increase the inclusionary requirement after a lot of consultation with the planning department and your director and the city attorney's office as well as in confess of 2015 supervisor breed introduced legislation using that prop c exception to create the highest

inclusionary housing requirement in san francisco history for projects with nct areas that exercise the decontrol provisions to get a 50 percent or greater increase in units and using the outgoing 2007 nexus study by kaiser she set the fee at the highest achieveable 25 percent and the - 25 for a fee or offsite and the onsite rates 23 percent in order to have the onsite development within the neighborhoods now with after all that a prologue twice the board of supervisors then introduced a charter amendment in december that largely undoes prop c this is confusing this is also called prop c 2016 prop c will separate trailing legislation the new

rates are 33 fee for offsite and 25 for onsite housing the trailing legislation provide grandfather exemption for projects in the pipeline and it requires a feasibility study to have the rates going forward so as you imagine that is a bit of a moving target not knowing from the inclusionary rates will be cancun from the new prop c passes and the forthcoming be faeshldz this is not the finished product we have working closely is planning department staff to try to simplify and anticipate the outcomes i want to particularly thank monique mohan and aaron starr for those two obviously developments because she agrees with the policy direction

supervisor breed would like the divisadero and fillmore to anywhere the citywide inclusionary levels consistent of consistent with the fees that staff recommendation number one supervisor breed also wants pipeline taking advantage of a 50 percent under the nct legislation to remain subject to the new inclusionary rates and not receive a grandfathering exception those projects have the option of not increasing their density and receiving the grandfathering rate that is staff recommendation number two staff recommends adding the old charter language for reference we agree indicting to tie in number four and staffs memorandum is area marking for the respective nct hears eras

that was a legacy for a market difference between the nct and now appropriate to direct those 0 the stuart housing funds as all other inclusionary housing fees and some commenters may suggest the inclusionary were pipeline within the nct should also be influenced by the feasibility analysis supervisor breed is receptive and other provisions as the prop c on june 7th as the inclusionary ordinance is finalize before those ordinances go to the wlufks with that said, i'm happy to recommend and thank you for your time and consideration >> opening up for public comment of which i have several speaker cards

(calling names). >> good afternoon commissioners affordable december vera learned of this ordinance yesterday and i'm handing out this divisadero plan we oppose this no community involvement great work with the planning department but the community who is most effected by this proposed legislation has not had a chance to weigh in, and, secondly, the plan does not in must way reflect the divisadero we've handed to you

many times i'll leave to other additional points about why this be rapidly changed. >> additional speakers on this item. >> good afternoon commissioner dean with the affordable we need to stop the give away to developers along divisadero without consulting the community we're in round two so some of what that mr. johnson talked about is accurate and some not after the zion e zoning complained about the up zoning allowing doubling and tripling of the zones without requiring a percentage not some mystery

someone can increase the affordable housing requirement when upcoming zoning well known to us and why it took so many months to get the movement from the supervisors office make no mistake as currently drafted this would yet again for future projects would say there is no additional affordability along divisadero prop c passes that will be the standard so the same standard that applies to any other projects will be a future divisadero despite the developers get and tripling of income we want to make sure that any additional affordable requirements that are part of this ordinances are in addition to whatever the baseline whether 12 percent going forward are the new percentage under prop c

developers get a massive increase along divisadero we must insist on the maximum along with the inclusionary and the second point the fees the relationship between the in lui fee and the onsite requirements need to be adjusted so there is an incentive to provide onsite housing that is part of our community plan and as well as supervisor breed office stated an intention to have antidepressant but 23 percent of onsite affordable or 25 percent fee out we know that will create everyone will fee out with no additional affordable units and finally with respect to existing projects we agree that the increases need to apply i will suggest that the matter be put

over a few weeks as testing noted no communication with the community whatsoever about the change to divisadero thank you. >> thank you. >> calvin hate ashbury council a member of the affordable divisadero we support the position of affordable divisadero that is offered to i want to make a comment both connors statement. >> your staffs rotator that is outstanding we can go through a yearlong discussion before this commission with that commission playing and very involved role the question of density bonus your staff was not informed when applied to this particular case the notion that you can't get an additional affordable housing

requirement by granting a large density, of course, runs into the face of the assumes of the density bonus program proposed and advised by your own staff so clearly i mean prop c was clear pointed out to supervisor breed no increasing of affordable housing fee the redundant staff and supervisor breed so do this in the initial case was unfortunate to continue to ignore the request of the community for not only affordable a policy adopted by this commission your staff by this department but to then ignore all the data in information that you generated in the hearings that you had on density bonuses about the net of

having not only affordability enhanced affordability but affordability able to urban design afforded at the neighborhood level not talked about at all in this legislation any recognition that the first name is one of the lowest income neighborhoods in san francisco. >> that the average according to the american u.s. consensus the medium income of households in the western edition african-american household is $29,000 a year none of which can support any of the go affordability levels projected in sxhoodz legislation that is critically important this commission holds this legislation informs your staff about the exclusions in reference to the affordable housing bonus program and include those hearing those conclusions into our

recommendation for regarding this legislation thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment mr. cowen. >> good afternoon, commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. staff has picked up on a couple of things we flagged when we reviewed the ordinance just 0 reiterate the 22, 25 percent i have the recommends to prop c you have to understand going forward there is an intensely relationship between the percentage for onsite and the fee out because you have to have a level of parities you're looking at a developers choice we have a fee too low methodology we have an built in incentive but make the percentages closer your geeze

guaranteed the out so the original none consented other site i'm clear that is an error on my part or the staff in your staff report an option for fee i see the language in in there also that was out i'd like to, corrected not sure why there is language to give a developer a choice to defer until after construction first section 41 that expired put in there 4 years ago it you look at the expired part of code that's just an oversight take it out no fee option on that condition. >> and thirdly, i think the fundamental issue on the corridors that started before prop c i will have to say that

we brought to staff attention in june 2015 the memo as called existed this was a memo from may 2013 that made clear under the circumstances for fillmore and divisadero staff missed that so this is now a catch up on what could have been done openly on that nct up zoning but leveling with prop c i don't disagreeing disagree are you to figure out how to catch the up zoning i don't know what the amount the eastern neighborhoods you adopted a higher inclusionary based on the up scoping so the superior court inclusionary two or 3 tiers to recall brat how you catch up

that in divisadero on top of the baseline that is reasonable that was the original pretty much purchase of this legislation and shouldn't be forgotten thank you. >> next council of commenters. >> hi commissioner my name is david with jen's sews the developer of this project presently a car wash with transient and retail and bicycle lanes we want to do housing over structures and try to doing everything we can with design and working with folks all right. met with local groups and plan to continue doing so and be as assessable as possible people

have a lot of sight and opinions it is complicated doing a project in the city but somehow we get there at the end one point of consensus is people seem to agree you have a gap within 9 wonderful pedestrian and retail corridor and it that would be great to fill that in how we do that is the question here one of the more creative ideas has been addressed i don't have an opinion but a memo type of approach where that you want if you want to have this much affordability you know this has complications and i think the planning commission relatively to this site removed the density limits but the square footage stays owe same we don't build

for square footage but divide that into smaller units makes that more affordable on the market-rate and provides nor bmr units any request for the commission is simple a lot of stuff to glow treat us fairly as had is happening with the whole prop c there is a lot of uncertainties but people feel you're looking at feasibility study to make policies seeps a as opposed to arrest terror numbers and grandfathering is important because people that spent a lot of money to make a good project happen and file their e e a shouldn't be discriminates we want to be team players and doing everything we can for the city and look forward to working with you

thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve for marcille on behalf of the jgenesis - didn't make changes to the height wasn't the requirements so the square footage of projects stays owe same we don't disagree the inclusionary housing application this be reexamined as peter mentioned the eastern neighborhoods could be a new district to increase the inclusionary requirement to 12 percent to 14 plus percent for a health limit increase in eastern neighborhoods there was a 2, 3, 4 increase in on the district for nct district so a couple of comments first,

the organization is not in sync that recognizes the projects in the pipeline with the land decisions bansed the refrigerates and not fair to dramatically increase those requirements rather the projects are phased in pipeline projects are phased into the trailing legislation we've recommended a similar phase in with the pipeline projects second the trailing legislation is a detailed procedure for the city to do a feasibility analysis and the board of supervisors will use the analysis to set the requirements going forward unfortunately, this ordinance didn't acknowledge the feasibility analysis and instead on page 6 of the origin no matter what the results those rates can't go down under

johnson said they'll look at that issue and try to merge this ordinance with the feasibility analysis this is encourage and recommend they do that and unfortunately, the staff report didn't talk about feasibility 23 percent of zero was affordable units and not feasible to build so like i said the problem none has performed the faeblth analysis two 23 or 25 or thirty or 33 offsite until that naturals is completed pretty much to set me rates in stone we're asking you recommend this is continued until after the feasibility study in july or state the inclusionary levels in 2, 3, 4 ordinance be revisited after completion of the feasibility analysis and the bottom line for david's project

the feasibility rates are not set correctly the car wash will remain and not one hundred and 50 units of new housing or any new units thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jim i'm a part of 4 hundred divisadero team advising on planning matters this commission went through a detailed process on the prop c trailing legislation making sure that was fair and equitable and treats light properties light the legislation before you singles out the nct and locks in the percentage before the feasibility study is done and not include the same grandfather provisions as the rest of the city those areas and projects should be treated like every else in the city the nct zoning

doesn't increase allowable square footage not height or bulk it mark farrell allows for smaller units those units therefore will be more affordable so the talk of magnificent up zoning is disingenuous at best i ask the commission recommend 209d supervisors this legislation regarding the nct area be amend to make the inclusionary requirements justifiable bantsdz the feasibility study and sounds like supervisor breed is agreeable to that but i ask you recommend to the commission that it has the same grandfathering provisions as the trailing legislation from the reason that didn't have those same grandfathering regulations that the claim it is a massive up zoning that's simply not the

facts only good planning and fair and equitable thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners tim colen/san francisco housing action coalition. i guess i'll try to key keep to short and reiterate what was said we strongly support the creation of ncts that's good direction to take the city to moving artificial pavshg and a forward thinking planning with that said we're concerned about the 23 and 25 repeatedly on all sides not sure the methodology to establish that and we think that that would benefit a lot either make if intern subject to the feasibility study dpaips we have a patchwork of

neighborhoods with different levels bring this under the process that are laborly talked about in under prop c get an economic feasibility study and apply this we commend supervisor breed for considerably that the grandfathering that was a protracted battle but learning scheduled in the interest of fairness not to change the rules in the middle the stream that is wildly unfair and creates uncertainty for development there have was are rule rule set up with timelines this is entirely appropriate the nct are great models to be represent indicated in parts around the city that makes sure that you do it right with the inclusionary is set fairly and the rules are

transparent so it moves forward quickly thanks. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think we need to look at this closely because you're changing a law midstream something i don't like to the projects are brought forward and one set of laws whether or not there should have been more affordability with the height and bulk in determining the density you know that was was the case when the projects were planned and designed so we have a situation in eastern neighborhoods that does more carefully what they were passed we had a series of tiers of increased affordability and relationship to how much we felt was given in various parts of

eastern neighborhoods so we can range from 14 up to 18 we believe in something instances and look at that more graduated situation and the same thing with the grandfathering situation i mean, i think it looks like the staff recommendation to grandfathering is built in up to the 50 percent upgrade in which case no grandfathering all-or-nothing type of situation again i don't think that is the way to do if it you're going to allow the grandfathering blow 50 percent of slightly increases to citywide then probably for a large project you'll have more but not a huge amount more there is a difference between 48 and 50 percent is not much we have to look at had that carefully

and also the state law we're talking about the increased affordability the state law is a court case latino made the point that even if the sponsor felt the recite amount of affordable housing their entitled to a upgrade of market-rate in terms of height and bulk so eventually there will be some litigation in regards to this i'm sure that has been going on for a long time in the state law and has to be part of whatever the city is considering and finally, the nexus study is essential that he went ahead with the proposal for prop c without the nexus study only thinking about revising it after the nexus study is you know after the election was vote on what we might have in the

future rather than you know vote now and we may change it in the future based on what we'll learn with our study first and found out who what is reasonable and then vote anyway i would like to see if there's a possibility to continue this lo although i think there is a timeframe the legislation we have a certain amount of time maybe the gentleman can comment on that. >> is there a timeframe during which our comments our position can be made and conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. this is not relevant join or i don't think i'm an attorney but not talking about the height and bulk but the removal bans parcel

square footage with respect to the timeline we're introduced an extension for this to be heard later because the conversations around prop c and the trailing legislation was taking place it needs to ultimately what the legislation with the staff recommendation does is toy this to legislation that you've already seen and approved which is the trailing legislation and the structure processes. >> thank you very much in regards to that our position on going to be a recommendation to the supervisors to ultimately whatever we decide we'll have input but our decision is not the final say on this. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i agree with most of commenters this needs more time and analysis i think what i've hearing the problem is prop c is complicated we started discussing this and

heard in the neighborhood in the supervisors office when the nct was passed we realized there was some value jade by making that change you know whether it enormous or not enormous is yet in my mind to be determined certainly we granted additional density and not provide additional height but we can get to this kind of number or that analysis fairly quickly done in the eastern neighborhoods as someone mentioned we increased you know we took that kind of value difference and came up with fees for affordable housing increases that i think were a little bit more based on the faefldz that we can do so i'm feeling like we're kind of

mixing apples and oranges in the nct and what that did to some of the projects i mean, i know about the rad yarlt shop project we saw an increase in the unit and in the square footage but i think that is what we need to look at the value increased in the land that was what we did in what we're looking at in western soma what that delicate as a inclusions regardless of prop c and you know prop c is happen in a month whether that is approved or not layer in the complexity that is let's do that analysis with the nct differential and see that that bears and layer in the prop cs work or the outcomes of that after in fact, known but to me we are taking the

grandfathering from prop c in the inclusionary from prop c and saying if prop c passes the differences we want because of the nct we need to study actually, we need to study that effects the nct now it is fairly simple given the projects in the pipeline i think we can do that with the neighborhood and the project sponsor but that would be - i don't feel like that's ready for us to make a recommendation at this point. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> so i'll give an analogy this is a midair we know it can land you, however, we'll make the choice to repair it and distracts us to make that land they'd the danger here i completely agree with what commissioner bobby wilson said do our work up front and wait to

see what happens with prop c when we have the density bonus this commission has 3 addendums we have a value and capture analysis i think i heard people on both sides of the political spectrum that is needed and wanted to understand the conditions that is involved in the buildings that are historical and also the last one is community involvement the key to any success of a plan is really letting the community be involved in understanding what is happening so mr. johnson you may differ i don't think i heard a lot of community involvement here i don't think this is ready for us to give a recommendation on i will support a continuance and support a continuance we made on other issues until after the elect oversees.

>> commissioner wu. >> i'm supportive for me not the density bonus but the eastern neighborhoods maybe there is a way to come up with tiers that are related to the change in value essentially and then to add whatever happens for policy later but the first determine the tiers and what the defensive from the nct to mcd ncd i think there is referrals in the language that should be taken out and the grandfathering is this is only change if ncd to nct in 2015; right? not that prior to summer of 2011 we were operating in a different world and

switched to this world just recently and now sort of correct the mistakes. >> would you mind, if i have malcolm heinicke i didn't clarify this. >> referral issue. >> yes. in our code sections 4 one 5 language that talks about the option by the building code that building code section is - and if you read that code section a sunset date for the referral you'll go to the building code and see that sundown in july of 2013 we kept the planning code language that the sunseted in case we only need to change the building code but no one can defer their fees

it is referred in the planning code and sundosetteunsetted. >> when you heard the childcare impact fee is in all the fees that. >> i hear what you're saying on a choice. >> i'll defer to the project sponsor on that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yeah. thank you imperative for asking the question about difrlz i'll error on the side not concluded those we've seen time after time that things get confused if there's a sunset in the building code i suggest we keep that there and jump that bridge when we come to it i also

agree we're for various reasons this legislation seems great it allows us to go back and take advantage of the shift if ncd to nct but i agree with other commenters we could have provided more information to for about the effects so again sort of echoing sxhifgz we looked at the affordable housing bonus program legislation there was a lot of work the staff did to model the various model projects to show what we will get by adding on the state density bonus on top of the existing zoning and that was super helpful in terms of talking about the specification of that legislation i feel that is missing here however, and i just want to mention one commenter i have a couple of questions about the

cross over to the legislation and prop c and other legislation but i will say let me ask that question first. >> the first one is we had a commenter say you know about talking about affordability in those particlar neighborhoods i wanted to sort of make sure ask questions that the reason we passed the neighborhood legislation was applied to projects built in area so there is a little bit of this protection there and have later discussions whether or not city the medium ami politics to that neighborhood applies here. >> yes. the neighborhood preference legislation will apply to any project that has bmr or affordable you know. >> and he then i think a large question so my understanding from our discussion at at

commission level of the 2015 prop c is that one potential outcome of that ordinance passing and then the trailing legislation or that ballot measure and the trailing legislation that there still the ability to have neighborhood level - so new prop c establishes changes to the taking inclusionary housing program out of the city charter and establishes a new affordable level my understanding even beyond the trailing legislation the charter allows there to be different legislation in the future that can vary the blow the level of thcyber city. >> mirena burns it is my

understanding you're correct it takes it out of the charter and establishes interim controls that are in place until the board passes comprehensive legislation to establish the levels that's what you're talking about as the trailing legislation because that is done by ordinance the board, of course, the board can amend that without a ballot initiative. >> okay. so my attention not to get into a prop c discussion i say that i can be supportive of having an didn't language brown-bag the levels of staesht in 2, 3, 4 large project authorization legislation and what is proposed in the prop c ballot, however, i guess if we were to continue this this didn't necessarily mean the level of affordability for this legislation has to match prop c in the trailing legislation of prop c because i think that is

the good precedent not start right off the bat but the nexus study study with the feasibility analysis there is a good reason to have different levels for those districts i think i can be supportive of that and i will be supportive of having a linkage to the feasibility analysis called for by the prop c legislation. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> just briefly i'm generally in support of continuance the support the majority of comments made by the other commissions on the deferral option not keeping it in place it expires deferrals are considered under the constraint and separate discussion not on

on and off in terms of preference the other issue i'm concerned about is to see just from the timing for the new view the whole june vote goes on step one in baseline and future tiered increases depending upon the increase and density is an independent discussion how and how it didn't apply is a separate discussion any increase in density requires a consideration to what and that's all i'll say at this moment. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i move to continue that to june 23rd. >> second. >> second. >> commissioners i'll be out of town on june 23rd. >> 30th. >> 30th. >> still won't be here.

>> however, a 90. >> 90 day? sorry >> i can take care of that. >> continue until john 30th. >> why not june 23rd. >> the calendar. >> okay. okay. >> as the seconder had a question we also are advising that prior to that time the feasibility study be flatten and the community meetings staff recommendations if it that's okay with the maker the motion a little bit more something more concrete to base. >> commissioner we don't have the capacity in 4 weeks feasibility study but 4 weeks we'll not have the result of the study. >> i think that is more of an

analysis between the in depth to the ncd not a full feasible analysis. >> that's my understanding what the increase capacity will allow. >> yes. that's probably more that's my second on >> imperative. >> okay very good commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded - >> sorry commissioner that was june 30th or 23 puts us before the larger feasibility analysis reading. >> sorry that's correct when we considered this on the 30th that we would maybe make a suggestion you look at the feasible tie the feasibility analysis to the future legislation i don't know if that's before you. >> i thought we were asking for the difference between the

ncd and the nct and undercover officer is referring to the prop c. >> i mean that hopefully, the group will come under that later. >> later we'll still hear this on june 30th. >> we'll know what will happen with prop c at this time does that make sense. >> someone mentioned the eastern neighborhoods and where we did that where we did that change there were kind of a tier rolled to prop c this is more an analogy to that what we're doing with prop c. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to a motion there is a motion that has been seconded to continue to june 30th to allow time for community meetings and feasibility study between the nct and ncd

commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and commissioners that places us only items 9 ab for the academy of art informational update and case for a memorandum of understanding for any person's that in the audience for items 10 ab for 2000 to 70 bryant street a conditional use authorization and large project authorization those matters have been continued until june 2nd. >> good afternoon, commissioners tina with the planning department as the

follow-up to the hearing regarding the march 17 provide a few updates enforcement and purchase and policy recommendations after going over the department's policy recommendations that provide the supporting of the approval i'll go over the project not supportive regarding enforcement as of april 14th the zoning administrator issued a notice of violation and penalty to the academy of art university for 22 properties in violation of planning code they've been by osteo the board of appeals their schedule for hearing on june 22, 2016, this is included with the comments with the eir with the memorandum of understanding so failure to publish those by

july 1st will result from penalties of $5,500 for all properties in addition to the potential penalties they are au kruger on townsend with $4,500 and au had the penalties of 3 nine hundred plus on taylor student all au have paid did outstanding fee violations the feedback from the commission with the additional analysis with the reorganized properties into categories we plan to group those by consideration of categories over the course of 6 to 7 hearings since properties of the same shares quality issues and concerns staff set the projects under one publication while preparing separate - to the loss of housing will be grouped under

one application followed by separate motioned for each property westbound the conditional use authorization or planning code amendment some of the 15 properties not requiring action only b the historic preservation maybe brought before the planning department for the staff to off the conditions of approval with the historic preservation commission review or case by case basis regarding 9 properties of aris code amendments two planning code amendments have been submitted by osteo allow the conversion of student housing with the residential use for au sites and the second amendment to extend the grace period in the valley district and staff proposed the ordinance along with the policy recommendations

to the observance by au at the initiation with the eir certification will - as well as the ordinance prepared by the planning department the planning commission could choice to initiate one or two proposals shall we get the - >> there we go >> the timeline you see before you is the identical to the one and your case packets the final comments dir will be published before july the staff will bring the initiation and the application of the final eir after the august and september the adaptation of planning code for the staff - for the

commission considerations and staff intends to publish those in the following year. >> as mentioned staff has groups a properties according other categories regarding the student housing r student housing the department is unsupportive of the citywide goal to protect the affordability of horticulturalist and require the institutions to meet the housing demand and we would be inclined in support of housing services and located on the site in the rc with low density building if left to the free market the history resources the structure will result in a single-family dwelling or 3 family dwelling unit the staff wants the student

housing be occupied regarding accident conversion of industrial to institution staff is unsupportive of conversion with the pdr space and supports the case the conversion of the industrial use in nature regarding the retail to institutional the department is unsupportive of these goals for active ground floor uses we support the institutional uses maintenance the public assessable active use and situated on the city rather than the city the conversion of office uses the department is inclined to not support those were the proposed use is ink345sh8. >> excuse me for one second could you slow down look at you're reading kind of fast. >> thank you, no problem. >> regarding the conversion of

retail used to institutional uses the department is unsupportive of conversion that detract or take away from the - and supportive of - for office uses we'll be supportive of office space that are incompatible with the neighborhood context or located away from the arising the shuttles over extended we'll support of conversions with the office space in nature as much as the administrative headquarters and appropriate for the section site regarding the last 3 policy staff is supportive of the conversion of tourist hotels and student housing or religion uses onsite and sites with no changes of use staff is support au has a higher

than supportable use or have a used a building in the manner of a neighborhood context should those change in matter the staff is inclined to recommend a change with the consideration action by the planning commission in summary the staff will support of 24 properties and unsupportive of 11 staff was not rented a recommendation for two of the properties under review. >> in the interest of time only properties recommended disapproval will be highlighted recommendations are preliminary bans the missions found a recommendation are subject to change in time of new information it is identical to the one in the packets the

following slides will have colored blue is not permitted by planning code or reference those with the conditional use authorization yellow those requiring the historic preservation commission review and green only requiring the building permits and the requirement is the highest required so it planning code amendment can is are preservation and building permit this map shows the snapshot of the departments represents on all au sites i sites sites in green the defendant is support and red is not recommend approval and black are the properties where staff recommends is taken

stoushz a snapshot staff recommendations powerful think that sites 4 sites distracts the affordability of the city's housing stock and the institutions to meet the dances they generate with the housing so to legalize the following 4 properties each require a planning code amendment to allow group housing i'm sorry each the 4 properties require the proved hours of the property and conditional use authorization to allow the giving up and the rc to the building permit applications. >> 1080 bush was illegally a property containing 42 units and residential hotels this is converted to student housing and

first located in an rc-4 with a nob hill neighborhood 1143 bush was a property containing with dwelling units - was legally a property with one dwelling unit and 14 residential hotels and now student housing student housing it is located in the rc-4 at bureaucrat and leavenworth in the neighborhood pine what as residential hotel now has student housing and it is a historic in the rc-4 zoning e zoning district in the nob hill. >> and finally sutter street was tourist and residential hotel containing 39 tourist

rooms and residential hotels again, the building is now student housing it is a historic resource located in the neighborhood and all of the properties will require planning code amendments conditional use authorization and preservation and building permits moving to industrial sites as you can see from the map staff is inclined to recommend one site and not a recommendation on two. >> the property as 2225 jerold was previously used as an desperately chair and sited in the eir as storage and accessoriesy office because of the expresses the views as recreational and storage the department is inclined to be unsupportive, however, the academy has submitted a revised application for a fault that is

in the pdr zoning district and the department is open to supporting the clvm to section 210 would be required the next two properties on 466 townsend are industrial uses and containing industrial art spaces both property in the western soma and the office space is industrial uses staff is some supportive of those code compliant in nature, however, came to light in stricken out uses are located onsite and staff is getting information on the properties for both of the properties an intern has an imposed on the conversion of pdrs uses with the conversion of industrial it is not allowed

until their lift it expires if permanent controls permit the pdr uses a planning code amendment will be required. >> for the properties converting office to snuggle uses staff is inclined to recommend approval of 4 of the 7 sites recommend the approval of the unauthorized conversion because of the dense from au central core. >> for 601 brandon located in the valley district not structural uses a grandfathering provision was in the zoning district allowing it to be legalized in 3 years it expired this year human resources to legalize that will be required au submitted an amendment extending the

legalization grace period from 36 to 48 months the staff has ordinances before the consideration for the property as well as the residential conversions the next property on seven hundred montgomery in light jackson squad car to legalize the conditional use authorization and again, we're generally in support of this away from the central core and it's capability with the overall district federal street in the mou zoning district the project requires a presently a building permit and under normal circumstances will not require planning commission action again loekd away from the central corridor. >> stockton is located in b

two within the waterfront special use district and the office requires a building permit staff is inclined to recommend approval the final land use will going over the institutional use staff is inclined to be unsupportive of those that provide active use in commercial districts. >> taylor is located in the north beach nct within the special use district and requires a conditional use authorization and to reestablish parking on the second story and the preservation permits will be required and last but not least is 2801 leavenworth agree historic resource in the special use district with the preservation review and the brimentd

applications staff requires a ground floor active use and a lot of information for the time before this preservation as indicated staff wants feedback on staffs policy recommendations processing approaches and preliminary recommendations that concludes my presentation. and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, very much. opening up for public comment >> could - and commissioner president fong we'll continue with the technical memorandum on both

items. >> is that going to pull up good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the board i'll chelsea planning department staff a coordinator for the academy of arts exist g existing. >> also joining me is rick senior environmental planner and transportation planner and request also shelly who will be providing you a synopsis of yesterday historic preservation commission on the espn members are present rae providing with

you a brief presentation following this presentation the item before you is public review and comment on the au draft espn it is published open may 2016 and the thirty day review closes on june 3rd due to the fact the projects are evaluated under ceqa from the existing conditions at the time of the publication of the nop past actions eve they occurred one way or the other without objecting the permits are existing companies. >> conditions it provides the h of those past actions au draft complains the environmental impact of non-permitted work of 40 au properties and recommend conditions of approval to remedy

those impacts as a reminder 6 sites were evaluated in the draft eir out of the 34 exist sites 28 riders discretionary and 4 changes of use and physical work prompted without the benefit of permits and combines the 34 existing sites as well as the individual environmental effect of 28 seats for the discretionary he approval it's different in that the recommended conditions of approval will not be a requirement unless the planning commission chooses to adopt those conditional use the permits or any other approval it has a transportation and management for all the properties and future opted out

properties the discussion of each existing sites will be appropriated to the commission in subsequent staff reports in entitlement application examples of the proposed conditions of approval include typical historic preservation conditions of approval things removal of legitimate the replacement of secretary of interior standard complaints and removal or placement of awnings removal of illegally installed vinyl windows and approving security gates and grills. >> typical transportation to demand management conditions of approval include removing you think use shuttle bus zones and relocation for biennial parking

to admonishment the pedestrian around fences and onto the bus shuttle areas and relocating all flag stops that are stops where doushlg double parking is occurring. >> staff is recommending focus their review on consistency of au site description, the appropriateness of those conditions of approval, and accuracy of the environmental impact analysis for the exit sites and the draft transportation management plan i'd like to remind the speakers this is not a hearing to consider the approving or disapproving the approvals will follow your comments should be confined to the accuracy and

adequacy of the analysis in the draft i'd like to request that speakers speak slowly and clearly the court reporter can create an accurate transcript and folks estate our name clear informing for those interested in writing or by mail or e-mail submit your comments to the environmental review officer by 55 m june 3rd and remind the commission we'll be returning in july for the consideration of finally eir and the final espn from the final eir is considered. >> that concludes my presentation. unless the commissioners have questions i'd like shelly to

summarize the historic preservation commission meeting yesterday on espn. >> hello commissioners shelly from the preservation staff of the planning department mile comments are brief as you've heard made comments and generally unanimous argument on agreements and commissioner johnson the sutter street could be counterfeited by researching that and commissioner hasz asked the pertaining to keep up the legalization the project site and that concluded their comments i'd like to note that 10 the project sites before the historic preservation commission for various legalization

approval for either certificate of appropriateness or permits to all and commissioner hyland was absent and i'm available for any questions. >> director rahaim. >> thank you, commissioners to wrap up the staffs presentation first of all, thank you to staff to put together that chelsea this is the first time we've done a report like this is a eir not an - and tina for putting together this great staff report it lays out the staff's recommendation on that point and shelly on the preempt this is a lot of projects coming at everyone at once i appreciate that with respect to tinas presentation i want to summarize what we are asking for feedback

on pages three and four of the report our thoughts on the policy recommendations and why we recommended what we have on the various projects so there is a series of policy directions and recommendations or policy basis for your recommends that's one thing i want preliminary thoughts on those if that's the right basis for the recommendation and second, of course, is the actual recommends on the properties that the properties is tina highlighted in her presentation they piloted the ones we're recommending so we are recommending preliminary this is a preliminary recommendations we'll make the final recommendations when the projects come to you the way in sum we're recommending of the 34 properties we would be currently inclined to be unsupportive of

11 based on the policy recommendations on the basis we pointed out on pages three and four of the report so 11 and in our current thinking being unsupportive so to sum up asking for your feedback at this point and for future use thank you. >> now opening it up for public comment (calling names). >> oh, the academy wants to - >> you're with the academy or representing the academy. >> okay. great. >> i can put it right there on the rail. >> i said i have 10 minutes;

is that correct power point. >> very good commissioner president fong and members of the board and director rahaim i'm zane with morris pleased to be here to represent the academy of arts university it has been a its been a long time coming now we have an opportunity to actually discuss the inspire project and the project sponsor the project sponsor is, of course, the academy of art university it was established in 1929 right here in san francisco and to train work and employ working artists in san francisco working artists in san francisco to 2000 open site arts and faculty and staff and about 8 seven hundred students 45 percent from the bay area and 50 percent from california it is a

fully accounted it has a fully accredited universities the first one is, in fact, the au crediting body from the universities. >> it even has it's own team which is quite success the women's basketball team and

students alumni and faculty and i won't go over them some of them are created the winner of the first prize the academy awards and identified by forbes and truly they're making their name for themselves and for the academy installation wards and accolades in film and after all design this is in the context of an urban campus not a suburban campus and not something that was granted land in the last century to build out over rolling fields it was woolen into the fabric of the city as from the beginning and similar

to other inner universities in discussions will be that point i've heard from a number of people the way the nypd is placed in manhattan as opposed to the standard way many associate with the large campuses located in a suburban area a steward of historic buildings many of the buildings were acquired by the academy and preserved and kept intact because the academy acquired them when they were disused and damaged or in disrepair and great example of that the stained bridget million dollars were spent to renovate, upgrade the seismic capacity that

building and also to restore the area right before it was pretty close to lost altogether in addition it provides a thoughtful adjunct to the transportation for muni that muni is a primer way the students get around and through the campus shuttle system that is had not been you get and according to city staff is, in fact, improved significantly so that's a little bit about the academy let's talk about the project what is the project the project is really entitlements for existing educational facilities continued the academic mission and distinctly not a building by building review of what might happen to one building or another building but consideration and, in fact,

that's the way it's been portrait in the e s t m and eir the academy project is a description of all the activities the approvals for educational facilities as you may know are going to be considered at an appropriate time by you and you can see the kinds of uses all standard traditional academic institutional uses and in addition we seeking approvals for student housing another element is interval to the operation of universities and colleges in fact, the academy of art operates 18 hundred beds and authorized to accommodate 20 percent of onsite students consistent with the directive of the general plan

and 2/3rd's of them are clustered close together on central street and union square and sharing lounlz and other dining facilities but you know in this city as we know you don't have a project it is present without offering public benefits and we wanted to highlight now the public benefits that the academy has offered and wish to communicate them pubically to you at this point. >> and you'll see the areas in which overseeing benefits fall let me review them one at a time in housing the academy will set aside an entire dormitory for one term of long term affordable housing it will create more student housing by convert an existing tourist hotel to student housing

that will xruk a new dormitory on an underutilized site next to exist student housing and will meet outline future student housing by adding san francisco housing stock they they make payments a total of $10 million in impact fees for housing and transportation and parks and other public benefits it would be implementing conditions of approval and mitigation measures these are the ones that have been generally suggested or outlined in the eir and e s t m and refined with the planning staff and ultimately adopted by the planning commission and how we protect the city's interests in seeing those benefits are

provided we have the use of a development agreement common doesn't say used to insure that the obligations of the developers are, in fact, performed and the benefits to be conferred on the owner of the property the academy will be honored that will come back but approval by the planning commission of all the terms and conditions you have to be approved by the board of supervisors a complete policy review and consideration and will have to be done with the advice from the city attorney's office because overall this is guided by the first instance the commission. >> you know closing out if you in fact on this well what happens in the academy didn't

behave what happens the academy has proposed a strong enforcement measure that will include negotiating a pint and agreeing to a stipulated judgment for the people non-lawyers adding upon judgment this is in the hands of the city and at the depreciation from the items are not adhered to can be in court court that provides strong assurance anymore storageer than anything or a lawsuit could provide now looking at the fire chief the academy wants a beneficial policy for all the espn and the eir for conducive dialogue we want to work with the planning

department and other city agencies on a package of entitlements and benefits to the whole project like other projects and we lord to that opportunity thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the recommendation if au. >> opening up for public comment

(calling names). >> sue hester this is going to be a supplement to any written comments we've been dealing with the academy of arts since out of compliance in 1990 this is what they say is their spirit of influence they're interested in acquiring new buildings this is 6 buildings on here but the reality of what the city is

dealing with is not only a 6 buildings on the previous sheet but that a good morning ration of residential- if they filed an im p we wouldn't be here today, there 0 would have been commission consideration of this mass right here that is lower nob hill of upper tenderloin you see this visually the grid is xhaevengsz of residents that is a neighborhood and neighborhood that has historically had a lot of working class housing this was a residential hotels that have dooefrng rooms as well as apartment buildings and what we have had it is

decimation of a neighborhood in a e stn we need direction from the commission how to deal with housing first of all, we need to say they must build housing this is what the planning commission would have done at any point had an i imp and they've increased 5 hundred percent without any direction from the city of how they deal with the increased housing load and the increased campus what you should do is require them to build housing i disagree with some of the parts the staff's recommendation they say

you can keep one 50 hayes as an administrative building that sites is surrounding by housing housing that is approved by the department that site which guess triple a number 3 should be absolutely housing it is appropriate, and we got to supply keep a lot of the housing other people will talk about other aspects but the big thing you need to take home they've decimated the neighborhood we need housing back. >> hello commissioners. i'm chris schaffer i'm a resident of university terrace that is totally surrounded by the

university of san francisco and as a neighbor i ended up being an expert in academic institutional master plans even though i didn't plan in contrast to how usf handed the master plan and the comedian academy of art i'm insulted as a resident by some such a bad actor usf let's look at the holistic plan the attorneys suggested that aau is working on and first of all, housing shouldn't have been taken away from resident a student is not a resident of san francisco usf is building resident 6 hundred plus bed dormitory and figured out how to get that funded the universities should building housing and not take away your

the stock and residents and under the holistic approach even if you look at what creation and this group has seen me talk about recreation the academy of art uses 22 facilities mostly public and some private to provide the recreation and i don't know what that one little small center will do for the award-winning teams the third of the issue is transportation everyone should have a traveling management plan and a student have a fast pass not on muni and not having the vans double parked in the city we have to crawl around the vans on a street their bicycling and the students are not using the bikes not - i really urge you commissioners to ask for a holistic solutions where

everyone end up go about a good actor university are a large part of the fabric we need to have them perform in a way that is consistent with the citizens here of san francisco thank you. >> hello commissioners outreaching i've spoken about that before and talked about how i as a landlord get fined every time i had a violation and, in fact, one of my tenants that owed money to tax had a sheriff in the restaurant collecting from the actual every time a plate got sold why have we not enforced those laws and fines we could be building more housing and allow 24 university to not only take the sros and convert

them illegally and allow them to keep on doing this not fine or collect the fines i shouldn't have to pay that business taxes due on the 31st if they get away with murder why don't we not pay once again please they're not getting losses i ride a bicycle there are a menus you're talking about the environmental consequences and the idling buses and the shuttles going before and after crowding the streets so many reasons to crack down on this school this is going on since the 90s please do you can please protect the public please do so.

>> good afternoon, commissioners after a long hiatus i'm back the existing sites technical memorandum talks about the housing less than smaller in demand but the e s t m the data is missing it talks about an increase no housing displaced and reduction in the housing supplies and what has the city asked did aau to help out the for profit school is not building housing as needed for future populations other nonprofits are building housing and accommodating with master plans and other accommodation in terms of ceqa currently that is level of service but it is going through the vehicle miles

traveled what is the total number of miles by the a example u shutters and maybe some of the routes should be disconnected if the report it talks about the emissions studying the air quality management and for car share didn't apply to non-residential buildings and aau has vehicles that are putting pressure on parking what has aau done with the community to be aligned with the sustainability program and planning need to work with sfmta. >> other agencies to solve this problem. >> let's gather more data for the espn and incorporate them and put them in the understanding it in the upcoming eir in 2016 and had this less

than one hundred and 50 words for the minutes it shows exactly what i've talked about thank you. >> thank you and. >> next speaker. >> another card joan. >> good afternoon. i'm magic thank you for hearing go me today, i also last week to ask to refer to the public not the audience seems to be endemic every public meeting we're audience when is a completely powerfully statement i'll appreciate that changed so i'm not up to snuff as i am but be to an vandal they've broken the law and taken over the law and they're not the fines are not collected and their supposed to be back as bad

actors and approve what is done illegally if that's the case an afternoon sense couldn't do that i'm glad the historic - the city college some of this college is breaking the law left and right and in the fined able to go forward and try to make up for what we knew with which is illegal in the first place they couldn't have not known they're taking unaware way from the pool of affordable housing it is an odd thing affordable housing and i guess what we call unaffordable housing what kind of a society i talked with 5 police officers and used e to live in the city and can't find a place to live in the city some of them are natives this is the academy of science can present a

high standard institution and then steal those so needed rooms and housing in the tenderloin and then we say okay. let's all review this and spend public time trying to make it work and fine them a little bit no, they shouldn't be able to break the law and have another chance and the public is saying this for ages it is just plan wrong thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i have some letters here i'm going to to hand i want to mention a few things it seems to me i've been here on one issue we have a problem with enforcement some people have to obey the laws and some are

punish and some aren't we're in a situation well, we'll seen this development agreement then we'll start obeying the laws and paying the fines and we'll negotiate that is rather strange i don't believe too many 09 institutions or private individuals will consider making that kind of a statement it seems like it is out of hand this is the kind of issues the public has to deal with when it comes to this kind of situations we're hoping that has commissioners you will take this situation into consideration and really possibly if there is some buildings they have taken and not done anything wrong los allow those to continue with staff whatever the illegal use i

want to thank the enforcement officers a lot of work has been done since lack of enforcement in general as far as i'm aware of at least new money that is gone into hire new people to work on this i think is the general rule that is going forward in the very reasonable fashion somewhat that when it comes to something that big and this ridiculous as going on for this long 0 all of a sudden say it's okay. people are living industrial and pdr space we're going to prove that and let it go they're two big for us to fight the thank with a building in any neighborhood i understand what was the correct building was allowed to proceed as office space because it was all the

building a factory and all industrial and it is supposed to be all pdr but oh, that's okay we'll let it go pdr in the bottom floor i'm quite sure i live nearby and hopefully keep it there and not that let that go by the way those are issues that are driving a lot of public dissatisfaction it's not your fault i'm not blaum but the city government we'd like to see changes coming down pretty soon if we don't give the public more respect thank you. >> hi my name is marie sorenson i guess the rules of thumb the bigger the sleazier

you can act i want to thank the planning for the record why did it take so long academy of art is an insult to taxpayer and homeowners and business owner and renter everything in san francisco people who have followed the rules why is that academy of art never has they operate and future compliance i guess we'll have at city could go after us how about right now tare they've been not compliant in so - for so many years they operate they operate above everyone else and not have to follow the rules overall after all i have google and this and that it is for property school

making millions of dollars let's talk about the buildings they are housing people how many people got evicted so they could put their students in i think that is probably a rather their probably have been a lot of people how about - i'm a homeowner i share a home with two other people we do projects we have to get continuances we have to get permits we have to pay everyone someone comes over only to turn us down they have a bad day beyond why normal people don't get the same consideration the academy of art is given all those years we struggle and the academy of art have been given a

free pass for so long they don't care anymore hold their feet to the fire. >> okay john. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is a john i'm very interested to comment on the missing information that is not before you in this informational hearing i'm very concerned about where we have a ray array of data about the properties but one thing that is missing this is who owns those properties

what is the name of property owner for those properties and i have seen in the past that the owner is not academy of art and yet academy of art having these properties to use for student housing the private owner required the properties from the previous owner based on income flow through the properties that was there was really depressed by the fact we have rent control and rent-controlled units having had a income lower if they had been

vacant on the market now 80 an owner that turns around and gives this to the institution to basically and the institution does some things maybe the properties get vacated at that point they go to market and institutions and market rents per bed as opposed to what was rent-controlled unit per unit we're talking about a four or five hundred percent increase in the income coming from the properties to off offer the 4 bed owner and noriega the academy of art i ask you to look at the record and see the use of academy brought us you recruiter students rather than from the

state and the federal government how many of the students they've recruited graduated how many of them were spit out and actually were paid for that rent in the housing units and now don't have a certify to go by that's information that should be before you thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is chris martin i'd like to speak on the property conversion of retail to the institutional used as the e s t m states 2295 taylor street is within the north beach neighborhood

commercial district and the north beach special use district which encourages medium scale and mixed use commercial residential uses columbus as you may know columbus avenue is the heart of north beach and connects the northern with the northern waterfront and aquatic park the in which commercial district controls are intended to protect and sure the viability of north beach with its cafes and local teachers and small businesses and new brunswick the aau has done the modifications to taylor street without public review arrest permits assess to the building is rejected and it requires a card-key for entry it is not an tuff storefront and