is, the staff processes in it because that is what the developer wants. i found the comments from the academy of art to be troubling. yes, they don't do evictions, they just empty out the building. the they have all these buildings they have done. when we have a real academy of our hearing, they have bent a plunderers of the housing stock. and the whole rationale that they can't do anything because the eir has not happened, they control the eir. it gets further and further away because they have to start from scratch with a transportation study all over again. they have bought new buildings,

they bought the cannery, those three acquisitions have shot the eir on and off. that is ridiculous and you need to say you are not going listen to that. and that you catch these things because you amend their institutional master's. i give you the example of the academy of art university. it just keeps going merrily on its way. there cannot be conversions. i think that they drafted something that makes a real sense that they can justify it. and as long as they have a narrow exemption that they are not going off willy-nilly for

everywhere else. the micro-year that legislation has gone outside of this legislation. it should be folded into student housing and we need a hearing because that is the student housing under new construction. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are appearing before you today on behalf of panoramic interests. i would like to echo the points made by some of the previous speakers that what you're really dealing with today is not one piece of legislation, but to. you're dealing with a package of incentives for the construction of student housing, and there is very little opposition for that. the second piece is related to

conversion of existing housing to student housing. what we saw this provision was included initially, we had misgivings because we thought it is going to be a very controversial subject that will muddy the waters and delay the passage of what is a straightforward package of incentives for new construction. i think the solution that is in front of you that as proposed by the supervisors< department is a good one. i would strongly encourage you to let the new construction piece of this move forward. if there is need for more discussion on the conversion piece to allow that to happen separately so we are not delayed any further. i want to address a couple specific concerns about the construction aspects that i heard for the first time today

that relates to the open space standards and construction of student housing in single-family district. as a practical matter, i think there is going to be very little student housing built for the simple reason that there just isn't enough density to justify the costs. if anybody did build a student housing very, all of a dwelling unit exposure requirements and all of the density controls would continue to apply to those projects. there is nothing here that allows you to take a totally inappropriate student apartment building and put it in a single- family neighborhood. it is a misconception that i am not sure where it came from. if you read closely, it is not the case.

>> the good afternoon, commissioners, here on behalf of the university of san francisco. i wanted to let you know that we are here in support of the proposed amendment. as to the third limited exception, he did clarify what it is directly adjacent to is intending to share a lion. the university of san francisco with the support an amendment to make that clarification. president fong: any additional public comment? the public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: i would like to say that i will not vote for anything that has to do with other than new construction. a flat out.

historic fleet, the housing action coalition six or seven years ago started on this project by getting together with a group of universities. thens supervisor dufty carried the legislation. a lot of that has been mentioned he you buy a number of speakers here. just as a comment on some of the speakers, as much as i think i have been friends with and appreciate bob, i am sorry. your client may not push people out of the buildings that they buy. but they prevent any normal news

said francisco residents. i am not talking about students that come from out of town from living in those places that they normally would if it had not been handled the way it has been. in my mind, they are converting illegally. that is the way i look at it. ok? i will continue to look at it that way. i think all the talks about sunset and conversions and 11 vacant or under-utilized buildings has nothing to do with what we should be talking about here. it just muddies the waters, confuses the issue, and use any other comments you want that is like that. i understand the very limited

art institute exemptions. i'd probably go along with those, but i would not go along with anything else that smacks of other than new construction. the other problems have to have their own solutions. student housing is not a solution to a 11 vacant buildings. commissioner antonini: i have a question for ms. rodgers in regard to the draft hall commission recommendations that i think are extremely well done, i have to know a little bit about the sun set of the prohibition after six months and would be allowed through a process as long as the conversion does not require a certificate of occupancy. what you're saying is the occupants already in the

building that will be the ones that will be -- that the conversion would apply to, is that what you're saying? >> it has to do with the way that they would be reviewing the building permit. if there is associated building permit that there must likely would be with in these cases, they would issue a certificate of occupancy when the review is complete and when it is ready to move van. there are different types of certificates of occupancy. the reason this language is being added in there is the old law that was established in 1995. we have a a couple of versions of rent-controlled. it would apply to regent such that we can't regulate the rent of something after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

we want to make it clear that in the review of the building permit to change this student housing definition, they would issue an amended certificate of occupancy and would not tender the law with a certificate of occupancy being issued. commissioner antonini: you say amended, not new? you're not in violation of costa-hawkins? >> right. commissioner antonini: these other areas where you talk about prevention and loss of rent- controlled would be similar provisions. it would seem like that is the same. let me give you some of my views on this. what is really difficult here is establishing a new class of housing that did not exist before.

we have to differentiate between what is going to happen under this new class, and it happens frequently. the case is usually that the rules that are in place with the process begins are the ones the sponsor is under. and they go forward in the future for future conversions. i think that is an important principle to keep in mind. know what i have heard opposes the building of new student housing. this is meant to encourage the construction of student housing and it is an important part of this. we also have to be careful that we do not violate the rights of students and others that treat them as a different class of person when they are trying to occupy housing in san francisco.

the amendments in my mind are fine, there is no problem with those. there were comments about adjacent and joining in the definitions of exactly where these particular places are, but i think that can easily be cleared up and crafted. with also have a comment from the san francisco art institute, and i am in favor of their situation. if it was not needed in the past under which they occupied their buildings that their students are now renting, which should not ask them to have to go through that process in the future. i may be wrong on that, but that is the way i read it. if someone else or any other situation would have needed that

anyway because it is a change of views, it might be necessary for them to go through the process or any other institution that would be either in the future or in the past converting from one type of housing who another even before we create the new student housing. am i correct with that? >> i think so. let me make sure i understand you. there are couple things you are considering, grandfathering in existing applications for conversions of student housing, and the main thing to think about is, if someone has occupying those buildings legally out, these proposed changes in the 86-month moratorium on conversions or a complete prohibition would not

apply. there illegally occupying it as a student housing. a new law would not revoke their right. but what you may want to consider our projects in the pipeline were people submit applications and it might be processed after the law will be effective. in which case, under our recommendation, he would have a six-month prohibition and they would have to wait for at least six months. our department had hoped to continue the dialogue and continue exploring the issues of housing. commissioner antonini: i agree 100%. it gives us the ability to further craft of this process will occur in the future, and i think it is important to get it right.

of the pipeline issue, we have a lot of history in the eastern neighborhoods, projects in the pipeline already and we are waiting to get their approvals and are held accountable to the laws in place prior to the passage of a new law. there could be legal implications as to what kind of conditions for laws these things take place. i would think that the grandfather and would make sense if there is a situation where someone is waiting to get them. if they are compliant already, they will not be subject to a ban, prohibition, or anything. they are already compliant. and there is the fear of student

housing in residential neighborhoods. across from san francisco state, there are some houses that are occupied by students and it is probably not the right usage for that particular neighborhood. it is a different kind of usage would you have a number of students in there. that would be something we have to look at very carefully about how we will do those in areas where there is improved housing as a rule in those neighborhoods. we have the exemptions where it might be a house right next to someone on campus where they are taking some of their own property, but we have to look carefully if there are other things. the key issue here is valuing the occupancy of one group over another, being careful we are not putting greater value on someone who is a renter and not a student at someone that is the

renter and a student. the everyone has equal rights under the law in my eyes and that is what we have to do when we consider this. i am in favor of the process of being in the pipeline idea if it were applicable. and finally, there was some consideration of when a vacancy would have to have occurred to be able to -- but this idea where vacant its or under- utilized units will be used for student housing. and someone brought to attention that since the time that it was first introduced, it was allowing an exemption from inclusion very for student housing.

this only first came out and the occupancy or usefulness of occupied or underutilized properties was april 1 of this year i think that is a good day before which it has to be vacant. with regards to testimony by some owners and facilities, they are happy to have them and that is fine, there is no reason why if they have been successful or occupied or working, there is no reason why they would have to sell its. nobody is compelling anybody to do anything.

i would be in favor of the legislation as staff has drafted its with considerations, of course, to the area of grandfathered situations. i think that if we get some agreement on that, fine. at least that part of it should be continued until a future today. the moratorium is a good way for the aircraft. >> i think it is two separate issues if it means more and the legal terminology, a also am very supportive of the amendment to justify -- i want to make sure that as part of the motion. the comparisons to san francisco state is different because it is a state institution and they can

do what they want and we don't have any jurisdiction over that period it is a very different sort of situation and it was helpful to clarify that the zoning district has to be there. there are lots of housing that students live in, but it is not student housing. it just happens to be occupied by students. we're talking about buildings that are designated as a use of student housing which is a completely different thing. i don't want members of the public to get confused on the difference. in terms of conversion, i think it is a terrible slippery slope for converting hotels. i don't think we should support it through a conditional use.

if she wants to deal with the 11 or 15 vacant buildings, if she wants to lead the date of last year, the properties were vacant for a least three years. i don't see that we want to take that up. i don't think it is the right approach and i think a lot of people will leave buildings vacant if there is the opportunity moving forward to convert them to student housing. if i were her and i wanted to get just to those of buildings, this is the date that you were, this is the day and the distinction of properties. if they want to study it for six months, they can. but i personally don't see that i would be supportive in the future.

i think will make a motion to approve with staff modifications, and added the addition under section 317. she probably already has its for the 7 it is art institute and also modify the language where it says adjacent to adjoining, maybe in parentheses, shared a lot lines. that would be my recommendation. >> second. commissioner wu: can i ask a question of staff of what that would mean? supporting the idea of separating the two issues, how

could the issue of conversion be discussed at a later date? or do we have to make some sort of decision today? there has to be some sort of determination about -- >> if you want your organs to go forward, establishing the controls for production of new housing and exceptions, we need to is explicitly state our conversion is permitted, prohibited, or do you want to put in place that they are prohibited at sunset in six months. you can go many different ways with that. you could also go the other way and say that they are prohibited now have asked staff to bring back to you.

>> is permitted now. conversion to housing of any type. even sro's. the commission would have to take in the affirmative action to say it is prohibited. >> before the board, the previous recommendation saying that we are going to go forward to prohibit the conversion. today, we are recommending softening that so we can continue to look at the issue. should we keep the prohibition or change it? >> other than people in the pipeline, what other

implications are there? at the end of the day, i don't know why we have already have that statement. why would we want to change that? why is there a need or desire? >> the idea was to take six months to look at it if there were conditions under which we could allow conversions. it is your call. but that was the idea. because there were several people in the stakeholder meeting very concerned that we were banning the prohibition. banning the conversion without having thought through if there are any conditions. >> i would say that for now, for where we are, it doesn't mean that this committee should not get together and look at other

options. i think at this point, given what we know, i think the lack of certainty of changing it is not wise. having that committee look at the issue and if they want to bring back an amendment looking at it differently, that makes more sense to me. and even going back to the issue of the academy of arts. they have continued to expand their project site. it is hard for us to finish in the transportation study how to actually make any decisions. they have known this for a long time and it is not a shocking development. i can't have sympathy on them at all.

i think it makes sense to stay the course. it will have heard outcry from the public about moving forward a different direction. if they want to come together in a different way in the future and bring it to us, we would consider moving forward in a different direction. i don't see any reason to change the course even with people expressing concerns about it. give me an example of why it is a problem and we can talk about that. going forward with the exceptions we have added provide the support for student housing and the institutions that we want to flourish in san francisco. commissioner sugaya: were you done? you had the floor. ok. i would like to support the

motion. if anything happens in terms of prohibition and a softening through some process, i would encourage not bringing it back as some kind of a conditional use process. there are lots of reasons for that and everyone knows what they are. i was going to say something about the aau, but other people have voiced its. this commission has been extremely frustrated. i'm sorry, bob, that you got stuck with bringing this to us. we have had frustrations over many years with this organization, and to the point where, i suppose, it came to

mind about the institutional master plan, major properties, i assume that they have to bring it back to us again at some point. i don't know if that is going to further delay the environmental process or not, but that is not the issue. i think again, there was testimony about joining small change, and it was pointed out that maybe we can strike similar in the phrase before that a convent, monastery, or other religious the establishment. with this motion, are we effectively killing supervisor kim's whole -- >> yeah. it's done.