California’s housing crisis is entering a new and decisive phase—one in which the state is no longer willing to tolerate delay, obstruction, or symbolic gestures masquerading as real progress. While many cities have long paid lip service to addressing housing affordability, the Newsom administration and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are making it increasingly clear that the time for equivocation is over. Cities that fail to meet their state-mandated housing goals will face consequences—legal, financial, and political.
Davis should be paying very close attention.
While the most recent enforcement headline comes out of Fresno—where the state revoked the city’s Prohousing Designation, stripping it of access to millions in housing grants—the underlying message applies just as urgently to us. Davis is skating on thin ice.
Our certified Housing Element barely made it over the finish line, our land-use restrictions remain among the most exclusionary in the state, and Measure J/R/D continues to block the very infill and mixed-use development the state is prioritizing. If we’re not careful, Davis could soon find itself on the state’s enforcement list—not as an example to follow, but as one to correct.
The Prohousing Designation was designed as a reward. Cities that demonstrate a genuine commitment to building more homes—particularly near jobs, transit, and existing infrastructure—get preferential access to funding from key state programs. These include competitive grants like the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program and Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention funds. But earning the designation isn’t a trophy—it’s a conditional privilege that must be backed by action.
In Fresno’s case, the state determined that the city failed to follow through on key reforms it promised, such as zoning changes and development streamlining. As a result, its status was stripped, potentially jeopardizing hundreds of affordable units and at least one major mixed-income downtown project. The city now faces a scramble to approve more than 30 overdue housing commitments, hoping to reestablish good standing.
What’s important to understand is that this is not just Fresno’s problem. It’s California’s new standard. If a large, urban, politically moderate city like Fresno—one that has made visible efforts to address homelessness and housing production—can lose access to funding, what makes Davis think it’s immune?
We cannot blame the state for not giving Davis every opportunity to get its housing policies in order. In fact, the state went out of its way to signal that Measure J/R/D—the voter-enacted ordinance requiring ballot approval for most major housing projects on the city’s periphery—was a problem. It’s an outlier in the state and a known barrier to meeting our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. While the city made superficial changes to the measure in 2020, the fundamental structure remains: a veto mechanism empowering existing homeowners to block growth, perpetuating exclusion and driving up costs.
Davis is not building enough housing. Period. Not for students, not for low-income families, not for essential workers. Our rental market is brutally tight, vacancy rates hover near zero, and home prices routinely exceed $900,000. And yet, we continue to act as though our responsibility ends at planning documents and modest pilot projects. The reality is that Davis remains a model of how to constrain growth through process, fear, and delay.
If we do not voluntarily reform our approach, the state may do it for us. Already, HCD has referred cities to the Attorney General’s office for non-compliance. Legal action is no longer theoretical. And as the state deepens its scrutiny of local ordinances that obstruct housing—especially those that enable wealthier cities to offload their obligations onto poorer ones—we can expect Measure J to face increasing legal and political pressure.
Davis’ downtown has been the subject of extensive visioning, community meetings, and redevelopment conversations. But the economic health of our civic core depends on people living there—not just visiting.
As LZ Granderson recently argued in the Los Angeles Times, “You can’t revitalize downtown if people are sleeping on the streets in front of the buildings you want to reopen.”
The downtowns of California’s cities have become ground zero for the housing crisis, homelessness crisis, and post-pandemic recovery all at once. And Davis is no exception.
We need to unlock the potential of our urban core with mixed-income, infill housing—especially on underutilized parcels and near transit corridors. That means streamlining approvals, reducing discretionary delays, and prioritizing affordability not just in theory but in execution. We should be converting surface parking lots, underused office-zoned parcels, and older commercial spaces into walkable, vibrant neighborhoods with real housing opportunities.
Fresno’s failure to pass a policy allowing by-right development in office-zoned districts cost them dearly.
Meanwhile, in Davis, any similar proposal would likely be met with the same opposition we’ve seen before: preservation of “neighborhood character,” traffic concerns, parking worries, and vague complaints about developer greed. But time is up. We cannot afford to let those objections dominate anymore.
On top of state enforcement, we now face a looming federal threat.
President Trump’s proposed budget slashes the Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8), cuts funding for homelessness prevention, and would trigger what some housing authorities are calling a “mass displacement event.”
For cities like Davis that rely heavily on state and federal programs to fund affordable housing, the stakes could not be higher. If we lose access to state funding because of non-compliance or inaction, we will be doubly vulnerable. Our ability to secure housing for the most vulnerable will be severely compromised.
Oakland’s recent encampment resolution effort demonstrates what’s possible when local government acts decisively with state support: people are housed, encampments are cleared compassionately, and resources are deployed where needed.
But that only works when the state views a city as a willing partner. If Davis wants help, it must first show it’s serious.
There is still time for Davis to get this right, but the window is closing. We need to act now. That means reforming or repealing Measure J/R/D, or at the very least establishing exemptions for infill and affordable housing that don’t require a public vote.
It means streamlining permitting and approval processes, especially for downtown housing and infill projects. It means prioritizing affordable housing in funding applications, partnerships, and city planning—not as an afterthought, but as the foundation.
It means passing strong tenant protections, including anti-displacement policies and rent stabilization measures, to ensure that new development benefits existing residents.
And it means engaging the community with honesty, not platitudes. The public must understand that inaction is not neutrality—it’s a decision with real consequences, especially for the people most in need of housing.
Fresno is now sprinting to fix what it failed to do in time. Davis has a chance to avoid that fate altogether. But only if we move—urgently, decisively, and with clarity about what’s at stake.
The housing crisis is not coming—it’s here. And if Davis wants to preserve its character, vitality, and values, it must begin with the fundamental principle that housing is not a burden to be managed, but a human right to be fulfilled.
I feel like I’ve read this article, before. Is it just me?
The fact is that there is no law requiring cities to expand outward. At the last council meeting, staff made a vague comment that the state may look into legislation, but that’s all they said. (The Vanguard itself quoted the comment, and I can repost it if necessary.)
Peripheral development is NOT infill. Infill is where the state’s efforts are focused. The minute they start requiring cities to expand outward is the same minute where they’d expose a “different” goal – continued sprawl (in addition to the sprawl that they’re already approving/encouraging – even without RHNA targets).
For that matter, all the state (HCD) said in their response to Davis’ housing element is that Davis essentially cannot “count” land (proposed developments) outside of its own boundaries to address RHNA targets, and the state is absolutely correct regarding that.
But it does seem ironic that one of the “punishments” that the state could inflict on cities that don’t have an approved housing element is the “loss” of Affordable housing funds. To which most cities would probably respond, “thank you sir – may I have another loss”?
It should also be noted that any government-provided Affordable housing funds that are used for one city means that another city “loses out” on those funds. Similar to school districts which “lose” funds as a result of one school district “poaching” students from another district.
So in the case of Affordable housing, that means that any funds used in Davis (our outside of Davis on farmland) means that another community, which might have a greater need, “loses out” on those funds. (But again, most communities probably don’t want more Affordable/subsidized housing in the first place.)
But perhaps the main problem with this effort to weaken Measure J is that it’s originating from the people who don’t like Measure J in the first place. If it was coming from those trying to “save it” instead, they’d at least have credibility.
Also, it may be that by changing Measure J at this point, it’s actually CREATING an exposure to legal challenges which don’t currently exist. (I’m not the person who brought up this risk.)
I’d also note that ANY annexation of land outside of city limits at this point exposes the city to all of the new housing laws, in regard to what “actually” ends up getting built on the annexed land.
I’ll start by pointing out that you are not a stakeholder in this discussion; you’re just an outsider trying to impose your will on Davis residents, workers and business owners.
Davis and Yolo County cannot avoid their housing obligations by creating a requirement that growth much occur within existing cities and then have a city impose a restriction on meeting the overall housing obligation. That is unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. That Davis has a unique growth control measure will not protect it from legal action.
HCD said that Davis can’t count on land outside of the city limits BECAUSE of Measure J/R/D. You left out that critical conditional that refutes your point.
Having Measure J/R/D as a backstop hammer is an important tool in getting cooperation from developers in cooperatively designing the neighborhoods that we want. Unfortunately Measure J/R/D now leads to proposals that are undesirable for everyone because it sets up competition among developers who are pitching to the lowest common denominator.
How would changing it open it to legal challenges? Be specific in your scenario–otherwise you’re just blowing smoke. And I don’t see why Davis isn’t already exposed to all of the new housing laws.
How do other cities lose out on Affordable housing funds? Most of that comes from developers who are building other housing in town. And we build Affordable housing for people who have connections in Davis and we are providing housing from them. We are reducing their travel and giving them access to the amenities that our community provides.
Richard says: “I’ll start by pointing out that you are not a stakeholder in this discussion; you’re just an outsider trying to impose your will on Davis residents, workers and business owners.”
Me? No – we’ve been through this. But if you’d prefer, go ahead and claim that what I’m putting forth is irrelevant. Regardless, it is you who want to disenfranchise Davis voters. It is also you who want to house “non-stakeholders”.
Richard says: “How would changing it open it to legal challenges? Be specific in your scenario–otherwise you’re just blowing smoke. And I don’t see why Davis isn’t already exposed to all of the new housing laws.”
Someone (other than me) essentially noted that it was “grandfathered in”. I’m not sure that’s even correct, in that I suspect that the state is not going to force sprawl outside of city limits, regardless.
Richard says: “How do other cities lose out on Affordable housing funds? Most of that comes from developers who are building other housing in town.”
Most (maybe even “all” of it comes from the state and federal government). Every single dollar of that money that is used in Davis (or on farmland outside of Davis) is a dollar that’s not available for another community. Do you actually not understand this?
Richard says: “And we build Affordable housing for people who have connections in Davis and we are providing housing from them. We are reducing their travel and giving them access to the amenities that our community provides.”
Depends on a lot of variables, most of which have already been discussed. Should we go through them again?
Richard says: “HCD said that Davis can’t count on land outside of the city limits BECAUSE of Measure J/R/D. You left out that critical conditional that refutes your point.”
HCD (essentially) said that Davis cannot “count on” unapproved proposals outside of city limits in regard to RHNA targets. And HCD is correct regarding that.
Richard says: That is unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. That Davis has a unique growth control measure will not protect it from legal action.”
Then scrutinize it – have at it.
“ Richard says: “HCD said that Davis can’t count on land outside of the city limits BECAUSE of Measure J/R/D. You left out that critical conditional that refutes your point.”
HCD (essentially) said that Davis cannot “count on” unapproved proposals outside of city limits in regard to RHNA targets. And HCD is correct regarding that.”
This is where you’re failing to comprehend the issue. Rich is correct here. Without Measure J, the city could rezone land without a vote and initiate annexation. Therefore it would be easy and administrative to bring in those parcels but for Measure J. Hence if the city lacks parcels in the city (which it does) Measure J is a constraint on housing.
David says: “This is where you’re failing to comprehend the issue. Rich is correct here. Without Measure J, the city could rezone land without a vote and initiate annexation. Therefore it would be easy and administrative to bring in those parcels but for Measure J. Hence if the city lacks parcels in the city (which it does) Measure J is a constraint on housing.”
City staff themselves essentially said that forcing sprawl outside of city limits would require legislative action. (I could look up that quote again if you’d like, since you yourself quoted it at the recent council meeting when the council had their arses handed to them on a platter.)
Apparently, Measure J itself wouldn’t have come up, if staff hadn’t initiated it. HCD did not ask for a “vote to weaken Measure J”. (One might ask “who” directed staff to bring that up.)
You yourself also noted that RHNA targets are “aspirational” (since they’re failing across the state).
I say (as you yourself have said), “let’s see what the state does, if anything”. And if they do, that would conflict with what their stated goal is (which supposedly isn’t “sprawl”). And if they do, that’s the time it might be modified (after extended court battles). Assuming that the council doesn’t try to “sneak through” the two existing Measure J proposals (that they themselves have endangered), while the court battles ensue.
Again, the city itself has a credibility problem, regarding its attempt to weaken or eliminate Measure J. One cannot be “against” something that they claim to be “protecting”. This would essentially be akin to stating that Trump is protecting Democracy or free speech via his recent actions.
Not sure how many comments I’ve submitted in response to Richard’s today, but one thing I’m sure of is that “you’re counting” them (in regard to me and the 3-comment limit) in regard to this particular subject at least.
You’re twisting a lot of words- maybe I’ll clarify things later
“California’s housing crisis is entering a new and decisive phase”
It’s now a Super crisis.
“Our certified Housing Element barely made it over the finish line”
Operative phrase: “made it”
“Measure J/R/D continues to block the very infill and mixed-use development the state is prioritizing.”
How exactly does Measure J block infill? Measure J increases pressure to infill by blocking and making it difficult to build peripherally. I’m against Measure J, but that statement is bass ackwards.
“In Fresno’s case, the state determined that the city failed to follow through on key reforms it promised, such as zoning changes and development streamlining.”
What a joke. Fresno is a sprawlization nightmare. That isn’t enough for the state?
“this is not just Fresno’s problem. It’s California’s new standard.”
California’s new standard sucks.
“We cannot blame the state for not giving Davis every opportunity to get its housing policies in order.”
Cannot . . . not . . . what?
“a veto mechanism empowering existing homeowners to block growth”
Incorrect as stated . . . Renters can block growth too!
“Our rental market is brutally tight, vacancy rates hover near zero,”
Not true anymore . . . the vacancy rate has gone up the last two years. People with houses for rent that I know had to lower rates on new rentals by hundreds of dollars last fall in order to get them rented. For sale houses are going through price reductions as not seen in years past, sometimes multiple reductions, sitting on the market for weeks or months. Get your facts straight, Jack!
“Davis’ downtown has been the subject of extensive visioning, community meetings, and redevelopment conversations. But the economic health of our civic core depends on people living there—not just visiting.”
Very few are arguing against more housing in downtown.
“As LZ Granderson recently argued in the Los Angeles Times, “You can’t revitalize downtown if people are sleeping on the streets in front of the buildings you want to reopen.” ”
And yet you and your ilk argued against a downtown police officer.
“We should be converting surface parking lots, underused office-zoned parcels, and older commercial spaces into walkable, vibrant neighborhoods with real housing opportunities.”
Have at it, Sparky
“Fresno’s failure to pass a policy allowing by-right development in office-zoned districts cost them dearly.”
There is so much crying in their beer in Fresno that Fresno ale is now referred to as Tear Beer.
“in Davis, any similar proposal would likely be met with the same opposition we’ve seen before: preservation of “neighborhood character,” traffic concerns, parking worries, and vague complaints about developer greed.”
Because all of those things are real. And developer greed isn’t ‘vague’.
“If we lose access to state funding because of non-compliance or inaction, we will be doubly vulnerable. Our ability to secure housing for the most vulnerable will be severely compromised.”
So weird how you make this about Davis, when it affects everyone everywhere, just so you can point a blaming finger at Davis.
“Oakland’s recent encampment resolution effort demonstrates what’s possible when local government acts decisively with state support: people are housed, encampments are cleared compassionately, and resources are deployed where needed.”
Oakland, that was completely out of control on people living on the streets for half a decade and finally started clearing encampments (which was opposed by homeless advocates). Shining example :-|
“Measure J/R/D, or at the very least establishing exemptions for infill and affordable housing that don’t require a public vote.”
There is already an exemption for affordable housing (just not a ‘good enough’ one for you, apparently), and again, Measure J has nothing to do with infill.
“It means passing strong tenant protections, including anti-displacement policies and rent stabilization measures, to ensure that new development benefits existing residents.”
The devil is in the details. WHAT tenant protections, WHAT anti-displacement policies, WHAT rent stabilization measures. There are reasonable protections, and then there is socialism. What are you proposing?
“And it means engaging the community with honesty, not platitudes.”
Good luck with that. And may I point out this article is filled with platitudes.
“The public must understand that inaction is not neutrality—it’s a decision with real consequences”
Bring it on, Gaavy!
“Fresno is now sprinting to fix what it failed to do in time”
I hope by telling Gaavy where to put it. Hint: the sun don’t shine there.
“The housing crisis is not coming—it’s here.”
If you say so, Sparky.
“And if Davis wants to preserve its character, vitality, and values . . . ”
I believe losing Davis’ character is what the 83% who voted yes were concerned about.
“it must begin with the fundamental principle that housing is not a burden to be managed, but a human right to be fulfilled”
. . . and other guilt-ridden slogans meant to justify build baby build for your developer overlords.
And the irony? I am against Meaure J and DG says he is for it (“modified”).
Joint “Our Neighborhood Voices” and bring down Gavvy and Weiner and their developer overlords!!!
“There is already an exemption for affordable housing”
Alan, be serious. The exemption is only for 100% Affordable housing which will never be built because it has not funding source. This is an example of an exemption that was never a serious offer and illustrates how the proponents are either extremely naïve, or calculating and scheming.
“I believe losing Davis’ character is what the 83% who voted yes were concerned about.”
As is too often the case, the public is not well informed about the realities of what will happen in the future when they vote on an issue. We are seeing that unfold right now in the federal government.
“We need to unlock the potential of our urban core with mixed-income, infill housing—especially on underutilized parcels and near transit corridors. That means streamlining approvals, reducing discretionary delays, and prioritizing affordability not just in theory but in execution. We should be converting surface parking lots, underused office-zoned parcels, and older commercial spaces into walkable, vibrant neighborhoods with real housing opportunities.”
Could you give us an update as to the status of the two mixed-use projects that have been proposed for the downtown? My recollection is that they cannot get financing.
The last I heard both the lumberyards and Davis Ace are going forward and the theater one got pulled.
“If we’re not careful, Davis could soon find itself on the state’s enforcement list—not as an example to follow, but as one to correct.”
This is the dumbest argument. If Davis doesn’t build the State will make Davis build. You think any NIMBY reads that and goes oh gosh we better build before the state makes us?
To be fair, I believe we have heard that exact argument from at least two of our most prominent local “nimby”s… one who miraculously came out for village farms after opposing every other measure J proposal in history I think, and another who is vehemently against VF but is pro shriners.
If anyone advocates building “over there”, to take the fake pressure off of “over here”, they are indeed NIMBYs. They’re also cowards, in a sense – willing to throw others (or farmland itself) “under the bus” in response to a fake housing shortage and YIMBY politicians.
In contrast, those who are trying to reign-in sprawl are not NIMBYs.
Two entirely-different motivations.
Then there’s others who try to fan flames of a fake housing crisis in a given locale, while ALSO trying to increase the number of jobs in that SAME LOCALE – thereby creating more demand for housing in that SAME LOCALE. (These are also the same people who say they are trying to “save Measure J” by dismantling it.)
The problem is that YIMBYs have BECOME the elected Democrats. The system itself ensures that there’s no actual choice.
“In contrast, those who are trying to reign-in sprawl are not NIMBYs.
Two entirely-different motivations.”
Not true. NIMBYs try to use the arguments of reigning in sprawl to oppose developments. Eileen Samitz is the best example of this is Davis.
“We need to unlock the potential of our urban core with mixed-income, infill housing—especially on underutilized parcels and near transit corridors. That means streamlining approvals, reducing discretionary delays, and prioritizing affordability not just in theory but in execution.”
Too late Dude. Davis spent years on visioning and planning the re-development of downtown as the eco-groovy city of the future. Problem is that by the time the Downtown Plan was finally passed after all that dithering the 15 year window of rock bottom interest rates had closed and now those projects don’t pencil out.
I’m going to predict that the new housing Davis told the State was going to be built downtown isn’t going to happen. Take those units out and Davis is doomed to be way out of compliance the next time the state evaluates our housing production.
A lot of cities that have been successful in densifying have had to explicitly incentivize that densificaiton – through streamlining processes, or creating other financial incentives, like reductions in fees etc. The downtown core plan was well done, but sometimes incentives help move the needle.
The conversation that I dont see happening is something that I know has been talked about in generalities is the densification of our arterial corridors. True “infill” opportunities are getting closed out, and there arent a lot of defunct properties in the portfolio either. Specific plans for how we strategically add density to the right parts of town is something that we should spend a lot of time talking about in the next general plan as that kind of growth will always be better than peripheral growth.
But lets say we say that anderson boulevard is an arterial corridor that we should densify… its currently mostly lined with single family homes… so how do you do THAT? Its going to be a big issue for those residents, and if zoning there changes, we would do well to give the residents something like 20 years worth of notice…
David Greenwald said … “In fact, the state went out of its way to signal that Measure J/R/D—the voter-enacted ordinance requiring ballot approval for most major housing projects on the city’s periphery—was a problem.”
David, for all the readers who are interested, can you please publish here exactly what the State said about Measure J/R/D? That way we can be dealing with first hand evidence rather than second hand speculation. Thank you.
Since I have this handy which I wrote I think in April…
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in its December 2021 letter reviewing the City of Davis’s Housing Element, explicitly identified Measure J as a governmental constraint on housing development.
Here’s the key excerpt:
“As recognized in the housing element, Measure J poses a constraint to the development of housing by requiring voter approval of any land use designation change from agricultural, open space, or urban reserve land use to an urban use designation. Since the ordinance was enacted in March of 2000, four of the six proposed rezones have failed. As the element has identified the need for rezoning to accommodate a shortfall of sites to accommodate the housing need, the element should clarify if any of the candidate sites to rezone would be subject to this measure and provide analysis on the constraints that this measure might impose on the development of these sites.”
Summary:
HCD acknowledges Measure J as a significant barrier to meeting the city’s housing needs.
It cites Davis’s history of rejecting voter-approved rezonings (only two out of six have passed).
HCD requires Davis to analyze and address this constraint, especially since future rezoning is needed to meet state housing mandates.
This directly undercuts the argument that Measure J is untouchable or irrelevant to the state’s housing enforcement. HCD doesn’t need to sue or repeal Measure J—they are applying pressure through compliance reviews, using it as evidence of noncompliance with state housing law.
***********
In response to HCD’s identification of Measure J as a constraint to housing development, the City of Davis addresses the issue in its updated 2021–2029 Housing Element by maing three key points:
Measure J and RHNA Compliance: The City argues that Measure J is not a constraint for meeting its current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) because all the rezoning needed to fulfill the sixth-cycle RHNA will occur on land within city limits that is already designated for urban use. None of the rezoned sites needed for RHNA compliance require a Measure J vote .
Rezone Strategy and Site Selection: The Housing Element lays out a detailed rezoning plan for infill sites—largely vacant, already urban-designated parcels—specifically chosen to avoid triggering Measure J’s voter approval requirements. This includes sites like 3500 Chiles Road and 4600 Fermi Place. The City identifies capacity for 588 lower-income units across these sites, exceeding the RHNA shortfall of 496 units .
Policy Response and Future Reform: While the City maintains that Measure J isn’t a current barrier, it acknowledges the long-term limitations it imposes. To address this, the Housing Element includes Program 2.6, which proposes asking voters to amend Measure J to exempt affordable housing projects from voter approval requirements. This reflects the City’s recognition that existing Measure J exceptions are too narrow and legally uncertain to rely on for streamlined housing development .
In summary, the City attempts to work around Measure J by strategically avoiding reliance on it for RHNA compliance and proposes modest reform to expand its exemptions for affordable housing, but it does not confront the broader long-term structural constraints Measure J may pose.
***********
That recent acknowledgment by the City of Davis is a major shift in its public position and effectively undercuts the argument made in the Housing Element that Measure J is not currently a constraint.
Despite assurances in its 2023 Housing Element that Measure J would not impede Davis’s ability to meet its RHNA obligations, the city has now publicly admitted the opposite: that as infill options dwindle, Measure J becomes the gatekeeper for all future growth.
“The city of Davis has been able to meet its legal fair share of housing within the city limits. However, that fact is becoming more untrue as the years pass and lands become unavailable or developed… the Measure J/R/D process becomes applicable to all annexation applications.”
This statement acknowledges the finite reality of Davis’s infill capacity. Once those limited parcels are developed or constrained (as many already are by size, ownership, contamination, or economic feasibility), the only path to fulfilling state-mandated housing obligations will be through annexation—which triggers Measure J’s voter approval requirement.
Why this matters:
Measure J doesn’t need to block current RHNA obligations to be a constraint—HCD has clearly said that cities must analyze constraints not just in the present, but over the entire planning period.
This is a de facto admission that Measure J will soon function as a structural bottleneck, if not already.
It also confirms that long-term housing equity, affordability, and state compliance will require confronting the voter-approval mechanism head-on.
This public statement also adds weight to arguments that Measure J is not just a neutral “check” on development—it is an active constraint that affects land use planning, undermines fair housing goals, and imposes barriers to meeting the state’s constitutional obligations under the Housing Element Law.
Here’s the key paragraph from above that’s actually FROM HCD:
” . . . the element should clarify if any of the candidate sites to rezone would be subject to this measure and provide analysis on the constraints that this measure might impose on the development of these sites.”
HCD is absolutely correct regarding this. Seems exceedingly-obvious that the city cannot count on unapproved sites outside of its own boundaries to address RHNA targets.
Correct, but the next piece of that is missing from your analysis.
The rest of it is from you and the city, not HCD.
The whole analysis is that HCD is asking the city if Measure J is a constraint on housing. The city says no, because we have enough sites that are not Measure J sites. HCD reminds the city that they cannot count sites that haven’t been added to the city and rezoned (which requires a Measure J vote). The city says that’s not a problem… but that’s for the Sixth Cycle. The city is now acknowledging that they won’t be able to meet their Seventh cycle and future obligations with infill. That then negates the argument that Measure J is not a constraint on housing. This is the point I have been making for years that the city is acknowledging finally and that you are in denial on.
Again, I’m focused on what HCD said; not what you or the city say. HCD already said that Measure J is a constraint to housing (on farmland outside of city limits) in regard to including such lands in the housing element. (Again, a pretty obvious point, if the city is trying to include land outside of city limits.)
Don’t know why the city is speculating regarding future housing elements, or why the city even brought it up. Especially since so many other cities aren’t meeting current targets, regardless. (Are there any current / unapproved housing elements at this point across the state?)
A better response from the city might have been to remind HCD that Measure J is not a constraint to Affordable housing proposals, since there’s already an exemption for it.
Would also have to look at exactly “how” and “who” brought up Measure J in the first place.
And again, the premise that you and the city are putting forth is that HCD views cities that are adjacent to county farmland “differently” than those which are hemmed-in by other natural or human-created barriers to urbanization. And yet, NONE of the laws enacted by the state even remotely suggest this, nor do they provide the state with any authority to force expansion. (Which again, would conflict with the claimed reason behind the state’s efforts in the first place.)
(My third comment.)
That’s up to you, but I’m explaining where the conversation is and what the City has stated in response to what HCD has stated. If you choose not to believe that, that’s up to you.
“ A better response from the city might have been to remind HCD that Measure J is not a constraint to Affordable housing proposals, since there’s already an exemption for it.’
Do you think that HCD would buy that given the fact that it’s never even been proposed to use the exemption for an actual project?
David, one other administrative point that this article has illuminated is that the three-comment rule should be suspended whenever you or Don ask a commenter a question. Without the ability to answer your question, that question becomes rhetorical, and is allowed to take on more discussion power than it organically deserves.
Ron O
You’re ignoring that the City is also responsible for the sphere of influence beyond the city limits and that sphere also is to be considered in the ability to meet its housing obligation. That’s why the sphere exists.
David, thank you for the response. It illuminates two key issues/situations that bear scrutiny.
The first is that the statement “As recognized in the housing element, Measure J poses a constraint to the development of housing by requiring voter approval of any land use designation change from agricultural, open space, or urban reserve land use to an urban use designation.”
If one looks at the land use and zoning maps of the City there is only one parcel in the entire City that is zoned agriculture, Wildhorse Ranch, and that parcel is currently being processed under the Builders Remedy provisions of State Law, thereby by passing Measure J. I don’t know of any parcels zoned urban reserve, nor of any zoned open space. So, Measure J does not actually create any impediment to housing within the Municipality. Further, the City has no rezoning rights with respect to land outside the City Limits.
Second, the first six words of HCD’s letter are telling. They are responding to City Staff’s own comment in the Housing Element, which was clearly inserted by Staff in order to undermine Measure J. We don’t know if HCD would have discussed Measure J at all if City Staff hadn’t brought it up.
With those two points made, it is worth noting that Staff’s assessment is fatally flawed because any land owner of County land can apply to the City and LAFCo for annexation to the City. However, no land owner has done so the 27 years I have lived here. I do believe there have been annexations in the past. So the impediment isn’t Measure J, it is the land owner’s unwillingness to have their land annexed.
One other point is worth mentioning. HCD itself is a huge impediment to getting housing built. If it levied its RHNA allocations at the County level and let the County and its Cities divvy up the allocation using market forces, much more housing would be built.
On your first point, I think you are making a similar mistake to Ron
While it may be true that most land within city limits is not zoned agriculture or open space, Measure J’s main effect is precisely on land outside the city limits, where future growth would logically occur. The fact that there is only one developable agricultural parcel inside city limits confirms the housing constraint: if the city cannot grow outward due to Measure J, and infill is maxed out or politically infeasible, housing supply becomes severely limited..
On your second point – Even if city staff raised Measure J in the Housing Element, that doesn’t mean HCD’s concern isn’t valid. In fact it seems likely staff raised the issue proactively, anticipating state scrutiny. But that doesn’t change the underlying policy problem—it simply acknowledges it.
Third, to the point about anexation – Measure J introduces enormous risk and political complexity into the process. Even if a landowner wants to develop housing, the Measure J vote is a built-in disincentive.
Finally, RHNA exists precisely because the market has failed to produce adequate housing, especially for lower-income residents. Allowing cities to opt in or opt out would gut fair share housing laws and reinforce patterns of exclusion and underbuilding, especially in wealthy or politically resistant areas.
” . . . which was clearly inserted by Staff in order to undermine Measure J. We don’t know if HCD would have discussed Measure J at all if City Staff hadn’t brought it up.”
Yeah, something I’ve been wondering in all of DG’s ranting on housing and the State swooping in and the City Council clearly pro-pro-pro-housing but hog-tied by the 83%, is council and staff really attempting to underhandedly have the state swoop in and negate Measure J ? I know they all SAY they favor Measure J, but I’ve always suspected none or nearly none of them do.
And yes, I’ve long stated that Measure J is bad law and should be replaced by an urban limit line — BY DAVIS. The last thing I want is the state swooping in and making Davis’ land decisions for it, and I hope there will be an uprising by saner cities to stop that insanity.
But meanwhile if MW is correct, the “City” is trying to sabotage Measure J.
“83%”, how do you feel about THAT ???!!!
““83%”, how do you feel about THAT ???!!!”
Unite and resist. The Indivisible 83%.
“Unite and resist. The Indivisible 83%.”
Actually, KO, I’m sure it’s lower than 83% due to the Great aWOKEning, but I doubt it’s anywhere near 50%.
This nonsense of ‘reforming’ Measure J needs to stop, and be replaced by something sane that will give in to some peripheral growth (hopefully not just SFH) while assuring that the urban limit line is solid and accommodating for generations, with a freakin’ PLAN, not repeated developer patchwork propaganda aimed at convincing Davis voters. We’re seen how that has gone.
alan: “This nonsense of ‘reforming’ Measure J needs to stop, and be replaced by something sane that will give in to some peripheral growth (hopefully not just SFH) while assuring that the urban limit line is solid and accommodating for generations, with a freakin’ PLAN, not repeated developer patchwork propaganda aimed at convincing Davis voters. We’re seen how that has gone.”
I mean, techically it IS indeed a reform because the way we are looking at it, it is literaly an exemption written into the existing statute.. we do some planning on something good, but developers will have a choice to put forward their alternative if they want to… But the spirit of what you are saying I agree with
A solid plan, not patchwork, transit based, with lots of alternatives to SFH…. Amen
David’s argument essentially is that property in Nevada is subject to California rules and regulations. California can not rezone Nevada land any more than the City of Davis can rezone Yolo County land.
Until the land is annexed into the City it is either Yolo County’s jurisdiction or Solano County’s jurisdiction. And there is a simple straightforward legal process for changing that. The land owner, the City, the County and LAFCo can agree on annexation of the land into the City. Until that happens Measure J is not a constraint on City land.
Your expression “would logically occur” has no legal standing. Chicken Little probably would understand that expression. IBM Marketing deploying its FUD messaging (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) would almost surely understand not only that expression, but also the whole message of this umpty-umph repeat of this “put the fear of God in them” article.
Explain how Measure J is a disincentive in the straight annexation process. If Dan Ramos and Buzz Oates approached the Citu and the County and LAFCo with an application to have their parcel east of Mace annexed into the City, Measure J would not be involved at all. Measure J has no legal standing in a straight annexation.
Your statement “Allowing cities to opt in or opt out would gut fair share housing laws and reinforce patterns of exclusion and underbuilding, especially in wealthy or politically resistant areas” describes exactly how the market solution you advocate for works. By proportion 85% of the housing developers propose reinforce the existing patterns of exclusion, as well as the underbuilding of affordable housing through shams like land dedications and substitutions for affordable housing like what took place with the Axis at Davis project. The on the ground reality in Davis has been that 85% on paper has become 100% in reality, with Sterling being the lone exception. What you are supporting is little more than Virtue Signaling.
“ David’s argument essentially is that property in Nevada is subject to California rules and regulations. California can not rezone Nevada land any more than the City of Davis can rezone Yolo County land.”
False
Moreover, any annexation that involves a change in land use designation to an urban use requires voter approval.
Matt
You (and Ron O) are ignoring the complexities introduced by Yolo County’s restrictions on developing ag land and requiring development to occur within city boundaries. Further, LAFCO will only authorize annexation if there’s a purpose stated for that. End running Measure J/R/D almost certainly would not qualify.
This is really the key part that I think most people are mising:
——-
“Policy Response and Future Reform: While the City maintains that Measure J isn’t a current barrier, it acknowledges the long-term limitations it imposes. To address this, the Housing Element includes Program 2.6, which proposes asking voters to amend Measure J to exempt affordable housing projects from voter approval requirements.”
——-
That is the best summary peice of information here. As part of our back and forth with HCD, the city recognized that measure J is a limitation in the long term, and included in the current housing element the following language:
——
” [Program 2.6] Put a package of housing policy initiatives on the ballot to, among other things, amend language already in Measure J/R/D that exempts from its public vote requirements projects that provide affordable housing or facilities needed for city services, or other changes to city ordinances that would help create affordable housing.”
——-
So one thing is pretty damn clear with all of that. The council has recognized in the back and forth with HCD that measure J needs amendment and comitted to such an ammendment.
The die is cast.
Tim, what you are saying is that peripheral growth is the only way you address future RHNAs. You appear to have thrown in the towel on infill, much like David has. What is the reason you have done that? Is it because you don’t believe our elected leaders and paid City Staff have the backbone to do the right thing with respect to infill? Do you see peripheral growth as the easy way out?
Not in the least Matt, I 100% prefer infill and densification in every scenerio… and Im probbly more agressive on that point than most. For example I think we should be re-zoning all of the land along our arterial corridors to higher densities.
But I have also done done the math independently and there is no chance we get there with infill.
Here is my article on that point from 2 years ago where I looked for sites that might be densified. https://davisvanguard.org/2023/06/guest-commentary-how-big-does-davis-need-to-be-college-towns-analysis-part-3-long-term-planning/
Note… I looked at places that I think could be theoretically densified, but I of course have no say in whether the current land-owners tear down their existing properties in order to do so, and in the real world, until the places are literally falling apart, it is quite unlikely that a landlord will replace a already amortized profit-generating structure in order to put more money into a replacement.
So dont confuse my aceptance of the need to go peripheral as a preference. My conclusion to my research articles 2 years ago was basically this: We need a peripheral plan at a buffer for growth in order to buy us time (20 years) to figure out how to get agressive with densification. Thats the only way to make a “limit line” real
Tim, I can get 100% behind your strong desire for a plan. In fact it would really be helpful if HCD has a plan for funding the affordable component of its housing mandates.
Interestingly enough I received an email yesterday from the League of Women Voters Homelessness and Housing interest group and they are hosting a Zoom meeting with HCD today. Four speakers from HCD have agreed to participate. Four topics will be discussed:
— RHNA,
— the impact of anticipated HUD budget cuts in California,
— the status of the social housing study that the Legislature has requested, and
— manufactured housing.
As part of the meeting agenda the mission of HCD was shared as follows:
Tim, I can get 100% behind your strong desire for a plan. In fact it would really be helpful if HCD has a plan for funding the affordable component of its housing mandates.
Interestingly enough I received an email yesterday from the League of Women Voters Homelessness and Housing interest group and they are hosting a Zoom meeting with HCD today. Four speakers from HCD have agreed to participate. Four topics will be discussed:
— RHNA,
— the impact of anticipated HUD budget cuts in California,
— the status of the social housing study that the Legislature has requested, and
— manufactured housing.
As part of the meeting agenda the mission of HCD was shared as follows
Tim, I can get 100% behind your strong desire for a plan. In fact it would really be helpful if HCD has a plan for funding the affordable component of its housing mandates.
Interestingly enough I received an email yesterday from the League of Women Voters Homelessness and Housing interest group and they are hosting a Zoom meeting with HCD today. Four speakers from HCD have agreed to participate. Four topics will be discussed:
— RHNA,
— the impact of anticipated HUD budget cuts in California,
— the status of the social housing study that the Legislature has requested, and
— manufactured housing.
As part of the meeting agenda the mission of HCD was shared as follows:
The mission of the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) is to promote safe, affordable homes and vibrant, inclusive, sustainable communities for all Californians. HCD’s work covers these areas:
— Increasing the supply of affordable places to live in CA.
— Preserving affordable homes and protecting public investment.
— Protecting mobile home and manufactured homeowners.
— Guarding health and safety through building standards and code adoption
— Ensuring plans for a range of housing that meets varied needs.
— Creating effective solutions to the housing crisis through policy and research.
So California cities are being forced to follow state laws or they’ll face fines and lose funding.
How’s that so different from states like California fighting federal laws in the face of losing federal money?
We have the same people who are telling us we must fight the feds also telling us we have to adhere to state laws.
Federalism
Under the U.S. system of federalism, states are sovereign entities with constitutional authority. That means states have broad latitude to set policy, including on issues like criminal law, education, and healthcare—unless federal law preempts them.
By contrast, cities and counties are creatures of the state. They only have the powers granted to them by their state government—there are charter cities, but even those do not have the authority of a state in federalism.
But cities still can say F.U. to the state if they want to, and suffer the consequences, that may be worth it.
Yolo!
Absolutely. States have expressed rights and responsibilities in the US Constitution. Cities and counties are expressly subservient in the California Constitution. Charter cities like LA have additional rights but general law cities like Davis do not.
Tim says: “The die is cast.”
I agree – the council seems quite determined to put this on the ballot, thereby endangering the legality of Measure J (by focusing the state’s attention on it solely as a result of the city’s “volunteering” to put it in on the ballot in the first place). When the measure inevitably fails, the city’s position will then be to “blame the residents” for something that the city itself initiated – without even being asked to do so by the state in the first place.
Or, in the unlikely event that it’s approved, opening it up to legal challenges which don’t currently exist in its current, “pre-housing law” version.
It also seems likely that the council is undermining trust in anything they support, including the two existing proposals put forth under Measure J.
As far as challenges regarding “future” RHNA targets, cities across the state are not going to me “current” targets. Seems unlikely that the state is going to be able to force every city across the state to meet unachievable targets.
As far as Affordable (subsidized) housing is concerned, the limiting factor statewide is funding, not “space”. That’s why it took more than 20 years, as I recall, to build the Creekside affordable housing complex – despite being given “free land”. And with more jurisdictions now forced to deal with the state’s RHNA targets for Affordable housing (but no additional money flowing from the federal or state government), this adds to the unachievable nature of the state’s RHNA targets.