Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hearing highlights a large student‑housing shortfall and university plans to add beds
Summary
Supervisors heard Planning Department and university updates showing a large shortfall (city estimate ~40,000 beds needed vs ~9,000 existing beds); UCSF, UC Hastings, SF State and CCA outlined pipelines and partnerships while advocates urged code, process and financing changes to speed production.
Supervisor Scott Wiener opened a hearing on student housing needs and production. Planning Department staff estimated San Francisco needs roughly 40,000 student beds and reported about 9,000 existing beds with applications in the pipeline for some 1,700 additional beds. Staff described city code changes (2010 and 2012 ordinances) that exempt student housing from inclusionary requirements and prevent conversion of existing housing to student beds as incentives to spur dedicated student housing.
University representatives described current shortfalls and projects: UCSF said it can house about 14% of its students/trainees and estimated a campus shortfall of roughly 1,200–1,500 units for students and trainees alone; UCSF listed planned projects including a Minnesota Street development targeted for 2019. UC Hastings described a letter of intent with UCSF to explore a graduate-student village, with potential reuse/rehab projects (198 McAllister) that could yield 780–1,100 beds. San Francisco State said it currently houses about 14% of its ~30,000 headcount and is pursuing the Holloway public-private partnership (250–450 beds with 2018 occupancy as a possibility) and longer-term planning studies that could yield thousands more student units.
California College of the Arts (CCA) described the Panoramic project (Ninth & Mission), an 11-story building with 400 beds priced substantially below market due to efficiencies and the student-housing legislative framework; CCA and developers stressed tight timing constraints for marketing and lease-up that complicate aligning planning approvals with the academic calendar.
Public commenters — including students, housing advocates and the Chamber of Commerce — urged accelerating production and suggested policy changes such as shortening master-lease minimum terms, better outreach to national student-housing builders, and targeted financing tools. Planning staff recommended better outreach to developers about existing density and incentive opportunities; Supervisor Wiener moved to file the hearing record and the committee did so without objection.
