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 my 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 2418 out of foster care. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. there are some people from building inspection to answer more technical questions. thank you. >> do the staff from building inspections want to give a report or are they just here to

answer questions? any public comment on this item? i have one speaker card. paul. >> good afternoon. i can tell you are going to become tired of my harping on small unit issues. there are a couple of points i would like to make. the first is the big change in the efficiency legislation is it puts a firm cap of two residents per unit regardless of size. how does that affect the ability to house low-income families, couples with a child, single-parent households, three- generation households? there is no provision, as there used to be, for increased square footage allowing a greater population. there is no provision for a

couple with infants. i think this is a big gap. it is definitely planning impact that has not been considered and is not addressed. i think that is unfortunate. the second thing i want to touch on is the open space requirement. this legislation says nothing about open space. do you remember the student housing legislation? that reduces open space for units 350 square feet or less to 1/3 or 1/2 required by the codes. it is a dramatic reduction. yes, it is entirely conceivable and appropriate the open space been reduced -- be reduced as long as we understand compensation. is there additional interior space, common rooms where people can gather? is there a provision for children to play?

is there easy access for the housing supporting fragile populations, seniors with special needs? all of these are planning related issues not addressed or not considered in the legislation and analysis. these are planning related issues that dramatically affect the quality of life for the occupants. the fact that has not been considered does a disservice especially to the non-market rate residents. thank you. >> thank you. good evening. i am the legislative aide for the supervisor. i wanted to speak about this today. this was at her request that the supervisor hearing. the main issue was she felt

this was a very large impact kind of question, to reduce the size to the smaller unit size. she thought there were issues of quality of life you would be concerned about. there are issues around the area plans, the neighborhoods that would absorb this type of housing, and the balance will try to find within the city in each neighborhood to address the issues of families and trying to have the diversity we want in san francisco. i am here to speak about why she brought this back to you in hopes you will be able to provide analysis you contribute to these kinds of questions all the time. thank you. >> thank you. >> sue hester. i have a handout for the commission.

maybe i do not. >> i will handed out. -- hand it out. >> this letter went to environment to review and kimia earlier today. i think there needs to be a second look at whether this project has an appropriate environmental exemption. the staff memo talks about where this has planning code density effects. the legislation as presented in the building code amendment was treated as a minor issue, shrinkage of an issue without looking at how this change is since the. -- changes in density. you have changed density rules in the van ness corridor.

it is a footnote by reference. it tells you on page two. you have basically abolished density standards. the lowest density standard is the code standard. the market octavia, area plan areas, eastern neighborhood mixed use, you have gone away from density limits. that has to be factored into every one of the area plans. try to balance the density of housing, circulation, pedestrian, how the open space is accessed, how people have a little situation in that neighborhood. those are things that are things environmental review should have

looked at but did not because it was told it was not affecting density. you know effects density. i think this issue has to go back to in turn it to review and say, now that we have this information, is it an exemption? i think it takes a little bit of thinking. as you go through area plans and kick cases off the calendar, all the changes in prices shown in the staff report, the market crashed on one of the projects on harrison street. the crash was in 2008. we cannot anticipate there will not be a strong motion. there is a strong need to get these build and max out the dollar issue particularly in the

area where we have a lot of tax commuters and students. >> thank you. >> i think this is an important form of housing. they even existed in the co-op where i was an owner, some of the old buildings had efficiency units on lexington, a level below the lobby or something. we had at least five. good use was made of them by older people and academy of art university students. i do tend to agree with the statement paul made with regard to open space. we did not have any usable in my building. that was ok for those of us who went out a lot or had good units like me. these people were in relatively small units, comfortable enough. we had no open space near. when i look at some of the newark senior housing developments at geary and pol

they have wonderfuland com -- wonderful common space and roof gardens. some units are in an old hotel without a common space. i do recognize what paul says. they have a lobby that is a common room. they have a room in the back that is a television room. it is dark and windowless because it is an old building. i think if you are building new ones, it would be a good thing to have that where we live, there is no part -- park for any of us. the only substantial park is lafayette up a big hill the other way. there is no place to sit on polk

street. i do agree with paul warmer that this is something to pay attention to. >> thank you. any further public comment on this item? >> leave them there and start talking. >> [unintelligible] >> [inaudible] >> sir, we can take that.

>> go ahead. >> please begin. >> sorry about that. my name is patrick kennedy. i am the developer of student housing and housing for single people as well as low income individuals. i am glad supervisor elagi brought up the issue. i have done extensive study of this issue and have built prototypes of small units like this and am confident 8220 square foot in it can be comfortable and pleasant and a significant improvement on a lot of the housing stock in san francisco today. there are about 50,000 students now fighting housing on craigslist. there are about 8000 new techies coming to san francisco every year. this small kind of efficiency and it is the ideal --

efficiency unit is the ideal kind of unit to provide for them. they're coming to san francisco sfor a shorter period of time. they do not drive. they use many. they had active lives. they would -- they used muni. they have active lives. without providing this, they would bid up the existing stock. one problem with the plight of single families is they are competing against two or three students bidding up the price of single-family housing. the best way to address that, i believe, is to provide a lot of inefficiency dwelling units in areas that are convenient for them. a second point that is important to make is that the areas where the units will be built, areas with no density limitations, will be the south market areas, amid market areas, the tenderloin areas.

they are all areas that can accommodate car-free housing and would be ideal for single muni- riding people to locate. it is unlikely they will build in other neighborhoods because of existing zoning controls. a final point i would like to consider with respect to minimizing the efficiency dwelling unit size is the possibility of beginning to reproduce housing for low income individuals. by reducing the size of the efficiency dwelling units, you make it possible to have all bmr units in the projects themselves. [tone!] that is a bold supervisors have expressed a desire to pursue. i would like to point out there are approximately 15,000 existing efficiency dwelling units and sro units that are an average of 80 to 100 feet.

units like this would be a massive improvement to almost all of the current residence in these existing sro's. by allowing this amendment -- [tone!] private sector production of low-income units. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am here on behalf of patrick kennedy and the housing action coalition. the housing action coalition has been working on this legislation with supervisor wiener's office. it follows logically from our efforts on student housing. small units of this kind are a logical fit for students. this is a great dorm room set