San Mateo County Grand Jury
2022-2023
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Students benefit greatly from personal exposure to specialized work environments and gain experience from trained professionals in project-based instruction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2024, the SMCOE should prepare a plan, by which it supports and facilitates on an annual basis, initial contacts and meetings between school administrators and business leaders to explore potential partnerships, including financial support, curriculum development, internships, professional mentors, and on-site exposure to work environments.
F2:
Businesses can provide schools with much-needed resources, from state-of-the-art equipment and facilities to curriculum development and instructor support.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By February 1, 2024, the SMCOE and the school districts should consider proposing to the State’s Department of Education a review of required credentials for CTE instructors to find ways to streamline, accelerate, and broaden approvals, thereby increasing the number of qualified CTE instructors.
F3:
San Mateo County’s schools vary substantially in their CTE and work-centered offerings based on individual school district’s available revenue, availability of qualified instructors, appropriate facilities, and connections to local businesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By February 1, 2024, the SMCOE should consider sponsoring regular conferences to review and discuss ongoing and planned future school-business partnerships in the County with decision-makers among business leaders, school and CTE administrators, and community/government leaders.
F4:
The availability of qualified CTE teachers which limits the choice of CTE pathways is a critical problem because of low pay compared to industry salaries and credentialing hurdles. This problem will become more acute as school districts try to respond to students and businesses demand for more CTE pathways.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By March 1, 2024, SMCOE and school districts should investigate providing transportation for students to existing CTE facilities within the County without regard to a student’s home school district.
F5:
The loss of San Mateo County’s Regional Occupation Center and Program (ROCP) facility reduced the number of CTE offerings, especially among those pathways requiring expensive equipment and facilities, and disproportionately impacts smaller school districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By March 1, 2024, the SMCOE and school districts should investigate the feasibility and appropriateness of re-establishing at least one Regional Occupation Center and Program facility in the County and publicly report the outcome of the investigation.
F6:
Many comprehensive schools focus primarily on preparing students for college admissions based on the UC and CSU A-G course requirements, relegating CTE programs to secondary status, and ignoring data that demonstrates CTE offerings provide a vital gateway for vocation and college preparatory education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By March 1, 2024, SMCOE and school districts should develop and apply metrics and procedures to evaluate their CTE pathways and, if applicable, business partnership programs’ effectiveness.
F7:
For optimum effectiveness school districts’ CTE coordinators must develop relationships with, and access to high-level decision-makers at prospective business partners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
For optimum effectiveness school districts’ CTE coordinators must develop relationships with, and access to high-level decision-makers at prospective business partners. The District lacks information to fully agree or disagree with this Finding given that it did not conduct the research related to this Report. The District, however, accepts the Grand Jury’s Finding for the purposes of this Response.
F8:
SMCOE, school districts, and schools should leverage their relationships with local governments and networks to connect with business decision-makers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
SMCOE, school districts, and schools should leverage their relationships with local governments and networks to connect with business decision-makers. The District agrees with this Finding.
F9:
There is a need for a Countywide forum to facilitate regular active discussions among the school administrations, business entities, and SMCOE on creating new school/business partnerships, reviewing the ones in operation, and confirming the actual benefits reported by students, teachers, and businesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
There is a need for a Countywide forum to facilitate regular active discussions among the school administrations, business entities, and SMCOE on creating new school/business partnerships, reviewing the ones in operation, and confirming the actual benefits reported by students, teachers, and businesses. The District lacks information to fully agree or disagree with this Finding given that it did not conduct the research related to this Report. The District, however, accepts the Grand Jury’s Finding for the purposes of this Response. 3
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Evaluation of students’ results from the CTE pathway courses and school-business partnerships after graduation is incomplete, inconsistent, and rarely beyond anecdotal among San Mateo County high schools. The District lacks information to fully agree or disagree with this Finding given that it did not conduct the research related to this Report. The District, however, accepts the Grand Jury’s Finding for the purposes of this Response. Recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 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. City Response: The City agrees with finding F1.
F2:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
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 ADUs will be used. City Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of Menlo Park’s Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on January 31, 2023 and developed through a multi-year process. It is unreasonable to revise the City’s adopted Housing Element to eliminate the use of ADUs to meet the City’s affordable housing goals. Per HCD’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook (updated July 2022), ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) may be utilized towards meeting a jurisdiction’s RHNA and included in the Annual Progress Report (APR). As mentioned in response to finding F2, however, the City of Menlo Park could still meet its RHNA without ADU production. The City of Menlo Park is committed to following state housing law and to providing a variety of housing types for all income levels in the City.
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 ADUs are being used. City Response: The recommendation will not be fully implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The City will continue to explore with 21 Elements on its or ABAG’s ADU monitoring program. The monitoring program is projected to launch in January 2025 and will likely survey applicants about their ADU plans at the time building permits are issued. Due to homeowner privacy concerns and the cost of engaging with potentially thousands of applicants every year, it would not be practical to have an ongoing system that verifies the income of every ADU resident 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. City Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but may be implemented in the future. The City of Menlo Park’s Housing Element contains programs to support the production and affordability of ADUs. Program H3.I of the City’s Housing Element directs the City to evaluate and adopt incentives to encourage accessible ADUs and rent restricted units. The timeline to implement the program is within two years of Housing Element adoption. The City is also involved with 21 Elements, who is evaluating on behalf of the jurisdictions in San Mateo County the creation of an ADU nonprofit to serve San Mateo County jurisdictions. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCB6FF84-FA8F-4B95-95CB-99B87AC6ABA7 The draft work plan for the nonprofit includes programs to incentivize the production of affordable ADUs and support homeowners in constructing ADUs in exchange for agreement to rent at affordable levels. The nonprofit is projected to launch in July 2024 and would be financially supported by San Mateo County jurisdictions and 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. City Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but may be implemented in the future. As part of Program H4.F of the Housing Element, the City is planning to request information on projected ADU rents as part of the development application by the end of 2024. As part of Program H3.I, the City will be exploring potential incentives for ADUs in exchange for renting the units at affordable levels within two years of Housing Element adoption.
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. City Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of Menlo Park’s ADU affordability distribution is based on a UC Berkeley study, which surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide. The collected data was aggregated to reduce the margin of error, which could be large if only surveying a small sample size. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city. The recommendation for an affordability distribution of 30/30/30/10 (30% very low income/30% low income/30 % moderate income/10% above moderate income) has a significant cushion built in to minimize underproduction of housing. HCD did not question the City’s use of this methodology for determining the affordability levels of the anticipated ADU production to meet the City’s RHNA for the planning period. Since ADUs are a relative small portion of the City’s total units for meeting its RHNA, the development of a new distribution formula is not warranted or reasonable to implement. As more data becomes available for ADUs in San Mateo County through work with ABAG or 21 Elements, the distribution formula could be modified for future use.
R6:
San Mateo County and each jurisdiction should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3. City Response: This recommendation has been implemented. San Mateo County jurisdictions work collaboratively through 21 Elements to develop, adopt, and implement a range of policies and programs in the County. The City of Menlo Park has partnered with 21 Elements on number of items and will continue to work with 21 Elements to explore collaborative efforts to address issues raised in the Grand Jury’s Recommendations 2 and 3. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCB6FF84-FA8F-4B95-95CB-99B87AC6ABA7 If you have further questions, please contact Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director, at dmchow@menlopark.gov or 650-330-6733. Sincerely, Jen Wolosin Mayor Mayor Jeff Gee 1017 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica Redwood City, California 94063 Telephone (650) 780-7220 Council Members www.redwoodcity.org Alicia C. Aguirre Kaia Eakin Diane Howard Elmer Martinez Saballos Chris Sturken August 29, 2023 Honorable Nancy L. Fineman Judge of the Superior Court c/o Bianca Fasuescu Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 RE: 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Dear Judge Fineman and Members of the Grand Jury, On behalf of the City of Redwood City, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury Report titled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”. The following response was approved by the City Council at its meeting on August 28, 2023. Analysis of the Report’s Findings and Recommendations The Grand Jury made seven findings and six recommendations in its report. The City’s responses follow each finding and each recommendation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 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. Response: The City of Foster City agrees with this finding.
F2:
San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans. Response: The City of Foster City partially agrees with this finding. While the City of Foster City counts ADUs to meet affordable housing commitments in RHNA, it is one of many strategies. Specifically, the City of Foster City has a total lower income housing RHNA of 819 and ADUs make up only 14 of these.
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. Response: The City of Foster City 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. Response: The City of Foster City partially agrees with this finding. Every year, HCD requires jurisdictions to submit an Annual Progress Report (APR) that includes details regarding its DocuSign Envelope ID: B9F958C2-E09A-4626-9294-A738C1988BD2 housing production and Foster City has been submitting APR annually to HCD. The City has included a program in its Housing Element, H-D-4-h: ADU Monitoring, “The City shall track new ADUs (at single-family and multifamily sites) and collect information on the use and affordability of these units in each Annual Progress Report. Biannually through the projection period (beginning in 2025), if determined that at least 50% units are not meeting a lower-income housing need, the City shall adopt additional incentives to facilitate ADUs.” Another program in the Housing Element that will help in monitoring and verifying ADU production is H-G-2-e, Rental Registry: “Unless a requirement for a State rental registry is adopted, explore a rental registry that tracks information such as rents, utilities, accessibility for disabled persons, tenant occupancy dates, and landlord contact information in order to improve the information available to landlords, tenants, and decision makers.” The Rental Registry would be for all rental units (including ADUs) to track occupancy, rents etc. The City of Foster City is planning on supporting 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.
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. Response: The City of Foster City partially agrees with this finding. Regarding ADU production, every year as part of the process for preparing the APR for HCD, the staff gathers information on housing production, including ADUs. Regarding affordability, the City has included programs in its Housing Element, H-D-4-h: ADU Monitoring and H-G-2-e, Rental Registry (noted in F4). In addition, San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023, to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. The City of Foster City is planning to support a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements.
F6:
Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units. Response: The City of Foster City does not agree with this finding. Foster City has only projected 24 ADUs in its sites inventory of 1,896 units which is very minimal and will be able to demonstrate meeting its RHNA-6 obligation for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units through housing production reflected in the future APRs. Also, there is a buffer of 72 units in extremely low, 90 units in very low, and 15 units in moderate income categories included in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. Theoretically, Foster City can still fully meet its RHNA obligations for every affordability category without a low-income ADU being provided. However, the City of Foster City is planning to implement ADU monitoring and 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: B9F958C2-E09A-4626-9294-A738C1988BD2 Response: The City of Foster City agrees with this finding. HIP is one potential partner agency. However, it shall be noted that Foster City do not have a high proportion of ADUs in their sites inventory for RHNA-6. Response to Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
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. Response: The City of Foster City’s RHNA for cycle 6 is 1,896 units, and only 24 ADUs are projected in the sites inventory, including seven (7) ADUs projected in very-low-, low- and moderate-income categories and three (3) ADU in the above-moderate category. Also, there is a buffer of 72 units in extremely low, 90 units in very low, and 15 units in moderate income categories included in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. The City of Foster City shares the Civil Grand Jury’s goal to increase ADU affordability monitoring; however, given that the Housing Element does not rely on ADUs (only 2% of the overall number of affordable units and includes a 16% buffer) to meet affordable housing goals, removing ADUs in the Housing Element does not impact the overall affordable housing goals. Additionally, the Housing Element was developed through a rigorous process of multiple years of public input and revisions, and it is simply not reasonable to expect the City to make a major change to our housing policy this late in the process and delaying the certification process. However, the City of Foster City is committed to following state housing law. Foster City has included a program in its Housing Element, H-D-4-h: ADU Monitoring, “The City shall track new ADUs (at single-family and multifamily sites) and collect information on the use and affordability of these units in each Annual Progress Report. Biannually through the projection period (beginning in 2025), if determined that at least 50% units are not meeting a lower-income housing need, the City shall adopt additional incentives to facilitate ADUs.” Foster City will support the development of an effective regional ADU monitoring program which will be operated by 21 Elements or ABAG. In addition, the City has included numerous programs in its Housing Element for the planning period 2023-31 to support the production of ADUs, including an ADU/JADU financial incentive program, preapproved ADU/JADU designs and expedited review, and an amnesty program for existing unapproved ADUs. Thus, the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable as discussed above, Foster City has only projected 24 ADUs in its sites inventory of 1,896 units which is very minimal and will be able to demonstrate meeting its RHNA- 6 obligation for very-low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units through housing production reflected in the future APRs. Also, there is a buffer of 72 units in extremely low, 90 units in very low, and 15 units in moderate income categories included in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. Theoretically, Foster City can still fully meet its RHNA obligations for every affordability category without a low-income ADU being provided. DocuSign Envelope ID: B9F958C2-E09A-4626-9294-A738C1988BD2
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. Response: Part of the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The City of Foster City agrees that it is important to have information regarding the affordability of ADUs. As stated above in R1, Foster City has included a program in its Housing Element, H-D-4-h: ADU Monitoring. The City will participate in the ABAG or 21 Elements ADU monitoring system. The 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. In addition, the City has another program in the Housing Element that will help in monitoring and verifying ADU production is H-G-2-e, Rental Registry: “Unless a requirement for a State rental registry is adopted, explore a rental registry that tracks information such as rents, utilities, accessibility for disabled persons, tenant occupancy dates, and landlord contact information in order to improve the information available to landlords, tenants, and decision makers.” The Rental Registry would be for all rental units (including ADUs) to track occupancy, rents etc. The timeline for exploring rental registry options is December 2024. The recommendation regarding developing, adopting and implementing a verification system capable of verifying how newly developed ADUs are being used will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. There are a number of Housing Programs, Goals and Policies that the City has to implement over the course of the next 1-2 years. Timely implementation of these programs is important to achieve housing goals, RHNA targets and affordable housing. As noted above, the City will be participating in the ABAG or 21 Elements ADU monitoring system in addition to exploring a Rental Registry. To develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used by February 1, 2024 with limited staff resources is not feasible and will impact the implementation of other important Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs that will be more impactful in meeting affordable housing in Foster City.
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. Response: This recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future. As discussed above, the City has included a program included in its Housing Element, H-D-4-b, ADU/JADU financial incentive program. Under this program, the City of Foster City will “Provide or partner with another organization to provide a financial incentive program for single-family homeowners to construct an ADU/JADU that is restricted for lower-income households for 10-15 years, with an additional incentive amount for units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities.” The timeframe for implementation of the program is December 2024. DocuSign Envelope ID: B9F958C2-E09A-4626-9294-A738C1988BD2
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. Response: This recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future. As part of the monitoring program referenced in response to R2, the City of Foster City will track the intended use of ADUs. Foster City has included a program in its Housing Element to provide a financial incentive program for single-family homeowners to construct an ADU/JADU that is restricted for lower-income households for 10-15 years. The timeframe for implementation of the program is December 2024.
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. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of Foster City agrees with the importance of an accurate distribution formula, given the relatively small size of the City of Foster City, a more meaningful distribution formula can be attained by collecting data on ADUs constructed across all San Mateo County jurisdictions. The City of Foster City 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 UC Berkeley study surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide and aggregated the data to reduce the margin of errors. The margin of error would be too large if the City were to survey only a dozen or couple of dozen households. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city based on the UC Berkeley study. The recommendation of a percentage distribution of 30/30/30/10 had a significant cushion built in to ensure cities did not accidentally underproduce the amount of housing needed. Additionally, given the historically low production of ADUs (average of 3 ADUs per year) in Foster City, there isn’t significant data to help inform the affordability distribution formula. Thus, the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable.
R6:
San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3. Response: The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future. Foster City has included two programs in its Housing Element, including ADU monitoring, and an ADU/JADU financial incentive program as stated above. Timeframe for implementing these programs is by December 2024. DocuSign Envelope ID: B9F958C2-E09A-4626-9294-A738C1988BD2 Foster City actively participates in 21 Elements, a collaboration amongst 21 San Mateo County jurisdictions to develop, adopt, and implement housing policies and programs in the County. The City will continue to work on efforts and solutions that boost the production and affordability of ADUs. This response was approved by the City Council of Foster City at its regular meeting on August 7, 2023. Respectfully submitted, Jon Froomin Mayor, City of Foster City Cc: grandjury@sanmateocourt.org
Findings & 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
F9:
City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.
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.