ms. sullivan could answer that, we had issues with understanding what i.m.p.'s need to be. when you say the i.m.p. trigger, there are a large number of i.m.p.'s particularly nonprofit organizations of the city have made some efforts to show and disclose the institutional master plan. however, we won't mention the name, has greatly failed to even understand the basic requirements and even among ourselves and sometimes there is a some degree of ambiguity of what is required. i hope we can find a way before we fully deal with this legislation that we have the i.m.p. definition very clearly defined, including reflecting on this particular chapter, institutions, what the students mostly do. we heard that have 30% on campus, et cetera. and i was real interested in following the comment of the witness mentioning nonprofits, which would need support. and then mr. paul coming and making a case -- i won't repeat, she was very eloquent and i find myself between those two positions and i was wonder if the supervisor had given that particular thought because i don't see it in this curre

ms. sullivan, i assume that h.p.c. will also be continuing deliberations on at least article 11 and perhaps, i don't know commissioner martinez brought up one amendment to 10, so those will be scheduled in the future, i assume. >> i have an outstanding, longstanding permanent agenda item. also section 309 they would like to review because it relates to article 11 and the downtown review. commissioner martinez: if that's the case and if they're interested, commissioners, we might want to have some people go to the h.p.c. hearing as well. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: is the planning commission prepared to summarize its comment in a concise way and forward them to the members of the historic preservation commission to help dialogue? and these comments would reflect the comments of the public from today? it would be shedding more light and really helping all of us to understand together what we need to do. president miguel: having been at a number of joint commission hearings of various commiss

ms. sullivan mentioned?o agree that we do have the resources to understand the supply and quality of child care. we also of expertise and can look at what would be the components of a feasibility study, so we are willing to partner in that effort. we also agree that there is not a provision to mandate a sister department to require the child care. we do feel strongly that if the feasibility indicates that it is feasible that there had better be sufficient reason and evidence as to what the department -- hoping that funding would be held back until an acceptable response is provided. >> and what about -- supervisor dufty: and then what about the requirements that apply only to some? >> cockill leading in impact fee and requiring developers who are subject to the impact fee, so in that instance, we feel that private developers are subject to the providing on-site child care or the resources to build a child care. that is in place right now and has been for a couple of decades. we believe strongly that we would

ms. sullivan, planning department.e specific sections, as you know, you have passed and have been working on the package and updating it. this is going to make a few additional tweaks to the package. it is going to have four new oat areas, including for qualified student housing. .-- for new areas. it will apply to any area in the city that has five or more units. they will be exempt from having to participate in the affordable housing fee, so in one section, the criteria for those are laid out, and i will go through them quickly. there is the institutional master plan on file with the planning department. in that, it has to describe the type and location of housing used by the city. it has to state the number of students that will receive some aid. once we have received those, we will be recording notices of restrictions on the property and will outline these requirements, and there will be a monitoring program. on november four, we recommended some modifications. we had a meeting last week with supervisor dufty's off

ms. sullivan said, it should not hurt or displace any existing residential, and it should adapt to new use or new construction. we have no view of the merits of one or the other. the resulting in the staff report about the conversion of large hotels. -- there was something in the staff report about the conversion of large hotels. 100 units is not very big. i believe that is the threshold for a large hotel. it is not hard to imagine there are some hotels that are not successful in their current condition and might be better converted to student housing. i think the ordinance or rules already permit them to apply for a lottery for conversion to condo. why should we prohibit student housing as a use for that? we think it does not displace anybody, err on the side of making it more livable. we took the question of affordability seriously. it should provide a significant fraction of the housing to income-eligible need-based students, but what i keep hearing from the schools, and what i hope you will hear from them themselves, is how many of their students are already receiving financial aid. it

ms. sullivan said, it should not hurt or displace any existing residential, and it should adapt to new use or new construction. we have no view of the merits of one or the other. the resulting in the staff report about the conversion of large hotels. -- there was something in the staff report about the conversion of large hotels. 100 units is not very big. i believe that is the threshold for a large hotel. it is