new construction, the building code may have prohibited it from building rooms at that size because of the 220 square foot minimum. so this will provide flexibility to create affordable options for both affordable housing developers and for- profit developers. it can be utilized, whether it is creating student housing, senior housing, or housing for artists or housing for transition age youth or for the many populations we have in san francisco who do not have access to affordable housing, who cannot afford many of the housing options in san francisco, and who do not necessarily need a lot of space because of whatever phase they are in their life. as noted, others zoning, planning, health and safety, it said direct controls will remain in place. colleagues, i ask for your support on this legislation.

supervisor mar: thank you. let me clarify that the 220 square foot down to 150 square feet is not include a closet, bathroom, our kitchen area, but it is more of the bedroom and living area of the unit? supervisor wiener: exactly. right now you have to have 220 square feet of living area, apart from kitchen, bathroom, a closet, and this will reduce it to 150. these are the amendments i made last week, and is stipulates that when you include kitchen, bathroom, closet, it still has to be at 220 square feet. it is just the living area component is reduced. supervisor mar: it is for new construction. so king edward transitional age youth, which is the renovation of a hotel or bed and breakfast, is not included? >> the new destruction or if you were getting the interior of the

building. it is when the building code gets into play -- or if you were gutting the interior of the building. right now, you would only be able to do the kind of project in an existing building, not if you're doing it from scratch. this provides more flexibility. supervisor mar: it really does seem like this increases flexibility for a developer to create more affordable units. it does not necessarily helping to create more family units, but still, for affordability in key areas of the city and transit- oriented development and other priorities, it is giving more flexibility to the city. supervisor wiener: i agree with that. i represent the castro-upper market area, and in that area, even though as in all areas we have a need for larger units for families, we also -- and this is true in many parts of the city. san francisco has a significant percentage of adults who were not in a family situation, who are not married and not living

with their children. so in the castro-of a market area, we have a lot of single people who were either very young, some people who are retired and do not want to stay in the victorian anymore with 50 steps they have to walk up. they would like an affordable, smaller option. having the flexibility to build both large units and small units, i think, is a good thing. supervisor mar: thank you. if there are no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone that would like to speak? we're going to limit it to two minutes per person. supervisor wiener: i have one public comment card. tess. >> thank you, supervisors. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about this efficiency unit. i will be supportive of them

with a few conditions that i think we need to look at. i think that your arguments about having more small units available are very good. but what is the rush? why can we not have a full review by the planning department and planning commission to look at how this fits in with our overall policy? building department has approved it. good. but let's get planning involved. also, the question about making this -- calling this affordable by design. i do not think there is anything in here that actually says that those units will be affordable. they could become bed and breakfast units. there's a lot of possible ways that they would not be affordable. if there was something in here that does say that these are required to be at below market rates of x, y, z, that would be another thing. but i suggest that we -- i ask

you to send it to planning. there many new projects that are breaking ground in the upper market and octavia neighborhoods. around the van ness, too, there will be. some of those projects might wish to take advantage of this legislation and change their building configuration. will lead to do a little bit more looks through on this. thank you. supervisor cohen: could you come back to the podium? i hear your request to send it back to planning. i actually -- i would like you to clarify it. what do you believe sending it back to planning and having them reviewed it, in what way does it add to this project? >> well, while it does not change existing zoning of buildings, it could change neighborhoods quite a bit. for example, again, in the upper

market area, we have a lot of new construction. there is quite a bit plan for your area in town, too. if, instead of a project that is going to have, say, 10 units, you have 20 units, that is quite a bit of impact on transit. it has an impact on the neighborhood's livability. there are quite a few other questions about, you know, just how we want our city to be shaved. so -- shaped. planning has looked at those different kinds of policies as well as the zoning issues, and i think they can add something to this discussion. >> he said that there's something in the legislation as it, ok, if these deficiencies are used for affordable housing, low income housing, then you'd be ok with it. but since the legislation does not spell that out, you're advocating that it goes to the planning department? >> i did say that, and eyes

should correct myself and say that i would supporte it for lo- income. i would support it for any income level. but hopefully we're going to clarify whether it is for any income or if it is targeted to affordable. but in neither -- in either case, i would still like it to go through planning. they put in a lot of work and helping us to scope the city and look at the work that they have done on the lennar project, so i think they can bring something to the table here. i deferred to the people in the room who have more knowledge about planning than myself. i am a homeowner and residents, but i am also housing provider, and i support more housing in san francisco. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor mar: of would like to ask if and mary rodgers can give the planning staff's recommendation. i understand that cindy lou,

vice-president of planning, has said that it does need more analysis on the impacts of open common areas and open space. there have been a number of letters of people saying more time to analyze its impact of opportunities for low-income and homeless families. i think those were questions raised from correspondence we head from a number of advocates in the community. but what is the planning staff's perspective. >> good afternoon. i am with the planning department. this ordinance does not amend the planning code. neither staff nor our commission has analyzed this are evaluated it. we review legislation that is a planning code amendment, so every week we report to the commission about new ordinance is that the board of supervisors have introduced. we do report and ordinances that not planning code amendments, so we would report -- but if they are linked to land use in some way like this one, maybe. if they are not a planning code amendment, we advised the

commission we will not bring this before them for consideration unless they would so request. in this case, we did not initially received a request. we have had a commissioner who is interested in discussing it now, but we have not analyzed it to date. supervisor mar: from the last committee meeting, as i recall, there was somebody who might have been representing ccdc, and peter cohen spoke of concerns. they met with supervisor winter, and it seems as if those concerns have been hurt. >> yes, i met with them, and i was informed that they are not taking a position. also, norman from ccdc informed me that they do not have the death -- a position on it either. there are some scenarios where this will benefit affordable housing, because if there are more units, you could have a higher number of on-site inclusionary units.

>> perhaps if i can add one other thing. lastly, there were allegations that this could cause some sort of ceqa issue for environmental impacts, and that is not the case. although we did not review this ordinance from a policy perspective, we did review it from ceqa. so the ordinance before you has secret clearance. our environmental review staff stated that they feel that this is it the minute of the amount added, and it would not jeopardize any of the plans or programs. supervisor wiener: in follow-up to the question and answer from supervisor cohen, for a project to go through in san francisco, you have, euphemistically, a few hurdles to overcome and various codes. their cumulative to one another. they do not replace one another. you have to comply to the

building code, and building code 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 si