i should also note there has been concerned about -- concern about displacements. the president of the university indicates that no tenants have been displaced in order to make space for the students and their existing housing. it would not displace them in the future. the are -- commissioner moore: you are very hard to understand. i could not h ear -- hear you. >> the university has not displace any tenants in any of the buildings that they have been taken -- they have taken control of for student housing. they also would not displace any tenants in the future.

i might note -- they have indicated they do need additional student [inaudible] and it would try to accomplish that through the adaptive use of non-residential building such as hotels or buildings of that nature. president fong: thank you. >> i am appalled at the draft changes. i thought this was about trying to help have a new housing built and trying to protect the rental stuff that we have -- stock we have. this just wipes it out. you might as well not have passed anything at all if you think there would be protections with this, i have a hill to sell you. where thousands of units have been lost. we're all st. mary's -- where

all st. mary's has been fighting. later, it was the academy of our university and other schools. i walk by and i see the other schools there. not even to mention what happens if all the language schools are doing this, too. of course, there will be no evictions because no one goes to court to evict. they give people notices and people move. that is what happened and i -- i and i cannot tell you how many buildings. one building was like to begin its and i see more buildings that have -- happened afterwards. we had two buildings on jones streets that were emptied for demolition rather than this. one of them sat vacant seven years. he was willing until we actually beat him in court and managed to resound.

the other had won 10 and holding down the whole building for a number of years until he said we are giving in. people lost their homes -- one of the tendency was 52 years. we have many people who have lived in their apartments 22 years or 35 years. we had one man who killed himself in one of the buildings. he had lived there 35 years. other people in the building had done so. if you think the conditional use thing is going to work, it will not. the tenants will be gone. the building will be empty. the other people on the block will not know anything about it and u- -- unless oyou have nob hill buildings.

if there sro's that happened to be vacant, it is because the owner does not want to run it or it is too much for them. those of the ones that are -- the master lease program has worked on or that mt. profits could buy and operate as actual low-income housing which is what, we do not have any other races -- resources for it. it is unspeakable. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. i am kathy luper. we own and run the cadillac hotel in the tenderloin. we bought the hotel as private owners. we did not exchange -- we did an exchange of buildings and turned the cadillac over to become a

nonprofit. people thought we were crazy. who wants to live in the tenderloin? who will live here? you'll only have 20 residents. it is a 160-unit building and is full. we have a waiting list. we have waiting lists of people who are looking for affordable housing in the city. they're not all people with special use problems. they're not all mental patients, drug alex -- additsct, alcoholics. there no -- ordinary, everyday people who make $9 or $10 an hour and cannot afford to live anywhere else. if we start whittling away at these units of which are really a treasure, there really should be like landmarks that before you can take when you get away, you have to go through all kinds of hearings to do that. i think you need to think carefully. as i said, when we bought the

cadillac, it was compared to a very cheap hot dog. now it is like filet mignon. everyone wants them. we're looking at a real estate crisis in the city out -- in the city. it can almost afford to have a studio if you were living -- you can afford to have a studio. i beg you, think about losing these units and how it will affect the city as a whole and let's try to figure out how we can close the loopholes. thank you. president fong: thank you. neck speakers -- netxt speakers. >> i am working for the coalition on homelessness. i am a [unintelligible]

the coalition supports the commission -- seeking its original proposal to revamp to student housing. we are concerned about [unintelligible] depend on. basically, if you allow to the students to covert, we want -- will hit a lot of people, a lot of families. in san francisco, we have almost 500 families with children living in sro hotels. we have hundreds of seniors with disabilities who is staying in hotels, too.

they are affecting all this population and what happens? we do not want to have more homeless in san francisco. we want people in house. i recommend in that interview do not pass this legislation. please. because who are we affecting, affecting the families, it is affecting the seniors, it is not the way we can fix this problem. the other thing is, if we see in san francisco, we have a lot of empty housing units. you can say in the hundreds. what we do not focus on the empty housing units? why do we want to keep the sro hotels when we have families living there? what we have so many problems,

to monitor these hotels? please do not [unintelligible] this legislation. they can be affecting so many families and singles and women and men and seniors. thank you so much. president fong: our next speakers. >> good afternoon. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco land use and housing committee. cafn support student housing that would produce new student housing and not by conversion from existing residential houses. there is a shortfall, 40,000 units of student housing in san francisco. that is one issue.

on the other issue, more importantly, what is the shortfall of housing for san francisco residents and also for commuters, employees that work in san francisco but cannot afford housing in the city? i would think that would surpass 40,000 units. i think that the need of student housing should not supersede the needs of residential affordable housing for the rest of san francisco residents. some of the -- some issues, some points. we're not opposed to student housing that has been built already prior to post secondary education institutions. in regards to the conversion of convents or other religious facilities.

they probably need more clarification expanded -- does it mean faculty or workers, we need clarification like that. i regard to l -- in regard to lots owned that area adjacent, what does adjacent mean? does it mean shared -- not abutting corners, that needs to be clarified. in regard to conversions, we're opposed to that and i regard to conversion of vacant homes or hotels, i think that is very dangerous and could lead to even bigger problems.

i think we are opposed to that, too. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i lived in university terrace which is adjacent to university of san francisco. i want to thank you for the work you have done to improve the city of san francisco. i want to thank ann marie rogers and supervisor wiener's office and the university of san francisco for their reports and i also want to thank the san francisco law library. i agreed with the adoption, your adoption of an amendment to prohibit conversions of existing housing to certain housing. the six months probation will not accomplish the goal you had set out when you had told

permanent prohibition. -- total permanent prohibition. ssro's. as i understand, some remarks made by sro's, there would be a replacement fund that involves moving a family. i would like to ask you to please not do anything with sro's. just let them be. another thing about supervisor wiener's amendments is they are too broad and not limited. for example, the word similar. everyone understands the validity of changing convents and monasteries into student housing. that seems fine. however, the phrase that would also change things that are similar religious order facilities, there is already a

very good description of religious order facilities in the planning code. the word similar makes it too broad. so please take the word similar out and leave in the words religious order facility. another these -- of these is the difference between adjoining versus directly adjacent. directly adjacent basically means nearby. the word for and supervisor wiener said he wanted to prohibit conversions when there is property touching or there is a share property line. the word for shared property line is adjoining. so why do we use this word or define it carefully -- why do we not use this word or define it carefully? thank you very much. whatpresident fong: additional

public comment? >> i am the director of the housing committee. i am also here to speak on behalf of the san francisco tenants union and i have a letter here from the chinatown community development center is well because our three tenant groups, i will put them here, all are taking the very same position which is that we should go back to the original proposal. the permanent ban on all types of conversion. i will explain a little white we housing rights feel that way -- why we housing rights feel that way. we haven't sro conversions -- we have this for important reasons.

including a recognition i think amongst the city that this is an extremely useful housing source for low-income people, people who do not have a lot of resources, for single adults and that it -- is housing of last resort of many types. even families. it has been city policy for many years that -- now that we do all we can to preserve this precious sro sloot -- units, some are really unique in design and character as well and have a really diverse population in there. so, it makes no sense to us, it is a reverse in the polish --

policy that would have an amendment to allow for conversions of sro units and are concerned about those as well as being very much in contradiction with our sro ordinance is we are fearful we will lose rent control, in addition to tenants being displaced, we could lose that from our rental stock forever. it represents an erosion of the rent-controlled housing in our city which we all know does not provide for enough of the affordable housing needs that are out there, considering we have a great homeless problem. and we think it is of vital importance to preserve whatever housing we have currently that

is relatively affordable to people, still, and not to allow for and the slippery slope. the set set -- sets a bad precedent and -- this sets a bad precedent. this is not the proper tool to address the problems that were defined by supervisor kim's office and those proposing to have an exception on the conversion allowed for cesaire's for conditional use. -- allowed for conditional use. president fong: thank you very much. thank you. wha>> i was here in may and prepared -- appeared before you.

there was a suggestion that we bring our proposed amendment to get a recommendation to the board ricin of -- supervisors. we're the older, smaller arts school. we have not needed a pipeline and we do not control our own any residential buildings. we do have students occupying some residential hotel rooms and they have been occupying them since before supervisor dufty ever initiated this legislation. we think the staff report has mischaracterized the grounds. we have asserted that one of the reasons we might be an exemption is because we have been in full compliance with the city codes and do not need conditional use applications at the moment. that does not seem to be a

reason for criticism. on the other hand what we are concerned about the cloud placed upon housing as occupied by our students that could be occupied by our students if we added one room or two rooms or three rooms as they were vacated in the normal course of business in the hotel which we currently occupy. we're asking for a limited exemption similar to but more restricted than that proposed for usf. i do not think it should be a basis of criticism that our exemption is so limited, it may apply to no one else because we know of no other educational institution that in accordance with all the laws came to have students occupy these units more than two years ago when the ordinance was first initiated. we in fact, while i do not find their approval, which it negotiated the limitation of

this exemption -- we negotiated the implication of this exemption. [unintelligible] we felt that was a fair thing to do. we ask the commission recommend to the board of supervisors that amendment which i have presented to you so there would be no cloud on our continued occupancy and use of those units for our students or their occupancy. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in the interest of clarity, i would like to go back to the reason this item is on the commission agenda today. that is -- developing a new student housing policy in san francisco and what we have been working on for two years and the

commendable work scott wiener has done so far is to get a new student housing policy to replace the old one which was called craigslist and what we have done is to focus on building new housing. the need is incontrovertible. i cannot say enough good things about the work planning staff has done. in work -- reference to the work that was referenced earlier, they were skillful in separating what were controversial issues in this proposal from those that are not. there was nothing controversial about building new student housing. i think my main message is, i hope to move that forward today. it has been held up again and again to give people time to talk about issues that seemed may be outside of what we were trying to do. that is fine. in the end, we hope something will move forward today that will put the incentives in

place that is going to create lots and lots of any student housing. the amendments that supervisor wiener put forward were narrowly crafted with very careful consideration of narrow circumstances and with a lot of support for the sites that were chosen. we hope that those will move forward today but at the end, i would ask that you figure out what is contentious and what is not. there appears to be no opposition to building new student housing. as we have worked on this over the last couple of years, we very, very carefully stayed away from the issue of conversion. we focused entirely on what it would take to build new student housing. we recognize that there are lots of arguments oliver the map on either side. -- all over the map on either side. i hope you move this forward so we can get the policy in place that will replace craigslist.org. thank you.

>> thank you, commissioners. jim meko again. this legislation affects legislation for housing for everyone in the city. the planning code allows for the existence of very small studio units with kitchen and bath facilities within most of the south of market mixed use districts. these changes were put in place in the aftermath of the 1989 earthquake to allow for the replacement of a lot of damage to low-income housing with something that would provide a little more dignity than your average six straight sro room. dignity is not well served staring out your window into a brick wall. six years ago, we asked for and received interim controls to dampen developers'enthusiasm for these micro-units. the controls were in effect and

we met frequently. we all concluded these kinds of units place an increased demand on public amenities. in particular, committee services and open space and will these units have the potential to be more affordable by design, there is no question they are more profitable by their sheer density. we recommended at the time that the code be amended to require no variances, minimum briard in dwelling unit exposure requirements, hire an exclusionary requirements, of private open space of 36 square feet per unit. whenever the need for student housing and it is not at all well established in your case reports that there is any, do not allow these amendments to cut protections that applied to housing that is intended for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. thank you.

>> i should add i was also resident of the cadillac hotel for four years in 1980. i was not at the stockholders' meeting. i was back east at my 40th college reunion at the date of that meeting. there is consensus as tim said. consensus about new housing. how do we encourage it? many spoke in favor of the legislation to make it easy to build new housing but we have to make it hard to convert existing housing. i do not think there is any consensus in the community members that -- about the six month moratorium idea. we think staff got it right when they made this proposal to you at any other time than the stakeholder meeting. you have to prohibit the conversion to student housing with a few minor exceptions as you have heard for usf and s

fai. we are going from no conversions to an unlimited amount of conditional uses if you so chose. that does not make any sense. you did not incentivize to build new if you're letting them do this in six months. if you want to stop behavior, you prohibit that activity. just a quick bit of history. i was here in 1978 when in that year we lost over 1000 sro units to conversion hotels. that is what led the board of supervisors to develop a moratorium for 18 months and a law that prohibited the conversion of estero's to any other use trade could buy out -- sro's to any other use. there is a way to deal with that. there was an absolute prohibition. there was discussion which we allowed [unintelligible] -- we had 20,000 sro units in the city in 1970.

we have -- if we had allowed the conditional use your talking about now, we would have one- third to one-half your sro units today. you all know what conditional use is like. they're not the exception, they are the rule. people go through the process. look to other cities that did not do what we did. new york. when we started talking about this in the mid-70 had 50,000 and now have 5000. los angeles has less than a few thousand. we did the right thing in 1978 and your staff recommended the right thing up until the stakeholder meeting. i would urge you to the back to that recommendation and i would be happy to work on this question of vacant and blighted buildings. there are lots of ways we can address that that are more effective and targeted to that problem than this amendment that is being talked about. i urge you to protect these

units. once they're lost, they are lost forever. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> i ask you to force the edification of the name of the attorney who drafted this legislation. i find the term affidavit -- i can sign an affidavit. what is the penalty if you lie? i find the changes to the extremely -- to be tree -- to be extremely troubling. i agree with the previous speaker who said no conversion and i would make an exception for the dorms for the monasteries and you lie? i nunneries and usf and the art institute. a cu is is the sa -- cu is the same.