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.

good afternoon. i am the director of research and planning of the college of the arts located in the neighborhood. we have been in front of you before to speak in favor of this and we appreciate the work that the staff and the commission have done. it is a fully accredited nonprofit college of art and design found that in the aftermath of the great earthquake and fire. as you well know, innovative economies are fuelled by intellectual capital. like centers of innovation, san francisco draws much of the capital from the rich network of colleges and universities. these local colleges and universities compete to attract students from across the nation and around the world, coming here to pursue their studies and lots their careers. we are not competing with each other locally, it is outside the

bay area. since they compete regularly, the art institute of chicago, both of which have portable housing with their admission offers. since the trouble here without certainty of where they will live, they end up competing with everyone else for the limited supply of rental housing often occupying family size rental units with multiple, unrelated young adults. with 100,000 students seeking accommodations, you could imagine the impact this is having on the housing stock. welcoming housing students while they pursue their education should not result in the displacement of existing residents. these functions should be able to coexist and flourished together and think this legislation shows how to do that. other creative economy cities

have recognized this and adopted policies to promote the building of student housing. boston had that for the past 10 years. since those students are not taking rental units out of circulation, boston has, in effect, created more housing stock out of their existing supply. it is an incredible success story that we can emulate here. we will approve these amendments and thank you for your work on this. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment? >> thank you, commissioners. i want to thank the staff for bringing forth this very good legislation. i wanted to speak in support regarding the f.a.r. downtown. it applies to housing projects as well as commercial projects.

the bill to the height and bulk limits, you have to buy tdr's or a bonus of some kind. you don't have to buy them to build on site units. i suggest that the same ought to apply here. in your definition of student housing, and you say that the institution that runs the student housing must certify that at least 30% of their students are low-income. i would suggest you provide an -- provide a bonus for the student housing so it is equivalent to what market rate housing gets a bonus for. at least 30% of the square footage that must be occupied, you don't have to go on the market to build a 30% of the square footage that must be occupied for low-income students.

it must be a fair manner have not penalizing the students, but it is a very good location for student housing. it would become an important incentive to provide the equivalent. >> the afternoon. in looking at this, it seems like this is a very positive thing to do. saving the private residence as it is. one of the things that we have considered going forward, and what will be done in regard to

past housing that is lost. some of the things, the academy of arts. perhaps you might start thinking about that. in regards to this proposal, i think we like it very much because it preserves housing. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? >> commissioners, i am from the pacific heights residents' association. we believe that the best overall policy would be a simple declaration to preserve the existing housing. the only policy objective would be to conserve existing housing stock. we have been very concerned about the amount of residents

that have been taken by student housing and we believe that the definition of student housing should not permit and the continued removal of rental apartments for families and residents by conversion to student housing. many affordable rental units have been converted to dormitory facilities, and these units represent largely what would be affordable rental units for families and residents of san francisco. commissioner miguel: is there any additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i want to thank the staff for this issue. i do have some problems with parts of it. what we are doing is creating a

new category of housing that doesn't presently exist. student housing is considered in the general housing market. what we are doing is further restricting this category that we restrict regular restrictions on other housing. i think that is holding it to a higher standard. within dakota, we have protection to get its units lost by the demolition, conversion, and will require a conditional use for four units or more, correct me if i am wrong. and below that amount, it is subject to mandatory discretionary review. they're plenty of projections, have the proper amendment is to require additional use for all conversions of existing housing

into the category that will be defined in the future as a student housing. the way it is now, it tends to favor one class of resident over another. they do require housing and to give preferred housing to other residents is probably not a good way to pursue things. i think what the impetus of this legislation is to promote the building of new student housing or the conversion of retail or unused housing into student housing rather than to put protections against -- i feel the city should center its

acquisitions rather than more restrictions on private markets. what we have done is driven the prices up rather than a prohibition it will require mandatory conditional use currently, they are defined as housing and through a lot of reasons they don't have anyone in them. these things that come into this category, the historic factors

that will, i think, in the future, cause the housing stock to be uninhabitable and the marketable. we could open up a lot more housing. there could be situations where an owner will come up and build compensatory housing to replace that stock and put new housing in that will help through the loss of the rental units. i am not saying this would be a requirement, but this would be another way. i am not saying that this is necessarily a good application for student housing, but there may be some instances where very large single-family homes might serve as a student housing in some instances with the conditional use process and the

consent of the people around there. as was pointed out by mr. o'brien, the university could acquire housing that is presently de facto student housing. they have been occupying these places for many years and and often decades. and there are a number of instances where we would be able to take or grant a conditional use. overall, this legislation would have the effect of discouraging the conversion of housing into the new category of student housing and pushed universities and institutions toward building more. it would not be part of my amendment i am receptive to the idea of an f.a.r. bonus

downtown. i'm not sure you have to tie it into an income test, all students do that regardless of their income level. i don't think you want to restrict it to institutions that demonstrate 30% students of a lower income necessarily. in general, bonuses for building student housing would be helpful. and finally, the eastern neighborhood situation is probably not appropriate for us to deal with right at this time, but i hear what is being said it might be something that they may want to -- i will be making an amendment in the future.

commissioner borden: i am supportive of this legislation, it goes and the right direction. i am somewhat receptive to what commissioner antonini mentioned, but i would want to put some parameters around it. there are probably instances that might make sense to -- i can think of a building where i used to live in the marina that for a long time was one person living in the whole building. i can think of other buildings that are somewhat empty and could potentially be the type of place where you might think of the for student housing. i am not sure why this large building on the corner is vacant, but i know that we have an issue with student housing in the city. a lot of students can't afford to the regular rental rates of apartments in the city. it is very expensive. the average 1-bedroom apartment is $2,500 a month and is not

exactly affordable even for an individual, let alone a student. my concern would be to put parameters around will be the condition, sort of like what we have done with building unit mergers where we spelled out of the situation by which this makes sense. in some cases, it is owned 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