we think this is a great concept to bring affordable by design units to market. i know there has been a lot of discussion and concerned about this being a new thing under the sun. it is not. san jose, santa maria, new york, seattle, all allow these types of units. i just passed around an article about a developer in seattle who has built a number of small unit buildings. they have brought affordable by design units to market. they typically rent for a round $500 to $650 a month. that is 1/3 the average rental rate of a seattle apartment. they're extremely popular and have less than 1% vacancy rate. closer to home, if i can get the overhead, please. we have seen a number of

affordable housing developments that include units that are the same size as would be allowed by this legislation. 170 otis street is a project being built by chinatown development. the smallest units in that project are about 195 square feet. they go up to or above 300 square feet. you recently approved the transitional affordable housing project fo ryouth coming out of the foster care system. the units in that project are around 150 square feet. the primary example of a market rate project that has been built with smaller units around 250 square feet, the units in that project -- [tone!]

they sell at $199,000 to $250,000 per unit. a point of information, that is equivalent to 120% of ami. that is a crucial affordability gap not addressed. these units can do that. it is a good concept. i hope you will support it. thanks very much. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is known. commissioner? >> i am interested in this legislation, particularly as it pertains to new construction. given the old housing stock, it is hard to understand. it would require for me more examination to approve it for existing and new construction. in new construction, this has

many years of support by the aia. it might have been interesting to hear housing designers to deal with it on a day-to-day basis describe to us the advantages of having this type of new control. they would say yes because it gives them more flexibility to do affordable by design and deal with lot circumstances and other requirements in a more creative way. i am not as much concerned about more units and the question of open space. from what i understand, open space is calculated by the number of units not on a per person basis. that means if you have a slight increase in these kinds of new efficiencies, you would have a net gain in the open space and would be able to create more creative and open space from the buildings. i would be supportive of this

for new construction. i would still like a further explanation for existing buildings. when it comes to adaptive reuse, there are challenges that need to be codified. we took a crack at that when we discussed the stevenson building and the 2020 rule. that is further out. i do not think we are discussing that at the moment. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you for bringing this to our attention so we have a chance to comment. this is important piece of legislation that has a lot of potential. it is important to remember these districts have lot size requirements. this would not be applicable unless you wanted to put a tiny

unit on a normal-sized lot, which makes no sense. this would occur there. however, it will occur in places where flexible density is in place. as this moves forward as additional areas of the city may consider flexible density, remember this comes with it. i am not saying it is a bad thing, but people in the area must know you could have been very small units approved. i think the idea of limiting it to two people is fine given the square footage is small. i think where you have a situation with city-subsidized or affordable housing, you have to make some provision for a couple if a child arrives. something has to be done for them. something has to be done for them when that occurs. another issue was storage which

i guess could be off-site. you do not have to keep everything in your unit. i appreciate the amendment by supervisor wiener to only apply it to new construction. i think it is important when people live in a neighborhood and know what sort of densities around them, if all of a sudden the density is doubled or tripled, it is something people will be concerned about. it does have a lot of potential. affordability is by design was pointed out in the example of cube x. the units are in the price range of what would be affordable as part of our below market rates affordable units. it is affordable by design. presumably, the exterior of the units does not have to look like cube x. did. it could look more traditional.

the potential is there. i think i am supportive of this. >> thank you. commissioner borden. >> i am thankful for clarifying the open space requirement. that would be my major concern around these units. i think they make a lot of sense. i used to live in washington, d.c. in dupont circle, there were efficiency units that were compact. people were very creative to make the spaces habitable and nicer than the larger units. in a place like japan, they have places even smaller than what we are contemplating. when we talk about the housing market, the difference in washington, d.c., is an individual moving there is 25 and working on capitol hill. they could move into an efficient unit that was an expensive war live with

roommates. it is true even wonderful people who think they're doing the right thing living in multi- bedroom units with other people of similar income who can pay what one family could not. an individual who is john ward does not have a lot of money could choose that over roommate situations where you have unrelated adults taking up larger units, i think this is something we should encourage. having it in net new housing makes a lot of sense and helps significantly. i do not know how you would ever in forced the two people per unit rule. i think it is wonderful. you could put it in the code. we do not have the ability to enforce that. i think it seems a little silly to put in there at all, to be honest. i do not know if it is because california law states it that way. i do not think we should be in

the business of dictating how many people want to be in the unit. we will not be able to police that. in sro hotels, families to live in those units. the reality is a family wants to get into the housing unit and own could buy one of these smaller units, i would hate for them to be prevented. that is something to consider from that point. >> thank you. commissioner miguel. >> we keep talking about having two-bedroom or more because their family units. on the side, we discussed the fact these are two or three or four students or young workers occupying these buildings. the experience i have from my children and grandchildren in

living with their roommates from time to time is they would grab at this chance without any question whatsoever. they do not necessarily need more than this much space. they would rather do it without roommate's if possible. i see no problem whatsoever in the size. i agree restricting it to new construction because there could be problems that come up in conversion, and that is a totally different subject in my mind. whether these are rental or purchase, it does not matter to me. i really think they work. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> thinking of livability in the unit, i picked this up from some

other comment. it seems like there might be consideration given to the height of these things. to the developer that shows the model, are your ceiling heights taller than normal? >> we always build at least 9 feet. in most cases, 9'6". that is an excellent idea. a small space benefits enormously by having a 9 foot ceiling. we also have large windows. >> i was going to mention windows. i do not know if the building code takes care of that or if the building code -- department could take a look at the ventilation and light standards now with respect to larger units. i do not know if it is based on square footage or what. if we are reducing square footage, it might be a good idea

to take a look at light and ventilation. >> that is required under the code. they have a set requirements for how many square feet of windows space you need for every square foot in the place. that is an international building code, i believe. >> perhaps if we are reducing it, we might want to take a look at increasing the ratio, so to speak. also, the ceiling height issue. i do not know if the commission agrees with that, but those could be recommendations back to the supervisor. >> thank you. commissioner moore. ceiling height issue poses another set of possibilities. it came out of a discussion with david baker. there is the possibility to do a sleeping space across the bathroom-kitchen area. one could constructively look at

that, not the same height is not tall enough. but is the height workable and comfortable with added flexibility that might be an added advantage. what that height is, people who design these units know better. if there is a comfortable height by which it could be done. parks commissioner -- >> commissioner miguel. >> i am glad you mentioned that. my son's first condo in new york was exactly that. it did have a sleeping loft above the kitchen-bathroom area. it worked. >> thank you. could i ask staff a question? about the environmental review, i know you probably got this this afternoon. do you have a response to the request for understanding whether it triggers an environmental review? >> we just got it this morning.

staff is analyzing that. as i mentioned, we gave an over- estimation. the projects that will come in those districts that will increase density, they will also be reviewed by our environmental staff on a project by project basis. at that stage, that will also be evaluated in terms of the effects of increase in density. to that extent, that is a responsibility at this point. >> can staff either make a recommendation to send on to supervisor eliagi's office or report back to us? >> planning staff will look and

see if there needs to be an environmental evaluation done. we will get back to you. >> i would add that every ordinance is reviewed. it cannot be adopted by the board until the work is complete. >> ok, thank you. i wanted to make a couple of comments. i appreciate the move to limit this to new units only. i echo the concerns of other commissioners around conversions. i also want to point out, i am somewhat skeptical of the idea of affordable by design. as mr. kennedy pointed out, i do think it is student and young professional housing this is for. i want to be clear is much more of the middle income strategy affordable housing strategy than what i understand when i

say affordable housing. the examples of veterans commons and edwards were brought up. they were built by non-profit developers. the prices of cubic are around 100% of ami. thinking of the rent in these buildings, it is my opinion it will be more geared toward students and young professionals. commissioner sugaya. >> i would like to reinforce that a bit. in the example, they were aiming at $1,000 per square foot. that would require a substantial amount of money. interestingly in the daily journal of commerce article passed up, the highlighted part notes the rents are $495 to

$650. then it says today there is no vacancy. the part that is not highlighted says it is no surprise developers have been raising rents. >> commissioner borden. >> i want to reinforce i think that is true. unfortunately occupying most of the multi-better housing is people that should be in these units. i do not suggest it is a strategy for a low income individuals. i think this could be a great strategy for preserving the rent-control housing for those individuals. as a person who has lived many years with roommates, it would have been cheaper if i did not live with other adults. i can attest to the fact that i

know the market is full of people taking up large spaces that are not families. i think anything we can do in that space is important. to the extent we have a challenge in developing a housing in this price point in this market, if this helps to do that, i support it. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> i agree there is the potential for foresail situations at the entry level for young people or people of moderate income could afford. like anything, there is a risk. it may decrease or increase in value. you take that risk when you buy anything. i am not saying there is any reason to preclude that. i think that is a good opportunity to meet some of the housing needs we have. >> ok. >> shall me go back to item 12?

-- shall we go back to item 12? item 12, requirements for housing preservation and production. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kimia with planning. the ordinance would initiate amendment to the planning code by adding article 5 to implement the housing policies and goals. before i give my presentation, i would like to acknowledge someone here to explain the impetus behind the ordinance. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the legislative aide to supervisor elagi.

the supervisor is not able to attend today. i am here to share some of her thoughts. this has been an important issue for her. her main concern is to keep families in san francisco and keep the population avers. she believes to do this is important for the commission and planning staff to have a strong tracking system to better analyze housing entitlements against goals. the city has many goals that promote production of affordable housing. this ordinance would help measure and better document house and franciscans are meeting this goal. . how sentences since our meeting this goal. it helps to ensure all departments are responsive to the city's established housing goals. the supervisor feels comfortable with the proposed changes recommended by staff regarding putting this in the administrative code.

she also agrees with the proposed amendment you will hear about later to have a geographic overlay specifically providing district updates in each of the categories. should also like to express her thanks to the planning staff who have worked on this, especially kimia, sarah, teresa, and ann marie. >> i will explain the way it is now in terms of reports and hearings. i will explain what the ordinance would mandate for these. finally, i will describe the density proposals. currently, the department has three housing report. these would address most of the requirements published in the ordinance. some of these reports are not mandated and therefore might not be presented before the

commission and public. these reports are the annual housing progress report. this mandated report covers our progress on implementing the housing elements. this evaluates our success in generating housing generated by a regional housing need allocation productions. it also reports on the status of housing programs and our efforts to remove government constraint. it addresses most of the requirements proposed in the ordinance. the second report we are already doing is the annual housing inventory report. this report provides an annual survey of housing production trends in san francisco as well as a change in housing stock. while not mandated, the department has consistently done

this report since 1967. the third report we're already doing is the quarterly project pipeline report. while not mandated, the department has produced this report every few months since 2003. the pipeline inventory is all pending developments that would add residential units. these three reports explain housing production and trends in san francisco in different phases. the phases of housing construction are important. certain points are required. other reports cover the other phases of production. i can discuss these stages more if you like. the second part of my presentation is about what is being proposed by the ordinance.

the ordinance would create a new article 5 in the planning code to house the new reporting requirements. it will provide -- recommends to provide a new attachment for case reports and area plans also referred to housing. this attachment would show the number of untitled housing units at different income levels. it would also analyze how this is contributing to words our projections. the third is the ordinance proposes to provide the commission with a quarterly housing production report. this would contain the content of the attachment, which is also referred to as the housing dashboard.

it proposes to provide an annual inventory that analyzes how trends advanced policies and goals. it will track entitlement trends for inclusion mary and d. the exclusionary and -- it will track entitlement trends for inclusionary and bmr requirements. staff generally supports the legislation. not all of our report ports are mandated. the department developed most of the requested report. the ordinance would add new information to existing reports and codified the ones not mandated. codifying the reports for commission hearings would ensure the commission and public is informed on housing production and progress towards regional housing needs.

staff proposes two major modifications to this legislation. first is to include the proposed law and the administrative code. the planning code is not currently include regulations on department reports. the advent code regulates reports. staff believes that is a better place in the code to house this new requirement. the second modification is staff recommends to include residential projects at any stage of the production process rather than just entitlements. the proposal requires the number of entitled units to be counted towards meeting projections. as required by the state, only completed projects count toward arena projections.

it may provide an over the optimistic projections of housing production. to better depict the true likelihood of housing production and better compared with projections, we recommend using the same marker as arena. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? we have two speaker cards. the first is dominate -- domin ique tan and hattie lu. any other public comment on this item? >> peter cohen. we spent a lot of time on the housing element drafting process.

l ++ elements the city has had. it is nicely crafted. there were implementation measures at the back. number one would create what is number one would create what is called a dashboard, regular it is the best practice. we're institutionalizing our commitment. it is something we see we're

holding ourselves to in our day- to-day practice. we're not here to tell the planning department how to work. we think these are compliments to how data is made available to the public, policymakers, and the board. on specifics, the mood to the administrative code makes sense. we looked at that. the section is where other monitoring requirements are being packaged. it seems an appropriate place. how are details suggestion is to title that in an intuitive way. we would suggest calling it neighborhood area plans and housing monitoring. it is not monitoring planning. it is monitoring the area plans and housing elements. the various subchapters are specific to requirements. on the recommendations of changing the reporting requirements, there are two i would like to emphasize. this is no