regular building types start to occupy the block, create situations which you and other people have described succinctly. there is not only intrusion of light at night into bedrooms, when the lights on roof decks, which are not limited by time of use, are still on. there is no way you can really get a dark bedroom to sleep. it is a transfer of noise at all times, which might not always coincide with your own life style, i.e. on a saturday or sunday morning, when a cell phone discussion starts on the deck with a person having their first coffee. there is a lot of ability for tolerance, but there are basic situations which make it impossible. as it really interferes with not just living in a kitchen and a living room space, but also a bedroom space, where windows,

because of the san francisco ability to have the windows open why you are asleep, becomes intolerable. i could not see myself supporting this in any shape or form. i am not sure if you have talked to the fire department. these old garages have a narrow exit for the fire escape. initially, the entire roof deck of the garage is to be the exiting corridor. having seen places these ducks have been added, the fire department has to make modifications, because it did not work. >> that is exactly what happened. our first meeting was very adversarial. i was trying to point out the code issues with the fire department. i was dismissed as not understanding the building and fire code. subsequently, i was able to ask the planning department to ask the fire department. some of the changes were not

compromises. there were requirements by the fire department. the setback of the deck was a fire code requirement. the firewall on the property requirement was a fire department requirement. moving it back from the fire escape at the back was a fire department requirement. the lot of these changes were requirements of the fire department. we started having these discussions, and the planning department came back and said this is the rear yard. they would not work with reasonable restrictions, and everything fell apart. commissioner moore: as far as exiting from the fire escape, originally, the fire code was set up that you exit in a straight line, even if it is a diagonal line. you move toward the front of the building to come to the street

and go down the ladder. you are creating a circular way. you, at night, need to find your way around the protrusion of the deck. >> which is probably going to be lit 24 hours. >> for me, it raises questions which are so obvious. these buildings were originally built, as you described it, with the original ground floor garden as a space holder. the buildings collectively agreed how the buildings would orient. >> this was not an original addition to the building. this was a garden, and a garage was added subsequent to this. this is not original. this is a separate structure. commissioner moore: i am not going to jump into what this might mean to future tenants, to have one owner use the garage while the common cost of every

homeowner pays for the maintenance of the garage as well as the deck, but that is another discussion. i will not support this at all. i very much caution the commissioners to listen to what the public has to say, because i think they are completely right. commissioner miguel: i am going to follow somewhat closely with commissioner moore, and also thank you for the display of photos. it shows the general public what commissioner moore was talking about. those of us who know san francisco know the standard building form. there are a few where they are open. most of them have structures put in them. some were originally set up as open gardens. most have had one story structures placed in them.

it may be that somewhere in the planning code, or the zoning administrator's statement, that they are calling this a rear yard. i hope it is put in quotation marks. it is not a rear yard, in a logical sense of the word. i do not want to debate that. that is my opinion, strictly. this is a -- pardon me. i had a cold last week and i cannot get rid of it. what this is is the light and air for the space between buildings. there is a light well, a standard type of light well. but this is a light will between the buildings. it creates an air space. it creates air movement. it also creates a sound alley, as has been described.

there is no way i, and i hope the rest of the commission, would want the department to have to delete a condition that you can only use that back up to a certain hour, or before a certain hour, or allow dogs or not. that is not what enforcement, the commission, and the department exist for. it is ridiculous. as to the roof deck on the top of the building, i could go either way, truthfully. i am going to make a motion, subject to amendment regarding the other roof deck, to take d.r >., not approve the deck on top

of the garage structure, require the illegal door to be replaced with whatever it was beforehand, a window or wall -- i really don't care. as i say, i would be open to any comments regarding the roof deck on top of the proper building. commissioner moore: second. commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner borden: i used to live in this neighborhood. i know the style very familiarly. i want to support to not have the deck above the garage. i think it causes a major nuisance. it is not a publicly accessible and open space. it is not available to everyone in the building. it is the use of one unit at the disadvantage of the larger community. it could be precedent-setting.

i understand the project sponsor may have felt this was something they could do, but i think a better direction to staff in the future is we do not think this is acceptable and should look at how the code needs to be redefined. it does seem to be a side yard, not a rear yard. that needs to be dealt with. in the marina, there are a lot of full lot coverage buildings. you would like to have open space in your own building. we know that many of the buildings of stairs that tick to directly to the roof, and you are allegedly not supposed to go on to the roof. we know that everyone goes on to the roof. we also know it is windy in san francisco and not very warm. so we can predict the times. fourth of july, new year's eve, weekend -- we can predict it. there are not many opportunities when people want to be on a deck, because it is windy.

your usually up there to look at something specifically. those open spaces provide, usually, the only common open space in the building. i rarely see those spaces occupied. what is more common is that people do not have real roof decks, and they go onto the roofs, and they are dangerous. i have been to more than one party on a not-real roof deck, and climbed through all kinds of weird dynamics. i know it happens. it is better to be safe and appropriate, and this looks like it is set back enough that it should not be visible from the street frontage, and definitely not from the sides. if there are other commissioners who feel it has to be resized, i am fine with that. it is important to have accessible open space in your building, if possible. i do believe that most people

will be respectful. obviously, there are always people who do not care about the rules. they do not care about the rules when there is not a real deck. commissioner antonini: i am also concerned that this could set a precedent, so i am concerned about that. looking at the pictures presented of the situations throughout the marina, there are a number of variations on what we see. there is 0 ne on -- there is one on chestnut street that i recognize. there is a garage similar to this, and a car parked next door. that might be similar. are all of these garages necessarily non-conforming or illegal? some may be, and some may not be. >> in this case, the structure is in the required rear yard.

i should explain, because there has been quite a bit of questioning. the planning code requires that each property have a rear yard. in the middle of a block, it is very easy. on a corner property, you usually choose -- usually determine where the rear yard is based on open space that conforms most to what would be a yard. in this case, there happens to be a 12 foot wide open space at the eastern end of the property. that most conforms. we are calling that the rear yard. commissioner antonini: understood. were the garage not there, if there was a fence there, probably it would be permitted, if there were access, for the

yard to be used as a rear yard, which would presumably allow some activities out there. so this is a different situation. to the neighbors who may be concerned about activity, it is not applicable here. there is no regard back there that exists. for those instances where there could be, that could be used as a rear yard or side yard. i think i am in concert with the other commissioners on this, with the understanding that we cannot look at a blanket disapproval of any instance like this, but this particular one sounds like a problem. improvement of the fire escapes has to be done. finally, one or two people testified about some t.i.c.

proceedings, which is the province of the rent board. that has nothing to do with the decks. it is not our issue. we are just talking about what is before us. basically, i think i am probably in concert with the other commissioners. commissioner sugaya: i will support the motion. the thing that concerns me is, since it has been characterized as a rear yard, we have a garage which then is considered a nonconforming use. now, we are involved in this situation where there is going to be some additional open space being proposed. the thing that irritates me about it, or that i am concerned about, is that the open space is not accessible to the entire

building, as would be open space at a rear yard, which would be on the ground. i think there was some testimony that there might be a da opinion, but it seems to me that section of the code -- if we are going to be considering additional open space, it should be for the enjoyment of the entire building. i do not have problems with the roof deck. maybe we should just make an amendment now and say that the roof deck is ok. i do not believe that was part of the original motion. commissioner antonini: i thought it was left open. commissioner miguel: i was open to someone who wanted to amend it to do away with it.

the deck on top of the garage, and the door back to what it had been before. commissioner sugaya: that was my reasoning. it should be more accessible to all. to staff, was this a rent- controlled building at one time? >> i do not know, myself. commissioner sugaya: but you are [unintelligible ] everyone out of it? >> i am the attorney for the owner. the plans have changed. it is rent-controlled. there are tenants in it. the vacant units will bere- rented. -- be re-rented.

commissioner moore: i recall that the building -- the front of the building is francisco, which would make this garage in the side yard. but we should check our old planning books. that is my recollection. president fong: any other -- vice president wu: any other questions or comments? >> to replace the illegal door -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> thank you, commissioners.

the motion passes unanimously. i have been requested by technical services to take a five minute recess, >> 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