these types of units have been built in other cities. in seattle, for example, there is a 150 square foot minimum living area provision. there have been several efficiency unit projects built. many of them have been built near the university of washington. presumably they're very popular with students. in san francisco there are very few dedicated student housing units. these types of units seem like a very logical fit. while there is growing interest in these units on the private side, most of the ones built to date in san francisco have been built by non-profit housing developers. these are high-quality projects like the plaza apartments. there are also some under construction at over street. these are housing units for people with special needs, youth

aging out of the foster care system, formerly homeless individuals. the change that this legislation makes will make every housing dollar go further. we think that that is a very positive change. i want to point out that these small units are often supplemented by a generous common areas. in affordable housing projects that is often a community room, a place where people can have services like the one that patrick kennedy is working on. there will be quiet study rooms and social space. thank you. >> i do not know how you will see this. what should i do?

>> pass it around out here. >> ok. it is kind of heavy. that, by the way, is a typical unit -- >> state your name. >> my name is patrick kennedy. in a developer who has been building in berkeley for 20 years -- i am a developer who has been building in berkeley for 20 years. including projects in the south market area. 200 units will be leased by the california college of the arts. i am giving you a handout to stress and have information about the three points i would like to make. number one, the supervisors legislation simply brings the

building code into agreement with our housing code regarding allowing units that have as small as 150 square feet of living area. the second point i would like to make is that these units are 220 square feet. i included a diagram of the second page that shows you exactly what the change from a minimum living area of 220 square feet to 150 square feet means. as was pointed out earlier, if -- commissioner, i think that if careful attention is paid to design, it is very possible to create a comfortable, satisfactory, and economical units for one or two people. that unit is designed for one or two people. you can see that it has lots of storage, cooking facilities,

seating areas. in other areas to fulfil the basic needs of housing. the last point i would like to make is that in a time of diminishing resources and the absence of redevelopment, i think the city needs to embrace the production of more affordable housing. what i have built in berkeley, i was the largest developer there for 10 years. 20% of the units all went into my projects and were set aside for very low-income residents. in the space of seven years, my firm became the largest landlord of section h holders in the city, even larger than the city of berkeley housing authority. bat was all done through private funds, with no subsidies from the city. because the units were inside the projects that we did, by allowing this modification, you can insure that these low market

rate units stay on the premise where these projects are built, a goal that the city has been trying to promote for longtime. i might add that if these stem the tax code, if these projects generated an enormous amount of revenue for the city, it would provide below market rate housing. it would benefit the large market in san francisco. >> as been pointed out, 42% of san francisco individuals are one-person households. this year alone we will see at least 1000 new employees coming into the technology industry on self market. the overwhelming majority of

those people are single. if we do not make a concerted effort to provide a landing at of housing for those people, the bill cannibalize existing single-family homes elsewhere. a few who will engineers can outbid anyone for any house in the city. another benefit of building high-density units like this is that they can go to places like the mid market area, where there is great transit, where there is a great need for economic development and these individuals will be quite happy as they will be close to work. allowing for smaller units like this will help the city bands in number of its goals in many ways without any subsidies from the city. all by harnessing the energy of the private sector. one last thing i wanted to make.

including an article about the s are units in the city -- sro units in the city, of varying quality. if the city is ever going to make a dent in refurbishing that stock, they need to embrace refurbishing an innovative idea like this amendment, because only then will we start to see units replace the substandard and in many " -- many cases squalid units that many of our residents live in now. >> any questions? thank you for bringing in the module. it really kicked the tire visual. looking at the designs in your submitted to us here, there is an open space. >> which? >> on this page.

i wanted to underscore the demolition is not as much as it might think. it all does stay the same. an important part of the buildings, typically are buildings have no parking. people usually use bicycles, transit, without driving. as a result the ground floor is largely given over to uses that enhance the experience of people upstairs. there will be a kitchen-like area.

we hope that other areas will provide a stimulus for the people living upstairs. these still have to abide by the open space requirements that the city has. >> as a curiosity, is that open space on the roof? >> typically and most sites you have to build a courtyard someplace. we will build a large roof deck. at night they have a 2000 square foot courtyard. >> thank you for the presentation here today. >> is there any further public comment? seeing no one, is there a motion to vote on the proposed ordinance? >> so moved.

>> second. >> there is a first and second on the motion. all in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carried unanimously. thank you. we will return to item number three, discussion and possible action by the commission to adopt proposed findings regarding 550 jersey street. if the department could come forward and speak, if you have any comments on these findings? >> the only update that i have on this, as we did not spend a lot of time and that last month, the update for the cfc for final completion has been issued to the property or -- property owner. they were all reviewed and

inspected by staff. we can answer any questions. >> ok. >> public comment involved? i apologize, comments on the findings? >> good morning. i am a member of the little house committee -- committee. i wish to object to the denial of this appeal. this commission is required to be the supervisors -- supervisory body of the dbi, so that we can be assured that the

laws are enforced. our city administrative code clearly states that a department of failure to render a written decision terminated within the request to do so can be appealed to you. therefore, when such a request is ignored, as in this case, it is a serious matter. serious enough to allow the public to come before you and allow our case to be made in person because it was the director's failure to do her job. however, you did not explore the fact that we presented bush should have been a fact that was the basis for your decision to uphold or reject our arguments. therefore, you have compounded the error by not considering the evidence of this case. if you have contributed to the illegal grading of the provision of the building code.

i request that you continue this discussion to your next commission meeting, to promptly consider your responsibilities under the charter and administrative code. thank you. >> many as just about there. i am an architect in the city. i speak to correct the findings. we respectfully requested that the director investigate and make a determination. the word demand seems odd. we never asked for a permit to do a fine search on for in five. he will modify the word permanent. the city attorney agreed that we have standing in took our appeal. i refer you to the revocation of this permit, august 3, 2011. it is signed by daniel lowery, chief building inspector, stating that records show that no work was performed.

106 a 441, permit expired work cannot happen after more than one year it has -- after it has elapsed. we have more than nine years in this case. our request was to rescind the reinstatement. our request was to rescind the reinstatement. when the permit was prepared, it was subsequently reinstated because planning had given permission. the planning department did not have authority to enforce section 106a of the building code. at the hearing, it was pointed out that carla johnson, damian quinn, and myself all agreed that no work had begun on this permit. as such, when the findings stated that the deputy director should have stamped the application to indicate the renewal permit for complete

work and maintain final inspection, i say to you that there is no such thing. there is no authority to renew the permit that has expired for nine years. the findings do not address that point, which is the final central point of the argument. all the paperwork involved in this finding, going to planning back on what happened, but putting words in my mouth, permanent revocation is not acceptable. misquoting no. 9, which should have been in force, and the last word of #11, it was not a complaint, it was a respectful request of the director to look at a permit that had been issued in error. a fact committed by her own staff, mr. lavery. we have findings that do not go to the issue.

we were turned down in 2007, which is fine. but if there is no recourse and, if you have, as a chartered body, waive requirements, it does not allow this. >> is there any public comment on item number three? seeing no one, commissioners? is there a motion to adopt the proposed finding? >> motion to adopt them of >> second. >> there was a first and second to adopt the proposed findings. all in favor? aye.

the motion carried unanimously. item number four, general public comment. we will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. seeing that there is no public, item number five, discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on litigation committee. >> right now i would like to open up if there are any nominations. >> before we do that, let's review who is on the litigation committee right now. >> currently, commissioner walker and commissioner clinch.

there is one available seat. >> why not nominate those commissioners again, and then add commissioner mccarthy? >> ok. so, that is a motion to do so. second? can you repeat that to the commissioner? and to president mccarthy? we have a first and a second. i will do a roll-call vote on this item. what's called a question? >> there is a motion to reappoint the commissioners and nominate the commissioners

mccarthy again. on the motion, president mccarthy? vice-president -- [takes vote] okay, the motion carries unanimously. what's the next item? >> item #6. discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the nominations subcommittee. currently, i believe there is only one person remaining. we have to seize the nomination committee. >> i would like to nominate the commissioner. >> is there any other one?

>> i would like to nominate commissioner mar. >> to both of you except? >> yes. >> if someone could state a motion to nominate commissioner mar, elgar, and lee? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there a public comment on this item? >> seeing no one, and the motion to appoint the commissioner to the nomination subcommittee, i will do a vote on this motion. president mccarthy? [takes roll call vote] [all vote yes]

the motion carries unanimously. congratulations. item number seven, discussion and possible action regarding the proposed ordinance. i am sorry, we heard that out of order, i apologize. item number eight, discussion on code enforcement property ordinance. >> president, commission, in the director of services. there have been some numbers bandied about that are not very complimentary. one is that there are 10,000 complaints outstanding and out of that, there are 5000.

that is over 20 years. in the same time stamp there were 151,000 complaints made, with 61,000 nov's issued. the outstanding complaints, i would like to address those further. roughly half of those belong to house inspection services. i will let the chief speak to that. the other half belongs mostly to bid. we have been doing some housecleaning. what we are finding is a good portion of these can be abated. when i say abated, it means someone went out to get the permit and the work was inspected. we are finding tons of those. if you give me a few months, those numbers will change greatly. as with any large organization,

such as dbi, there is room for improvement. certainly, there needs to be more oversight. there probably needs to be a better system for checks and balances, when people are not doing what they are supposed to do, abating complaints when they can. we have instituted some changes. we have put an extra person in code enforcement to speed the process of notice of violation to order abatement. out of the 5000 orders of abatements, over 1000 are currently order of abatement. when i say that, it is currently the end of the process. there are 80 cases at the city attorney's office as we speak. these are all complex cases. earlier today we spend an hour- and-a-half talking about on painted walls.

you can imagine, when it gets into in-laws, things of that nature, they are built and take a long time. the inspection process can be onerous at times. out of the 5000, you have a them over 1000 cases that are board of abatements. a lot of these notices of violation, some of them are code enforcement waiting for a director's hearing. many are still on the third floor. we are looking into them. as we say, we have instituted some changes. those numbers would go down, i would probably venture to say, that at the end of this we should cut it at least by half and, to be honest with you, out of 151,000 complaints, we will not get into every unit. for us to get an inspection

warrant, we need probable cause. a lot of these ones that i have been going through and canvassing, our policy right now is we get to complain, the district inspector is supposed to go out two times. at the end of the second time, you are the district inspector. when you drive by and the garage is open, you see work going on, you are supposed to come in. that is how these occur. we changed districts every two to three years. so, if i have someone from district 12 and move into district four, the new person does not know the cases that are open. one of the things we will start doing, thanksgiving, that is when it slows down. no one wants you in the house

during the holidays. we will print out the complaint list. we will expect staff to identify anything that they can do within notice of violation. putting an emphasis on code enforcement. we have had one person up there and we have switched to another inspector to freshen about. there will be more added emphasis on code enforcement. i can answer the emphasis on any questions that you have. >> can you walk us through, like if we get a complaint from someone who comes in, what is the process through our department to the completion of resolving it. most of the complaints are coming in on the 558 #. whether it goes to the sixth floor or the third floor.

it goes to the fourth floor and they sort them and put them to the correct division. they are all reviewed and assigned. going through a lot more complaints than i would care to over the last month, yes, they all give received. it is very few where someone actually did not go out there. most went out there twice. mica said, we have a pretty good record of gaining entry. getting back to your question, the complaint comes in and gets routed to the pop -- to the proper division. if no one is home, they are

expected to reschedule or go back out. we have a little paper that you can stick on the door, saying -- i was here. please call the following number. the second time did you go out and you do not gain entry, you send a letter. with action you stop and investigate. once we issue a notice of violation, it is all time specified. the building permit will go to planning. often it is structural damages.

having those plans reviewed by staff, some of these can take a long time. if we do not feel that the property owner -- and it is always the property owner, not the contractor, is not taking enough, this is where changes. housing is more like a case management. they do like a landlord tenant. a long time ago it was decided that it was destined that the housing inspectors take that case from the complaint to the order of abatement. on the third floor of inspection services, being the building district inspector, you are out there and kind of more with the lay of the land. you know a certain contractor, certain houses.