Something has changed in Davis.
For more than two decades, Measure J has stood as a political fortress, shielding the city from peripheral development through its voter-approval mandate. Every proposed annexation of farmland or open space for housing has been subject to a public vote. And more often than not, those proposals have failed. Yet through it all, city leaders have insisted that Measure J was no constraint—that it was merely an expression of “local control” and that Davis could meet its housing obligations through infill alone.
But the cracks in that argument are starting to show.
In 2020, the City Council unanimously voted to renew Measure J without modification. In 2021, the city’s Housing Element continued to claim that Measure J did not impede Davis’s ability to meet its housing targets, since all needed rezonings could occur within city limits. But just a few years later, city leaders are signaling something different: that the days of sidestepping Measure J may be numbered—and that its long-term constraints are finally too obvious to deny.
This shift, while subtle, is significant.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognized this dynamic as early as 2021. In its review of the city’s Housing Element, HCD explicitly identified Measure J as a governmental constraint on housing development, citing the city’s own record: four of the six Measure J votes since 2000 had failed. That’s a 66% failure rate—hardly an incidental hurdle to housing production.
In response, Davis downplayed the issue. The city argued that Measure J posed no present barrier because the rezoning needed to meet RHNA targets could be accomplished on already-urbanized infill sites. No Measure J vote required, no constraint detected.
The city even listed specific infill sites—such as 3500 Chiles Road and 4600 Fermi Place—to demonstrate surplus capacity. In total, the city claimed it could accommodate 588 lower-income units on these parcels, exceeding the RHNA shortfall of 496.
But that position is rapidly eroding.
In a recent public document, the city itself admitted:
“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.”
That single sentence carries major legal and political implications. It’s a de facto admission that Measure J is no longer a distant, hypothetical issue. It is the structural bottleneck to future housing growth—especially affordable housing—and the longer the city pretends otherwise, the more vulnerable it becomes.
This new posture undermines the argument made just two years ago in the Housing Element. It also affirms what housing advocates, legal experts, and HCD itself have warned all along: that the state is not just concerned about current housing capacity—it is looking at whether a city can meet its housing needs throughout the entire planning period.
Measure J, by design, places the city’s housing growth—and compliance with state law—at the mercy of the ballot box.
That’s not just bad planning, but it’s becoming apparent that it’s legally precarious.
It’s also no longer theoretical.
In the same Housing Element that downplayed Measure J, the city included a modest reform proposal: to place a Measure J amendment on the ballot that would exempt affordable housing from voter approval requirements.
Whether that proposal is politically viable remains to be seen—but the fact that it was included at all signals that city leaders know the current framework is unsustainable.
Measure J’s defenders have long claimed that it reflects the will of the voters. But that argument cannot stand in isolation from state law. The Housing Element Law is not optional. Cities do not get to ignore fair housing mandates, evade RHNA targets, or engineer land use rules that frustrate the state’s constitutional obligations. When a voter initiative becomes an active impediment to those goals, HCD is required to act.
That’s why HCD has started rejecting Housing Elements from cities like Palo Alto, Redondo Beach, and Pleasanton when local growth controls or zoning practices are found to be barriers to housing production. HCD doesn’t need to sue. It doesn’t need to repeal local laws. All it has to do is deny compliance—and in doing so, it opens cities up to lawsuits, financial penalties, and the loss of local land use authority under laws like the Builder’s Remedy.
Davis is not immune.
Some will argue that even if Measure J is a long-term constraint, there’s no immediate problem because the city is still technically in compliance. But that’s a dangerous and short-sighted view.
The city has already acknowledged that its infill capacity is limited, and that once current parcels are developed, the only path forward is through annexation. And annexation means one thing: another Measure J vote, with all the political and legal uncertainty that entails.
This is not fear-mongering. It is the reality of land use planning in California in 2025.
Unlike many California cities constrained by natural geography or existing urbanization, Davis is unique in that its growth limitations are entirely self-imposed. It is not hemmed in by mountains, water bodies, or regional boundaries; instead, Davis has drawn a hard line around itself through Measure J—a voter-enforced urban limit line that effectively locks future development behind a citywide referendum.
This makes Davis an outlier: not just in the severity of the constraint Measure J imposes, but in the fact that the city has voluntarily restricted its ability to meet housing needs, accommodate future residents, and comply with state law.
This self-imposed constraint makes comparing Davis to other communities both tricky and legally fraught. Unlike cities that face physical or infrastructural barriers to development, Davis has chosen its boundaries through direct voter action—meaning any analysis of constraints must account for the uniquely discretionary nature of its growth limits.
For state housing regulators and courts, this distinction matters: what may be an unavoidable limitation elsewhere is, in Davis, a policy choice—and thus subject to greater legal scrutiny under fair housing and housing element laws.
Measure J may have once reflected a cautious vision of growth, rooted in a desire to preserve farmland and prevent sprawl. But the world has changed. The housing crisis has worsened. The state has grown more aggressive. And Davis, for all its good intentions, is increasingly out of step with both the law and the needs of its own residents.
The city’s recent acknowledgment is the first honest step in a long-overdue conversation. Whether Measure J can be reformed in a way that preserves local values while complying with state law is still unclear. But what is clear is this: the city can no longer pretend that Measure J is irrelevant, untouchable, or benign.
That era is over. And Davis must decide what comes next—or the state will at some point intervene.
So to follow-up on my question from yesterday, did staff specifically mention sites outside of the city (to HCD) as a “possibility” in regard to addressing RHNA targets?
At which point, HCD (appropriately) responded by stating that the city cannot include sites which it doesn’t control?
If so, is THAT what is being referred to in regard to HCD’s “concerns”?
And can we get a link to the ACTUAL exchange between these two entities, rather than have David “describe” what was communicated?
The City of Davis did not present sites outside city limits (such as peripheral sites or county land) to HCD as part of its official RHNA plan or as a “possibility” to meet RHNA targets. That would have violated HCD guidelines, and staff are well aware that only sites within city limits and under city jurisdiction are eligible for RHNA credit.
HCD’s letter of concern—which I summarized—focused on the realism and feasibility of development on several in-city sites already included in the Housing Element, particularly regarding issues like zoning, infrastructure, and likelihood of actual construction. It was not because Davis tried to include or mention external sites.
Do us a favor and don’t “summarize” anything for us. Where’s the actual exchange, and how did Measure J (or land outside of city limits) even come up?
Does HCD normally mention land outside of city limits in response to housing e
Did HCD state that Measure J is in violation of a law, and did they cite which one? Did HCD or the law state that cities must (or “should”) include land outside city limits under certain circumstances in regard to housing elements?
No need to explain it to us – show us the link and we can see the answers to those questions for ourselves.
Ron – you probably could have asked more nicely, but here you go.
No, HCD did not say Measure J is in violation of state law.
No, HCD did not say cities must include land outside city limits in Housing Elements.
What HCD did do is express concern that because of Measure J, the city’s ability to meet RHNA might be constrained—unless the city can demonstrate that there are enough developable, available sites within city limits to accommodate the RHNA numbers.
As for the link:
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment letter on Davis’s Draft Housing Element (2021):
https://document.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/Housing%20Element%20Update%202021%20-%202029/HCD%20letter.pdf
Full quote: “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.”
City’s response in the third and ultimately certified version of the Housing element:
“While Measure J adds costs, extends processing times, and has been used to halt development projects that would convert agricultural land to urban development in some instances, it is only a constraint to meeting the City’s housing needs if the City lacks sufficient infill housing sites. As described in more detail in the Sites Inventory Section, there is not currently enough land designated for residential development to meet the sixth-cycle RHNA. The City will need to rezone additional sites to meet the RHNA, as described in the Sites Inventory Section and in Appendix E. That said, the City has identified sufficient rezone sites within its limits that are not currently designated as open space, agricultural, or urban reserve to meet the sixth-cycle RHNA, averting the need to rely on projects requiring a Measure J vote to meet this cycle’s RHNA. As such, Measure J is not a constraint to the production of housing for purposes of the City’s sixth-cycle RHNA. Nonetheless, the City acknowledges the challenges of utilizing the findings built into Measure J that would allow the City Council to bypass voter approval for the purpose of residential projects needed to meet the City’s RHNA. As such, the Housing Element includes Program 2.6, which commits to asking the voters to amend the language in Measure J that exempts from its public vote requirements projects that provide affordable housing”
Page 216-17
https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2021-2029%20HE%20Update-Version%203/Final%20Documents/City-of-Davis-2021-2029-Housing-Element-V-3-December-2023.pdf
The problem of course is not in the 6th, but in the 7th. As noted, the city cannot present sites outside city limits, it as noted in my article, does not have sufficient infill sites, and therefore must annex additional land in order to meet the 7th. We are playing three dimensional chess here, but that’s where this thing is headed.
I’m not seeing anything in those quotes from HCD which even remotely suggests that Davis must consider sites outside of city limits if it has “trouble” finding infill sites.
HCD “did” state that the city must determine if sites are subject to a Measure J vote (and that’s ALL that they said). And they are correct regarding that.
(As a side note, I see that the Village Farm site and other sites outside of city limits is “somehow” shown in the city’s housing element (pg. 212). But I haven’t looked into the reason they’re shown.)
https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2021-2029%20HE%20Update-Version%203/Final%20Documents/City-of-Davis-2021-2029-Housing-Element-V-3-December-2023.pdf
Staff themselves brought up Measure J, presumably if they have “trouble” rezoning sites in the city during the next round (whatever “that” means, since sites can ALWAYS be rezoned further – even if they’re not actually viable).
Cities that (definitely) aren’t expanding outward are also in this same position, as a result of unworkable “targets”. So the question remains, does the law, HCD, the state, or the court system view a place like Davis “differently” than all of the other cities which aren’t expanding outward, either as a result of natural or man-made “barriers”? (The latter of which includes all kinds of things – such as urban limit lines, city, rural or agricultural zoning, agricultural mitigation, actions by land trusts, the State’s own Williamson Act, etc.).
In other words, do they say to a place like San Francisco (or just about any of the other major population centers along the coast), “we know that your plan isn’t viable (since it obviously isn’t), but we’ll “give you a break” because you can’t expand outward? But in Davis, we see some “juicy farmland” that you can easily expand upon if it wasn’t for that pesky Measure J, so we will treat you differently? (And where is the law backing that up?)
In other words, do they give places along the coast a “break” because they can’t (or won’t) expand outward? And have a “special rule” for a place like Davis, in contrast to every other place that isn’t expanding outward? (The answer to that seems to be “no” – there is no such law, and the result will continue to be a complete and total failure of the state’s targets – statewide.) (Leaving aside for a moment, that Davis actually has been expanding outward under Measure J.)
So unless someone finds a way to say that Davis is subject to a “special law” requiring them to consider sites outside of the city (if they have “difficulty” finding infill sites), it doesn’t seem likely that Measure J is in violation of any law.
Again, the state’s efforts only address land that is inside of city limits, for cities. There is no provision which states that, “if you find it difficult to rezone, you must or should consider land outside of city limits”.
For that matter, city councils can also decline to annex sites outside of cities.
There’s all kinds of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing. I listed some yesterday, as well.
My third comment, already.
I look forward to Ron’s response tomorrow… here’s some more grist to chew on.
Ron’s argument misses the mark by ignoring how housing law is enforced in practice: HCD doesn’t need to pass a new law forcing Davis to expand beyond city limits—it simply requires that cities demonstrate a *realistic pathway* to meeting RHNA, including an honest analysis of any constraints, like Measure J.
While other cities face natural or infrastructural barriers, Davis’s limitations are entirely self-imposed and legally rigid, making them far more problematic.
The city itself now admits it’s running out of infill, meaning Measure J will soon govern all future expansion—yet Ron insists this isn’t relevant because no statute says “you must annex.”
But HCD doesn’t need that, it pressures cities by rejecting inadequate housing elements, exposing them to legal and financial risks.
So unless Davis plans to start building 10-story towers in its neighborhoods, the only way to meet future housing mandates is by confronting Measure J’s chokehold on growth—something HCD has already flagged and the courts may soon agree with.
There was some question last night (when the council had its arse handed to them on a platter, regarding Measure J) regarding exactly “how” or “when” the communication between HCD and staff occurred, along with the “reason” that staff inserted language regarding the attempt to recall Measure J. There was no communication prior to that between the city and any community group, for example. It appears to have occurred within a “black box”.
Also, since “when” does HCD require cities to address “future” housing elements in “current” housing elements? If that starts occurring, are all other cities (most of which cannot even address current housing elements) also required to engage in speculation regarding future housing elements?
This almost seems like a set-up, by the mayor/council which opposes Measure J. That is, they’ll go back to HCD when the Measure J recall fails, and will say that “they tried” – with the implication that the voters simply can’t be trusted. Therefore (using the logic’s set-up), the city will essentially “recommend” that Measure J be overturned.
What we have, folks, is a mayor/council which doesn’t like Measure J, and appears to be taking steps to undermine it in the eyes of both voters and HCD. But as we saw last night, it’s not going to be an easy task – even though the mayor and city are now going to have their hand-picked commissions make recommendations to weaken it, as well. (Of course, this is after the mayor and council essentially decimated those same commissions.)
It’s not easy to convince voters to give themselves “fewer rights”.
But it is interesting that they also got an earful from supporters of the current proposals (mostly Shriner’s), who suggested focusing on that instead of trying to undermine Measure J.
Your view of the council seems way too narrow.
The council isn’t necessarily rejecting Measure J outright — they appear to be grappling with the reality that its current form may be too rigid to allow the city to comply with state-mandated housing targets. In this light, exploring reforms or amendments could be seen as an attempt to balance local democratic control with state legal obligations, not as an effort to dismantle the measure.
David: I’ve reviewed the language in the housing element that you listed, and I saw what happened at the meeting last night.
The state has no authority (or possibly even any interest) in undermining Measure J. Staff is the entity that suggested it (at the direction of who, exactly)? And again, why are they even addressing future housing elements (in the current housing element)? They did not have to do so to get the current housing element approved in the first place.
By the way, it was mentioned that changing Measure J could actually result in its complete demise upon legal challenge, since it’s essentially “grandfathered in” from an earlier time. Change it, and it’s MORE exposed to legal challenges.
What we have here is a mayor, council, and staff working against Measure J, and is attempting to encourage a recall or overturning it by other means.
Now, if this effort was initiated by SUPPORTERS of Measure J instead, it would be a different situation. But it’s being initiated by those OPPOSED to it. That alone is “problematic” in terms of credibility.
Like I said, it appears to be a “set up” that will come into play when the recall fails.
Ron, you are not a lawyer and your analysis leans heavily into speculation and misrepresents both the legal landscape and the likely intent behind the council’s actions.
HCD may not directly “undermine” local ballot measures like Measure J, but they do have authority to determine whether a city’s Housing Element complies with state law. If a locally adopted policy (like Measure J) functionally prevents a city from meeting its RHNA obligations, HCD can—and has—raised concerns.
You are staff” as a rogue actor, when in fact city staff report to the council and carry out council direction. It’s unlikely that staff raised potential Measure J amendments on their own without prior direction or at least informal consensus from the dais.
The claim that modifying Measure J would automatically open it up to legal annihilation is pure speculation, especially without citing any relevant case law or statutory authority.
You jump to a conclusion – that the council and staff are working to overturn Measure J. That’s not supported by the actual language being used. What’s been discussed is the potential need for limited, thoughtful changes to make Measure J consistent with state mandates. That’s very different from an attempt to destroy it — it’s more about risk mitigation than ideological sabotage.
The city is trying to navigate a collision between local direct democracy and state housing law. That’s what you are seeing here. Given how minor the proposed changes to Measure J actually are – you seem to be jumping off a cliff. In fact, I would question whether the proposed changes actually go far enough to move the needle on housing.
You’re stating that “I’m” the one engaging in unsupported speculation? When you’ve all but concluded that Measure J (which governs land use OUTSIDE of city limits) is illegal? And that voters should overturn it based on that speculation so that some other entity doesn’t do so later?
How is THAT supported (or make any sense at all)?
The state’s laws address land WITHIN city limits – not outside of it (except for county targets).
As far as what HCD said, you already listed it above, and I’ll repeat it below. HCD is correct regarding this – the city shouldn’t be “counting chickens before they’re hatched”.
“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.”
By the way, I personally “do” agree that Measure J is somewhat of a constraint on land OUTSIDE of city limits. And as previously noted, there’s all kinds of other constraints regarding housing (both inside and outside of cities), as well.
The other speculation that’s occurring here is that a council would “automatically approve” developments outside of city limits, in the absence of Measure J. Which in the case of THIS council, is well-founded speculation (and is the same reason that Measure J was enacted in the first place!)
The “speculation” that’s being entertained here is that HCD or some other entity is going to apply the state’s laws “differently” for a place like Davis, than it does for all of the other cities throughout the state which either “can’t” or “aren’t” going to expand outward, for various reasons. There is NO LAW which backs up such an approach. The state’s targets are a complete and total failure – statewide. The reason for that is because they’ve enacted unworkable laws.
But again, the biggest problem is the absurd suggestion that Davis voters might be asked to give themselves “fewer rights” (just in case some other entity tries to take them away, in the future). This is not a winning argument, which causes me again to question if this is a setup by a mayor and council decidedly opposed to Measure J.
My third comment again, already.
Ron O
In all of your pro bono legal work, you missed the most important point–Measure J/R/D exists because Yolo County has an agreement amongst the jurisdictions that all urban development will occur within cities’ boundaries. (The County no longer has any undeveloped parcels zoned for residential development.) This means that the cities bear the burden of the county’s Housing Element share. Since the cities agreed to the arrange they are responsible of meeting the entirety of the county’s housing allocation. Growth control measures such as Measure J/R/D impinge on that responsibility by impeding annexation necessary to meeting the entirety of that allocation responsibility. That’s where the state has leverage.
The state does not need to abrogate Measure J/R/D directly. Instead when the moment comes that the City has failed to meet its HE allocation, the state can then approve any development as a Builder Remedy located adjacent to the city, either in the county jurisdiction or through forced annexation. The city may be forced to pick up infrastructure costs with tax revenues going to the County instead of the City. We’ve already seen Builder Remedies in other cities.
Your entire premise is based on a belief, without any legal or empirical support, that the state cannot impose a housing allocation beyond what is politically acceptable within a local jurisdiction. Trying to pick apart HCD statements to guess at their intent doesn’t support your reasoning, especially since the Attorney General has been acting against other cities for not meeting their allocations for a variety reasons.
The solution is to modify Measure J/R/D in a way that gives developers clear direction about what development characteristics we want that are feasible based on what has been built profitably elsewhere, then have public vote on those characteristics. If developers want to ignore reasonable parameters, they can still go the Measure J/R/D route.
Reducing the Affordable housing requirement to 50% will either still stand as an insurmountable barrier as the 100% exemption does now or cause these developments to be a “dumb bell” with 50% Affordable/50% $2 million houses and nothing for the middle class workers in Davis who still can’t afford to live here.
Importantly, I will again point out that you are not a stakeholder in Davis and your opinion about what Davis should do, as opposed to Woodland where you live, carries no weight.
Richard: Since I’ve pointed out (a number of times) that I am stakeholder in Davis, why do you continue to lie about it, and why does David allow it?
I don’t trust a single thing you claim, unless you put forth references/evidence. Also, it’s the CITY that has no undeveloped parcels – NOT the county. And that includes ALL of the proposed sites outside of Davis (or other) city boundaries.
You just stated yourself that the state can approve a “builder’s remedy” in THE COUNTY.
Yes, the attorney general has been challenging cities who refuse to address RHNA targets, WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
By the way, Measure J WILL become vulnerable if it’s modified, since it’s essentially grandfathered-in.
“Unlike many California cities constrained by natural geography or existing urbanization, Davis is unique in that its growth limitations are entirely self-imposed.”
Other cities have growth boundaries – Davis just does it with bad law that screws up the works.
“It is not hemmed in by mountains, water bodies, or regional boundaries”
No, it is hemmed in by farmland and a water body. Farmland doesn’t count to you.
“instead, Davis has drawn a hard line around itself through Measure J—a voter-enforced urban limit line that effectively locks future development behind a citywide referendum.”
Bad law, but not bad policy. Do you seriously want Davis to do an “Orange County” on all of Yolo’s farmland. Similar to what “California Forever” is going to do to Solano’s ranchland. That is sick.
“For state housing regulators and courts, this distinction matters: what may be an unavoidable limitation elsewhere is, in Davis, a policy choice—and thus subject to greater legal scrutiny under fair housing and housing element laws.”
Davis CAN save the world because of all that #sounds of developers salivating# fresh farmland that we can pave over. Because we CAN. Davis CAN :-|
“Measure J may have once reflected a cautious vision of growth, rooted in a desire to preserve farmland and prevent sprawl.”
Yes
“But the world has changed.”
No it hasn’t. When we enacted Measure J, it was to stop what was coming in the future, what we all knew would come. That’s the whole point, we didn’t want Yolo County to resemble Orange County where they paved over an entire region of Orange Groves.
“The housing crisis has worsened.”
Prices are high because this is California and lots of people want to live here. Destroying paradise doesn’t solve anything. And there is no housing “crisis”.
“The state has grown more aggressive.”
The state needs a spanking.
“And Davis, for all its good intentions, is increasingly out of step with both the law and the needs of its own residents.”
Good intentions, yes. Out of step, no. The law, will be challenged. It’s own residents, some — those who want the rest of the residents to subsidize their rent.
I don’t even like Measure J and it should be terminated. What Davis needs is modest growth and a clearly defined urban limit line.
But the idea that Davis CAN solve the housing crisis for the region by becoming the next Elk Grove, South Folsom or North Roseville is a sick perversion. The philosophy ignores values such as historic preservation and farmland preservation. The world hasn’t changed, the developers and their media tools have just gotten more vile in their attacks.
(edited)
You wrap your exclusion in poetry about “preserving paradise,” but what you’re really doing is locking the gate behind you. Davis’s housing restrictions—like Measure J—aren’t saving farmland, they’re choking off opportunity. For teachers, students, essential workers, and yes, for new families like mine.
You rail against “rent subsidies,” but enjoy low taxes under Prop 13. You oppose growth, yet benefit from everything growth once gave you—schools, parks, a thriving downtown. You say “the world hasn’t changed”—it has. We’re living the change you refuse to see. And while you cling to nostalgia, families are being priced out, enrollment is collapsing, and Davis is becoming a museum of what it once was.
A large contingent of young families here to fight for housing, for equity, and for a future where Davis belongs to everyone. Not just those who got here first and pulled up the ladder.
JC: “Well, that’s like, your opinion, man.” — Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski
Oh, you know Lebowski, but not… interesting.
Alan
You miss the irony of that quote – The Dude was shown that he was wrong but wouldn’t admit to it.
Thanks for laying out the city’s Measure J history. Fascinating how the wind seems to be changing direction on this, right? The old certainties giving way to new realities. Wonder what signals we’ll pick up at today’s council meeting – might be the first ripples of something bigger.