again, support the 375 unit cap. thank you so much. hi there are my name is mart tie dell hall ass and i'm a stone at city college and i would like to say that there were -- there is suppose to more pierce from city college and other universities here but unfortunately they would to work today, because you know they are trying to also survive in the city a lot of them coming from out of san francisco and who have grown up in the south of market and around san francisco. so, most of my friends pay around like a thousand dollars for student housing but you know they are trying to look for a new place to live because they cannot afford that. that is why they work and try to pay off also their tuition and is so a lot of my friends are in death,

death debt and so am i and when you look at this, it's -- they could achieve and if you look at it five years later and when it hits the buildings what will happen in five years how will it be you have to think in against, like five years later. ten years later you have to see you are creating a city for people you are not just create ago city like in a game? so, i would like to say, this is not really for students, so thank you.. >> good evening commissioners i'm here to read a letter from jeffly fern unanimous des who's a student. the student housing only benefits one person not a family

or group of people who's looking for affordable housing, thus it's not even affordable house because the shoe box is so over priced imagine a man working hard and he only gets a thousand dollars a month and he cannot pay the whole room and even if he can he will not be able to buy food for himself because most of his salary goes to the rent. this is the letter. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is [name?] and i'm the chair for the san francisco coalition for neighborhood. we we decide that

had the efficiency in in sort of microunits are not something that the city needs. the city needs family housing. families are leaving san francisco and we are short on affordable family housing and this will take away opportunities for that to happen. so, can we -- the committee met last monday and we know that this has been approved already but the cap and we would favor a cap of 300 units and a compromise. i'll agree to that. and we would also like the trigger point to be 200 rather than 750. it's fineso how hs going to work out. but i think the numbers are too high and we

feel that the experiment, should be more limited in nature. the -- one of the main issues i see, is that. [inaudible] are going to be something that high-tech corporations will see that as a fantastic investment opportunity and they may buy half a dozen for themselves and represent them out themselves and for them, that size of an investment is nothing, so, i think we need to preserve the opportunity for the type of housing that san franciscoians need. and also, the type of individuals -- i mean that purchase and live in these units is very small dormitory like units, will be like -- well, i don't think they will be there

long term and i don't think that they are going to have that much regard for the community in that they are not necessarily invested. they are not going to be here long term and provide support and is issue is that we need to support and bottom line, experiment is fine but i think the numbers are too high and as i said. we favor limiting and capping to 200 but 375 is just fine. and we also think that the trigger point should be lower for the department to the board of supervisors. excuse me but as my predecessor cor cores said those of you standing in the door need to move to the side or create a seat, you are creating a fire hazard.

>> good evening commissioners tim collen on behalf of the san francisco action housing coalition and i would like to support the housing coalition to create .edu's efficient housing units with one exception we said that .edus are a badly new response a extremely expennive housing market and they have been in other countries and are now appearing in other cities and supervisor wiener's legislation recognizes this and should be aa plodded for affordable house for many restriction unfortunately of the proposal is seriously under mind by the market camp rate on .edu's its poor public policy for two reasons while the housing coalition could support

a cap planning department review we don't what you understand could be learned from such a very small sample size which, is one% of the city's housing stock. what conclusions would planning staff be able to reach by studying 375 units in a sample this small would they be able to determine whether or not it's a successful housing project? how it compares to other housing types or what changes might be recommended it's we dispute it's a statistically valid sample size and do not believe that the conclusions based on a sample size this small could be relied on and have a my potential for error and second the cap sends a wrong message to market blooder and is that the city doesn't support this market and that investors should proceed at their own payroll and while this

approach is common in san francisco it's distrust traiting to our members. first if the cap is adopted it's not clear what the harm the city would be avoidings and second it's another example of the contribution of the values weest spouse and policies we adopt while a city we claim to support housing air fordable and housing for all we have a long standing policy for making housing squares and expensive never more so than today. in conclusion the proposed legislation to create this new housing time is sensible and overdue and sadly it's under mind by an idea that seems to exist to prevent a housing product that by it's very nature is designed to be another alternative in an increasingly expensive city and as this cap intends to do will the hogs option to our resident be improved and more crucially

will housing in san francisco become more affordable? i urge you to reject the cap for the image minute and replace it with a more serious alternative. my name -- okay? my name is patrick kennedy and i'm a real estate developer doing two house housing projects in san francisco now and i would like to support tim colin's discussion that the cap be raised. the benefits of -- first, i would like to say, that i share the concern mentioned earlier today about providing more family housing and the planning commission the city needs to remember that the housing rental stock is one large market and if single people single working people cannot find housing suitable for them. they will rent family

housings and two-three wage earners can may more than one wage earner in a family. so, i think that the people speaking earlier are losing sight of the importance of providing more housing and lots of efficient housing in order to address the idea of the high rents in the city. and the easiest quickest and most environmentally sensitive way to provide more housing is to build microunit in areas that are well served by tran as it and the experience of seattle, vancouver, santa barbara, sapta maria and los angeles all suggest that micropearmt apartments are providing a very valuable service to working residents of the city and there are numerous examples of successful projects that do not compete with single

family homes and which provide a very valuable service to the working people of the city. s pack and others did a survey of san francisco residents to fine where they stand and find out that bay two-one margin, voters of san francisco support microdevelopment by 30 to one margin they interiored it if they were more familiar with this legislation. so it's a building type that has wide-spread support throughout the citizens at large. particularly valuable aspect of microdevelopment is that microdevelopments is that it goes in dollars are well served by tran as it and which the city would like to see more pedestrians and more street level activity. so, across the board, i think the city and the

residents will benefit by having a chance to live in microapartments and, i think that the sample size of 375 which, is basically a two-three projects needs to be enlarged. thank you. >> view he is tear. i want to go back to you about one o'clock when you had the first 340, monitoring at that hearing -- mercy who's the developer of one hawthorne street, told you all of the -- there is only five families i e five children in one hawthorne and that is a building with a lot of two-bedroom units. the academic

approach that the planning department has, is build two bedroom units and you will serve families. what did he say? he said he was shocked that they only have five children in the entire building. one hawthorne you can look it up on your computer. how many one bedroom units -- and how many two-bedroom units? the planning department has been committed to the planning commission to two-bedroom units as a solution to families in the city. but the real world test is, who buys the two-bedroom units? people that have the income and they make it an office. they commute from their second bedroom. so the real-world test is, two bedroom

units vs. the reality that you -- remember he talked about his own experience in his own project. you have to cap these number of units. the number of units that we need in the city is for people that can afford housing and everyone knows that what we are approving, week after week whether they are two bedrooms or one bedroom units, it's units are unaffordable to the average person let alone the low income people in the city and i would refer you to mr. mercy's comments at one o'clock. thank you. . >> is there any additional public comments. good afternoon dishes commissioners i'm with the

housing of san francisco and i am to show you a letter had a we had submitted earlier and that i hope you had all received and i hope you all brought copies as well and there are about 13 community organizations represented and we are all supporting the proposed legislation brie supervisor wiener to have the cap of 375 units. there are a number of reasons why and they aren numerical rated in the letter and i want to start by explaining a bit why we came to this compromise so you understand where this came from and i'm sorry that supervisor winier and two are not here to tell you a little more but i also wanted to make it clear that they both have helped to bring to us this point where we have this compromise. so you have heard about a lot of the

issues already mentioned today. and, basically, what this is about, is that we think, this is experimental type of housing which, is all fine and good but we should treat it as such as an experiment that we want to watch closely and not allow to just go unchecked without us first knowing about the potential impact and that is because browse we have all thought careful fully about what those impacts might be and we have come one a long array, including because these units are actually above market, now, we have heard all of the argument about why they are affordable and yes, cheaper impaired to larger studio apartments but by square footage, they are indeed higher rent and therefore, what would be the role in potentially

escalating rents in the adjacent buildings and nabses that is one thing and the other thing that you have heard a lot about is the displacement of families because instead of building family housing, we are building housing for single and is whether we have such rare land available we have to think about what is what we want to prior tices and so it's a public policy decision in that way. and we are concerned that, rather than addressing the current needs of our communities, as they stand now, we may actually be building housing that is enticing out of towners to come whereas, they would have lived in silicon valley perhaps or they are just getting their foot in the door with the tech industry, they are renting space in the san francisco that others such as these families that you have heard of today cannot afford. just want to quickly list off the groups that have signed

onto this letter. china town community development corporation, san francisco tenantsune. senator disability action, that is not a comprehensive list and also the couselor of community housing organization which has about 20 members in itself as well and so there is a broad broad support in the community for this -- what i think is a good ken census model. thank you ma'am your time is up video. >> yeah, thank you very much. glue afternoon commissioners dan fratten with ruben and geniuses and i would like to start by reminding you what the efficiency dwelling unit legislation is, it's not a radical change it's legislation that would reduce the minimum

allowable unit size by 70 square feet for a very long time, san francisco has allowed a 220 square foot minimum area for living area this makes it 750 square feet. we see from a 220 square foot units what kind of effects we might expect and they are already a part of our housing market and there is just not going to be a big change. i think a lot of the opposition to this -- excuse me this legislation is really driven by a lot of unfounded fears and a lot of prejudice about who will be live engine them this this mornings chronicle the short arch overed this rational for the cap. crash pad apartments will be for people who work in the silicon value quay who need a play place to sleep and party. new comers who come here to

have fun and then hop on the google bus. i think so it's unfortunate that in 2012, we are still having debates about you know which shouldn't build this kind of housing because may be we won't like the kind of people who live in it. you know, i would also like to speak to the issue of affordability. this is -- this has been an ongoing issue for the past 30 years discriminatory zoning laws and how discriminatory zoning laws actually increase the cost of housing this is from the america university law journal from 1971 it's called discriminatory zoning the legal battle ground the 70's the subsequents of discriminatory zoning laws including larger lot requirements prohibition on multifamily housings and minimum floor area standards, serve to

inflate land able vision and construction costs make developing of low and moderate income housings and uneconomical and raise rent and purchase prices of low and middle class wagererners and it would be hard pressed to find anything in the literature that speaks to the contrary and you would be hard pressed to show anything that shows these units rent for less than comparable rate unit and the cubickings projects is a good example it sold -- unit there sold for about 90 to 100% of the area median and this is one of the most under served market segments in the city and so with that, i ask you to reject this cap thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? if none, the public comment portion is closed, opening up to

commissioners ant knee knee. [spelling?] thank you i have a lot of thought on this and i'm going to preface my remarks by commenting on comments made this evening earlier who commented on what mercy said earlier and had reported that there were few children in his project on hawthorne what she did not mention is my question to mercy because i asked him why aren't you building more larger units and because tissue man's designer has redesigned 201 folsome as a result of what happened at 1200 spear because there are 1200 resident now fully sold out that is three people per units and admittedly there are some single and is couple and is they have an extraordinary number of families there with children and therefore they ever designed the new project 201 folsome to accommodate two and three

bedroom larger unit there and so that really doesn't have too much to do with today's discussion but there are still families in san francisco who are living in some of the new projects that are being built. regardless of that, house something not a sub zero game and again we are having presentations like if you build market rate housing if you build new housing, it's diminishing the stock of affordable house, it's actually doing the opposite for a couple of reasons. #1 every time i build new housing there is an inclusionary requirement which means that a certain amount of affordable housing has to be built number two it takes pressure off i have people that i know of even in my own family who group together in three and four into group housing that could be used for cups and children and occupy their buying powers and crowd the families out if you put these people in their individual

units they will have their own kitchen and is bathroom and is i think there will be an interest in it and putting a cap ton it unamerica and the market should tell what it is going to be sold for and we will house all of the people that need these kinds of unit even if they only stay for a while in their lives it will provide more funds for affordable housings and provide stock for families to live in. so, it's not really about -- you know it's not about not providing family size house'sing but i think a lot of it was hinted at tonight about opposition of keeping certain people out and one speaker mentioned that. we talked about income levels out of towner and is you know those people have just as much right to live in san francisco as somebody who

lives here now and if they choose too, then they certainly can and another thing about this i don't think we should support exceptions for students 68 fordable housing and if these are acceptable size for housing they should be acceptable for anyone. it's like it's too small for market rate but it's okay if somebody is getting it for a lesser amount there is a side size that we should democrat deem as acceptable and if it's acceptable to have a one 50 square feet plus kitchen and bathroom then it should be acceptable -- you know we shouldn't allow exceptions if you are giving somebody something in return. so that shouldn't be the point and another speaker talked about using it as hotels for illegal use, well if it's zones for individual housings and they are using it as hotels then they are in violation, and therefore, that can be dealt with and the laws can be passed in such a way

that this can be police and had keep people from using this as hotels. the other thing, i wanted to mention is see, the size of the unit. i know there has been some suggestion, i think, i believe correct me if i'm wrong but it is one 50 square feet for main living space and kitchen and bathroom is in addition, to that with a total size of 225? . >> the building code amendment reduce the living area to one 50 square feet and the bathroom has to be separate and the total including the separate bathroom and any closets can be 220 square feet and the existing building code allows for a living space of 220. >> okay so we are going to

one 50 to 25020 and i'm not sure about the kitchen is it included in the main space. >> it's included in the main space, okay that may be one thing that i would like to suggest to the respond cor if there is a way that we might want to separate that out although the kitchen doesn't have to be a separate room but it could conceivably be a five-foot wide area by ten may be which, is the cooking area and it's something to think about and i'm okay with it as it is but it might be better if it was a little bit larger in that regard and finally while i have you here, the three modifications the first modification is obviously is no cap and i would vote against this legislation if has a cap even though i think it's very promising i think we should pass it without a cap if the supervisors want to put it in because they have more political needs perhaps, but i'm

comfortable doing what i feel is right on this vote. and so, the other thing is you said the common space would be ten square feet per unit collectively. >> per unit and the legislation calls for at least one interior common room and the dimensions would be dictated by the number of efficiency units in the project. >> so if you have add ten units you have added 100 square feet minimum i'm not sure about the math and where you locate this in the code is something that you have to advise me on if it's section 340 that would be advisable and there was one more modification that you asked for and it had something to do with the 318 notice and i'm not sure what that was. >> our recommendation was actually to not include a new planning code disetion section 389 because we have concerns about introduce ago new definition in the use category and so rather just refer to the building code to the efficiency

dwelling units and that way any requirements with the efficiency dwelling unit would be a applicable across the board and student housing. >> okay and it's the same for all categorize of housing and what you are doing is minimizing what is efficient in the housing unit but not putting a new category in it. that is correct if i can expand right now it's residential use is a complicated it start out fairly simple there were two categorize residential units with kitchens and without kitchens and that was a dwelling unit or group housing in the planning code dwelling units all have kitchen and is there is no size definition in there. and then, the sr o, definition does rely on size,