Committee hears civil grand jury on ADUs and modular housing; requests further analysis

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Oct. 3 held a hearing on the 2017–2018 Civil Grand Jury report "Mitigating the housing crisis: ADUs and modular housing," heard testimony from the civil grand jury and multiple city departments, and asked for follow-up analysis on several recommendations.

Laurie Campbell, foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury, introduced the jury's focus on ADUs and modular housing as potential tools to add housing without altering neighborhood character. "What is often referred to as the housing crisis is certainly one of those very big issues," Campbell said. P. Siegel, a principal writer on the report, told the committee the jury found ADUs to be a promising source of housing but noted cost and permitting delays are major barriers; the report cited a Turner Center estimate that ADU construction in San Francisco can cost about $50,000 more than in other cities (roughly $200,000 locally vs. $150,000 elsewhere).

Ann Marie Rogers of the Planning Department outlined steps to coordinate reviews across Planning, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and Fire to shorten permit review times, produce educational materials and submit recommended code updates to the Board by April 2019. DBI Deputy Director Dan Lowry described operational changes including an ADU fast-track unit and expanded over-the-counter approvals, and Fire Marshal Dan DeCocio outlined safety challenges when inserting units into older, nonconforming buildings and described equivalencies and information sheets developed to address single-exit and egress issues.

Amy Chan of the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development said MOHCD has three modular projects in the pipeline (1064–1068 Mission, Maceo May Apartments, and Mission Bay Block 9), totaling about 500 permanent supportive units, and that the city is developing local inspection specs and a business plan with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to create a modular housing factory in San Francisco.

Committee members pressed staff on inconsistent ADU statistics presented in agency slides: screening forms, permit applications, approvals, and completed units varied between Planning and DBI. Agency staff acknowledged differences in tracking methods, described weekly reporting, and committed to reconciling numbers so the Board can receive consistent counts of applications, permits issued and completed ADUs. The committee adopted amendments to item 4 to indicate agreement with several grand jury findings, requested further analysis on select recommendations (including the effect of permit-fee changes and financing barriers), added the Controller's Office to the review list, and continued the hearing to the call of the chair for follow-up.

Public comment included criticism of modular housing approaches and calls for greater accountability; one commenter (Ace Washington) alleged unethical practices in local development and said he would publish findings. The committee agreed to recommended follow-up analysis and to forward the amended resolution to the Board for consideration.