Looking for more city input, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will reconvene in two weeks to consider a November ballot measure allowing the development of low-incoming housing units without voter approval, in pursuant of Article 34 of the state Constitution.
The measure, initially presented at a special meeting of the board July 22, would provide authorization for the county and other public agencies here to construct or acquire affordable rental housing for low-income residents — up to 1% of total existing housing units — without voter consideration.
In a quick turnaround, the measure was proposed by staff Thursday and supervisors met Monday with limited anecdotal city input. The special meeting was held ahead of the 88-day cutoff, or Aug. 13, ahead of the November election for ballot measures to be presented by counties.
“Desperate times do sometimes call for desperate measures and we are in those desperate times,” County Executive Mike Callagy said.
After concern was raised over the limited outreach to cities, Supervisor Ray Mueller proposed revisiting this discussion after taking advantage of what time was left to consult with cities and requesting letters of standing ahead of their final decision.
“Direct representation is key,” Supervisor David Canepa said. “These cities are accountable to their residents. A lot of a city’s job is about land use issues, getting their input is really going to help.”
Article 34
Article 34 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 to do so. Statewide measures to remove or weaken Article 34 have failed three separate times, last on the ballot of 1993. Critics on the measure maintain it was designed to perpetuate racial homeownership gaps.
“Article 34 is from an era that I don’t think any of us can be proud of,” Callagy said. “What it stands for is something that is a part of California’s dark history. This corrects a wrong in our California Constitution, at least for San Mateo County.”
This county measure follows California lawmakers withdrawing a measure that would have repealed Article 34. State Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, who wrote the repeal measure, cited concerns of a crowded November ballot and limited resources dedicated to its campaign.
“The goal here is really to provide affordable housing to a growing group that has no opportunity to live here,” Callagy said. “We need to do everything that we can to level the playing field. Though this will not be the silver bullet that solves any of those problems, it is very much a tool in our chest that we’ll be able to use.”
The amount of annual development authorized by the county’s ballot measure is limited. As of January 2024, San Mateo County has about 289,782 housing units and would allow development of 2,898 affordable housing units in the first year of operation.
This number would serve as a “bank” for possible units to be bought or created. Other counties, such as Sacramento and Humboldt, have used this percentage approach as well. Such banks that do not describe particular projects are compliant with Article 34, as confirmed by the California Supreme Court, according to a staff report.
Recommended for you
Amendments to the initial proposal were proposed by supervisors, including more specifically defining the public entities able to use the measure’s allowance, and consideration of a sunset clause. Supervisors Mueller and Noelia Corzo will serve on a subcommittee to work on the language of the measure ahead of the next board meeting.
Millbrae’s La Quinta
In September 2023, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted to purchase a hotel in Millbrae as housing for homeless families and seniors for $33 million — a decision that was decried by residents and opposed by a majority of Millbrae councilmembers, who cited public safety concerns and significant loss of revenue.
Callagy said this measure proposal is not in response to this ongoing matter.
“Some people might conflate this with the issue in Millbrae with La Quinta,” Callagy said. “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.”
The city of Millbrae initially filed litigation against the purchase in November 2023, alleging purchasing of the property is for low-income housing and should be voted on by residents under Article 34.
The lawsuit was delayed by a judge’s ruling June 17 because the county has yet to legally specify from where funds will come.
The Millbrae City Council will discuss placing its own measure on the ballot at its meeting July 23, to ask if the county should be authorized to develop, construct or acquire housing units for low-income people in the city of Millbrae.
The measure was presented alongside similar actions taken by other counties throughout the state, but County Attorney John Nibbelin did acknowledge that staff was not able to find case law that points to the circumstance of having competing ballot measures. Still, he maintained the county is confident that law as it exists supports the proposed measure.
If the measure were to pass, Nibbelin said, it would create a bank of more than 2,800 units available, which would be available for any number of projects in the county including, in theory, in Millbrae.
The Millbrae meeting is at 6 p.m. Tuesday, July 23, at City Hall, 612 Magnolia Ave. or via Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81399368182. Meeting ID: 813 9936 8182.
The Board of Supervisors will revisit consideration of the measure at another special meeting slated for Aug. 6.
(1) comment
“Desperate times do sometimes call for desperate measures and we are in those desperate times,” County Executive Mike Callagy said. And yet, nobody who supports these measures, even in these desperate times, offers to house, or subsidize, one or more of these low-income residents. Instead, these folks are proposing to have folks vote to remove their voting rights. Eventually, if enough people are fooled into voting for this, the measure will be challenged in our courts, essentially turning this ballot measure exercise into a complete waste of time and money. Remember how folks were saying the Millbrae recall was a waste of time and money? Yet here we are, doing the same thing.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.