>> good morning. today is wednesday, april 18, 2012. the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [calling roll] we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president announcements. >> i will keep my announcements brief as we have a full agenda today. just a few things that were brought to my agenda. the mayor's town hall meetings are starting up again.

i will try to attend the meetings, and i would encourage any of the other commissioners that have nothing to do on these beautiful summer evenings ahead of us. i think it will give us a good deal of what is coming up in the community in what is expected in the department. the dates will be finalized and sent out to everyone. if you can come it would be great to have everyone there. i will try to attend most of them. the deputy director has been invited to the land use committee on the development in impact fee collection unit. there has been a lot of discussion about this lately, for better or worse. i come from the development community and have seen directly how it has worked. in my own particular case and development, it did help me get started. i would be really interested to see how that plays out.

nini think it is not a bad ideao have a state of the union to see how it is going and how effective it is. we will be dealing with that in looking at that's in the future. i wanted to bring that to everyone's notice. i believe it is april 23. correct me if i am wrong. i think that is the date. april 16 at the land use committee. i will be looking to see how that goes. i also will attend that as well. may is national building safety month. i just wanted to bring that to all of the commissioners attention. with that, there will be a lot of local building departments. we are interested in getting multiple codes in compliance. dbi will be providing outreach materials.

the board and the mayor will issue support of proclamations. in support of small business, dbi will waive bombing replacement these. i thought that was a great idea. thinking out of the box. also, they are participating in the request to all city departments off to bring in high school in turns as a part of the project full department. building inspectors can get ahead and engineers can get a headstart in understanding the complicated dynamics of how the city works. i know the deputy director is looking forward to it. this is a great idea, and i think it is very good. we should encourage that and send the word out to families that would be interested in that. we have a few recognitions.

this one is to msr. freelier price. i am writing today to recognize the job well done by tom on my staff. she was very happy with the service, and the director has sent out a letter stating that. with that, no more public comments. i believe it is the president's announcement. back to you, madame secretary. >> item number three, discussion and possible action by the commission to adopt proposed findings regarding 550 jersey street. there will be public, it, three minutes for the department to make any comment on these findings, and three minutes for

the appellate involved in the case that may comment. as a reminder, commissioners are not allowed to comment on or ask questions relating to the public comment. >> madam secretary, i noticed the supervisor is here for item 7. if there was no objection with the commissioners, if we could move that up to the next item come and take the first item in that slot. i am asking if there is any objection. so we can move to item 7. >> at this time we will hear item 7, and we will return it back to item three. item seven, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance amending the san francisco building code by amending section 120 8.4 to reduce the square footage requirement for efficiency

dwelling units pursuant to section 1795 8.1 of the california health and safety code, and making environmental findings. >> can we have the first speaker on this item? supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you, commissioners, for hearing this item and giving me the opportunity to speak today. this legislation would amend the building code to bring the definition of an efficiency unit in line with what is allowed under the california health and safety codes. specifically defines and efficiency in the as being a minimum of 150 square feet of living area, exclusive of bathrooms, closets, and cooking area. the cac has expressed support for this advisory committee and

express support for this legislation, with one requested amendment, which i have made, indicating the entire area, including the closet, bathroom would still need to be 220 square feet. that amendment i have are ready included i believe verbatim. all other code requirements, including ada requirements, health code requirements would still be in effect. in addition, the total number of documents would be limited to two people. -- total number of occupants would be limited to two people. many other cities have adopted an conformed codes to state minimum, including san jose, santa barbara, santa maria, and seattle and new york had similar size definitions. i do not need to tell you that we are in desperate need in san francisco for housing from all levels.

well we do our very best to provide public subsidies to create affordable housing, i think we all know there are limits to what we can provide for to make sure we provide the funding. we talked a lot about affordability by design as a way to supplement the more affordable housing programs and giving developers and affordable housing nonprofits the flexibility to design housing in a way that it inherently is more affordable. this is one of those ways where we can give the flexibility. no developer will be required to build 150 foot living area efficiency, but they will have the option. i think it will be very useful in a number of different contexts. for example, student housing. i am carrying legislation not to introduce more student housing.

existing housing stock. having this flexibility the be helpful in encouraging educational institutions to create that housing. we need more senior housing. not just for low income, though we do need a lot of that. there are also a lot of seniors who are going to have problems in do have problems with architectural barriers in their own homes. you may not be able to walk up 50 steps every day to get to your home. we wanted to give options for seniors to be able to remain in having these kinds of efficiency units that are by their nature, affordable, will be helpful with that. for transition a youth, we have been wanting more housing. for the former the homeless people. we have seen an emerging trend in terms of what is called collaborative or cooperative housing, of where you provide a

relatively small individual living space for people and they share common areas. i have a big fan of this kind of housing. i think that whether it is for students, seniors, artists, anyone else, it provides a great option in terms of different kinds of affordable by design housing. this will help in that respect. with all of that said, i would be honored to have your support and happy to take any questions that anyone has. >> thank you, supervisor. i have a couple of questions. is this for new construction? only? >> no, i think it would be a general change in the building code. >> and the requirements around the inclusion area would flow to these as well? >> the commissioner met with me this morning and that was a

discussion i was interested in having in terms of how this interacts with the inclusion housing ordinance in it -- and making sure that we have the right kind of ordinance. i am very interested in having that conversation. but this ordinance does not affect the inclusion housing ordinance. that would be a supplemental discussion. >> the current assumption of affordability is just based on size? >> yes. >> i had a similar question this morning when i spoke with supervisor wiener. first, i think it is long overdue and it is wonderful that you were putting this for. 100 years ago, we build but we now have as sro's, to deal with that market of folks who are single or have limited space needs that they need to live and work here. i do not think that we have adequate language in the code to allow for that market to be met.

i think that this is really wonderful. the building department has a deal with the ordinance -- does not deal with the ordinance in that way, but we are charged with looking at the units after they are billed and checking off that they are comparable. whereas the inclusion very ordinance had specific requirements for offside units, how many square feet, you know, but for on-site units we do not have that. i am a bit worried about staff having to check off that box in saying that these are similar when we are not specifying what the relationship is between the market rate units. but i think that that is not something that will be in this legislation. it will be up to you both, who are working on the inclusion mary amendments to deal with that. i am hoping you will flag our concerns. but i think that this is long

overdue and it is great if you are doing it. >> that is great feedback on the inclusion very issue and i hope that we have something in writing that we can show to other people and can get a discussion going on. >> any more comments for the supervisor? my final comments are that this is great. i think that what is so strong about this is that it has been tested in other cities, like new york in seattle, which is a great sign. supervisor walker? commissioner, taking you back a few. [laughter] >> one of the issues in some of the sri's -- sro's, i know that some of the efficiencies require kitchens and bathrooms, but the potential

was also here that the common area oftentimes gets mentioned, but it does not get created or up capped. so, as we go through this new kind of test of efficiency units, i think that we really need to be careful about enforcing common area usage. when you name it as something that you actually keep it in. some claim to have community kitchens, there are no fixtures, no kitchen. i think it is lighter than air, when you have a dancer -- denser situation, you need to pay attention to open space, light and air, things that become more necessary when you have a denser population. >> i would like to make a comment. i have the same thoughts that

commissioner walker had about common areas, and a host of other things. but i realized was that what is being proposed here is the minimum standards, right? i think i would like to say that i am supportive of this as a minimum standard, but i would like to leave it up to the developers, innovators, and builders, to create something that is appealing to the customer. sorry, to the people who will be using these buildings. if the developer decides yes, we should have a common area, they should market it. i do not know if we can add that into the building code, but somewhere, if necessary, we have to figure out how to include that. the other thought i had was -- 150 square feet is not very large.

we have two bedrooms in our house and our master bedroom is 150 square feet. our second bedroom is smaller. that is 150 square feet. having two people living near might be a little tight, but there are ways to make these rooms look bigger. for instance, the ceiling can be raised higher than 8 feet. i notice that our window in that matter will is larger than what it needs to be. i think that these are things that developers have to take into account. although these are minimum requirements, we can do more than just this and i hope they realize that. one thing, specifically, for these official dwelling units, there is my concern about the square footage allocated to the kitchen area.

as you can see in the code, it says the initial be provided with a kitchen sink and refrigeration facilities, each with a clear working space not less than 30 inches in front of them. i would like to clarify that that space is going to cut into. if it is, it will make the usable space even less. where will people start putting their furniture and their belongings? so, i would like to see if that can be addressed and maybe we can exclude that kitchen area out from the 150 square foot minimum. >> 220 includes the bathroom and kitchen. >i believe the living area does not include that. you cannot gm the kitchen in.

that is how i understand it. >> that is correct. that is one of the amendments that was made on the last go around, to make it more user- friendly. >> one more question, what are the parking requirements in this kind of development? >> this does not change parking requirements. whenever the ratios are, they increased affordability by design. so, that would be left to the specific zoning for each project. >> commissioner? >> again, thank you for drafting this. i think that that amendment, expanding it to 220, was very helpful. i think that that is what the enforcement committee was concerned about. i had one other question. i know that when this was first posed, a lot of emphasis was on student housing or other

alternative types of housing for, you know, a population that needs it right now. one of the other questions in the committee was the question of how you force that. because this was like for anyone and it was not going to be operated by educational institutions. and the developer could build it and they could have won development with students in other units for anyone. have you put in any thought to earmark the population? >> during the first meeting there had been a suggestion of limiting it to student housing. my understanding is that that would be illegal. we can do that. but in any event, putting aside what is legal and not legal, from a policy perspective, it makes sense for it to be brought.

whether it is for students or helping the formerly homeless, offering the market rate at less-expensive efficiencies for people, it could be the senior who is not low income, but not wealthy, and looking for a lower cost of housing, or a young person who just moved here and is, you know, working at starbucks and trying to do art on the side. someone who does not need a lot of space and wants something less expensive. i think that giving options for various types of housing is where we need to go to increase affordability overall over the inflexibility. in addition to creating housing, without getting into the many different ways that we need to address the housing supply, this also helps with the housing supply problem.

>> supervisor walker? >> commissioner. [laughter] is there any -- we do have this current issue of a power -- apartment houses, apartment rooms being transitioned into tourist rooms. this seems like it would be ripe for that. unless there is a way to prevent that. have you thought about that? or are you thinking about that in terms of the other legislation going through? >> the president is working on the legislation around that. as i understand it, that would be a fairly global approach. >> this would be one of those things that could be easily transition, so we should be careful about it. >> we already have laws on the book that are not effectively enforced. it is about enforcement and i am looking forward to a dialogue around the president's

legislation, but this would not be exempt from those discussions. >> perfect, thank you. >> any more questions, commissioners? thank you, supervisor. i believe we have more speakers on item number seven. if you would like? public comments? >> is there anyone from the department? anyone from the department speaking on this item? seeing no one, public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. i am here wearing two hats this morning. i am here on behalf of my client and as a member of the housing coalition. you'll hear from patrick kennedy in just a moment. the housing action coalition is a strong supporter of a variety of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the people of

san francisco. we are pleased to see this legislation moving forward. we think it will be a tremendous benefit to private sector developers and nonprofit developers. there is no doubt that there is a need for this type of housing. more than 40% of san francisco households consist of just a single person. there are countless others who would probably prefer to live alone but cannot afford to do that. last night as it happens i got a call from a friend who is moving back from portland to said they wanted to live in the city, but they could not afford $1,500 per month. that they were passed the point in their life that they could live with militant vegans who did not allow houseguests. no offense to vegans, but sometimes living with others does not go well. we would like to see these made available to the wide variety of people who would