this category is for public hearing on closed items. commissioner miguel: this is strictly the eir we are talking about. the project will be before us at a later time, and the comments should be directed to the project itself. what we are considering now is the eir, whether it should be certified. >> if you want to speak to the project, can you wait until we finish with the eir's? we would very much appreciate that. if there's anyone else who really wants to speak to the eir, please come forward. for either of the items, 10 or 12. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an attorney here in san francisco. i am year on behalf of the

entity that owns the w hotel. my comments are on the certification and final eir. you have a letter we submitted earlier this week on the same topic. all my clients generally are in support of the project, we feel strongly that the environmental review work has not been done adequately. we object to the certification and final eir because of the deficiencies we identified in the draft that have not been corrected. we believe the comments were not sufficient, and the new mitigation measures that were added during the final eir process are not enforceable. we have three key concerns. first generally described as design, and what i mean by that is that the project description is not complete because we do not have a final design for this project or even a near-final

design. if you look at different sections, you will see a different description of the height and bulk of the building. for example, in the project description, it describes a maximum height of 320 feet, but if you look at the aesthetic impact section, it examines the aesthetic impact of a 220-foot project. it requires you to have a stable and finite project definition. the eir does not reflect that. we understand their continued to make changes to the building. we have no objection to that either, but you cannot certify the eir and look at the aesthetic impact without considering the final building. it makes the visual simulations themselves insufficient, and the impact on my client, having what is now a concrete monolithic wall 20 feet away from 112 of their hotel rooms that currently have a bridge views is considerable.

the other area is traffic. we identified that the analysis of traffic during construction is insufficient. it has been written off as being generally considered insignificant because it is temporary, but generally insignificant does not mean insignificant in this case. during the construction time, the estimate is that as will have to spend an additional $500,000 a year just to deal with the traffic issues associated with the construction time, and that deals with valet and loading. it also does not adequately look at long-term impact because it relies on the improvement measure that they will continue to have access when that is not actually enforceable. and you're sort out of time, so i will refer you to my letter unless you have any questions -- and i am out of time. commissioner miguel: thank you.

any additional questions? if not, public comment is closed. >> just a question of clarity from me -- generally after we finish that category of questions for public comment, we take up the items themselves. do you want to delay that until we get to them on the calendar, or do you want to take them up now? >> we can take them up now. as long as people are here move through them. >> a cake, with that, commissioners, we are now going to go into your actions on closed items. a public hearing is closed. first item before you would be item 10, case to thousand 9.0291e -- case to thousand 9.0291e -- 2009.0291e.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am from the planning department's environment planning division. the item before you is the certification of a final environmental impact report for the san francisco modern art expansion. the project entails the demolition of the existing 67676 howard st. buildings. demolition of the vacant building at 955 folsom streets, relocation of five station one through that site and construction of a new fire station on the front 2/3 of the lot and up to 30 units of housing on the southern portion. a copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you. it was published on july 11,

2011. a public hearing was held on august 11, 2011. the 45-day public comment closed on august 25, 2011. a common response was published and distributed. after publication, the department received two letters including the w hotel, a property owner on natoma street and a property owner on shipley street. the comments do not raise issues that have not already been addressed in the responses document. responses to the oral testimony today from the representative of the w hotel -- i would like to clarify that the product description is considered stable based upon the department's position appeared to 320-foot height that was referenced by the commager is actually a reference to the height

district to the building was analyzed between 220 feet. visual simulations are adequate for the potential aesthetic effects, and the way of dealing with access, loading, and circulation are outlined in the comments and responses document on pages 57 through 60. the eir found that the implementation of the project would result in significant unavoidable impact related to the demolition of the 935 full century building, which is eligible for the california register for architecture and its association with the market area. the eir also found significant unavoidable impact with substantial air pollutant concentrations during the construction period to

accumulate significant level of particular matter. the eir found all the impact would be less than significant or less than significant litigation measures that have been agreed to by the sponsor. it suggests a reasonable range of alternatives, a project that would reduce, eliminate, and avoid the historic resource impact here however, no alternative would avoid the impact on air quality. due to the unavoidable significant impact, the commission would need to adopt overriding considerations pursuant to the california environmental quality act should the commission choose to approve the project here at this time, staff recommends that the commission certifies the contents as adequate and complete, and that the procedures are followed appropriately through the ceqa guidelines in chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation, and staff is available for questions.

>> mr. president, the item is before the commission. public hearing is close. commissioner sugaya: i move to certify the final environmental impact report as adequate. dennis second. >> commissioners -- >> second. >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval that the environmental impact report is complete. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. thank you. that motion passed unanimously. i take it we are now going to item 12. the glen park community plan certification of the final environmental impact report.

staff is not here at the moment. may i suggest we go back and take up item 11? with that, commissioners -- commissioner miguel: 9. >> ok, sorry. we skipped nine. we will go back to item 9, adoption to planning code amendments related to the creation of a definition of student housing. >> good afternoon. the item before you is a proposed ordinance drafting by the department that defines student housing and mix

associated modifications to the planning code. the action before the commission is whether to adopt the proposed ordinance and to forward it as proposed or with modifications to the board of supervisors. we have prepared a draft ordinance that has been approved as performed by the city attorney's office, and that was included in your packet. i will start by outlining the goals of the legislation and giving a brief overview of the history of the project as well as a summary of the new definition and associated controls. the goals of the proposed legislation are first to protect the city close the existing housing stock, while encouraging the production of new student housing. in effect with the proposed legislation, the department will have a means to control the loss of housing through its conversion to studember 2010, tr signed an order and said exempts specific student housing from inclusion very housing fees one student housing is provided to students who have demonstrated some financial need.

in the planning commission with his body considers the ordinance, you directed staff to develop a comprehensive definition of student housing that could be used throughout the city and throughout the planning code. the department believes that the proposed legislation before you response to the commission's request and provides a number of additional public benefits. the proposed code amendment creates definition of student housing based on occupancy and ownership or control. with the adoption of the proposed ordinance, we acknowledge that student housing can take the form of dwelling units, group housing as a traditional dorm, or even small a efficiency units, and these must be owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by an accredited post-secondary educational institution, and in addition to the specific definition, the department is proposing additional controls.

we also consider the unique requirements for student housing and look at the reasonable mix for student housing. the proposal suggests ways to facilitate communication from standard housing back to housing if it is no longer needed. staff continued conversation with groups such as the housing action coalition, and a concern has been brought to our attention that may merit some clarification peer department, we want to be clear, supports the prohibition of any housing tested and housing, but the commission may wish to explicitly defined in the code the point at which an untitled project is defined as a residential use prior to its actual construction. that is the language i distributed for you today. we have prepared draft language for you to consider if this is amenable. i can put it on the overhead as well.

staff recommendation will be to further amend the planning code to clarify that for the purposes of conversion to sit and housing, residential uses that have been defined as such by the time for a significant for occupancy has been issued by the department of building inspection for new construction shall not be converted to student housing. staff has received two letters in response to the proposed ordinance. the first round. o'brien -- the first from harry o'brien requesting that the reclines be replaced with requirements for conditional use authorization rather than flat out prohibition so that the commission may review these requests on a case by case basis. the sec letter from the pacific heights residents' association ages the commission to support the prohibition to convert housing to student housing. specifically rental units to

student housing. i have presented a general overview of our policy goals. you have the draft ordinance before you. that concludes my presentation, but i am available for questions, and i will also distribute copies for the letters i have received as well. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. i have one card on this. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have really two reasons for being here. one is i am the project sponsor. you have heard an earful from the neighbors. the conduct of negotiation with neighbors, they would much prefer to see student housing. so to the extent that there is a prohibition on the transfer of group housing to student housing, that would undermine the negotiations we have had, but more broadly, if somebody is

going into a project, with a developer going into a project, the narrower the definitions of the end use of the project are, the harder it is to potentially envision tenants for the project. this forces you to find a tenant before you start the project, both in your own risk assessment and more concretely, the four banks give you loans. to the extent we take a pretty broad group house and definition and narrow it, i think the practical effect would be that there would be fewer student housing and fewer group housing project altogether because it would be harder to get them off the ground. me personally, going into this group housing situation, i knew once i had the project entitled, i could either find a city agency to take it, or a non- profit, or a school. to give me a lot of freedom, i was willing to take a big financial risk. i encourage you to think about

-- you know, we clearly have the conversion of a lot of sro's and i do not know how many group housing units. that could be something we would ask staff about. we do not want to lose good housing, but we do want to encourage the development of new projects, and i think the way it is drafted, it would undermine the creation of new projects. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> @ afternoon, commissioners. i am the manager for the institutional master plan at the university of san francisco. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i am speaking on behalf of the university to ask that you modify the proposed ordinance. our concerns are outlined in the letter that harry o'brien said you where we do>> we feel an abe prohibition is unduly strict.

we ask it to be modified to allow for a case by case review of those housings. the example that mr. o'brien outlined in his letter are very real situations for the university. one example was for an educational institution to seek a residential buildings to accommodate students while new student housing is being constructed on campus. another example was whether to acquire the existing housing near campus that is already occupied by students in order to positively address neighborhood concerns about student behavior or maintenance. as you may recall, we are working very hard to improve our relationship with the neighbors and improved student behavior and improved housing is very much part of that strategy. another example is the universal

control of underutilized residential building. again, holyfield that this proposal is strict and could result in unintended consequences. we ask that you modify the ordinance to allow for a conditional use or case by case review. i appreciate your consideration. >> i think it is an excellent idea, what you're doing. i have not looked at the details of that. i did testify on the eir for the institution i am concerned about. i don't have negative feelings about the institution, but in my neighborhood, they took many buildings that had been residences where neighbors, members, relatively low income used to live.

what happened to the people that were living in those buildings. i have no idea. we had a parallel where people bought buildings and turned them into executive suites, like a hotel type use. in a similar kind of conversion without any procedure. i would suggest that if you are looking at this, i don't know how this is drafted. you should not be thinking about their having to be some legal procedure to convert them back if there wasn't an entitlement to begin with. who that is certainly what happened within the executive suites. somebody bought the buildings and they just changed them. the conditional use is not such a bad idea because unless the neighborhood becomes aware of that, there is nobody speaking for a, against the conditional use. it tends to automatically pass.

maybe there are some exceptions. i am not advocating for that, but if you look, there may be some exceptions that might be suitable. but certainly not if it was part of the housing stock. whether it was sro or under rent control. what i am hearing sounds like a good idea. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. as you well know, this is that a key goal and an initiative of hours for years. in particular, i want to thank sophie for the great work she has done and walking us through

where we are now. our general impression of this proposal is that it is not bad. but it is a kind of tim that response before very pressing civic challenges. higher education is one of the top four sectors of the city. we have 120,000 students in san francisco, and a reasonable case can be made that there are 50,000 beds right now. that need is being satisfied by craig's list in housing that is assumed to be family size rental stock. what we are hearing again and again is that the tools are having a lot of trouble meeting the housing needs. we just heard recently that you see hastings' turned away 25 students that were accepted for admission and had paid residential deposits. i have heard the same thing

about the art institute of san francisco. i am hearing crazy stuff about the scrambling last minute when they are trying to figure out where to put students. i would offer a comparison to what boston did in the late 90's. they passed the "leading the way" initiative. they were in similar conditions, and in response to their initiative, they built about 1000 units a year for 10 years. that is a civic response to that says that we have a problem and we need to correct it. we have always opposed the conversion of sro's. we understand there is a bright line that this has to be about building new housing and not simply displacing or converting to something else. what we feel about this proposal is that it is good, but it has a

lot of hedging. we don't want to allow a loophole here so we can come back and talk about this one in three years. this is largely because of the bad behavior of one-acter. -- one actor. i'm out of time. i think this needs more work and we could do this with the supervisors. i wish it would be a stronger statement going forward. commissioner miguel: [reading names] >> i am speaking as a member of the housing action coalition. we worked closely with the department and a supervisor dufty. as a result, there are a couple of student housing projects that are proposed. these would bought happen

without the incentives provided for it. we appreciate the department consulting with us on this legislation. i would like to suggest a couple of changes. the premise of the student housing program is that student housing is affordable housing. nearby at large low income. they rely on that for financial aid to get by. half of college seniors have taken loans. the average load is $18,000. figures for graduate students are even higher. the average student leaves with $88,000 in debt. they haven't come well enough that would qualify for the unit. given this, it makes sense for the same types of incentives that are available for affordable housing to be available for student housing. there is a bonus that is often used by both 100% affordable

projects and for the on-site units in the market rate project. buildings are constrained by height edible oil and that, they just don't have to buy as much. it is a reasonable way to bring down costs and i urge you to consider a similar bonus for student housing. student housing projects should not be burdened with more procedure that other housing projects. in most of the city, student housing isn't. in some places, and student housing needs a cu. there is no reason to treat it differently. i understand there is reluctance to modify the eastern neighborhoods, but there is a precedent for minor changes. earlier this year, the requirement to put offices in historic buildings was eliminated and proposed changes

to the 1% program would extend to the eastern neighborhoods. it makes sense to let an economic cycle play out before broadly and evaluating a plan. changing the procedure for entitling student housing where residential uses are already allowed doesn't seem to infringe on the grand bargain. how much land is allocated for housing and i hope you will consider the change. >> i am not appearing today on behalf of any client, but as a participant in a formal working group on the student housing legislation. their willingness to engage us on student housing legislation

and for developing proposed legislation that will have a positive contribution to the development of student housing badly needed. i appreciate clarification on that change of unapproved housing project should not be considered a conversion. we believe it is consistent with the proper interpretation. i have an area where i respectively disagree with staff oppose the proposal. this is a personal position. the desirability of a flat prohibition on existing housing to student housing. the conversion of any existing housing to student housing should certainly be rare and should certainly be subject to full commission review, but we question why the city should tie its hands with a flat prohibition. are there of situations you can think of where property that has

been used for housing before might appropriately be used for student housing? therefore, we request that the commission carefully consider whether to change the flat prohibition to a cu process. we have talked about an institution in this city where there are concerns about how they have created student housing. if they have gone through a process, we would not have had a problem but that we now think we have. i think the process will give the city the protection it needs without tying its hands to rule that we may find to be unduly restrictive in some circumstances -- circumstances.