welcome to the wednesday, october 3, meeting of the government audit and overnight committee. i'm supervisor kim. i want to acknowledge our clerk john carroll and recognize the staff at sfgovtv, who ensure our meetings are available to the public. any announcements? >> please make sure to silence our cell phones. copies of documents to be included as part of the file to be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor kim: thank you.

can you call item 1. >> resolution authorizing the acceptance of expenditure of california state senate bill 1 local partnership program funding in the amount of $4 million. for fiscal years 2017-2019. >> supervisor kim: we have the capital budget analyst with the department of public works who will be presenting on the item and i want to recognize that edmond lee and paul, are also available to answer questions on this grant. >> thank you. good morning, supervisors. i'm elizabeth ramos with public works. this authorizes public works to ex-spend california state senate bill 1 loophole partnership fund in the amount of $4 millionmill.

this is under the road and repair and accountability act of 2017 otherwise known as sb 1. the amended resolution is request to accept and expend $2 million for payment renovation. the initial cost for al maine boulevard was a high level planning cost and now that it has progressed, they have more accurate cost estimates that are lower. we are decreeing crease the -- decreasing the fund to 1.7 million. we'll program the funds to the public works renovation project. public works request the committee to approve the amendments and i'm joined by the public works project manager and we would be happy to answer questions from the committee.

>> supervisor kim: any questions from committee members? i'm sorry you rushed through it a quickly. could you explain why we removed the payment. >> the initial cost is a high level cost during the planning phase and we have moved through design, we know that the cost is lower. so what we're going to do is maximize the local partnership funds for other paving projects to ensure that we are not holding money in a project that will not be utilizing those funds. >> supervisor kim: i see. so the boulevard project will move through, but without this revenue source. could you give us a sense of how we have begun to spend down sb 1 local partnership program thus far. >> we have not. >> supervisor kim: this is the first? >> yes. >> supervisor kim: do you have a projected plan of what projects we're prioritizing for sb 1? >> definitely, so the programs we have right now are the

project we're talking about, the al project in 1920. we're looking to start spending on number 42. we've just submitted at the end of august, a sunset project that would be using the funds. >> supervisor kim: how are you looking at ensuring -- obviously this is not the only revenue source, but just kind of how the pavement renovation is being implemented throughout the city? >> i have the project manager here. may i have him come up? >> that would be great. >> we look at geographic equity so all neighborhoods are treated

with pavement renovations. >> supervisor kim: is this put on your website? >> yes, we have a live map on our public works resurfacing web page and we can send you the link. >> supervisor kim: that would be the great. what projects are you doing currently? >> the allah maine project. >> there is great interest to constituents, which streets are repaved. so i'm taking advantage of asking what projects you are on deck. >> our program has $60 million in pavement renovation projects annually, through various funding sources and they're throughout the city. each project varies between 1-3 years in its life. >> supervisor kim: i'm asking what projects -- >> currently under construction? >> supervisor kim: yes. >> we have a giant list and we can get you a list of all the

projects that are currently under construction. there are projects in every district. >> supervisor kim: ok. i would like that list. could you get that to us during committee? >> sure. >> supervisor kim: so, having seen no further questions from committee members, we're going to open up for public comment on item number 1. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues? >> supervisor peskin: i would move the amendments that are before us, which insert the twin peaks, mount davidson pavement renovation in the amount of $2,106,000, i don't know if we want to hear from the budget analyst, but they do recommend approval with the changes? >> supervisor kim: my apologies. >> good afternoon. we actually reported on the $2.1

million acceptance of the sb-1 funding. the total project costs are about $4.9 million, shown on page 3 of our report. this is for the twin peak renovation. and i just want to clarify that our report is based on what we believe is amended legislation that is going to be considered by this committee. >> supervisor kim: can we take this without objection? we can pass this item. thank you so much to our public works team. mr. clerk, please call item number 2. >> clerk: agenda item number 2, revolution approving amendment number 3 and 4 to contract cs-163, insurance brokerage services to provide excess

liability insurance for the central subway project with aon risk insurance services, to increase the contract amount by 684,382 and 6,321,304. for additional premium charges not to exceed 25,094,436 and to extend the contract for two years for total term of february 7, 2012 through june 24, 2020. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. today, we have michael, director of clean power sf presenting on this item. also senior manager with the -- well, ok. campbell is making that presentation. >> good morning, chair kim. i think that might be the wrong name. i'm here for subway. i'm the -- i'm the program manager for the program.

>> i'm the acting program manage for the central subway program. i bring back to you an item i had said i would bring back when i was last here, bringing two other retroactive items, this is the third, hopefully this completes all the retroactive items for central subway. this relates to insurance for the central subway. and it was basically put in place as part of a way to make

the program insurance more economical and efficient. when we originally went out with what we call excess liability insurance as part of the contract bid, the bid was almost twice the cost that we currently have. what the agency decided to do was issue. the two amendments, the first one is to cover the additional premium costs for the station contract because originally when the insurance contract was put out, there was estimate of the construction cost. when we got the final bid from the contractor, the final bid cost is greater than the estimated cost therefore we had to adjust the insurance premiu s premiums. that's why i'm here fort first item to pay the additional premium. the second is the extension of the insurance program.

the insurance program expires or expired in june of this year. so part of the reason we want to extend the program is because the central subway program is late, originally slated to finish in 2018, now december of 2019. so we're forced to maintain our insurance program and ensure that we get additional coverage after the program is done. we need to do this extension. and part of the reason why we're trying to do the extension is that this insurance coverage has a tail coverage. what it will do, as long as the coverage is active on or after the condition of the contract, it activates an additional 10 years, so it's not for two years, but 12 years of insurance. so that's what we're trying to target when i'm here for this extension. but i'm here for any questions you may have. >> supervisor kim: supervisor

peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you for being forth right. i'm delighted that this is the last retroactive matter. i know you heard loud and clear we were less than pleased about retroactive approvals. i appreciate that. you have cleaned that up. you were speaking in the present tense. i assume there are actually been no lapse in coverage and that we were covered after the expiration of the insured period post june of 2018, is that correct? >> that's correct. as long as this insurance is extended, we're covered. >> supervisor peskin: i guess what i'm asking, we have actually already extended, we're just giving you retroactive approval for something you've already done? >> so, no, the first amendment or for the $684,000, that's

retroactive. this current extension, if this board does not approve it, the insurance will expire. we have not done the extension. we've not paid money for the second amendment. we're here for the approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that clarification. inso far as the mta continues to project that the project will be done in december of 19, and i have heard nothing different, why is coverage going -- i appreciate the 10-year tail, particularly in the environment of things we're learning about, transbay and other lovely things that make being an elected official so much fun, so i appreciate the tail, but why isn't it started in january of 20, why not july of 20, if we assume we're going to be done in december of 19? >> when we asked for the additional premium, at the time the final completion of central subway was still in doubt, so we

didn't want to have to come back and reextend the insurance contract, so we asked for two years of extension. right now, the projection for central subway is to finish in december 2019. that hasn't changed. the extra -- because we need to make sure that insurance is still active on or before the substanti substantial completion of the program, otherwise the tail that we're looking for will not be there. >> supervisor peskin: so you have six months of breathing room is basically the answer? >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. ho, for your forth rightness. >> supervisor kim: seeing no further questions from committee, public comment. public comment is now closed on the item. colleagues, can we take a motion to move this forward. >> supervisor peskin: i would love to hear from the budget analyst office -- >> supervisor kim: second time.

so sorry. ms. campbell, please. >> supervisor peskin: i am prepared to move it subsequent to the presentation. >> this will be brief. they entered into the original contract as an insurance broker in 2012 and that was $150 million for the tunnels. the board approved amendment to increase the coverage to $300 million to cover the track and station. as you know, you're being asked to retroactively approval $684,000. this was entered in 2014. the reason was that the broker determined increased coverage was needed because of the complexity of the process. amendment 4 would increase the period. so the lapse in june of 2018, that was based on a completion date almost a year earlier from the current completion date in

december 2018. so there has already been a discussion about the two-year continued coverage and the 10-year tail. i want to say in response to supervisor peskin's question, when we spoke to the city's risk manager, that the reason the excess coverage expired in june 2018, so that the tail coverage is not currently in effect, but approval of amendment number 4 and payment of the premium amount, $6.3 million will then make that again active. so amendment 4 is not retroactive and we recommend approval. >> supervisor peskin: with that, madame chair, i would forward item 2 to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor peskin. we have a motion to move this forward with recommendation, and we can do that without

objection. thank you for being here today. mr. clerk, can you call items number 3 and 4. >> clerk: hearing on the published report entitled mitigating the housing crisis, accessory dwelling units and urging the mayor to accept the findings through her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. so i just want to acknowledge lori campbell and p siegel with the department of building inspection, the fire department, and the mayor office of housing. i want to acknowledge public works, public utilities commission, infrastructure and controller office for also being

in attendance to answer questions. we will start with ms. campbell, the person of the civil grand jury. we appreciate you taking up this very important issue, our housing crisis here and that role that modular housing could play in addressing this crisis. >> thank you. yes, i'm lori campbell, longtime resident and floor person of the 2017-18 san francisco civil grand jury. i'd like to acknowledge some of the other jurors here with me today. just raise your hand for a minute. i'd also like to acknowledge the late mayor ed lee who sadly passed during our tenure. he took time to share with us the issues he saw facing the city of san francisco and we greatly appreciate that. jury members appreciated the opportunity to learn about san francisco government and to pursue areas of interest to our

community in hopes of identifying ways to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of our governance. the jury was interested in addressing major issues, facing the citizens of san francisco. what is often referred to as the housing crisis is certainly one of those very big issues. proposed solutions include building more market-rate housing, affordable housing, below market, and subsidized housing. this jury chose to focus on two alternatives. adu, alternative dwelling units, and modular housing. the jury was pleased that respondents agreed with most of our findings and many of our recommendations have already or will be implemented. it was rewarding for the jurors

to learn that mayor breed is calling for expedited permit process for adus and is committed to building a modular housing manufacturing facility here in the city. we appreciate all those that took the time to meet with us and answer our questions with thoughtfulness and candor. i'd like to introduce p. siegel, a member of the housing committee and will talk more specifically and answer any questions that you may have. thank you very much for your time. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> hello. i was one of the principle writers on the housing report. and when we began the jury, of course, we had to consider looking into the housing issue because it has reached crisis

proportions in the city. at the time that we began our investigation, we looked at the housing pipeline for 2016 and saw that 157.5% of market rate housing was in the pipeline, but only 11.2% of moderate housing, and 19.7% of low-income housing. so the question was, what can we do to provide more affordable housing in san francisco? we looked at options and we decided to cover adus, and modular housing. everybody seemed to like the adu idea and the city's program that began in 2014 has been increasing in scope and adding a

new possibilities since. and, of course, one of the advantages of the accessory dwelling unit program is that it adds density without changing the neighborhoods and sort of makes everybody happy. we found with adus as with modular housing, that there were positive things about it, and negative ones, or i should say challenges. one is that the costs here are very high. the cost of everything in san francisco is higher than it is anywhere else in the country. and the turner center suggests that the cost of building an adu here is $50,000 more than it would be in another city. so we looked at --

>> supervisor kim: can i interrupt. $50,000 more, what did that make the average cost of building an adu? >> $200,000 here and $150,000. >> supervisor kim: really? i thought it was $250,000. >> supervisor peskin: it's all over the map. there are a million factors. some are easy and cheap, some are prohibitively expensive. >> yes, true. we found the reason that people weren't more interested in building adus, the two things that stood in the way most were the permitting process which takes a very long time, or has taken i should say. and the cost of permits.

in other cities, the cost of adus under construction increased dramatically. we were very happy to see that following our report that all the agencies involved in permitting are working together to expedite the process. that's very good. modular housing was another thing we looked at and asked why aren't we doing more of this here? the authorities in the field all say it's cheaper and it's quicker. so why aren't we doing more of it? well, it has to do, of course, with contracts with the labor unions and a certain angle ziept about what that will do -- anxiety what that will do to their union members and so on, but we now have the two

projects -- at least one project under construction at 1068 mission street. and hopefully, another at mission bay block 9. that will provide homeless housing. so, the issue of course was complicated by the fact that we don't have a factory here, but we had noticed that in responses to our report, that there is interest in building a factory here so that these enormous prefab units don't have to be transported by freight. so hopefully, these two types of alternative housing which are cheaper than the conventional construction will continue to be

explored and used in san francisco so that we can mitigate the housing crisis. >> supervisor kim: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: ms. siegel, the report briefly touches on financing issues which i think are as much of a barrier to entry and maybe a higher barrier to entry than the permit fees that represent on average less than 10% of the total cost of adding an adu. do you want to expand on that? i think access to a loan product for mom and pops is also another recommendation worth pursuing. >> i do agree. this was not in the report, but it would be great if we had a citibank [laughter] to offer low interest loans to people who

would like to do this. there is very little available financing through conventional banks. >> supervisor peskin: to that end, and not to toot my office's horn, but we've been working with the san francisco federal credit union that hopefully in the next custom of months, we'll have a loan product aimed at adus. we were just in touch with them yesterday and actually looking at an e-mail that says they think they will have such a product to offer within the next 45 days. so that is encouraging. i think corporate apartment owners are much better positioned and indeed, when you look at the data of where our adus have actually been applied for, permitted and constructed, they tend to come from large apartment owners who know the system and have access to

financing. the part of the potential market that we're not exploiting is, you know, the 125,000 single family homeowners that are out there, some of which don't lend themselves to adu and some that do. the largest barrier to entry is getting a loan product that would allow them to recoup the life over the rental property. >> agreed. there are other problems, like for example, a multiunit building owner can apply for one permit and build two adus in the basement of a big apartment building. and that's an advantage -- another advantage for landlords as opposed to single-family homeowners.

there is also another thing about the process that could accelerate the development of the west side. it was mentioned in the report, but wasn't a recommendation and i'd like to bring it up again. the sunset district was built by henry doll jer, he built almost all the buildings out there. he used five plans to build all those houses out there. and we mentioned in the report that it would be great if the city had prefabricated plans for adus in the five kinds of doll jer buildings so that the single-family homeowner wouldn't have to spend the money for an architect to draw up plans. and that would accelerate

perhaps interest in building adus on the west side. >> supervisor peskin: that's a really good suggestion. there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes work in streamlining the permitting process. last year, we sat down with mr. lowry and ms. rogers, commonly known as the planning department. the planning department has actually has an assigned planner just to do adus, so the permitting process has been stream lined to a great extent. that's by way of advertising. if you're watching this and interested in adu, it is becoming less and less cumbersome all the time. >> great. >> supervisor kim: ok. well, thank you so much. we do have presentations from the planning department and dbi

and fire as well. i wanted to bring in up ms. rogers city planning. >> i'm going to present first, followed by some of the other agencies that will address adus and then we'll handle the modular discussion after that. so many thanks to this committee for having us here today and for the -- to the civil grand jury for identifying adu and modular housing as topics for their report. housing is on the top of everyone's mind and adus and modular housing are two relative new ideas to san francisco, so we greatly appreciate your thoughts on how we as a city can improve. so again, i'll talk mainly about adus, because this is what the civil grand jury asked us to respond to. adu ez are a critical component of the city's response to housing. new adus, when you look at the

top policy plans enacted since 2000, the amount of housing that each could produce over the next 20 years and compare that, adus ride to the top of the list. they're expected to produce 16,000 units in the next 20 years. this compares to 15,000 from home sf, 12,000 from candlestick and shipyard, and 10,000 is expected by the whole eastern neighborhood area. so adus can help on housing and it's important we get it right. there are things the city is doing now, this is coordination and encouraging more production. we've been working with the agencies on shared work space to expedite review. and at the end of august, the

planning department joined dbi's pre-application meetings for adu projects with the building and fire departments. this resulted in clear, faster guidance to project sponsors. the adu planning counter is on the fifth floor of the permit center and this office offers realtime feedback to permits. and this is a vast improvement from the 6-8 week previous time frame. now with the parallel processing we have after filing, these permits can be completely through the process to the next agency in a few weeks. we're doing more to encourage production. we've had increased in flexibility of controls, such as parking and administrative exceptions. we've worked on promotional and informational materials, adu

handbook, fact sheet, videos. they've mitted to the architect association. we've also participated in the department association's 2017 adu fair. so there are things that the planning department and the other agencies will be doing in the future that the civil grand jury is requesting. there is always more to do and the civil grand jury had a number of great ideas. we're committing to further increasing interagency collaboration. the civil grand jury idea to are view all the codes -- review all the codes is a great opportunity to look at how we can provide further improvements and

possibly even faster streamlining of adus. secondly, we'll be further increasing the information and promotional information. we did secure $29,000 grant from the city, friends of city planning to update our educational materials for adus, to host community and outreach events and to create a one-stop adu web portal. this will be up by the third quarter of 2018. later this month, the new adu handbook will be published. in our other outreach materials, they've been updated with the recent adu law changes. these are free for download from the website and planning aims to start outreach to single-family

homeowners. the mayor's directive prioritizes this at the highest level of the executive branch. the ed from mayor london breed will result in speedier, easier processes that still deliver quality housing. the planning department will work with the mayor, this board of supervisors and the civil grand jury and public to create more housing and approve affordability for san francisco residents. next up is building, or fire. >> supervisor kim: is it bill strong or amy chan? ok, bill strong with the department of building inspection. >> thank you, supervisors. actually it's going to be deputy director lowry who is going to walk through this quick presentation. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm here to respond the grand

jury recommendations. over the past six months, dbi has been in meeting with planning and other departments to improve codes for the review process related to adus. dbi has joint code recommendations to the board by 2019. also shared meeting space variable on the 5th floor at the dbi office has been in place since 2014. dbi has worked with the controller's office to develop meaningful metrics on approval duration, to be reported on open data starting january 2019. mayor's executive director 1801. six months to complete backlog adu applications that are reviewed by all city agencies. four months to review and approve any new application received. applicants, designed

professionals must respond immediately. biweekly progress report from dbi planning, but first report due the week of october 1. dbi's adu's current process. over the counter application. what we've done with the adu process, we stream lined the process. any application, we're going to give it over-the-counter approval, so we can sign, they can walk through the building, structural and mechanical for a quick review. we also are developing a single-family homes, they can go straight over the counter to expedite the permits. permit application, back to planning, after interdepartment review and approval. restrictions to be reviewed by the planning department.

what we're doing right now, with the adus, with planning, it takes time for the costa hawkins agreement, so we'll do a parallel review. as planning is doing their process, we're going through the review. the building, structural, mechanical. and to spite the pro- -- to expedite the process. since may 2018, dbi has implemented the new protocols. dbi fast tracks plan review by approving them through over-the-counter, which including building, structural and mechanical. they may receive approval the same day, reducing wait times. dbi coordinates with san francisco planning to allow dbi plan review to occur simultaneously. dbi established special review unit led by experienced senior

plan checkers to fast track and prioritize review by dbi staff of adus. planning review is in the beginning and the end to ensure planning requirements are fulfilled. one of the things that we've done, too, we've had working groups for the last year working. a lot of problems with the adus is that they don't meet current code, so we had to work with equivalencies to make them work. so that would be with fire, building, planning, we've developed information sheets. we've developed an information sheet, ss 05 for sprinkling of a building and we had a problem with egress out of the buildings. we've developed an information sheet along with fire. eg 05. that was a big problem in adus for exit. we set up a pre-application

meeting with building, fire and planning. we have a special day set aside just for adus, so hopefully at the beginning process of the job, they can go over the difficulties with the agencies and get clear direction where to go with their plans to streamline the process. one the problems we currently face is that we did put our working group together. we are reviewing the plans right away, but the comments issued, we're not getting a response to. what we're trying to do with that, we're also e-mailing to design professionals and calling design professionals to try to get them to come in for the over-the-counter process for the applications to expedite the process. amendments upcoming. dbi participate in supervisor tang's adu working group with

planning, fire, public works to improve streamlining. it includes assembling all agency adu checklists and posting these on the dbi website. recent passage of supervisor tang's planning code amendments to allow owners to pay in lieu fees instead of street tree requirements. possible building code amendment coming require pre-application meeting with dbi, fire and planning for complicated mid block adu with sprinkle tradesman exit. application backlog and time for each, we have 65 applications currently in dbi. average wait time is 19 days between arrival and approval. and then that's for a submitted job. we also encourage on the submitted job to go over the counter process, where they can go to the 5th and walk to the stations. that increases the time.

adus approved and built, 74. >> before you move to the next slide. so this is total adus that have been applied for within the city since -- >> 889. >> supervisor kim: this is from the inception or just -- >> we try to track them. we have a weekly list. this is from the list that i have. >> supervisor kim: no, i'm just curious, the 889, just this year? is it since the inception of the program? where does that number come from? >> this year. >> supervisor kim: so there were 889 in this year. >> total screening forms received is 849. >> supervisor kim: so in the year of 2018, there are 1889

applications? >> if it's ok, i'd like to bring up marcel boudreau, who is a principal planner who does review. can you update the numbers? >> i think on the total numbers, that is from program inception. 889 reflects the number of building permit applications and on some of those, there may be more than one adu. on last calculation, there was average of 1.88 adu per a permit. we do see a range, so average working kind of take the number somewhere between upwards of about 1500 adus totally filed

for. >> supervisor kim: this year? >> total since inception. >> supervisor kim: mr. lowry just said 2018. this is confusing. it says adu units applied for. that's not correct. >> ok. >> supervisor kim: it's not correct? i'm sorry, could you respond on the mic, because members can't hear. >> the total permits submitted is 792. >> supervisor kim: 792? so what is 889? >> those are the screened forms received. >> supervisor kim: the what? >> we have screening forms. so maybe... >> supervisor kim: that's 889.

>> supervisor kim: the numbers are incorrect on the power point presentation then? ok. there are 849 screening forms, 790 new permits. how many adus are within the permits? roughly 1500? we don't know how many adus have been submitted for permitting? >> sf planning department, sorry. so we don't count the number when they're filed only because the -- this is dbi tracking mechanism. when filed, what actually is the issued and completed number does change at times. sometimes the applicant is able to add more than the number, the

intended, or the number upon filing decreases for some reason due to code. so that number dbi is not tracking at this time. that is something we could look into, to track in the future. that's the number i mentioned is a running average of 1.8 adus pis the number we understand to be on file. >> supervisor kim: i think it would be helpful -- maybe i'm approaching this the wrong way to understand how many adus are requested through the permitting process, and how many make it through. i know some are not possible and new ones emerge, i would like to get a sense, because we talk about how difficult it is, or how it's not difficult. that number could help us.

supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: thank you. do you have a map of where these adus applications are being pulled from the city or districts? >> supervisor peskin: other subset, how many of these are involved with mandatory or voluntary seismic retrofits? >> we can provide a map. we don't have it here, but there could be a map available for the permits issued. >> what we do have, the numbers vary every week. we're working on getting a detailed number, the time it goes from arrival to the day it's issued. we're working on that data. these numbers fluctuate every week. so the numbers i gave you is for the screening forms received, permits issued, waiting time for pickup -- we're trying to break

these down so we know where they are. 503. under review by planning is 344. under review by dbi 57. under review by permit processing center and other agencies, san francisco fire, 49. no routing. so we track these weekly to see how many they are. >> supervisor kim: none of these numbers are consistent with the ones that were just presented in the power point presentation. you said that 345 were approved. and 85 were built. it looks like here, only 46 were built. >> these are the numbers that were provided. we can look into and get to,

supervisor. >> supervisor kim: so the numbers in the power point presentation, you're not certain if those are correct. so we don't know if we built 45 or 86 adus? that's a pretty significant difference. it's ok. why don't we take some time. i'm not trying to put you on the spot. i just want to have an understanding of what has been done and what hasn't. we'll go to the next presentation. it would be great to get the accurate numbers, how many permits were approved and how many were actually built since the inception of the program. thank you so much. >> we'll get those for you. >> supervisor kim: the next presentation is amy chan. thank you, we have a copy of your presentation.

>> good morning, chair kim, supervisors peskin and brown. amy chan from the mayor's office of housing community and development. we share the civil grand jury desire to speed up and lower the cost of affordable housing construction through modular construction. we are doing this in three projects. they include 1064-1068 mission and mission block nine in the office of community, investment and infrastructure. and these three projects are all permanent supportive housing projects totalling 500 units. and with respect to the civil grand jury recommendations. on their first recommendation to use ground floor space for the construction training.

these projects because they're permanent supportive housing will require supportive services on site for the residents, so the projects are already planning to do so. 1068 mission specifically as a site that is acquired through the federal government, has a requirement for homeless only. so that's why we're not going to be including the construction training on site. however, the developer for the site, episcopal community services, will be incorporating their very successful chefs workforce training program at the site. on the next recommendation to require inspection of modular factories to ensure that construction is up to city code compliance. our office agrees as does the department of building inspection and we will be ensuring there is a adherence to city code and we're working

together to create specialty indications that would be incorporated into the state housing inspections as well. on the finding that there are restrictions in trade union contracts that would be prohibitive of modular housing construction or challenging for modular housing construction, we believe there are no trade contracts that exist that would prevent us from moving forward and we are doing so with the three projects mentioned. then on the next recommendation that we should -- that the office of community and infrastructure and investment should go ahead and use modular construction for the mission bay block nine project. ocii has already agreed to be doing so and is moving forward with that. and then finally, our office is very excited to be furthering modular construction and we're

working with the office of economic and workforce development to create a business plan to develop a modular housing factory in san francisco with mayor breed's commitment and support. and our goal is to, again, lower the cost of affordable housing construction and to create job opportunities in san francisco as well. and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim: i do have a couple of questions. so i just want to make sure i understood the presentation correctly. so we are currently -- we've decided to use modular housing on 1068 mission, mission bay block nine and the first supportive housing on treasure island. >> that's correct. >> supervisor kim: do we have a sense of how much time modular construction methods will save us during the construction period? >> so for these projects, we're estimating between 4-6 months in time savings for each project.

>> supervisor kim: it appeared that the building cost reduction for modular costs in san francisco is different than cost reduction estimates in other cities. do you know why that is? >> i think because, one, we're just starting this endeavor now, so we need a little bit more information about how the three projects will go. there will be cost savings in construction costs. and in soft costs for the projects. so we're doing our -- in our best estimates we believe between the 7-15% quoted in the report, but we'll see as the project is under construction, what the actual savings will be. >> supervisor kim: are modular units often damaged by weather during construction process, at least where we've seen modular unit constructions occur? >> i saw that was worded in the report. maybe i can ask our colleagues

at dbi to see if they know a little bit more about that process. >> supervisor kim: we'll bring them up later. >> i would say we do our best to make sure that's not the case, but i saw that was noted in the report. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, miss chan. >> thank you, chair kim. >> supervisor kim: we next have fire department. the marshall here to present on the item. i wanted to note for committee members we do have hsh public works, ocii, controller office here as well to answer questions if there are any. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. dan, fire department, fire marshal. just like to touch base on three things. the basic nature of adu and the challenges they present. where we were in that process, how we used to review them, where we are today and where

we're going. so why is adu such a challenge or delay in processing adus? it's not such the dwelling unit, it's that's you're building the dwelling units within existing buildings. you have older housing stock here in san francisco, that today, themselves, are existing nonconforming. so now we're going to build a unit within that building that has to meet current code. that is the challenge. and quite often, the designer cannot meet prescribed code as mandated by state law and state code. we as the local authority cannot be less restrictive than state code. we can find alternatives, alternative means, equivalencies to offset deficiencies and that's where our focus has been. in the past, typically, when an