sam was true with all the ucsf programs. i think that is still the case, largely. in the same is true, so even a place like san francisco state, which does have some storage -- some dormitory space, but only for small percentage of their student body -- many of the term of -- many of them are commuter students. it is not always the case that live with their parents. they're also taking of housing stock. i do not think it ever was a situation where, you know, colleges always provided all the housing for all their students. there were some colleges years ago that required undergraduate students to live with in student housing, but that has also largely disappeared. i did want to talk to the representative from usf that i think spoke earlier -- sorry, i do not remember your name. if the language was proposed that was adequate -- and it was adequate to meet your concerns

and that residential uses have beesuch by the fine -- by the time the first certificate of occupancy is issued in new construction shall not be converted to student housing. is that going to address your concern or not? >> tell you the truth, i am not sure i fully understand what that means. it does not sound like it. commissioner antonini: let me ask staff, because i need clarification on that, too. what we're concerned about is the mine in the pipeline projects that are duly entitled, are they going to be subject to this or not? >> i do not think this language would address concerns raised by usf. it does address concerns raised by projects that have been entitled, night -- not yet constructed. perhaps waiting for financing.

we did not want to include student housing at this time prior to construction. we wanted to provide the way for negotiations to continue between institutions and developers. there are a number of projects in the pipelines or that had even already been entitled. i also just wanted to clarify that we're not in any way trying to prohibit individual students from occupying individual apartments. we're more concerned about the sort of wholesale, cannibalizing of larger buildings by an institution. and at any point in time, any owner of a single-family dwelling or an apartment building can read and to individual students. the definition kicks in when the owner or the comptroller of the property is a secondary institution. that is the difference. we're not trying to prevent students from occupying any residential use in the city. commissioner antonini: ok, thank you. i see that other commissioners have comments, but i was going

to make an amendment to the existing legislation. we can wait. it does not matter, i am going to make it anyway. >> of the commissioners do not mind, i have had some conversations with someone who was not able to get here until just now and turned in a speaker card and has some comments on this item, and i am going to ask brad paul to come up for just a moment. >> thank you. i am sorry i did not get here sooner. i had a prior commitment. as far as usf's concerns, i spoke yesterday to harry o'brien about one particular concern, and that is that it was primarily already students living there. they get better rules in terms

of how they behave a bit of the problem is when you go around usf or other schools, these are mostly rent-control unit. if you buy one of those buildings, you still have the rent control. so it is the worst of both worlds. these are students, but i 10 years, these are graduates but you cannot ask them to leave because they graduated from usf or any other school. i spoke to several universities about this, and i do not think it ought to be in the general housing business. i think there are some opportunities. if you get a consortium of schools to pre-release the third or fourth power of the santa optimus project before it is even built, that would be great. the buildings around them are rent-control unit. just because three-quarters of the apartments are rented by student now, you cannot keep it that way. the worst would be that they graduate in your study managing general, rent-control housing. i support this legislation as it

is written. i do not think it needs to be amended, except for, and it felt like you're working on this, if that -- if something is approved and not under construction, it is not applicable. i took this letter seriously. i spoke to harry to try to clarify his concerns but i do not think usf or anyone else wants to buy rent-control buildings and operate them as housing because you cannot limit the two students. that is the problem. >> thank you very much. i want to comment also on my own. in the early 1950's when i was at usf, 9 in the undergraduates are registered and, other than a few of the athletes, had any housing. , and in the city -- common in the city. commissioner moore: i am

generally comfortable with the with the legislation is drafted. i would ask ms. heyward and ms. rodgers as to whether or not the questions raised by people who have been very strongly supporting the issue have answered it to you are not? all to really, the devil is in the details. several of the people, mr. colon, mr. atkinson, and other representatives asked questions which came as a surprise to me, because moseley these people have actively partisan bidding in formulating the issue and then coming out, literally in the 12th hour, and it is a surprise to me. will you please answer to me as to whether or not you are surprised by the questions or did you expect these questions? saree for putting you on the spot, but this is very

important. >> i am not surprised by their questions or comments. we have been working with them. we're not surprised by their comments. a lot of this process, i think most of the issues we have come to consensus and agreement about. the parts that we frankly have not come to an agreement about have to do with the prohibition versus the cu, and the second is the f.a.r. bonus in the c3 district of the department's position as there is already huge incentive other, the exemption from the inclusion their housing fee. i cannot stress enough that although the existing ordinance contains language that may suggest there is some income threshold for providing this exemption from exclusionary housing, there is not. any student who qualifies for pell grant or any other loan counts as a low-income students, and there's no income threshold to receive the stafford loan.

you simply have to be a student without outstanding debt. commissioner moore: thank you. i appreciate your restating your position, which assigns in support of peter i am concerned about and that they are incident. there are other consequences than just getting the additional f.a.r. it does not protect us any more to do the right buildings and we're already very densely built downtown, and incentivizing that particular use by increasing the fdr is and the and not feel is necessary. there are many other incentives to make this possible. so i am in support of the ordinance as it is and actually would make a motion that we approve the legislation as proposed. that would include your clarification, the two paragraphs, which put into the

record earlier. >> second. commissioner borden: i just wanted to go back to the issue about the cu. i went to university or the college actually bought homes in the town, and they live in one than the homes. it was deferred because we did not have a housing issue. but there is a larger feliz arbuckle issue, which is the issue of housing. whether university buys the housing or students who come here for the university live in the housing, the housing is still lost in some ways. if the thought is philosophically about affordable housing, because the truth is three students who live on a 3- bedroom can afford the higher rents than one family that lives in a 3-bedroom. that is a feliz atoka bob -- a philosophical issue. from the philosophical standpoint, we're not able to

tackle the issue. everyone wants to stop this issue of housing loss in the the thing is, you still have the same number of people in the same number of housing units, so have the same problem. at the end of the day, it comes to economic if i am a landlord, and i can get three unrelated adults to pay more money than one family, that is what i want, because i take care about the the advantage for the university is they're competing against universities around the world, and want students to come to their university, and want them to be in its environment. they compare housing with the meal plan and actually help support the overall costs. that is the advantage of why a university would not want to own housing because there's a cost nexus. and there is an advantage of housing close to the university because stevens could be more engaged in activities on the university but there is research surrounding what you want

students to live on campus or as close as possible and that is lost there. another interesting thought, if something happened, and in the case of parkmerced, they decided to use less of their land or not use all those buildings or management and no longer move forward with the project, under this ordinance, none of those buildings could be sold to the university to use for housing. i do not know if anyone thought about that. i know that is a problem at the state. my only point is i do not know -- i am not saying i want a blanket cu, but i think there might be cases -- i do not know what they are and i am not suggesting we are prepared to say what the exact cases are, but i think it is worth considering and what -- under what circumstances such a thing would make sense and because there are unique opportunities when that might make sense. i think that we found, whether was prohibition on restaurants or other things we have done legislatively in this commission, a lot of times and we have created an outright

prohibition, people have come back to us for changes because we did not see the other consequences. that is my only concern here, him that we see this -- whether with the issue of the bowling alleys and the of in the mission, alcoholic control district, whether it is a restaurant months. we often see that this that prohibition later comes back to, well, we did not consider the alternative. again, i think that the ordinance goes a long ways in general in encouraging people to build net new buildings, their university is located in places where there are not a lot of opportunity sites for net and the buildings. and that still creeds the same pressure and attention on the housing market that we have, we had the same number of people still living in the same city, taking up the same number of housing sites. commissioner sugaya: for me, the

question is production of new housing. introducing a cu does nothing for me to encourage that. commissioner antonini: well, i disagree. i guess this commission, we have always had confidence in our ability to discern projects that are worthy and projects that are not. by putting a band on it that takes that of our hands. we have talked about instances where it would apply. to commissioner borden's point, you can parameters later to this legislation requires a cu, and it would also have things having to do with union mergers and parameters that have to satisfy to be able to get the cu, as we do with the mergers in cases of dr's. to make it simple, i also do favor the f.a.r. bonus, but not to make the amendment to complicated, the amendment would be that we would delete the provision, but rather, to the

effect that conversion of residential units to student housing would be subject to a mandatory conditional use. that is my amendment. >> is that amendment accepted by the maker of the motion and is there a second? >> no. >> i will second the amendment. it is not going to go anywhere. but i would put the language in it that we like to discourage the conversion of existing housing. we would like it for situations when it might make sense for a conditional use. commissioner moore: i respect this commission acknowledges being shark, critical, and on the ball, but that is not a lifetime guarantee. i see other commissioners, without mentioning anybody, who are pretty much always in unison about anything, which might provoke a critical stance today. it is for that reason that i would support the legislation as it is written.

>> commissioners, there has been a second to the amendment, however. based on robert's rules of order, as opposed to yours, we must take a vote of the commission on the amendment. on the amendment that the prohibition be stricken and be replaced under certain circumstances a conditional use required, on that motion only. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> >> aye. >> >> no. >>no. >> that motion failed, because it is a tie vote. so the amendment is not included in the original motion that is on the floor. >> may i call the original question? >> is there agreement on the

motion to accept the staff recommendation? >> commissioner borden had commons. commissioner borden: i was going to make a motion to continue. >> segment. >> as you know, the motion to continue does take precedent over a motion on the floor. there is a motion in second for a continuance. >> i want to know when we have a full commission. >> next week? >> no. >> in january? >> no. >> the calendar for next week is already gone out. i would ask that you not continue it. >> we do not have a full commission next week. >> so december 1? >> works for me. >> the question is whether the hearing would stay open or not. >> no. >> think the hearing will stay

close, but maybe we will find out what they did in boston. >> commissioners, any material brought before you that is not before you today would require the hearing be open to received so the public can comment on anything introduced to you. >> i think it has to stay open another could be some new information. can that not just be sent in a memo? >> it can be sent to you in a memo, but if it is to be considered by the commission and you do not have that before you know, you have to allow the public to participate in that process. >> i am just going to withdraw the motion. >> so there is no motion to continue then. >> fine. >> commissioner borden, if you like to make a motion and it is closed, i would be supportive of that. >> at the end of the day, i am 5.

it we're back here in five years heading in different discussion, that is fine. i would love to be the first person to say "i told you so, , but i am 5 to go in that direction. it is easier to get rid of the issue. commissioner antonini: years are not able to support this as a this is for reasons stated earlier, and it is too bad that we did not have a continuance with all the things that came up today, talking about the cu process and the missions district, eastern neighborhoods, and concerns by usf about housing that already existed there are so many issues here, we could probably learn a lot in the next few weeks to be able to for better legislation. but whatever the opinion of the commission is is what we will have to go with. commissioner moore: first i thought that what commissioner antonini is just tangent to is correct, but after having

clarification, these are trailing opposite opinions. i am comfortable that this has been developed and is a mutually presented to us. so i basically would reiterate that it is a solid piece. commissioner borden: and this goes to the board of supervisors next? i think that there's an opportunity to present more information. i think we should do that if we feel strongly enough that we should discuss it with the board. then they could fix it. it also going to vote for the motion. you know, stating my some hesitancy are rounded. and we will go from there. >> to meet, this is somewhat analogous to something else that happened that involved the housing action coalition when i chaired it, which i did win this for started there. and that was the inclusion mary

lead -- inclusionary legislation. we knew it was going to be changed and amended as it went forward. it had to get its foes in the door first. and it has worked out. soak it -- so it has been changed and amended. i would expect the same here. but we have to start somewhere. >> the motion is for approval as staff has recommended to you, with the changes that have been read into the record by ms. heyward today. that includes a prohibition and not conditional use requirements. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> the motion passes, five-one, with commissioner antonini voting against.

thank you, commissioners. >> do you want to take a 10- minute break? >> when we come back, been >> we are now on item 11a, b, c, and d. for, 6 -- for , sfmoma. >> good afternoon peter i am, with the planning staff. my request is for several actions regarding the expansion a note the existing san francisco museum of modern art. the existing sfmoma is at.

this would demolish the two buildings. it would construct a new addition of approximately 230,000 square feet, reaching a height of approximately 200 feet. it would accommodate extended gallery space, including the collection and some free a publicly accessible art display areas and administrative and support functions for sfmoma. also as part of the project, an existing building located at 935 folsom street would be demolished and the new fire station would be construction on the northerly portion. the construction of the new fire station would be faced with the overall project to minimize the disruption in fire protection services and the functions fire station number one shifting locations. a resident of project would be construction in the future on the southerly portion of 935

folsom street site that is not occupied by the new fire station the other four factions for your consideration. first is the adoption of findings for the project under the california environmental quality act, including their rejection of alternatives, adoption of a statement the overriding consideration, and adoption of mitigation, monitoring, and reporting programs. second is the adoption of a general plan referral, funding the project lies with the objectives and policies with the general plan and the party policies of planning code section 101.1. three specific aspects trigger the referral. first, and what portion the public right of way for hunt street will be vacated and incorporated into the overall sfmoma expansion site. the referral is triggered by the construction of the fire station at 935 folsom street as well as the subdivision of the property and the two lead to enable future construction of residential project on the

portion of that site. i would like to get a memo to conditional general plan policies and objectives that should be incorporated into the draft motion that were inadvertently omitted in the initial draft. this is primarily from the urban design element and is in support of the action. the third item for your consideration is a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding a general plan amendment. it would revise mapped two of the community facilities element to reflect the relocation of fire station number one. the fourth and final action is a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding a zoning map of men. it would rezone 676 howard st., the location of the existed location from public and it would reason the northerly portion or reload -- relocation site to public. the amendment is necessary to incorporate 676

and please note that the design of the expansion itself would be reviewed to the later hearing through the section 309 process provided that the other necessary approvals are granted by the commission and the board of supervisors. at this time i would also like to distribute to you letters that were received after publication of the staff report including letters of support from individuals, businesses, and organizations in the area. in addition, there is a leter from the sl offer representing the ownership of the hotel and raising the concerns that were raised regarding the continued access for loading and circulation functions that were brought up during the i.r. comment period. there is also a leter from council that is a response to that particular letter and describing how access would be maintained for the hotel. and so in summary, the staff

supports the proposed project and recommends the approval of the action i just described to strengthen cultural vitality of the city and draw tourism and result in the construction of a new state-of-the-art fire station. and i would like to note that representatives from the san francisco fire department are here to speak but at this time i would like to turn it over to ken rich from the office of economic and work force development. he will give a brief overview of the real estate transactions involved. >> good afternoon, commissioners. nice to be in front of you again. i am here and i am ken rich with the office of economic and workforce development and i am here to refresh what brought us to this meeting. you have heard this before, so i will be brief. and we have worked out what is a real win-win for the city and is

t s.f. moma which intends to expand the museum to generally expand the collection and s.f.moma has acquired the college building and will acquire howard street and fire station one and the moma will demolish both structures and contract a new wing and you have seen the presentation on this. and this would be at no cost to the fire station and this is a win-win for the city and s.f. moma to allow them to build and to expand the facilities to house the new collection and provide a new fire station which is superior in the physical layout and location. and at no cost to the city. and last year the board of

supervisors adopted an ordinance approving a conditional landis position and land acquisition agreement between the city and s.f. moma laying out the series of transactions. and the overall schedule for the museum project and fire station is completion of the fire station and expected in early 2013. and the completion of the new museum wing is expected in mid 2015. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the director of s.f. moma. it is a pleasure to speak to you. and thank you for the kind consideration of the e.i.r. which will enable to expand so bril lantly. i am accustomed to speaking about the museum and the cultural value and obviously we have one of the great museums in the country in s.f. moma in the city and this will enable to

become one of the great modern museums and really today i want to emphasize the fundamental civic role and how important this expansion is for us. and in termses of san francisco and in city with 650,000 visitors and is 100,000 of the visitors come free of charge, free of admission and this is a special thing we offer free days, family free days, school groups visit us, and we are very proud of the fact that virtually 1/6 of the visitors come for free. we are expecting a dramatic increase in the visitation and we are going to be able to expand that dramatically. and when s.f. moma moved to the sight and we really see this expanding as