is property touching or there is a share property line. the word for shared property line is adjoining. so why do we use this word or define it carefully -- why do we not use this word or define it carefully? thank you very much. whatpresident fong: additional public comment? >> i am the director of the housing committee. i am also here to speak on behalf of the san francisco tenants union and i have a letter here from the chinatown community development center is well because our three tenant groups, i will put them here, all are taking the very same position which is that we should

go back to the original proposal. the permanent ban on all types of conversion. i will explain a little white we housing rights feel that way -- why we housing rights feel that way. we haven't sro conversions -- we have this for important reasons. including a recognition i think amongst the city that this is an extremely useful housing source for low-income people, people who do not have a lot of resources, for single adults and that it -- is housing of last resort of many types. even families. it has been city policy for many

years that -- now that we do all we can to preserve this precious sro sloot -- units, some are really unique in design and character as well and have a really diverse population in there. so, it makes no sense to us, it is a reverse in the polish -- policy that would have an amendment to allow for conversions of sro units and are concerned about those as well as being very much in contradiction with our sro ordinance is we are fearful we will lose rent control, in addition to tenants being displaced, we could lose that from our rental

stock forever. it represents an erosion of the rent-controlled housing in our city which we all know does not provide for enough of the affordable housing needs that are out there, considering we have a great homeless problem. and we think it is of vital importance to preserve whatever housing we have currently that is relatively affordable to people, still, and not to allow for and the slippery slope. the set set -- sets a bad precedent and -- this sets a bad precedent. this is not the proper tool to address the problems that were defined by supervisor kim's office and those proposing to have an exception on the conversion allowed for cesaire's for conditional use. -- allowed for conditional use.

president fong: thank you very much. thank you. wha>> i was here in may and prepared -- appeared before you. there was a suggestion that we bring our proposed amendment to get a recommendation to the board ricin of -- supervisors. we're the older, smaller arts school. we have not needed a pipeline and we do not control our own any residential buildings. we do have students occupying some residential hotel rooms and they have been occupying them

since before supervisor dufty ever initiated this legislation. we think the staff report has mischaracterized the grounds. we have asserted that one of the reasons we might be an exemption is because we have been in full compliance with the city codes and do not need conditional use applications at the moment. that does not seem to be a reason for criticism. on the other hand what we are concerned about the cloud placed upon housing as occupied by our students that could be occupied by our students if we added one room or two rooms or three rooms as they were vacated in the normal course of business in the hotel which we currently occupy. we're asking for a limited exemption similar to but more restricted than that proposed for usf.

i do not think it should be a basis of criticism that our exemption is so limited, it may apply to no one else because we know of no other educational institution that in accordance with all the laws came to have students occupy these units more than two years ago when the ordinance was first initiated. we in fact, while i do not find their approval, which it negotiated the limitation of this exemption -- we negotiated the implication of this exemption. [unintelligible] we felt that was a fair thing to do. we ask the commission recommend to the board of supervisors that amendment which i have presented to you so there would be no cloud on our continued occupancy and use of those units for our students or their occupancy. thank you. president fong: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. in the interest of clarity, i would like to go back to the reason this item is on the commission agenda today. that is -- developing a new student housing policy in san francisco and what we have been working on for two years and the commendable work scott wiener has done so far is to get a new student housing policy to replace the old one which was called craigslist and what we have done is to focus on building new housing. the need is incontrovertible. i cannot say enough good things about the work planning staff has done. in work -- reference to the work that was referenced earlier, they were skillful in separating

what were controversial issues in this proposal from those that are not. there was nothing controversial about building new student housing. i think my main message is, i hope to move that forward today. it has been held up again and again to give people time to talk about issues that seemed may be outside of what we were trying to do. that is fine. in the end, we hope something will move forward today that will put the incentives in place that is going to create lots and lots of any student housing. the amendments that supervisor wiener put forward were narrowly crafted with very careful consideration of narrow circumstances and with a lot of support for the sites that were chosen. we hope that those will move forward today but at the end, i would ask that you figure out what is contentious and what is not. there appears to be no opposition to building new student housing. as we have worked on this over the last couple of years, we

very, very carefully stayed away from the issue of conversion. we focused entirely on what it would take to build new student housing. we recognize that there are lots of arguments oliver the map on either side. -- all over the map on either side. i hope you move this forward so we can get the policy in place that will replace craigslist.org. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. jim meko again. this legislation affects legislation for housing for everyone in the city. the planning code allows for the existence of very small studio units with kitchen and bath facilities within most of the south of market mixed use districts. these changes were put in place in the aftermath of the 1989 earthquake to allow for the replacement of a lot of damage

to low-income housing with something that would provide a little more dignity than your average six straight sro room. dignity is not well served staring out your window into a brick wall. six years ago, we asked for and received interim controls to dampen developers'enthusiasm for these micro-units. the controls were in effect and we met frequently. we all concluded these kinds of units place an increased demand on public amenities. in particular, committee services and open space and will these units have the potential to be more affordable by design, there is no question they are more profitable by their sheer density. we recommended at the time that the code be amended to require no variances, minimum briard in dwelling unit exposure requirements, hire an

exclusionary requirements, of private open space of 36 square feet per unit. whenever the need for student housing and it is not at all well established in your case reports that there is any, do not allow these amendments to cut protections that applied to housing that is intended for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. thank you. >> i should add i was also resident of the cadillac hotel for four years in 1980. i was not at the stockholders' meeting. i was back east at my 40th college reunion at the date of that meeting. there is consensus as tim said. consensus about new housing. how do we encourage it? many spoke in favor of the legislation to make it easy to

build new housing but we have to make it hard to convert existing housing. i do not think there is any consensus in the community members that -- about the six month moratorium idea. we think staff got it right when they made this proposal to you at any other time than the stakeholder meeting. you have to prohibit the conversion to student housing with a few minor exceptions as you have heard for usf and s fai. we are going from no conversions to an unlimited amount of conditional uses if you so chose. that does not make any sense. you did not incentivize to build new if you're letting them do this in six months. if you want to stop behavior, you prohibit that activity. just a quick bit of history. i was here in 1978 when in that year we lost over 1000 sro units to conversion hotels. that is what led the board of

supervisors to develop a moratorium for 18 months and a law that prohibited the conversion of estero's to any other use trade could buy out -- sro's to any other use. there is a way to deal with that. there was an absolute prohibition. there was discussion which we allowed [unintelligible] -- we had 20,000 sro units in the city in 1970. we have -- if we had allowed the conditional use your talking about now, we would have one- third to one-half your sro units today. you all know what conditional use is like. they're not the exception, they are the rule. people go through the process. look to other cities that did not do what we did. new york. when we started talking about this in the mid-70 had 50,000 and now have 5000.

los angeles has less than a few thousand. we did the right thing in 1978 and your staff recommended the right thing up until the stakeholder meeting. i would urge you to the back to that recommendation and i would be happy to work on this question of vacant and blighted buildings. there are lots of ways we can address that that are more effective and targeted to that problem than this amendment that is being talked about. i urge you to protect these units. once they're lost, they are lost forever. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> i ask you to force the edification of the name of the attorney who drafted this legislation. i find the term affidavit -- i can sign an affidavit. what is the penalty if you lie?

i find the changes to the extremely -- to be tree -- to be extremely troubling. i agree with the previous speaker who said no conversion and i would make an exception for the dorms for the monasteries and you lie? i nunneries and usf and the art institute. a cu is is the sa -- cu is the same. that is all it is, the staff processes in it because that is what the developer wants. i found the comments from the academy of art to be troubling. yes, they don't do evictions, they just empty out the building. the they have all these buildings they have done. when we have a real academy of our hearing, they have bent a

plunderers of the housing stock. and the whole rationale that they can't do anything because the eir has not happened, they control the eir. it gets further and further away because they have to start from scratch with a transportation study all over again. they have bought new buildings, they bought the cannery, those three acquisitions have shot the eir on and off. that is ridiculous and you need to say you are not going listen to that. and that you catch these things because you amend their institutional master's. i give you the example of the

academy of art university. it just keeps going merrily on its way. there cannot be conversions. i think that they drafted something that makes a real sense that they can justify it. and as long as they have a narrow exemption that they are not going off willy-nilly for everywhere else. the micro-year that legislation has gone outside of this legislation. it should be folded into student housing and we need a hearing because that is the student housing under new construction. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we are appearing before you today on behalf of panoramic

interests. i would like to echo the points made by some of the previous speakers that what you're really dealing with today is not one piece of legislation, but to. you're dealing with a package of incentives for the construction of student housing, and there is very little opposition for that. the second piece is related to conversion of existing housing to student housing. what we saw this provision was included initially, we had misgivings because we thought it is going to be a very controversial subject that will muddy the waters and delay the passage of what is a straightforward package of incentives for new construction. i think the solution that is in front of you that as proposed by the supervisors<

department is a good one. i would strongly encourage you to let the new construction piece of this move forward. if there is need for more discussion on the conversion piece to allow that to happen separately so we are not delayed any further. i want to address a couple specific concerns about the construction aspects that i heard for the first time today that relates to the open space standards and construction of student housing in single-family district. as a practical matter, i think there is going to be very little student housing built for the simple reason that there just isn't enough density to justify the costs. if anybody did build a student housing very, all of a dwelling unit exposure requirements and all of the density controls would continue to apply to those

projects. there is nothing here that allows you to take a totally inappropriate student apartment building and put it in a single- family neighborhood. it is a misconception that i am not sure where it came from. if you read closely, it is not the case. >> the good afternoon, commissioners, here on behalf of the university of san francisco. i wanted to let you know that we are here in support of the proposed amendment. as to the third limited exception, he did clarify what it is directly adjacent to is intending to share a lion. the university of san francisco

with the support an amendment to make that clarification. president fong: any additional public comment? the public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: i would like to say that i will not vote for anything that has to do with other than new construction. a flat out. historic fleet, the housing action coalition six or seven years ago started on this project by getting together with a group of universities. thens supervisor dufty carried the legislation. a lot of that has been mentioned he you buy a number of speakers

here. just as a comment on some of the speakers, as much as i think i have been friends with and appreciate bob, i am sorry. your client may not push people out of the buildings that they buy. but they prevent any normal news said francisco residents. i am not talking about students that come from out of town from living in those places that they normally would if it had not been handled the way it has been. in my mind, they are converting illegally. that is the way i look at it. ok? i will continue to look at it that way.

i think all the talks about sunset and conversions and 11 vacant or under-utilized buildings has nothing to do with what we should be talking about here. it just muddies the waters, confuses the issue, and use any other comments you want that is like that. i understand the very limited art institute exemptions. i'd probably go along with those, but i would not go along with anything else that smacks of other than new construction. the other problems have to have their own solutions. student housing is not a solution to a 11 vacant buildings. commissioner antonini: i have a

question for ms. rodgers in regard to the draft hall commission recommendations that i think are extremely well done, i have to know a little bit about the sun set of the prohibition after six months and would be allowed through a process as long as the conversion does not require a certificate of occupancy. what you're saying is the occupants already in the building that will be the ones that will be -- that the conversion would apply to, is that what you're saying? >> it has to do with the way that they would be reviewing the building permit. if there is associated building permit that there must likely would be with in these cases, they would issue a certificate of occupancy when the review is complete and when it is ready to move van. there are different types of certificates of occupancy.

the reason this language is being added in there is the old law that was established in 1995. we have a a couple of versions of rent-controlled. it would apply to regent such that we can't regulate the rent of something after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. we want to make it clear that in the review of the building permit to change this student housing definition, they would issue an amended certificate of occupancy and would not tender the law with a certificate of occupancy being issued. commissioner antonini: you say amended, not new? you're not in violation of costa-hawkins?

>> right. commissioner antonini: these other areas where you talk about prevention and loss of rent- controlled would be similar provisions. it would seem like that is the same. let me give you some of my views on this. what is really difficult here is establishing a new class of housing that did not exist before. we have to differentiate between what is going to happen under this new class, and it happens frequently. the case is usually that the rules that are in place with the process begins are the ones the sponsor is under. and they go forward in the future for future conversions. i think that is an important principle to keep in mind. know what i have heard opposes the building of new student

housing. this is meant to encourage the construction of student housing and it is an important part of this. we also have to be careful that we do not violate the rights of students and others that treat them as a different class of person when they are trying to occupy housing in san francisco. the amendments in my mind are fine, there is no problem with those. there were comments about adjacent and joining in the definitions of exactly where these particular places are, but i think that can easily be cleared up and crafted. with also have a comment from the san francisco art institute, and i am in favor of their situation.

if it was not needed in the past under which they occupied their buildings that their students are now renting, which should not ask them to have to go through that process in the future. i may be wrong on that, but that is the way i read it. if someone else or any other situation would have needed that anyway because it is a change of views, it might be necessary for them to go through the process or any other institution that would be either in the future or in the past converting from one type of housing who another even before we create the new student housing. am i correct with that? >> i think so. let me make sure i understand

you. there are couple things you are considering, grandfathering in existing applications for conversions of student housing, and the main thing to think about is, if someone has occupying those buildings legally out, these proposed changes in the 86-month moratorium on conversions or a complete prohibition would not apply. there illegally occupying it as a student housing. a new law would not revoke their right. but what you may want to consider our projects in the pipeline were people submit applications and it might be processed after the law will be effective. in which case, under our recommendation, he would have a six-month prohibition and they would have to