The Davis City Council is being asked to weigh a critical amendment to Measure J/R/D—the city’s landmark voter-approval requirement for converting farmland or open space to urban use—as it faces mounting pressure to accommodate its fair share of affordable housing.
The Council will also evaluate election timing for two major peripheral housing proposals: Village Farms and Willowgrove.
A staff report for Tuesday’s Council meeting outlines a complex set of options for when and how to move forward with both the proposed amendment and the project-level votes required under current law. The recommended timeline places the Measure J/R/D amendment, along with the Village Farms and potentially Willowgrove projects, on the June 2, 2026 primary ballot.
The proposed reforms, still in early development, would create a framework to exempt certain projects from the voter approval process if they meet ambitious thresholds for affordable housing, environmental sustainability, and community benefits.
While Measure J/R/D was renewed by voters in 2020, the city’s 2021 Housing Element explicitly calls for amending it to support the production of affordable housing.
In addition, Staff noted that the impetus for such revisions comes from General Plan Housing Element Program 2.6, which says in part, “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.”
However, staff noted, “Any change to Measure J/R/D/ would require a public vote.”
According to the staff proposal, a Measure J/R/D exemption could be granted to projects that offer significant public benefits.
The city is increasingly concerned about the possibility of meeting current and future housing requirements—especially for low and very low income people—without changes to the existing law.
“It should be noted that very little existing agricultural or open space land eligible for development remains within the city limits,” staff warns in the staff report. “In addition, the city of Davis has been able to meet its legal fair share of housing within the city limits.”
However, they warn, “that fact is becoming more untrue as the years pass and lands become unavailable or developed. As the city reaches build out, it will become increasingly more difficult to find property to designate for housing to meet our fair share requirements.”
Therefore, “the Measure J/R/D process becomes applicable to all annexation applications”
One option under consideration is a minimum 50% affordable housing requirement, distributed across moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income levels. In addition, developers could be required to dedicate land, build infrastructure, and ensure long-term affordability through deed restrictions.
Climate-related provisions could also qualify a project for an exemption. For example, a development might offset more than 100% of its greenhouse gas emissions, be connected to a microgrid, or provide agricultural mitigation beyond existing requirements.
Community infrastructure—such as parks, drainage systems, or city facilities—could serve as a third qualifying pathway, either through direct construction or financial contributions based on a per-acre metric.
Staff recommend that relevant commissions, including Social Services, Climate and Environmental Justice, Planning, and Fiscal, weigh in on how these features should be structured and implemented.
Timing is central to the Council’s deliberations. A standalone special election in November 2025 would cost an estimated $380,000 and must be called by June 17, 2025. Staff and the Council’s subcommittee—Councilmembers Josh Chapman and Bapu Vaitla—believe this date is not feasible due to both cost and the complexity of drafting final amendment language in time.
An April 7, 2026 special election is also possible, but carries similar cost concerns and may not be any more efficient.
The emerging consensus is to place the Measure J/R/D amendment on the June 2026 ballot alongside the Village Farms proposal, which has already released its Draft Environmental Impact Report and begun negotiations on a development agreement. That gives city staff about eight months to finalize the EIR, gather feedback from key commissions, and prepare council actions.
Willowgrove, a second peripheral development proposal for 1,250 homes on 232 acres, is currently targeting the November 2026 election. Although staff explored the possibility of accelerating its timeline to June, both the city and its EIR consultant determined that the technical documents could not be completed in time without compromising public review or legal adequacy. That means Willowgrove is likely to appear on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot, with planning commission hearings expected in February or March of that year.
Village Farms, meanwhile, would need to finalize its development agreement, complete commission review, and earn council certification of its EIR by January 13, 2026, in order to qualify for the June 2026 ballot.
Measure J/R/D—originally passed as Measure J in 2000 and renewed as Measure D in 2020—grants Davis voters the final say over any proposed annexation of agricultural or open space land for urban development. Its defenders argue it ensures local control and smart growth, while critics have long contended it has exacerbated housing shortages and exclusionary outcomes.
As adopted, the law already includes narrow exemptions for land used for public schools, parks, and certain public facilities, as well as an extremely limited housing carveout: up to five acres per year may be redesignated for 100% affordable housing, but only if no other urban land is available and the city is falling short of its state-mandated housing targets.
The proposed amendment would expand these exceptions by creating performance-based pathways for projects that align with city goals on housing affordability, environmental justice, and infrastructure.
Importantly, staff stresses that the amendment would not approve any specific development, but merely set new rules for which projects must go to a vote. All projects would still undergo environmental review under CEQA.
The timing of this potential reform also intersects with the city’s broader General Plan update, which is already underway in partnership with Raimi + Associates. That update will guide land use and development through 2050 and will likely identify new areas for housing that would, under current law, require voter approval.
Council and planning staff are also considering the introduction of an “Urban Limit Line”—a concept that would provide a geographic framework for long-term growth and offer voters greater clarity about the extent of future annexations.
Ultimately, any change to Measure J/R/D must go before voters. And even with reform, any project that fails to meet the new criteria would still be subject to a citywide vote.
On May 13, the City Council is expected to provide guidance on two key questions: how to structure the proposed Measure J/R/D amendment, and when to place it—and the associated projects—on the ballot.
With Davis facing both rising housing needs and fiscal pressure to manage election costs, staff and subcommittee members appear to favor a coordinated June 2026 election. That ballot could become a turning point in Davis’ growth strategy, asking voters to not only decide the fate of new housing on the city’s edge, but also whether to modernize the 25-year-old growth control measure that has shaped the city’s development ever since its approval.
How do they know that 50% affordable is economically feasible? I vaguely recall something like that being implemented in San Francisco and the result was nothing getting built.
It seems like a better approach and I think Tim Keller may have mentioned it would be have minimum land dedication set asides rather than percentage affordable.
I’m going to guess if they do this with a 50% affordable standard we will be at 2030 with nothing getting built. This will kill projects in the pipeline that are being designed under the current rules without knowing that anyone will come forward with a proposal that meets the new standard. Talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game!
Yeah, I have done the math on this and have shared it with council. If anyone wants to see the calculations hit me at tkeller at inventopia dot org and Ill email it to you.
Seperate from those calculations, though according to David Thompson, 50% for capital-A affordable is a non-starter since its illegal under state law. A lot of communities have effectively killed projects by demanding a very high level of affordability. I do not remember at this point what the legal limit is.. I think it might be 15%
Back to the math: When you treat all “units” the same… whether they be apartments condos or mansions, demanding a % affordable units to be produced ( which are all going to be multifamily no matter what) essentialy incentivizes developers to make fewer market rate units and economize for maximum margin… We want them to do the opposite. we want them to prioritize missing middle housing.
So a much cleaner way is to just take the percentage of land that would be dedicated in the baseline scenario and call it a day. the math I showed requires 6% land dedication, so if we up that to 7% and de-couple the affordable housing from the units required in a higher density scenario we get the best of both worlds: We get 1% more land to build affordable on AND we don’t provide a dis-incenntive against producing more affordable units in the market rate portion of the project.
Tim, I know you have put a lot of thought into this, but here is what I believe is a fatal flaw in your land dedication approach. I encourage you to validate what I am saying with David Thompson.
Using land dedication as the big A affordable approach is inviting the developer(s) to emulate Pontius Pilate. They get to wash their hands of any responsibility to actually see any of Affordable units get built, and concentrate their efforts on building the unaffordable … anything but missing in Davis currently, and certainly not middle … units that result in the most profit.
Land dedication has an abysmal track record in Davis. The reason is simple. As David Thompson can share with you, there are at least 14 financing steps that an Affordable development has to go through (hoops to jump through) in order to arrive at a point where the Affordable units can be built. So the 15% affordable proportion that stands in juxtaposition to the 85% market rate unaffordable proportion only comes to fruit 20 years after the market rate units have already been bought and paid for.
The Affordable units at Sterling is the noteworthy exception, and I believe the reason for that was that there was no land dedication. Sterling was part of the development team for the Affordables and as a result they got built.
My solution to this fatal flaw is to not have any big A affordable units at all, but rather make the entire complex small A affordable with sale prices between $500,000 and $600,000. The current new home price per square foot regardless of building size is (I believe) right around $500 a square foot. At that price the developer(s) make the money they desire. Simple math says to sell at a price between $500,000 and $600,000 the units will need to be between 900 and 1,100 square feet … which I believe puts them neatly in your missing middle category.
“My solution to this fatal flaw is to not have any big A affordable units at all, but rather make the entire complex small A affordable with sale prices between $500,000 and $600,000. The current new home price per square foot regardless of building size is (I believe) right around $500 a square foot. At that price the developer(s) make the money they desire. Simple math says to sell at a price between $500,000 and $600,000 the units will need to be between 900 and 1,100 square feet … which I believe puts them neatly in your missing middle category.”
Just to clarify, you wish to mandate these sizes? Or have them be average for the project? What’s the policy you’re proposing here?
You are correct that this is really a question for David. As far as I’m aware, despite its flaws, land dedication is the only proven method for getting capital-a affordable housing built.
There are really two things that we are asking from developers, and we cant afford for them to be at odds with each-other: We want some number of capital A affordable, and we want as much as possible of the rest of the project to be missing-middlle / multifamily / affordable by design kinds of housing. If their compliance with the second part means they need to double the land they are giving up in the first part, we have a self-defeating policy.
So asking for 7% land dedication is equivalent to the max we might ask from them in a single family development situation. I think it would be a mistake to ask for more than that. For the market rate portions of the project, we already have plenty of multifamily properties being developed as infill in this city, so there is zero doubt that such projects arent profitable. The infill properties have more overhead and higher aquisition costs as well than would the developer of a peripheral project who is able to avoid a measure J vote by complying with our design for the exemption.
That is the combo we need to make sure works out: A good amount of capital-A affordable ( subsidized by land dedication) AND the rest of the project being market-rate – but missing middle… which wont be “cheap” in any circumstance.. it will just be “a lot more affordable than every single other possible option.” And thats the best we can hope for.
Tim Keller says: You are correct that this is really a question for David. As far as I’m aware, despite its flaws, land dedication is the only proven method for getting capital-a affordable housing built.”
That must be “news” to places like San Francisco.
But again it should be noted that every dollar of government subsidy that’s used in Davis (for Affordable housing), is a dollar that isn’t used in other communities (where the need might be greater).
It’s a zero-sum game, for those who want “their” city to house more than its share of low-income people.
It’s not unlike the “poaching game” that DJUSD plays.
As far as David’s threats regarding Measure J, there isn’t a single example of the state going after voter-approved urban limit lines (or any other land outside of cities – other than what’s required of counties). And even then, the state’s efforts have largely failed. (That’s what we call, “good news, everyone”.)
It’s really unfortunate that the state officials behind all of this are so-shielded from their constituents. (This is the result of having a two party system – both of which are in the pockets of business interests.) The choice being between “bad”, vs. “worse”. (Though I’m increasing having trouble identifying “which is which”.)
We WILL have a Proposition 13-type revolution, if the state is ever actually successful in forcing cities to grow. (There must be like 100 laws by now, “forcing cities” to do so – unsuccessfully.)
“There’s no example of the state going after voter-approved urban limit lines.”
That’s technically true…for now… but:
• HCD has begun rejecting Housing Elements from cities that use voter-approved growth limits as a blanket excuse for underproduction (eg: Pleasanton, Palo Alto, Redondo Beach).
• New housing laws (like SB 330, AB 2011, and the Builder’s Remedy under SB 35) are steadily eroding local discretion, including urban limit lines if they conflict with fair housing obligations.
• The state doesn’t need to repeal Measure J directly; it just needs to make non-compliant jurisdictions vulnerable to litigation and loss of control over their approval process.
The legal tide is turning, and Davis could be caught in it.
Also, I want to address a recurring theme that you’ve put up
Stating facts about California housing law and the trajectory of state enforcement is not a threat—it’s a reality check. I don’t have the power to “threaten” anything. I’m not a legislator, I’m not HCD, and I’m not a judge. I’m pointing out where the law is headed and how Davis could be affected if it continues down a path of resistance and noncompliance.
I dunno, David.
I’d have to see where the state has actually eliminated urban limit lines. (And so far, as you’ve acknowledged – the answer is “none”.) But if they did so, it would certainly “lay bare” a different motivation than what they’ve been claiming (forcing infill).
But it is interesting that you, and those like you, are apparently more-concerned about legal challenges than I am. In other words, it’s those opposed to Measure J who claim to be trying to “save” it. Probably has to do with your effort to get voters to “shoot themselves in the head”, before someone else tries to do so (in a few years from now).
Personally, I suspect that the city’s (Bapu’s) efforts are more-likely to result in NO peripheral development for the foreseeable future.
I would think that even someone like Whitcombe wouldn’t be happy with Bapu. Pretty tough/ridiculous to plan for a Measure J vote, while your “ally” is simultaneously trying to dismantle it. But it is amusing, at least.
My third comment for the day again, I think.
To answer Don’s question, which was, “Just to clarify, you wish to mandate these sizes? Or have them be average for the project? What’s the policy you’re proposing here?”
No, I do not wish to mandate Tose sizes. The market can effectively do that.
A policy that I would be proposing if I had the power to do so would rest on a foundation that mandates fall into the category of “stick” policies rather than “carrot” policies. As a result I don’t believe mandates work. RHNA itself with its allocations is not only a mandate, but also an unfunded mandate. What I think we need is a carrot approach, specifically an ordinance that provide application processing advantages for proposals where the average sale price of all the for sale residences in the project is between $500,000 and $600,000. Developers can get to that any way they can come up with. Chances are that the easiest and most direct way to accomplish that is to reduce the size of the houses. The developers will still get their profit from $500 per square foot construction costs.
Said another way the policy/ordinance would establish a fast track for projects that meet the aggregate average sale price of between $500,000 and $600,000.
If the developers want to avail themselves of that fast track they will do so.
In a proposal like that virtually all the homes are Small A affordable, so there won’t be any need for Big A affordable units.
“My solution to this fatal flaw is to not have any big A affordable units at all, but rather make the entire complex small A affordable with sale prices between $500,000 and $600,000.”
Matt Williams supports price controls. LOL.
“While Measure J/R/D was renewed by voters in 2020, the city’s 2021 Housing Element explicitly calls for amending it to support the production of affordable housing.”
I’m open to that idea, if the parameters are right.
“According to the staff proposal, a Measure J/R/D exemption could be granted to projects that offer significant public benefits.”
Nope. That’s just an invitation for developer bribery, dangle a flashy carrot (e.g. sports park or new fire station) and get the CC to approve an all-executive homes project without the ability of the voters to say no.
I advise the CC to stick with an affordable-housing-only exemption if it really wants to change to Measure J. If they load up the measure with loopholes big enough to drive a ladder truck through there’ll be strong organized opposition, and I’ll be helping with that effort.
“Nope. That’s just an invitation for developer bribery, dangle a flashy carrot (e.g. sports park or new fire station) and get the CC to approve an all-executive homes project without the ability of the voters to say no.”
Yup, that’s why the voters need their say through Measure J.
Hey, that has a nice ring to it.
I view this as potentially good news – take down Covell Village (on same ballot, no less), poison any opportunity for Shriner’s, and the attempt to weaken Measure J – all in one shot!
Seems like “three sitting ducks” in a row, and a chance to demoralize the local growth fanatics (at least temporarily – since they always, always come back).
Saves on campaign costs that way, as well.
Open the door for the state to take out Measure J…
That is the threat that you keep implying – weaken Measure J, “or else”. But (even if it was true down the line), that doesn’t sound like a winning campaign slogan to me, at least. People generally don’t generally react well to that type of message. (And I’ll be out there myself, delivering that message.)
Interestingly-enough, I was watching a program last night regarding resistance to the state’s efforts in the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The speaker who was interviewed suggested that there’s a significant disconnect between elected officials (including local officials, as I recall) vs. what the populace prefers. (In the long run, that’s not a winning strategy for elected officials – witness Proposition 13.)
I’m not sure what city officials in Carmel actually think, but even they have apparently put out a flyer which provides suggestions on who to contact in opposition to the state’s efforts. (They note that the state doesn’t even care if there’s enough water to serve new residents.)
Can you even imagine the YIMBY-oriented council in Davis putting out a flyer like the one below? Again, the speaker in the program I was watching seemed to be criticizing local officials, DESPITE the fact that they already appear to be much LESS YIMBY-like than the Davis council.
Carmel-by-the-Sea is approximately 1 square mile in size.
https://ci.carmel.ca.us/sites/main/files/2024march_didyouknow_carmelshousingelement.pdf
The staff report for the city provides a veritable roadmap for such a suit.
So, let them try. It will take awhile to wend its way through the court system, at which point the city could THEN come up with an alternative – as you yourself noted. In the meantime, that’s several more years of NO peripheral development, most likely.
But you’re making a lot of assumptions here, regarding whether or not the state would attempt it (or prevail) in the first place.
Support for sprawl outside of city limits was never supposedly part of the state’s efforts.
In any case, attempts to use fear aren’t going to generate much support, I suspect. (And right now, we’re only talking about the staff and council’s attempt to weaken Measure J, in likely opposition to what the majority of voters will do if/when asked to weaken it.)
One step at a time. It’s not a single battle, it’s a never-ending war (not just limited to Davis, as we’ve already seen).
The state’s mandates are FAILING statewide – they are a paper tiger. And the few instances where they are successful are galvanizing opposition – as we’ve already seen as well.
My third comment.
From the staff report: “ the city of Davis has been able to meet its legal fairshare of housing within the city limits. However, that fact is becoming more untrue as the years pass and lands become unavailable or developed. As the city reaches build out, it will become increasingly more difficult to find property to designate for housing to meet our fair share requirements. Therefore, the Measure J/R/D process becomes
applicable to all annexation applications.”
The city admitting that it won’t be able to meet its legal requirements for housing. BTW, it is not, contrary the belief of some commenters on here, a legal excuse to argue that *they* aren’t following the law.
I’m going to add one more comment, since you’ve been exceeding the limit as well.
I would not assume that a single sentence/conclusion from staff carries much legal weight.
You also don’t seem to be hearing what I’m saying. That is, threats aren’t likely going to work, for voters – even if they might be viable threats (in the long run).
I realize that’s your “shtick” – to keep the focus on legal threats (that you apparently support). What I’m saying is that the threats aren’t going to work, for the reasons already noted.
People generally don’t shoot themselves to “prevent” someone else from possibly shooting them, instead.
Watch what happens in every other city that isn’t expanding its boundaries. NONE of them are going to meet the state’s mandates. What do you think the chances are that THIS fact will be noted in a lawsuit?
Not to mention the fact that NONE of these other cities already has an exemption for Affordable housing – as Measure J already does.
(Ron’s article was posted on the morning of 5/11 as he exceeded the daily per article limit of three).
My response attempts to explain how the legal process works with respect to his comment: “I would not assume that a single sentence/ conclusion from staff carries much legal weight).
Ron’s comment overlooks the legal and strategic significance of staff reports—especially in the context of land use planning and potential litigation.
Staff reports are part of the official public record and often play a critical role in defending city actions if challenged in court. When a city makes planning decisions—such as how to meet its RHNA—the rationale documented in staff reports can be used to show good faith compliance with state mandates. Courts and agencies like HCD often look to these documents to assess whether a jurisdiction is acting reasonably and lawfully.
So while a single sentence may not by itself carry the weight of statute, it absolutely matters in a legal context—especially if the city later needs to justify its approach to housing, annexation, or a Measure J/R/D amendment. Minimizing that ignores how land use lawsuits and administrative reviews actually function.
I was going to run a full explanation of the legal issues today, but defer to Tim’s group for now
“BTW, it is not, contrary the belief of some commenters on here, a legal excuse to argue that *they* aren’t following the law.”
That’s rich coming from you David. I’m going to remember that and use it.
Ron, it’s funny that I was just thinking of Carmel the other day and why haven’t we heard anything about mandated housing there. Rows of cheap government mandated sprawl housing will so cheapen Carmel-by-the-Sea.
David, you know that Staff Reports in this context are incredibly biased. The reason is simple … the authors of the Staff Reports know that their continued employment depends on more applications to process. No applications, no fees. No fees, no revenue. No revenue, no jobs. The Staff Reports is the fox guarding the hen house.
People advocating for Affordable housing through land dedication also have an obvious bias. My guess is some of them will be the first in line with their hand out for free land.