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 the financing -- bond financing. wewe're in the final stages of that process and hope to have the project closed within 15 days. we have bond financing. we have state transit oriented funds, 4% tax credits, we have some money from the former redevelopment agency, tax increment fund. this is one of the first projects we're doing that has been transferred from the former redevelopment agency. we are happy to be working on it. again, we will close in two weeks, start construction.

we have a two-year construction period and we hope to have the tco in april of 2014. i have pam simms here, who is the lead on the project. and jennifer dole and lindsay to answer any questions. would you like me to submit that? the first one is page two, line 13. we want to add him or his designee the last one is page

511. we want to add a phrase, covenant or any easement. i will print out for you. >> thank you. it is on fourth street close to a channel street in the mission bay area. >> beautiful area. this is an area that typically the mayor's office does not have a lot of projects in. all the sites are our site. we're working on them. it is a wonderful opportunity and a beautiful neighborhood. if you have any questions, i have other staff or could answer for you. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? we have two speakers.

>> good afternoon. i am corinne woods, i chair the mission bay citizens advisory committee which will survive the dissolution of redevelopment. this project is very important for us. we have been planning for years. it was complicated to put together the financing. we're looking forward to it. not only is it family affordable housing, i do not remember the number of units reserved for homeless families. we're also going to have child care on the premises. we will have a team room, will have a community meeting room, and it is pretty. we cannot wait to see it start.

we have two projects right now. this will echo what is going on and please approve it. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you. this is what we need. this is a fabulous organization that has contributed a lot to housing for which everyone should be proud. we do not have housing for fire, police, nurses, teachers, etc. that should be called personal housing. what will we do if we have an earthquake? call them in oakland and say, hurry up, we're having an earthquake because we do not have the key personnel here to

handle it. think about it. this is your priority. please concentrate on getting them here. after you have these key personnel groups and you can consider other things but this should be first and that will take an awful lot of planning, priorities, and attention. please direct your attention in the right areas. focus on that. that is what we need. that is what the people 1. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else would like to speak? >> if you're not nert trained, i would encourage you to. she offers a bit valid point. supervisor mar: i see other nurturing people here. if you want to speak to, please come forward.

>> did afternoon. i am a member of the mission bay cac. -- good afternoon. we will be living across the street from the project. i should not sit across the street, it is across the creek from the project. i would say that the neighbors are looking forward to the project. the mercy housing has been assiduous in making sure that the community ideas are part of the project and coming to the cac and speaking to us. we're familiar with the project. one point that has not been mentioned today. they're also very good at identifying and soliciting and obtaining ground-floor retail. as most of you know, mission bay is very weak in retail and we're looking forward very much to

improvements mercy housing brings to us. we certainly support the project and hoped that you will, too. thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? public comment is closed. can we approve the amendments without objection? thank you. can we approve this item without objection? thank you. ms. miller, please call items 5 and 6 together. >> ordinance amending the zoning map to change the map and classification. amending the general plan of the easter waterfront plan as part of the 8 washington street project. >> we're joined by president david chiu and we have a number of city departments that will present first before hearing public comment. we have every rodgers from the

planning department, kevin gheiuy, -- anne marie rogers frm the planning department. the presentation will be as extinct -- assisting dess possible so we can get to members of the public. >> we're back again today to present the recommended height changes to the general plan and the zoning map. this is where the commission began their consideration and proposal with these two ordinances and with the fundamental credit -- question of what is the proper height at this location. the commission went on to consider the other entitlements you have approved through the conditional use authorization and the planned unit development. because of the nature of the appeal process, this board was forced to consider the ceqa appeal and the cu appeal prior to looking at the more fundamental question of height.

is that policy discussion for today. the project planner will review the general plan policies that led the commission to believe a height to change was appropriate. both ordinances make the same change. the first changes the height map in the general plan. while it is changing, the commission would submit this change is consistent with existing policies in the general plan. the second is an associated changed to the map for the same area is our policy is that i have been part of the city. as existing for work at least as early as 1947. hills should emphasize height and the downtown plan discusses the creation of a human built downtown mound that should emphasize this downtown activity center. it is the natural.)1( shape of e city's hills that we are seeking to emulate.