we have had a nationally renouned chef in our vehicle. this is not a trend. this is a legitimate direction. my one issue with the existing legislation concerns the footprint of 225 square feet, this is on page 5, line number 11. the edification should be given if this is over 225 square feet. the solution to the idea that we would be in the upper market castro district. we have been transitioning away from this area. the neighborhood association was very strong in this area. one reason i built this

vehicle, with indoor seating, and yes, you heard about this, the one issue has been always, and people going around, especially if you are in the adjacent district. i may want to operate in nct if there is a designation right next to this. my original solution was to have a vehicle with a few seats. their original idea was to have a 30-foot school bus. if i can continue, this would be great. we did this to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. .

i run off the grid in san francisco, which runs mobile food events in the parks and other locations. i want to praise the mayor's office, dan sider, the planning department. everyone has done our reach to find what is right for all the stakeholders involved. this legislation is not perfect. there are minor tweaks that i think a lot of vendors would say are maybe 85% of the way there. for the most part, i personally can speak and say i am very supportive of it, and thank you very much for considering it.

president miguel: thank you. >> brad colorado. i was not planning on speaking. i just wanted to mention to those of you who have been to providence the haven brothers diner in front of city hall. i do not think it is 36 feet long, because it has to be towed. every time i go back, i have a cheeseburger and a piece of pie. it is open from 8:00 at night until 4:00 in the morning. it creates real activity around city hall when it would otherwise be dead. the food is really good. i would take this gentleman's comments to heart and see if there is a way we could encourage more diverse kinds of mobile food like the haven brothers in providence. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. i was excited to see this item come in front of us. i am a fan and user of mobile

food trucks. mr. sider, i have a couple of questions to clarify two items. there is not a truck but a trailer, if my memory is correct, parked in a parking lot at second and howard that serves crepes. it is there. it is a commercial parking lot. it has the outside corner. i presume that would have to be considered a permanent establishment and have to have the correct permits. >> commissioners, dan sider, department staff. that is correct. one note would be that in a number of the downtown districts, particularly the c3 district, permits for restaurants or -- are more flexible than they would be elsewhere. president miguel: i do know of a number of people who have given

parties in their homes for one reason or another, and as part of the, if not all of the, food service, have contracted with one or more mobile food trucks to come and parked in front of their house and their neighbor pact house. -- and their neighbor's house. this is strictly residential. what do we do about that? i mean, it works. >> it is an observation i and others have made as well. it is an interesting idea. what i think is relevant here is that those facilities are parked either on the public right of way or on the sidewalk, both public right of way where we for better or worse do not have jurisdiction. i imagine mr. rich could elaborate on what the new controls may be in those instances. >> in terms of -- the issue you bring up would be more properly addressed under the companion

legislation. the trucks would be parking probably on the street in front of the house where the party is. the legislation as currently proposed would not allow any sort of ongoing permit in a residential district, but it would allow, to the same process to go through to block off a parking space for construction activity -- it would allow a truck with a few days of notice and a small fee to get permited to be for a day on the street right there. my understanding is that would also be ok in residential districts. dpw would not be able to issue an ongoing permit in a residential district. >> while you are there, would you care to comment on the size regulation? >> the one the gentleman spoke about? it seems reasonable to me. i your supervisor -- hear

supervisor dufty saying he would like to make the change. i have to hear from the planning department, but from my perspective is fine. president miguel: things to grow as they become popular. vice president olague: i support the legislation and would be open to amending it to include up to 300, i heard. i guess i mentioned it did include a reduction in fees, which i think is quite important. these guys are barely making it, many of them. finally, i guess, every weekend now, they have a bunch of different trucks that gather with food and stuff. i guess that is a potential pay to park site. that is something the department might be looking at. >> that was a actually something

that my office put together in partnership with matt cohen. it is operating under a special event permit right now. my assumption is that probably it would be made permanent, should that the desire of -- should that be the desire of everybody. as an alternative, that land could be vacated and then would be permitted under the rules you are hearing today. either way, we are putting in place something that allows the city to have that happen all the time if that is the desire. vice president olague: i guess there is no time constraint as to when the trucks can be open, serving food? i did not notice that. i was just wondering. >> on private property space, under this legislation, there would be notable constraints, particularly a choice for the operator to make of either being on premises for three full days

each week, three full 24-hour days, or 612-hour days. -- or six 12-hour days. president miguel: is there a restriction on the actual hours? >> there is in districts where there are permanent uses. in nc districts, they must up provide -- they must abide by those principally permited hours. vice president olague: i was just the of -- i was just responding to comments encouraging events at a certain time. there are not many places now i know of open beyond 1:00 or 2:00. i wish there were. the city goes to sleep really early, i think, compared to some other cities. finally, i think there are many -- is there a language to her

you are doing our reach, or reaching out to folks? are they mostly modeling will speakers? -- are they mostly monolingual speakers? is there language training and that sort of thing? >> i will say that la cocina sponsored an information center that talked about these pieces of legislation. they did transition into spanish. the program oewd is developing will definitely do with language issues. it does to outreach in chinese -- does do outreach in chinese. vice president olague: i am going to move to approve with the modifications. with the modification of increasing the size. commissioner antonini: i am

supportive of this. i think it is good legislation, and there is still regulation, of course. you're just moving it to a different place, and there will be oversight on health and sanitation, as there would be with any other food service, be it bricks and mortar or mobile. i think this is a movement towards a lot of people who are seeking quicker and kind of on the run, particularly for lunch. everybody is busy. this works as well as the indoor seating in established bricks and mortar tight places. there is some competition. it is not the worst thing. i think that i agree with the way it is being done, and i think you will probably be helpful to put this into a place where the monitoring is more properly done by the agencies that are part of this legislation. commissioner moore: i think this is a great idea. i am in full support. i would just like to ask that

staff quickly checks the space standard. a car space is 25 feet, if anyone wants to imagine what that is like. if there is something between a custom designed vehicle or what a normal person would do, that could be two-tiered. you could either get one or the other. but make sure that if you are 75 feet over, that the increase will meet the average and not just a custom-designed vehicles. i think that would be fair and i would support that. commissioner sugaya: i am starting to see these in the financial district. i have a couple of clarifying questions. if this passes and it applies to mmfs which are defined here in finding number one and gives and -- and gives as an example pushcart vendors, does that mean we are all of a sudden getting

jurisdiction over like blue bottle in dolores park, or not? because parks and re histc s -- because parks and rec seem to be moving in the direction of adding more vendors in part areas. i would hate to get the planning commission suddenly involved in a lot of small-vehicle vendor things like hot dogs, a little small ones. >> the regulations would apply to the universe of mobile food facilities, from smaller pushcarts on to catering trucks and buses and everything in between. with respect to park properties and other areas that have been reviewed that are sort of unconventional private property -- commissioner sugaya: rec and

park is the one that came to mind. >> we might be able to clarify that process. >> i wanted to make it clear that the legislation in front of you would issue permits for something on rec park. it is everything that is not public right of way. although it is city-owned, it is not public right of way, so it falls under this. the best way to think about this is that the first thing a vendor does before the go through this process is get permission of the property owner to be there. the process that rec park or any city agency would go through with public outrage is before. this is just issuing a permit. it is a much more mechanical process. the decision about what kinds of vendors and how many will be in the hands of rec park or by the owner of a piece of private property. the department is issuing a permit that says it complies

with the zoning. the other issues are the property owner issues. if the property owner is the city, there will be a public process around it, but that will not be you. commissioner sugaya: if that is the case, i want to make sure these other departments understand very quickly with the jurisdiction issues are, in that there is always a chance that if the issue emperor -- if they issue an rfp -- i do not know if that will ever happen, but it could happen. i hate to have someone go through the whole process, put the proposal together, go to an interview, and then went up here and we go, "i do not think that is going to work." it is neither here nor there. as long as we have a lot of communication with other city agencies, that would be great. i have a question about -- if i were a mobile food vendor, and i had a vehicle and got a permit under the six days or whatever rule, can i apply for multiple

locations, if i wanted to be on montgomery street one day and wanted to be on valencia's street two days from there? that is possible, correct? >> yes. >> one question to clarify. this is approved administratively, right? these are approved administratively. >> if the use qualifies under this new temporary use provision, it is administrative. >> but just to be clear, it would not come to the commission. president miguel: i would like to compliment off the grid, having a couple of times having fallen into some of those, one that was on third street near term the second a while back -- on third street near 22nd a

while back. i do not know how many food truck benders' there were on the street and in private parking lots along there, but certainly five or six that i could count. and the wine bars, the restaurants, the regular bars, and everything along there were also doing great business at the same time. and it was extremely well handled. the public just loved it. there were walking a three block stretch, four blocks stretch. there really enjoyed it. you have done a good job in that regard. >> commissioners, the motion is before us for approval, as modified to extend the square footage to 300 square feet. on that motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye.

supervisor dufty, were you also going to comment? let us go to item nine. >> you are now on item 9, the amendments to the planning code residential inclusionary affordable housing program. >> thank you again, commissioners. great cities in our country are noted for having institutions of higher education. this legislation -- i want to acknowledge tim cullen, who will be up here to speak from the housing action coalition, and i want to thank my staff to work on this legislation. our local institutions are at a very competitive disadvantage in attracting the best students, compared to those outside of the bay area and northern

california, because of costs and the higher cost of housing. this complaint has come up recently and repeatedly to us. we recognize that right now for many students, the default is just going to cruise list. we are not increasing the supply of student housing. a significant number of family units are being utilized by young, unrelated adults, students. that has an impact on our city as well. this legislation helps to clarify what the intention is of the inclusion rehousing ordinance as it relates to student housing, recognizing that many students are low income. i know there are some changes that the department would be discussing. i am comfortable with those recommendations. i certainly recognize that the impetus is to try to develop new housing, and to recognize that we do not want to eat up

existing housing stock in order to meet this need. but i believe that this legislation will help us to do what cities such as boston have done, which have adopted policies to promote the production of new student housing and how to promote the development, and help to make the city more inviting to students to live there and study theire, and more likely than not to continue to live there after they graduate. president miguel: thank you. >> tara sullivan, from the planning department. this piece of legislation would amend the inclusion rehousing program to is basically excellent student housing from the fees and on and off site requirements. it is going to be adding to the program, dealing with qualified educational institutions, qualified students, qualified

student housing projects, and qualified student housing. based on that, it will exempt certain academic institutions if the following criteria are met. one, the building or conversion of space does not result in a loss of existing rental housing. two, an imp is on file with the planning department. there are certain triggers in our planning code for that process. it would only be academic institutions that trigger that. that will describe the type and location of the housing used by the students, the plans for the provision of the qualified student housing, the institution's need for the student housing, and the percentage of its students that receive some form of need-based assistance. there will also be required to submit to the mayor's office of housing and annual report that outlines all of the leases and ownership of the properties that are used as student housing in

the city, the number of qualified students that are occupying these units, and obviously they will be reporting a notice of special restriction on the property to notify that they are exempt from the program because they qualify under this exception. as the supervisor mentioned, the department has been working with mo and tim cullen on this for quite some time. we support the concept of student housing. there is a lack of a definition in the planning code, and it has come up repeatedly for certain institutions that there is not this institution. we support this legislation with the following modifications. one, a clear definition of student housing needs to be put in the code. those proposed in this legislation are good, but do not define specifically what student housing is. it describes the qualified institutions, and so on. similar to what is going on with the overall conclusion very

housing ordinance, it would automatically recapture the inclusion rehousing fees, if for some reason that student housing converted back to regular use, or residential use, so the city would, like we do in all other projects, reclaim the fees. the third and important recommendation we are proposing is the conversion of existing residential units. all existing residential units, including single room occupancies, residential hotel housing, and large tourist hotels, prevented from being converted into student houses. we would like all other uses to be converted to student housing. we would remove the requirement in the proposed legislation that each development the occupied by students of a certain income and instead require that the qualified educational institution needs to have at least 30% of their students in these swellings. with that, i am here to answer

questions. i know kim pullman is here and would like to speak. i and annmarie are here to answer questions. president miguel: regarding this question, the housing action coalition has asked for a block of time. i would like to state a disclaimer. at the time i chaired the housing action coalition, prior to coming into the mission, we have started the housing action coalition -- had started on this project, and held two or three meetings, including one citywide reading. it has taken quite a number of years to get the educational institutions to even come to the table, even though it is in their interest, probably. i just wanted to state that i have not been involved at all in this legislation.

it is something that has happened long after my tenure with hac. >> thank you. tim cullen for the san francisco housing action coalition. first and foremost, i want to express on behalf of the collision our gratitude to supervisor dufty, who took the initiative on this were a need existed. it is rare we see this kind of leadership, and we are grateful. this started with round tables we convened among 10 or a dozen well-known schools in san francisco. we had round tables up at uc hastings to discuss their interests and their needs, and the shortcomings of existing provisions for student housing. i am particularly pleased to have had the existence -- had the assistance of the college of law, college of arts, and san

francisco conservatory of music in guiding us how this should work, what a good student housing provision would look like. i should say this particular meeting came out of doug schumaker's office that was shared by the college of chinese medicine, and iii hundred. they have trouble competing for the best and brightest, bringing students to san francisco, in contrast to schools outside of the bay area or northern california. our housing costs are a prime factor in that. on the question of need, you have a table that was put together, some basic research. the big picture is this. there are 120,000 students at institutions of higher learning in san francisco. that table identifies a shortfall of 52,000 beds.

you might look at it as an upper limit to it, but looked at broadly, just intuitively, if you had 120,000 students and took away two-thirds of them, who live with mom and dad, commute from out of town, and live in school provided housing or an apartment they do not intend to leave -- if you took away two-thirds of them, that would still be 40,000 students. it is our position, and it is intuitive, that a significant fraction of the city's family- sized rental housing is occupied by young, non-related adults. i know i occupied four units back in the day, around the panhandle area. what we have to address, and what supervisor dufty correctly identified is the city's defacto housing policy is craigslit. -- craigslist.

students compete with other students for a very scarce resource. in talking, it seemed clear that what we are up against is the policy that will define and promote student housing, something very common in other cities. the comparison we would offer is boston. in the late 1990's, the mayor said, "why are we doing this? why should the schools themselves not provide or satisfy 50% of the demand they create?" i think there were cultural issues, old, established neighborhoods taking influxes of students. the question stood. they started a program that said schools shall provide at least 50% of their own housing needs. they waved the inclusion therein permit, 13% on site. they waived certain impact fees of about $8 a foot.

you'll never guess what happened. the started building student housing units at a rate of about 1000 units a year for the last decade. it got clear incentives from the city. the city decided it was necessary and went ahead with it. you have a handout that shows a recent project in portland, portland state, 16 stories. the need is absolutely fair. what we would like to see, and as ms. sullivan said, it should not hurt or displace any existing residential, and it should adapt to new use or new construction. we have no view of the merits of one or the other. the resulting in the staff report about the conversion of large hotels. -- there was something in the staff report about the conversion of large hotels. 100 units is not very big. i believe that is the threshold for a large hotel. it is