Last week was the big hearing on the lawsuit Millbrae brought against the county in an attempt to block permanent homes for families and seniors that are currently experiencing homelessness. Now the three council members that brought the suit, Mayor Anders Fung, Anne Schneider, and Gina Papan have until the judge issues her final ruling, expected no later than June 26th,  to drop the case.

Why should they drop the case? Why is this such a terrible decision? 

San Mateo County has about 100 people that are on a waiting list for permanent supportive housing. These are seniors on fixed incomes that had rent increases they could not afford, or health emergencies that caused them to get behind on the rent. These are families fleeing domestic violence. These are working people that simply do not earn enough to keep up with rent, health care bills, food, and transportation. These are people that might serve you at the grocery store, they might look after your parents, they might teach your kids. These are people that are part of our community and they need help. Blocking housing for our most vulnerable neighbors is shocking and shameful. San Mateo County can make homelessness rare and brief, but we need leadership, especially from city council members.  For more information about ending homelessness, here is a resource from our friends at All Home: https://www.beginswithhome.org/

Help Support Homes for Homeless!

Though cities can always do more to promote housing affordability, many of San Mateo County’s jurisdictions deserve recognition for the changes they are making. Last week, HLC’s newsletter incorrectly claimed “not a single lower-income unit was proposed in the city [of San Carlos] in 2023.” 

In fact, according to San Carlos’s Housing Element Annual Progress Report, more than 300 homes were approved by the San Carlos city council in 2023, 30 low-income and 47 very low-income. Recent work by the city to rezone and change other development standards will make more projects easier to build in the future as well.

A number of factors can influence when building or occupancy permits will be issued, including those like higher interest rates or the timing of development submissions that are outside the city’s control. Understanding what permits a city has issued in a year requires reviewing the full Annual Progress Report. Mea culpa! 

A thoughtful commenter responded to our newsletter that: “I do not live or work in San Carlos, but after so many years of little housing being built there, the change is quite remarkable. They should be complimented on their efforts.” HLC agrees. 

242 homes proposed on a 2.2 acre lot at 11 El Camino Real, San Carlos, approved by the city council in 2023.

At the same time, cities across San Mateo County can continue working to change what they do control in order to make more development happen faster. Many developments proposed across the Bay Area have stalled because of higher interest rates, inflation and the increasing costs of building material, and the lack of capitol; all of San Mateo County’s jurisdictions saw a steep drop in the rate of building permits. However, cities are not passive actors. For many projects, cities still control most aspects of development, such as approval timelines, the flexibility of development standards, and fees. 

Planning for housing does not only happen in eight-year cycles or 20-year general plans; planning can be a continuous process of revision that responds to prevailing conditions and community needs. To say that cities have no control over housing development in the face of rising interest rates is like saying FEMA has no ability to respond to a hurricane disaster. No, FEMA cannot stop a hurricane, but it can help facilitate recovery. No, cities cannot save every development that has stalled due to bad financing, but they can save many of them and make new developments possible–even in a high interest rate environment–with proactive policy change, both by implementing housing elements and by looking beyond them.

Other cities in California demonstrate housing production is still possible. In 2023, the City of Sacramento (population ~550,000) issued more building permits than all of San Mateo County combined (population >750,000), the vast majority of permits for infill multi-family housing. Both the urban core of Sacramento and bayside San Mateo are largely “built out,” meaning most lots have a structure on them, but Sacramento is redeveloping more parcels at a faster rate than the San Mateo region.  

Caption: A table from Sacramento’s APR staff report

Sacramento makes housing easier to build in a number of ways. The vast majority of housing proposals are approved ministerially, without costly, time-consuming public hearings. The city has a local density bonus program that strongly rewards density, so that even proposals that are technically not zoning compliant can easily receive waivers and still get ministerially approved–and it has more flexible zoning, with more widespread multi-family zoning, to begin with. Furthermore, the city imposes more modest fees, with fee waivers or reductions for lower-income housing. 

Ultimately, entitling projects is only part of the process of building housing. The projects that get entitled need to actually be feasible to build. The things cities control–zoning rules, fee reductions, and fast, predictable timelines for both entitlements and building permits–directly impact development costs, influencing what developers can propose and what they can finance. 

Housing elements for the 6th RHNA cycle, though they include historic new policies leading to historic changes, may be just the beginning of the policy change necessary to enable the housing our communities need. 

Portola Valley has become the first city in the Bay Area, to have its housing element decertified by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 

The decertification occurred because Portola Valley violated one of the most unambiguously clear areas of housing element law: Rezoning deadlines. If a housing element is not certified by May 31, 2023, then rezonings must be completed by January 31, 2024 or a city cannot possibly be in compliance with state law. As of March 26, 2024, the date of its decertification, Portola Valley had still not rezoned. 

HLC remains committed to helping jurisdictions achieve and keep housing element compliance. We believe that HCD, which gave Portola Valley almost two months after the deadline to complete its rezoning, will work with jurisdictions to get back on track with delayed policies before revoking certifications. 

Portola Valley received certification from HCD on January 31, 2024, although the town had not yet completed its rezoning. The town received certification in large part because of years of effort by the council, staff, and community leaders to create a credible plan for the first multi-family housing in the town’s history. Some of the commitments in Portola Valley’s program, such as the dedication of a 2.5-acre publicly owned site for affordable homes, will create more tangible housing opportunities, while others, including an opt-in rezoning program, are downright innovative. 

After the 2022 election, some of the newly elected leadership delayed the plan and watered down some of its most impactful policies, repeatedly pushing back the housing element adoption date. Politically motivated delays led the town to fall behind on its housing element update. By the time Portola Valley achieved certification, it was already supposed to have completed its rezoning, but the town lacked the resources to pursue both the housing element update and rezoning simultaneously. 

On one hand, the resources required for housing element updates can absorb a city’s available capacity. On the other hand, Portola Valley has held 47 meetings related to its housing element, as reported by The Almanac, and they are short staffed after resistance to housing by the council caused most of the planning department to resign. 

HLC hears from local elected officials that they want local control over land use, that their city can solve the housing crisis given enough time and resources to plan. The housing element gave cities the opportunity to plan for housing on their own, and many cities, including Portola Valley, used the opportunity to plan for more affordable homes. But local control only works for housing when cities actually follow through on pro-housing policies. Now, despite the hard work by so many community members and elected leaders to create a realistic housing plan, Portola Valley faces consequences due to delays. 

From Portola Valley’s city notification announcing their decertification, “The proposed tentative schedule [for rezoning] is as follows:

• April 3, 2024 – Continuation of the March 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as a joint Planning Commission and ASCC meeting to review ASCC’s feedback on the draft amendments.
• April 17, 2024 – Planning Commission meeting for the Commission to complete its review of the draft amendments and consider adopting a resolution recommending approval to the Town Council of the zoning amendments.
• May 8, 2024 (tentative) – Town Council meeting (first reading).
• May 22, 2024 (tentative) – Town Council meeting (second reading).”

Each year, HCD requires that jurisdictions submit Annual Progress Reports (APRs), detailed summaries of annual housing production. Last year’s APRs illustrate a bleak story: Across San Mateo County, housing development ground to a halt in 2023. 

Though cities recently updated their housing elements with more pro-housing policies, many did not account for the impact of rising interest rates. More policy changes may be necessary in coming years to restart the housing development pipeline.

Top: An APR from San Carlos suggesting not a single lower-income unit was proposed in the city in 2023. Bottom: An excerpt from Foster City’s APR suggesting just four homes were proposed in 2023, all ADUs, none of which are likely to actually be rented on the open market at an affordable rate.

Every city in San Mateo County faces similar trends. San Carlos and Foster City are not particularly unique, just examples shared with HLC by local advocates. 

Even some of San Mateo County’s most pro-housing cities have seen affordable housing production stall out. In Redwood City, at least four proposals for affordable housing brought forward under the city’s Gatekeeper process have stalled or died entirely. Most substantially, a proposal to redevelop Sequoia Station with as many as 631 new homes has collapsed, with the prior owner selling off the property and abandoning their plans for deeply affordable homes and extensive and expensive transportation improvements. 

Policy choices, just as much as the economic environment, continue to define housing outcomes. Several cities in the Bay Area, like Mountain View and Emeryville, saw a more normal rate of development in 2023, each approving more than 300 new homes. Through their housing elements, these cities rezoned for substantially more homes and streamlined their entitlement process faster than any jurisdiction in San Mateo County. 

Though San Mateo County cities recently updated their housing elements with more pro-housing policies, many did not account for the impact of rising interest rates. As a result, many housing elements made changes around the edges of their planning processes but did not pursue wholesale reform. Receiving entitlements can still take years; even after a city council approves a development, behind-the-scenes staff work can also take months or years; impact fees continue to rise, all leading to an intolerable degree of uncertainty in a high-interest-rate environment. 

Moving forward, San Mateo County jurisdictions can choose to eliminate or reduce the barriers that make building housing more difficult, going beyond the moderation of their housing elements. Eliminating arbitrary restrictions like Floor Area Ratios or maximum lot coverage requirements can increase flexibility for developers. Reducing fees increases the spectrum of what can be built. And approving more projects ministerially, reducing need for time-consuming public hearings and the expensive burden they impose on staff, can ensure builders quickly move from entitlement to development. 

If local jurisdictions are not on track to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals by 2027, approvals for housing automatically become ministerial. HLC remains committed to help cities maintain their local control by adequately planning for housing on their own. 

Is what we asked at the Thrive Alliance Candidate Forum on January 30th. Candidates Celeste Brevard, Paul Bocanegra, Antonio Lopez, Maggie Cornejo, and Lisa Gauthier joined us at the Menlo Park City Council Chambers for a discussion night. Paola, an organizer with HLC, represented us and the Anti-Displacement Coalition by asking: What policies would you prioritize to prevent evictions and forestall the displacement of lower-income families from San Mateo County? 

Here are their responses:

Candidate Celeste Brevard affirmed her commitment to supporting ballot initiatives akin to the Fair Housing Ordinance that Faith in Action is spearheading in Redwood City. She said she would support initiatives that limit rent increases and expand tenants’ right to return. Additionally, she emphasized her intent to collaborate closely with existing organizations, learn more about the most significant issues, and cultivate policy solutions to remedy the problems. Brevard also said that protecting landlords and the economy can be done in tandem with protecting families who rent.

Candidate Paul Bocanegra followed, expressing his strong support for a comprehensive County-wide rental registry that comes with a task force that oversees rental developments– primarily overseeing the habitability of living conditions, especially for the immigrant community. Bocanegra highlighted the tragic 2023 Half Moon Bay shooting and sympathized with those forced to endure such conditions. He underscored his stance that landlords neglecting their responsibility to uphold acceptable living standards will face legal consequences. He adds that he will advocate for more protections for youth and seniors.

Candidate Antonio Lopez starts by discussing the injustice faced by commuters coming to work in San Mateo County but living miles away. This issue is a transportation issue and an environmental issue. He says housing is the civil rights issue of our time and talks about solutions that work, like the BAHFA Bond and Project Homekey, but ultimately, housing across income levels needs to be built throughout the county. Every city needs to do its part to house San Mateo County’s growing population.

Candidate Maggie Cornejo opened up by sharing her experience of advocating for her entire building living with a pest infestation because her neighbors refused to speak up due to fear of eviction. If elected, she wants to set aside some investments to partner with legal aid to help fight cases where tenants are too afraid to voice their concerns. She also wants the Tenant Protections Ordinance to pass. That way, the community’s most vulnerable members do not have to live in fear of speaking up or being evicted. 

Candidate Lisa Gauthier talked about how East Palo Alto has been the poster city for creating rent stabilization and tenant protections that help the most vulnerable residents. She feels that there needs to be ordinances from the Board of Supervisors that allow for more expansive rental assistance and rent stabilization. She said Costa Hawkins must also be addressed so that rent-stabilized units do not go up to market rate once vacated. Gauthier also expressed support for creating jobs that allow people to stay here. She highlighted that these types of programs are most needed to protect tenants, specifically rent control and stabilization.

To watch the Candidate Forum and find out what the Candidates had to say about other pressing issues, click here.

Last Tuesday, January 23, San Mateo County’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve the “Hopeful Horizons” ordinance, which creates a process by which the County can clear homeless encampments whenever shelter beds are available. 

Speakers from the ACLU Northern California Chapter, San Mateo County’s Public Defenders program, and other civil rights organizations raised concerns about potential ambiguities in the ordinance that could harm unsheltered residents. In response to public comment, the Supervisors made several important amendments, including semi-annual auditing, while ignoring others. HLC and our partners will closely monitor implementation of this ordinance to ensure it has its intended impact. 

The ordinance would:

• Allow the County to clear homeless encampments on unincorporated land whenever a shelter bed is available, after Homeless Outreach Teams have already contacted residents. 
• Creates a process for outreach and warnings by which the County may clear encampments. 
• Empower the County to issue criminal penalties, potentially a misdemeanor, to residents who ignore clearance orders and do not take advantage of available shelter.
• Enable residents who receive criminal penalties to expunge their records by seeking mental health support. 
• Require the County to label and store personal belongings in excess of what can fit in available shelter, at no cost to residents. 
• Mandate audits of the program at six and twelve months after implementation to ensure efficacy and reevaluate as needed. 

County Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo suggested important amendments to make the ordinance more effective. Both emphasized the necessity to guarantee qualified professionals provide outreach and mental health assessments before enforcement clears encampments. They also mandated bi-annual audits, which will help the Supervisors monitor implementation of this ordinance.

The Housing Leadership Council and other partners remain concerned that vague language in this ordinance could lead to abuses. As written, the ordinance leaves several ambiguities as to how the County will ensure public accountability, properly verify and store an individual’s belongings, and track outcomes. However, we support the Supervisors’ intent look forward to working with the Board and our partners to promote Housing First strategies to addressing the housing crisis.

Update

We would like to extend our appreciation to Councilmembers Ruben Abrica and Carlos Romero for their unwavering support for the East Palo Alto Opportunity to Purchase Act (EPA OPA). Unfortunately, on the night of December 5th, leaders on the East Palo Alto (EPA) City Council voted 3-2 to reject the EPA OPA. 

What is an Opportunity to Purchase Act

An Opportunity to Purchase Act (OPA) policy gives renters in your community a chance to become homeowners when their landlords want to sell. Eligible buyers such as tenants, affordable housing developers, community land trusts, community based organizations, and even cities/counties are given a “right of first refusal” or special time period to make an offer on the property, or the option to match any offer made by a private buyer. A landlord is not required to sell to any of the previously mentioned eligible buyers, they only have to receive and consider their offers.

The two most common models are:

• Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)
  • Renters are given the “right of first refusal” to buy their home when their landlords want to sell. They may also assign their right to a “qualified organization,” such as a community land trust or a non-profit affordable housing provider.
• Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) 
  • A specific list of qualified organizations are provided with the “right of first refusal” to purchase the home(s) when a property owner is looking to sell.

At their November 7 meeting, EPA’s City Council voted 3-2 to combine both TOPA and COPA polices into the EPA OPA. 

Why EPA OPA Mattered and Still Does

Had it passed, EPA OPA would have made it a lot easier for EPA community members who rent to secure a safe and stable place to call home and allow them to stay near their families and places of work.

As a law, it would have applied to both single-family and multi-family homes and would have required an owner to first tell their tenant(s) if they plan to sell their home(s) – putting a stop to off- market deals that prevented local buyers like tenants and non-profit housing providers from even knowing that the owner would consider a sale. Tenant(s), non-profits, and the City would have been provided with a “right of first refusal” – giving them time to connect to/gather resources needed to make a competitive purchase offer to a property owner.  

What’s Next

At the December 5th City Council meeting, Mayor Lisa Gauthier expressed her interest in a city-wide ballot measure.

Jurisdictions are moving ahead with implementing programs that will allow tens of thousands of new homes across our region. Redwood City, South San Francisco, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Pacifica, and more have pursued rezonings, in some cases even before receiving certification from HCD. Dozens of acres of land have been set aside for affordable homes, such as the 2.5-acre Ford Field parcel in Portola Valley or the city hall site in Hillsborough. Communities like Belmont and San Mateo have committed to strengthening tenant protections, while others, like Atherton, are leaning heavily into promoting accessory dwelling units.

The next year will bring even more opportunities to support housing through housing elements. HLC will be partnering with regional and statewide groups to provide tools to help local advocates track housing elements. Cities will need help from community members to implement their policy commitments. Several cities that have not yet received certification provide opportunities for ongoing advocacy, including Daly City, Pacifica, Woodside, and more. We’re excited to continue working with jurisdictions across San Mateo County to ensure they are planning for housing that meets the needs of all community members.

In advance of the city council meeting on Monday December 4th in San Mateo, residents mobilized to oppose the Baywood Historic District. During the non-agendized comment portion of the meeting, residents delivered comments to the council, urging them to issue a formal letter opposing the district.  

A refresher: Neighbors in San Mateo’s Baywood neighborhood have submitted an application to become a historic district. Historic districts can impose a number of restrictions on the rights of property owners to renovate their homes or build new housing opportunities. State laws like SB 9 that empower homeowners to build duplexes or ADUs without onerous public approval processes do not apply to historic districts. Furthermore, the city would be enabled to create a local unelected historic commission that could impose arbitrary new rules, ranging from restrictions on the ability to build an accessory dwelling unit for a family member to bans on replacing old single-pane windows with more energy-efficient double-paned ones.

The Baywood neighborhood, which was built in the 1920s and 30s with housing covenants that banned people of color from buying the homes, is today San Mateo’s only Racially Concentrated Area of White Wealth, according to the Bay Area Equity Atlas. A historic district in the area would entrench past and present segregation in perpetuity.

Neighbors opposing the district have created a petition to urge the city council to formally oppose the historic district. They’ve also created a website for interested residents to learn more. All San Mateo residents are welcome to sign to demonstrate that the community supports preserving real history, not segregation.