Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County study session explores overturning Article 34 and a unit‑bank approach; poll shows majority support
Summary
County attorneys, housing staff and partners laid out options to address Article 34 — a 1950 constitutional restriction on publicly financed low‑rent housing — and discussed a potential voter‑approved unit bank. Polling presented by a consultant found about 63% support for a unit‑bank ballot measure described to voters.
San Mateo County staff and housing partners used a May 19 study session to explain Article 34 — the 1950 California constitutional provision that requires voter approval for many publicly financed low‑rent housing projects — and to explore a voter‑approved "unit bank" as a practical remedy.
County attorney Lauren Carroll reviewed Article 34’s origins and scope and explained workarounds jurisdictions have used, including legislative exceptions and jurisdictional unit banks that pre‑authorize a number of affordable units. Department of Housing Director Ray Hodges and HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) Executive Director Armando Sanchez described how an Article 34 unit bank could operate: the county would set an annual authorized unit count (for example, 1% of existing units per year), monitor bank balance, and allocate units to public agencies on a first‑come, first‑served basis while leaving city land‑use reviews and permits intact.
Poll results presented by consultant Brian Godby found about 67% combined 'definitely' and 'probably' yes support in an initial test, with a final read at about 63% after additional information — above the simple‑majority threshold necessary to pass a county measure. Godby said key messages that resonated included that the measure would not raise local taxes, would provide workforce housing for teachers and first responders, and would modernize a discriminatory 1950s law.
Board direction and next steps: Supervisors asked staff to draft sample ballot language that would protect city control (for example, requiring city collaboration/approval for projects within city limits), refine the measure's terms, and intensify outreach to the county’s cities before any decision to place a measure on the November ballot.
