already have their thousands of units. you were not addressing the unit with them. if you do pass this, you will make a lot of other schools suffer as a result. students will have a difficult time coming to the city. the other point is that it is unrealistic for schools and developers to replace the current needs of students. you have to allocate a space for 20,000 students for housing and it is just an unrealistic expectation. you've got to realize that the reality is a huge number. students are low income individuals. they are either at 0 in come, or very little they are low-income

individuals. and i have been a resident of san francisco for 22 years. i am the father of four. the endearing thing about this city with all of its issues and problems is its openness to individuals. the way i see it is that if you bring this on and you're starting to profile groups and individuals. we need to think about who this ordinance is really impacting >> thank you. i will call a couple more names. >> my name is cindy ochoa and diane the school director for ec

san francisco and we are in intensive language program. there are many of us in san francisco, as you may know, many of us are centered in the downtown area and we'll bring in students for as little as two weeks for as long as a year, 18 months. students are coming here to learn english, and joyce san francisco, and they have many goals. and there is one goal that they all have, and that is to be proficient in the english language, which has now become a basic necessity for operating in international work place. it is not like, oh, i will learn french and i will learn english. english is first. this is the reality. our students come from as many as 30 different countries. some of them are on scholarship

from their governments. we need to be able to house them on the day they arrive. we cannot say, come on in and we will give you a list of places to go and look. that is just not an option. we work with a large network of student counseling agencies all over the world and students come to them for advice on where to go to pursue their studies the company i work for has 15 schools and fight -- in five english-speaking countries. being able to have a lease on a few rooms, not a whole building, but on a few rooms in some of

these buildings in downtown san francisco makes us able to say to our partners, yes, you can send a student. we will have a place for him or her to stay. a reasonably priced place for the duration of their studies here. i would also like to point out that we are a new business. our company, which is a european-based company invested in san francisco. we opened our doors to years ago and we have granted 11,000 square feet and we have hired 20 people. i think i figured based on our students several thousand. we wanted to be able to continue to use a small part of the stock that is here on a regular basis. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. in the late 1970's there was a

rash of presidential hotels being converted to tourist lodgings. during the 1980's, but in 1985 and in 1987, i got the board of supervisors to make amendments to strengthen the law and then we spent about a year of revisions for sweeping revisions. not one minute of that time did anyone suggest there was a problem with the students occupying sro's. never. we have had students come in and talk about 580 kurri street. nobody said a word. nobody said we had to pass a law to stop this. i think what's the owners find curious is there is evidence of

tourist areas. that is why i suggested that the conditional use the approach makes the most sense because then if a hotel has long-term tenants, the planning commission would say, no, you cannot do it. but we do have a market supply problem. bill out to the hotels that only rent every three weeks.

it probably has not had a permanent resident in about 20 years. hopefully we can get a solution and we can all agree we see you next time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am against this proposal, or ordinance for student housing. we have our own property rights

and we live in a democratic country. we must not be restricted for housing students or any other demographic for affordable houses. you cannot restrict sro from doing their business. hotels have high vacancy rate as we speak. you cannot restrict the use of our buildings. we are housing homeless people coming in jails or penitentiaries. we serve the city in so many ways. please, do not have this ordinance. thank you. >> commissioners, i am jim cost. -- jim haas. i have appeared before you many

times over the years with regard to student housing. we need to take into account the realities and the needs of the educational institutions, in particular the relationship between the developer and the institute. the fact that smaller institutions may need to share of building amongst themselves, the fact that some institutions may need to have faculty honors or staff live with the students, and that students are not there 12 months out of the year, but often only nine months. i want to emphasize again the

aspect of the legal relationships. the existing relationship talks about owned, operated, or otherwise controlled. if you go out and talk to some of these institutions, they do not want to own the building. many of them do not want to operate the building and higher maintenance people. and at some do not even want to collect the rent. in fact, one administrator told me they have not signed an agreement if the agreement ended up being an obligation on their balance sheet. that is why the legislation that supervisor wiener has in the amendment that he is supporting would allow a range of legal of rationed -- legal relationships that would accommodate the various institutions. there may be some concern that this will open things up and all kinds of hanky-panky will occur over the student unions. but let me remind you that under the legislation, in order to get

the subsidy, the institution first of all, has to amend their master plan. and if they do not have a current one on file, but cannot participate in the program. secondly, there has to be a restriction on the deed to the property, which required -- requires reports and other things to be given. at the same time, demand for student housing is such that i cannot imagine it would be removed from the student housing market, even if the institution went away. i urge you to move this forward and include the language that has been suggested. and hopefully we can get the thing finished. president fong: thank you. come on up, sir.

>> mr. president and members of the commission, i'm george williams and speaking on the behalf of the action coalition. our executive director is out of town. as you recall, this started some years ago. and while it has taken a long time and we are pro the distressed from the lake, i think we have benefited because it has given the opportunity to assess how the incentives for the news to the house and will work in an actuality. we have a developer that is well along in the entitlement process building one of these buildings and has been

negotiating with the educational institutions. the mayor's office of housing has taken a closer look to be sure if the housing projects falls out, the inclusionary housing will be provided in that new unit or the field will be paid. and we have determined a 20-year master these if it did not already own it. that seems rather inhibiting on the part of many institutions. we have hopefully strained all of that outlook with supervisor wiener and we are very grateful for his assistance and mary rodgers and the mayor's office of housing has worked out a process that we think is very workable.

and the staff report, pieces of it are in attachments and some are in the attachments about the housing action coalition letter. i have pulled all of those together into one coherent listing. i think you can see the process. and everybody is more satisfied now that we have a workable program. we have not been involved and concerned with what happens in the existing stock. we have focused on the construction of the new student housing thank you. >> good afternoon.

my name is john singer. i am a member of the san francisco art institute, a nonprofit educational institute, the third oldest in the city and now more than 140 years. we have 800 students and we have more than 800 students in my 20 years of association with the art institute. we have a wonderfully talented faculty and staff that have contributed many members to the san francisco art commission, and the current president is a member of our faculty. from our smallest building on chesnutt's street to our larger buildings or even our

competitors. tuesday has lumped in with every at institution is a problem for us -- to see us slump in which every institution is a problem for us. i will walk through a request for an even more limited amendment than that already offered by supervisor wiener. for one of two institutions older than us in the city. that is because of the last decade, the san francisco art institute discovered it is attracting younger and younger students, never having faced this problem before. we have sought to provide for approximately 10% of our students, representing a portion of our first tier class, housing that was under our supervision, or in some cases graduate students so that their parents

and sometimes the students themselves will feel more comfortable coming to san francisco during the housing market during the first year. frankly, none of the upper class, much less the graduate students, would even consider the housing. and we never tried to impose it upon them because housing at the san francisco art institute is not a housing center. it is a way to accommodate and to attract students who find being in san francisco and at the art institute appealing. i believe on a close review, you will find many of the proposals and amendments made by supervisor kim address our proposal, which would go back retroactively to those we have on file for more than 20 years

with the institutional master plan that complies with all city codes. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a second generation san franciscan, born and raised here, and growing up in an sro market. i am an owner operator of an sro hotel. sro hotel owners have provided housing to the most vulnerable and tapas population. we are designated as unsubsidized, for-profit operators. but incremental restrictions that the city have -- has been imposing on these providers makes it increasingly difficult for us to survive. sro should have a seat at the table. i am against this ordinance because it is ill-conceived,

does not have any input from the affected constituents. the people pushing this legislation do not have all of the facts in front of them to make a proper decision on whether this legislation is even necessary. it is being proposed to protect -- my question is, is this legislation being proposed to protect new developers of student housing because it is scared of competition? i believe this legislation discriminates against sro operators. there should be more development instead of more discreet -- more restrictions on us. >> i will call a couple of other names. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the president of the independent hotel owners and operators of the homeowners'

association. it is about 146 sro hotels, approximately 8000 units. i am here to ask you to rule against this proposed ordinance. or you can take the words sro, or any language pertaining to sro from this ordinance. there has been no evidence of illegal conversion of sro units for student housing. secondly, there has not been any evidence that has existing tenants being evicted out of sro buildings to convert to student housing. there has been no evidence that new housing has been created for students since 2010. if developers really want to

build housing, why can't they just build housing for the overall good of the city and add to the stock? why are we trying to narrow it down to just student housing? let's encourage the student developers who create housing for everybody so that we do not have these kinds of shortages everywhere. the other question that has not really been answered is, what happens to a student who is underage. how are they supposed to find housing if a school does not help them, or if they're not under the umbrella of the school, basically? this is a question that should be answered because there are a lot of students that are coming year -- that are coming here and there young students.

i'm hoping the commission is not encouraging that 16 and 17-year- olds should be running around and looking for housing in the city. there are a lot of other things that have already been said. i will not get into that. the report says that only 14% of the units are vacant, but i can tell you that approximately 25% to 30% are vacant. that is almost 5000 units in san francisco. why can't we read these out to whomever we choose? this ordinance really needs to be looked at again. thank you.

>> members of the commission, i am the policy manager at the turn a community developed -- chinatown community development center. chinatown is a principal housing stock. we're very concerned about preserving the housing. for existing residence and for future low-income seniors and families. i think the testimony today underscores the need for this legislation. i think the testimony in terms of expansion of universities and the expansion of the student population, and their demand for housing, not necessarily in the neighborhood in terms of the downtown core area, where there is a plan for building that housing in serving that increased need. moreover, we have heard from the testimony from before is that -- is how many potentially making

units there are in the housing stock. there's a lot of interest on the part of our owners to convert to student housing. for that reason, it seems to me that the legislation and the staff report is timely. we are under constant change. and the fact that we have not seen massive numbers of units being converted, and up to this point is -- it is beside the point because what we're talking about is the future. we're looking at expanded demand and units that economically, there is an extraordinary upside, an incentive to convert those two student housing. for that reason, we are appreciative of supervisor wiener's legislation and its introduction in the legislation. and we are concerned about the amendments that supervisor kim has introduced. we think in many ways that legislation, as currently

drafted, will incentivize to prospectively allow owners to take the market -- take a housing of the market for two years and then convert to student housing. it is very troubling. the process does not prevent abandonment. it regulated after the fact. if we have abandoned units, that causes a negative impact in the community. we should not incentivize that process with the hope that owners prospectively will go through the cu process. the only thing we're going to do with these units that are banned in is convert them to students -- that are abandoned its converts into student housing. we are very concerned about this legislation. we appreciate the staff report and we think this is planning for the future and anticipating

a threat to our existing housing stock. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm jennifer and 90 director of the coalition -- and i am director of the coalition for freedom. my concern is how this will affect housing that is affordable for the very destitutes -- most destitute san franciscans. we have seen huge upsurge is in the numbers of folks that are experiencing homelessness. and oftentimes, the only housing that they can access is in a single room occupancy hotel, whether they are elderly disabled person or a family with children. this is the option that is available to them. we have about a nine-month wait

to get into a family shelter right now. we have over half the people trying to get shelters -- get into shelters as single adults being turned away right now. dekema amendment, as written, we believe would seriously jeopardize the housing stock as available. -- of the kamin amendment, as written, we believe would seriously jeopardize the housing stock as available. we think it would keep hotels intentionally vacant. we have experiences where people are trying to get housing and cannot get housing in sro's and will spend a very long time being turned away at hotel after hotel that they go to. the idea of having vacancies can only point to one thing. there is real estate speculation going on. and the comments from the previous speaker, i think the case has been made before you that there is increased need for student housing that sro owners

would really like to convert. and even some of the sro owners are wanting to get rid of rent control altogether. all of these indicators are pointing to that we are, indeed, at a critical moment. the conversion is a real threat if converted to a student housing. we are currently working with supervisor kim's office to address our concerns are around this amendment and keep this thing from happening. thank you so much. quite good afternoon, commissioners. sarah short with the housing rights commission of san francisco. we are concerned with the preservation of our existing rent-controlled stock. and we have considerations about what this legislation would do in regards to that. we understand and appreciate what we have heard today, that

students are having a very difficult time in this market, just as all of us renters are in considering the market. and yet, unlike one per cent -- what one person said about this potentially discriminating against it is, actually see this as a privilege of one class over another in the rental market. and why it would not be city policy to do something like that. that also needs to be a concern, why we would have separate housing for students when we are all competing in the same pool. sro housing in particular, as you have heard from jenny free market, is of concern because it is the housing of last resort. it is the most affordable housing we have other than the subsidized housing. and we have to be even more, i think, watchful of what happens think, watchful of what happens with the housing stock