San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2022-2023
Summary of Responses to the Final Reports of the
⚠️ 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 10 findings
F1
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F2
San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3. RESPONDING APPLICABLE RESPONSE FOLLOW-UP AGENCY RECOMMENDATION YEAR City of Belmont R1 Will not implement by --- the required date
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
By February 1, 2024, the County should meet with cities within the County that are willing to participate, to consider establishing a regional effort that integrates the cities’ bicycle plans and to discuss how the cities and County could work together to apply for grant opportunities as a region. RESPONDING APPLICABLE RESPONSE FOLLOW-UP AGENCY RECOMMENDATION YEAR City of Belmont R1 Will implement by Dec '23 ---
F8
Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage). 7
No recommendations for this finding
F9
City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Evaluation of students' results from CTE pathway courses and school-business partnerships after graduation is incomplete, inconsistent, and rarely beyond anecdotal among San Mateo County high schools.
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
San Mateo County District Attorney
Elected County Office
San Mateo County Sheriff
Elected County Office