-- permits. we had one denied because of the lack of institutional master plan. i don't think the department wants to go back to that. these mechanisms, we have been conscientiously objecting to those -- addressing those. we are trying to work on that. i believe that the only other point that the department is raising is that even if this was a valid institutional master plan, it has to be updated every couple of years and you would still be in violation. that is a direct 3 date and not a mandatory date. there is a lot of evidence for that. as i mentioned in my brief, the housing element in san francisco that we have now is

from 1990. there are state statutes that are required every five years, but the city is still approving the zoning permits for housing. we believe they can go ahead and start hearing matters based on the institutional master plan. we continue to update it and we continue to do a larger environmental impact record for that. i am not trying to avoid responsibility or skip any steps in the process. we are just asking you to help us get started on the process by determining that we have a master plan and we should be able to go forward. thank you. >> in section 304.5, i think it's c. it has to do with format of

substance. number five states, any other item that might be reasonably required by the planning department or planning commission. do you feel as though the additional submissions had to do with enforcement? what was the other one? transportation? you feel that is unreasonable? >> i don't think it is unreasonable that they ask for additional information. but i think they are being unreasonable to find out what is acceptable to meet the standard decisions. they did ask for additional animation in regard to the circulation of the system and additional information for how these students operated with those. most of that information was in the draft. they asked for additional

information. it was not inappropriate, but i believe that just because they ask for additional information does not preclude the fact that materials would be submitted. >> it would seem to me that the fact that asked for additional information would indicate that the hearing is on going until such time that additional information is reviewed. >> there is nothing in the record that supports that. not to be argumentative, but it seems like your client was put on notice that they were not to open any new operations until that issue had been settled. we still had to deal with, as you stated, the imp should have been accepted.

>> i think that what we have been trying to do is bring the buildings and compliance as rapidly as we can. what i am looking for is the most expedient way to do that. >> it would be more reasonable to wait until the process is gone, whether it is reasonable or not, as long as it is completed before opening -- >> it requires me to answer your question a little bit differently. the way institutional master plan is, they claim that this building was not identified in the institutional master plan that was written in november of 2007. the problem is that it was designed 10 years in advance. specific buildings are not always included.

neighborhoods are. in this case, we have an urban university that has to do with the institutional master plan. we already had buildings in the south of market. lee said that we were going to be expanding too areas adjacent to that. >> even if they had given that exact address, you had the issue -- i am trying to find the date. it stated specifically that it was not to open any other venues until the issue had been settled. >> i don't recall the exact date. >> it is after that date. maybe other people have other questions. >> i have some questions.

i am curious. if you were to complete the record, you would have submitted a transcript for thes specific instruction that would inform us to some extent of what the discussion was and how it ended. and i am not sure it means the same thing as being closed. >> i think i have those minutes with me. >> nobody is going to read it at this point. >> i don't think there was a specific request other than to provide additional information. i worked with counsel at that time, so i cannot testify from personal knowledge. >> the i.m.p. was not provided

to us. we have no idea if it is acceptable or not. >> i don't think that you need to make that finding. all you need to know is that this is what was required. >> related to that -- the specific action here is against the property at 460 townsend. why did you not submit a conditional use application there? >> the only reason is that at the time, i have gotten involved with the academy and several permits had already been filed. i got hired the day they denied

the first one. i thought it would be a futile act to submit a conditional use application that was going to be denied. that application could be filed tomorrow. >> the appellant argue that the department has continually moved to the finish line. it is difficult to finish with you barely started the race. we tried to bring them into compliance. this began with the notice of violation because they did not have a complete i.m.p. on file. they came to move into the property next door.

we requested the i.m.p. we wanted to get something a little bit more robust. at that point, we had inklings that there were enforcement issues. they put up their sides without permits. we reviewed the i.m.p. have found that they, in fact, had significant violations without permits, work done without permits. they had properties listed on there website that were not in the i.m.p. that they had just given us. we said that enforcement notification informing them of these issues. we met with them in the summer

of 2007 to discuss these issues. at the time, you need to building permits and conditional uses to change the use. that is how it works. that is what we expect of people in san francisco. i was in a meeting with the president of the academy at they were telling me how they were going to work with compliance to get a voice mail from a concerned citizen stating that work was being done on a historic building and they were changing the windows without permits. we found out over the course of the summer that they had acquired additional properties including the motel that was an enforcement issue and brought to the planning commission's attention in september of 2007. it was a much more complete i.m.p.

we felt that it had met the minimum requirements for the i.m.p. we took it to the planning commission. following this, they had submitted the conditional use authorizations to legalize some of their properties that have required building permits. given the enormity of this, it is not a categorical assumption that can be given, it is now more than 30 properties. that was made in the winter of 2007-2008. they finally filed an application in may of 2008. it has not been vigorously followed up by the academy and we just recently had a meeting last week.

we worked with the academy and let them know that they can't just on a whim, change use. they did inform the planning commission that they were going to occupy certain properties. one of the properties was 460 townsend street. the planning commission hearing in november, commissioner sugaya asked the representative whether or not they had changed the use of this building without benefit of a permit. the answer was in the affirmative. it is clear that the property is in violation. the department and the city has been patient resolving these issues. we decided on an enforcement policy that we would hold off

enforcement actions for applications on buildings that they had acquired previous to the environmental review period. we are pursuing those without benefit of permit after that date. that is why it is before you. the i.m.p. is what is holding this up. they don't have an environmental impact report. they filed this one in 2008. it takes one or two years. we are more than two years into it and the there have been considerable delays. the record clearly shows that we have not had complete compliance from the academy. we have had numerous hearings at the planning commission, probably more than 20. at one point, it was a regular

item every week on the calendar to enforce issues that we had discovered. it is something that is very well known to all parties. the board of supervisors has talked about it as well. they do not have a valid i.m.p. that has been accepted by the planning commission. the most recent update was in april of 2008. they also need to update it when they acquire property. the main issue is that they acquire this building -- while that is not a violation, it is that they changed the use. they don't have the proper conditional use authorization. it is with that, that we vigorously and respectfully request that the board of pulled the notice of violation and penalty that would allow

penalties to begin to accrue on this clearly, blatantly -- a violation of the code. i am available for any questions. >> i am curious about the other properties. is the city collected penalties? >> this is the first one that has come through. we have been working with the academy to come to resolution on the other properties. there is one that we think is reasonable argument for compliance. we have been working with them to remove the illegal use. >> that was just one year old according to your timeline. >> we have been trying to get compliance and this is the one that is moving forward as an enforcement issue. >> are you aware of any i.m.p.

that has not been accepted? >> yes, the commission has continued i.m.p.'s from hearings because they did not want to take action on thait until certn information had been provided. because they are abating enforcement issues. there are cases where the commission has not accepted an i.m.p., and they have requested additional information. >> there are cases where they were not accepted? >> yes. >> are there any that have never been accepted? >> they did work to provide the

required information. >> there aren't any i.m.p.'s and during the course of your tenure that wound up not being accepted? >> not after listening to the commission and responding to their comments and questions. >> we can move to public comment. others interested in speaking, light up on the far side of the room. -- line up on the far side of the room. >> i'm collin gallagher, i'm a neighbor of the property. i'm a member of the block board of directors. it has been used as a dormitory and i strongly recommend they deny the academy's appeal.

since they converted the building to classroom space, there has been a dramatic increase in no wise by students may use it as a social space during the late evening and early morning hours. the academy has shown little interest in controlling this behavior that constitutes a nuisance and interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of our property. the academy has not met with our board to propose remedies for the ongoing nuisance. we understand the anxiety of the students may have regarding their post-graduation employment opportunities. [chime] if the students are not able to be good neighbors, the academy has to ensure that these noise issues cease. that is why i strongly recommend that you uphold of the penalties that are proposed against the academy.

president peterson: next speaker, please. >> i am not commenting on the specific project. but because i was involved in the original drafting of the legislation on the institutional master plan, i would give a brief perspective and a few seconds that i have. it is obvious that the institutional master plan ordinance was not written with a view to accommodate the academy of art. it is a different kind of institution that when we were dealing with 1977. on the other hand, the reality is that the reason the academy is having a problem with the institutional master plan is that conforming to the institutional master plan is not within their business plan. their business plan is to buy

property, convert it, expand. it doesn't make any difference if you determine if they had a valid i.m.p. or not. [chime] i just want to point out section 3045b, any time there is an increase in the institutional side by 10,000 square feet, they are required to file a revision. it has to be heard by the planning commission in order for the revision to be ok. under 305h, any development has to be described as an institutional master plan. it doesn't really mean that requirement. president peterson: thank you. >> i should have disclosed, i did not know he was going to

speak. i have known him for quite well, and it will in no way influenced the way i will decide this issue. >> mi am speaking in support of the zoni administrator's determination. i have been to many hearings, and the tenor as one of outrage. it basically operates outside the law for decades. they have not complied with the zoning or i.m.p. legislation. there have been a number of city organizations to ask that they obey the law. the south of market committee action network, the community housing positions, the community

housing partnerships, the san francisco tenant's union. they just don't get it. they are a business. they have a business plan. they are owned by three members of one family. [chime] upholding this determination and beginning to find them so it costs them money to break the law is one of the ways we will get them to get it and obey the law. president peterson: another speaker. >> the academy has been stressing the city along for five years. a have been on notice repeatedly that they are out of compliance

with the law. the notice of violation is dated june 22, 2010. they just want to push it off. the city is spending enormous amounts of money trying to inspect all of their buildings. and they are finding all kinds of violations. the city is basically pissing away money on these people because they are not going to comply with the law. you have to say no, upholding the determination. if you don't, there will never be an end to this. there has to be some finality. you conduct hearings. you closed public testimony, that is not the end of the issue. there was a hearing in. they closed the hearing and it is effectively closing public

testimony to the commissioners could discuss it. [chime] they said it was not adequate. president peterson: any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. 15 minutes. >> there are several things i like to correct. number of code enforcement activities that have been going on very vigorously since we got involved back in january, this is the first one. one that was identified, we relocated the office operations out of the building so that it wouldn't violate the code. we have also removed about 20 different signs that were determined to be illegal. some of the signs, we are

working on that. we have also relocated other operations of other buildings. finally, all this inspection is part of the task force. all of that has been paid for by the academy of art. to the point that i complained at one meeting to a huge task force, they were trying to get the academy of art to balance their budget. in any case, i want to disagree with one other thing. we believe that the institutional master plan is not incongruous with the business plan of the academy. we believe it is an appropriate document. once we have that, we will be able to act faster with the department, identifying buildings and going forward to say this is one of the buildings

in the area of the kind that we identified, give us a permit. getting this institutional master plan done, that is why we had this meeting. we spent several months working on the project description. we have been moving aggressively. finally, i want to emphasize that what the institutional master plan is, according to the code, its purpose is for noticed and information. that is what it says. notice and information. it is not meant to be a definitive permit. i really appreciate the time you have had to talk about this, i am prepared answer any

questions. i hope that you would find that as a result of the document that was submitted to appropriately and determined by the staff to be adequate and held a hearing, determined that the hearing was closed. [chime] we have satisfied our conditions. president peterson: your argument feels rather circular. you're asking us to approve an i.m.p., and there are times when you say you don't havean i.m.p. -- have an i.m.p. and it is still to be developed. >> i am asking you to approve the one that we naha submitted in december. -- that we submitted in december. we have one submitted based on

the one that we submitted for the future. we are required to do what every years. -- one every two years. president peterson: what are the main differences between this i.m.p. and the one you submitted in 2007? >> it will allow us to initiate a process, and i am not trying to skip anything here. we will have to do reviews on individual buildings. some buildings require conditional use permits, others only require building permits. we would be allowed to go through the process of starting to legalize each one of those buildings and convert it. that is what i am trying to get done, and that is why i would

like to get done as good as possible. the time that will take to get this institutional master plan working that we are doing out and the environmental impact report will take another 18 months. a leg to get moving on making these buildings legal. >> if i could follow up with a question, it seems to me as though she was asking how the new i.m.p. will differ, and not what it will allow you to do. if that is not her question, it would be mine. >> it will not be much different, it will be a little more detail because there are more buildings we can identify. there is a transportation study that is being got in the eir for the new i.m.p. it