responsibility and accountability that's not only beneficial to them but their future neighbors as they move into other parts of san francisco. the support systems we provider students help to ensure success in our close-knit community which is mostly overseen by me and a small team of advisers. it allows us to get to know our students better and support them in a more direct way. our program is not only residential, but we view it as an extension of our mission and we are very small school at 650 students, 140 of which are in residence. we're not looking to profit on the program but in our institutional goals and sustainability, to use as a tool to recruit students and talented, committed artists to our school and to san francisco.

i think there are many great points made today, the lack of housing for everybody in the city, but is the short-term option for students who are not looking for longer commitments to outside rentals. the amendments are proposed, just listening to them mention religious housing and building sound 10 + year in the adjacent to a post-secondary campus, but we like to ask amendments that would be considered to protect smaller, nonprofit institutions like ourselves. supervisor wiener: if there is anyone else interested in making public comment, now is the time. >> i'm here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition and

i apologize for showing up late. i want to say the leadership you have shown comes at a very timely moment for us. the housing action coalition pushed to get this going a couple of years ago and this is the legislation we have been waiting for with a lot of lunches -- a lot of anticipation. our focus has been entirely on new student housing. there is a shortfall of 50,000 beds in san francisco being filled in the city's housing market, largely via craigslist. it does not seem like we can get it this unless we build lots and lots of student housing and we hope there will be incentives to do just that. we are aware of eminence raise a lot of issues and one of the thorny ones we have grappled with is this idea of conversion

of existing residential to student housing. we have stayed away from that entirely. we're focused on production of new housing and we are aware there might be instances in which a good case could be made for this but we are not convinced at this time it doesn't create more problems than it solves. we look forward to following this as it goes back to planning and we hope it contains incentives to get at this situation. we model our efforts on what boston has done. they did something similar 15 years ago and as a result of their initiatives, they went on a tear building something like 1000 units of new student housing per year for over a decade. that is how you get at and we hope you will follow this and supported as it moves forward. thank you. supervisor wiener: there were a

couple of comments made before you came in. i know jeff -- i know you have worked on this legislation for a long time. the issue of ownership and control was raised as opposed to having other private entity develop the property and an educational institution enters into some sort of arrangement and there was the issue of abuse, creating student housing getting out of inclusion rehousing and then down the road, converting it to non- student housing and having gained -- having game that the system. the art institute has raised the issue of smaller institutions because they are not in a position to build new housing. could i get your response to those issues? >> we feel the first piece of legislation had in it monitoring

and reporting by the mayor's office of housing, annual reporting, the schools were required to provide the names of students occupying qualified student housing and of the hammer over this is if you are out of compliance, you are subject to inclusion area fee. that is a significant penalty if you are going to try to game the system. the interest was how to prevent just that -- five years down the road it turns out someone else's living in it. we think the controls are there and are clear and appropriate. i think there are some valid views and i would say to the extent it could be made more flexible because there is no one

type of school, different types and sizes of schools can't enter into agreements to satisfy their housing needs, may get as flexible as possible. as far as the art institute, we have heard there are some excellent instances in which you could argue the building is underutilized in its present use and student housing would make more sense. we need to look at that and obviously, there have been abuses in the past. we are sticking to the production of new housing. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> a good afternoon. and the president of save our streets, tenants and merchants

association. we operate in the lower nob hill historic apartment district and we are having a terrible, terrible problem with the art academy students. the housing in the area is being taken over by them. they're taking over large buildings where there are 100 units occupying 90 percent of it and we are running into a lot of problems. this is the most densely populated area west of new york city. hist in six blocks, we have 293 buildings on the national registry of historic places. this area needs to be protected. we have graffiti, skateboarding, loitering and displacement of tenants. here is an example of the graffiti. this is a brochure.

that is absolutely ridiculous to have it in their brochure. this is a result of what is happening. you can't read it here, but it says deface -- this is a missionary district and it was built after the quake so there would be an area for working people, not students. this is what we are faced with. if this isn't destroying a neighborhood, things people come here to see -- if you want to see more, i can show them to you. here is a brochure from the

front door. this has been converted to senior housing. first-year students. the commodore first-year students. [tone] skateboarding on or in front of university property. this that mean do it anywhere in the neighborhood? i had a friend of mine's mother who was killed by a skateboarder. this is not a joke. she is drug to the ground and hit her head and died two days later. it is getting out of control. you have these other apartments for students are living in the people living in the dormitories come there to party in the

apartments and they're driving people live there out. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. >> please don't change the zoning on this. they are either under age so there is no record or they're sent to diversion and there is no record but they have been arrested. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i was -- when it was the battle to save nob hill, it was 90% rental housing and where everything except this -- this had not come up yet. every other ploy was used to

take our rental housing. time shares, executive rentals, everything else. so we organized. some people who were on our volunteers lived in these buildings and i will say that i lived for almost 20 years in that area. although i don't dispute any thing robert garcia told you, i love living there. it's very vibrant and so forth and the art academy has an important place in the town. but taking rent-controlled housing and turning it into student housing is not one of them. i was the organizer for nob hill neighbors and she was -- i said do you know what happened to the building where one of our volunteers lived -- he worked for us until he went to hospital

-- it is student housing out. it came off the market. in the building where i lived, we rented a lot of units to students and that was fine. some of them behaved the way robert said from time to time and it would be disturbing in your rental housing when they moved in. but what i wonder is what happened to all the people who lived in those buildings? when executive suites started down there, they were not evicted in court, but they got rid of them -- they made it uncomfortable, and i'm sure the same thing happened here. there must be no exceptions. they cannot be converted. there has been no process, no entitlement to make the student housing anymore than it was for the executive suites which we also need to recover. these should just be housing

under rent control. they put up notices they are not under rent control. when the students finished their term, they cannot tell them to leave. they can stay there. when apartments go vacant, they to be rented in a regular market. then they should be built as a student housing, new places, or converted spaces under this ordinance. it looks perfect to me. conditional use doesn't work. we just lose them under a conditional use. supervisor wiener: next speaker. if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak, for me lying here, otherwise this will be the final speaker.

>> we represent the university of san francisco and i am here on behalf of the university to express support for the amendments proposed and we thank you for that. back thank you. -- supervisor wiener: any additional members of the public which to make a comment? supervisor cohen: public comment is closed. a couple of notes about the

student housing and students not leaving. could you speak to that specific concern? about students not staying in the program. are there any stipulations the program that is not happening? >> at this point in time, with nothing in the planning code, housing, individual units are rented to students and technically there is no differentiation between students and in the other residents. depending on the building for rent control laws would still be in place. supervisor cohen: it sounds like there is an opportunity to send it back to committee. supervisor wiener: the same question i put about the comment about the potential for abuse to

avoid inclusion rehousing, the concerns about ownership and control being not flexible enough and the concern for the smaller institutions. >> and see the december 2010 ordinance in effect calls for wednesday in housing that is exempt from the requirements goes back to regular housing, they're subject to inclusion rehousing fees with interest. while there is the possibility of converting from student housing to regular housing, the fees would be applicable. the mayor's office of housing has volunteered to handle that in the recording system. regarding the concern about the

way institutions would enter into agreements with landlords, we do anticipate some developers will come forward and provide student housing by floor or buy portions of buildings so it's not a requirement an entire building becomes due in housing. we know of one project in particular that envisions a situation in which there are several floors of student housing, several floors of market rate housing, and that would be controlled with an agreement with the post secondary institutions. i have seen amendments or discussions of amendments that would further clarify that said that a portion of a building could be considered student housing. that should address his concerns. that is a clarification. i can't remember the last one. >>supervisor wiener: about the

smaller educational institutions like the art institute. >> away ordnance is drafted, it prohibits the conversion to student housing and it would depend on the type of building their looking to convert. supervisor wiener: i will say the issue of conversion of regular housing to student housing is an incredibly hard one. we have seen of abuse over the years and if you have -- if you don't have controls in place, we don't have enough housing for our non-student population and it can create some real problems. we have artificially constructed the supply of housing in san francisco for a long time and it is pricing people out of the city. that was certainly the intent behind the prohibition of conversion. i understand the arguments on

the other side and i will say that because this is on the slow boat and going back to the planning commission, we have an opportunity to continue this discussion. what i would say is that for folks to have input, to let ms. heyward know and one of my aides staffing me on this legislation, keep the feedback coming because we want to get right and we're willing to listen to any feedback people have. with that, i would move the amendment. supervisor olague: i know mr. paul has worked on this for a long time. do you have additional feedback on the amendments that were suggested today? >> there has been good

discussion among the colleagues. one of the way she steer new contruction is to steer them to doing the easy thing which is to buy old buildings. the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the academy of art university. they have used the existence of conditional use for a term called path to legalization. for those who are not familiar, it's a policy developed in years ago for a good reason. you would have a homeowner out in one of the neighborhoods and maybe didn't know you need a permit to put a tiny back on the back. the academy of art is not that example. they have violated law here in, you're out, dozens, under times. but they believe since they can

legalize what they have done through conditional use, they are in no hurry. they delayed the master plan, they delay the impact report because some day they will get to legalize it. by not having that route, it makes it harder for bad actors in this story to get away with this kind of behavior. supervisor olague: i have one more comment for staff. to require a change of use for the group housing. since that time, have gained a lot of concerns from certain members of the public regarding this. i would ask if you could maybe highlight that peace and get some feedback from the planning commission regarding that.

it currently is, if you could explain it and how that shifts things, this does not pertain to student housing, but group housing, which is an entirely different issue. >> correct. i will highlight this when it goes back to the planning commission, but to clarify, it is anomalous. the addition of group housing does not trigger notification. it is very unusual that we have neighborhood commercial residential units that do not trigger notice. i was said that generally there is some other notices triggered by a group housing. generally that is an environmental notice. however, the conversion of something to group housing when there are no other notification triggers does not trigger a 312

notification. we are suggesting amending that to bring it in line with the rest of our notification requirements. i will make sure to go into that. if you could -- supervisor olague: i am curious about how these other departments deal with this type of conversion. this type of group housing. supervisor wiener: to follow up on the group housing issue, the supervisor and died about six months ago dealt with the situation at 16th and albion, where group housing was going to be put in there and we believed it would be. there was no noticing requirement and the neighbors found out about it very late in the game and it created a very chaotic situation with a lot of confusion and anger. i came away from that, and i

think a lot of people did, with a belief that it was better to let people know ahead of time what was going on so that they can have appropriate input, discussion, and avoid miscommunication. i think that this brings it in line with the planning code. in that situation there were people who advocated having a cu for housing, which i do not support, but i think this was a good accommodation. >> it was a part of those discussions as well. what is the word? i started to analyze the change a little bit more after talking to some of these other departments and that sort of thing, but i do not think that cu is in line to carry that. definitely not. as some sort of compromise, notification is more or less the way to go and it will probably

end up in the same place, either way, with regards to the neighbors being able to respond to that type of project that they want adjacent to them. i am not necessarily oppose to this amendment, but i wanted to give it more thought after hearing from the public, that is all. but i do respect what supervisor wiener is saying. i would rather see this notification and the cu. supervisor wiener: colleagues, any other comments? if not, i would like to move to another amendment. supervisor cohen: there has been a motion? ok. some moved. supervisor wiener: -- so moved. supervisor wiener: do we need to formally referred back to the planning commission with a

motion? supervisor cohen: any objections? ok. we will move it back to the planning commission. thank you. >> continued to the call of the chair, yes. item number four, resolution authorizing the execution of a permit to enter and use property for installation and maintenance of a northeast-facing wall sign at 1650 mission street by and between the city and county of san francisco and total outdoo. supervisor chiu: you will probably remember this item because it has been before this committee a number of times. there was discussion last time about the specific parcels that would be included beyond the application of this legislation,

which would allow for 1% construction fees on various projects to be used not just for on-site art, but are in community programs in areas in and around wherever the building is being created. of what i would first like to do is specifically discuss the boundaries. remember the last meeting where we added a number of parcels. today after a discussions with a number of other stakeholders, we will be amending this slightly to bring the number of parcels down slightly. let me say for the record what parcells this would include. parcels in the following districts the -- falling districts. [lists districts -- following districts. [lists districts] as well as those that are north of division, dubose, and 13th

street, except for those on blocks 4991 and block 7295, the galleria mall. of what i would like to do, so that this is clearer, for the planning department, if you could show what the map is that is currently described in the legislation before the amendment, and then, colleagues, i will pass to you what i believe is the final map the we are asking this committee and the board to approve. >> ann marie rogers, planning department. >> there are now many of us, but i am one of them. this is the map that the committee considered last time, showing the c three district in red.

the colors are not really good, but they are with their color currently applies. there are other areas in the southern parts of the southeast and southwest of the city that have been proposed for inclusion. what you are considering today is all of the map except for those two areas. let me show you what that is like. this revised amount has removed the rh and rc districts in the tenderloin of that area, as well as was mentioned by supervisor chiu in the east and southwest parts of the city. it remains within the south market zoning districts on north 13th streets and scattered throughout the eastern neighborhoods. supervisor