another online -- an online petition that i recently started regarding chase on 14th and valencia has quickly garnered 115 signatures, including those of several mission merchants. there's something seriously wrong if a neighborhood and city can't weigh in on these kinds of developments. we've work hard to make san francisco a place unlike any other and chase's exponential expansion is threatening the feel of our city, while also limiting space that could be used by local businesses and credit unions. thank you. >> thank you. many supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is andy katz. i'm here representing the telegraph hill dwellers. telegraph hill dwellers is one of san francisco's oldest and largest neighborhood organizations. we have over 600 members among our ranks and we support supervisor mar's proposed ordinance to close the bank loophole in san francisco's

formula retail law. we earth you to follow in the steps of the planning commission in supporting this legislation. in north beach and on telegraph hill, neighborhood groups and merchants worked together for many years to protect the unique character of our community that makes it such a special place to visit and to live in. san francisco's formula retail law has successfully kept our neighborhood and other as cross the industry from turning into a series of cookie cutter chain stores. there's no reason that financial services and banks should not play by the same formula retail rules and other -- that other retail stores must abide by, making the law clearly apply to them will close the bank's loophole and help to protect small businesses from being priced out of neighborhoods by corporate chain stores. thereby helping to preserve the character of our neighborhoods. north beach is a good example of a vibrant neighborhood that has been protected and needs to be protected in the future. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you.

>> thank you supervisors mar, wiener and olague for this legislation. much needed. we thought banks were included in the formula retail legislation. and then to go and find that because it's in the side margin instead of in the text, that banks were not included that we had to now come back and do these band-aid approaches. but thank you for working on this. it does allow small banks, there are a number in san francisco, mechanics being one of those. i believe there's more than a dozen credit unions. i belong to the san francisco federal credit union that employees often belong to and it has four branches. it can put other branches out. this allows neighbors and neighborhoods to have a say. some areas definitely want more banking and this will not stop them from having it. big banks do increase the rents. it doesn't stop banks from putting in a.t.m.'s and the ban only applies to a two or three

areas. i would encourage you to explore supervisor keen's concern -- cohen's concern about check cashing. that's certainly an issue about ripping off poor people. as you think about future amendments to this, think about the crossover issues, financial services is becoming much more crossing over with other services and think about how we can protect that as well as thinking about how we're going to deal with the international chain issue that supervisor owe willingy brought up. thank you. thm, what was your name for the sflord >> sorry, tell wellburn of the haight. thank you. >> good afternoon, i'm quentin from the alomar square neighborhood. i want to thank and appreciate supervisor mar's comments on this legislation and your work

as well, souper visor wiener. as mentioned our previous went through several rounds with the planning department regarding financial services as it applies to formula retail, the cost dance, even though fm services is listed in the catch-all category and that category is listed within financial services in formula retail, we're told financial services because it wasn't spelled out was not actually part of formula retail. even after talking with the original author of the 2004 legislation, then supervisor gonzalez who said that was not his understanding. we talked to people who were part of that planning process. but now we are here. we appreciate what we think is a very minor and rational fix to dealing with this issue. to supervisor wiener's point, are there larger issues regarding formula retail how it's interpreted and applied in the city? absolutely. but we think this is a modest approach regarding conditional use for fonl services in the city. just off -- just offhand, would i have concerns about the two

amendments on two categories. one, the first regarding the ground floor versus second floor. i'm not sure why we would add that exemption if no one else, i'm not sure what other businesses would get the same exemption. i would have concerns about that. second is, it's normally to my understanding general protocol as far as difference from the city if you know legislation has been introduced that might actually apply to something you were speaking a permit for. that you're aware of that and caution to that. if someone actually went and had a permit last week for potentially financial services or bank somewhere in the city, i would be concerned that we're not actually, if we're moving forward from this date rather than going back -- >> my amendment would cut off at the introduction of the legislation. in other words, once the legislation has been introduced to a number of months ago in my view, people are on fair notice but not before then. >> thank you. supervisor mar: thank you.

is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so colleagues, let me just ask if we can discuss the two amendments that supervisor wiener proposed. i think on the second one, i feel i'm supportive of that. it's only fair to kind of existing permits that are already in the process. so i'm definitely supportive of the second one. the first one kind of on -- my sense is it's more of a loophole for formula retail banks, kind of the larger ones to splipsneeked floor spaces. i dweff knitly see -- definitely seed the need for active and attractive ground floor space but i see that as too much of a loophole so i'm definitely concerned about that one and leading towards supporting the second but not the first. i'm curious for my colleagues, other thoughts on this. supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. would i have to echo the same concerns you have.

willing to support the first. uncomfortable with -- the first being the grandfathering clause and uncomfortable with the second one with banks going in on the second floor. supervisor mar: thank you. and then i was just going to address supervisor cohen's comments. i always support maximum outreach to neighborhoods, and my hope is that before the vote as a full board, we work with the office of small business to make sure that we're engaging the small business sector and different neighborhoods and bringing that back as we kind of maybe amend, if there's comments and suggestions, kind of before is voted upon by the full board. i certainly support that. my hope is that this can move forward to with amendments made by supervisor wiener and go to the full board, if possible. supervisor wiener? >> i appreciate the support for the grandfathering as of the introduction date. thank you. and regarding the first floor versus second floor, first i will note in terms of our

tradition view of a bank, i don't think bank of america, wells, chase, whatever, they don't typically go in the second floor. my concern is -- and right now to be fair in many of our neighborhood commercial zroicts, there requirements for financial services for sometimes a broad array of financial services that do apply to the second floor which i really have an issue with because -- not that my amendment would affect that but i have an issue because in terms of good planning, i would rather have those oozes on the second floor -- uses on the second floor and retail on the second floor. if we make it easier to go on the second floor harder on the first, my concern would be that sends the right message. and we don't know that the fm industry so fluid these days, somebody brought up the possibility of a state farm agent who has banking as an ancillary, that may become athe dominant.

there's still sort of insurance agent but the zoning administrator might decide that trips over into a bank and you have to go through a c.u. process to go on to the second floor or first floor. what the heck, you may as well just apply for first floor because it's the same process as for the second floor, where as what we might want is for that use to be on the second floor. again, it also deriveford my perspective the gain issue is vibrancy in our commercial corridors, which is really about ground floor uses. it's not -- if you have a commercial corridor where it's all interesting retail, clothing and hardware and whatever stores on the first floor and all, you know, less vibrant offices and insurance companies and mortgage companies and whatever on the second floor, that to me, that's a good neighborhood plan because you have the vibrancy on the first floor but you still have all of the less vibrant neighborhood serving businesses on the second floor. that's the purpose of the amendment. so i guess maybe we could just

divide the two amendments and vote separately and the result would be what it will be. supervisor mar: i think that's a good approach. i will just say that i still have strong concerns that kind of it's getting away from the strong neighborhood voice we want, whether it's the ground floor, which i understand is the most important. but even on some second floors or mezzanines, kind of instill that level of eye level kind of tchash takes away from kind of some of the unique character of many of the smaller businesses if there's a chance large bank coming into a second floor. but i hear what you're saying. so if there's no other comments -- supvervisor wiener: i just want to make sure the city attorney, which would have to draft these, is clear on what the two amendments are? great. thank you. supervisor mar: maybe take the first amendment on the ground level versus second floor space. is there a way for you to restate that amendment? supvervisor wiener: that the legislation would impose formula

retail controls on financial services limited to ground floor. supervisor mar: so we restated the motion. miss miller, could we have a roll call on that amendment? >> on the motion as stated, supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> senator >> no. >> supervisor wiener? >> aye. >> mr. chair, we have two ayes and one no. supervisor mar: on the second amendment. supvervisor wiener: that amendment would be that this legislation would apply to formula retail controls to financial services but only where the permit had been applied for after the introduction of the legislation. grandfathering in any projects where the permit was applied for before the legislation was interdoosed. i can't remember the date of that but it was quite a number of months ago. supervisor mar: can we state

this one without objection, colleagues? supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: -- can we rescind the first amendment we just passed before moving to the second one? supvervisor wiener: i thought i was so powerly persuasive. supervisor mar: without objection we're rescinding the first amendment we approved. let's go forward again with the first amendment with the roll call vote. >> on the motion, supervisor cohen? >> first amendment? >> first amendment -- >> having to do with the ground floor versus second floor. >> no. >> no. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: no. >> mar, no. supervisor wiener? supvervisor wiener: aye. >> mr. chair, we have two nos and one aye. supervisor mar: let's go to the second amendment that grandfathers in those permit that's were in the pipeline as before this was introduced. is that right? >> where there was a permit

application pending before the legislation was introduced. supervisor mar: can we take this one without objection, colleagues? >> yes. supervisor mar: thank you. now on the legislation, can supervisor wiener? supvervisor wiener: i move we forward it with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar: can we do this without objection? thank you. i will make sure we're working with the office of small businesses to do that outreach. supervisor cohen? >> we will also get you a list. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone, for coming out today. miss miller, could you please call item number two. >> number number two, ordinance amending the building code to reduce square footage requirements for efficiency dwelling units. supervisor mar: response supervisor weaner? ths thank you, mr. chairman. this legislation amendments the building code and brings the definition of an efficiency unit into alignment for what is allowed under the california health and safety code. this legislation will increase

the concept of affordability by design in san francisco. we talk a lot about creating affordable housing in this city and one way to do it, given the limit of government resources, is to allow the development and creation of housing that is affordable by design. this legislation will move us in that direction. the building inspection commission sue sported this legislation unanimously. the legislation defines an efficiency unit as being a minimum of 150 square feet of living area. 150 square feet does not include a required bathroom, closet or cooking area. the current law requires in san francisco the efficiency unit be at least 220 square feet. the state minimum is 150 square feet and this would confirm our definition of an efficiency with

the state minimum. all other code requirements, including a.d.a. accessibility, path of travel, health code, et cetera, would remain in place and are not in any way affected by this legislation. in addition, the legislation caps the numbers of permissible residents in a smaller efficiency unit to two. this 150-foot efficiency square foot minimum is similar to what's already in the san francisco housing code, which requires 144 square feet minimum. other cities in california have exercised their ability under the state health and safety code to define an efficiency unit in this way. i.e., at least 150 square feet. san jose has the standard, santa barbara, santamaria. in addition, perhaps if greater significance, new york city and seattle both have the same

definitions. other urban areas with challenges around creating housing that's affordable to residents. san francisco has a desperate need for housing at all income levels, in particular income levels that are not high income. particularly in workforce housing, housing for students, for seniors, for transition-age youth and other populations. this legislation would promote affordability by design it would reduce construction costs that would be passed on in the form of lower rents and this can be done without any public subsidies. the units would be an attractive and affordable option for people who were just entering the workforce, for students, formally homeless people and others who do not require a lot of space. these units also could support a growing national and international trend of what we call cooperative housing, where people have smaller, private spaces but share large, centralized common areas and buildings.

developers, of course, will not be required to build units that are 150 square feet. they'll just have this option. it will create greater flexibility in terms of creating housing options in san francisco. again, california health and safety code has already vetted and approved these types of units so they do not present any kind of health and safety risk. and they must, as noted, be built to the same standards including seismic and life safety as all other units. i also want to note at the request of the department of building inspection, code advisory committee, we did include an amendment that said the minimum for the living area is 150 square feet. but the entire unit, which also would include a cooking area, bathroom, closets, that would be 220 square feet. colleagues, i ask for your support.

supervisor mar: i just had one i know you have the student housing ordinance that's coming forward. i'm just wondering, could this have been included in that process? because i think it's impacting kind of similar institutions. probably that want to see more of that kind of housing without having a negative impact on existing housing stock in the city? supvervisor wiener: well, student housing is certainly one kind of housing that would greatly benefit from this revised standard. however, there are other kinds of housing that would benefit as well. for example, we have seniors who may be in a larger home no that they're unable to take care of anymore and it gives them an option to move into housing where they have a smaller unit that will be more affordable. s this also artist housing, where someone needs small living

space or someone who is brand-new in the workforce. student housing is certainly one aspect that will benefit from this. but i think it has a broader impact. the code advisory committee actually made a suggestion that we say only student housing can qualify for this. but we've been told it would be illegal in terms of distinguishing among different groups and their housing. so that's why we moved forward as we did. supervisor mar: and then it looks to me like at least this option would be four units with one person and no more than two persons living in this roughly 10 by 15-foot space but that there's at least a limit on the number of people that would live there. supvervisor wiener: yes. if you go down to 150 square feet, only up to two people at the most can live there. i want to really stress 150 square feet son-in-law living area. it doesn't include cooking area, bathroom, closet. those areas. and that total would still have

to be 220 square feet. right now, the code requires 220 square feet plus kitchen and other areas. supervisor mar: thank you. seeing no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? >> the department of -- supervisor mar: is there a presentation -- >> i don't think d.b.i. is here. but i will state the building inspection commission unanimously supported this. supervisor mar: we have a number of speaker cards. supvervisor wiener: i have two speaker cards here. dan fraten and igen and francisco. two minutes per speaker, mr. chairman. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm dan fraten. i'm here today as a member of

the housing action coalition to speak in support of what i believe is a very good piece of legislation. this proposal is at the intersection of two things that the haq has been working on for a long time and that's promotion of housing that is affordable by design as wall as student housing. there's a shortage of about 40,000 beds of student housing. i think it's fairly obvious that small units are a very good fit for students who are going to be living in them temporarily. it's kind of like your traditional dormitory setting. we think that making this change will help bring student housing to market in san francisco. to be clear the change that is made by this legislation is a simple one. it's to reduce the living area to 150 square feet. that is exclusive of bathroom, kitchen closets that are separate.

seattle did this and in seattle, there's a company that's built, i believe, 11 projects for tchash contain mostly small units. it's interesting those units rent for one third the price of the average apartment rental in seattle and they have a 1% vacancy rate. if you give them a choice between living in a small unit, somewhere they want to a bigger somewhere they don't, it's fairly easy choice. i think in a city like san francisco where you have very high prices, that there will be a tremendous benefit to giving people the choice to live in small units in centrally located neighborhoods. that's what this does and i encourage you to support it. thank you. supervisor mar: can i just ask mr. fraten, i'm thinking about the space at a hotel in chinatown or mission. and seeing families kind of in a small space unless there's

really good infrastructure for parks or other places for them to get out, it seems like allowing developers to create smaller units is taking away kind of a quality of life from people. i'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on those concerns, that this is kind of not making people have a better quality of life but potentially milwaukeing it worse, unless we're really building more parks and better amenities for people in smaller, cramped living conditions. >> so i guess i would say a couple of things in response. one is that these are not s.r.o. units. your typical s.r.o. units -- on i'm not an expert but i think there are probably others in the audience who can speak of this, are much smaller than 150 square feet. they're often something in the range of 75 to 100 without any of these separate amenities. you know, the other thing i would point out is most of the

projects have been built with smaller unit sizes and there are a couple. the plaza apartments at sixth and howard, that's a very nice development project. it's housing for formally homeless. there are on generous interior spaces where residents have bigger common areas then we have in comparable developments with larger units, places where they can watch tv and access social services and so on. so undoubtedly if you just -- i guess crammed people into small units and didn't provide any -- any additional amenities at all, that could be a problem. but that is not what we have seen come to market in san francisco. nm that's very -- supervisor mar: that's very helpful. thank you. >> supervisors, ken fujikoia.

we actually just heard about this legislation today and i appreciate the supervisor's description. we think it's actually a very interesting idea. we support the idea of affordability by design. i think that the concept seems great. we would like to support it. i think we have some questions and we're hoping that we -- there will be a process or time to consider it. perhaps coinciding with the student housing legislation, which i was here just last week generally supporting the he supervisor's proposal before the planning commission. seems there's close alignment i think the previous speaker noted there would be demands for amenities and you think -- i think this density is the kind of thin -- the planning code estimates density when planning projects based upon minimum unit size. this will substantially change the calculation for and the

question is what will be the impact on transit, community resources, open space and and so on if this succeeds and takes off? it could be a great idea. we're wondering if there could be more time to contemplate how these factors -- how this fits together not from a building code standard but from a standpoint fwut from a planning standpoint. i think, again, the general notion seems right headed. the question is does this fit within the context of existing planning for neighborhoods and kind of density that we're building into existing plans. currently our plans do not anticipate new construction providing this level of compactness. and so given that we're the same time on the planning side loosening up development to allow for density on -- and discretionary developments develop up on density, the question will be the consequence

of that. if we had more time, it would be great for us in the community to take a look at it and be able to support the legislation. thank you. >> the two minutes given to me, have i been following this for a long time, 40 years. first and foremost, i see the erosion of quality of life issues. secondly, i see very clearly that two supervisors who are favoring student housing now do not favor families. they do not favor families. now, we have the budget analysts. we have the controller's office. we need to find out how many of our rental units were compromised by the academy of art university. and if they compromised thousands of units, they must be

fined and the millions of dollars from those fines can be accrued and used for quality of life issues and affordable housing. we should not go, we should not take this route. using a fancy name, design units or whatever to favor i would say mostly a single type of operation. or students. where certain type of developers, certain institutions fleece the students, as does the academy of arts university. and then we have the audacity of one supervisor trying to zero in on s.r.o.'s. where are you supervisors coming

from? where are you coming from? for the last 40 years we have been fighting for quality of life issues. where are the blasted supervisors coming from? thank you very much. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> i'm sorry, i don't have a card. i will call you anyone. and here orby -- >> he put in a card so he gets to go first. sue esther. we had a hearing last week on student housing. it was very well attended. it was a planning commission hearing. there's a huge difference between who gets notices of building commission meetings and people who get notice of planning commission meetings. very few community people followed 3wil8ding commission because it deals mostly with esoteric issues. i really think that this should be continued until you have the student housing legislation back before you.