subsidized. i think we should be looking at all of the zero multifamily housing -- the multifamily housing. if they are going to be rentals, which most of the mark, though should count as part of your moderate income inventory. thank you. >> any other public comment? commissioner wu: if i could ask a question. is it correct that you just said there was an actual loss and the absolute number of sros in for-profit buildings? >> yes. we did not have the resources --

we have a list of the sro properties. what we will do is to make an accounting. we were not able to do it in time for this presentation. commissioner wu: it would be great to get that information. in the future, it goes to the student housing legislation items on our agenda later today. i host: -- i also wanted to ask, coming off the hearings about affordable housing, is the plan to include in every single report the quarterly inventory? >> that was mentioned and the hearings. we have been working on this is on, a template that will be included in the reports.

>> it is also something that we propose to -- that we proposed last year. we have been working on the template to figure out if it is an easy way christoph to include that information. -- easy way for staff to include the information. >> in 2011, we almost matched the golal. over 50% of the housing was affordable housing. i think it was because of the recession. i want to flag that as part of the larger conversation that is happening in the city right now. how to incentivize affordable housing, how to make a larger structure fit to help us realize those goals. commissioner borden: thank you

for that report. one of the things i noticed was that you talk about illegal and unit removals. how did this happen? -- how do those happen? >> ok, what we do, we go through the dbi. actions completed. typically, somebody complains, dbi makes an inspection and gives the owner some time to comply with a notice of violation. some of them legalized the unit. others removed the kitchen or

whatever violation they may have incurred that is a loss. i mentioned that we use the census as a baseline every 10 years. the census counts illegal units. it is a separate unit. when we are looking -- we count them as well. >> i know there has been a lot of talk about secondary units. what would be the reasons that eight units -- is its exposure? -- that a units-is it exposure? >> it could be that the zoning does not permit the density. it could be to debut of units, so you could not legalize the unit. it could be exposure, open space. one of the biggest roadblocks was parking.

some of the amendments that the planning commission made make it a little bit easier for someone to get over that obstacle. that is the exposure issue. commissioner borden: is it's easier to legalize a unit? it is it's easier to take out a kitchen? >> it depends on the situation. often, the illegal units in place are minimal construction. maybe pretty easy to remove the kitchen cabinet. under our guidelines, there are certain features you could have. you may be able to retain the bathroom. generally, it is the kitchen that needs to be removed. commissioner borden: the designation of the units has not as much to do with whether or not a tenant lives there? >> the key feature is the kitchen. commissioner borden: great.

i appreciate the report. there is a lot of interesting information throughout. i do think some of the things we discussed are things we can discuss in a larger discussion around housing. the charge -- chart was very difficult to read. 100% is the total production of all the housing. it is hard to put that into context of the overall target. i think. commissioner antonini: thank you. a few good points, we do look at a particular line when we are determining inclusionary -- it may be different than what it is

considered to be affordable. we kind of lump together a middle income, rental units, a lot closer and more affordable than very expensive of rental units. i know you have to draw a line somewhere, but it is good to analyze that as the golan. >> i would also like to add that when we were reporting, we were only considering the restricted affordability. be realized -- we realized we can -- the new reporting form, they have a template now, they can allow for deed restrictions. there is a line where we can put that. we started doing that. i think we will look more closely as far as the rentals

are concerned. >> i think that is three helpful. we have a unique situation in san francisco because we are water locked or landlocked. it is a lot more difficult than counties that have land or the county needs could be reached by construction, even in the unincorporated areas. one other interesting thing i came across, which is not part of your report, but from another source the shows a correlation between the percentage of single-family homes in a particular city and the percentage of households with children. in san francisco, we have 32 to 33% single-family homes. we have about 18% of households with children. in the city of san jose, they

have 58% single-family homes. 43% of the households are households with children. you cannot compare apples and oranges, but it would appear that for every is possible, there seems to be a desire that they would prefer to have a single family situation rather than being in a multiple situation. that may not be possible in san francisco. anything we can do to move towards that direction i can to promote the retention or the attraction of more families. it is an interesting thing to look at. thank you very much for your report. during instructive. i think last year is a little bit of an aberration. -- a very instructive. commissioner miguel: thank you very much for your report. your department does an excellent job.

i always had a problem with understanding the templates by which the targets are established. i never had a sufficient explanation of that. we did the figures -- get the figures -- >> we can arrange for a separate hearing. >> that has never been in the report. 50% of the target, but where did the target come from? i did appreciate the comments as to moderate income housing. what is not in the the report, which would be very interesting, because it could make a comparison in other areas.

one of your resources is the real-estate industry. what is the actual cost to the public for rental or purchase on its core food basis? -- on a square foot basis. that is the way a lot of people take a look at places. not necessarily one, too, or three bedrooms. -- two, or three bedrooms. what is the cost per square foot? to me, that would be a very telling statistic if it is possible to get it somewhere in the report and also would make it easier to start comparing to other areas.

it would have to do with flight from the city, which we hear about because costs are too high here. that sort of thing. it would be an interesting figure. commissioner sugaya: one question with respect to that statistical reporting of moderate income. you were saying that in the report previously, that category is related to units that we know have deed restrictions. have they said income limits, if you want to call it that. but now you are saying that the formula -- the form allows for additional reporting? >> non-restricted units.

commissioner sugaya: that will begin to account -- to take into account what he is claiming that. >> yes. commissioner wu: i want to confirm that the pending legislation you are talking about was the legislation that had been introduced by supervisor olague. you said we would be hearing an update on that? >> i believe in the aegean. -- in june. commissioner wu: thank you. >> if there are no further comments, thank you. we can move on on your calendar. thank you. commissioners, you are now out the general public comment. it has a 15 minutes duration.

each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each. the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. >> i had two speaker cards. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we had a nice kid who was in here speaking. they opened another store. he worked for the organization, received a promotion. this small business had a value by appropriately filling their sign space, renting out applicable spaces, but also

helping employees advance. he recently purchased a home. i was pretty inspired by that. i want to take a moment to celebrate max. i want to move on to issues of regulation. last week, we put a condition on the crepe place. it had awesome reviews, awesome space. we restricted that open window until 9:00. if you guys go out on polk, there are few places to eat after 9:00. we are shutting down all legitimate business at certain hours. we're opening up the space for and a legitimate business, the hot dog vendor, he does not pay rent. we do not know anything about the food he is serving. we're also creating crowds on

the street. addressing the crowd issue, we talked a lot about polk street last week. our biggest area of concern is from about 1:45 until 2:30. why is this? we have a regulation that we're stopping the serving of alcohol. we put a deadline on people's ability to drink, and then forcing them out on the street. these would be the biggest areas of concern. i am in favor of pushing some of these hours out. i do not know of any cities in california that extend hours beyond regulations. thank you. have a good day. >> linda chapman. >> i am glad some -- i am glad to hear so much interest about

polk street. i want to address some of the things that came up lost time. i brought you copies of something related to lower polk neighbors. my greatest concern at present is the fact that are not representative of the community. as you heard from the merchant. he was in the meeting and 10 people voted. he talked to the other merchants in the area and found they were all completely opposed to it. what is the mitigation for this area? it will have huge impacts. $1 million to go to low or polk neighbors. i have a lot of concern about

that. there was an effort made to form a cbd before. it was not -- approval was not voted. robert garcia did a lot of research as an advocate about what will happen to the tenants as a result. he learned that whatever was spent by the cbd would be passed through the rest of the tenants. how have they spend money? today they represent? one of the things you have in front of you is the last time when they got a small grant of money and it was to be for murals that was supposed to elevate the neighborhood. nobody in the neighborhood had any input at all.

the people who make the decisions there are two people from the mayor's office. bar owners, pot club owners, you know. that is that. the residents barely go at all. they did come in at a time when this $15,000 from the city would was coming to us for murals. we were kept out of any process at all. all the decisions were made by the two corridor managers. this outrageous cartoon -- the attempted to force it on us, shouting to the residence that did come in. after four newspaper articles came out, it was stopped. but only because it went out to

the press. >> please use your microphones. you are hard to hear today. i had a phone call that was kind of strange. an issue i had not fought about. satellite interference when we moved really tall buildings into a neighborhood. the building that is under construction at 10th and market, the bar across the street has satellite tv, it can no longer gets reception. tenants to not have the same rights as landlords do to relocate their satellites. that is a planning issue that came out of left field. i am passing back on as something the department should

think about. i do not want to have the little guys picked on. the planned unit development that you at approved for 8 washington had an unusual provision in it. a pud has landscaping. the whole idea is because of its size, it is not occupy totally by a building. pd conditions are heavily oriented toward the open space. i've been through enough puds. on 8 washington, all of those areas were excised from any of the effects of your decision. they are port property. i do not think anyone paid any attention because i did not pay

any attention. your conditions did not affect the port property because you have a specific language that was put in at the very last minute by the attorney for the developer. that is a very strange concept in a pd. -- pud. the only thing you made that were binding on the site where the buildings. the sidewalks around our port property. you do not have any control over that. someone said shot -- someone from staff should look at that issue. i said something for environmental review pleading with them -- give them back then notice list that you would use. the cta does not give any notice is to the planning department list.

i find that to be really weird. i never got the eir or the notice of the eir. it is a simple remedy. thank you. >> that concludes general public comment. >> now we can move forward to your regular calendar with item number 8. planning code amendments related to the creation of a definition of student housing. >> i think i had mentioned that supervisor kim had requested a continuance of the action on this item. in recognition of the number of people here interested in this item, to have the hearing, but has requested a continuance of

the actual action on. there are a number of people interested in this issue. in order to get everyone to talk about this issue. be able to report back to you on the continuance with a somewhat revised proposal. my suggestion to you is to continue to june 14. maybe it was the 21st? 21st is a better date, site. -- sorry. that is sufficient time to meet the request of the supervisors' sponsoring this legislation to meet the land use committee deadline. which i believe is an early

july. we would have enough time to hear from you and report to the land use committee in july. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. is there a question? commissioner miguel: i will move to continue, but to hear public comment. >> the staff presentation, public comment. >> good afternoon. i would like to acknowledge that supervisor wiener is here to discuss this proposal in more detail. my presentation will cover three items. after the supervisors presentations, i will go to the issues the department would like to raise for consideration.

a brief review of the history. this ordinance began -- this process began with an ordinance, followed by actions of this commission, and additional proposals from supervisor winer anener and kim. when this commission heard that ordinance, it recognized both -- to encourage the production of student housing and protection of the existing housing stock. satisfying this requirement is expensive at over $53,000 per unit. the next step, land-use controls. the ordinance provided exemption, a recognize the difference between student housing and other residential uses, but it did not establish a system of land use controls.

the condition -- the commission asked staff to follow up. you decided worst in housing should be permitted, established a definition -- you decided where student housing should be permitted, and established a definition. it should not be converted from existing units. your action applied to all housing types, from single- family, apartment buildings. sros were not singled out at that time. the supervisors amendments, we are here today to discuss the prohibition on conversion of existing housing. conversion of existing housing, since housing would be permitted. -- student housing would be permitted. supervisor kim proposed that buildings that had been vacant for a list one year could be converted.

the supervisors will describe a little bit more about proposals. supervisor wiener: good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for hearing this item today. the goal of this legislation is to encourage production of student housing while protecting our existing housing stock and not cannibalizing the existing housing stock. i think we all park -- we recognize the importance of educational institutions in this city in terms of contributing to the life of the city to bring in young people into the city. we hope they will stay here and be productive citizens.

making this a more diverse and battered city. i think we all want to embrace arent -- making this a more diverse and a better city. we want to embrace our diversity and we want to make sure we have housing for these students. we want to make sure we are giving incentives to educational institutions to create a housing. we do want to protect our existing housing stock. i do not think i need to tell you. this is an incredibly expensive place to live. rents right now are completely through the roof. people who lose their housing, it is unclear whether they will be able to stay here. we need more housing supply for our general population, not less. one of the goals of this legislation is to make sure we are protecting our existing housing stock and we are protecting our tenants and the