supervisor wiener is amendment makes sense with the limitations spelled out in there and i think they should be as a right rather than by cu because these are properties that are already owned with the intent of student housing and they should not have to go through further process to take care something they already own. i think there is potentially a lot of argument that can be made for approval by cu . in fact, i've always said during previous hearings when this subject came up -- i said when conversion from normal housing, any kind of housing whether it be renting or ownership housing, a student housing should be brought by cu, not only for sro's it is a terrible process. and ask to be approved through the planning commission and if

it is believed that the approval was not correct and can be appealed to the board of supervisors as a backup. i would think that there are many instances where expensive, underutilized housing that cannot properly be maintained or upgraded by property owners would be able to be moved into a different category where it would be possible to make the improvements necessary. whether or not you have to do replacement housing or this housing is an issue that we will have to discuss and decide as we move forward with this legislation. certainly, incentivizing underutilized housing to be used for underutilized purposes in the form of student housing or regular housing is a good thing. there are many institutions that have spoken about this. i think there have been some concerns that owners are holding

properties off. no one can force anyone to have to rent their property if they do not choose to. i'm not sure that is even the case. but there are many factors involved. i think there are also property rights that have been brought out very clearly by many speakers. you cannot pass legislation, i do not think, that would demand that properties only be rented -- you know, you could forbid them from renting to students or something along those lines. that could be a dangerous path to go down. there are a lot of things in here -- i also agree with what supervisor wiener says with the five-year lease. it makes total sense. the other thing is it does not make sense to put restrictions on student housing because most cubans by definition are probably low income. -- most students by definition

are probably low income. it is kind of counter- productive to grant incentives through this legislation. those are my thoughts so far. we are going through and analyzing all of these different things. the continuous will help us a lot, move toward a really good legislation. >> commissioner borden. >> i think we have all identified a big issue. the issue in the first place with the finding student housing is because we realized a housing need out there for academic institutions, but also, there were some academic institutions who, despite the laws of the city and county of san francisco, choose to do what they please. at least we can limit other institutions, and not suggesting

that they would make those choices, but we felt the need that we could make sure we can protect our existing stock and encourage new housing for students. i've been very involved with the art institute over the years, and i think it is important not to penalize the smaller institutions and make it easier for those institutions that legitimately are providing a small amount of housing, not- for-profit, for the incoming freshmen students. i can attest to those who went to college -- most universities throughout the country, if they have campus's outside major cities, they require the freshman to reside and student housing. it is important that we protect

the reputation of eminent schools because they do attract the best and brightest to our community at large. on the other hand, on the issue of sro hotels, i have after my work in the past -- i know they are a defacto affordable housing in the city. we have to be very careful about how we might open up the door in that particular case. some of the ideas that came to mind that i knew supervisor kim was thinking about is whether or not you put two years from the date of 2011's housing conversion an ordinance date to make it retroactive. only people who met those requirements two years ago when the hbo -- hco filing happen because you could not encourage people to that in the future.

it would be a one-time allowance, that might be an option. i also disliked the memo that mr. sanger put forth, but goes back even further to august, 2010. for schools or institutions that had relationships with these buildings, were that were vacant or occupied 20% or less. that might be another thing that can be looked at. but i do think we have to be careful about anything that would be moving forward, whether cu or otherwise. it can have very and intended consequences and we need to be careful in that space. in terms of supervisor wiener's amendment, i'm very supportive. the only question that has been brought up is around the lot lines adjacency. i would also add no violations in the past with the building,

and no record where the current owner of the building has violations, planning code or building code violations. i think that is an important thing to put in there. and the other thing is that maybe the language would say, adjacent to the actual academic portion of the building only. so that it is very clear that it cannot be -- if you have the building next door that qualifies, then there is no kind of qualification. maybe something that says something more specific around defining what the actual institution is in the code would make sense. those would be my major thoughts. and the other suggestion that members of the public suggested that make a lot of sense, and going back to supervisor kim's amendment, if there were a move to do a conditional use, then we should look at whether or not

there would be one for replacement, or some sort of -- there has to be in my view, a mitigation for if he were going to use it as a going-forward measure. president fong: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: this started out, as we know, in a couple years prior to the dusty legislation in a much purer state with the housing action coalition and the housing was to be new construction, basically. and we have gone all over the board since then. and seemingly, today, continue to do so. obviously, going to supervisor wiener's comments, built by the institution, yeah.

conversion, usf in particular in this case, of a convent for a religious order housing institution, that is an extremely limited situation. the lot line, i have to go to miss hester's cautionary comments. it depends a great deal on how that one is written. the idea of owning it 10 years prior, what does it mean if it is next to a garage they have had for 10? how are we going to define that sort of thing? in general, the intent is correct. we get to supervisor kim's concerns and let alone in the mails that we have been receiving, just here today we have a myriad of statistics that

make no sense and do not courtney at all. what is the vacancy rate in the sro's? -- that do not coordinate at all. what is the vacancy rate in the sro's? are they being held off at all? is there cheating in three-week rentals and then coming back a day later and doing another three-week rental? we know these things happen. we have no statistical sense of how often any of this does happen. sro's are an important housing stock for san francisco. we have to be very, very careful about them. we also know, although there is no way to really define it, but there are a large number of units, buildings in san francisco that have been kept off the market, regardless of the reasons. you could do a laundry list of reasons for it. and how do we want to deal with

these? or do we actually want to attempt to deal with these? is that even necessary? i am truthfully, very pleased. i have talked to a number of people over the last two weeks. i have talked about actually proposing a continuance today because i did not think the conversation was finished. i was very happy to hear from supervisor wiener and supervisor kim that was their intent. i hope by one month from now, roughly, maybe this can come a little more to fruition. i know there are other commissioner comments, but just to get it on the record, i move to continue to june 21st. >> second. president fong: commissioner wu.

commissioner wu: thank you. i will speak is busily to the proposal from supervisor kim's office. i'm happy to see the stakeholders here today having the conversation. i think this is the group that will help us find what the solution will be. i am very wary of providing, or creating an incentive to either yvette tenants fofrom buildingsr to hold units vacant for so long that they become blighted. i do not think that is the intent of the amendments as they are. i hope to seek ways to carve out, possibly, situations where conversion is appropriate, or if it is specifically concerns about a number of buildings in the tenderloin, maybe there are solutions outside of this legislation that can help fill those units in particular in those buildings. i look forward to seeing what the conversation is and i thank

the department and a low wage for pulling that conversation together. -- and moh for pulling that conversation together. commissioner sugaya: we did have some statistical evidence that said this is not about statistical evidence, and that is, they have sent in a letter to the building department -- oh, planning, sorry, where they say they're using five buildings "previously designated as residential hotel units for student housing, represent the loss of 163 residential hotel units." this is not a question to staff, but a suggestion to staff on supervisor wiener's adjacency amendment. if we stick with a definition

that says that the institution owned the property, whether it is a garage or whenever its use might be, then this applies to all of the adjacent properties there, too. c on how many of those properties are affected by this particular amendment? we are talking about the academy of art. we're talking about the art institute. we're talking about usf. we are not talking about san francisco state, are we? whatever institutions this would apply to, could we did a statistic on how many adjacent properties there are that would be affected by this amendment?

>> [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: that might be difficult to figure it out. commissioner antonini: one group that did not comment today, but i have gotten a number of e- mails and letters. they have concerns about -- right now, there is student housing in some areas where there are the residential housing of other uses. this might be the akerson ready to provide some insight into that because a number -- this might be the time to provide some insight into that because a number of neighborhood groups were concerned. that is part of the picture we will be looking at.

president fong: i want to wrap up. we are continuing this item am looking forward and hoping that the supervisors and staff -- i am glad we took comment today. it opened up to a larger group. i think they need that representation as well. i am glad we had this public comment session. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to continue this item to june 21. the public hearing will remain open. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president fong: aye. we will take

>> this is item number nine. >> ok. >> can i show the presentation? >> there you go. " we are going to provide a brief overview of the 2012 update, which he received in your packet. we have the city administrator's office and the department of the emergency management. they will discuss a brief update of their programs. >> this is an important element of the general plan. it sets an overall framework in preparation for response to and recovery from a major disaster. this element establishes policies and programs to

protect san francisco risks associated with disasters. this is critical because of the risk posed by seismic hazards and a large earthquakes. implementation actions and programs will be carried out the number of plans and programs. including the san francisco hazard mitigation plan. the community action plan for seismic safety and other plans and programs referenced -- a reference in this document. what are we proposing to update this element? the element is a required element of the general plan. the current element was last adopted in 1997. the city's thinking has evolved. we have learned a lot about how other cities are dealing with disasters. the document before you represent a close collaboration of many agencies to create a framework to facilitate

community resilience and to establish policies to guide the city's actions in preparation for, response to, and recovery from a major disaster. this update supports numerous initiatives that are currently under way within the city and adoption and shores of these initiatives are carried out over the long term. having invented element in place in charge the city is well suited to receive funding for mitigation projects and recovery assistance. the 2012 element built on the existing elements. in addition to earthquakes, the elements expand its focus to include new information about additional hazards, including medical emergencies, communication failures, and terrorism. incorporate new information dealing with disaster preparedness.

this update expands the focus to better address the city's objectives of mitigation, response, and recovery. mitigation and preparation work -- are incorporated with the existing element, less attention was given to the response and recovery phase of the disaster. these topics are of great importance given recent disasters. this element is organized by four main objectives. mitigation, prepared ness, response, and recovery reconstruction. i will provide a brief overview of the objectives. the first objective is mitigation. damage to structures can result in substantial economic loss and cause severe disruptions to the social, cultural, and economic functions of the city. associated but these objectives are policies that address ways to reduce potential damage. this includes exploring

mandatory strengthening, ensuring that new development on places like treasure island are resistant to natural disasters, and looking up the risks associated with climate change. the next objective deals with an emergency preparedness. this includes preparing for response activities as well as the coordination necessary to execute these activities. ssa with this objective are policies that relate to prepare it -- associated with this objective are policies that relate to these strategies. the emergency operations center, at a consolidated website cut and encouraging businesses to evaluate the earthquake risk. the third objective is response. the city's emergency response plan is the primary document was to direct the city's response in the case of a disaster. policies related to the disaster

face -- the response phase of the disaster includes insuring public access to information, working with nonprofits and other agencies, and assessment of historic resources. this assessment would build on the work and information that we have. the creation of temporary permiting centers, which would help residents get temporary permits for repairs. the fourth objective is the recovery and reconstruction. we have learned a lot from other cities about how they have dealt with recovery and reconstruction following a disaster. a number of new policies have been added to reflect lessons learned. this objective insures that directly after an earthquake, the city is able to maximize the ability to save lives, prevent

injury, and reduce damage. we have a plan in place to provide housing for those displaced, provide services, and we're in a position to continue the economic and government function of the city. this objective calls for the creation of an advanced recovery framework. to develop and adopt repair and reconstruction ordinance to facilitate the repair and recovery. and to create a recovery plan. adopting this element is a major milestone, but there is still a lot of work for us to do. this table ally and next steps for the department, the city, and -- out lines next steps for the department, the city, and region. the city is tasked with helping to develop this framework and a plan to guide the process. additional thinking is needed to guide land use planning during the recovery. after the disaster. we are working to develop a

strategy to address regional planning following a major earthquake. additional coordination is needed. just to conclude, adopting this element establishes a framework to make sure that san francisco is more resilient should a disaster occurred. the department recommends approval of an intent to initiate an amendment to the general plan. this concludes my portion of the presentation. i am going to hand it over to the city administrator's office. >> good afternoon. we are working on earthquake safety programs. as the department -- we have done a program called community action plan for seismic safety, a comprehensive community-based view of what are the hazards and

risks posed in the city, what are the impacts of the damage, what should the goals of the city be based on the work of the program, the city has adopted something called the earthquake safety implementation program. it is a 30-year program. this community safety element, which was prepared to in coordination with our implementation program, gives us the overview policies necessary to do our implementation. our programs says we should do this and this and this, but this program gives us the overview that allows that to happen. i have to commend the planning staff for cooperating with our work. it was extremely, along, and complicated. the committee safety element has to include the work that supports capss and the fire

department's work, health department, of public works. this will serve us well and our long-term implementation. the city administrator and the mayor's office strongly support the adoption of this. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the department of emergency management. i am going to tell you a tiny bit about our agency and how we interact with the community safety element. i understand many members of the public did not really know much about the department of emergency management. there are two divisions. all the planning and the management lives in the division

of emergency services. we coordinates the disaster management agency on a local, state, federal, and nonprofit level. we operate within the region. we operate and implement our plans and activities and then adds a lot of training and exercises within our agency. we also court meant a lot of private sector implementation a work -- courted a lot of private sector implementation work. we provide a lot of average to the community through a variety of methods -- a lot of outreach to the community through a variety of methods. many of that type of activity is corn ended through our partners. we participate -- is coordinated through our partners. it is a policy guidance document for a lot of our programs. it is our only opportunity for a public review.

to participate in any kind of a public outreach of our major documents. one of the tenants of whenever a document that allows us to receive hazard in addition funding specifies that we have to link through the community safety element in order to make sure the public has an opportunity to review our work and participate in the process. this also helps us to build coordination with other agency and make sure we all follow the same goal. our goal is to make a resilience city that is ready to recover quickly. the community safety element establishes a framework for long-term recovery and reconstruction. i will talk about some of the major programs and how they are featured in the element. one of our major initiatives is called the resilience san francisco the initiative. it is a comprehensive planning

platform that leverages the efforts of our partners. they are doing extraordinary emergency planning work. we want to make sure that efforts are not overly duplicated, that they are coordinated. and that we have a big picture of how ready to recover the city really is. this advances are over all resilience by providing a framework and a roadmap to coordinate all of those types of work going on in terms of our individuals and the community. this helps us to solve problems together in a comprehensive way. it is a very innovative initiative. it is one of the first of its kind in the country, following some of the directorate's. it has earned our program a lot of a national recognition. it gets us out there and gets all the agencies out o