technical violations. my estimation is estimation, thl violations were incurred by a management and associate, completely aware -- and i said this before -- of what they were doing was unlawful. i have previously and again referred to them as scofflaw. you have mentioned this afternoon, at the present time, the lowest availability of rental housing in san francisco since 1999. we are down to, i believe, just over 3% availability. this is for san franciscans, people we want to live and work here. three different submissions,

december 2007, april 2008, and this. both previous time the commission determined the imp denied to satisfy the relevant code requirement, and did not except those imp's. this present overblown submission is a bit better than the others. as far as i'm concerned, given an obvious and blatant and ability -- inability to resemble anything coherent plan use planning, it is questionable whether this document, probably prepared by the company a month ago, it is even accurate as of today. there is no way to tell.

i will have some more comments later. commissioner olague: i would like to call on commissioner fong. commissioner fong: my comments and actions here will explain the overall sprawl and success of the university. i was prepared to participate today and hope that this is a first death in a new leaf in moving forward, answering and taken care of the frustration that many people have. but i will have to recuse myself and ask for refusal -- refusal, based on some transactions, interactions relates to private events with the business i known, and the university. -- own, and the university.

>> this is getting ridiculous. i will move for refusal strictly on legal grounds. >> [roll call] commissioner olague: we are going to be taking a 15-minute recess. commissioner fong is reduced.

-- recused.

>> if it rings, if you would take your call outside instead of answering in here, we would really appreciate that. commissioners, since commissioner fong and sugaya are reduced, -- recused, you are in the middle of your

deliberations. commissioner olague: thank you for allowing us our recess so that we can get a sense of how we report to move forward here. i just want to thank members of the public for coming out and sharing with us the concerns they have. this is nothing new, we have been here before, for several years, and i do again want to acknowledge the comments, students from the san francisco art institute. it is always courageous to be someone outside of the political process to take the time to come down here and raise some of the issues. what i do want to mention, though, a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the public are one that commissioner miguel mention the, one that do

not fall under the purview of the institution a master plan. i know sue mentioned there were some definite issues that pertain to this, but overall, i agree with the planning department's conclusion, that the imp does meet the standards that are set for that. a lot of the issues that people raise around housing, traffic problems, etc., have more to do with the eir. i know the institution has been working closely with our department now. delay, there will be more discussions with members of the public. -- hopefully, there will be more discussions with members of the public. i am hoping -- i guess i am

fatigued. over the past five, six years, the conversation, the tone that it has taken. it has gotten nasty and bitter and did not really lead to anything other than more bitterness. i would rather see us move more into -- maybe the next few years, we can resolve these issues and concerns, and in a fashion that is less combative. maybe we can actually sit down with some members of the community, with the mayor's office convening, the board of supervisors. the planning department will stay involved. we have christine from our enforcement division. but to do this in a way that is less combative spirit i am not sure it has gotten us very far. i think we are spinning our wheels and are in the same place

we were six years ago. i know there has been some legislation recently proposed around student housing that we heard last week. issues around housing, traffic, are issues that, hopefully, we can continue to work with the institution to see if we can get somewhere where the neighbors and others feel more resolved around. we live in the city, obviously. there is a lot that is perhaps unresolved, but i am at a place where some of the issues that fall out of the purview of the imp continued to be worked on, continue to move forward on. some have been working on this issue for a long time. i am hoping he can help us move forward on some of these things.

i do not think i need to reiterate what everyone has already stated, some of the concerns. i believe the imp does meet the standards that are set. my desire is to close the hearing on the institutional master plan. i see other commissioners have their names up. there is no motion. i would like to allow the other commissioners an opportunity to speak. commissioner moore. commissioner moore commissioner moore: i appreciate the voices that have come to the meeting. i echo everyone's concerns. this group has been sitting since 2008, repeatedly and in

accelerated fashion. this is the crescendo. voices are loud and clear. the lack of definition on what an institutional master plan needs to be, as in section 3 04 0.5, makes it difficult to drive the point home further than what is in front of us. i just want to perhaps support and elevate what commissioner miguel said. given the fact that we are here with a very complete, comprehensive, attractive imp's from other city institutions, i would like to say that this is barely in the lower tier. it looks good, have the right graphics cover, the snappy binding, the heavy cover, heavier than any part of the

content that is what is expressed in here. this is basically a light weight pr document, using commissioner miguel's words. since the definition in the code does not require anything other than that, i regret an institution, which definitely is doing some good things, on its own, would not rise to the occasion to show what they are doing. that is, indeed, a more thoughtful description of themselves, more 4-looking mission statement of where minim expressing that they want to be a good citizen in city matters, which apparently they have not, given the violations. that is all watching old laundry. what bothers me is this imp makes it look like what architecture schools referred to as art 1. it tells me about the codes, the buildings, where they are.

i deal with that every week. i do not need to fill the pages of this kind of plan with information which is obvious and accessible to all of us. i do not want to take this further. there is one thing, and i want to hang this out as a question mark. the success of the university. that is accepted, and that has been directed in the proper way, channeled in the proper way, its own benefit. however, while there is growth at indication relative to what is needed, i do not see a counterstatement with the many students, how and where they would lift. that is basically at the core of the question here in the room for many. the institutional attitude towards future growth and

housing, where would students live, in what buildings? and in what fashion? i think that needs to be addressed somewhere. perhaps part of the eir, i do not know. i believe this institutional master plan falls flat on its face because housing, if you just take the sound bites, is one of the biggest concerns. with the increase in housing, there is a major concern about transportation. the transportation has to go hand in hand with roads and housing, including the mission and rapidly changing the attitudes of our transportation, how the current university operates, relative to what they will be doing in the future. i think that is a disclosure statement need to have as part of this document. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i

partially disagree. i think this imp is comparable to what we have received from other universities and institutions. it is longer because it has to be, a much more complicated situation. obviously, many institutions are very small in one location, so a two-page sheet, with a rough sketch, is certainly adequate for their imp. because of the complexity of the situation, and it points out a lot of things. it is not to be a document with complete problem-solving, but rather, a document that presents what is there and what is planned for the future. that is what this does. many of the issue will be discussed as part of the eir, which has been mentioned by other commissioners. i think that is entirely true. just a few observations. they make a good point in the document about housing impact. you have a lot of students, they

are going to live somewhere. i was a student in san francisco and i made an impact because i took up housing that somebody else could have. it is a zero sum situation whether or not the university owns the housing or is owned by others and the students live there. that is the subject we are taking up. that being said, we have a success story in that we have an institution, as was pointed out , bringing a lot of revenue into the city, employment into the city, students, and there will be impacts. of course, that is what we will analyze in the eir, but we cannot discriminate housing for students just as valuable as others. students often of the lower income level than some of the other people. it does not mean that they necessarily are higher income people, in most cases. the traffic thing, again, and

eir issue. we have to live just beyond the university and the entire impact of buses all over, including businesses that run big buses through san francisco to institutions on the peninsula, such as google and apple, genentech, and our own muni. this is an issue that we have to look at globally as we look at the use of transportation, particularly, diesel buses, and see if we can somehow make them more efficient. a couple other things that i would suggest, and this is not necessarily part of the plan. i am really happy that this is moving forward, and we should try to reinstitute monthly meetings and quarterly reports. the more we talk, the better things work. also, one of the things in the

informational master plan is no duplication of facilities. on this housing issue, working in conjunction with ucsf, the dental school, and all the other institutions throughout san francisco who have lots of students and housing needs, if we can create new housing to accommodate their needs, both for the academy of art university, as well as these others, that is a great idea, and is part of the housing concept, or perhaps conversions of existing commercial or retail space whose needs have changed and are available. another thing that has happened here is many of the acquisitions of the institution, which are pointed out in the informational master plan, are basically white elephants that were very expensive, could not be demolished. if it was not for their acquisition, they would be vacant. that is something that we do not dwell on often enough.

i think we have some understanding, i hope, as we move forward with the environmental impact report, we will stay with the scope of what is in use at this time and will not be any additions before june of 2012, so we can actually get our arms around what is there, analyze the impact of what is in use, and therefore, begin to move forward, after hopefully, and accepted eir, and then move forward with the other steps we need to. i think there are a lot of things that are not brought up, and that is the fact that, according to their documents, there are a lot of students who are educated, placed in jobs, becoming productive members of society. every institution has students to graduate