. this is 61% higher than that permitted in 2010. permits issued stand for housing starts of frequently cited -- a frequently cited in economic indicator. this chart shows housing completions in black. permitting activities started picking up in 2010 with 2009 at the low point. the chart also shows that generally, there is a to a three-year lag from completion start -- from start to completion. a number of the larger projects

in 2007-08 were brought to a halt. we are seeing these projects caresuming construction. i never were started last year and we will be seen -- a number were started last year and we will be seeing completion of these projects. a new report shows that about four thousand two hundred units are currently under construction -- 4200 units are currently under construction. we expect to see the numbers in the next two to three years. despite being -- despite the and

planning in talmadge, the commissioners last year approved 700800 -- 700 to 800 new units. before that, the indictment included 10,500 units in candlestick point redevelopment. there are currently 64 -- 6400 units under planning review. as for affordable protection in 2011, 218 new units were added to the usable stock. this makes up about 50, over half of the units for 2011. this chart shows affordable housing from 2007-11, averaging how many units are affordable. this is higher than the previous average of about one-quarter of

all production in the 10 to 15 years previous. these numbers show how the affordable units break down, 140 units were affordable to very low income households, which is two-thirds. 21 units were affordable to low- income households, and 57 units were affordable to moderate income households. this last one includes 11 inclusionary units that were -- are affordable to modern income households, and the remainder were smaller units that include legalization of illegal units. other items from the housing inventory include sections of the new condo conversions, which went out -- went up, more than

doubled from 700 up to 1600. condo conversions went down in 2011 by 12%. this is the second year in a row that condo conversions went down. while the number of sro buildings went up by six buildings, the number of sro rooms went down by 140 rooms. the number of non-profit sro's increased by one, but with an additional 67 units. however, the number of for- profit sro's lost 110 units, even if the numbers went up by five. two affordable residential hotels with about 330 units were rehabilitated through the mayor's office of housing in 2011.

the previous year, only 54 units were rehabilitated. inclusionary fees collected in 2011 totaled $1,173,628. commissioners have expressed interest in tracking residential redevelopment as it relates to a more frequent basis. this is the chart we tend to include in the quarterly reporting. there's also legislation for staffing that i believe will be presented to the commission in june. in august of last year, production from 2007-10 in response to a rina targets as well as residential activity for the first two quarters of 2011. we're not able to submit

subsequent reports, but we intend to resume quarterly reporting, and this ship -- this slide issuing a simple graphic, accounting for activities during the first quarter of 2012. the numbers represent units for both market rates. i guess this is not as clear. but we could give you a clear charge. the numbers are for both market trade and affordable housing units. we're not breaking down for the sake of simplicity. it is just affordable verses market rate. because the number of units will vary, we believe it is simple percentages of data. given that the targets were affordable units at 61% total, we have said that read bar. it is the red line that easy. the affordable units is shown in

light blue and we can see how it is gauged in relation to that far. the first bar shows what has been entitled by the planning department. it is 98 units. the second bar shows the number of units in places that have been issued building permits by dbi. that accounts 457 -- that accounts for 57 affordable units the third column shows how many were built in the last quarter. that is 29 units that were affordable verses 203 market- rate units. as you can see, we ourselves -- we are quite below the are. staff column shows how we have done in the last five years from 2007-11 as regarding the irina targets.

this is taken from the presentation about one month ago. we would welcome feedback from the commission as to the readability of this chart, as well as the arena tables we presented a month ago. that concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions that the commissioners may have. thank you. president fong: thank you. any public comment on this report. >> this is linda chapin.

many years ago, many housing advocates worked on saving the residential hotel. i'm happy to hear when there is progress. i am concerned about -- and i will talk about it later today, student housing and the amendment that could be adverse to that. i'm always concerned when these things come for a conditional use. i talked about one on nob hill on high street that was allowed to cease being a presidential sro.

i was told it was not being used for residents, only in the sense that they were required to check out and check in and so on. there have been a lot of games being played with these residential hotels. they're like the most precious housing stock. everyone that we can mention -- that has been captured that we can mentioned by nonprofits is a blessing for the city. we can't speak to those things as they -- and we can speak to those things as they come up. thank you >> ssu hester with a couple of comments. one is, there is legislation wandering through the board -- no, it does not come to you because it is not a planning code amendment -- conversion of apartments.

what we are not getting is the hotelizauion of apartment buildings. golden gate has transformed many units into hotels. they rent them out to corporations who ran them out for a short time frames. and that is a substantial loss of housing, particularly when it was billed as an affordable housing project funded by hud. not low-income, but moderate income housing. the second thing is i had a hard read -- hard time reading that chart. the one at the end. i'm hoping it becomes really clear. i will talk to staff about it. but what i want to say in advance is that it is one thing to have a quarterly report, which i certainly understand if that is how you want to measure it. the only thing is to make that report visible, every single project. i'm going to argue that once the

quarterly report is done, that the report appear on every single housing project. you do not have to tweak that numbers for every housing project. but it should be a matter of attention. it should be in your mind and in your eyes, and in our eyes every single time. i'm kind of surprised that more people are not here because the housing report is a big thing as far as i'm concerned. but i appreciate the report and i am looking for to tweaking the little thing on how you are meeting the goals so that it really pops out and you can understand it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to draw your attention to the report that was done for the moderate income housing hearing that the supervisors had a few

months ago. the report said that moderate- income renters are accommodated by the rental stock that we have in the city that is not subsidized. in other words, the report that went to the supervisors said that market rate rentals is moderate-income housing and for that reason, that city should not be subsidizing that because it is rental stock and that is a demanding that. but in the planning report that is something you do not consider. the only thing you consider moderate income housing is a housing that is subsidized and regulated. and that is not what the state does. the states that it is not luxury single-family homes, basically it is a luxury. we beat ourselves up in san francisco by saying that the only thing that counts as moderate income housing is subsidized, you know, rent restricted housing.

when actually, the modern income report said that rentals are moderate income housing and people of moderate income are able to afford market rate rentals. and we are building a ton of market rate rentals. i would speculate that 80% of the housing are going to be market rate rentals. for some reason, we do not. we only produce 05% of the modern income units. those are the units that are 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