tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 26, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
community has not in other places, they have objected. that is not the concern i heard. what i heard was the hours, and the possibility for folks coming from the park and hanging out. i am supportive of this project, as has been proposed with the hours that have been proposed. i think, you know, it is important to note that this particular location has seen a bunch of tenants that have not worked out. i think part of what hasn't worked out is the economics of running a small grocery store in a very low density area. if you are going to have a grocery store, how are you going to make money if you're going to do it from 8:00 a.m., which will be when most people go to work, until 10:00 p.m.? i am a working mom. i am that person who is at the grocery store at 6:00 a.m., and often times at 10:00 p.m. because of hear, and doing other
stuff. i don't not the only one. i think patterns for working families have changed from 20 years ago. i don't think it is an unusual thing. i would like to support the motion. i would like to see a security plan. i want you guys to be good neighbors. but above all i want you to be successful. i want to support retail being able to succeed. i do think low density neighborhoods, i live in one, do need grocery stores. we need successful retail. in the age of amazon it is difficult to compete and be able to operate in a way that it's not going to have the neighborhood and be saddled with an two empty shell for ten years. those are my comments. >> perfect. >> if there is nothing further,
commissioners. on that motion, commissioners, to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include directing the project sponsor to continue working with the community on security issue measures. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that puts us at item 8. >> good afternoon commissioners,
kate connor, planning department staff. i'm going to provide an informational presentation on senate bill 35. a brief overview. can i get the overhead? okay, perfect. a bit of background. senate bill 35 became effective in in january it provided ministerial review of projects that provide a certain amount of affordable housing. the amount of affordable housing is dependent on a toward their housing elements, regional housing needs allocations arena. this bill is applicable statewide. with the only section being those jurisdictions that are already meeting the arena goals. the bill contained two programs, one for jurisdictions that were under producing in the above moderate income category which is 120% ami and above.
which is under 80% ami. for those producing, under producing above moderate income housing. a minimum of 10% of the units must be restricted as as affordable. for those under producing in low income housing, a minimum of 50% of the units must be restricted as affordable to take advantage of the benefits of sb-35. san francisco is exceeding our minimum target but is not for low income production. therefore the second program is applicable to san francisco. what is sb-35 in one of the benefits, first and foremost, first there is no discretionary entitlements. this can ten years conditional use authorization. last, there is a timelines for review.
there is 60-90 days for completeness and eligibility depending on the project. projects with 150 units or fewer versus over 150 units. and then 90-180 days for the complete review which includes design review. what projects are eligible? there is a list of eligibility criteria. there are, the project must have a minimum of two units or more. there definitely restrictions on demolition. there are prevailing wage and skill forest requirements and project must meet objective standards. what are objective standards? first objective standards must be uniformly verifiable. they cannot be subjective. if you think of examples, the rear yard requirement of 45%, determining compliance with this requires no subjective judgments. something that would not be objective is that many of our design guidelines.
when we say something has to be consistent with architectural character, that requires subjective judgment. it's also important to notice that most of our larger products, require some sort of exception. large project authorizations, downtown project authorizations. it's often you see these projects and they have exception for rear yard exposure, open space. those would not be eligible for sb-35. however, state density bonus projects are considered to be code compliant. where an exception for rear yards may make you ineligible, as a state density bonus project you may require a waiver. what types of projects are we seeing? 100% affordable housing projects. accounting over four -- over 980 units. the hundred% affordable housing bonus program projects would be eligible. this is because they include
reductions in the planning code versus full on waivers. it doesn't require that discretion. if in affordable housing bonus project required an additional discretionary exception it would not be eligible. the second bucket is our 50% affordable mixed income projects. to date almost every project has been coupled with state density bonus because it gives you that flexibility to waive certain requirements. process wise you would submit your application for senate bill 35 with your building or site permit. there is no neighborhood notification which is in keeping with previous interpretations and how we have handled ministerial review permits. we encourage people to work out -- reach out to the community. there is no discretionary review since it is and it just -- a discretionary review will. then there is timelines for complete review.
so the department implementation approach included the planning director bulletins which accrued in december of 2017. right before the bill became effective. we followed up with the application and information guide which was published in january of 2018. we also have an internal working group as we move through the different state bills to figure out the applicability to san francisco's immense and very lengthy code. here are the projects that are moving forward. we've had eight projects that have been approved. the majority are 100% affordable. there are a total of 1106 units that have been approved since january of 2018. 980 of those units are deed restricted as affordable. a brief overview of the projects here is a map of where they are located. most of them are on the eastern
side of the city. first is 681 florida. this is 100% affordable housing units. this is also the land dedication project for the bryant street project. the levels range between 30-80% ami. we've issued the site permit foz on october 2018. 2340 san jose also referred to as upper yard. containing 129 affordable units, the project also includes a ground-floor childcare and the site permit was issued in january of 2019. next is 1064 mission street. it contains 253100% affordable housing units that is split between two different buildings.
50% ami am below and has formally homeless occupants. next is 3,124th street. including 4500% affordable units only available for seniors. it is at or below 50% ami. this project also retained a historic mural. next we have 457 minnis street, it's the mixed income projects. 270 group housing rentals. providing 53% of their units as affordable because it is mixed income. they also need to comply with the inclusionary program and we need to see representation. slightly over the 50% that is required. next is 833 bryant.
containing 146, 100% affordable group housing rooms. the ami range is 50-safety percent. this is a project that is 100% affordable without any funding from ocd. next is 4840 mission, 137, 100% affordable housing units. this site permit has not been issued but has been approved by planning. those are all of our sb-35 projects. i'm definitely available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. that is it. we will open this item up for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards. anyone who wants to weigh and please come up now.
>> good afternoon commissioners, cory smith. really excited that this report came out. [reading notes] i know recent tweet by councilmember berkley said the majority of affordable units in berkeley, the majority are using sb-35 to get that process sped up. producing housing faster. we need to be producing affordable housing faster. overall, this is absolutely exciting and exhilarating. in case, the arena conversation does come up. i tried to come back and get the data. i'm well aware of where we are for the above moderate target this cycle. were not going to have streamline for projects that have 70 or 80% market rate units on site. it's important to look at the historical numbers as well and
see how we did hitting those targets. and then also want to remember arena numbers are a minimum. it is the minimum goal that we are supposed to be hitting. if we are not hitting those numbers then sb-35 kicks in because when you speed up the -- the production. just because we are hitting the minimum just means we should not be doing more. i hope the below market rate targets, and continue to build as much housing as possible because people need a place to live. thank you. in 20 thank. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i just wanted to bring up a point that i wish the presentation had covered. sb-35 applies to the homes that are zoned for two units or more. however there is no control over whether or not the second unit that qualifies for affordable housing is actually going to go
to affordable housing, we were talking about a small project of only two units. also, what is going to stop somebody who wants to gain assistance to build two units with one of them being a sham unit. you have seen many of those here in this chamber. one of them that you may actually recall is this huge house that was over 7,000 square feet with a small sham unit of 323 cumberland that came to this commission in 2016. projects like that could get get out of jail free card. there's not going to be in a discretionary review and there will not be any sql evaluation. i just want to urge this commission on the planning department, the city of san francisco to amend this application and implementation of sb-35 so there will be better checks and balances so people
will not build two units with one of them being a sham unit of 300 square feet and say we're going to give it to of course there's not going to be any control as to whether or not they are going to give this to a housing. those are the issues that we find with sb-35. hoping to see the implementation to get a little bit tighter, more regulation so that people are not going to be gaming the system. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? commissioner richards? >> if i were still on twitter i would still tweet outs, senator weiner, well done. this is exactly the kind of housing production we as a city need. we are woefully lower than the low and moderate. we are higher than the above moderate. i think this is well done. a couple of questions for staff,
ms. connor. if you compare january 2018 to today, on other projects we approve where we impose the affordable housing impact fee and terms of units or cost. what with the we have sb-35 projects over here, 980, but the normal projects over here that are discretionary, and all of the other bells and whistles. what would that look like, do you have any idea? >> the comparison and the numbers? i mean, if you look at our 2018 housing inventory, i think there were 2300 units roughly that were approved and that calendar year ready for construction. we are trying to look at the difference between actual numbers. the low in the moderate. i don't have those numbers right now but i can definitely get them. >> that would be great. we want to understand if this is turbocharging versus the market. i think i would be an interesting thing. the other question is,
definition of a housing project. i know this is to units and have all of this demolition. following the mall project out of cupertino, it is two thirds housing on one third office. it's a very large square footage of office because the site is so big. what is the definition of housing project that qualifies for sb-35. >> two thirds of the square footage of the housing project has to be devoted to housing. one third could be commercial use. >> the other question i have, are there any suspension or superseding on roles in in terms of our affordable housing requirements in terms of size, finishes, placement. from what i understand, they shoved the smaller affordable units in the battery of the project and the market reviews got the better views and everything. because we have more stringent requirements to our requirements apply? >> for the 100% affordable they are following regulations.
if you're thinking thinking about our inclusionary requirements with mixed income. all the units are restricted and put into our inclusionary portfolio. in terms of distribution, that type of thing, yes, we would be following our current program. >> that's great. this sham unit issue was talked about, can you comment on that. can i actually go and demolish whatever and build an 8,000 square-foot house and claim sb-35 put a 375 square feet unit down in the basement i call it a sb-35 project? >> that's a two unit minimum, and that one of restricted as affordable. under sb-35 you would be able to do that. however there is demolition control so you would not be able to demolish in a unit that had any rental tenant in the last two years. >> one last comment. i appreciate us moving towards objective zoning standards.
the issue i have is, when you have all of these objective standards, the projects that become as of right, because they actually choose to waive those objective standards. that is one of the issues i have. nonetheless this has been a successful law. for the life of me, i'm wondering why the dust hasn't really settled here. looks like it's doing really well. before jamming more laws into place, the list goes on and on, looks like we have our golden goose here. enke. >> commissioner. >> for -- -- >> for -- . >> i am assuming the projects you presented and those metrics are produced within the timeframe that is the limitation with the bill, is that correct? >> that is correct.
>> what about all of these other projects that have gone through the commission? what kind of timeframe as a taking for them, as a comparison? >> i don't have those numbers right now, i can definitely get back to you. a lot of it depends on what the process is, to kind of trigger that timeline. it's quite a variety. with our 100% affordable housing we do have planning concession 315 which allows for administrative review. it's not used that commonly now because we have sb-35. that took away the planning commission hearings and allowed for our director to approve something administratively. it still required ceqa. when you're looking at 6-12 months, or 1822 months dependent on the needs. >> if i was to add to that, i do think the timeframe for
approving 100% affordable projects, as i understand it it has been cut by something like 60% from our previous review times largely because of sb-35, which is great. i think i mentioned this to a couple of commissioners recently. it had an effect on our budget revenues. in a logical way because we no longer receive the ceqa fees from those projects. it had a budget impact on us. it helped those projects obviously so we didn't have to pay those fees. for all of the other projects, for projects that have come in the door since the executive directive was issued, projects since one of december of 2017. so far, we are on track to meeting the target set up and the executive directive. for earlier projects that were going through a larger environmental process, not so much. we are currently on target for most of the projects.
i think we will have a report, next month i believe come on that to update you on those. >> i think it is august 22. >> last question would be, what is in the pipeline then? >> in the pipeline i know we have two projects. i mean, one is definitely about to submit and it's 100% affordable. the other one is more mixed income. i'm not positive that they're actually going to submit. until there a lot of mixed income projects that we are trying to see if they could actually pencil and if this will work for them. right now we just have one that is definitely in the pipeline. >> is it fair to say that there is less then the upcoming timeframe to what you just had? >> i think that would be fair to say, yes. >> had a question going back to something you said earlier in the two unit scenario that was
brought up, i guess it could be three, or's for smaller units brady said they would have to be restricted as affordable. do you mean it would have to be deed restricted and comply with our affordable inclusionary housing guidelines? >> correct. it would have to be deed restricted it would go into our inclusionary housing portfolio. if you're looking at the small unit projects, they would not necessarily have to comply with all of in terms of size or what not. we will use the inclusionary program to continue with our monitoring efforts and the deed restriction and the ongoing monitoring of the units. >> i think that's really important to if we have to comply with those, there has to be subdivided, in a certain way. it has to be deed restricted. it has to be recorded on the property, marketing requirements , lottery.
there is all sorts of things. if you are a small property owner it is unlikely that this will pencil out for you. because of all of the additional requirements. i just wanted to make sure we were understanding of properly? >> yes, that is correct. >> thank you. >> quick question. these 980 units, what affect did it have on our percentage in those two categories low and moderate. we were at 15% and 80% last, does this really move the needle >> i think it does move the needle, exactly how much i cannot give you that exact figure. when i was looking at what our production arena was, moving forward we were at i think 35% and 42% of something like 980 units. from a state level, we are looking here the state, it like
it successful. how does it look at a state level, do you have any idea? >> i mean, we definitely have quite a few projects. we have been working with the state. aside from berkeley, cupertino, i can definitely get those figures for you. >> i would love to go look at there's a report somewhere. if i have enough money to build an 8,000 square-foot home, i'm probably not going to go through all the hassle to go around the process and have to do that for a little unit, i would probably wait for the time. to play out. i wouldn't want to gain the system. it makes no sense. >> thank you. >> very good, that will place us on item nine. case number 2019-012970imp, 43 properties owned or leased by the academy or university located in the city or county
this is the latest step in the process to bring us into compliance. the academy of art university is a private for-profit postsecondary institution pursuant to code section 304.5. it describes the existing and anticipated future development of the institution. as you know, the basics of the institutional massive plan process under 304.5, the planning commission must hold a public hearing on the plan which will be for receipt of public testimony only and in no way constitute an approval or disapproval of the the imp itself or any facility described therein. or any proposed change or project envisioned by the imp as part of the future development of the institution. the planning commission will retain full discretion on reviewing those applications when they come in at a later date. any proposed land use changes will require separate approvals.
most cases for the academy they will be condition release authorizations. under section 304.5, if the authorization is required there is a three month cooling-off timeframe. the commission cannot take any action until three months have passed since the commissions acceptance of the imp. under the provisions of the imp it is hearing on the travertine has been closed and essentially the commission expresses that it is a complete document. the commission doesn't actually take a vote or an action item on the imp. the last a full imp for the academy of art university was accepted by the planning commission in november of 2,011. as required by code the academy has submitted by annual updates to the department in 2013, 2015, 2017. updates require -- do not require separate planning commissions but these documents were made publicly available to
the planning department's website. the enforcement history of this project is lengthy, because of the most recent highlights that were brought to your attention in may of 2016. the city attorney commence litigation against the academy and other related parties alleging violations of the city's administrative code, planning code, building code in the state unfair competition law. the city entered into court to supervise negotiations with the university to settle a lawsuit. this was a very length court supervised -- lengthy court supervised that was with the acceptance and adoption as it's been called was contemplated that the parties would enter into a for purposes of resolving all outstanding academy of art land issues. the term sheet also set forth a requirement that the academy imp document which would establish
consistency with the term sheet on the developing agreement. on july 10, 2019, the parties entered into a supplement to the term sheet. this is an additional agreement in addition to the term sheet with minor provisions. they have been included as attachments to the staff report. as additional information for reference purposes only. this is to provide background information to the commission as to the process we have had through these negotiations and to settle this important matter. the commission is not to take any action on the term sheet or the supplemental term sheet today. bringing these items before you again in the future with the da and settlement package currently scheduled for hearing on november 7, 2019. when the academy submitted their 2017 update, the imp update had significant changes that required a full new imp. in 2017, the planning commission
held multiple hearings and concurring with staff found the imp's a middle was inadequate. the commission continued the matter indefinitely after several hearings to allow time for the aau to further amend their imp to further staff and commission comments. a draft of the current imp, which the city has worked extensively with the academy to prepare was submitted and is before you today. we have a -- been working on this draft for quite some time. we believe it meets all requirements of section 304.5. during the course of the public notification for this hearing. the department received seven phone calls or e-mails of general inquiry with regard to the imp. individuals have reply -- inquired about proposed projects since the publication of the staff report the department has received two written notifications about the academy of art operations generally,
with regard to a specific building. this correspondence is available today for the commission lastly the department received commentl this money from sue hester, and we have not yet reviewed that. i believe she will be here today to speak on the item as well. we also received concerns about the notice of this hearing. i know those concerns were expressed to the commission last week. the zone administered has reviewed these concerns and determined that noticing was properly performed in in accordance with all code requirements. the department finds that the imp submittal is complete and addresses the information required under planning code section 304.5. demonstrating consistency with land uses and other provisions described in the term sheet and the da that did the agreement that will eventually come before this commission for approval. i will not reiterate all of the information in the staff report and the imp it cell.
in accordance with section 304 imp addresses the nature of the institution, its history and growth, physical results. service provided in-service populations, employment and the physical plant of the institution within san francisco. the development plans for the institution as an vision for the next decade. as an informational document, the department finds this to be a complete submittal and ready for the commissions acceptance. with regards to the last items and development plans for the institution. it is worth noting that the academy and tends to withdraw juices from nine properties there have been a total of 43 properties. the academy will be withdrawing from nine properties. there are two residential and seven institutional. proposing to add three properties for academy use, the three proposed facilities are all on van ness avenue which are consistent with the term sheet
that we develop through the negotiation process grade one of our goals was to consolidate the academy facility as much as possible. there are several academy facilities at this further consolidates their facilities. the one they are generally leaving are ones that are from a planning perspective don't make as much sense to retain. while not all of those properties that they are withdrawing were a result of the term sheet. there have been additional properties that the academy has withdrawn since the development of the term sheet because of changes in the nature of the institution and in particular the amount of students that are attending the academy. it would also note that for 2801 leavenworth, as part of the term sheet one of the requirements is that retail uses be required at the ground floor of this facility. also 20 to 25 gerald is formally a wholesale distributor that the academy would be using for
multiple uses. one for storage but also turned it into a facility used on accessory basis. it has all been worked out through the term sheet and the negotiation process. in closing it is important to note again that acceptance of this imp at today's hearing does not constitute an approval of any proposed land-use change for the da itself. additionally the da related project approvals cannot come before this commission for such consideration until at least three months following acceptance of this imp. acceptance of the imp as complete by the commission today is a critical step in the process to ultimately bring the da before this commission before approval and ultimately bring the aau in compliance with the planning code resulting in the city's lawsuit with the academy. i would like to thank a couple of people first, the city attorney's office has through the course of this.
i want to single out andrew perry who is not here today to present this imp. as you know it is very difficult to handle one project, he is handling 43 separate projects here with the aau. may be properties than that. he's been an incredible asset to the department. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. we also have city attorney staff and construction planning for any questions the commission may have in the academy has a presentation, as well. >> we will now hear from the academy. ten minutes.
>> good afternoon. we are here to very respectfully ask for your acceptance of this imp. the aau has been working diligently over the past year, in particular, to finish the settlement and very much appreciate the city attorney's office and the planning department staff assistance with this our -- matter. the planning commissioners as well as members of the public have been wondering what is happening with this matter. it's been going on for quite some time. we are pleased to report as we are getting down to the brass
tacks on the settlements. what that involves is the 43 plans, one for every cent -- excuse me 34 plans, one for every building that the academy would continue to use as reflected in this imp. each of those, is somewhat of a separate project. we are going through and adding bike spaces to every building, fixing any noncompliance with signage and going through and legalizing the uses that are permitted pursuant to the settlement agreement with the city. as a result of this, we think we are in a good position to wrap up the settlement. unlike the ascot -- last time the imp was before you. the da as well as the conditional use authorization to finalize the settlement which would be early november. i have a short presentation here about the master plan.
if i could have the monitor. this is the important first step towards the finalization of the settlement. we have public hearing scheduled as well as the planning commission for the fall. there will be permits to alter for the buildings and the exterior permit that needs to happen on those. there is 12 currently. then there are 34 plans it's -- plan sets that will be before this commission in november. then i will go to the board of supervisors for final approval which is scheduled for early -- end of 2019, early 2020. the imp is, as you know, is a summary of what the academy is doing, where it is going, and what it's plans are for these two images are really the most important part of the story. what the academy is doing is
vacating nine properties, many of which were at the request on negotiation with the city, based on their location. we are vacating properties in the north beach area, in particular and consolidating against the vanness quarters. there are nine buildings, three properties all in that court order. all of which have good ties to existing academy uses in in that corridor. the current fashion school, we are adding a new building that is added to the fashion school for the fashion program. rather than having students travel across the city they will be able to walk a short distance to the new fashion building. there is a housing metering provision in the develop an agreement that you will see, it will come to you that it requires the academy provided for its student population. i think it is important, as a preview, currently the
development agreement as it is written and will come to you, it requires that the academy provide housing for 32% of its students starting in 2019. this is more than any other private university in the city provides. we have looked at the university of san francisco, they provide 21%. golden gate university does not provide housing for its students currently. the academy's obligation to provide 32% is a good deal for the city. there is declining enrollment at aau. i think that is an important part of the story that you will see read we believe this is partially due to the good economy. when the economy is strong, there tend to be fewer students going into the school. the enrollment could increase in the future if there is an economic downturn.
that is a projection you will see as you read through this report that i think is an important conclusion. the development agreement is the key entitlement you see this fall, as i referenced, it goes through 34 properties, 34 properties before you with plan sets. adding 800 bicycle spaces, providing a new community facility and the bayview, and we are doing alterations to all of the historic buildings to rectify work that was done without permit or that doesn't meet historic standards. finally, the shuttle system, which i think folks in the city are familiar with. the shuttle has been slightly pared down. there have been a few routes removed and reflection of the fact that the academy has vacated those spaces in the north beach area. there is a requirement as part of the tran 34 documentation
that we do a transportation management plan that will be approved by the planning department and the mta. finally, the settlement as it contemplated and shown in the supplemental draft term sheet which you have for informational purposes requires that the academy pay $40 million to the city for for affordable housing. this is a payment that is not linked to any existing fee. this is an affordable housing benefit that is coming to the city, $40,000. there is an additional $20,000 in benefits that goes to pay for impact fees, staff time, and other factors reimbursing the city for the cost of the settlement. that is my presentation. happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. we will now open the item up for public comment.
i have wilma parker. marlene moyer, and mr. james goldman. anyone else that wants to provide public comment on this item, please line up on the left side of the room. >> i guess you can hear me. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is wilma parker, and i am pleased to say that the academy is my neighbor at jackson and van ness. they are the best neighbor i have ever had. it is really amazing what they have done. they have been saving buildings, that the city knows what to do with, wants to do anything with. holdings that have outlived their purpose.
i really feel that the academy has been great against the terrible condition on most of our city streets. which brings me to the fact that my life is so much easier with the academy next door. i have in 1881 historic victorian, i'm trying to coexist with six buses idling in that street, the buses are nice. it has been a nightmare on van ness. the academy has kept it viable. i love what they have done saving saint bridget's church. i love what they have done next door to me. heritage is very happy that they are preserving some of these palaces that we would lose otherwise. they are a preserver of history, for us, we have been losing so much of our historic buildings. also, they are historic themselves. they are the oldest art school. they are global. families all over the world are proud to send their children to the academy. you know, we should be honoring
that. they bring us a lot of prestige. also, jackson and van ness, and even further down, i love what they have done with their car showroom. i have witnessed the homeless standing shoulder to shoulder with well-dressed tourists from all over the world just admiring those cars and having their spirits uplifted. that should be considered. we really have to honor what the academy has done to save our history, and keep our streets viable. also being really great neighbors. in closing, i would like to say, aside from some of this knuckle rapping, we ought to be giving tax breaks to organizations like the academy, or anyone who is preserving come at their own expense, making our city more desirable as a place to visit, and more than their share of fixing up the mess on van ness.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is paul. excuse me. i was going to say there is a sign i've seen out in protest, i cannot believe we still doing this. i find that it appropriate here. i have been asked to hand in a letter that is relevant, from someone else. i value education and educational institutions a lot, when they genuinely bring value to the cities. i understand that we are not taking any action on the imp. i think there are things that need to be considered going forward that i would like to get in as part of the record. one is my continuing concern that aau has done a remarkably good job of removing
rent-controlled units from the marketplace. in a city like san francisco, with very tight vacancy rates, you do not need to take a lot to really drive up the price for other landlords. that is a problem. yeah, that is a problem. there is a lot about how we just heard about the wonderful art museum. you know, they have a -- an incredible collection of cars. i van ness and look in the window. their proposal is that you would be able to look into the windows, into this well lit showroom and see these cars. walk down van ness, look into the windows, and see exactly how well you can see those cars standing outside on the streets. they say it will be a museum by appointment only. for a prime location on van ness , that doesn't seem like a real benefit to the city.
that is not the sort of people -- and think people come walk by and go in on a moments notice. that is not an attraction for tourists. all you can do is look in the window without a prior appointment. it is still not a contact campus. it is requiring shuttles. that is not good for students who spend an undue amount of time in transportation. it is not good for the health of the citizens, of the city, who have to deal with a pollution related to transportation. if any of you think this is trivial, look at the research on particulate pollution. i don't care how clean the engine omissions are, the brake pads, and a nuisance. they are still a health hazard. finally, if i could have it overhead. they don't seem to provide the tremendous benefit for their students.
they were highlighted in a new york times article as one of the graduate schools leaving their students with large amounts of debt, for the service provided. that is debt that we as taxpayers are funding to federally guaranteed loans. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. in general i think this imp is moving in the right direction. good to concentrate on van ness, it is a major transit corner when we get it running again. to cluster the classrooms around the tenderloin related housing projects. there really is no excuse for shuttling. you know, all of those properties can be accessed by the 47 and 49, even the brand of
i am going to focus on transit. the presentation that was made early on in this agenda item showed a map of the shuttle route chris crossing san francisco. if i can turn your attention on page 10 of the aau master plan. i can't put it on the overhead. basically, the shuttle rates are plummeting. they say decreasing. that is an understatement. more than 3800 students riding these in 2015. in 2017 it was barely 2500. now it is barely 1500. as marlene was saying, muni
routes service where students are housed. as paul was saying. the pollution is significant even if they are taking steps to have less emissions from the shuttle's, it is a major issue. taking public transit is better for everyone. this isn't much for folks at the academy as for you. i want to see the master plan away from the shuttle's and more towards more effective transit options for everyone in the community. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, you know, at san francisco state they give you few muni passes. my son has one. he is a graduate student. it is something to think about in the transportation master plan. i want to thank sue hester.
as long as i have known hersheye has been working about this. 32% sounds good, but that is still a lot of people looking for housing in the city where the housing is difficult to find. i would like to ask the commission's indulgence. i would like to donate my two and a half minutes to sue hester. >> it is not allowed, sorry. come on up, ms. hester. >> because this document came out on the fourth of july, i wasn't able to get people to come. there was about seven of us that have come religiously for the past 10 years they were all on
vacation except paul, and i think theresa is going to speak. here is a set what you got by e-mail when you are in executive session. two things. this has been going on for a long time. i have been involved with this since 2005. no one from the planning department would be here except for the community, banking heads against to wall to start complaining. it is insulting. there were no notices given to any of the people who have spoken because you don't have to keep a list to give notices to so literally everyone is on vacation except for paul and myself and hopefully theresa is going to speak. the academy of art is for profit
and it owns every site by an individual llc and makes it impossible to track them. the commission has been their stock and trade. you are doing the institutional master plan with no notice to the public over the break for thanksgiving, for the fourth of july. it is rubbing it in. you should have the courtesy to the public to have the hearing -- to continue the hearing for input. one of the things going on is the management of the academy of art is not explained. it is for profit with no board mechanism that i have been able to determine. who manages the academy of art? a corporation with a bomb line
of doll -- bottom line. who defines the academic mission? ms. stevens and only ms. stevens? what is your role regarding the academy? i am very, very glad the city attorney sued them. i am glad that this fund has had all kinds of negotiations that are private between themselves, but at some point you have got to say what is the role of the public and the planning commission? we have to have the ability to read the document every 200 pages of documents. i only get three. i have been working on this issue. thank you for your courtesy. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> theresa flanders.
i can't believe we are at this stage. it has been a long time. in living in north beach i encountered the aau on a regular basis. we lost so much housing, there were so many things missing in terms of oversight, in terms of honesty, transparency. above all what i hope we learn and that we do actually learn from this long, long period of time with this particular institution is what is needed to be in place that we do not lose any more housing, and i really wish that a lot more housing was going to be returned to our housing stock in this particular case. i also, the idea of schools building student housing, that would be a really good lesson to
learn in this. that is still not part of what i'm seeing, losing the da vinci hotel for student housing doesn't feel right at all. there could be so many different things done with that hotel. furthermore, as we are seeing so many buildings as corporate rentals, vacation rentals, a motor lodge, it is something i know my family of 10 when i was a kid, that is the kind of place we would stay. that eliminates a certain population with less money not staying in the three or five star hotels, there would be a place. again, it's wanting the aau to actually build the student housing. that would be on them and not removing housing from our rental
stock that we so need so lots of lessons to be learned. i hope we really learn them. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners, test melbourne. i would like to support the comments previously about the loss of controlled housing units in rent controlled housing stock. $40 million. i have heard the mayor's office say a million dollars a unit to build the affordable housing maybe $900,000. 40 units. if it was only $500,000, that would be 80 units. i