is unresolved. so, yeah, january 19 is far out. icommissioner garcia: thank you, and the appellant is raising her hand. president peterson: out of fruit fairness, she needs to come up. -- out of fairness, she needs to come out. >> it seems to me at the end of the hearing, there was a lot of comment about the fact no more information. no more written information could be submitted, and that was my understanding. it was news to me after the findings were out that it could be addressed in a written manner. this all caught me off-guard. i have not read it. if they have submitted things, it seems only fair we have an opportunity to address what they submitted. doesn't it? commissioner garcia: they could

have raised in an oral argument next week and it might have done away totally with what we're doing right now, and they could have shown up next week and made some oral argument about what ever is contained in this brief and we would have considered that before adopting findings anyway. it is just the recall is that makes it somewhat easier for people to follow the fact it is in written form and it is not much deviation from anything we ordinarily do. >> perhaps i misunderstood in the beginning the opportunity -- what the opportunity was to respond to the fighting. -- to the finding. i was not aware i could even comment during the hearing next week. and it seems like such a shortperiod of time. commissioner garcia: you would

have had the opportunity, and you will still have the opportunity. >> i was just not aware. they are now represented by legal counsel, which puts us at a disadvantage at this point. commissioner garcia: some lawyers may argue with that. commissioner fung: madam, you would have an opportunity to revisit -- to review their submission by next friday? >> how would hope to have a minimum of two weeks. it is the holiday season. there is so much going on. trying to make a response to this in a week's time and try to find the time to do that in an adequate manner will be a real stretch. president peterson: i guess the thing is this is sort of converting into a rehearing request. what if we were to ask for a

rehearing instead? i say that only because the findings would have to reflect that after the fact we received additional evidence to be considered. >> until you adopt your findings, your decision is not final before you have adopted your findings. you can continue to accept evidence until you adopt your findings. >> did i misunderstand after the last two hearings when they said we could not submit anything else further? >> that is why we are here today, because it takes board approval to accept additional submissions. >> you are talking about the time when there were not enough votes. that is when we said no more evidence. >> but mr. kaplan was also told that he could not resubmit anything. >> between that time when we

were waiting for the last commission -- >> at both hearings, there was that admonition. commissioner garcia: i think we're clear how you feel and how the other side feels and it is time for the board to make a decision. vice president goh: i have a question put it -- i have a question. the finding is there is credible evidence and the record. work began prior to issuance of a permit. we just heard from counsel that the allegation that the work was done after the issuance of the permit was made at the last hearing -- she just said that, i wrote it down. so, it really sounds to me like we're talking about a request for a rehearing. why would we not just vote on these findings, adopt these

findings, allow them to request a rehearing based on what they're calling new evidence, declarations, or what not, that we have not seen? i am trying to ask our counsel question. >> it is within the board's discretion. we have received these written submissions about the draft findings. under the board's rules, we cannot accept them without the board voting to accept them. given the circumstances, the president has decided to give them the courtesy of being able to argue to you why you should exit them at this juncture and not later at a rehearing request -- why you should accept them at this juncture in that letter at a rehearing request. >> this is not the adoption of findings. this is calendars as a special item for turning in evidence. vice president goh: next week is the adoption of findings. commissioner fung: i will amend

my motion. my motion will be to continue to accept the documents and maintained a hearing until next week. vice president goh: commissioner fung, i guess i was inclined to allow out to the continuance until january and allow them time to respond for fairness reasons. i think it is unfair to allow her to respond in writing. i am inclined to support a continuance under these terms. >> commissioners, shall we call the motion? president peterson: call the vote. >> commissioner fung, the motion

is to continue this matter until next week to allow the distribution of permit holdersubmittals to the board with note submission by the appellate? commissioner fung: i believe my motion was to accept additional information provided by the permit holder, and we will accept any response to that information by the appellant and to maintain the schedule the hearing on adoption of findings for december 15. commissioner hwang: a question, when was the e-mail that you referenced earlier sent to the appellate, copied to the appellant? >> it would have been i believe

on december 1 or november 30, thank you. >> commissioner fung, would you be allowing ms. morgan up until tuesday to submit? commissioner fung: that is correct, or orally at the next meeting. >> the motion is to accept the supplemental information which we are to have at the office and to allow the appellant to rebut by next tuesday in writing if she would, and the adoption of findings which is already scheduled for december 15 remains on december 15. commissioner fung: correct. commissioner garcia: i feel compelled to make a comment. it to explain my vote to

commissioner fung. commissionergoh made a cogent argument, in my opinion, we're opening ourselves up for a whole new direction when we consider findings. and i think that we should -- i will vote against the motion, because of the comments by vice president goh, and my reasoning is going to be i think they should be made to go through the normal process. bacon come up here andand we mao do that. and if they have some new evidence or something that would rise to the level of requesting a rehearing, or if we ourselves would want a rehearing, i might vote for that. but i intend to vote against this motion and wanted to explain my point. >> may i be heard on that

comment, commissioner? commissioner garcia: i do not think so. commissioner fung: i do not think so. >> considering that, adoption of findings to remain on next week's calendar. vice president goh: no. commissioner garcia: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> 3-2, that remains on next week's calendar. president peterson: if you could give multiple copies to our board office? thank you. commissioner garcia: i worry about the future. president peterson: we are ready to move on. please call item 5a. >> calling item 5a, multiple

jurisdiction requests. the subject property at 171 lee avenue. we have an attorney letter asking that the board to jurisdiction over 2 you will permit applications which were issued on november 16, 2009, and december 30, 2009. the appeal period ended, and the permit holder is chio leng cheong. >> lawrence cornfield, department of building inspection. -- kornfield. i had the chance to speak with the building older and appellate about this complex problem. there is a problem because the plants showed that the windows being proposed are 3 feet from the property line, which is ok.

but there was a service provided in the appellant's documents that shows it is part of the building that is closer than 3 feet from the property line. it is 2 feet. because of that, they are both agreeable to a continuance where i can go back and reconsider what this project should actually include that would be compliant with the building code and a satisfactory to the neighbor. they are both here and i think that are both willing to continue this while i sort it out. with your approval, you can hear from them. commissioner fung: that is fine, mr. kornfield. however, part of the question relates to the validity of the permit. if they are intending to ask for a position from this board on the validity of work and the scope of work, then we need to see the documents. the permits.

>> would you need to see that in order to have a continuance? commissioner fung: no. i am saying if there is no resolution prior to this case, before that next during we would need to see the permits. >> of course. would you like to hear from the parties? president peterson: how long on the continuance? >> i would have to ask them. president peterson: ok. >> good evening, commissioners. jeffrey chen for the permit holder. good evening, commissioners. >> john chiao for the repellents. we do request a continuance.

my client's architect will be dropped plans to see if we can have some kind of drawing complies with building goals. the idea would be to submit to the city and the neighbors for their approval and then resubmit to the board for determination. there could be revised permit issued. commissioner fung: how long of a continuance? >> 60 days? commissioner fung: is that agreeable? >> how about 90 days? commissioner garcia: who is representing the project sponsor? >> i am, your honor. commissioner garcia: thanks for calling me your honor, but i am a plain old commissioner. if you are satisfied with 90 days, we will give you that, if that does not harm your client.

>> i think if there are some problems withdrawing these plans, we need some time to come up with an idea. >> i think providing more time will serve everyone's interest. i also want to make a note before the board that the external envelope has been compromised. as you can see, the wall has been opened here. the exterior. here is an image of the wall. commissioner fung: are we talking about continuance, or do you want to argue the case? >> i just want to make sure that with possible continuance that the wall is patched up. commissioner garcia: i do not think we can do that until we hear the case. >> i am sure my client wants to patch it up for the protection of their property.

president peterson: you are the jurisdiction requestor, right? and you are concerned about the property owners building? >> it is directly facing my client's property. it is esthetically and pleasing -- unpleasing. and there are concerns when they go in and out from that. president peterson: it sounds like 90 days. commissioner garcia: so moved. commissioner hwang: i would ask that both of you work together to submit a rescheduling request for the other people attending as well. >> i would also like to remind the board that there is on calendar on january 12 of next year two permits that are being

appealed on the calendar. to make sure that all for permits are being written -- all of your permits are being addressed -- president peterson: those are not on the board calendar right now, but you can usually request a rescheduling. are you familiar with that form? you can work together to submit a form to reschedule those matters as well. that would be appreciated. i would be happy to speak to you about it if you like after the meeting tomorrow. >> this confirms that no further work is to be performed or extended until -- >> if those permits are on appeal or suspended, the jurisdiction does not suspend -- those are not suspended. continuance does not suspend an item. if you have an agreement, that is a separate matter. but continuance does not suspend the permits that are the

subject of the jurisdiction request. >> well, we -- my clients to agree the will not continue work during this period. >> earlier, we have an opportunity to meet and confer. the work has already been stopped on the issuance of the violation order. they will not be doing anything. president peterson: so is there agreement to the march 9 date? do they need agreement? >> you can do it without them. president peterson: is there any public comment on this matter?

>> marjah- -- march 9 is fine with me. president peterson: move to march 9. >> thank you. president peterson: call the roll, please. >> on the motion from the president to reschedule the jurisdiction requests to march 9, 2011 -- commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. "matters are rescheduled. no new letters go out. president peterson: thank you. we are ready for fiveb -- 5b/ >> it is a rehearing request. the subject party is to -- is

460 townsend st., the academy of art university versus the zoning administrator, decided november 3, 2010. the board voted 4-0-1 to uphold the subject of notice of violation and penalty on the basis that the zoning administrator did not air or abuse his discretion. -- err or abuse his discretion. >> hello, commissioners. my name is david sincata. i am here on behalf of the academy of art, requesting a rehearing. this is to allow justice to occur not only for the academy of art but to 755 students who will be displaced from taking 65 classes in this building. it is impossible for us to try to relocate all those clauses and students in two other facilities. it would be easy to say this

problem is the creation of the academy of art, but that is not the case. that is just because the academy of art did not file a conditional use application. the city planning department is at least equally responsible for this injustice. i think it requires a rehearing to consider these matters. this matter is created by the fact that the department made a determination under section 304.5 that we cannot submit a conditional use application because there is not an institutional master plan. that institutional master plan determination was made without an opportunity to appeal it. that is why we have tried to raise these issues during the last appeal. there are at least six to nine other institutions that have been reviewed since then that have all had hearings.

all have had expected their institutional master plans without any action. i would suggest the beginning of what we have found already. it is only the academy of art who has been determined to have a disapproved institutional master plan. that is in the materials you received from the zoning administrator that it was being denied because of enforcement actions, which is not an element of any institutional master plan. secondly, for transportation reasons. the materials that every other hearing -- the san francisco art institute. the minutes and agendas for each one of these items read "no action required." section 304.5 is clear. it's a specifically no approval or disapproval of an

institutional master plan that occur by the planning commission. that is what occurred. it specifically says you can only take public testimony. i urge you to allow us to bring these materials before you, bring institutional and permission to bring justice to these students who may not be able to finish their program or classes. i want to point out it is not an unsafe condition that are in. this building -- safety hazards have been improved in this building. there are not unsafe conditions. we urge you to give us the opportunity to present this to you. thank you. commissioner garcia: is the planning code -- does it provide for review of appeal of the nile's of institutional master plans? >> no. commissioner garcia: as far as i am concerned, we have a pretty narrow issue.

was the academy of art operating with or without a cu? if they were, that was the extent of our authority. there were operating without one, and therefore should have won. i do not see how we get to have overview of the planning commission having to do with its policies and practices around the issue of imps. >> that was the issue are was trying to raise. we have not been allowed to present a conditional -- a conditional use application on the matter without it being recommended for denial because we do not have an institutional master plan. that is why i felt the decision as to whether or not the code says what it says -- i am asking you to take a look of the code and see if it says what i think we all believe it says, that there is an institutional master plan was to have a hearing and it is closed, and it is acceptable. i can point to even abbreviated

master plans which are shorter than all others that do not have to have a hearing. if they bring a hearing, the same standards are applied. there is no approval or disapproval of an institutional master plan. the must only be taking public testimony. commissioner garcia: you have gone beyond my question. >> i am sorry. i get excited. commissioner fung: i am looking at your letter of request. you brought that same position fourth at the hearing. at first i thought you were trying to make an argument that this body has the ability to review a non-action by the

planning commission on the imp. but commissioner garcia brought forth that is not what you are saying. >> i am saying this board has the right to interpret the planning come -- the planning" acted on by the department. that is what i would like to to do. -- the planning code acted on by the department. that is what i would like you to do. you have interpreted the planning code under other circumstances. you have granted variances. you have interpreted the planning code and challenged the interpretation of the zoning administrator. i am asking you to do that again. i am asking you to do that to prevent this injustice. commissioner fung: thank you. president peterson: mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning

department. the academy argues there is a lack of justice to the students, that they have illegally moved into the subject building. this is not the first building the academy has acquired and converted without benefit of permit. this is just one of the most recent ones. as mentioned in the last hearing, the department has taken an approach to this. properties that were acquired and converted before they had their environmental impact -- we are allowing them to go to the process. those which were applied afterwards -- no one can say they did not have do notice. they knew very well the could not acquire a property and conferred it without going through this process. the acquired the property last year, moved students in. they did give the courtesy to the planning commission of sending a letter that there were going to do this, but they did not require -- they did not apply for acquired permits. their attorney has said the building does not represent a

health and safety hazard. that is not because of the academy voluntary actions. that is because the department had a consolidated joint task force the fire department and other agencies go to these properties and find those that were in violation. many of them were. this is why they came in to address the safety issues. the academy would like you to believe this is simply about the imp. we addressed the issues with the imp at the last hearing. they do not have a cu. i am the first to say the sport has broad powers, but it does not have the power to grant a cu. additionally, there is no environmental review that has been completed. it is not a matter of waiting for the imp to be completed. the appellate has stated we would not even accept a cu. we have not said that. they have not filed a cu.

they could file at any time. that is what -- that is within their right. they have declined to do that. this injustice was not brought upon it by the academy itself. they made the choice to move in the students without the proper permitting process. the action of the board here will do, if it denies the rehearing request -- a notice of decision order will be issued, and penalties will begin to accrue at $250 a day. we're not going to attack the building. penalties will be accruing. the will have to pay $250 a day on one of their buildings with 20 outstanding use issues. the respectfully urge you to deny this hearing. i am available for questions. commissioner garcia: if we were to deny the rehearing request