San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
Civil Grand Jury | 2017-2018 City and County of San Francisco Mitigating the Housing Crisis: Accessory Dwelling Units
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 14 findings
F1
The City has produced more than the required market rate housing to satisfy market demand using traditional building practices, but not nearly enough below market rate housing. Taking better advantage of alternative construction methods can increase the City’s ability to narrow the below-market housing gap. (No recommendation)
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Construction of ADUs can add a meaningful number of moderately priced rental housing units in San Francisco, with no significant burden on City finances. Therefore, encouraging ADU development is of value to San Francisco. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R9, R10)
Related Recommendations (6)
R1
Recommends the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection jointly review their codes and submit joint recommendations to the Board of Supervisors no later than April 1, 2019 for code amendments designed to encourage homeowners to build more ADUs. (F2, F8)
R2
Recommends the Board of Supervisors amend existing City codes and ordinances, before June 30, 2019, to waive or reduce ADU permit fees, with the understanding that reduced departmental revenues would be made up from the City’s general fund. (F2, F6, F7)
R3
Recommends the Board of Supervisors structure fees separately for ADUs in single family residences and ADUs in multi-unit buildings, specifically designed to ease the permitting costs for single family homeowners. (F2, F6, F7)
R4
Recommends the five agencies involved with ADU permitting establish a shared meeting space by January 1, 2019, and not wait for the completion of the new shared agency building. This space would be used by point persons from each of the five permitting agencies to expedite the ADU permit approval process. (F2, F4, F5)
R9
Recommends the Planning Department waive parking space requirements for ADUs built in single-family residences. (F2, F8)
R10
Recommends the Planning Department expand its public outreach on ADUs to increase homeowner awareness of ADU opportunities. (F2, F9)
F3
The City has provided a program to encourage ADU construction, and as a result, the number of ADU permit applications has been growing dramatically. Further improvements to this program will help ADU construction to continue on a successful trajectory. (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Recommends the Department of Building Inspection work with the Department of the Controller to develop meaningful, outcome-based performance metrics on ADU permit approval duration, to be reported on OpenData starting January 2019. (F3, F4)
F4
The length of the permitting process for ADUs is a major factor in limiting the speed of bringing ADUs to market to help meet the housing shortage. Shortening the ADU permitting process both expedites and encourages ADU construction. (R4, R6)
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
Recommends the five agencies involved with ADU permitting establish a shared meeting space by January 1, 2019, and not wait for the completion of the new shared agency building. This space would be used by point persons from each of the five permitting agencies to expedite the ADU permit approval process. (F2, F4, F5)
R6
Recommends the Department of Building Inspection work with the Department of the Controller to develop meaningful, outcome-based performance metrics on ADU permit approval duration, to be reported on OpenData starting January 2019. (F3, F4)
F5
The Planning Department expects to establish a one-stop permit center in its new building, which would bring together all agencies involved in the permit process, and thereby expedite approvals, but the new building won’t be ready until 2020; therefore, interim measures to expedite ADU approvals are needed. (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Recommends the five agencies involved with ADU permitting establish a shared meeting space by January 1, 2019, and not wait for the completion of the new shared agency building. This space would be used by point persons from each of the five permitting agencies to expedite the ADU permit approval process. (F2, F4, F5)
F6
The City’s ADU program acknowledges the value to the City of increasing ADU construction. Homeowners who construct ADUs do so voluntarily and at their own expense. The additional burden of heavy permit fees is counterproductive to the City’s goal of increasing the rate of ADU construction, in that it represents an additional barrier to building ADUs for single family homeowners, and therefore likely reduces the number of applications. (R2, R3)
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Recommends the Board of Supervisors amend existing City codes and ordinances, before June 30, 2019, to waive or reduce ADU permit fees, with the understanding that reduced departmental revenues would be made up from the City’s general fund. (F2, F6, F7)
R3
Recommends the Board of Supervisors structure fees separately for ADUs in single family residences and ADUs in multi-unit buildings, specifically designed to ease the permitting costs for single family homeowners. (F2, F6, F7)
F7
Cities that lower permitting fees for ADUs, as Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC have done, see an increase in the number of permit applications by single family homeowners; if San Francisco reduces permitting fees for that type of ADU permit applications, they are likely to increase. (R2, R3)
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
Recommends the Board of Supervisors amend existing City codes and ordinances, before June 30, 2019, to waive or reduce ADU permit fees, with the understanding that reduced departmental revenues would be made up from the City’s general fund. (F2, F6, F7)
R3
Recommends the Board of Supervisors structure fees separately for ADUs in single family residences and ADUs in multi-unit buildings, specifically designed to ease the permitting costs for single family homeowners. (F2, F6, F7)
F8
The City’s Building and related construction codes place limitations on what can be built, inhibiting some homeowners from building ADUs. Allowing exceptions from these requirements, when it can be done without compromising safety, helps homeowners add ADUs to their homes. (R1, R9)
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Recommends the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection jointly review their codes and submit joint recommendations to the Board of Supervisors no later than April 1, 2019 for code amendments designed to encourage homeowners to build more ADUs. (F2, F8)
R9
Recommends the Planning Department waive parking space requirements for ADUs built in single-family residences. (F2, F8)
F9
The Planning Department’s current public outreach program is a good start, but the material needs to be updated, and it is not reaching enough people. Better outreach directed to more homeowners will likely lead to an increase in applications for construction of ADUs in single family homes. (R10)
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Recommends the Planning Department expand its public outreach on ADUs to increase homeowner awareness of ADU opportunities. (F2, F9)
F10
Spaces at the 1068 Mission and possibly the Mission Bay Block 9 homeless housing projects may be suitable for construction trade “soft skills” training—preparatory training for construction work. This could be facilitated by DHSH as part of the CityBuild program. The end result could be a strengthened labor force. (R5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Recommends that MOHCD and OCII require the managers of 1068 Mission Street and possibly Mission Bay Block 9 to reserve ground floor space for use in training construction workers, including training in ADU construction methods and modular unit construction work. (F10)
F11
When the City is building housing using factory-constructed modules from outside the City, the factory construction of those modules is subject to state building codes but not local building codes. If local building codes are not taken into account at the factory, there can be code compliance problems at the project site. (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Recommends the Department of Building Inspection regularly inspect modular factories outside the City, if those factories are building housing for the City, to ensure construction is built to comply with City codes. (F11)
F12
Some current trade union contracts prevent the City from using modular construction for City-sponsored below market housing projects, and further slow progress on below market housing. (R11)
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Mayor support the establishment of a union-staffed modular housing factory in San Francisco. (F12, F14)
F13
It may take as many as five residential modular construction projects for the City to accurately assess this alternate construction method, including an assessment of cost and time benefits. In addition to the 1068 Mission project, it will be helpful to this assessment if the pending homeless housing project at Mission Bay Block 9 is built using modular construction methods. (R7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Recommends the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure make its best effort to encourage the developer to use modular construction for the Mission Bay Block 9 homeless housing project. (F13)
F14
The building trade unions are open to talks with the City to establish a factory for modular unit construction in San Francisco, staffed by union workers, and committed to best practices, and this is a promising start to trade union acceptance of modular construction technology. (R11)
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Mayor support the establishment of a union-staffed modular housing factory in San Francisco. (F12, F14)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1It clearly doesn’t work to depend on developers to provide housing for all San Francisco residents, as below-market and middle class housing are left further and further behind. All construction methods and formats face the escalating costs of construction in the city. A city that has always been a nexus of innovation must actively pursue and implement alternatives to traditional housing construction. We have identified two kinds of alternative building methods that can help to meet the City’s housing needs: ADUs in single family homes, and modular construction for multi-unit residential structures . For ADUs, we wholeheartedly recommend accelerating the permitting process and lowering the fees for building them. Other cities have shown that lowering fees increase homeowners’ willingness to apply for permits. This approach would require funding the costs to City departments of ADU permit processing and inspections from other sources, such as the general fund. We also envision creating a job training program within the first homeless housing project to teach homeless workers preparatory skills for construction work. Modular construction is another alternative worth pursuing more actively than it has been in San Francisco; considered strictly as a construction method, it is both faster and cheaper than conventional construction. It may take as many as five projects using this alternative building process to get a real understanding of the benefits and challenges, specifically in San Francisco. There is only one project currently in the works, and possibly two, if the OCII project commits to modular construction for Mission Bay Block 9. We will need to do more of these. The City has changed dramatically in the 21st century, and that calls for new ways of addressing the housing needs of a growing population. ADUs offer the possibility of increased density, without changing the look and feel of our neighborhoods, a process pleasing to both proponents of greater density and advocates of protecting neighborhood character. As we face the challenges 35 From interviews. SFCGJ 2017-2018: Accessory Dwelling Units and Modular Housing 14 of getting our homeless citizens off the streets and of housing our middle and working classes, cheaper and faster methods are vitally important. Modular construction appears to be one solution, and we will see how these first attempts meet those goals and satisfy those standards. The needs are clear, and these two alternatives offer new ways to deal with a new city.