the hard work, the unions coming out to testify today. i think there does seem to be a legal path to enforcing the covenant. i want to stress: poor and that is for the city, for local hire -- stress how when portents that is for the city, for local hire. on the question of an exclusionary, i want to support the mayor's office of housing and not restricting where fees go to. i was thinking through its and thought that you do not want to set the precedent that inclusionary housing fees can only be spent in the neighborhoods in which they are generated. that is a tricky balance. i do value of the importance of having mixed neighborhoods, economic diversity. i am happy to see that this

neighborhood has so many dedicated parcels. there is an opportunity to create that kind of neighborhood that we want to see. that is my comment. commissioner moore: i would like to say that -- we had eight -- coming up with a combination on hickory and the more traditional building facing the south side, i think it is phenomenal. not even talking about using three architects. i think it is a wonderful example of how to really create

tively use the freeway. all of the legal foundations in place for labor, for affordable housing, etc., i am comfortable with and i greatly appreciate mr. lee being a strong supporter. in the end, i believe the position the department takes is a correct one. however, market octavia -- having said that, i am very comfortable st. exceptional designed -- seeing exceptional designs. how we measure height and how we look at hickory alley, whatever.

fees are being used for infrastructure improvements, the extension and the completion is in the spirit of using the money. it would -- it is perfectly justified. it is not just a self-serving thing. together with the idea of potentially having an agreement for hickory, at an innovative way which reinforces our market octavia it is developing. i think market octavia is one of the most exciting neighborhoods that is happening and i am really happy that we are -- we

continue to support innovative design, good design, and neighborhood associations will support the project. i really do not have anything negative to say. the only thing i would have liked staff to do, look for a -- the reason i'm asking, we want to encourage the architectural design and its detaining express is an attitude towards windows. if you use a very thin board, which might be used on this project, you might get a flatness around the window and the kind of detail and that does not wear very well.

we should be encouraging staff to work with the architects, all three, to fully explain that so the building delivers the type of quality of architecture we are all supporting and we need to see at this scale of the building. commissioner antonini: a few comments on design. i think it is pretty good. the modifications from regulations are fairly minor ones. allows for bay windows to be on the corners, which i think it is a nice feature. most of these exceptions are ones that actually improve the project. a few points on design.

i think it is well designed. there are a couple of places on one of the three, i believe it is on the oak street, perhaps a stronger element that is more complementary to everything else in the neighborhood would be better. it does not have to be a traditional in terms of the architecture throughout the western addition, but something that makes a definite break at the end of the building towards the top. also another thing i was happy to see it was talk about different materials when you're a break between stucco and wood, two elements to differentiate. if that could be done to make sure that we emphasize the individuality of the different units, to make them look like

separate units, would be a another good feature. the colors look like they are good ones. hopefully, -- i am using the word tasteful, that is hard to say because everyone has different taste. the windows, some sort of framing or moldings around the windows were possible to offset them a little bit more would be good. on the landscaping, i have not looked at the plant in great detail, but i hope we have usable areas within these courtyards which would have areas where people could actually sit and enjoy themselves, rather than decorative areas they would look at. that was softened -- their own

little parks within the building. it is very good. in regards to parking, and i would encourage project sponsor to work with car share and see if there is a possibility of including more car share. there may be plentiful street parking, a lot of people might not want to have a car, especially if they leave it on the street and it is broken into frequently. they may prefer to use cart share. it gives them a third option. it will attract a lot of potential renters if they could utilize a car share. commissioner sugaya: thank you. a little detail that does not have anything to do with the project. on your drawing sheets, you have central spelled wrong.

[laughter] before you go to the public or whatever, after this meeting, you may want to take a look at that. i have a question with respect -- the city currently on is this parcel, is that correct? -- wonowns this parcel, it is tt correct? since there seems to be consensus among the neighborhood, locally within the area, and i think among the commissioners, there is a preference for having inclusionary units within the development. quite apart from mr. lee's comment about the fees. with respect to the other -- under the current legislation, we cannot force the developer to do that because he has three

options that he can choose from. however, if this is a city-owned parcel, could you have conditions of sale on having inclusionary units within the development? >> i can answer that question. yes. you could do that. commissioner sugaya: given that answer, does the mayor's office have any comment at this point? i do not think we can condition that, obviously. >> the purchase and sale agreements is a voluntary agreement with team -- two parties. it is a negotiation. commissioner sugaya: i understand, thank you. i do not want to put you on the

spot. but maybe there could be some further discussion. i do not know if the commission wants to encourage anything like that, but it is just an observation. this is a little different situation where developers come to us with a property that has been privately transacted. they can choose one of the three. it seems to me if the city is selling the parcel and it is a -- it is in the public interest to do so, you have strong support from the neighborhood organizations. it seems to me that we would want to encourage some kind of discussions to take place. commissioner moore: i would like to ask the city attorney as to whether or not in our motion there needs to be a request for an in kind agreement regarding

hickory street. i do not want to step out of line here, but i would like to see that we extend our support for that to happen. >> that was one of the modifications in the materials before you that i read at the beginning of the presentation. it was adding condition to the motion for that agreement. >> a resolution to urge the developer to make that agreement. commissioner moore: acceptable to the developer. >> yes, it is acceptably to the developer. -- acceptable to the developer. page 32. commissioner moore: thank you for reminding me. commissioner antonini: i would speak against any change in the on site affordable. we have already discussed that.

in this instance, it makes no sense. you have another parcel right next to it that will be 100% affordable. the mayor's office is the latitude to be able to apply these funds were state and federal moneys have dried up. if there is no funding, they never get built. we have a lot of affordable projects that are sitting and not being developed because there is no funding. it only makes sense that this stays as it has been proposed. commissioner sugaya: i am going to make a motion to continue. until the mayor's office of housing, giving them an opportunity to talk to developer about requiring on-site

inclusion mary housing. they can bring it back one way or another -- inclusion very housing. they can bring it back one way or another. commissioner borden: i do not think that most people said. given the parcel o is abutting this project site and there is another site close by, this is an important issue, for this parcel, it is less of a concern. not that it is a -- not that it is not a concern over all. you basically have to affordable projects of but in this project site and the fact that we recognize that the 55 laguna is in the neighborhood.

the reason we did not support that is not because it is not a great idea. in this project site or in pacific heights, were there are not any projects coming on line, we might have had a different result. commissioner sugaya: the rfp for the other parcel has not been issued, is that correct? >> that is the office that issued the rfp. excuse me, the rfp for o has not been issued. commissioner sugaya: is it conceivable that it could not be 100% affordable? >> there is a very remote chance, but since we acquired the land with redevelopment tax

increment funds from the city, the board put a requirement that if you use 100% for affordable housing, that is a requirement that still remains. there is a very remote possibility that the board would change its mind. but at this point, it is dedicated for affordable housing and that is the intent of the mayor's office that it be affordable housing. commissioner sugaya: thank you. >> there is a motion and a second to approve with conditions as amended, correct? >> [inaudible] >> that was read into the record by staff. on that motion? [roll call vote] so moved.

that the motion passes unanimously. president fong: we will take a >> welcome to san francisco's planning hearing. please silence any mobile devices and state your name for the record. we're going to take item 13, building code amendment, definition of efficiency unit. >> we did not do 11. >> we have to continue 11. >> 11 was continued to july 12. that was at the beginning of the calendar for those interested. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the ordinance before you today

would amend section 12.084 on the square footage requirements for efficiency unit. this item is a building code amendment. it is only drafted for you at the commission's request. the item has been heard by the building code advisory committee, the building inspection commission, and the land use committee of the board of supervisors. this commission did not request the item when it was first introduced. there have been requests for you to hear this item now. because of unusual timing and access which the commission president and vice president, this is an informational hearing before you. no action is required. before i begin, i would like to

acknowledge the representative from supervisor winer's office who can describe the supervisors intent of the proposal. >> supervisor winer is in budget committee and cannot be here. >> the legislation amends the building code bringing the definition of an efficiency tune in -- unit in alignment with the health and safety code. it is a minimum of 150 square feet of living area. this does not include the required bathroom, cause it, or cooking area. the legislation requires the total aggregate of the unit be no less than 220 square feet. this was heard by the dba code advisory committee and endorsed by that group. it was supported by another

body. all other code requirements remain unchanged, including ada accessibility and path of trouble. we further limited the legislation to apply to new construction only. this would not apply to any existing unit or housing stock. in other words, the concern raised at one point that this could perhaps lead to a tenant protection issues, we heard that and have limited this legislation for new construction only. the legislation also passed a number of residents in the efficiency be no more than two. many other cities in california have exercised this ability under the state health and safety code. san jose has done this. santa barbara. these numbers are similar to the

minimum requirements for cities like seattle and new york city. san francisco has a desperate need for housing across all income levels, particularly in the workforce, student, a senior, and transitional populations. this would promote housing affordability by design. reduced cost for construction are passed on in the form of lower rent and lower purchase prices. this can be done without subsidies. these units could be an attractive and affordable option for people entering the workforce, students, transitional use for the formerly homeless among others. these units could support a growing national and international trend of cooperative housing where people have smaller private spaces. share large centralized common areas in buildings.

i want to synthesize developers are not required to build to this side. this just provides an option. -- i want to emphasize developers are required to build to this size. we have dead in the concern and ruled this is -- we have drifted to the concerns and ruled this size is consistent with health and safety concerns. all other seismic and life safety standards, these units would also have to meet. none of that changes. as it relates to one of the issues that has come up with regard to this body, that is potential increases in density, i do want to remind respectfully the body that the only places this could result in increased density are in places where the

commission has removed since the controls. that policy discussion has been have already. that zoning has been changed to allow for unlimited density. the vast majority of the city currently has density controls. in those places, this legislation would not in any way affect or increase density. i will leave it up to her to continue her presentation. thank you. >> in m presentation, i am going to review the existing definitions of units. i will explain what the ordinance proposes. at the end, i will discuss some concerns associated with these units. this building code currently regulates efficiencies -- efficiency dwelling units. currently, the code requires a living room of what nest -- of

not less than 220 square feet. in addition to a kitchen sink, cooking appliances, and a refrigerator. the state health and safety code authorizes all cities to reduce the square footage of efficiency units to a minimum of 150 square feet. the kitchen and bathroom will need to be provided above the 150 square feet. under the code, units with the minimum size should have the -- should house no more than two occupants. the ordinance proposes the minimum size would be reduced to match the state code. under the proposal, the total area of the unit could be no less than 220 square feet and the living area and no less than 150 square feet. no more than two people could

occupy this efficiency unit. the ordinance would maintain existing requirements for kitchen appliances and workspace as well as a separate bathroom. as he mentioned, a supervisor wiener is going to amend the ordinance so it only applies to new construction and not existing buildings. now i am going to go over some issues and concerns about this legislation. several questions have been raised regarding these units. staff support had a limited amount of time. we would like to share what we have learned. about density, how would that change? some have said the smaller efficiency units will increase density across the city and adversely affect services and

infrastructure. staff conducted a quick analysis about how this will affect the city. there are three types of districts throughout the city in terms of density controls. one are districts controlled by a number of units per square foot of what area -- what area. the efficiencies will still be subject to density controls. no increase in density will occur. other districts are where it units are not limited by square- foot but instead by exposure to common usable open space and unit seismic requirements such as 40% allocated to two-bedroom units. based on staff analysis in these districts, and maximum increase

-- a maximum increase of 10 in the population density might occur as a result of this ordinance. the last type of district is controlled by exposure, open space requirements, and item b. but they do not have the units per square foot or the next density controls. in this category of district, staff analysis suggests there might be a 30% increase. i want to emphasize this estimate is highly conservative. it is an over-estimation. we did not take into account the increase in open space use requirement that would happen as a result of the increase of the number of units. 30% is highly unlikely. it is an over-estimation.

the open space requirements would be another control that would mitigate density increase as a result of the ordinance. the second issue that was a concern were quality of life issues and units. staff finds the ordinance would not change any of the existing code requirements regarding quality of life issues such as exposure, rear yard, private and open space. it is important to note as the number of units increase in a project, there is going to be more open space. the smaller size efficiency units would still be subject to the same requirements as existing units. lastly, the other concern was,

what is the expected cost of these units? a quick look at the existing pool of efficiency units shows this type of housing may serve market rate and affordable income levels. there are efficiency unit provided at the market levels such as 527 stephenson's street. there are other plaza apartments on sixth and howard that provides support of housing for the formerly homeless population. another example provides housing for veterans. lombard and scott provides transitional housing for youth 12 to