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 people have a place to live and are not being squeezed out. those are the duelled roles of this legislation. -- dual roles of this legislation. it provides incentives for creating student housing.

we already have the incentives of exemption. and also create exemptions -- open space requirements. the legislation does allow conversion of student housing back to more general housing with approval from the zoning administrator. in land use, before we were sent back to the commission, and the reason we were sent back, the committee adopted several amendments. the legislation contains eight near categorical ban on conversion. the amendments allow extremely limited exceptions. one is for housing that was built by the proposed secondary educational institution that will operate and control the senate housing.

the second is property that is either a convent, monastery, or other religious order. it is already not the general housing. properties that are on a lot directly adjacent to the post- secondary educational institutions. they will -- educational institutions will not be able to purchase in the future and hold for the purpose of conversion. these three exemptions are extremely limited and will still keep almost totally in talk to the ban on conversion to student housing. there are some other amendments that were placed into legislation.

i will not go into all of them. some of them are quite minor. making sure that when we define what kind of housing contractual relationship between educational institution and operator or property owner qualifies. we want to make sure we are being flexible and not trying to micromanage the relationships. there are a couple of others as well, which are common sense. i am supportive of them. i know that we will be hearing the matter and continuing it at the request of supervisor kim. i am supportive of the continuance because i do not want this to go back to land use

and we have an amendment make and it has to come back to the commission again. it is appropriate for the commission to handle everything being proposed. i know that supervisor kim has been working with folks in the community as well as with the department on a potential amendment. i look forward to seeing what that amendment is. i think the goal of all of us is to make sure we're protecting our housing stock. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have someone from supervisor kim office. >> apologized -- apologies from supervisor kim, who could not be here. she is in the rules committee right now. she would have loved to discuss this item with you. we presented to you to be included in your packet a potential amendment that would

allow the conversion for residential buildings that are vacant or under occupy. 20% or less of the rooms that have been occupy for two years. we introduce that amendment because we have a rather large amount of vacant buildings. they create concerns from our residents. they create concerns from the all of our constituent groups. we introduced them to start a conversation and we are here today -- we want to see what would be needed, where could we go past a complete ban to convert residential housing to student housing? maybe the answer is there is no

way we should allow conversion, but this is our way to have that conversation with members of the planning commission and with the general public. we totally subscribe and support the goal the legislation, protecting our housing stock, our existing tenants. in no way were the amendments targeting our existing tenant or our rent-controlled housing stock. we have been in conversation with housing advocates, educational institutions, and we look forward to continuing those conversations. that is why we are here today asking for the continuance. we look forward to the hearing today and all the folks that have come out. gets a solution that works for

t+ ideally. coming together and having this conversation with everybody. we look forward to working with the planning department on that solution. i am here and available for any questions. >> i would like to thank both of them for joining us today. i will continue my presentation to discuss five issues. the first issue is the demand for student housing. there has been a 25% jump in college enrollment since 2000. student housing at rents are 10 to 20% higher than a normal rents. the demand appears quite high. the national increase in students looking for housing is

amplified by our own prices and the city. the executive director for the san francisco housing action coalition estimates that we have 14 post secondary institutions serving 120,000 students. if we imagine that some of them already have a housing with their parents, providing housing for a third of those am looking at the amount of housing, provided, we have a 40,000 beds shortfall. demand is high, rents are higher, and vacancies are lower than traditional higher. the academy of arts is the most discussed institution with the housing crunch, but they are not alone. the san francisco art institute states that are not able to lease most of the units. let's look at some of our existing policies about housing.

student housing by definition is housing owned or leased by the institution. converting -- house and converted is removed from the open market and would be restricted to only those affiliated with the institution. the proposals would allow institutions already exempted from the requirement to satisfy their demand for housing. here is the dramatic policy. thank you. i am not going to read these to you, but you can see it from the overhead that preserving our existing housing stock with emphasis on the most affordable units is the city's policy. the concern is further amplified when it comes to rental units. we are a city of renters and the

larger properties are likely to be attractive for these institutions. city policy also speaks to residential hotels. as affordable housing for low- income, elderly, disabled, and single person households. sros have long been valued. according to a report commissioned by the san francisco human services agency, san francisco is unable to meet existing resident demand for affordable housing. many of the most a vulnerable populations are often at risk for homelessness. sros account for a substantial portion of our affordable housing stock. sros provide more housing for low-income people and all the city's public housing developments. the general plan -- in response

to this, the city adopted residential hotel ordinance, which protects existing residential hotels. this ordinance requires 1to 1 replacement. under this ordinance, one-to-one replacement is only required if the unit is lost a tourist hotel. the loss of units to housing uses was not anticipated when the ordinance was created asros . that change in -- anticipating future stress is difficult and the proposed amendment will certainly result in a loss of affordablenot only will the unie revamped, but the units will be

students only. i will explain a related issue whether the changes would remove many of the existing protections, like and control. let's look at some of our sros. if you are interested in who lives in sros, there is a reports available from the human services agency. i would like to cover more about the buildings. there vacancy rates. -- their vacancy rates. 411 privately owned sros, this report a vacancy rate of 14%. 11 of these buildings self report that they're completely vacant. this represents less than 2% a of allsro units. a third of the units are in 130

buildings and a report zero vacancies. monthly rents range widely. from $195 to nearly $3,000. the average reported rent may not best reflect what the rents are because of the height and rents are unusual and did not represent typical rates. over two-thirds of the hotels surveyed had a monthly rates below $601. less than 10% had over $1,000. we talked about new incentives for building new housing. let's review some of the incentives. we have the ordinance which relieves the inclusion very requirement. this commission recommended

lowering the open space requirement. since your actions, supervisor wiener has proposed to exempt staff and housing from certain to districts. these are solid incentives. let's look at one of the proposals regarding the vacant and underutilized housing. as written, the amendments could encourage owners to vacate buildings in the hopes of attracting educational institutions. this may increase vacancies. given the anticipated grants, owners may expect to recoup their losses from leaving an sro vacant. as for our underutilization, the proposal would define this as 20% or less occupy. this would be proven by an affidavit of the building's

owner that the application. since the building's owner is testifying to the past occupancy, this would be difficult to confirm. if the proposal to move forward, perhaps the building owner should be required to register the building prior to application. the main intent of for proposal is to target a few sros in the tenderloin. there -- the recommended avenues and this report included providing funding assistance for the acquisition and rehab of buildings in disrepair, providing mills act tax relief to assist in maintenance and upkeep, allowing conversion, but requiring replacement a