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.

San Mateo County housing element update

San Mateo County released a new draft of its housing element last Thursday, marking an important step toward achieving housing element certification. 

The draft makes several meaningful changes to better support affordable housing development, including commitments to: 

• Change development standards to allow “low minimum lot sizes, no minimum lot area per unit, no minimum lot sizes for attached multifamily ownership projects, no FAR for residential development, reduced minimum setbacks of no more than 5 to 10 foot front, rear, and side, parking ratios of one space per unit or less, and maximum heights of at least 60 to 70 feet” (pdf p. 44)
• Add a new program to pursue “Identification of additional unincorporated areas appropriate for changes to zoning, beyond those identified in Program 11.2 that are required to meet the County’s RHNA, in order to further diversify the County’s housing stock and address fair housing issues and goals identified in Appendix G (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing)” (pdf p. 46). This may open up potential for the County to pursue rezoning in West Menlo Park and other high-cost areas we identified that so far have not been included in the housing element. 
• “Monitor the annual issuance of permits for residential development in the County’s Urban Midcoast, and if the 40-unit limit on annual permit issuance poses a constraint to development during the Housing Element Period, amend the limit to allow additional permit issuance” (pdf p. 46)–this could create more opportunities for coastal housing

The draft also includes new commitments to upgrade infrastructure in North Fair Oaks (p. 51) and maintains prior commitments to promote farmworker housing on the South Coast, incentivize accessible housing for the IDD community, and rezone in various areas for increased housing densities. 

Because it is long past the due date, the County will need to pursue rezoning before it can be fully certified–a process that might take a year or more. The newest draft includes a number of meaningful pro-housing improvements on top of strong commitments to policy change the County had already made.  

Atherton housing element update

Atherton received a review letter from HCD indicating the town is close to achieving housing element certification, even though Atherton has made few meaningful changes from prior housing element drafts. 

Atherton’s most recent draft housing element claims the town can meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals with: 

• 208 ADUs
• 81 new single-family homes
• 48 homes from SB 9 subdivisions and duplexes
• 96 homes on a handful of sites owned by local school districts

The housing element makes commitments to policies that will help realize these goals, including incremental rezoning and incentives for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The city has entered into a creative partnership with HIP Housing to help connect local employees to lower-cost ADUs. 

However, among some unlikely claims, Atherton projects 90% of new ADUs will be affordable to lower- or moderate-income households, and that Menlo College and Menlo School will build affordable multi-family homes on two parking lots each. Both schools have suggested they will need public subsidy to afford building housing, subsidy that Atherton has no plans to provide. 

As it has implemented its new zoning to reflect the goals of its housing elements, Atherton has added additional constraints to multi-family development. Some of these constraints include 

• A 12-foot landscape screening requirement between properties, imposing large landscaping costs on new residents (p. 17 of the new zoning code); 
• Parking requirements tying the parking minimum to bedroom count, so a one-bedroom home requires one spot whereas a two-bedroom home requires two. As a result, Atherton is dis-incentivizing family-sized homes (p. 29);
• Window detail requirements mandating windows on the second story or higher must be elevated at least 54 inches above the floor and made “translucent but not transparent”–essentially eliminating the ability to build windows on second or third stories that future multi-family residents can look out of (p. 26);
• A maximum of four primary entryways to any one building, dis-incentivizing townhomes (p.19); and more. 

As part of its housing element, the town is currently studying implementing an inclusionary zoning ordinance or housing in-lieu fee. A housing in-lieu fee on single-family mansions could help provide essential funding for affordable homes; an inclusionary zoning ordinance, mandating a minimum percentage of new market-rate multi-family housing be affordable, risks imposing additional costs that could make such development infeasible. Since Atherton has never had multi-family housing construction of any kind, it would make more sense to focus on an in-lieu fee. 

In past letters, HLC has advocated for Atherton to pursue policies that would more effectively increase housing opportunities in the community, such as broader rezonings along El Camino Real. Atherton has made some meaningful progress in this direction, but it can continue to more effectively promote homes for all who need them with broader rezoning and more flexible zoning standards. We will continue to advocate that every community does its part to meet regional housing needs, including Atherton and beyond.

https://www.almanacnews.com/menlo-park/2025/01/07/residents-organize-to-support-councils-plan-for-affordable-housing-downtown/

As we step into a new year, we’re reminded that building a San Mateo County rooted in justice, community, and possibility is a shared responsibility. When every family can begin and end their day in a safe and stable home, we can be the San Mateo County we all aspire to be.

Yet, each passing year brings greater challenges for many of us trying to build secure lives here. Rents continue to rise faster than wages. Home prices climb beyond what families can save. And often, our frustrations grow faster than our compassion.

The New Year is traditionally a time for hope and change—but this year, it’s clear that challenges lie ahead. A new federal administration likely means cuts to affordable housing funding and increased hostility toward our neighbors who need support the most. In the face of these obstacles, San Mateo County has both the power and the resources to choose a better path—one where every person’s humanity is valued, where every community member is treated with justice and dignity, and where everyone has a home.

At HLC, we’re developing policies and organizing leaders so families who want to call San Mateo County home can do so without fear of displacement.

The road ahead won’t be easy. It will require long nights at City Council meetings, deep collaboration with our partners, and unwavering commitment to our mission. But we’re ready to do the work—and we can’t do it alone.

Your support makes a difference. A donation from you today will help us continue the fight for housing justice in 2024. Whether it’s a one-time contribution or joining us as a monthly donor, your generosity fuels the change we all want to see. https://hlcsmc.salsalabs.org/eoya2024/index.html 

Let’s start this New Year with hope and determination. Together, we can ensure San Mateo County remains a place where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

Thank you for your support,

Evelyn Stivers

HLC’s Executive Director

At their city council meeting on November 12th, Daly City’s council members passed an emergency ordinance to rezone for more homes at a range of affordability. Daly City implemented the rezoning as part of its efforts to create a complaint housing element. 

The rezoning implements substantial changes to local zoning rules that will facilitate new development:

• Increases maximum heights in Daly City’s multi-family zones from 36 to 120 feet. The C-MU zone will allow 175 feet and 15 stories.
• Doubles allowable housing density in all of Daly City’s zones, including in single-family zones. Daly City’s maximum density zones now have no density limit, with a 120 dwelling unit per acre minimum.
• Eliminates maximum lot coverage limits in multi-family zones.
• Zones approximately a dozen mostly vacant acres around Seton Medical Center for high-density housing, from 60 to 120 du/ac. AHMC, the owner of Seton Hospital, has expressed interest in building more than 500 new homes on the lots

These changes, along with other features of Daly City’s zoning laws, make their code a model for other cities on the Peninsula that want to incentivize new housing. 

Daly City has among the most flexible rules for new homes, with no restrictions like Floor Area Ratio, massing restrictions, parking minimums, or other arbitrary rules that limit housing. Single-family homes have a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet, reflecting the smaller, more affordable homes prevalent throughout much of the city. 

Cities across the Peninsula can better achieve their Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals by looking beyond the commitments in their housing elements to broader simplifications of local zoning rules.

California’s housing shortage is not just a humanitarian crisis, it is a national political crisis threatening to undermine the future of the American Republic. 

If current population trends continue, California is on track to lose four house seats and the same number of presidential electors by 2030, while Texas and Florida could gain four each. A plurality of residents leaving the state directly cite high housing costs. Local leaders should treat new housing at all levels of affordability as not only a social strategy to meet local needs, but also a political strategy to promote California’s commitment to equity and justice nationally.

Fortunately, San Mateo County’s electorate largely voted for housing this November! Measure T in San Mateo, which will increase allowable heights and densities near businesses and transit, passed by 58.7% at the time of this writing. Measure JJ in East Palo Alto, requiring certain tax revenues be set aside for housing funding, passed by a resounding supermajority. Across the County, voters supported measures to fund housing and essential infrastructure.

Statewide ballot measures were more conflicted. Though ballots are still being counted, Prop 5 looks likely to fall short of a majority. We are grateful to all the community organizations and residents of San Mateo County who supported lowering the barrier to essential funding for affordable homes. 

Furthermore, Prop 33, which would have allowed unrestricted rent control, failed by a nearly 20-point margin. Prop 33’s failure illustrates the need to broaden the housing coalition and focus on legislation that is actually feasible to pass. 

Nonetheless, San Mateo County’s local housing movement continues to grow. We were encouraged by all the federal, state, regional, and local candidates who won with pro-housing platforms, from Kevin Mullin to Lisa Gauthier to Mark Nagales and dozens of other housing champions—more than we can name. And we are grateful to electeds like Harvey Rahrback in Half Moon Bay and Davina Hurt in Belmont who led on housing in their communities. Regardless of the national election, local electeds in San Mateo County continue to lead the way on promoting housing and protecting democracy.

Now more than ever, we need leaders who will support new homes in San Mateo County. Our area can only be a safe haven—for immigrants, for LGTBQ youth, for young women, for every group at risk of oppression—if we have places for new people to live. We are fortunate to have so many present and future leaders stepping up to lead our communities.

The following positions were vetted by HLC’s Policy Committee and Board of Directors.

⭐🏘️ YES on Prop 5: Empower Your Community

Prop 5 gives local voters more control to meet the housing needs of low- and middle-income families and improve infrastructure like transit and emergency services. This proposition would allow cities, counties, and the state to approve housing bonds with a 55% vote threshold if they include strict accountability measures, paving the way for affordable homes and resilient communities.

Context: Under existing California law, bonds for housing and infrastructure require 2/3 voting majorities in order to pass. The high threshold to pass bonds for affordable homes makes passing necessary funding harder.

HLC’s position: We support the right of local voters to determine where their money goes. Small minorities of voters should not be able to block essential funding for housing and transit. For affordable housing specifically, bond funding has an advantage over other models because the funding can be provided up front or predictably over time, rather than the variability of tax increment financing or general fund revenues.

Phone Bank or Canvass for Prop 5 on Election Day

🏘️ YES on Measure T for a thriving San Mateo

San Mateo’s high housing costs are pushing out residents, essential workers, and young families. Measure T offers a path to rezone areas of the city for denser housing, making affordable homes a reality. 

Context: Since 1991, San Mateo has had a height and density cap limiting the amount of housing that can be built to a maximum of 55 feet and 50 dwelling units per acre. Measure Y, the most recent iteration of the height and density cap, passed in 2020 with just 43 votes in support. Measure Y substantially constrains the ability of San Mateo to meet its housing needs by preventing the city council from allowing taller, denser buildings.

Measure T represents more than 6 years of effort by the San Mateo community to identify suitable locations for new homes near businesses and transportation corridors.

HLC’s position: Measure T’s increases in heights and densities are objectively better than the status quo, representing a first step toward overturning San Mateo’s exclusionary height and density limits entirely. Though HLC believes Measure T should have allowed greater density in a wider range of areas than currently proposed, we support efforts to move in a positive direction for allowing housing in San Mateo.

🏘️ YES on Measure JJ in East Palo Alto

Measure JJ guarantees Measure L revenue is spent where the voters want by requiring a minimum proportion of revenue go toward tenant rental assistance (30%) and a maximum proportion of revenue (20%) fund staff overhead and other city costs.

Background: In November 2022, East Palo Alto voters passed Measure L, a 2.5% tax on residential rent receipts. The advisory language in Measure L referred exclusively to housing-related issues. However, since the passage of Measure L, the majority of funds from Measure L have been used to fund issues unrelated to housing affordability or tenants. 

Measure JJ would require that (1) a minimum of 30% of Measure L tax revenues be used exclusively for tenant rental assistance, (2) a maximum of 20% of Measure L tax revenues be used for reasonably incurred costs to the City of EPA for staff and overhead to administer the measure, and (3) the remaining revenues may be used in any way that supports affordable homeownership, preserves affordable housing, furthers tenant rental assistance, or protects residents of EPA from displacement or homelessness. 

HLC’s position: Cities should be accountable to upholding the promises they made to voters, and voters passed Measure L with language primarily related to housing issues. More than 40 community organizers and housing activists gathered 2060 verified signatures to support Measure JJ, approximately 18% of the city’s voting population–far surpassing the 10% threshold required to put a measure on the ballot. Given the strong community support for spending Measure L revenue on areas for which it was initially promised, HLC supports Measure JJ. 

🏘️ NO on Prop 33

California needs to reform Costa Hawkins to reform rent control and ensure renters in all housing types can benefit from protections. Which is why it is unfortunate that Prop 33 is written so broadly that anti-housing cities can use it to discriminate against new affordable homes. 

Context: California already has statewide rent control. AB 1482, a statewide law passed in 2018, caps rent growth at a maximum of 10% per year, a 5% increase plus up to 5% for inflation. However, Costa-Hawkins, a separate state law passed in 1995, places restrictions on where rent control can apply. Under Costa Hawkins, rent control cannot apply to housing built after 1995 or single-family homes of any kind.

HLC’s position: Costa Hawkins needs reform, but Prop 33 is written in a way that would allow cities to discriminate against new homes. A conservative council member from Huntington Beach explained why they support Prop 33: the law “gives local governments ironclad protections from the state’s housing policy.”

Prop 33 would enable jurisdictions to avoid state housing laws because the language is incredibly broad. The measure reads “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control.”

This broad language would enable cities to subvert new homes in a number of ways:

1. Cities could apply rent control exclusively on new homes. Costa Hawkins limits rent control on homes built before 1995; Prop 33 would enable rent control to be applied exclusively on homes built after 2025, for example–which is what conservative council members in Huntington Beach hope to do.
2. Prop 33 does not guarantee cities apply rent control equally on single-family and multi-family homes–the most important reform. Costa Hawkins exempts single-family homes from rent control, meaning households in many of California’s most expensive neighborhoods lack protections available to apartment dwellers. Prop 33 would continue to allow cities to treat multi-family homes unequally from single-family homes.
3. Cities could make new housing financially infeasible to build by mandating negative rent growth. Decreasing rents by law sounds good, but it has tradeoffs: Developers may no longer find new housing financially feasible to build; landlords will be less likely to upkeep their homes or renovate them. Existing tenants may benefit from lower rents short term, but future residents–young families, immigrants, LGBT youth fleeing persecution in other states, and more–will have fewer and more expensive housing options long term.

Cities have strong incentives to abuse rent control to block new homes. Over the last decade, California has passed increasingly strict laws requiring cities to plan for housing. The housing element process requires cities to change local policies to facilitate new homes; laws like SB 9 require cities to allow duplexes in a wide range of areas (in theory at least). Prop 33’s broad language would allow cities to render all state housing rules irrelevant, because it dictates “The state may not limit the right of any city … to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control” of any kind.

Preserve state pro-housing laws by voting no on Prop 33. We can pursue Costa Hawkins reform through the legislature instead.

Status Update

As of today, eight jurisdictions in San Mateo County remain out of housing element compliance: Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, Daly City, San Bruno, Belmont, Atherton, Woodside, and the County itself. Belmont has been deemed in substantial compliance, very close but not yet officially certified, and San Bruno’s housing element, currently under review, commits to several substantial policy changes as well. 

San Mateo County has far and away the highest rate of non-compliance in the Bay Area. Regionally, just 20 cities remain out of housing element compliance, a rate of 19%, whereas 38% of SMC’s jurisdictions are out of compliance–reflecting the numerous barriers to housing that have contributed to high rental costs in recent years. 

Builder’s Remedy Proposals

Among other penalties, including loss of access to a variety of state grant funding programs, jurisdictions that remain out of housing element compliance are subject to the “Builder’s Remedy”: Without certified housing elements, jurisdictions cannot use their zoning rules to deny housing proposals. Essentially, jurisdictions without housing elements do not have a zoning code. As a result, developers can theoretically propose a 10-story multi-family projects in a single-family neighborhood and the city cannot use zoning to deny it. 

Pacifica has had the most Builder’s Remedy proposals in San Mateo County, with at least 6 projects in the pipeline. Some cities received Builder’s Remedy applications before achieving housing element certification, though they are now certified: Menlo Park, in particular, has three applications, including a proposal for 665 homes in a lower density neighborhood.

Other cities have found loopholes: The City of San Mateo successfully stalled a proposal for a Builder’s Remedy at the Block 20 site to death. The proposal at Block 20 would have replaced the initial proposal for 72 homes and 98,717 square feet of office space with a 353-home project. The project applicants chose not to move forward with a Builder’s Remedy proposal when staff refused to determine if the project was eligible for streamlining until after the developer submitted a complete application. 

New State Laws Protect Builder’s Remedy Proposals

New state laws will make the Builder’s Remedy substantially more impactful in jurisdictions that remain out of housing element compliance. AB 1893, signed by Governor Newsom on September 19, guarantees legal protections for projects proposed under the Builder’s Remedy in exchange for stricter limits on density. 

Specifically, AB 1893: 

• Requires local governments to process Builder’s Remedy applications through the same process as normal, zoning-compliant developments–meaning that local governments may not require a rezoning or general plan amendments or impose additional fees. 
• Strengthens the Housing Accountability Act by adding stricter statutory timelines for reviewing an application and a limit on the number of public meetings a city may hold regarding Builder’s Remedy proposals. 
• Changes Builder’s Remedy maximum densities from (1) unlimited density to whatever the maximum density is within the city, or (2) up to 65 du/ac, whichever is higher. Builder’s Remedy projects can still be proposed throughout most of a city, except on sites abutting heavy industrial uses. 

Builder’s Remedy proposals submitted before the end of the year will have a choice between existing Builder’s Remedy rules–which allow unlimited density but have fewer protections–and AB 1893’s provisions.

Furthermore, AB 1886 closes several loopholes some jurisdictions used to claim ineligibility for the Builder’s Remedy, including the “self certification” strategy. Previously, several cities in San Mateo County claimed they complied with housing element law before receiving certification from HCD. AB 1886 clarifies that jurisdictions only comply with housing element law once HCD certifies them—meaning until HCD certifies a jurisdiction’s housing element, that jurisdiction is subject to the Builder’s Remedy.

Laws from prior years may further strengthen Builder’s Remedy applications. SB 423, a state law passed in 2023, will further bolster housing proposals by streamlining CEQA review for many housing projects. SB 423 extends existing rules requiring cities that have fallen behind on their RHNA goals to streamline housing that helps them catch up. Infill projects meeting certain labor standards, standards that vary based on the size of the development proposal, will be able to surpass CEQA review entirely in order to receive permit approvals. 

Some projects may be able to layer AB 1893 and SB 423 together, creating housing development proposals that will be extremely difficult for jurisdictions to disprove.