Millbrae scoping dueling Article 34 housing measure

This would allow the county to bypass project-specific votes required under Article 34 of the state Constitution, which was initially approved by California voters in 1950, and makes it so any public agency looking to develop or acquire low-income housing must gain the approval of a majority of voters. 

But what if it passes in the county but fails in Millbrae, for example, a city that’s recently become an ardent supporter of Article 34, using it as a legal defense against the county’s in-flux purchase of the city’s La Quinta Inn? 

No one really knows, at least not yet. 

“If there’s competing measures, which one takes precedent? There is no case law,” City Manager Tom Williams said at a City Council meeting July 23. 

Discussion of both the county and city’s proposed measures have been continued to Aug. 6 so more public input and city feedback can be heard, with the Board of Supervisors likely voting that morning and the Millbrae City Council in the evening. 

County Executive Mike Callagy rejected the idea that the proposed measure had anything to do with Millbrae’s lawsuit against the county’s purchase of the hotel as housing for formerly homeless seniors and families, alleging it needs to go to residents for a vote under Article 34. 

That lawsuit was dismissed because it’s not yet “ripe for determination” on grounds that the county has yet to receive Project Homekey funds for the project or legally specify it’ll be used for low-income residents, Superior Court Judge Nancy Fineman ruled June 17. 

“Some people might conflate this with the issue in Millbrae with La Quinta,” Callagy said previously. “This has nothing to do with that. This has really to do with affordable housing countywide. We believe, we’ve always believed in Millbrae that we fall under the provision of Homekey.”

During the City Council meeting, Williams implied otherwise and lambasted the county’s ballot measure on a multitude of problem areas, including the broad-brush term “public agency” — which could technically include entities like school districts and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. He also said there was a lack of specificity, and the speed at which it was introduced at a special meeting July 22 with little advance notice to cities. 

“We have not had sufficient time to analyze the plan proposed by the county, and quite frankly, we don’t even know if it’s legal,” he said. “If it is approved countywide, that would mean, for example, the school district could come in and build a homeless shelter on the baseball field … without any action by you as a City Council or without any public hearing or say by the municipality.”

Councilmember Angelina Cahalan cautioned against the conflation of homeless shelters and low-rent housing, an issue she said has been exacerbated by misinformation around La Quinta. 

Vice Mayor Maurice Goodman requested further legal analysis — which is in the works, Williams assured — and clarified that the city would potentially be taking a better-safe-than-sorry approach in giving residents decision-making power separate from the county, if they so desired it. 

“So we’re doing this with the hopes of saying ‘hey, we’re gonna try to at least secure our rights and freeze them in time,’ if we can use it, we use it, if not we’ll go from there?” Goodman said, to which Williams responded affirmatively. 

Both Goodman and Cahalan appeared to have been successfully recalled in a special election that concluded Tuesday, the night of the meeting, though the results have not been made final. The rationale for the recall effort was centered on when Cahalan abstained and Goodman voted no on sending a September 2023 letter from the Millbrae City Council expressing concerns about the upcoming hotel purchase.

Regional housing bond, other consequences

Analysis around how a proposed regional affordable housing bond would legally interact with the Article 34 measures is also up in the air, Williams said. 

How other cities are reacting to the proposed ballot measure will be of interest to Millbrae, Councilmember Gina Papan said. She also raised similar concerns about public agencies like SFPUC taking advantage of the vague language on the measure. 

“SFPUC is the largest landowner in San Mateo County. In any one of the cities here, this could be used in such a way that would impact each and every city should SFPUC decide to take advantage of that,” she said.

As city councilmembers weigh possibilities around the measure and hear from constituents and other municipalities, Cahalan warned against looking at the issue as too black and white. 

“Just as it could be a blanket pass to open the door, it could also be a blanket pass to shut the door, not only to other entities but to ourselves as a city,” she said. 

Some constituents expressed frustration around the convoluted and indirect nature of the measure — and discussion around it. 

“I thought I knew what this was about and I’m just getting more confused by the moment, so it concerns me,” Millbrae resident Gina Miranda said. “We need a clear idea of what approval means, what is a ballot measure going to look like.” 

Term limits

A less controversial ballot measure was also up for discussion at the July 23 City Council meeting — consecutive term limits. City councilmembers decided unanimously to place a request for an extension to three four-year consecutive terms on the November ballot. Right now, councilmembers are limited to two four-year consecutive terms.

Previously, councilmembers were prepared to place an extension request for four consecutive terms, rather than their current two-term limit, but decided against it as less amenable to voters.