After more than a year of review, California’s State Auditor released a report analyzing the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) housing element review process. The main takeaway: HCD’s review process was consistent and timely, bolstering HLC’s belief that jurisdictions in San Mateo County can continue building on their housing progress more quickly and at lower cost in future housing element updates. 

The audit found that “HCD’s findings letters generally provided feedback that was precise, measurable, and based on [legal] criteria.” Though some jurisdictions in San Mateo County, as well as some state electeds, criticized HCD’s housing element review process, the audit did not support those critiques.

Jurisdictions in San Mateo County have made meaningful progress on housing, and the audit provides impetus to continue that work. Most cities in the County have completed their updates, but every jurisdiction except Redwood City required three or more rounds of review.

Local changes in expectations matter. The Auditor presents evidence that local jurisdictions struggled with the housing element process in large part because they were unprepared to comply with new legal requirements and larger housing production goals. Challenges finding consultants and community opposition to new housing further delayed the process. Poor communication between city staff, consultants, and elected officials about clear cut deadlines further delayed the process. Every planner knew housing elements were due January 31, 2023, but not every city council member was told that before the deadline!

California’s state auditor has a reputation for taking state agencies to task. The auditor excoriated the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for failing to respond to fires in 2016, 2017, and 2018. In the last year, it has identified fraud, waste, and “critical weakness” in Cal OSHA and the California Health Department. In short, the auditor openly criticizes powerful state agencies and even gubernatorial offices. 

Yet the auditor’s findings largely uphold the legitimacy and legality of HCD’s housing element review process.

However, the auditor did suggest some improvements to the process that would help cities. Though HCD followed the law, it could have provided more personalized, consistent feedback if not for staffing constraints. By spreading out statewide housing element due dates across the entire eight-year cycle (currently, all housing elements are due in a four-year period), the legislature would free up HCD’s staff time to provide more assistance to local cities. 

Furthermore, HCD guidance regarding new statutory requirements often came out mere months before cities needed to implement them. Delaying implementation deadlines of new statutes would help HCD–and cities!–catch up. 

Yet despite these challenges–and because of the process–San Mateo jurisdictions made significant progress planning for more homes over the course of the 6th cycle housing element process. Cities across the county committed to change zoning rules to allow more types of housing, pass tenant protections to keep low-income residents housed, and invest in deeply affordable homes with public land and funding. These changes have already produced thousands of new homes and incentivized applications for thousands more in the pipeline. 

The auditor’s report suggests that local governments can continue improving their own planning processes to ensure they adequately meet state housing goals during the upcoming midcycle housing element review process and the 7th cycle housing element update slated to begin in 2031. While updating their housing elements in the future, cities can make three primary changes in early housing element drafts to increase likelihood of legal compliance: 

1. Acknowledge and analyze all constraints to housing in the constraints analysis. For example, last cycle, multiple cities completely ignored voter-initiated growth caps in their first draft housing element. In second drafts housing element, they might acknowledge growth caps but assert they have no impact on housing development feasibility. Only in third drafts did cities consistently commit to bring a ballot initiative before the voters to raise its housing cap on major housing element sites. Treating blatant barriers to housing development as non-entities delayed cities’ ability to implement necessary policy reforms.
2. When planning for housing on privately owned sites, exclusively include those that are likely to redevelop, and assume policy change will be necessary to incentivize development on sites that have remained unchanged for decades under existing rules. Multiple cities projected housing development on sites where the property owner had sent public comment letters saying explicitly that they had no plans to build housing there. One city project low- and very low-income housing would be built on the parking lot of every major commercial center, assuming 100% replacement parking and no impact on the existing commercial uses–including those of major tech offices. Projecting future housing development in unlikely locations without any associated policy reforms prevented cities from planning for homes in realistic locations. 
3. Included vague or unclear language in the policy and programs section that did not address identified constraints or facilitate development on important sites. Over and over again, cities committed to “consider,” “evaluate,” “study,” or otherwise look at–but not actually implement–various pro-housing policies. Oftentimes, the policies and program section did not respond to constraints that cities identified in their own analyses. Without making firm commitments to address housing constraints so as to make housing development feasible on identified sites, cities failed to fulfill the fundamental intent of the housing element process: Meeting local housing needs with tangible policy change. 

The housing element process challenges cities to rise to the moment, responding to the vast shortage driving housing prices higher and higher and displacing thousands of low-income residents by making concrete plans to legalize more homes, implement tenant protections, and more. Cities will have another chance to prove their earnestness in the 2027 midcycle review, when HCD will evaluate the progress each city has made toward its housing goals–and potentially request more policy reforms for those jurisdictions that have fallen behind. And as cities continue making progress toward their goals, they can start preparing early for the 7th housing element cycle a short five years away. 

As a faith leader, and as a human, what I am thinking about this holiday season are the faces of all those so deeply impacted by the high cost of housing—the woman working three jobs who still can’t afford rent;he teacher forced to move two counties away from the students she loves; the family living in their car in the shadow of empty buildings.

They are not statistics. They are our neighbors. And if my faith means anything at all, it must speak to this crisis with clarity and conviction.

While there is a broad range of faith traditions, some universal truths remain foundational: compassion, integrity, responsibility, and God’s radical, uncompromising love. These aren’t abstract concepts. They are calls to action that thunder through every religious tradition I know.

When I read the Hebrew prophets, I hear Amos crying out against those who “sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals.” I hear Isaiah demanding we “loose the chains of injustice” and “provide the poor wanderer with shelter.” I hear Micah asking what the Lord requires: “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

Jesus didn’t mince words either. “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” Not, “I was a stranger and you formed a committee to study the issue.” Not, “I was a stranger and you worried about property values.” You welcomed me. Period.

This isn’t about charity. This is about justice. This is about recognizing that housing is not a commodity to be traded for profit while people suffer. Housing is a human right. Housing is the foundation upon which people build their lives, raise their families, pursue their education, maintain their health, and contribute to their communities.

What could be more “essential” than stable housing? We praised essential workers during the pandemic. Now many of these very people face eviction with nowhere to go. Where is our moral outrage now?

When we talk about housing, we’re talking about who gets to live with dignity in our communities. We’re talking about teachers and nurses and janitors and cooks—those who weave the very fabric of our society. We’re talking about seniors on fixed incomes and young families just starting out. We’re talking about people with disabilities who need stable homes to access care.

If we truly believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, then we must believe they deserve a safe, stable, affordable place to call home.

Our congregations sit on some of the most valuable land in our communities. Some faith communities are already leading the way, building affordable housing on their land, opening their facilities as warming centers and navigation centers, advocating for policy changes, educating their members about NIMBYism and exclusionary zoning. But we need more. So much more.

We need clergy to preach about housing from the pulpit as often as they preach about any other moral issue. We need faith communities to show up at city council meetings and planning commission hearings. We need people of faith to examine their own resistance to housing in their neighborhoods and ask themselves: whose comfort are we centering? Whose dignity are we ignoring?

The housing crisis is a spiritual crisis. It is a moral crisis. It is a human crisis. 

Do we believe in human dignity? Then we must rage against a system that forces people to choose between rent and food.

Do we believe in the kinship of all people? Then we must see the housed and the unhoused as family.

Our faith teaches us to feed the hungry. To clothe the naked. To welcome the stranger. To house the homeless.

Regardless of your faith, these are core values we should all hold. This holiday season, let’s recommit to upholding these values.

Rev. Dr. G. Penny Nixon is the Faith Director for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and Minister Emerita of the Congregational Church of San Mateo, where she served as Senior Minister from 2007-2022.

Four jurisdictions across the Bay Area still do not have certified housing elements, almost three years after the January 31, 2023 deadline–and two of them are in San Mateo County. The County itself and Half Moon Bay both remain out of compliance with state law, each for different reasons. 

Both jurisdictions face growing pressure from the state Department of Housing and Community Development, which has sent letters urging faster completion. Their cases each illustrate different challenges jurisdictions face meeting local housing needs. 

San Mateo County has a conditionally certified housing element, but the County has not yet completed legally required rezonings for denser housing in Unincorporated Colma, Broadmoore, and El Granada. Until it completes its rezones, the County will remain out of compliance with state law. 

While other jurisdictions completed their rezonings concurrently with housing element adoption, San Mateo County spent over a year deciding which areas to rezone without simultaneously drafting the new zoning. Some areas, such as El Granada, require additional review under the Coastal Commission, but most parcels slated for denser housing have no such constraints.

Having already begun its housing element process late, the County is now far behind. In September, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent the County a letter urging faster completion of the necessary rezonings. However, the County doesn’t plan to complete its rezones until the middle of next year at the earliest.

Half Moon Bay has been reluctant to remove constraints to housing, particularly voter-approved Measure D–a growth cap ordinance implemented by city voters that effectively limits the number of homes that can be built within the city on any given year to approximately 70. HCD maintains that accessory dwelling units should not count toward the Measure D growth cap; the city maintains it cannot change the classification of ADUs entirely without a new voter measure. 

Furthermore, Half Moon Bay’s City Council has moved slowly on final approval of a land lease with Mercy Housing to complete 555 Kelly, a proposed 40-home farmworker housing development–and an essential part of the city’s housing element. Though the project is theoretically entitled, it cannot move forward without approval of the land lease. 

Both cities face consequences for noncompliance with state law, particularly loss of funding for basic infrastructure and road maintenance. Cities without certified housing elements are ineligible for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program and Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grants, both major sources of infrastructure funding. 

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.