📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2022-2023

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

Published: June 12, 2023 69 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 7 findings

F1 Page 82
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. City Response: The City agrees with finding F1.
F2 Page 82
San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans. City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees with finding F2. The use of ADUs is one way to help meet a jurisdiction’s affordable housing requirements. The City of Menlo Park’s Housing Element for the 6th cycle (2023-2031) meets its RHNA requirement plus a 30% buffer through different strategies to provide a variety of housing types at all income levels, primarily focused in high resources areas of the City. The use of ADUs is just one strategy for meeting the City’s RHNA. The Housing Element identifies 85 ADUs, including 51 affordable to lower income households, and accounts for less than three percent of the overall number of units and less than five percent of affordable units to lower income households. If no ADUs are built during this planning period, the City could still meets its required housing allocation. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCB6FF84-FA8F-4B95-95CB-99B87AC6ABA7
F3 Page 83
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. City Response: The City of Menlo Park is not the subject of finding F3 and therefore cannot respond to this finding.
F4 Page 83
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 occupying the ADUs as planned. City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F4. As part of the City’s Annual Progress Report on housing submitted to HCD, the City documents all housing production, including ADUs, and their affordability level, for the prior calendar year. The City does not believe HCD has instructed the City to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years. However, the City of Menlo Park is exploring a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements, a long-standing collaboration amongst the County of San Mateo and the 20 jurisdictions in the County. The City does not expect HCD to specify how to verify income levels of ADU occupants.
F5 Page 83
Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdiction have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability. City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F5. The City of Menlo Park monitors annual ADU production through building permit data and assesses affordability generally using the recommended distribution of 30/30/30/10 (30% very low income/30% low income/30 % moderate income/10% above moderate income) based on a UC Berkeley study. The City cannot respond to this finding for San Mateo County and its other jurisdictions. San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023 to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. The City of Menlo Park is committed to providing reasonable ADU monitoring and reporting, and is exploring a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements. This monitoring effort is expected to begin no later than January 2025.
F6 Page 83
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. City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F6. As noted in response to finding F2, the City of Menlo Park does not rely solely on ADUs to meet the City’s RHNA obligation for lower income households, and theoretically could still fully meet its RHNA obligation in the absence of any ADU production during the planning period. The City of Menlo Park agrees that effective monitoring and verification can help evaluate compliance in meeting a jurisdiction’s RHNA.
F7 Page 83
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. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCB6FF84-FA8F-4B95-95CB-99B87AC6ABA7 City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F7. The City of Menlo Park does not have direct experience with HIP Housing providing ADU affordability and occupancy monitoring and therefore, cannot respond to the finding in F7. Theoretically, ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by an outside agency, but this has not been verified by the City. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations

Recommendations 6