Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Code Efficiency Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors agree to continue building-code change on efficiency dwelling units to July amid concerns about conversions
Summary
The board continued consideration of an ordinance to reduce minimum square footage for efficiency dwelling units and limited the measure to new construction; supervisors voted to continue to July 10 to give time for revised language and public comment.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 12 moved to continue consideration of a proposed building-code amendment that would reduce the square footage requirement for efficiency dwelling units, pending revised language limiting the change to new construction.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who introduced the proposal, said the amendment would align local rules with the statewide definition in the California Health and Safety Code and with changes made in other cities. "This is a great example of affordability by design," Wiener said, noting the intent to allow a range of smaller unit sizes that could support student and senior housing.
Several supervisors raised concerns that allowing conversions of existing units into smaller efficiency units could remove units from rent control under Costa Hawkins if a new certificate of occupancy were issued. Supervisor Wiener responded that the final language would limit the ordinance to new construction only, and said he would extend the continuance to July 10 to allow time for revised text and community review.
Other supervisors asked for additional analysis of housing mix, quality-of-life, and planning impacts. Supervisor Olague and others said they wanted the Planning Department and the Planning Commission to weigh in on issues including unit livability, light and air, and where such units would be built. Supervisor Wiener and members of the Land Use process described prior review: the measure had been reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection's code advisory committee and unanimously endorsed by the Building Inspection Commission.
On the motion to continue the ordinance and to refer aspects of the proposal for further review, the board voted to continue the item to July 10 (continuance motion adopted; final recorded vote on the continuance: 7 ayes, 4 noes). Supervisors said the continuance would permit circulation of draft amendment language that would limit any immediate change to new construction and would allow a public hearing opportunity.
Ending: The board did not adopt the ordinance on June 12; the item will return in early July with revised language and further committee discussion.
