- “Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior.” – Governor Gavin Newsom
- “Recent state laws trump the longstanding San Francisco antidevelopment formula of sclerotic permitting, enraged neighbors and endless process.” – Joe Eskenazi, Mission Local
One of the most persistent arguments raised by opponents of California’s housing reforms is that the state’s requirements are “demonstrably unachievable.” The claim is familiar: the targets are unrealistic, the timelines unreasonable, and the enforcement mechanisms largely symbolic. Local governments, the argument goes, are being set up to fail (or perhaps succeed depending on your vantagepoint).
But that argument is increasingly disconnected from reality.
As we have noted repeatedly over the last several weeks, the state’s housing requirements are not failing, and they are no longer toothless. They are being enforced, sometimes aggressively, and the consequences for defiance are becoming unmistakably clear.
As one commenter recently observed, “The many lawsuits being brought by both builders and the state AG shows that the HE requirements now have teeth.”
That observation is not rhetorical flourish. It is an accurate description of what is unfolding in real time across California.
We are only midway through the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle, and yet the posture of the state has shifted decisively. What was once a framework built largely on paper compliance and good-faith expectations is now backed by litigation, court orders, and the suspension of local land use authority.
Two recent developments underscore that point.
The first comes out of Huntington Beach, a city that for years has made itself a national symbol of municipal resistance to state housing law. In a case that has now run its full course through the courts, the state has demonstrated both persistence and willingness to use its full enforcement arsenal.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the state secured a major legal victory requiring the City of Huntington Beach to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days and sharply limiting the city’s land use authority until it does so.
The ruling, issued by the San Diego Superior Court, represents one of the most forceful judicial interventions yet against a city that refused, for more than four years, to comply with California’s Housing Element Law. The statutory deadline Huntington Beach missed was October 15, 2021.
The court’s order does not merely scold the city or remand the issue for further consideration. It imposes immediate and direct restrictions on Huntington Beach’s planning and zoning powers and compels accelerated approval of qualifying projects, including those eligible under the builder’s remedy.
In practical terms, the city’s longstanding strategy of delay, defiance, and litigation has resulted in a dramatic loss of local control.
The litigation began on March 9, 2023, when Bonta, Newsom, and California Department of Housing and Community Development Director Gustavo Velasquez filed suit after the city continued to defy housing element law. The state asked the court to establish a firm 120-day compliance deadline and to suspend the city’s land use authority until a substantially compliant housing element was adopted.
In May 2024, the San Diego Superior Court found that Huntington Beach had violated the law and confirmed that its housing element was inadequate. At that stage, however, the court declined to impose all of the remedies sought by the state. The state appealed. The California Fourth District Court of Appeal sided with the state and directed the lower court to impose the requested relief. Huntington Beach then sought review by the California Supreme Court.
Last week, the Supreme Court denied the city’s petition. With that denial, the appellate decision became final, and the case returned to the trial court. The resulting order now implements the full slate of remedies sought by the state, including strict compliance deadlines and extensive limitations on local land use authority until compliance is achieved.
That is not symbolic enforcement. That is structural coercion, authorized by the courts and carried out by the state.
Newsom’s reaction captured the tone of the moment.
“Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior,” he quipped.
Whatever one thinks of the governor’s phrasing, the message to other jurisdictions was unmistakable: prolonged defiance will be met not with negotiation, but with court orders that strip cities of the very authority they claim to be defending.
The second example comes not from a courtroom but from San Francisco, where the practical consequences of state preemption are colliding with local political culture in a highly visible way.
In a recent piece for Mission Local, publisher Joe Eskenazi takes aim at a proposed “25-story, nearly 800-unit megadevelopment” that would replace the Marina Safeway, a site known to many as a “Tales of the City” cruising spot.
The proposal, which far exceeds the site’s traditional zoning limits, has become a lightning rod for outrage in one of the city’s most politically influential neighborhoods.
Eskenazi acknowledges the source of the upheaval.
“Recent state laws trump the longstanding San Francisco antidevelopment formula of sclerotic permitting, enraged neighbors and endless process,” he writes. That single sentence captures the core shift underway in California housing policy. What once could be stalled indefinitely through process, appeals, and neighborhood opposition is now moving forward because state law says it must.
Eskenazi frames the situation as a dilemma. “Is a sprawling, 25-story glass and steel ‘behemoth’ on a site zoned for four stories the result of state law working properly? Or is it a ridiculous and outrageous turn of events?” he asks.
He continues by noting that “the inability of local politicians to actually do anything about this plan has not deterred them from performative fist-shaking.”
The city’s preemptive efforts to shield development on this expensive slice of waterfront, he adds, “turned out not only to be useless — they may be worse than useless.”
One does not need to endorse the specific design, scale, or siting of this project to recognize what it represents.
The state has altered the balance of power. Local governments that long relied on discretionary review and political delay are discovering that those tools no longer function as vetoes. The law now favors production over paralysis.
I am not here to argue that a 25-story tower on that site is the optimal outcome.
Reasonable people can and will debate questions of urban design, neighborhood character, and proportionality.
But to suggest that state housing law is failing, or that it lacks real-world impact, is to ignore what is plainly happening.
The playing field has changed.
We are roughly halfway through the first RHNA cycle operating under strengthened state enforcement, new statutory tools, and an administration that has demonstrated a willingness to confront local obstruction head-on.
The results are uneven, contested, and sometimes uncomfortable. That is to be expected.
Structural reform rarely proceeds smoothly, especially when it disrupts decades of entrenched local practice.
But what is no longer plausible is the claim that cities can simply wait out the state, litigate endlessly, or comply in name only.
Huntington Beach tried that approach and lost. San Francisco, despite its political clout, is discovering that performative opposition does not translate into actual control.
Everything about this shift will have consequences, for better and for worse. Some projects will be controversial. Some outcomes will feel blunt.
There will be legitimate questions about infrastructure, affordability, and implementation. But those debates are occurring within a new reality, one in which the state has asserted its authority and backed it with enforcement.
Anyone arguing that the state’s housing requirements are unachievable or unenforceable is no longer making an empirical claim. They are expressing a hope that the old rules still apply.
They do not.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“Anyone arguing that the state’s housing requirements are unachievable or unenforceable is no longer making an empirical claim. They are expressing a hope that the old rules still apply.”
The one thing the state doesn’t have the power to change is the law of supply and demand. The state can require a city to adopt a Housing Element that provides land within the city that is zoned for housing, but it can’t require the city to build housing on that land — that’s a landowner prerogative. Neither can the state compel a city to annex land for development, because the decision to annex is initiated by the landowner, not by the city or the state. So if the landowners (the suppliers) within or adjacent to a city choose not to build because building doesn’t provide the desired ROI, the demand will go unmet.
The way this is playing out in Davis is that when the voters reject the Village Farms proposal via Measure J, the state *might* find that Measure J is interfering with state housing policy and impose the Builder’s Remedy. That would allow the Village Farms developer to build a project, but under Builder’s Remedy rules the project would have to provide either 20% of its housing that is affordable to lower income households, or 100% that is affordable to moderate income households, or 100% that is affordable to middle-income households. (Curiously, the Housing Affordability Act does not specify what constitutes a middle-income household. That would seem like an oversight ripe for litigation.) Under these requirements, the law of supply and demand would likely play an outsize role.
True, but with a 50% house price premium on surrounding cities (which are building heartily), Davis would be a prime market for this effort. The question will be whether we get a bunch of McMansions to fund the Affordable housing.
Jim makes essentially the same point I’ve been making.
Or as Stan Laurel once said, “you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead”.
But seriously, there’s an enormous difference between what Huntington Beach has been attempting (which hasn’t actually resulted in any fines, nor is it “over” – since they’re still attempting a different approach) vs. ALL of the unachievable housing elements (“mandates”) that were approved by the state.
You don’t have to take my word for it, though. YIMBY Law itself is keeping track of that. (And that’s just for the CURRENT round – let alone the next unachievable round.)
Regardless of whether or not pencils areThe “builder’s remedy” doesn’t pencil out in most locations (such as Davis). Especially for infill, which generally requires an existing structure to be removed.
Looks like some locales still don’t even have an approved housing element. Aren’t we about halfway through the period those are supposed to address?
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
The entire situation (and the image accompanying this article) reminds me of trying to deport millions of “undocumented” immigrants.
Two questions:
1. Would SF be approving the 25 story project mentioned in this article without state pressure?
2. Would Davis be looking at Measure J amendments/ revisions without state pressure?
DG say, “2. Would Davis be looking at Measure J amendments/ revisions without state pressure?”
Ever hear of developer pressure?
(No commenting on images – off topic)
Shouldn’t developer pressure be more or less a constant rather than a driver of change?
Developer pressure (along with pressure from all of the other business interests that benefit from development) has increasingly infiltrated the political system – and media for that matter. Ever hear of YIMBYs and the interests which fund them?
All of this is also behind the fake claims of a housing shortage. Note how they never discuss how they come up with those numbers (which are primarily based on “past” development patterns), and how they conflict with the university study I posted.
Don’t be afraid of change. The country itself is hardly growing, at this point. Were it not for immigration (that Trump is already taking action on), it wouldn’t be growing at all. Despite that fact, developers have continued to run amok in the vast locales where they welcome it with open arms. The same places where housing prices have been going DOWN (including the Sacramento region).
“Don’t be afraid of change”
You’re the one trying to block new housing – pot meet kettle
I guess it depends on your point of reference.
Certainly, there’s been a drastic change regarding the actual drivers of growth (“newly-created people”), to the point at which school districts try to steal them from other districts.
And there’s been a change regarding assumptions from earlier decades, starting around the time I was young. At one point (around the time I was born), they were planning to fill in a lot of SF Bay itself, build freeways out to Pt. Reyes (and develop it), etc. When I was slightly older, I also witnessed a significant change to preserve farmland/open space (and to create more parks) in places like Sonoma county, to prevent what essentially occurred in the South Bay Area. This was a massive change from previous years/decades.
Seems to me that the California Forever people/mentality are the ones who want to return to that time – which never actually left. (See Lagoon Valley, Vacaville, Natomas, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Folsom . . .) And that’s just “locally”.
What we’re seeing is the continuation (and rebranding) of the fight that never actually stopped. The rebranding effort by development interests has probably fooled some people, however.
I do acknowledge that there’s a difference between the time that my parents were able to afford a house, vs. now. I was already priced-out (and frankly, not successful enough) to remain in my original home town, by the time I was working. But good riddance to that place, anyway. No regrets. And truth be told, I don’t view this area as the most-desirable place in California, either – let alone the entire country.
Ron O
Davis housing prices have risen over 30% since 2021 when adjusted for the increase in interest rates. The posted prices are misleading because they don’t account for the change in monthly mortgage payments which is the real price indicator. That price increase shows that 1) housing demand remains excessively high and 2) housing supply has failed to keep up with demand. That’s the nexus that is fueling our housing crisis. Population growth has only a peripheral effect.
“The “builder’s remedy” doesn’t pencil out in most locations (such as Davis).”
Just last year, Palomino Place qualified as a Builder’s Remedy project in Davis. Not sure about the overall construction timeline, but very recently there has been work at the site including clearing of existing structures and earthwork.
https://www.cityofdavis.org/Home/Components/News/News/8581/2985
Yes – it may work on sites like that (which don’t require removal of structures). I’ve heard that the developer also agreed to “add” property to the adjacent homeowner’s properties (in order to make their backyards bigger and to quell opposition), but I haven’t seen that in writing.
Not sure if the scenario that Jim Frame describes on a larger site outside of city limits, if some entity is able to eliminate Measure J at some point.
Pretty sure there’s going to be a legal defense of Measure J, if it’s challenged. There are no laws, regulations, policies, or inventory of farmland surrounding cities that the state uses to force sprawl outside of city limits. And crossing that line would be an acknowledgement that the state’s goals are unrelated to encouraging infill in the locales that supposedly justifies their entire effort (e.g., the Bay Area, Los Angeles, etc.).
If the state does start requiring cities to sprawl onto farmland, that would mean that they’re using an entirely different set of laws/regulations for cities in the valley, vs. cities in the Bay Area (for example). And there aren’t two different sets of laws in the first place.
Supposedly, councils aren’t automatic approval machines in regard to sprawl, either. (Though I’m pretty sure that the current Davis council is an automatic approval machine.)
As far as some 25 story building being approved within Davis’ city limits as part of a builder’s remedy, I suspect it’s not very likely for a lot of reasons.
Truth be told, one only has to look around at Davis’ existing housing and other sites, to cause one to wonder why they haven’t voluntarily been redeveloped (or at least add an ADU in the backyard). Some of the buildings in Davis are pretty crappy, to be honest. Apparently, there isn’t enough profit to be made, to buy up and knock down single family homes to rebuild something taller. (Plus, there are regulations intended to discourage developers from doing that, such as a requirement that the current owner has to live in one of the new units for a period of time.)
My guess is that the YIMBY activists are going to continue to be frustrated for a long, long time. (Again, refer to their own “dashboard” that I posted a link to.)
“As far as some 25 story building being approved within Davis’ city limits as part of a builder’s remedy, I suspect it’s not very likely for a lot of reasons.”
Agreed. Builder’s Remedy projects still have to comply with local development standards. Which wouldn’t allow for a 25 story project in Davis.
Virtually all of the other SB 330 applications I shared are 3-6 story infill/redevelopment projects located downtown. Palomino Place is an outlier in that regard.
“Virtually all of the other SB 330 applications I shared are 3-6 story infill/redevelopment projects located downtown. Palomino Place is an outlier in that regard.”
Thanks – I’ll check them out. Not sure if some of them are essentially “fake” applications (for the reason I discussed in another comment).
I will say (for what it’s worth – not much) that I personally don’t necessarily object to 3-6 story infill projects downtown. (I still think they’d have negative impacts – especially if they don’t provide parking, and would primarily be rented to students if they pencil-out, etc.) But supposedly, “reasonable” infill is what’s intended overall, by the state’s “requirements”.
Truth be told, they need to knock down and replace the entire block of one-floor buildings where Kim’s market is located. (There’s also a pretty cool looking, tall building on the adjacent block – E Street?, which looks like something you’d see in Lake Tahoe. Probably built within the last 5-10 years, as I recall.)
I never pay attention to street names, until I have to.
But yeah, if the state wants to try to force infill that (for the most part – doesn’t pencil out statewide), I’ll just sit back and be amused, while continuing to note “1.6 kids” per woman nationwide, at this point.
Let’s face it – the Malthusians might be losing individual battles, but they’re winning the war – with the cooperation of the people who matter most – the upcoming generations. I tip my hat to them (and I often do wear hats).
And here are 8 more project applications that that City of Davis has received under the SB 330 Builder’s Remedy. All but the first two have been approved by the City (and are listed as “Approved Projects – Pending Construction” on the City’s website).
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/305-e-street-project
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/the-nest-apartments
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/212-university-avenue
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/240-g-street-apartments
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/724-730-g-st
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/1616-da-vinci-court
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/the-lumberyard-500-g-street
I was wrong and should’ve read the materials more carefully. Only 4 of the 9 projects (including Palomino Place) qualify as Builder’s Remedy projects. The rest qualify under separate SB 330 requirements.
Thanks for the clarification. For what it’s worth, I find your (overall) effort regarding research to be impressive. (More effort than most of us on here put forth, at least.) As for me, I’m sometimes too lazy to even “verify” what other people put forth, unless it seems outrageously incorrect or incomplete. (I’m still wondering why Woodland has lower VMTs per capita than Davis or San Francisco/Oakland area, but data alone can’t always tell us the reasons.)
Maybe the bottom line to take away from these applications is that there probably is a market for them, even if they’re targeted at the student market.
I looked at the last one (Hibbert’s site), haven’t looked at the others. What makes you think these were all approved as “builder’s remedies”, or that they even pencil out?
Were these some kind of fake applications put forth when the city was briefly out of compliance? Or, were these approved when the city was in compliance – in which case they wouldn’t be “builders’ remedies”?
I only recall two builder’s remedies – Palomino Place, and the other one that would require removal of a movie theater. Neither of which are showing any signs of life.
How long has it been since Hibbert’s shut down, at this point? Hell, how long has it been since Trackside was approved?
In any case, one thing all of these have in common is that they’re not located on farmland outside of city limits.
“Were these some kind of fake applications put forth when the city was briefly out of compliance? Or, were these approved when the city was in compliance – in which case they wouldn’t be “builders’ remedies”?”
I recall reading that a developer in some other city was essentially using a fake “builder’s remedy” application (when that city was briefly out of compliance) as a “negotiating tactic”. In other words, had no intention of actually building it, apparently – but was essentially using that as his opening “bargaining chip”.
Leave it to developers to be creative, for sure. But perhaps there’s a reason that they (as a group) don’t have the best reputation – including among city officials, in some cities.
But it’s not directly developers who are necessarily causing all of these problems. The problem is arising from ALL of the business interests who have infiltrated the political system, and benefit from never-ending development. The type of people behind “California Forever”, realtor interests, labor interests, the technology industry in particular (within the Bay Area), etc.
Oh, and I almost forgot the most-important local player, supporting development – those associated with the school district.
Note that, while Village Farms would likely qualify for the Builder’s Remedy if the state were to invalidate Measure J, Willowgrove is a different story. One of the criteria under which a city can deny a Builder’s Remedy project is “[t]he project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project.” The Willowgrove site has ag land on the north and east, so the city could legitimately deny a Builder’s Remedy application for the site.
An important question about state action is if it doesn’t pursue the City of Davis, whether instead the state pursues Yolo County of failing to provide sufficient housing. Since the county has an ordinance to put future development within city boundaries, that could create a situation where the state forces LAFCO to approve annexation of a parcel into a city as a means for the County to comply.