DAVIS, CA – The Davis City Council on Tuesday discussed the controversial possibility of amending Measure J/R/D, the city’s landmark voter-approved growth control ordinance. While no formal decision was made, council members signaled strong consensus on two key points: any amendment should be thoroughly vetted through city commissions, and placing it on the November 2025 ballot is off the table due to timing and cost constraints.
The discussion began with Councilmember Josh Chapman, who co-chairs the subcommittee tasked with evaluating possible changes to the measure. He clarified that contrary to public speculation, the council was not voting to amend the measure or to place anything on a ballot that evening. Rather, the subcommittee was seeking feedback on how to move forward—specifically, whether to initiate commission review and to delay any potential ballot consideration beyond this November.
“I don’t see that [November ballot] as being feasible, especially at the price tag,” said Chapman, referring to the estimated $380,000 cost of placing an item on the November 2025 ballot. “Given the fiscal constraints we’re in, that’s not something I would support.”
Mayor Bapu Vaitla agreed. “I would’ve liked to get this before the people [in 2025], but we don’t have the money right now,” he said. “We do have time. We don’t need to decide until December whether we want to go in June or November of 2026.”
“If our proposed amendments don’t pass and the two development projects don’t pass either, we basically put a target on our backs for the state to come in.” – Gloria Partida
Chapman and Vaitla both urged that the proposal—centered on amending the exceptions to the current Measure J/R/D—be sent through the city’s various commissions for broader community engagement and policy analysis.
“I think this should go to commissions,” said Chapman. “We want to hear more about this not only from commissions, but from the community.”
Vaitla added that the process should be an opportunity to develop a city-driven vision for the types of peripheral housing developments that might be acceptable—rather than reacting to proposals crafted by developers. “We’ve always lacked the ability to have a vision set by the city that becomes the starting point,” he said.
Vice Mayor Donna Neville emphasized the city’s obligations under its Housing Element and its relationship with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). But she clarified that HCD’s primary concern is whether housing is actually built—not whether Measure J/R/D is amended.
“What HCD cares about much more than us amending Measure D is us approving and getting housing built,” Neville said. “That is the metric they use to measure success.”
Neville cautioned against placing a Measure D amendment on the same ballot as a major development project, saying that combining the two could create voter confusion and risk both measures failing. “It would be very inadvisable,” she said, citing past public comments that conflated proposed amendments with specific development projects.
Councilmember Linda Deos criticized the notion that Measure J/R/D should remain unchanged indefinitely.
“To think the people of Davis wrote a document that can never, ever be touched is just absurd,” she said. Comparing the ordinance to constitutional amendments, Deos argued that change is both natural and necessary. “We’re not taking away anyone’s right to vote. We’re talking about modifying the exceptions.”
She and others reiterated the importance of separating proposed development projects from the broader policy debate over Measure J/R/D. “I don’t think it should be on with them [development projects],” she said. “Let voters look at projects separate from the Measure D discussion.”
Councilmember Gloria Partida offered a similar view, suggesting that the community needs space to reevaluate the purpose and outcomes of the measure. “We’ve had eight Measure J projects, and we’ve only approved two. So our record isn’t very good,” she noted. “If the purpose is to produce good development, then let’s amend it so that’s what we’re getting. Otherwise, the purpose is just to say no to housing.”
“To think the people of Davis wrote a document that can never, ever be touched is just absurd,” Linda Deos said.
A recurring theme throughout the council’s discussion was affordability—how to design projects that are not only legally compliant but also meaningfully address the city’s growing housing needs. Vaitla expressed concern about affordability “by design,” noting that in Davis’s competitive market, even smaller or denser homes do not remain affordable for long. He supported a 50% affordability threshold, including a 20% set-aside for moderate-income households.
Partida suggested more flexibility: 30% deed-restricted affordable housing, with an additional 20% of housing that would be “affordable by design,” such as entry-level homes and missing-middle options. “That’s important,” she said. “We need housing that serves those who don’t qualify for low-income programs but still can’t afford Davis prices.”
The council also grappled with a key question: What happens if the city attempts to amend Measure J/R/D and voters reject it?
Community Development Director Sherri Metzker warned that while there would be no immediate penalty, it would likely put Davis in the crosshairs of state lawmakers. “It’s very likely they will pass legislation… basically to take it away by virtue of state action,” they said. “We’re not the only ones being watched.”
Partida underscored this concern: “If our proposed amendments don’t pass and the two development projects don’t pass either, we basically put a target on our backs for the state to come in.”
There was unanimous agreement among council members that any amendment to Measure J/R/D should not appear on the 2025 ballot. Instead, council members leaned toward 2026, with some expressing openness to waiting until 2027 depending on the city’s progress in meeting its housing goals.
Councilmember Neville proposed expanding the review beyond Measure J/R/D to include other regulatory barriers, such as Chapter 18 of the city’s municipal code. “There are things we could do to make the affordable housing approval process smoother,” she said.
Mayor Vaitla closed the discussion by reiterating that the city’s commitment to expanding housing should be driven by long-term values, not just compliance with state mandates.
“For me, this is about creating housing opportunity across the continuum,” he said. “Not just to meet state mandates, but to sustain a healthy economy, a vibrant school district, and a livable city.”
The council will now send the proposal through the city’s commissions, where it will receive further public input and technical analysis before returning for more formal deliberation later in the year.
Among the next steps laid out by council: Council will delay any ballot decision until after December 2025. Measure J/R/D amendment concepts will be reviewed by relevant city commissions. Staff will provide background on current affordability targets and transportation planning to inform commission deliberations.
Finally, a separate discussion on development project ballot timing will occur later, but most councilmembers agreed J/R/D amendments should not appear on the same ballot as major projects.
From article: “But she clarified that HCD’s primary concern is whether housing is actually built—not whether Measure J/R/D is amended.”
The state has its hands full, regarding that – statewide. They’ve enacted unworkable laws, and they know it. Ultimately, they’ll be forced to acknowledge that the targets were “aspirational”, as David himself has suggested. (Similar to what Newsom was forced to acknowledge regarding his campaign promises to get millions of housing units built.)
From article: “I think this should go to commissions,” said Chapman. “We want to hear more about this not only from commissions, but from the community.”
Right – the same commissions that they mayor and his team decimated and replaced with “their” people. In any case, the council “did” hear from the community for the first time, last night. They got an earful, for sure.
From article: “For me, this is about creating housing opportunity across the continuum,” he said. “Not just to meet state mandates, but to sustain a healthy economy, a vibrant school district, and a livable city.”
Yeap – when you know that you don’t have a legal leg to stand on (supposedly the entire reason that the council is attempting to weaken Measure J – in order to “protect it”), start talking about the oversized school district again. (Of course, you don’t want to frame it that way – for obvious reasons.)
With “friends of Measure J” (like the mayor and most of the council), it doesn’t need any “enemies”.