looking at. it takes 10 years to put together a plan, five years before we start and get finished with it. you have to look 50 years in the future as to what you what. hit by estimation. that area has not been traditionally industrial. it has been mixed. it was mixed in the 1860's, in the 1900's, the 1950's, it is back and forth all the time and will continue to go back and forth. as the city grows, it will go back and forth more quickly. a think if you take a historical look at it, you will understand that there has always been housing down there. there always will be housing down there. i would look for something that is the least restrictive type of zone. to allow hong for the largest

number of users. i agree with the comments on consolidation of small lots unless there are very strict criteria involved. otherwise, in my estimation, it is not going to work in the long run. the open spaces the you suggested are interesting. i don't think we need a full block open spaces. take a look at the size of the blocks which we all know are unmanageable for a true mixed views in district. split the middle of the bloc 50 feet wide. get a little more imaginative about how you're looking at is, in my mind. we have been growing in san francisco a culture of innovative mess. if there even is such a word.

we look at it in the tech industry, but it overflows to all different types of small firms. many of which also like to sell merchandise. you have to allow for those types of businesses to thrive. this is an area where they can do it. nothing against hunters point and candlestick point, but don't put them out there. put them where they can do business and have other alike people around them. this is an area where that can be done. you have done a great deal of work to this far, i hope it will not be shortsighted in length of time. commissioner moore: let me of knowledge that you have done a

lot of work. i wish i could engage with you for more specific work sessions and raise a number of questions that at this moment will sound critical, i want to a knowledge the critical comments raised. they ring very true to my ears. to many parts of the city only to open us up to a massive speculation and a disruption. an uncertain economy, we're seeing all of our major projects falling behind at a rapid rate, not just by a year or two. i do not have to list all of the project that we have approved and nothing is happening. the words central corridor plan, to my years, is a misnomer.

i was really looking forward to look at a plan focused on the connection of what is now our new transportation corridor, we are planning 20 more blocks. while it is good to be ahead of the game and have a broad framework of ideas, this plan goes into a number of details that will only open up speculation at a rate which i am greatly concerned about. what this is lacking for me, and i will be very honest here. they developed the next discussion about height, it is one-dimensional planning. there is not one that bit of a comprehensive dialogue that deals with y-is where is. between those heights, there is no distinction unless you see

the cumulative form of the city as a bigger idea with all the pieces in which you are discussing and you were not doing that. you're throwing a dart into saying there is a station here. you might have done that, but you have to add this group to bring in a depiction of what you're saying because otherwise, i am saying, you're not discussing that properly. if you want my support, discuss with me the entire evolution of what height, skyline at transformation means, including the discussion of open space of why it is we're it is. i'm sorry, that is a very minor and a critical point, but i would expect from you in front of his body a much more comprehensive and timely discussion of the details and big ideas to underpin this plan.

the other thing i would like to see, you are literally planning every part of the city, you're creating phasing into intervention. it is a leap frog a strategy which only allows speculation to go rampant. it doesn't have anything to do with the healthy transformation of growth that comes out of the dynamics of the city on its own. and while i believe that the mayor's office for work force and economic development needs to develop economic incentives and strategies, q. are planning everything and. i am repeating myself, we are leaving ourselves why the open to speculation at expense of the future of the city. commissioner wu: i want to follow on those comments, wanting to see more of the

diversity in the economy that is possibly manufacturing or might be other economies that we don't even quite know yet. i am also somewhat concerned about this notion of putting in of lot of office. i don't know what speculation or what it will lead to, but maintaining this notion of the concede neighborhoods that include affordable housing, a mixed use, open spaces, and i am worried that in this moment, we invite a lot of office. brett paul mentioned conversion as leading to displacement. it is the increasing trend that i am worried about.

it is unaffordable to an entire section of the city. i assume it is not within the context of eir, but to see existing mapping of affordable housing and to get a sense of what that would mean in relation to this plan. >> i want to thank everyone for their comments. we're at this stage of finalizing the first round. we're going about 18 months to a who-your hough's-- to a two-year eir. i will say that this is the first planned area that will start and hopefully and on my watch. i would think that we agree that

there is a lot of background here that we haven't presented. i assure you that this is not about throwing darts. there is nothing random about our thoughts. i would be happy to come back to you on a regular basis to give you the background information for why we have proposed what we have and happy to talk about the rationale for the office space and the emphasis on office, one of the true reasons for doing this plan to begin with. the incumbents, the building type mix, the zoning as we know is a blunt instrument. we will lose the character of what this area is all about.

they'll give you the rationale for why they are doing this andf what we're doing with the purpose of this plan. >> in terms of this entire area, please list of the left the sli out of this portion specifically because we did want to make the decision at a later time, especially in the context of the central subway. we made a huge investment economically in the central subway and it is going to have to be used for the man for housing space in this area. it is most appropriate to accommodate. the city has to grow.

one of the things i think was well done was the embarcadero center when it was built. produce market and other uses that were less less intense, less dense, and almost everyone will agree it is a good use and it has been as successful use. something along these lines might be possible. we have to look at this carefully and sculpted in a way that makes most sense. -- sculpt it in a way that makes the most sense. some of the concerns are well taken. the ability to utilize an area that is so close to the downtown, so close to an area where businesses is center, where commerce is center, where

government is centered, it makes sense for what this growth here. we do not want it in distant places. if we can do it for san francisco, this may be the place to do it. commissioner sugaya: this is -- these are kind of disjointed thoughts behalf to -- but i have to disagree. that we're 20% there. if we are ready to prepare an environmental report on something that is in front of us, we're already 80%. the alternatives will never get to the same level of detail as what is in front of us here and the ira will not treat those alternatives equally as we're looking at here. by the time the er is done on this plan, this plan will be in force, a guarantee that. -- eir is done on this plan,

this will -- plan will be in force, a guarantee that. if this has been created over time by various businesses, attendance, owners, landlords, innovators that have taken the spaces that are tech people and they did fine with the present zoning and buildings and whatever has existed there. they may have been able to tear sundown but they had -- this down but they had controls of heights in place. a developer will have major force in speculation in this area and it will be destroyed. i would like to see before moving ahead any further with this a very direct comparison of the existing zoning and its uses and its provisions. all the sli's and things that

are there now instead of the muo's and mug's. to what kind of incentives will be given to changing the zoning to office and other related uses and not houses -- housing and pdr's. there was some other things but i think i will stop there for now. i know what it was. if we are talking about balance, to me, there's no such thing as balance and planning and zoning. we're trying to look at an area and tried to make it -- trying to make it here and driving in a certain direction. that is not balance. we have something else in mind. there is no balance with the transit district area. that is something that we want to have happened around a new

transit district. we will drive up to -- the heights and emphasize the office. mixed use does not exist there. there is no mixed use in the heinz tower. it will be offices. we will argue it does not need to be there because we have the housing along folsom street and further south. that is purely market driven all the sudden. now we're saying what used to be diversity and extend whatever does not count any more because the market is in a direction and that is ok. that is the way i see this particular plant and -- plan and what i see as following the trend of what has been developing quite independently of what the planning and zoning has been.

>> thank you. if we are complete, we have completed your comments, we can move forward on your calendar. thank you. you are now on item 11. case no. 2,011.0. the amendments related to the creation of student housing. >> good afternoon. we're back again with an item that was before you in may. the student housing ordinance. just to remind you we began this discussion with the dufty ordinance in 2010. this encourage the production of new housing by exempting them from inclusion rehousing. after that, this commission initiated an effort to establish a land use definition for student housing so we could permitted and how. ÷most recently, the supervisors

have been considering the proposal at land use and supervisor wiener and kim have asked if the proposed prohibition on the conversion of kansas -- existing housing can be reconsidered. before i begin my presentation on the department was the most recent report before you, i would like to give the supervisor staff an opportunity to address you on this issue. >> good afternoon. supervisor wiener is caught up in budget right now so he can not be here. there were continuing the conversation on student housing we have been having now for quite some time. since the last hearing, much of the discussion has continued. we would like to thank the planning department and staff for their work in these past couple of weeks specifically with the very wide group of state -- stakeholders to formulate a consensus around the

housing conversion issue. the conversation will be focused on the broader housing conversion issue but we look forward to your thoughts on the issue and look forward to your support as we move forward. thank you. >> from supervisor kim's office. >> supervisor kim is also tied up in budget. it is a busy week for members of the budget committee. we're here today to thank staff and members of the commission -- we have met with the director and myself and other members to talk about the issue that we

wanted to see included in the proposal which was a consideration for buildings that are currently vacant or underutilized. we think we're working with the city attorney. we work to ensure that a lot of the concerns from the housing advocates are dressed. we're at the point at which a couple of changes that will -- i imagine staff will talk to you about or a can certainly describe -- i can certainly describe we feel safer about the conversion peace. what we're considering is is this the best way to address the issue we're looking at. as i reported last time, we have 15 single room occupancy hotels that were either 100% residential or ford taurus to use that are vacant -- for tourist use that are vacant.blid

public safety concerns and we wanted to see if maybe student housing was an appropriate use for those buildings. will look very much forward to your feedback on this question and to the continued discussion that the board will entertain in the next month and that we as an officer committed to continue with our -- as an office are committed to continue with our stakeholders. >> ok. i will go over some information that is before you as well as some slightly more detailed information on that. at the may hearing, we discussed five issues related to this topic. the increased demand for student housing and the profitability

therein. how is sro's do not provide more housing that all the public housing resources combined, we have a discussion of what some are saying maybe a separate issue as you hit -- heard, vacant or under-utilized buildings and the relevance of state housing laws. i can review these issues but i would like to focus on the new materials in your packet. at the last hearing in may, the planning director promised to convene an -- a meeting of interested parties to explore issues related to this topic. the meeting was well attended with over 20 per japan's representing tenants rights organizations, sro owners and operators, representatives of interest -- educational institutions and nonprofit neighborhood organizations. a major discussion point involved these 11 alleged vacant

sro's. namely, there are questions as to whether this number was accurate. what was reported was to dbi. there were questions about whether there were interested in converting to student housing and they were requesting to do with vacancies through other means. this seemed to question the need for a permanent prohibition. staff request of the amendment be amended to change the prohibition from a permanent prohibition to one that would sunset in six months and be replaced with a conditional use authorization for the conversion of existing housing to student housing. that is the heart of our recommendation. as we described, our earlier -- earlier recommendations would stand. the exemptions would be allowed to immediately proceed while other conversions could proceed

by cu unless another action were taken. there is additional modifications i would like to share with you. this is pretty much the same thing except in more specificity. this is more of a technical amendment. here are some copies for the public. the first bid is a technical change that we do not feel changes any of the substance. this would be to the definition of student housing. we have the compound and that we are adding that the housing must be owned and operated as a must be stayman and we have heard from the city attorney this is stronger if we move into the "is" statement. we concluded its owner-operated.

it is a technical modification. -- we concluded is is owner- operated. these are copies for the public and the commission. these are the main points with more detail. the proposal is these conversion the prohibited for six months following the adoption of the ordinance. the prohibition would sunset after six months and further conversions would be allowed to a cu provided the conversion does not need a new certificate of occupancy. that has to do with tenant protections. the commission would recommend companion legislation.

we would recommend these protections against evictions and a loss of rent-controlled for all conversions apply. lastly, as you heard, supervisor kim is wrestling with the issue of these vacant or under- utilized buildings. if the board does proceed with this, we have some specific language we would like to be applied in the event they can -- buildings are converted to student housing. more of the detailed language on the next few pages. this is pretty detailed language. it will be a little hard to read on the overhead. the first point has to do with if you are converting existing housing through the cu. we would like the owner signing an affidavit they did not unfairly evicted anyone. there is a lot of legal language.

i would be happy to discuss that in more detail. we wanted to state that nothing that we're doing would undermine their brand control ordinance and we want to state that affirmatively in the ordinance. those are the overall recommendations having to do with the loss of rec control and we have recommendations that are specific to if the board does perceive and wants to allow the conversion for these under- utilized or vacant buildings. we would ask that you recommend that they require this building has been vacant for least a year prior to application and has been also on the registry that dbi maintains.

we would recommend the under- utilized building has been 20% or less occupied and the project sponsor would again sign an affidavit declaring that fact to be true. that is some of the specific language. we have talked in the earlier report about the costa-hawkins law. we think this is a good solution to this issues. and lastly because everything is never that easily -- easy and there is a complicated issue. there is a final wrinkles. -- wrinkle. protection of existing sro's and some that may be under-utilized. we recommend including an amendment to the tourist -- the ordinance that the replacement fees would be paid if these

units are lost. it is the same replacement trees that are required for the sro's when they are compounded to -- they are converted to tourist hotels. that concludes my presentation and i am sure will be happy to answer questions now or after public comment. president fong: thank you. >> i do have some additional letters of public comment and i will run these up. >> one thing that was not mentioned. fong:we would like to hear froe commission if they are amenable to the idea that was brought up by a tenant advocates, setting an initial date by which the buildings would have had to be vacant or under-utilized. the moment that the original legislation by supervisor dufty was introduced or any other day

that you would be amenable to. the other thing i wanted to point out is that for our office, the use of six months of temporary controls would be an opportunity to continue to engage our stakeholders to come to a conclusion. i know we requested one month last time we were in front of the commission but it is a complicated and delicate issue and we would like to keep that time to work with our stakeholders to see with the most appropriate use for the vacant or under-utilized specifically residential hotels is. president fong: thank you. is there any additional staff comment? opening it up for public comment. i have some speaker cards here. rose hillson, paul warmer, james haas.