Issue Are some San Mateo County communities misusing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to avoid the

Comments 20

• CO1 Page 14
  Due to recent changes in California ADU-related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.
• CO2 Page 14
  San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.
• CO3 Page 14
  Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.
• CO4 Page 14
  HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households are occupying the ADUs as planned.
• CO5 Page 14
  Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.
• CO6 Page 14
  Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units.
• CO7 Page 14
  ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County.
• CO8 Page 116
  Revising our zoning codes to allow for increased density, which allow for housing that is naturally more affordable;
• CO9 Page 116
  Commercial impact fees in place to generate affordable housing funds;
• CO10 Page 116
  Operation of a two-year pilot program to provide ADU construction management through Hello Housing;
• CO11 Page 107
  Streamlined permitting processes for affordable housing using State law; and
• CO12 Page 116
  Inclusionary zoning requirements that require 15% of new units be rented or sold affordably. F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans. Not applicable: South San Francisco is not named in this finding and therefore has no comment. F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households are occupying the ADUs as planned. South San Francisco partially agrees with this finding. We do not expect HCD to specify how to verify the income levels of ADU occupants. Additionally, HCD is only asking for verification at the initial time of occupancy. South San Francisco is planning on supporting a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements, a long-standing collaboration among the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo County. Additionally, South San Francisco has a draft Program in the adopted Housing Element per HCD input and revisions to address future ADU production and monitoring relative to RHNA expectations: Program CRT-6.1 – Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units consistent with State Law and educate the community about these standards. City will continue to allow permissive design standards for ADUs with no parking required in most instances, reduced setbacks, larger units and ADUs allowed on both single- and multi-family zoned parcels. Actively promote participation in the City’s two-year pilot program Hello ADU for comprehensive project management support for ADU construction. City shall track compliance with ADU construction through the Annual Progress Report to reconcile trends with actual ADU permits issued and commit to new ADU promotion programs if ADU construction falls more than 30% off-trend. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Planning Commission Time Frame: Annual reporting to HCD through the Annual Progress Report; if ADU production and affordability falls 30% below recent trend line assumptions, City shall adopt alternate measures (e.g., incentives, funding, development standard modification, rezoning) to maintain adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation by income group and promote ADU construction within six months. Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; City funding for promotion programs, additional construction management. F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability. South San Francisco partially agrees with this finding. San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023 to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. South San Francisco is planning to support a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements. We expect this monitoring effort to begin no later than two years after the Housing Element was due (early 2025). Additionally, South San Francisco has a draft Program in the adopted Housing Element per HCD input and revisions to address future ADU production and monitoring relative to RHNA expectations: Program CRT-6.1 – Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units consistent with State Law and educate the community about these standards. City will continue to allow permissive design standards for ADUs with no parking required in most instances, reduced setbacks, larger units and ADUs allowed on both single- and multi-family zoned parcels. Actively promote participation in the City’s two-year pilot program Hello ADU for comprehensive project management support for ADU construction. City shall track compliance with ADU construction through the Annual Progress Report to reconcile trends with actual ADU permits issued and commit to new ADU promotion programs if ADU construction falls more than 30% off-trend. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development – Planning Division; Planning Commission Time Frame: Annual reporting to HCD through the Annual Progress Report; if ADU production and affordability falls 30% below recent trend line assumptions, City shall adopt alternate measures (e.g., incentives, funding, development standard modification, rezoning) to maintain adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation by income group and promote ADU construction within six months. Funding Source: Staff time to promote program; City funding for promotion programs, additional construction management. F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units. South San Francisco partially agrees with this finding. As stated above, South San Francisco is planning to support a regional approach to monitoring ADU affordability. Unless ADUs are specifically deed-restricted for very-low or low-income housing, South San Francisco will likely only consider ADUs under the moderate-income, non-deed restricted category for the Annual Progress Report to be conservative about RHNA compliance. South San Francisco is not actively relying on ADUs to meet RHNA Cycle 6 – instead, our vast and targeted housing programs and opportunity sites will ensure that the City meets its regional housing obligations. F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County. South San Francisco agrees with this finding. HIP is one potential partner agency. Many jurisdictions, including South San Francisco, provide funding to HIP Housing to operate their homesharing and other housing programs. As the regional efforts to monitor ADU affordability move forward the City will ensure that nonprofit partners like HIP are engaged in these efforts, including gauging their interest as potential operators of such a program. II. Response to Recommendations R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their State- mandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. While South San Francisco shares the Civil Grand Jury’s goal to increase ADU affordability monitoring, it is not feasible to revise our Housing Element to eliminate the use of ADUs to meet affordable housing goals. The Housing Element was developed through a rigorous process of multiple years of public input and revisions. South San Francisco is close to a certified submission to HCD; it is not feasible or good policy for us to make a major change to our housing assumptions this late in the process. However, South San Francisco is committed to following state housing law and to supporting the development of an effective regional ADU monitoring program which will be operated by 21 Elements or ABAG. South San Francisco is also supporting the development of a new ADU nonprofit that will have programs to incentivize the production of affordable ADUs in San Mateo County. R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used. Part of the recommendation has yet to be implemented but could be implemented in the future. However, part of the recommendation is not warranted. South San Francisco agrees that it is important to have high quality information about who is living in ADUs. The City may participate in the ABAG or 21 Elements ADU monitoring system. The potential monitoring is projected to launch in January 2025 and will likely survey people about their plans for their ADU at the time permits are issued. Due to homeowner privacy concerns and the cost of engaging with thousands of homeowners every year, it would not be practical to have an ongoing verification system that checks the income of every resident of every ADU in San Mateo County. R3. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt incentives for ADU owners which could be offered in exchange for deed restrictions that would include requirements for ADU tenants to participate in independent monitoring. This recommendation has yet to be implemented but may be implemented in the future. South San Francisco agrees with the goal of adopting an affordable ADU program by means of a current program – the City subsidizes project management and design of ADUs for participating South San Francisco homeowners. The City is also learning more about the possible creation of an ADU nonprofit to serve San Mateo County jurisdictions and 21 Elements, working on behalf of the City, have been researching best practices. The draft work plan for the nonprofit calls for it to offer programs to incentivize the production of affordable ADUs and support homeowners in constructing ADUs in exchange for agreeing to rent at affordable levels. The nonprofit, which may partner with HIP Housing or SMCo HEART, is projected to launch in July 2024 and may be financially supported by San Mateo County jurisdictions as well as private philanthropy if possible. R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals. This recommendation has yet to be implemented but may be implemented in the future. As part of the monitoring program referenced in response to R2, South San Francisco may track the intended use of ADUs. South San Francisco may develop an incentive program that offers incentives in exchange for affordability requirements such as deed restrictions per the Housing Element program CRT 6.1, as reviewed by HCD, and as recommended by the City Council at a future date. Additionally, the City will utilize the two-year pilot program with Hello Housing for ADU construction management to provide data on the intended use of ADUs for a more holistic data point that can be shared with San Mateo County’s 21 Elements working collaborative. R5. By April 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula specific to each jurisdiction to the extent they are used for meeting the very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing requirements in their RHNA housing elements. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. While we agree with the importance of an accurate distribution formula, given the relative small size of South San Francisco a more meaningful distribution formula can be attained by collecting data on ADUs constructed across all San Mateo County jurisdictions. South San Francisco] is supporting the creation of an ADU monitoring program through 21 Elements or ABAG which will collect data that can be used to revise the distribution formula based on actual observed income levels. The future non profit may partner with HIP Housing or SMCo HEART. The UC Berkeley study surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide with repeat mailing… the data was aggregate to reduce the margins of errors. The margin of error would be too large if we are only surveying a dozen or couple of dozen households. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city. The recommendations accepted by HCD of 30/30/30/10 had a significant cushion built in to ensure cities did not accidentally underproduce the amount of housing needed. R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address
• CO13 Page 140
  Creating brand new land-use designation to facilitate the construction of a 50-unit 100% affordable housing project on Town land
• CO14 Page 140
  Creating two additional brand-new zoning districts (multi-family and mixed-use) - a significant shift for a Town that is exclusively zoned for single-family
• CO15 Page 140
  Amending the zoning ordinance to establish inclusionary housing requirements for new multi-family housing developments DocuSign Envelope ID: 5A71459A-001A-4577-A627-FB7C921ECF8D
• CO16 Page 141
  Establish Objective Design Standards for two new zoning districts to allow for greater certainty in the Town’s design review process
• CO17 Page 141
  Codifying the Town’s Affiliated Housing Program that allows for construction of workforce housing on Town lands with institutional and commercial uses. Codification includes establishing program parameters and processes and includes development and affordability requirements to further incentivize program use
• CO18 Page 141
  Through collaboration with local service providers, convene a discussion of populations that are experiencing comparatively high rates of cost burden to discuss solutions for relief
• CO19 Page 141
  Ensure the permitting process for modular and manufactured homes is cleared of any disincentives and develop informational materials to assist applicants F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans. The Town of Portola Valley partially disagrees. The word choice of this finding implies that the Town of Portola Valley uses ADUs for 80 percent of the affordable housing commitments. In reality, it is 46%, which is appropriate based on the residential characteristics of the community. Town land is prohibitively expensive, as are construction costs, there is no available public transit infrastructure, and a large percentage of Town land is subject to land use constraints such as steep slopes, unstable soils, flood risks and earthquakes and wildfire hazards. Opportunities to obtain tax credits for affordable housing projects are limited based on the Town’s location and available services such as mass transit. Without an appropriate number of ADUs, the Town simply cannot meet its RHNA. F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households are occupying the ADUs as planned. The Town of Portola Valley partially agrees with this finding. We do not expect HCD to specify how to verify the income levels of ADU occupants. Additionally, HCD is only asking for verification at the initial time of occupancy. Portola Valley is planning on supporting a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements, a long-standing collaboration among the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo County. F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability. The Town of Portola Valley agrees with this finding. San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023 to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. The Town of Portola Valley is planning to support a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements. We expect this monitoring effort to begin no later than two years after the Housing Element was due (early 2025). F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5A71459A-001A-4577-A627-FB7C921ECF8D The Town of Portola Valley agrees with this finding. As stated above, the Town is planning to support a regional approach to monitoring ADU affordability. F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County. The Town of Portola Valley agrees with this finding. HIP is one potential partner agency. II. Response to Recommendations R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their State- mandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not feasible. While the Town of Portola Valley shares the Civil Grand Jury’s goal to increase ADU affordability monitoring, it is not feasible to revise the Town’s Housing Element to eliminate the use of ADUs and still meet its affordable housing goals. The Housing Element was developed through a rigorous process consisting of multiple years of public input and revisions. To date, Town staff, consultants, the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee, various Town committees, the Planning Commission, Town Council and residents have spent 145 hours across 42 meetings addressing its Housing Element. The Town of Portola Valley already made its second submission to HCD on May 25, 2023; it is simply unreasonable to request a major change to the Town’s housing policy this late in the process. Incorporating a change of this scale at this stage of the Housing Element update process would cause a significant delay to the adoption of the Housing Element, and be in directs odds with the implementation of programs designed to encourage new affordable housing. However, The Town of Portola Valley is committed to following state housing law and to supporting the development of an effective regional ADU monitoring program which will be operated by 21 Elements or ABAG. The Town of Portola Valley is also supporting the development of a new ADU nonprofit that will have programs to incentivize the production of affordable ADUs in San Mateo County. The Town will have this monitoring program in place for future Housing Element cycles. R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used. Part of the recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future. However, part of the recommendation is not warranted. The Town of Portola Valley agrees that it is important to have high quality information about who is living in ADUs. The Town will participate in the ABAG or 21 Elements ADU monitoring system. The monitoring is DocuSign Envelope ID: 5A71459A-001A-4577-A627-FB7C921ECF8D projected to launch in January 2025 and will likely survey people about their plans for their ADU at the time permits are issued. However, it is important to note that due to homeowner privacy concerns and the cost of engaging with thousands of homeowners every year, it would not be practical to have an ongoing verification system that checks the income of every resident of every ADU in the county. R3. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt incentives for ADU owners which could be offered in exchange for deed restrictions that would include requirements for ADU tenants to participate in independent monitoring. This recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented to some extent in the future. The Town of Portola Valley agrees with the goal of adopting an affordable ADU program. The Town is also actively involved in the creation of an ADU nonprofit to serve San Mateo County jurisdictions and 21 Elements, working on behalf of the Town, have been researching best practices. The draft work plan for the nonprofit calls for it to offer programs to incentivize the production of affordable ADUs and support homeowners in constructing ADUs in exchange for agreeing to rent at affordable levels. The nonprofit is projected to launch in July 2024 and will be financially supported by San Mateo County jurisdictions as well as private philanthropy if possible. Regarding deed restrictions specifically, the Town will first assess whether incentives offered in exchange for deed restrictions are compelling to homeowners. The Town’s goal is to generate as many affordable ADUs as possible and it will focus its efforts on offering incentives that best achieve that goal. Additionally, either as an add on to the above nonprofit efforts, or as a Town-run initiative, the Town plans to develop an affordable ADU rental program to match low-income tenants who have experienced displacement with ADU owners willing to rent at below market rates. If necessary to drive participation, the Town will consider incentives such as waiving fees or other financial incentives. R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals. This recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented to some extent in the future. As part of the monitoring program referenced in response to R2, The Town of Portola Valley will track the intended use of ADUs. The Town will develop an incentive program that offers incentives in exchange for affordability requirements that most effectively generate affordable units. R5. By April 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula specific to each jurisdiction to the extent they are used for meeting the very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing requirements in their RHNA housing elements. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5A71459A-001A-4577-A627-FB7C921ECF8D The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. While we agree with the importance of an accurate distribution formula, given the relatively small size of Portola Valley, a more meaningful distribution formula can be attained by collecting data on ADUs constructed across all San Mateo County jurisdictions. The Town of Portola Valley is supporting the aforementioned creation of an ADU monitoring program through 21 Elements or ABAG which will collect data that can be used to revise the distribution formula based on actual observed income levels. Additionally, so long as the recommended 30/30/30/10 ADU affordability distribution established by ABAG is supported by HCD, the Town will continue to employ it as a baseline. The allocation is based on a UC Berkeley study that surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide with repeat mailing and the data was aggregated to reduce the margin of error. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city. Additionally, the recommended affordability distribution had a significant built in cushion to ensure cities do not accidentally underproduce the amount of housing needed. Even if the Town were to conduct its own surveying, the margin of error would be too large, rendering unreliable data. R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address
• CO20 Page 14
  F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate- income households are occupying the ADUs as planned. Response: Redwood City partially agrees with this finding. HCD requires annual reporting of ADU production and monitoring of affordability every two years. Redwood City is using assumptions for ADU affordability created by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for use by cities across the Bay Area to address their RHNA requirements. The City is utilizing a process created and regulated by HCD to meet HCD’s issued RHNA requirements. The City plans to comply with any updated guidance on monitoring affordability levels that HCD may provide in the future. Additionally, HCD is currently only asking for verification at the initial time of occupancy. Redwood City and other San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023, to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. Redwood City is planning to support a regional ADU monitoring effort through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) or 21 Elements, a long-standing collaboration among the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo County. This monitoring effort is expected to begin no later than two years after the Housing Element was due (early 2025). F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability. Page 2 of 5 Response: Redwood City agrees with this finding as it relates to Redwood City’s plans for monitoring and verifying ADU production or affordability but has no comment as it relates to other jurisdictions. F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units. Response: Redwood City partially agrees with this finding. The City recognizes the importance of monitoring and verification of data to track RHNA housing obligations. ADUs comprise a relatively small portion of Redwood City’s RHNA-6 obligations for very low-, low-, and moderate- income housing units and the City will have sufficient data on overall housing construction to determine whether it is on track to meet its RHNA obligations. As noted above, Redwood City is planning to support a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements. This monitoring effort is expected to begin no later than two years after the Housing Element was due (early 2025). F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County. Response: Redwood City agrees with this finding. HIP Housing is one potential partner agency.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.