San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury targets cities’ focus on ADUs

“What we quickly discovered is there is no way to monitor these ADUs being used for those in need of low-income housing,” Drace said.

This year’s report is based on the ADU-heavy RHNA-6 cycle submittals in some cities’ plans in light of escalated state goals to address the jobs/housing imbalance. The jury wanted to explore if the ADU-heavy target is a feasible solution to affordable housing or if it is a way the jurisdictions planned to work around planning for multifamily developments, Drace said.

The report accuses Atherton, Portola Valley, Hillsborough and Woodside of avoiding the construction of affordable multifamily units in its respective cities by allocating more than 50% of its state assigned units for ADUs. Civil grand juror Greg Spector said the issue with ADUs is that if it’s not easily regulated and the cities don’t have a program to verify the tenants income match the assigned category.

“For every accessory dwelling unit that gets a permit and is counted as an affordable unit, equals one fewer deed restricted affordable unit,” Spector said.

Each jurisdiction is assigned a number of units for varied incomes: very low, low, moderate and above moderate. Most cities follow a 30-30-30-10 format, meaning 30% each for the very low to moderate income categories and 10% for above moderate. The categories are based on the county’s average median income, around $116,000 for a one-person household, according to the county.

The state assigned Atherton to plan for 348 units, which needs to be dispersed through the four categories, and 280 of its units were planned through ADUs. Spector said the issue HCD is having with accepting the ADU-heavy RHNA target is that there are no verifiable programs in place.

“What happens is you have a bunch of so-called affordable units on paper but not in reality,” Spector said.

Atherton City Manager George Rodericks said the town understands the sentiments of the grand jury.

“We are committed to outreach and engagement on the development and efficacy of our ADU program. We have partnered with HIP Housing, a local nonprofit, and initiated several outreach and survey programs to gather community commitment — potentially through some sort of deed restriction program — and participation,” Rodericks said in an email.

Portola Valley was assigned 253 units and it planned 92 ADUs. Hillsborough was assigned 554 units and planned 280 ADUs. And Woodside was assigned 328 units and planned for 120 ADUs. None responded to requests for comment on the report.

HCD instructed the county jurisdictions to monitor and verify ADU production and affordability at least every two years but never specified what the process should look like, according to the report.

In the report, the grand jury suggests jurisdictions stop using ADUs unless it has an effective monitoring system that verifies how they will be used. It also suggested developing and adopting incentive programs for ADU owners who offer deed restrictions and include its tenants to participate in independent monitoring. The cities and county should also develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula for all levels of income. Lastly, the jury suggests the jurisdictions work together on accomplishing some of the recommendations, according to the report.

The state requires county jurisdictions to submit its housing plans by Jan. 31, and some of the cities submitted late. Daly City hasn’t submitted its housing plans yet and Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae and Pacifica’s plans are currently being reviewed by HCD.

The only cities in San Mateo County to have housing plans accepted by HCD so far are Redwood City and Brisbane. Of the 16 county cities that submitted, the 14 other jurisdictions are Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Colma, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside and San Mateo County’s unincorporated areas.

Many of the county’s jurisdictions don’t have the staff to manage the workload that goes into a housing element and it’s outsourced. However, Southern California’s cities had a deadline earlier than the county’s and many of the consultants were unavailable, causing cities to fall behind and out of compliance, according to the report.

“Most of the cities have submitted their plans to HCD and many have been rejected because they need to monitor and verify their ADUs,” Spector said. “That’s why our first recommendation is for the jurisdictions to stop using ADUs until they have an effective monitoring program.”

In this particular report, the jury investigated city housing element policies in addressing goals mandated by the state through its RHNA numbers. The state assigns RHNA numbers with an eight-year goal to address the region’s jobs-housing imbalance. This year’s numbers are nearly 300% higher and will provide the landscape for affordable housing in the county through 2031. During the last cycle, none of the county’s jurisdictions fulfilled its housing target. That is a cause for concern, according to the report. The cities don’t have to build the housing, but must offer building and zoning opportunities.

The civil grand jury serves as a community oversight body for the county. Its 19 members review and report on topics it is presented from the public or through its members. It has no enforcement capabilities but can offer recommendations, Drace said.

All 20 cities in the county must respond to the findings and recommendations outlined in the report. Visit sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2022/2022adu.pdf to view the report.