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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.