An appellate judge recently struck down the City of Redondo Beach’s housing element, ruling that the city’s use of residential overlay zones on sites that allow 100% non-residential projects is invalid. Essentially, cities cannot claim sites will be used for low-income housing in areas that allow projects with no housing at all. 

Jurisdictions in San Mateo County, most notably Menlo Park, Brisbane, and the County itself, may no longer have valid housing elements per this ruling. 

These jurisdictions sought to satisfy their state housing requirements, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), through the use of zoning “overlays,” rules that permit residential development but keep underlying zoning that permits other uses. These overlays allowed housing in theory but also allowed other development, often on sites that had a very low likelihood of redeveloping over the course of the RHNA cycle, between 2023 and 2030. 

Redondo Beach’s case shows the ways cities risk falling out of compliance with state law when they approach housing element compliance conservatively. The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which oversees housing element compliance, allowed cities to use overlay districts for its RHNA after it faced strong pressure from cities to permit such practices. But just because HCD bows to pressure from cities does not mean those practices will hold up in court. 

Cities can somewhat easily amend their housing elements to avoid being subject to the Builder’s Remedy by amending their zoning codes to require residential development on housing element sites. Though Redondo Beach plans to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court, the Court has been deferential to appellate judges in most housing element cases. Without zoning amendments, cities risk becoming subject to the Builder’s Remedy, allowing higher densities than local zoning allows. 

Contrary to many cities’ oft-repeated opinions about housing elements, the court emphasized that obeying the law requires creating realistic pathways to development as opposed to theoretical planning or “paper compliance.” Housing elements are no longer just about creating theoretical capacity for housing, they are about creating realistic plans that deliver results. Most cities in the County, falling farther and farther behind on meeting their housing goals, may need to pursue greater rezonings, permit streamlining, and other strategies to ensure they make housing feasible to build. 

As Executive Director of the Housing Leadership Council (HLC), I am proud to share our new report on the impact of Measure K funding in San Mateo County. This work is the product of deep collaboration, and it tells a powerful story: public investment works. When we invest in affordable housing, we invest in the stability, dignity, and future of our neighbors.

We produced this report to educate, inspire, and demonstrate the value of public investment in housing. We want to show what’s possible when a community comes together and makes housing a priority. We hope it encourages continued investment, strengthens political will, and reminds us that behind every statistic is a family, a senior, or a worker who now has a safe place to call home.

The story is clear: Measure K has worked exactly as voters intended when they overwhelmingly approved it in 2016. It has produced thousands of homes, brought in hundreds of millions of outside dollars, and kept families and seniors rooted in San Mateo County.

Main Takeaways

1. We’ve delivered real results.

Since 2016, San Mateo County has dedicated about $192 million from Measure K to affordable housing and homelessness programs. That investment has helped create or preserve 4,790 affordable homes across 71 developments, with more than 3,000 already complete and hundreds more under construction.

2. The impact has been transformative.

These funds have not only built homes — they’ve stabilized families, supported essential workers, and ensured seniors, veterans, and individuals with disabilities can remain in their communities. Every Measure K dollar has been leveraged with state, federal, and private funding, multiplying its impact.

3. Housing is a key solution to homelessness.

Measure K has directly funded hundreds of homes for people currently or formerly unhoused, proving that when we invest in permanent housing, we reduce homelessness and strengthen public health and safety.

4. But the need is growing.

San Mateo County’s senior population is expected to dramatically expand over the next ten years, and housing costs continue to climb. Today, renters need to earn nearly $64 an hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment here. With federal cuts to housing and other safety net programs, local  investment is more critical than ever. Without county and city investment, too many of our neighbors will be priced out or left without a home.

Gratitude

We are deeply grateful to California Housing Partnership Corporation who researched and wrote this report as well as the County of San Mateo Department of Housing for providing this data, and Melanie Tan Baldwin for her design talent and support. Most of all, we thank the voters and lawmakers who supported Measure K. Your vision and commitment have made San Mateo County a leader in addressing the housing crisis and given thousands of families the chance to thrive.

The work is not finished. We must keep investing, keep building, and keep proving that housing is the foundation for a stronger, healthier, more equitable community.

Read the report here

A petition to block affordable housing on three city-owned parking lots in Menlo Park qualified for the ballot on October 21. Menlo Park planned for housing on these sites in its housing element, committing to build at least 345 affordable homes. 

This petition threatens affordable housing throughout California, with the potential to create a new playbook for blocking affordable homes across the state with a unique twist weaponizing local resistance to housing in an attempt to overturn state laws in the courts. 

 If passed, the measure would: 

• Require a ballot measure to approve ANY change of the use of the parking lots. Any efforts to designate the plazas as “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” under the Surplus Lands Act (a first step toward building affordable housing on publicly owned land in most cases) would also be subject to the ballot.
• Retroactively disapprove any action taken by the city to dispose of the lots for any purpose besides parking after May 15, 2025. Even if the city approved a project and sold the land before the next election, this measure would theoretically invalidate that proposal. 
• Gives the ordinance proponents the ability to legally defend the measure without any input or discretion from the city council, city attorney, or city manager with the city responsible for the entire financial burden. Given that the measure is in clear violation of at least two state laws, this measure will be very expensive for the City of Menlo Park.

The measure further disallows any actions “which would diminish the availability, access or convenience of public parking for Downtown customers, workers and visitors.” Even an affordable housing project that provided 100% replacement parking in a structure could risk lawsuits if a “proponent” deemed that change to impact the “access” or “convenience” of parking. Such vague language essentially means any change in use to the lots or even basic maintenance could be subject to a lawsuit, paid for by the city whether or not they win or lose. 

Forcing affordable homes to undergo public votes is a death sentence. Forcing cities to pay for lawsuits against themselves creates a strong incentive for inaction on housing to avoid legal risk. If passed, this measure will likely become a new strategy for anti-housing groups across the state to block affordable homes. 

Furthermore, this measure risks derailing Menlo Park’s housing element, which commits to build housing on the downtown parking lots. The measure would add new constraints to housing on those sites and derail the timeline for commitments made by the city to build homes. 

By undermining the city’s housing element planning efforts, the city would likely lose housing element approval by the state and become subject to associated penalties, such as the Builder’s Remedy–which has already led to a 36-story proposal in Menlo Park and will likely cost the city millions in legal fees.