by the same party, vacant for a certain amount of time. i know we haven't really thought it through and a think we would need to do that to make sure that we don't have unintended consequences. i would like to be able to be supportive as opposed to having an outright prohibition. i recognize in a lot of ways this is response to a particular bad actor and they don't care what the laws are. they seem to do what they want regardless of what city policy happen to be. i like the idea of the f.a.r. bonus. data around student in come is flawed because it depends on if a student applies as an individual or if their parents can come is taken into consideration. it could be that a student of themselves are poor. it might lead to data that is

skewed. looking at how you might do the best makes sense, but not tying it to the 30% below market rates or low-income requirement because student data is misleading in terms of how students file their own taxes or their parents file their taxes. otherwise, this is a step in the right direction and i am excited that i have a legitimate place where we can encourage student housing. the challenge is a lack of land and proximity to the university's where they currently are. having housing there might make some the most sense. i can't think of where you will have new opportunities, so i think about where the schools are located, things like that.

i can understand why it might be worth considering. commissioner sugaya: just to make it public, the bad actor is the academy of art university. i have a question for staff. if this passes at the board of supervisors whether it is prohibitive foor cu, how does it affect the academy of art holdings with respect to properties they have illegally converted? >> my understanding is that if this passes, the academy of art will still need to go through and get entitlements to proceed with what they have already proceeded with or intend to do in the future. it will be prohibited from converting existing housing to student housing. they would be required to go through the cu.

commissioner miguel: we would not be able to make it retroactive? >> that's right. >> several buildings have not been entitled correctly. honda would have to come back for approvals. it is a question of them getting the entitlement to begin with. commissioner miguel: can we apply prohibition to the properties that they own? >> jube, because they have not received entitlements to convert both buildings. >> so on geary street where they own and building that has been converted from 24 units into student housing, that the academy or one of the entities owns -- if this passes, what the

consequences -- if we stay with prohibition in not cu process? does that mean they cannot use the building for student housing any longer? >> if it was a residential use and not in hotel -- that is a separate issue, but if it was the residential use, it would be a case for enforcement to follow up on. >> a number of people have mentioned boston. are you familiar with the program in that city that has supposedly built 10,000 student housing units? >> as a familiar only on the service level, not in detail. i want to highlight that our ordinance is intended to encourage the production of a new student housing and new units, new construction, that is why we focus on providing

incentives for new construction, including an exemption from the inclusion ary housing fees for pretty much any student housing project. technically the existing ordinance passed in 2010 examined -- exempt student housing to least 30% of the beds for students to qualify for any loan, grant, or aid. so there's no income threshold. commissioner sugaya: the do you know the city of boston or whatever public entity it might be actually provides subsidies or money? >> that, i do not know. i apologize. commissioner sugaya: that is all. thank you. i guess, one quick observation that i am an old guy. i went to school when institutions actually build their own housing. it has always been surprising to

me that schools do not do that anymore apparently. and all of the sudden, you know, everyone is asking the city to provide the incentives and the, whatever you want to call it, to, you know, build a new student housing in the private sector. and -- i do not know, it just seems weird to me that all of these seven institutions are asking us to, you know, provide incentives up to 30% to have the private sector build housing for them. i am not a real estate person. i never worked at an institution. and the idea that an institution would suddenly somehow decide to buy an existing building that happens to be populated by students, why would they do that?

there is an existing landlord. they do not have to do anything to the students are living there. why wouldn't is it tuition go out and purchase a building to do that, except for the academy of art, of course. i am is perfectly happy the way this is currently written. the >> may i respond to one point that you may. the one to point out that the housing element of the general plan does call for institutions to construct -- educational institutions to construct new housing to provide for their students. it should be defined in their policy 1.9 -- to their imp's. it is policy 1.9, to meet the housing demand that they generate, particularly the need for lower housing income workers and students. that is why we really focused on providing incentives for the

production and new student housing, rather than conversion of existing housing stock. commissioner sugaya: thank you. very important. >> a comment regarding the need for a cu in the eastern neighbor of the. i know you want to let that plan settles in, so to speak, but this seems to me be, to me, a somewhat minor change. >> i think in a general sense, the department would agree. however, the cu for student housing within certain districts in the eastern neighborhoods was brought up through the eastern area never had plans process by surprise are maxwell. because that requirement appeared as part of the eastern neighborhoods plan, we feel that we should wait until we review the plan as a whole, after it has been in effect for five years. i do not think the planning department would object to

removing the cu requirements in those districts provided there has been no undue pressure. but that is why we wanted to hold off and wait for that time. president olagu>> thank you. in general, i am in support of the legislation as it stands. i would not object to the change in the f.a.r., and i would not object to agenda and the eastern neighborhood's cu. but i believe we should wait a bit. code section 317, f1, that you handed out, i like, as well as the clarification language. in understand that the arguments against absolute prohibition and allowing for a cu, but i also

understand the other side. and i believe that, as if this, it is more incentivizing, if there is such a term, for new construction than if a cu was in effect. we do not have enough regular housing. there may be apartment houses in the marina. there may be other places. i cannot tell a property owner what to do with their property, nor do i want to. if i want to keep it vacant, we would start in all over the city, block-by-block. i am not sure that that is what we're here to do necessarily, as long as it is not an actual plight of the neighborhood. i am perfectly satisfied as it is, because, to me, it does incentivized new housing, which is what i would like to see.

commissioner antonini: a couple comments with regards to comments by commissioner sugaya. i can tell you i night -- in the 1960's, almost every graduate program in san francisco did not provide housing for their students. and, you know, i am a product of that with dental school. 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