2024 Election Update Housing Wins in San Mateo County

California’s housing shortage is not just a humanitarian crisis, it is a national political crisis threatening to undermine the future of the American Republic. 

If current population trends continue, California is on track to lose four house seats and the same number of presidential electors by 2030, while Texas and Florida could gain four each. A plurality of residents leaving the state directly cite high housing costs. Local leaders should treat new housing at all levels of affordability as not only a social strategy to meet local needs, but also a political strategy to promote California’s commitment to equity and justice nationally.

Fortunately, San Mateo County’s electorate largely voted for housing this November! Measure T in San Mateo, which will increase allowable heights and densities near businesses and transit, passed by 58.7% at the time of this writing. Measure JJ in East Palo Alto, requiring certain tax revenues be set aside for housing funding, passed by a resounding supermajority. Across the County, voters supported measures to fund housing and essential infrastructure.

Statewide ballot measures were more conflicted. Though ballots are still being counted, Prop 5 looks likely to fall short of a majority. We are grateful to all the community organizations and residents of San Mateo County who supported lowering the barrier to essential funding for affordable homes. 

Furthermore, Prop 33, which would have allowed unrestricted rent control, failed by a nearly 20-point margin. Prop 33’s failure illustrates the need to broaden the housing coalition and focus on legislation that is actually feasible to pass. 

Nonetheless, San Mateo County’s local housing movement continues to grow. We were encouraged by all the federal, state, regional, and local candidates who won with pro-housing platforms, from Kevin Mullin to Lisa Gauthier to Mark Nagales and dozens of other housing champions—more than we can name. And we are grateful to electeds like Harvey Rahrback in Half Moon Bay and Davina Hurt in Belmont who led on housing in their communities. Regardless of the national election, local electeds in San Mateo County continue to lead the way on promoting housing and protecting democracy.

Now more than ever, we need leaders who will support new homes in San Mateo County. Our area can only be a safe haven—for immigrants, for LGTBQ youth, for young women, for every group at risk of oppression—if we have places for new people to live. We are fortunate to have so many present and future leaders stepping up to lead our communities.

HLC’s 2024 Propositions Recommendations Vote for Affordable Housing this November

The following positions were vetted by HLC’s Policy Committee and Board of Directors.

⭐🏘️ YES on Prop 5: Empower Your Community

Prop 5 gives local voters more control to meet the housing needs of low- and middle-income families and improve infrastructure like transit and emergency services. This proposition would allow cities, counties, and the state to approve housing bonds with a 55% vote threshold if they include strict accountability measures, paving the way for affordable homes and resilient communities.

Context: Under existing California law, bonds for housing and infrastructure require 2/3 voting majorities in order to pass. The high threshold to pass bonds for affordable homes makes passing necessary funding harder.

HLC’s position: We support the right of local voters to determine where their money goes. Small minorities of voters should not be able to block essential funding for housing and transit. For affordable housing specifically, bond funding has an advantage over other models because the funding can be provided up front or predictably over time, rather than the variability of tax increment financing or general fund revenues.

Phone Bank or Canvass for Prop 5 on Election Day

🏘️ YES on Measure T for a thriving San Mateo

San Mateo’s high housing costs are pushing out residents, essential workers, and young families. Measure T offers a path to rezone areas of the city for denser housing, making affordable homes a reality. 

Context: Since 1991, San Mateo has had a height and density cap limiting the amount of housing that can be built to a maximum of 55 feet and 50 dwelling units per acre. Measure Y, the most recent iteration of the height and density cap, passed in 2020 with just 43 votes in support. Measure Y substantially constrains the ability of San Mateo to meet its housing needs by preventing the city council from allowing taller, denser buildings.

Measure T represents more than 6 years of effort by the San Mateo community to identify suitable locations for new homes near businesses and transportation corridors.

The City of San Mateo’s updated Land Use Map under Measure T. Blue, purple, and brown colors represent areas where Measure T would increase heights and densities to a maximum of eight stories and 130 dwelling units per acre, though most areas would be lower density.

HLC’s position: Measure T’s increases in heights and densities are objectively better than the status quo, representing a first step toward overturning San Mateo’s exclusionary height and density limits entirely. Though HLC believes Measure T should have allowed greater density in a wider range of areas than currently proposed, we support efforts to move in a positive direction for allowing housing in San Mateo.

🏘️ YES on Measure JJ in East Palo Alto

Measure JJ guarantees Measure L revenue is spent where the voters want by requiring a minimum proportion of revenue go toward tenant rental assistance (30%) and a maximum proportion of revenue (20%) fund staff overhead and other city costs.

Background: In November 2022, East Palo Alto voters passed Measure L, a 2.5% tax on residential rent receipts. The advisory language in Measure L referred exclusively to housing-related issues. However, since the passage of Measure L, the majority of funds from Measure L have been used to fund issues unrelated to housing affordability or tenants. 

Measure JJ would require that (1) a minimum of 30% of Measure L tax revenues be used exclusively for tenant rental assistance, (2) a maximum of 20% of Measure L tax revenues be used for reasonably incurred costs to the City of EPA for staff and overhead to administer the measure, and (3) the remaining revenues may be used in any way that supports affordable homeownership, preserves affordable housing, furthers tenant rental assistance, or protects residents of EPA from displacement or homelessness. 

HLC’s position: Cities should be accountable to upholding the promises they made to voters, and voters passed Measure L with language primarily related to housing issues. More than 40 community organizers and housing activists gathered 2060 verified signatures to support Measure JJ, approximately 18% of the city’s voting population–far surpassing the 10% threshold required to put a measure on the ballot. Given the strong community support for spending Measure L revenue on areas for which it was initially promised, HLC supports Measure JJ. 

🏘️ NO on Prop 33

California needs to reform Costa Hawkins to reform rent control and ensure renters in all housing types can benefit from protections. Which is why it is unfortunate that Prop 33 is written so broadly that anti-housing cities can use it to discriminate against new affordable homes. 

Context: California already has statewide rent control. AB 1482, a statewide law passed in 2018, caps rent growth at a maximum of 10% per year, a 5% increase plus up to 5% for inflation. However, Costa-Hawkins, a separate state law passed in 1995, places restrictions on where rent control can apply. Under Costa Hawkins, rent control cannot apply to housing built after 1995 or single-family homes of any kind.

HLC’s position: Costa Hawkins needs reform, but Prop 33 is written in a way that would allow cities to discriminate against new homes. A conservative council member from Huntington Beach explained why they support Prop 33: the law “gives local governments ironclad protections from the state’s housing policy.”

Prop 33 would enable jurisdictions to avoid state housing laws because the language is incredibly broad. The measure reads “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control.”

This broad language would enable cities to subvert new homes in a number of ways:

  1. Cities could apply rent control exclusively on new homes. Costa Hawkins limits rent control on homes built before 1995; Prop 33 would enable rent control to be applied exclusively on homes built after 2025, for example–which is what conservative council members in Huntington Beach hope to do.
  2. Prop 33 does not guarantee cities apply rent control equally on single-family and multi-family homes–the most important reform. Costa Hawkins exempts single-family homes from rent control, meaning households in many of California’s most expensive neighborhoods lack protections available to apartment dwellers. Prop 33 would continue to allow cities to treat multi-family homes unequally from single-family homes.
  3. Cities could make new housing financially infeasible to build by mandating negative rent growth. Decreasing rents by law sounds good, but it has tradeoffs: Developers may no longer find new housing financially feasible to build; landlords will be less likely to upkeep their homes or renovate them. Existing tenants may benefit from lower rents short term, but future residents–young families, immigrants, LGBT youth fleeing persecution in other states, and more–will have fewer and more expensive housing options long term.

Cities have strong incentives to abuse rent control to block new homes. Over the last decade, California has passed increasingly strict laws requiring cities to plan for housing. The housing element process requires cities to change local policies to facilitate new homes; laws like SB 9 require cities to allow duplexes in a wide range of areas (in theory at least). Prop 33’s broad language would allow cities to render all state housing rules irrelevant, because it dictates “The state may not limit the right of any city … to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control” of any kind.

Preserve state pro-housing laws by voting no on Prop 33. We can pursue Costa Hawkins reform through the legislature instead.

Dr Rev Penny Nixon Housing Story – Biography

Rev. Dr. G. Penny Nixon is the Faith Director for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and the Faith Communities Housing Liaison for the County of San Mateo. Prior to working full-time at the intersection of affordable housing and faith communities, she served as the Senior Minister of CCSM from 2007 – 2022 and was honored with the title of Minister Emerita upon her retirement from pastoral ministry. A community leader and political activist, she has received numerous awards and recognitions for her work in both San Francisco and San Mateo, the most recent being named 2019 Woman of the Year for Assembly District 22. She is also the founder and co-director of the Peninsula Solidarity Cohort, a group of 30 interfaith clergy engaged in addressing the most pressing social needs in San Mateo County.

Housing Element Updates The Builder's Remedy Gets Stronger with New State Law

Status Update

As of today, eight jurisdictions in San Mateo County remain out of housing element compliance: Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, Daly City, San Bruno, Belmont, Atherton, Woodside, and the County itself. Belmont has been deemed in substantial compliance, very close but not yet officially certified, and San Bruno’s housing element, currently under review, commits to several substantial policy changes as well. 

San Mateo County has far and away the highest rate of non-compliance in the Bay Area. Regionally, just 20 cities remain out of housing element compliance, a rate of 19%, whereas 38% of SMC’s jurisdictions are out of compliance–reflecting the numerous barriers to housing that have contributed to high rental costs in recent years. 

Builder’s Remedy Proposals

Among other penalties, including loss of access to a variety of state grant funding programs, jurisdictions that remain out of housing element compliance are subject to the “Builder’s Remedy”: Without certified housing elements, jurisdictions cannot use their zoning rules to deny housing proposals. Essentially, jurisdictions without housing elements do not have a zoning code. As a result, developers can theoretically propose a 10-story multi-family projects in a single-family neighborhood and the city cannot use zoning to deny it. 

Pacifica has had the most Builder’s Remedy proposals in San Mateo County, with at least 6 projects in the pipeline. Some cities received Builder’s Remedy applications before achieving housing element certification, though they are now certified: Menlo Park, in particular, has three applications, including a proposal for 665 homes in a lower density neighborhood.

Image

Dalle-e impressionist painting of “The Builder’s Remedy”

Other cities have found loopholes: The City of San Mateo successfully stalled a proposal for a Builder’s Remedy at the Block 20 site to death. The proposal at Block 20 would have replaced the initial proposal for 72 homes and 98,717 square feet of office space with a 353-home project. The project applicants chose not to move forward with a Builder’s Remedy proposal when staff refused to determine if the project was eligible for streamlining until after the developer submitted a complete application. 

New State Laws Protect Builder’s Remedy Proposals

New state laws will make the Builder’s Remedy substantially more impactful in jurisdictions that remain out of housing element compliance. AB 1893, signed by Governor Newsom on September 19, guarantees legal protections for projects proposed under the Builder’s Remedy in exchange for stricter limits on density. 

Specifically, AB 1893: 

  • Requires local governments to process Builder’s Remedy applications through the same process as normal, zoning-compliant developments–meaning that local governments may not require a rezoning or general plan amendments or impose additional fees. 
  • Strengthens the Housing Accountability Act by adding stricter statutory timelines for reviewing an application and a limit on the number of public meetings a city may hold regarding Builder’s Remedy proposals. 
  • Changes Builder’s Remedy maximum densities from (1) unlimited density to whatever the maximum density is within the city, or (2) up to 65 du/ac, whichever is higher. Builder’s Remedy projects can still be proposed throughout most of a city, except on sites abutting heavy industrial uses. 

Builder’s Remedy proposals submitted before the end of the year will have a choice between existing Builder’s Remedy rules–which allow unlimited density but have fewer protections–and AB 1893’s provisions.

Furthermore, AB 1886 closes several loopholes some jurisdictions used to claim ineligibility for the Builder’s Remedy, including the “self certification” strategy. Previously, several cities in San Mateo County claimed they complied with housing element law before receiving certification from HCD. AB 1886 clarifies that jurisdictions only comply with housing element law once HCD certifies them—meaning until HCD certifies a jurisdiction’s housing element, that jurisdiction is subject to the Builder’s Remedy.

Laws from prior years may further strengthen Builder’s Remedy applications. SB 423, a state law passed in 2023, will further bolster housing proposals by streamlining CEQA review for many housing projects. SB 423 extends existing rules requiring cities that have fallen behind on their RHNA goals to streamline housing that helps them catch up. Infill projects meeting certain labor standards, standards that vary based on the size of the development proposal, will be able to surpass CEQA review entirely in order to receive permit approvals. 

Some projects may be able to layer AB 1893 and SB 423 together, creating housing development proposals that will be extremely difficult for jurisdictions to disprove.

San Mateo Housing Element Certified Now crunch time begins

Congratulations to the City of San Mateo on receiving housing element certification

The City still faces a lawsuit from the Housing Action Coalition disputing their projections for housing production under current zoning. Though HLC also questions whether San Mateo accurately calculated housing capacity, we support many of the policies in the city’s housing element, including

  • Reduced parking requirements from 1.5-3 spaces to 1 space per studios and 1 bedrooms, 1.5 spaces for 2 bedrooms or more
  • Streamlined entitlement processes, such as the elimination of a pre-application requirement and ministerial approval for multi-family developments smaller than 25 homes
  • Expansion of just cause for eviction protections, including relocation payouts from Day 1 of tenancy
  • A commitment to update the city’s General Plan to allow increased heights and densities. 

San Mateo’s housing element is just a start. In order to realistically meet its housing goals, the city will benefit from treating its policy commitments as a foundation to build upon with even stronger policies.

San Mateo’s final land general plan update land use map, up for a vote as “Measure T” this November. Available in larger PDF form HERE.

In order to successfully implement its housing element, San Mateo voters now needs to pass Measure T, which will allow for greater heights and densities along transit corridors and business areas.

Authorizing Affordable Homes Under Article 34 An Exclusionary Section of CA's Constitution Doesn't Need to Limit Affordable Homes Anymore

Last Wednesday, San Mateo County’s Board of Supervisors heard an informational session on a prospective ballot measure to authorize affordable homes pursuant to Article 34 of the California constitution. HEART, the County’s regional housing trust, requested the County to consider a ballot measure so that HEART could pursue an innovative new preservation program. 

The Supervisors directed the County to pursue an education and listening program with the cities of San Mateo County to develop a measure that will promote affordable homes pursuant to Article 34, to be placed on the ballot during a later election cycle.

First passed in 1950, Article 34 “appealed to racist fears about integrating neighborhoods” with the intent of keeping affordable housing and communities of color from entering certain areas. Article 34 requires all publicly subsidized low-income housing to undergo a ballot referendum.

The proposal initially under consideration by the Board of Supervisors would allow the County to annually acquire or build low-income housing amounting to 1% of total units countywide, currently amounting to approximately 2,900 homes, without the need for such a risky and cost-prohibitive process. After discussions with cities and community members, the BoS may adjust a future ballot measure to promote affordable homes.

The state legislature has passed narrow exemptions to Article 34 enabling the development of some affordable housing, but those exemptions are limited in scope and risk legal challenges. Passing a measure pursuant to Article 34 would allow San Mateo County and its constituent cities to: 

  • Acquire existing affordable homes in danger of converting to market-rate and keep those homes permanently affordable.
  • Acquire existing market rate homes and convert them into affordable homes and develop new homes at a range of incomes onsite.
  • Engage in land banking, the acquisition of old/vacant/blighted/underutilized properties for future redevelopment, renovation, or use. This will maximize land use.
  • Function as a public developer and build affordable housing directly.
  • Have actual local control. When local jurisdictions own land, they will be able to dictate the entirety of its use: labor standards, environmental standards, proportion of affordable homes, and deeper levels of affordability of what is built. Cities and the County would control every dollar of revenue generated by new development. 

SCA 2 - California YIMBY

Leading up to the board of supervisors meeting, the San Mateo Daily Journal published an outpouring of support for legalizing affordable homes pursuant to Article 34. Some of our favorite snippets include:

  • Article 34 measure will help with naturally occurring affordable housing: “As a government agency, HEART is subject to Article 34. HEART needs San Mateo County voters to allow local government agencies like HEART to acquire and preserve housing for lower-income residents.” —Glenn Sylvester, Daly City council member
  • Support county’s Article 34 effort: Article 34’s “purpose—and impact—was to replace racially restrictive zoning with a new tool for racial and socio-economic exclusion.” —Karen Grove, Menlo Park
  • Local control under Article 34: “The county and other agencies wouldn’t be able to build any new housing without approval of the duly elected city council. Let’s restore local control over affordable housing by supporting the county’s ballot measure.” —Cathy Baird, San Carlos
  • Let residents have a voice on Article 34 ballot measure: “Millbrae has spent $300,000 suing the county to force a countywide vote on Article 34 and now the city is actively fighting against placing an Article 34 measure on the ballot. Do Millbrae’s leaders support the right of residents to vote on housing or not?” —Jess Hudson, Millbrae
  • Avoiding governmental paralysis: “The voters do not need to be directly involved in every niggling little detail, and trying to force them to be involved just results in paralysis — which was the entire point of Article 34. ‘Council can’t do what the voters elected them to do, because we made it expensive and complicated’ is not local control.” —Auros Harman, San Bruno planning commissioner

HLC is grateful to the Board of Supervisors for their support of community outreach and education regarding Article 34. We look forward to supporting County efforts to increase opportunities for affordable homes.

County Adds Five New Staffers to Department of Housing Implementing the Housing Element Requires Staff Capacity

Earlier this month, San Mateo County unveiled plans in its 2024-2025 budget to create a new real estate development team, allocating $940,332 to fund five staff positions. The County’s investments reflect HLC requests for more planning capacity to ensure the County can fully implement its housing element objectives and manage its affordable housing portfolio.

From page 359 of the County budget, a summary of the County’s hiring plans for the Department of Housing.

Like most jurisdictions in the Bay Area, San Mateo County projects structural deficits over the next several years. A number of factors put pressure on the County budget: lower-than-expected property tax receipts, potential state claw back of various funds, cuts to statewide Human Health & Services programs, and unpredictable inflation all factor.

As a result, the $4.2 billion budget is approximately $600 million smaller than last year’s budget. Most of the deduction occurred because of the completion of major capital projects, but the County’s financial situation could change drastically depending on the choices of the governor and state legislature.

However, investing money in staff capacity now will save the County money down the road. Due to delays in its housing element update, the County has already lost access to state grant funding in 2024–funding that ordinarily would have supported implementation of housing element goals, such as rezoning.

By investing adequately in housing staffers, the County will ensure it can achieve and maintain housing element compliance, creating new opportunities to secure funding for housing initiatives.

Furthermore, the County’s growing portfolio of land presents opportunities to raise revenue. A few weeks ago, the County purchased a 132,000 square foot Office Park in San Mateo; earlier in the year, they bought the 50-acre Bay City Flowers Property in Half Moon Bay.

Both properties present large redevelopment opportunities that could deliver thousands of new homes. By strategically rezoning the sites, the County could potentially generate millions of dollars. By investing in its housing department and real estate development capacity, San Mateo County is investing in its future.

Anti-displacement Policies Are Coming to South City

Those in attendance at last Wednesday’s (5/8/24) night’s community meeting in South San Francisco witnessed a powerful display of unity as residents from across the city came together to voice their support for much-needed affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies. With growing frustration over the misrepresentation of community needs by anti-housing groups, residents are demanding real solutions to the pressing issues of displacement and housing unaffordability.

Since our organizing efforts in South San Francisco began, we’ve learned that habitability, home affordability, and displacement are top priorities for South San Francisco residents. People love South City and want to remain here, but unfortunately, many are being forced out, sometimes to neighboring cities or even as far as the Central Valley.

Displacement is not just about being unable to afford rent; it runs much deeper.  Aside from being formally evicted, many tenants are forced out due to landlord harassment, which includes living in substandard housing conditions because landlords refuse to maintain habitable homes. 

The consequences of displacement are dire. Displacement leads to homelessness, substandard housing, overcrowding, and pushes families to move far from their communities. Displacement causes trauma, particularly for children. It’s time to put an end to this cycle and ensure that everyone has the right to stable, affordable housing. It is time for strong anti-displacement measures, and it’s South San Francisco’s turn to implement them.

On Wednesday the South San Francisco City Council voted 4-1 to approve the charter for the Community Advisory Committee for the Residential and Commercial Anti-Displacement Roadmap. It’s important to note that an advisory committee whose purpose is to study and make recommendations is an easy starting point for a city wide conversation but tiptoes around immediate policy action that the city could champion at any time. While this decision is not the bold anti-displacement plan that residents urgently need now, it is the pathway to create such a plan. We are looking forward to amplifying and supporting the residents who are harnessing their collective power to unshakably support strong anti-displacement policies and new deeply affordable housing which is needed to curb the ongoing citywide displacement. 

A recent UC Berkeley Research Brief sheds light on the severity of displacement in San Mateo County. “Between 2000 and 2015, the county lost 44 percent of its naturally occurring affordable housing for low-income households. In 2015 alone, there was a shortfall of 25,882 affordable rental homes. Shockingly, between 2012 and 2015, evictions for non-payment of rent increased by 59 percent, and “no-cause” evictions skyrocketed by 300 percent. These evictions disproportionately affected Latinx and African-American households and were enabled by the lack of significant rent control or just-cause eviction protections in most cities in San Mateo County, apart from East Palo Alto.” 

To learn more about the displacement crisis in San Mateo County, we recommend reading the full UC Berkeley Research Brief. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that South City remains a place where everyone can thrive.

Housing Element Review: City Commissions Contradict Housing Element Commitments Commissions in Redwood City and Half Moon Bay vote against affordable homes

Over the last three weeks, city commissions in various parts of San Mateo County have stalled plans for affordable homes on sites included in the housing element. In Redwood City, the Architectural Design Review Commission unanimously recommended the council reject plans for 85 affordable homes at 847 Woodside Road. Half Moon Bay’s planning commission has twice rejected plans for 40 homes affordable to farmworkers planned for 555 Kelly Road. Both projects are included in their cities’ housing elements. 

Nonprofit Mercy Housing has applied to build 40 100% affordable homes in Half Moon Bay.

If cities like Half Moon Bay and Redwood City want local control over land use, they need to be responsive to the housing needs of their communities. The shortage of affordable homes for farmworkers and others may have no immediate impact on the individuals that serve on commissions and their comfortably housed supporters, but it has a huge impact on the working class members of our communities. Redwood City’s planning commission and Half Moon Bay’s architectural design review commission should support their respective affordable housing proposals to move forward without further subjective stipulations.

Both cities are responsible for planning for housing on these sites due to commitments in their housing elements. Redwood City’s housing element includes plans for housing at 847 Woodside Road based on an earlier proposal to build 44 homes for ownership on the site, including 37 market-rate and 7 affordable (see page 155 of the RWC housing element). Though the current proposal at 847 Woodside Road is larger than originally planned in the housing element, the increased density is necessary to make a new project pencil under tighter market conditions. 

HLC sent a public comment to Redwood City on Monday, May 6 detailing steps the city can take to facilitate development at 847 Woodside Road and remove barriers to future projects. Most significantly, the city should encourage eligible projects to take advantage of SB 35 and other environmental streamlining lawsfor infill housing, which is inherently sustainable. 

On April 30, 2024, HLC sent a comment letter to Half Moon Bay’s planning commission describing the legal justification for approving the farmworker housing. Under current law, the planning commission has an opportunity to work with the developer to make marginal improvements. However, if the planning commission continues to make infeasible demands, developer, Mercy Housing, could use state laws coming into effect in 2025 to propose a much larger project. 

One of the most significant laws, SB 423, builds off existing state law, SB 35, to streamline an eligible housing proposal. SB 35, passed in 2017, requires ministerial processing–meaning no public hearings–of eligible housing projects in jurisdictions that do not meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target. SB 423 extends SB 35 to most properties in the coastal zone. The City of Half Moon Bay will be subject to SB 423.

Another law, AB 1633, makes it harder to abuse environmental laws to stall housing production. Specifically, AB 1633 expands the Housing Accountability Act’s definition of what it means to “disapprove the housing project” to include a city’s failure to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from CEQA or commits an abuse of discretion in that determination. This opens up a cause of action for applicants to sue local agencies that use CEQA delays as a means to effectively disapprove, render financially infeasible, or downsize a project without having actually voted to do so.

Read HLC’s public comment letter to Half Moon Bay’s planning commission to better understand these laws. 

San Mateo County Submits New Housing Element Draft Responding to community input works!

Last Tuesday, April 23, San Mateo County’s Board of Supervisors voted to submit a new draft of its housing element to HCD. More than any other jurisdiction in the region, the County itself made substantial updates to its housing element in response to community input between the release of its first and second drafts. 

The County’s housing element now includes some of the boldest policies on the Peninsula, including rezonings (see maps here) in North Fair Oaks (80 du/ac), Unincorporated Colma (100 du/ac), Broadmoor (100 du/ac), and even coastal El Granada (60 du/ac). Specific policies incentivize public funds for special needs housing, including those with disabilities. And the County will pursue community plans for housing in Pescadero and the South Coast, laying the foundation for future development in some of its most challenging, highest-need areas. 

None of these changes would have been possible without the leadership of our Board of Supervisors or the hard work of county planning staff. In order to implement the myriad impactful policies in the housing element and process a likely increase in building applications, HLC and our partners recommend the County increase funding for the Planning & Building department to ensure adequate staff capacity. 

Read HLC’s Latest Comment to the County HERE

TOP: County’s plans from the January 2023 housing element draft for rezoning in unincorporated Colma to 60-87 du/ac. BOTTOM: County’s updated April 2024 housing element plans to rezone a larger area of unincorporated Colma to 100 du/ac, expanded at the request of Supervisor David Canepa.