says what ever is this, and this would change the building code in terms of the square footage. in addition to that, you have to go through planning department review. you might have to go through conditional use. you might have to go through discretionary review. there might be planning code and zoning controls of the maximum number of units. so if someone came forward and said, well, now that i can do a small unit, wanted to 20 units instead of 15 units, that will go through the planning process in the same way and in neighborhoods with at the same voice that there would have otherwise. this just will make the building code aspect of it more flexible. and in terms of low-income and affordable housing, i think that the goal here in allowing somewhat smaller units, it the developer chooses to use them, is to benefit both subsidized affordable housing, which it

well, and market rate housing by making that market rate housing less expensive so that people who might be middle-class or who did not qualify for these subsidies will have a more affordable option. continuing with public comment. ernestine has submitted a car, too. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the housing action coalition. this is part of our work on student housing. we have been working on that for two years. what has become increasingly clear to us is that smaller units are a necessary and logical response to a very, very high cost housing markets. and, as supervisor weaner noted, we're seeing them in all these cities in california, new york, and in europe -- as supervisor wiener noted. we have to solve the riddle of

better land use to get more people in there. as was earlier mentioned, there is nothing in this building code change that says that these units will be allowed where they are not allowed currently. they can only go where the planning commission has said we want increased intensity. we have either relax or eliminated density controls. we're already building this type of housing. it is a very, very good and effective way of getting more housing more cheaply. it is sort of puzzling to hear this sort of inflated or in flamed claims about this. it is something that seems so modest to us and some of that is such a necessary part of delivering something that we need so badly, in this case, coming right up to student housing. we think it is a very modest proposal, and it does not change

the rules anywhere, and anything that would require planning approval is still going to get it. i would hope that you move it forward. thank you. >> mr. chair, supervisors, i have long been involved in advocating for student housing. one of the things that we put in the legislation which is currently at the planning department will be up to you in several weeks is to make sure that it is flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the whole variety of institutions and students. for instance, older students, graduate students, law students probably want to live and on. therefore, you need space for them that is up 300 square feet, but maybe 150 square feet. whereas the younger students may want to live together and they

would need larger units. so this fits the legislation and fits into the general program that has been going on in developing student housing. under the legislation that a former supervisor succeeded in getting through the board two years ago -- of course, every housing project for students has extensive review, including that sponsoring institutions must change their institutional master plans, which requires approval by the planning commission and perhaps the board of supervisors, i cannot remember. so there will be a huge array of reviews involved in any state in housing project. this building code issue israelis aboard and sent to the larger planning issues -- is really support an end to to the larger planning issues. it is more of a technical issue than a policy issue. thank you.

>> i am sorry for my casual attire. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods committee on housing. our position -- we really are concerned about this, because we think it may have a big impact. we recommend the planning department does review this, because they can provide an estimate as to the increase in the number of units. and the reason why i say that we're concerned is that in the recent past, just recent past, there have been some zoning changes. namely, nct. nct districts, the density limits have been removed, a completely removed. these are areas such as some

parts of the eastern neighborhoods, market octavia, i think balboa park, and the mixed use districts in eastern neighborhoods. so all these areas have had density limits removed. another concern is that rto and of those areas, increased units are allowed so long as the building envelope is not increased. so when we say that there should not be too much concern about density, well, we have not seen the full impact of these changes. [bell rings] i think that is what the planning review is absolutely necessary. and one of the other issues is that we're concerned that this type of housing may be a method for the city or developers tone

expense of family sized housing. that has not been address. we have concerns about this. thank you. supervisor wiener: is the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods in opposition to the regional arena goals? >> i think the issue is that the housing element says in their data, the finding analysis, that we need a certain type of housing and certain types of jobs developed. yes, what is being developed is, for the most part, 85% market rate housing. so you have the needs and what has been developed. there's hardly anything being done to make that mesh, to make it compatible. and this will, in effect, increase the number of housing

because of the small units. but that does not really address some of the major issues of moderate income families leaving san francisco because of affordability and lack of housing for them. what is being developed is low end and high end. supervisor wiener: people who live alone need housing, too, don't they? >> yes, but most of their needs are met. the very low income and low income, as far as fararena goal -- as far as the arena goals, they're not 100% met compared to market rate. but as far as moderate income or middle and come, what is it, 20% met or even lower? much less compared to the other types of affordable housing. that is worthy goal should be, to produce more at the moderate

income level of housing for the people in the work force in the city. the work force, for the most part, are commuting. or they're fortunate enough to live in rent-controlled housing. that is a sustaining factor. supervisor wiener: would you agree that we need to build lots of different types of housing? >> yes. supervisor wiener: yes, absolutely. thank you. >> a good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. having been engaged in the community planning process in south of market for more than seven years now, we have paid quite a bit of attention to this whole issue of micro units, market rate sro's, mini units and so on, so much so that this board granted as interim controls several years ago, which played out for full 18 months and kind of calmed down

the original push for this kind of change. given the chance for all the parties to be at the table. owners, businesses, neighbors, and the overwhelming conclusion was that these kinds of units placed an increased demand and public amenities and particular community services and open space. while small units might have the potential to be more affordable by design, there's no question that they are more profitable by their sheer number. therefore, one of our primary recommendations was that inclusion their standards raised for this type of housing. also, to ensure that this is dignified housing, that there be a 300-square-foot minimum. we also recommend variances, that we maintain minimum rear yard and dwelling unit exposure requirements. private open space is 36 square feet per unit to be required,

and of course that there be no parking requirement. [bell rings] this is not a simple building code revision. it goes to the very heart of good land-use planning in the context of building complete neighborhoods. thank you very much. supervisor wiener: thank you. ms. hester. >> there is a major difference between a building code amendment in a planning code amendment. there is a public hearing and a lot of people know about it. my guess is that the number of people who knew about this hearing -- and i get the agendas. i am one of the few people that get them that is not in the industry, and that was minuscule. it really needs a planning commission discussion, not a planning department discussions. as was mentioned a while ago, the planning department has, for the past couple of years, pushed no limit housing standards. it comes up in every study we've

had in the eastern neighborhoods. everything in the south of market. everything in market octavia. the planning department is saying no limit on density. what you have in your district, supervisor wiener district, is two units but that is not the issue. it is the south of market in your district, supervisor cohen, that will feel this. they have gone through rezoning. that started eliminating all limits on rto and mct. and the planning department assumes that we are balancing neighborhoods. we have massive discussions on open space requirements, on community services, and how you provide decent amenities for people who live there, including students. and there is nothing in there that talks about community spaces in the building or in the area. and i challenge the assertion

that there has been a thorough environmental review with a fair check-off review. i do not think anybody would get it in the standards of what happens if you apply this in the rto's or any other district in which limits are not allowed. why is there a problem with having a public discussion? i really do not understand that. [bell rings] it should go back to the planning commission to discuss this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with the housing action coalition. i would like to say that i think that somebody who has followed this piece of legislation from beginning to end, that we have had enough process. we had two hearings before the code advisory committee, which recommended 10-1 that this legislation be adopted.

we went to the building inspection commission and a public hearing or the building inspection commission unanimously recommended that this wreck -- legislation be adopted. we're now at a public hearing of the board of supervisors. i think we have had plenty of process, plenty of opportunity for comment, and i would urge you to act on this today. there seems to be a little bit of confusion about exactly what this legislation is and what it is not. to be very clear, it makes one a discreet change to the building code that reduces the allowable size of units to 150 square feet of living area from the 220 square feet that is the current minimum. it is not changed dwelling unit density limits. it does not change the amount of open space that you are required to provide. it does not allow you to eliminate a rear yard or skirt any other requirement under the planning code or the building code. it is one very small change that allows slightly smaller units to

be built. as far as impacts on the neighborhoods, like to point out that this legislation also does not change any of the requirements that impact fees being paid. [bell rings] in the eastern neighborhoods, there are extensive fees to finance public facilities, street improvements, and so on. those are typically paid on a per square foot basis. again, the city is going to get the same amount of money from these projects as it would for a comparable project with larger units. finally, i think it is important to note that most of these units are going to be built in transit-rich areas. [bell rings] not in single-family neighborhoods. thank you. supervisor mar: i have a followup. the housing coalition has a q&a, and it lists the number of cities in california but also seattle and new york. when did those cities change their policies to allow 150

square foot living areas? >> you know, i do not know the answer to that question. i suspect that in new york, they have simply allowed small units like this for some time and that this was not a recent change. in seattle, i do know that the change is more recent than that, and as a result of it, seattle has seen an about -- about 10 or 11 apartment buildings built with small unit projects. it is really interesting that in those buildings, the rents tend to be about one-third or one- quarter of what the comparable rents are for a larger apartments in the same neighborhood. they also have a 1% vacancy rate, about a quarter of the citywide vacancy rate in seattle. it suggests that there is a tremendous demand for these kinds of units, and that in fact they do result in housing that is more affordable than

larger housing. >> -- supervisor mar: it looks like new york might even allow smaller ones, 132 square feet. the classified class a versus class b units such as dormitories. they might be allowing smaller units and the 150. thank you so much. >> thank you. supervisor wiener: is there any additional public comment? may we close public supervisor mar: commentmar -- may we close public comment? supervisor mar: public, disclosed. we will reopen public comment without objection. two minutes. supervisor wiener: i did call your name, so please speak. >> my name is ernestine. i do not know how many times i stood before city agencies and said we need affordable housing. that is the primary goal of this city. everybody is saying we need all

kinds. we need luxury. no, we do not. 60% of this city is made up of renters. you know that. you know the city. we need housing for veterans. they are laying on the street. it is but that it, and they have no place to go. you have got to change the philosophy. affordable housing should be your number one priority. at this time, your reversing your signals. you're saying one thing, and you're speaking out of two sides of your mouth. then you go vote for luxury housing. which is it? you better concentrate on affordable housing. that is were the votes are if you want to get voted for. university should supply student housing. the have done this in the past. i do not see why we have to have separate housing for a student. they should provide it. you have got your priorities backwards. i cannot say enough -- you must do affordable housing. that is number one.

if you want to accomplish anything in your name in this city and if you have any love for san francisco, you will do that. but i do not see any movement. you say one thing and then you vote for luxury housing. these people that have luxury housing are not here enough to spend money [bell rings] they're here for a week or two during the year. they do not contribute anything to the economy here. as far as jobs are concerned, we have big projects going on in the city. please understand what the people want. you're here to serve the people, not politics. thank you. supervisor cohen: are you for the definition or against the definition? >> i am for anything that supplies housing, although i do not think 150 feet is adequate. it sounds like living in a closet to me. really, i mean, i think you can do better than that. however, any housing is better

than in the housing at all. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor wiener: ok, any further public comment? supervisor mar: now we will close public comment. i would like to jump in quickly to say that i think this is good legislation. i think you have done your homework to reach out to different groups. i do feel like there needs to be more discussion on its potential impact, especially in different geographical locations. i think something was brought up from a planter's perspective in community, what makes the common areas and open spaces. i would like to have a discussion about additional communications and discussions with the planning commissioners, like cindy wu and others. i feel this is ok to move forward today, but i do feel like there are a number of unanswered questions. we did get communications on the impact on san francisco state housing and some other issues, but my hope is that there is

still a dialogue as this moves forward on where it will be affecting different neighborhoods. i am curious if you can respond to that. supervisor wiener: sure, and i appreciate the sentiment of their two things to consider. one is -- and a couple of speakers linked this to student housing legislation. they really are not linked. many different kinds of housing that this building could change could apply to. student housing is just one aspect of it. in terms of the student housing issue that some people have raised by e-mail and otherwise, the student has the legislation that i am sponsoring, which is back in the planning commission again and will be coming back to the board, that is a planning code issue. and that really is the place to be having the discussion about, whether it is sf state or any other in diversity's, on how we

are -- any other universities, and how we're housing are students. some of the public comment makes me think i have to say this again. it was said. whatever the density controls are coming in my love the density controls in the eastern neighborhoods or market octavia. you might hate it. there is eligible and discussion -- that is a legitimate discussion about opprobrious density. that has nothing to do with this legislation. the density controls are what they are. they only allow two units are two units or whatever it is, it is what it is. it has to go to the conditional use process. of the neighborhood comes for it and says these units are too small, we absolutely do not want that, the planning commission will take that into account. all this does is allow more flexibility in the building code, and this is one of many hurdles that any project is to overcome to get to approval. i think this has gone through

the appropriate process, and i think it is ready for consideration. so i make a motion to move it forward with recommendations. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: thank you pyeatt want to share a story with you all. once upon a time, i was a humble -- more humble than i am now, but a humble city staffer in the mayor's office. i used to live in an efficiency in the excelsior, and it was comfortable. it was clean. i had running water, no troubles. interestingly enough, i think i agree with ernestine's comment in the fact that housing is needed. and whether it is a small efficiency room like an sro, for in this case we're talking about the definition of an efficiency unit, and there is still a demand for it, i believe.

it the efficiency is too small for someone or a family, i believe it is up to that person to move on and to find some housing someplace else. but i do believe it is our responsibility to create housing that is affordable for all income levels here in san francisco. and for those who do not know, i am a san franciscan, and i have four younger sisters, all of us in various stages of our career. i see in my own family the struggle of living and maintaining a life here in san francisco. it is very real. these decisions we make our very real to me. also, being the only african- american on the board of supervisors and paying attention to the dwindling numbers of the community, housing, access to jobs, quality health care, quality public education, and many things factor into white

communities leave a city in some communities are able to thrive. i am in support of the definition of the efficiency unit that supervisor wiener is putting forward today, because i do believe that we need housing inside the city. i am also having a little bit of an internal conflict, because i also believe in the public process of transparency. so, for me, whether it is -- what is it, the department of building inspection said this went through or the planning department, i am not quite sure which is the better of the two venues. oftentimes i sit and listen to people almost spit on the planning commission decisions and the department's analysis, so it is interesting to hear that their advocates advocating to send this to planning. and this is not a reflection --

certainly i do not have a judgment on the planning department. but i find it interesting that is an argument that is being used today. so i am going to stop there and said the rest of my comments, because we have a wonderful agenda today. i cannot wait to get to the other stuff. i have some good comments for those. supervisor mar: sounds like there is unanimous support. so we're moving it forward without objection. thank you. ms. miller, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, ordinance -- one, establishing the name of the waller street stairway at waller and broderick streets and connecting to buena vista park as "adah's stairway," in recognition of adah bakalinsky, author of the book stairway walks in san francisco. supervisor mar: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i think there will be less public comment on this one. this is legislation that will name an existing city outdoor stairway at waller street as

adah's stairway in recognition of adah bakalinsky, the author of a famous book. this would commemorate the stairway and the commemoratives street plant ordinance. and the city would accept the plaque as a gift. this is an iconic book that has been enjoyed by visitors and residents alike for almost three decades, allowing people to explore our amazing urban environment and to discover staircase is that people who lived here for decades never knew even existed. this would be a fitting tribute to ms. bakalinsky, who believe is about to turn 89. and so this is a stairway that has never really been named. it will still technically be waller street in terms of addresses and the like, but we will rename it as adah's stairway. that is the measure. supervisor mar: thank you.

is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. are there amendments? supervisor wiener: there are some technical amendments, and i have distributed it those. it is in terms of the way some of the geography is described, but they are not substantive. so we can adopt the amendment and move the item forward. supervisor mar: can we approve without objection? colleagues, can we move this with a positive recommendation? thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor mar: item number four. >> resolution authorizing the property acquisition with mercy housing at 1180-4th street. supervisor mar: and we have a member from the office of housing. >> good afternoon. i am with the mayor's office of

housing. before you today is a resolution. we're asking for your support and authorization for 1180-4th street. it is and affordable housing project. it is being sponsored by mercy housing. 150 units, family housing. it is going to go up to 60% ami, and i have a few corrections to the resolution. i think there is a typo. so it is going to be 150 units, 60 units -- 60% ami. one, two, and three-bedroom units. there will be a lease with the city with, i believe, a 24-year extension period that will be allowed. the project is being financed by a number of sources, including