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 application comes in, it begins with planning, works through building and eventually gets to fire. we're at best third in line to review these applications. in the past, when we knew this was coming and we knew it was a priority, affordable housing, what we did was we identified a select group within our plan check team, our plan review team. we have 14 plan reviewers for san francisco fire. we have a select group of four

and we had those four review the adus. the reason we did that was for consistency, consistent in messaging and application of the code. we're reinventing the wheel. most applications did not meet code and we had to come up with equivalency. how did we get around that? we put out an information sheet, worked with dbi on this, about the most common challenge we saw with adus, and that was the single exit exception. why was that a challenge? in san francisco, you look at density, zero lot line setbacks, the buildings are narrow. when put two exists on the -- exits on the ground floor, it consumed the majority of the space down there. it does allow single exit under certain conditions. we focused on that and came up with alternatives that in our

opinion and with dbi, were equally as safe if not more safe. we published that to get in front of that. the other thing about adu and the review process of adu, there are two ways to prioritize adus. i could put them in intake and move them to the front of the line. or what we chose to do with the fire department, set them off on a separate track. so as the adus are identified on intake, they go off to a separate track and we have a designated team within the fire department that focuses on adu and large development projects. that consists of a captain, a fire protection engineer and a fire inspector at this time. we're looking to grow that. what we see coming down the road is that this program will be expanded to other types of affordable housing, not just adus. the other thing we've done is we've set aside every monday, one day of the week, where we meet with building departments

and applicants, we set the whole monday aside for pre-application meetings to meet with applicants. moving forward, i think what we're looking at, and i'm in discussion with the building department, over-the-counter. is it really over-the-counter when you have multiple counters? in my point, it's a little misleading. it's not a one-stop shop where you bring your application and you're out. i've been in discussion with the building department on this, i would like to pursue the idea of being with adus, we're talking about with existing buildings. you have a mandatory -- i'm just floating the idea, a mandatory preop. why do i say mandatory preop? for those there is another

reason for the pre-app. i'm not going to speak for building department, a majority of the intake, the applicants and the designer does not have the appropriate information on there and it gets kicked back right away. so how do we get around that? if maybe we had a pre-app where you come in, handle all requests for equivalencies and also have a checklist of what was expected on the drawings when they came back in. that would be step number one. step number two is, we would have a review with the whole team, building and fire, and whatever agency had to be there, at the same time. so they come in for a second meeting with all the updates on the plans, the information, the items they incorporated in the plans. you go into a room, whether it's by appointment, or a certain day and you turn page right there, realtime. building and fire and they're out the door.

we're looking into that. let's talk numbers. since we started the dedicated adu team, our numbers are -- we are reviewed about 45 plans from the new team. we have five of them that are in -- they're pending. so let's talk about backlog. backlog, when we talk about backlog, what does that mean? that means those plans that are pending. that means we have not set eyes on the plans yet. that is the backlog. if you have started the review, completed the review, or comment waiting for the applicants to return with the updates, that is not part of the backlog. so at this time as of today, i came and checked, we have five plans that are pending. all of which are a week or less. in there for a week or less.

so we're moving in the right direction. there is room to grow, room to improve i should say and we're working with the building department on that. >> supervisor kim: supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: thank you for your suggestions. i do like the pre-application idea and the checklist. because many of my constituents start this had program trying to do an adu in a small unit building and one thing they said, it looks like they go along until they hit fire. they come back and have to redesign the plans and that drives up the costs. and it seems like the architects don't understand what fire is saying has to be there.

a checklist right at the beginning, i know it's more detailed, but some kind of checklist they should know before they even start their plans is a great idea. >> i agree. and one thing i like to mention about -- i hear this quite often -- fire is holding us up. i hear it all the time. i look at those comments, the majority of those, granted we're not perfect and we get off track, but the majority of those comments are required by code. we cannot be less restrictive than code. so there is a disconnect between the designer and the authority that is review them, whether it's building or fire. so the pre-app i think would help a lot in that. >> supervisor kim: can i ask a quick follow-up to the question about the code. how much is open to interpretation by the department? and how much do you feel is strictly, you know, just a strict question as this is not

possible and this is possible via code? >> the code is pretty clear. we, as the local, can make interpretations and quite often do. there are some that rise to the level where it is given to the state fire marshal office for interpretation, and we follow that lead. but the local, we have that authority to make the interpretation. we're talking about single exit exception. in those cases, the buildings are required to be fully sprinklered. that's clear. you're coming in, typical adu built in a garage. now i'm putting a couple of units in the garage. if i have a single exit, that whole building is required to be sprinklered. so is it an interpretation? yes, it is. no it's clear. how do we get around things like that? not around. that didn't sound right. how do we have the same level of

protection for the people living in the building as if the building was fully sprinklered? that's how we look at it. we talked about early warning, talked about horizontal fire separation, sprinkling the ground floor. and a number of other things. so overall, the code is pretty clear. but we do have latitude coming up with the equivalencies. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i was going to add that for, again this is back to professionals versus lay people. there are actually architects out there and i actually thought i could put an adu into a property that i owned and i hired somebody and for the cost of $120 came to the conclusion that i did not fit within the fire code. there was no way i could do it. i had ceiling height, but there were other issues and i couldn't do it. and so for $120 i realized that

i shouldn't go and do plans and get the brain damage of standing in front of the various agencies that have codes to enforce. and so i guess, i mean the handbook is important, but also when people come in and they're exploring this, our giving them a list of competent professionals who do this, so they can go out there and be told, don't bother, you're never going to get past public safety laws we appropriately have, i think that is part of streamlining this process as well. >> >> agreed. and one of the things that is overlooked is access to rescue windows. if i'm a residential building, four stories and less, and that construction is not sprinklered, every requires a rescue window. quite often on these applications where we could go

through a garage or breezeway, with a ground ladder and now you build out the units, now we cannot get to the rear of the existing building to ladder the windows of the existing units. that's another example of things we focus on that is quite often overlooked. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. i'm not sure if we should bring dbi back up. did you need more time? we're not opening up for public comment. i'm asking if the department of building inspection wanted to come back with the updated numbers? >> ok for the updated number for the week ending 9-21-18, 81.

rent controlled adus 74. total number of adus was 474. >> supervisor kim: i'm sorry. you said tot i'm sorry. you said total number of adus is 474. what does that mean? >> for the week ending september 21, this year, total number of adus completed, the owner has received a certificate of completion, they can rent the unit, total number is 81. of the approved and issued adus, program to date, so received approval from the city to begin construction, that would be an additional 393 adus on top of that completed number. >> supervisor kim: on top of the

81. so not 343, 393? >> correct. so those are the adus in action. >> supervisor kim: ok. >> so that's kind of the updated number. >> supervisor kim: great. and then roughly 889 submitted permits, not the number of adus. thank you so much. so at this time, i'm seeing -- >> supervisor, the numbers mean little between planning the building and what happened, because there are technical services that do that, that work with the numbers to make sure they're accurate before we report them. >> supervisor kim: thank you. yeah, i understand there are two different agencies, but we should have the same numbers. at this time, we'll open up for public comments on items number 3 and 4. >> good program, but as you can see, i don't have to go through the problems. they've already demonstrated the

problems. modular units, the amount of money, time, consumption and investment you're doing is counterproductive. it's called oversupervising. the amount of money you're spending should be spent on building a brand new building up to code where you don't have to maneuver around codes that's already on the books. i move you to incorporate the same technique you're using for homeless teachers. you have $44 million bond for 100-unit apartment building complex to be built. you got another $44 million bond for an additional 120-unit apartment unit building complex for homeless teachers and that same technique should be used for the people living in these modular units. i even seen one idea where you want to use overseas shipping containers in order to house people who are vulnerable and

down on their luck. you need to treat people in the same manner that you treat people in higher income brackets and quit cutting corners. it's a waste of time and money and you're not looking at the significance of a process control where you get the maximum amount of services that is provided to the customer and by the same response, spend the least amount of money in order to achieve the target. [bell ringing] example, if you build the same technique that you use fort homeless teachers for the people that are going to be in the modular units, you eliminate all this red tape. and having these walls put in front of you after you reach a step and finding out that you can't complete the step because there is a code regulation. sincerely.

>> ace washington. founder of case. i want to make -- since i have this time, just two minutes. i'm going to do it in two minutes. case does rhyme with ace, but it has significance behind it. my statement is here to you all and everybody on this committee, this committee is supposed to be rules and audit. well, i'm not going to mention no names, but somebody sitting on that committee over there needs to be audited. they need to have other things that you're all monitoring right here in their district. because i found out the other day somebody sitting on your committee, in my opinion, in my opinion, my opinion only, is doing some things i think are unethical if not illegal in the community. has been doing it for a number of years. it's been passed down from one administration to the other. i'm talking about the fillmore, i'm calling it the fill no more.

so i ain't got to talk no more, not mentioning no names. but our community is aware. through my investigation, i'm like senator leahy out there. one man stopped the procedure and it will be revealed in my articles. if it had not been for ace on the case, appropriate things would have been going on with that building. somebody sitting on your committee right now is in charge of that. my name is ace, and i'm on the case and i'm here to let the city and county and all the politicians, everybody must come clean in 2018. i'm not going to tolerate in the african-american on both sides of the city, on the west side, and the east side, because in the middle you have the buildings, that's corruption, too, because it comes to the administration prior to you all.

[bell ringing] >> supervisor kim: thank you. i guess our phones are beeping because of the national wireless alert system. seeing no comment, we will close public comment. colleagues, are there any further questions or comments? if not, i do have -- our office has distributed amendments to item number 4. and mr. clerk, do i just read them into the record? >> that would be fine. >> supervisor kim: so we have added the resolve clause that the board of supervisors that they agree with finding number f2. that we agree with finding f-6. that we agree with finding f-7.

and that we -- and that we report that r 2 requires further analys analysis. they should study the correlation between the permitting fees and adu construction. supervisor peskin talked about the importance of having a financing vehicle. perhaps being equally or more important than the permitting fees, which is a smaller fraction of the cost. and we report with the budget office. then we finally further resolve that the board of supervisors urges the mayor to accept the findings and recommendation through her department heads and the development of the annual budget. so that is my motion to amend item number 4. supervisor peskin?

>> supervisor peskin: i might quibble with one of the recommendations, but i wanted it start out by thanking the civil grand jury. i think this report is very timely and helpful. this is a policy conversation that has been going on really for many, many years. it used to be the third rail of politics in san francisco. i think a decade and a half ago i proposed a city-wide secondary unit and now we call them accessory dwelling units, adus and i couldn't get it through the board of supervisors. it died on a 6-5 vote and everyone said i would never be able to run for office again. times have definitely changed. it's now embraced as a way to increase housing production. that is affordable by design. do not tear asundayer the fabric of the neighborhoods we love. it's going to be a long process.

i think the planning department said we could build as many oz 30,000 of these. that there are residents that lend themselves to adu and we have heard the numbers, albeit, no offense, they're a little bit all over the map, but this is going to roll out and we need to streamline, whether it's mayor lee or our current mayor. i think all 11 members of the board are trying to do that. we're holding adu fairs. we are looking for a financing product that will help mom-and-pop owners doing it. i'm not totally sanguine. it's a relatively small percentage of the entire package. i think it's worth analysis, the fee structure. and certainly i agree that lower

fees are an incentive, but i don't know this is where the bottle neck is occurring. so as to f-6, it's not a big deal, but partially disagree and say that the recommendation requires further analysis within six months of this hearing date. and maybe during that time we can get the controller to do further analysis to determine the effect of permit fees on the construction of new adus. and i think that is more consistent with our recommendation which is that further analysis is required. so i would make that suggestion relative to f-6. >> supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor peskin. i agree that does make our amendments more consistent. so what i will take the friendly amendment and change the motion to have it be resolved that we

agree with findings f-2 and f-7, however, we would like further analysis for r 2, r 3 and f-6. we stated -- would you like us to add that to the list? that is the motion, and can we accept this motion without objection? >> thank you, again. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much to the civil grand jury report. i also want to thank all of the city departments for coming through today and answering all of the questions. i understand the confusion about all the numbers, but it just highlights the importance of aligning and coordinating amongst our city agencies. i know this is a huge priority for our mayor and i think it is for many members of the boards

board of supervisors. i'm going to take a motion to continue this hearing to the call of the chair. supervisor peskin mentioned perhaps six months. i'm sure this will be interesting and topic that many of us will continue to want to be engaged with. we'll take this motion to continue this -- >> clerk: excuse me. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we can do that without objection. >> clerk: the resolution is still before us. >> supervisor kim: yes. so we'll continue this hearing and can we recommend the resolution to the board as amended? and we can do that without objection. thank you, everyone. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 5 for closed session. >> leanna: ordinance authorizes settlement of a lawsuit for suzanne montes for 575,000.

>> supervisor kim: at this time we open up for public comment on thistime. seeing none, public comment is closed. we are now asking that members of the public exit the room so that this committee can convene into closed session? a motion? we are now back to session for government audit and oversight. >> during the closed session, the committee voted unanimously to send item 5 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> supervisor peskin: make a motion not to disclose. >> supervisor kim: we have that motion and we can do that without objection. any other items before the committee? >> there is no further business.

>> supervisor kim: seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. thank you, everybody.

>> in november of 2016, california voters passed proposition 64. the adult use of marijuana act. san franciscans overwhelmingly approved it by nearly 75%. and the law went into effect in january of 2018. [♪] >> under california's new law, adults age 21 and over can legally possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis and grow up to six plants at home. adults in california can legally give up to 1 ounce to other adults. >> in the state of california, we passed a law that said adult consumption is legal.

if you are an adult and in possession of certain amounts, you will no longer be tried. you will not be arrested or prosecuted for that. that is changing the landscape dramatically. [♪] >> to legalization of cannabis could bring tremendous economic and social benefits to cities like san francisco. >> this industry is projected to reach $22 billion by the year 2020. and that is just a few years away. >> it can be a huge legal industry in california. i think very shortly, the actual growing of marijuana may become the biggest cash crop in the state and so you want that to be a legal tax paying cash crop, all the way down the line to a sales tax on the retail level. >> the california medical industry is a 3 billion-dollar industry last year.

anticipating that multiplier as 20, 30, 50 times in the consumer marketplace once adult use is really in place, you could go ahead and apply that multiplier to revenue. it will be huge. >> when that underground economy becomes part of the regular tax paying employment economy of the bay area, it not only has a direct impact, that money has a ripple impact through the economy as well. >> it is not just about retail. it is not just about the sensor. is about manufacturing pick a lot of innovative manufacturing is happening here in san francisco in addition to other parts of the state as well as the cultivation. we should be encouraging that. >> there is a vast array of jobs that are going to be available in the newly regulated cannabis industry. you can start at the top tier which a scientist working in testing labs. scientists working at extraction companies. and you work towards

agricultural jobs. you have ones that will require less education and you look towards cannabis retail and see traditional retail jobs and you see general management jobs. those things that are similar to working at a bar restaurant or working at a retail store. >> we are offering, essentially, high paid manufacturing jobs. typical starting wage of 18-$20 an hour, almost no barrier to entry, you do not need an education. >> that means that people who do not have college educations, working-class people, will have an opportunity to have a job at cultivating cannabis plants. there's a whole wide array of job opportunities from the seedling to the sale of the cannabis. [♪] >> last year, they said 26 million people came to san francisco. >> the tourism industry continues to be very robust here and the city and county of san francisco is about a

billion-dollar industry. >> if we use a conservative cannabis user adoption rate to 15% that means 4 million tourists want that means 4 million tourists want to purchase cannabis. and we need to be ready for th them. >> in 2015, as adult use legalization efforts gained momentum in california, the supervisors created the san francisco cannabis state legalization task force. this task force offered to research and advice to the supervisors, the mayor and other city departments. >> we knew that adult use legalization was coming to the ballot and stat that would bring with it a number of decisions that the city would have to make about zoning and regulation and so forth. and i decided at that time, at a know it was a great, that rather than have a fire drill after the ballot measure passes, as suspected it would, we should plan an event.