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, and often times, many public institutions, where they cannot find a job. one of the good things about this is a lot of the education here is very practical in nature and is geared toward where jobs are available, and that is an important thing that we do not see too often.

anyway, finally, there were some comments we received in writing about the behavior of students that we have to look at, make sure the behavior is appropriate, that neighbors are not disturbed and the same sorts of things that are important to look at. i will say in general they are clean and well maintained, and i am very frequently on the area around sutter and post, and i have had to make phone calls on a building that is not owned by the academy of art university. it is owned by someone who has market for development, and that developer has done nothing to keep it clean. i've had to make four or five calls to the individual himself, saying we have got to get this thing cleaned up. anyway -- i think we do have

institutions to some degree. we of situations like nyu, the university of phoenix, the other types of universities that are not in the historic format of what we are used to. so, i think we have to realize there will be a lot more of that in the future and to move forward. those are kind of my observations. i can go into those at greater length and we go to the environmental report. commissioner miguel: i did not want anyone to win for i was being critical of the company. -- i did not want for anyone to win for i was being critical of the company. you were doing what the client asked you to do. i to understand. i do want to complement sue

hestor as a wordsmith with her term "metastasize." [laughter] i agree with the comments of the other commissioners that we might take a better look at section 3 of 4, because it may become even more confusing in the future. however, i actually want to get beyond this and into the enforcement action and into the eir and into the conditional use items. that is where the worth of this commission will take place. >> because the closing of the hearing does not require a vote, what i am hearing is a desire to close the hearing? >> [unintelligible]

>> which would then allow the acceptance. i use that term very deliberately. closing the hearing and "accepting"the mass your plan does not mean that you are agreeing with. you are accepting the information. i want to give an update on where we go from here and the other processes as a commissioner. we have pending on many of the properties -- to be able to move up forward on those. the environmental impact report is under way. to be clear, the eir is not required for the master plan. there has been confusion about that for some time. de eir -- the eir is required for the properties. we have asked for the draft eir to be released next summer and we would go from there with the

normal process of the eir. the commission has to certify the eir before you can approve the occupancy of any building. we're moving forward with the enactments and the eir. next year will be an important here to try to bring this to resolution. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, if there is no further discussion, or deliberation, madam president, i would ask the closing of the public hearing and the substance of the i.m.p., i would ask that you close this meeting. president olague: meeting is adjourned.

this is a regular meetg of the san francisco planning commission. i would devise everyone to turn off their electronic devices during these proceedings. we have a crowded room today so just let me make an announcement. we will not accept any disruptions. we ask that you take any discussions outside. there is no standing in this room.

find a space or go outside. once overflow has been established, we will let you know where this is that. he may not stand in this room. moore? sugaya? fong? olague? antonini? miguel? borden is abscent. we have the calendar items proposed for a continuance. item number one is case 2009. 01. this shows the proposal for the continuance for january 12. the staff has informed me that they are looking to a continuance to february 9, 2012. this is for 1111 california st., proposed for a continuance

to january 19, 2012. case 147 south park avenue, for a continuance to january 19. case 2010. 1013 thd, proposed for continuos to december 15, 2011. 13, 14, and 15. this is for 3218 mission street. we're asking to continue this item to january 26, 2012. case 2010 for 5358 mission street. and item 15, case 2010.

january 26, 2012. the city attorney will have a statement to make, regarding the last three continuances. but with that, i am not aware of any other items on the calendar proposed for continuance. >> and are there any other items proposed for a continuance? -- >> bob barney? -- >> i represent the knob hill association. i want to thank you for granting the continuance and we look forward to seeing you on january

19. and is there additional public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none -- >> i am robert garcia. i am the president of the merchants association. i would respectfully request that you take a look at this. they have done their own study, -- >> this has to do only with the items proposed for a continuance. and is there additional public comment on the items proposed for a continuance. scene 9, public comment -- >> --

>> the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods ask me to give this to you today. does is for the continuance for 1111 california st., to look at the conditions and the documentation that have been given to you about the actual use of the site. there were very concerned about the misuse of their name and their organization names, theoretically in support of these conditions negotiated last year. what i am giving you is there a letter, saying that there is a problem if you need these conditions and regret that this was done without the proposal. -- >> do you support this condition? public comment is closed. at this time we would like to hear from the city attorney --

>> good afternoon. i am qaeda stacey from the city attorney's office. we recommend the continuance of these items because of the recent case law. a recent court of appeals' decision ruled that the city's permit and requirement for the medical campus facility and federal lobs makes it illegal to distribute or possess marijuana. the city at issue with long beach -- the court of appeals addressed the permitting scheme in long beach and the city could limit where medical campus dispensaries are located but could not permit the dispensary from either the authorizing ordnance or this scheme. and this decision is different

from the other californian ports and how they address this question, no other published california description as addressed the local permitting requirements as part of the regulation for these dispensaries. several jurisdictions in california are concerned that long beach has appealed this decision to the california supreme court. we expect the court of appeals decision would have no effect on the supreme court and their review. if they do not grant review, we will work with the city to conform with the court of appeals decision. we recommend that this city now may get a permit decisions until makes a decision about whether to review the case. we recommend -- recommended on

january 26, it may be necessary to continue this another time. that is why we are recommending the continuance until we know if they will review this decision. -- >> i move that the continuance should go to the date specified by the secretary. the final dates -- >> this is seconded. -- >> on the motion to continue item one until february 9, item 2 to january 19 time --, item four until december 15, and

items 1314 and 15 to january 26, 2012. antonini? fong? moore? olague? the items are continued. you are now on the consent calendar -- >> should we be keeping these or will we get new materials -- >> -- >> you are now on the consent calendar. item #5 in the consent calendar is considered to be routine and will be decided upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion and thus a member of the commission discusses -- and then this will be removed from the consent calendar at this and future hearings.

item #5498 west portal avenue is a conditional use authorization for a new wireless television -- telephone service, located on the rooftop of a financial services building. this is a commercial structure within a minute -- individual neighborhood commercial district. this is part of the wireless communications network. following any public comment that would remove this from the consent calendar, this item is on that hands. -- >> is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. -- >> i moved to approve. -- >> on the motion for -- motion

for approval -- >> thank you, commissioners. the item has been approved. you are now at item number six, consideration of the adoption of the meeting's minutes, following any corrections you may have an public comment, we would ask that you adopt the draft minutes. -- >> and is there any public comment? public comment is closed. -- >> i moved to approve the draft minutes. the motion to approve this draft minutes -- miguel? olague? are there any other commissioner matters? >> the other night i was

fortunate enough to attend the opening of an exhibition which is that the legion of honor. they had an incredible sculpture that had never come out of italy until recently and we are fortunate enough to beat one of the two american cities where this will be displayed. if you have not seen this you would be well to go and see this. he did a lot of other things, and was an architect -- and a lot of other beautiful things. but i think what we can learn is how great the architecture and sculpture and the design was during the renaissance and for a long time -- we can learn some lessons and not be critical of modern architecture, if they can do those things with chisels,

centuries ago we should be able to create beautiful things in this era as well. hopefully, we can continue to move forward and see that we are supportive of the arts and also supportive of moving the city into another renaissance. we have this in the early part of the 20th-century. >> some interesting things this week. there is a temporary stay on the street boxes. this is by a superior court, this was before us with the informational while ago. i saw a presentation regarding a

project that will be coming to us in the future. 134 housing units, they have had this for many years and the presentation of the project that is going up on third street, i attended the chinatown broadway design workshop, in chinatown last afternoon. it was fairly well attended. the department did an excellent job. the mandarin and also the english. this is the design of the last three major box is coming out of

the tunnel and this looks very good. this will be an improvement in my estimation. this is on fulton street, and the interesting article, i referenced that this morning. the san francisco rental market, this is at the most crowded. this is since 1999. this is 3.2%, and then the cost of rental is up 9% in san francisco. the projects that come before this commission, the pipeline will speed itself up, there was

a court decision and i don't have all the details on this. this is on the washington street projects. there was a legal action filed against this. this was very interesting with the communication, he was working through some records. the san francisco planning code, this was 12 pages. we have three volumes. by 1957 this was up to 60 pages. 42 pages in 1950, by 1974 this was 134 pages.

i don't have the count, presently, but this is into the many thousands of pages. this is just amazing when you look at history and how the city has changed and put things into their coats. and when i talk to people in other areas, we're cutting down more trees to put in coats than any city in the country. >> it came to my attention that the city passed a very interesting and support of ordnance to keep people from being evicted in the course of foreclosure. this is the first one in california, and the first one in the country. at a time