as well as providing a number of associated public benefits. it creates a definition of student housing that is based on occupancy and ownership control. with the adoption of the proposed ordinance, student housing can take the form of dwelling units, group housing, or an sro, provided that the structure is owned, operated, or other was controlled by an accredited post-secondary institution. in addition to the specific definition, the department is proposing associated control that includes a prohibition of conversion from housing to student housing through an amendment to section 317. as well as unique open space requirements outline for student housing. and mixed use requirements and appropriate notification procedures for it finally, it suggests that we facilitate the conversion of student housing to housing.

if the student housing is no longer required or needed. that concludes my overview presentation for the informational portion of this item. we welcome your early thoughts on the concept of the legislation and a 42 initiation so that we can set a date for adoption. thank you. president olague: thank you. i have one speaker card. george williams. >> president olague and members of the planning commission, i am representing the housing action coalition, which was very involved in developing the initial legislation that was passed almost one year ago. this current legislation is a follow up. we have been working closely with your staff. we are very pleased with the amendments that are in this draft. there are a few minor typos that we would like to work on. there are a couple of other

measures we thought would be desirable to provide greater incentive for developers to provide student housing. we were unable to persuade the staff. we will continue to work with staff between now and when there will be a public hearing. i urge you to adopt the resolution of intent to initiate in for a public hearing. thank you very much greenhead -- thank you for much. president olague: is there any additional public comment? >> i was here at the hearing before the legislation were you approved relieving new student housing of the requirement. i stood up and testified in favor of that. as you have heard me say many times, what we really want to do is convince organizations to build new dorms and not cannibalize existing housing stock. i am happy to be here to support this legislation.

recently, i was elected vice chair of the central market tenderloin area advisory committee. set up as part of the twitter payroll tax deal. that group is very interested in this topic. they are afraid of what could happen in the central market tenderloin area as the university grows and takes on more of the apartment buildings and residential hotels in their neighborhood. they were delighted to hear this. they're very supportive of this. i just want to thank staff for taking the time to do this and do it right. the prohibition against converting housing to student housing -- converting our housing, regular housing for the general population to student housing, it is absolutely correctable. it is also in their how we go back the other way. in 20 years, some of these

buildings may not be needed for student housing. so we need to think about how we would go about that. i want to support the work your staff has done and i look forward to the next hearing and speaking again in favor of mr.. thank you. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public, is closed -- public comment is closed. vice president miguel: i would like to think the coalition for moving it this far. prior to my time on the commission, i chair the housing action coalition when we first brought together a number of universities in san francisco which did not include the academy of art. there were quite compelling in their argumentation of the need. i have spoken to a group in new orleans and another in chicago that does deal with student housing.

colleges getting together and providing housing, non-profit. that deal with colleges actually building housing for colleges. there are a number of different configurations that can deal with this. certainly, the non-conversion of existing low-income housing is absolutely essential. the idea is to convert something of a more commercial nature or to build new. this would add to the housing stock of san francisco and, from my conversations with the colleges and their enrollment departments and their housing departments, this is greatly needed in the city. it can work. with that, i move to initiate. >> second.

president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i think we all support this in most of its parts. clearly, the best of all worlds is that the various institutions, perhaps collectively, build new housing for their students. there are two concerns i have. the first is the conversion of student housing back to residential housing grid we have to make sure that all the various code elements exist. we are doing all of these things to lessen the requirements as far as the open space requirements and as far as the side requirements allowing sro's to be considered and all of these various things for it we may have a higher standards for residential housing units because a lot of these turned into students. that has to be spelt -- that has to be spelled out a little more. a lot of units would have to be

enlarged or fewer units or things like that if that were to occur. housing is housing and it is not a some zeroth game as someone make us think. we are building new units all the time. we are building rental units all the time and ownership units all of the time. student housing is just like any other housing. people have got to have a place to live. i would not be in favor of an absolute prohibition conversion of residential units. i would be more in favor of the conditional use or something where you could look at each instance and it would have to be shown to the commission that this conversion is necessary. there may be reasons why this form of housing might be needed to be changed to student housing. there may be institutions who would bond together and buy a building and could turn that building in and perhaps it would build some other new housing that would replace the

residential housing that they were using for student housing. there are a lot of possibilities. i do not like flat out pop -- flat out prohibitions. it leaves out a lot of options for the future. commissioner moore: i think this is an idea long overdue. i look for the department to bring us a long as the specifics develop. there will be need for specific legislation. and also code that addresses large group housing, which we do not really have. a group policy is mostly smaller for about 60, 80, 100 people living in one building. what i think will be decisive here is to find the government implementation mechanisms, particularly how you administered student housing, because the basic nature of student housing is that people come and go. you are through with your four

years and you're not enrolled in the reichert program, you are out. -- you are not enrolled in the graduate program, you are out. but you have people who partially enroll and remain even with the fact that they should not be living there. student housing is not subsidized housing, it is accommodating a special group of people for a specific time frame, that being defined by active enrollment in an academic institution. how we administer that, in the resource remains as students graduate and should be moving into their own, that will be an interesting thing to see as to how you address that. commissioner antonini: one other question and i think i know the answer. if student housing is exempted from the inclusion narrate requirement, and that also

applies to student housing that comes as a result of the conversion from a tourist hotel, commercial property, perhaps another institutional building that was used for other uses before, there is one i'm thinking of the was a young women's athletic wca that is student housing now, that would not be required to have inclusionary rate -- including their housing requirements if they convert. >> there are a couple of issues with that question. the first is that the inclusionary housing exemption only applies if students have a demonstrated financial need. that means there are a certain percentage of the students who are receiving grants. that is in the legislation that was passed in 2010. that is monitored by the mayor's office of housing.

the second thing that the question deals with is a residential hotel. this ordinance does not touch residential hotel conversion ordinance. commissioner antonini: m. my understanding then that if they do not satisfy the requirements, then it would have to provide inclusionary housing? i do not understand why we have that in there if they're converting something that was a non-housing use to student housing. it is not residential housing. >> it would depend on the form that the student housing takes. if it took the form of dwelling units, studio units, then the inclusion rehousing he would be applicable depending on the number of units if they did not meet the definition of qualified student housing and qualified financial need.

the onus would be on the institution to apply for and inclusion rehousing feet. if they apply for that, that after show that 20% of their students received pell grants. 30 percent of their students. commissioner antonini: if you want to encourage the building of student housing, the more you can examine them -- they are building housing for students who are going to come and go. many times, the format is almost like sro's, group housing, dormitories basically. i do not see why they have that additional cost that could keep them from building new, affordable housing in -- student housing. >> if they convert back from student housing to housing, then the full inclusionary housing fee applies and they need to pay that. commissioner antonini: that would be the time to do it, i

think. when they actually become housing. >> there is a motion on the floor to initiate the legislation. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> that motion passed unanimously. president olague: we are now on item 12.

>> there were some people that left because they thought we were going to be on earlier. i will talk about a little of that in the presentation. the department of folly of this still with me. she will give a brief presentation on how the tool works. this is the informational presentation for it is should be pretty brief and is just kind of an update. the purpose of today's presentation is to give you an update on the whole process. some of you are probably aware of what is going on. to give everyone an update on that and the flavor of the changes to come very we have been were shopping some of the key policies and want to see how

that is laid out in the next draft. to start the timeline, we started this whole process in november of 2007. we drafted the first draft in may of 2009. we got environmental review funding and started that in july of 2010. in june of 2011, we release a revised draft of the recreational facilities element. i will go for the next steps of what we have been doing in more detail in a minute. we are hoping to release a final draft in either december or january of this year and adopt that in february of 2012. going over the planning process, a little bit to remind you of where we started. we started in 2007 with a large

open space task force. focus groups and lots of different issues at that time. what we have been doing recently is highlighting here in a green. that was the parks and recreation advisory committee, the parks commission. let's we know how that one turned out. [laughter] >> we were here in august and now in october. a couple of new things. one is a community working group rid i have been meeting with the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. i want to go over this a little bit. some people wanted to present on that as well but they had to leave. i hope i do them justice summarizing what they have been doing and the work that in doing.

-- and the work they have been doing. we heard a lot of common themes and comments from people. who started bringing groups of people in and talking to them. workshopped in a bunch of things. we did our own gathering and collecting of the comments. a collective comment document from the community. weanted to see where they overlap and do not overlap on things. it has been a successful process. they have had a two of their own meetings, one of them just yesterday. they want to continue that for a few sessions. that is one of the reasons we are delaying the adoption until february, so that they can continue that process. they think it will be done by december. they will have all of their work done and gathered and can bring

it back to us. a very brief summary of what the major themes of what we are hearing. parks are special places and should be a respite from his urban life and should be not commercialized. recreation was aching. sometimes we heard there was a lot of recreation and sometimes we heard there was not enough recreation. our parts should be preserved as open space, that is the primary goal of the head parks. nature should be incorporated throughout the recreational elements. we saw that spread throughout. sustainability should like a big role. the focus should not be on short-term revenue, but in the production of open spaces that are long term. there was a bit of a

misunderstanding about the current code requirements. we are making sure that is in the rose. objective number one -- it originally read "ensure a high- performing open space system." the term "high-performing" put too much emphasis on enjoyment and not a passive space. this came directly from the community. "ensure a well maintained system with a system that was proposed for objective 1." i think that makes a lot of sense. next was a policy change. that was on the preservation of existing open space. out -- this was an existing open space.

there is no hierarchy in the policies of people wanted to make sure this was the number one policy read when you open the document. the change to this language is highlighted in green. "to preserve open space with no loss of quantity or quality in the open space, making sure that there was no net losses into the policy language." let me walk through that. they're still working that out a little bit. we all agreed to the main policy concept here. this is a change and i think it is a good change. this is for new buildings on rpd land. the current agreement has these requirements. "the building has got to serve open space, be limited in size, complete an analysis of the

effects on the property and analyze alternative sites." one thing we added with this revising is in green. "in replacement of all the space that matches or exceeds the square footage taken and quality of the original open space shall be provided." that is the first and foremost goal of this policy. making sure that our existing open spaces are maintained and not built upon in any way. this is a very thorough process. as well as with the expansion of the buildings on other space, sometimes there are lots of different buildings on open spaces and want to expand into the open spaces. we want to make it clear that this is not free land. there should be a thought process put into any of these expansions.

this is the same analysis they have to go through to show her that. and analyze alternate sites. we deleted a provision that allowed the replacement open space policy to be a screen -- to be a street skating. people felt like that was not a good trade. we deleted that and said "the same quality and quantity of open spaces with expansions he get or they could pay into the fund of the open spaces. there was one alternative in the terms of expansion. i hope this strengthens and addresses a big part of the concern that we are hearing. people thought you could suddenly just build on recreational land for it we did not want that. that was something we all

definitely agreed with. going back to this high- performing idea and the idea that you are in making sure that you make the most of what you have, in i think it was kind of a missed translation that if you were trying to make sure, and i hope this clarifies that and we worked for some language where we wanted to allow existing open spaces flexibility, we wanted to make sure those proposed uses are appropriate for each space. these options are the same options the were in the draft. i am making sure that this is known that this is a menu of choices and should be considered where appropriate. not every open space does not need active sports fields, food production, amenities. these are things to think about when looking at open spaces. this is this menu a.

making it very clear that it is not all about activating and building on spaces. following that game. -- following that theme. objective no. 2 -- this is one of the things were there was a bit of a misunderstanding. i want to clarify what we were trying to do. there was a confusion about the requiring of open space for private residential development. it was not mentioned in the planning -- in the recreational element. it is in the code and throughout our documentary once again, we will clarify that here. yes, we still maintain the as requirements. they are requirements that will be maintained throughout the document. i think we deleted the policies of people thought we were deleting the concept. we need to make sure we

incorporate that back in. it is still part of the provision. not significant changes to objectives 3. moving on to objective no. 4 -- this is the objective focus on biodiversity and habitats. one of the first policies about sustainability. people wanted to elevate that policy and move it up. i think that makes sense. it is only part of what the city's goal is. it is the organization of moving that up and there is a lot of policy under it now. i think it can work well as a policy with maybe a few additions. it is close. following that, there would be reorganization on some stuff about how they wanted to rearrange the policies and a little bit of additional language in objective no. 4 on the biodiversity pieces.

at this time, no significant changes to objective no. 5. objective no. 6 -- this is an objective that i mentioned is a new objective that talks about security and long-term resources for the city grid it is something that came out of the community process that i mentioned where we had focus groups. we had a focus group on finance. there was a policy, envisioning, and finance group. people really wanted to think about this. what came lovett is what we drafted. i think there was a feeling that we were going too much towards privatization and corporate sponsorship in this objective. we're not quite sure where this is going to go. this is one of the ones that is still being fleshed out. is it something that we want to maintain? is it still a policy level discussion? or is it something that does not belong in?

does it help if we come up with a policy that somehow shapes and guides the decisions for how do we do these financing mechanisms? how that is one of the ones and we are still flashing out. just the schedule, as i mentioned. we will look over these collective comments. december 2 and when they think they will get all of the comments to me. give us a little time with the holidays to process this as well as having it go through the final environmental review processing. then we hope to be back here for adoption in february. i proposed that your 23rd, but i have not heard anything yet. we are hoping to plan ahead. no one had booked that out yet. i will turn it over to meghan and give her a few minutes.

on the healthy development measurement. >> good evening, commissioners in. i am an epidemiologist with the department of public health's. i manage the healthy development management tool and i was asked to come and speaker tonight about dph's involvement with the project. dph has been involved in the revision of rose since 2006, when they began serving on the mayor's opens his task force. we have reviewed the drafts and provided formal comments.

we also reviewed implementation programs. more recently, we have compared the objectives and policies of rose to those in the hdmt. looking at the feedback we provided there were comments on equitable distribution from the city to assess air and noise pollution when deciding in -- when making alterations to existing space. we have suggested that stakeholders' be engaged in the acquisition of new open space as well as programming. to pay attention to cyclist issues, ensuring there is equitable funding throughout the city. that public art is integrated into open space. programming is really key.