- “Any exemption amendment to Measure J/R/D that goes to the voters has to be directly tied to the production of affordable housing units.” – Councilmember Josh Chapman
- “What we would be asking of developers is that at least half of your development is affordable to average normal people.” – Mayor Bapu Vaitla
DAVIS, Calif. — After hours of testimony and council deliberation, the Davis City Council on Tuesday stopped short of advancing any immediate amendment to Measure J/R/D, instead deferring ballot action while signaling that any future change would need to be tightly focused on affordable housing production and climate-related standards.
Council members repeatedly emphasized that no amendment is being voted on now and that Measure J/R/D remains in full effect.
“That’s not the decision that’s being made here tonight,” said Councilmember Josh Chapman. “So what we’re doing here tonight is what more information we want to see come back to us so we can make a well-rounded informed decision.”
The discussion followed months of work by a council subcommittee and a joint meeting of multiple city commissions examining whether Measure J/R/D — which requires voter approval for peripheral development — should be amended to allow limited exemptions. While staff outlined a menu of potential criteria, council members made clear that the conversation remains conceptual and that timing is unresolved.
Chapman stressed that fears surfacing during public comment reflected deeper anxieties about growth and change rather than the specific proposal before the council.
“We see this around housing projects. We see it around Village Farms. We see it around Willowgrove,” he said. “It was on full display here this evening around the protectionism of what folks have and the nervousness around losing that, quote, losing in quotes, that’s going to be a threat to a lifestyle.”
He rejected claims that the council was attempting to bypass Measure J/R/D. “If this thing moves forward and it’s not happening tonight, Measure J/R/D still stands there with a small exemption,” Chapman said. “This isn’t something that’s being sprung on people at the last minute.”
Chapman outlined what he described as three core elements that would have to be present in any future exemption proposal. First among them was affordable housing. “Any exemption amendment to Measure J/R/D that goes to the voters has to be directly tied to the production of affordable housing units,” he said.
He pointed to the city’s inclusionary housing requirements and recent projects offering higher affordability levels, suggesting thresholds in the 20 to 40 percent range warranted closer examination.
“I think it’s something that we need to look at,” Chapman said, adding that moderate-income or “missing middle” housing should be part of the discussion. “I think that that’s what we hear across the community as a whole right now.”
Second, Chapman identified carbon neutrality as a possible criterion that voters could readily understand. “Something like around achieving carbon neutrality as another piece, I don’t think it’s just a combination of these things where that seems — I mean, I know it’s not straightforward — but people can understand that,” he said.
Third, he said any exemption would need to deliver a clearly defined community benefit and retain council discretion.
“It’s not a by-right process,” Chapman said. “There still should be some sort of conversation and negotiation that happens with the City Council around some of these projects.”
Mayor Bapu Vaitla framed the issue more broadly, arguing that the city’s growth constraints have contributed to deeper equity and economic challenges.
“We live in a system of residential segregation,” Vaitla said. “There are the haves, which is us, me included, in town, and there are the have-nots.”
Vaitla tied housing scarcity to homelessness, student housing insecurity, school enrollment declines and fiscal strain. “The primary reason people are living on the streets is because there isn’t enough housing,” he said.
He rejected the notion that opposition to development is environmentally protective. “To be anti good housing projects right now is to be anti-environmental,” Vaitla said, arguing that compact, transit-linked housing is central to climate resilience.
Vaitla expressed strong support for a carefully defined exemption aligned with equity and sustainability goals. “What this should be is a special pathway for those who bring extraordinary projects before City Council that conform to the stated vision of Davis,” he said.
Like Chapman, Vaitla floated the idea of a high affordability bar combined with net-zero standards.
“What we would be asking of developers is that at least half of your development is affordable to average normal people,” he said. “To me, that’s not only a reasonable and feasible bar to meet for developers, it’s something worthwhile bringing before the community.”
On timing, however, the council revealed sharp divisions. Vaitla argued that the city has already missed its commitment to bring voters an amendment in 2024.
“We’re already two years late,” he said. “For me, it doesn’t make any sense to wait another two years.”
Vice Mayor Donna Neville strongly disagreed, insisting the council honor a prior commitment not to place a Measure J/R/D amendment on the same ballot as pending development proposals.
“I feel very strongly that I want to honor that commitment,” Neville said. She warned that a combined ballot could confuse voters and undermine both efforts.
Neville also questioned whether some existing exemptions were viable, particularly a rarely used provision allowing 100 percent affordable housing beyond five acres.
“In today’s climate, no,” she said when asked whether such a project could realistically pencil out.
She noted that despite claims Measure J/R/D has not constrained housing, rejected projects represented significant lost opportunity. Staff estimated that developments denied under Measure J/R/D could have produced roughly 1,800 housing units, she said.
Councilmember Gloria Partida emphasized the need for deeper community engagement before any amendment proceeds.
“It’s been 20, 25 years almost now, and we have a whole nother set of families and people and opinions and visions,” she said. “There has to be a process for everyone to have their voices heard.”
Partida said future changes should provide clarity about what constitutes an acceptable project. “We never hear what people want,” she said. “We only hear that it’s bad.”
Councilmember Linda Deos, participating remotely, echoed concerns about feasibility and timing.
“I am very firmly in the camp of not having anything for 2026 at this point,” he said, citing both workload constraints and the risk of “dooming all three to failure” if measures are combined.
Several council members expressed skepticism about exemptions based on agricultural soil quality, arguing that such an approach could unintentionally bypass voter oversight for large peripheral proposals. Neville said that idea was “off the table” for her.
City staff confirmed that both current development applicants oppose placing a Measure J/R/D amendment on the same ballot as their projects. Staff also cautioned that capacity constraints limit how much additional work can be absorbed while advancing development applications and preparing for looming budget discussions.
As the meeting concluded, the council reached no formal vote on timing or substance but appeared aligned on deferring ballot action beyond 2026. Vaitla acknowledged he was in the minority on near-term timing but urged the council not to abandon the issue indefinitely. “It’s never going to be the perfect time,” he said.
Partida suggested that if finances allow, 2027 could be considered, otherwise 2028 should serve as an outer limit. “No later than 28,” she said.
For now, Measure J/R/D remains unchanged, with council direction focusing on further analysis — especially around affordability and climate performance — and possible integration into the city’s ongoing general plan process.
As Chapman summarized earlier in the meeting, “If in the end we decide we do not want to do an amendment, then that’s a decision that we make in conjunction with the community, with staff, and that’s how we move that forward.”
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.
“Vaitla expressed strong support for a carefully defined exemption aligned with equity and sustainability goals. “What this should be is a special pathway for those who bring extraordinary projects before City Council that conform to the stated vision of Davis,” he said.”
I think the city needs to keep any change to Measure J very simple and carefully targeted on affordability. The big threat the city faces right now is meeting its next-round RHNA obligations, so it needs to focus any Measure J revision on that. Exempting projects that meet 50% (or name your preferred percentage) affordable is going to be a hard enough lift for both voters and developers; also requiring that their projects meet extraordinary sustainability goals may doom the effort and result in the state opening the door to uncontrolled peripheral growth.
Perhaps any Measure J revision should contain a provision that the affordable exemption is only in effect when RHNA targets are not yet satisfied. That would allow the voters to retain control over peripheral development once the targets have been met, and would allow the city to impose more stringent sustainability requirements under those circumstances.
JF say, “Perhaps any Measure J revision should contain a provision that the affordable exemption is only in effect when RHNA targets are not yet satisfied.”
Might as well just say ‘in effect until Hell freezes over’.
Even a 50% Affordable requirement is a complete non starter. Where are we going to get the funding to build that much housing of that type? If it’s included in the development’s house price, we only get more wealthy households and close out the missing middle. Redevelopment agencies are gone and they were the source for funding Affordable housing when Measure J was enacted. We need to start by being realistic about what’s achievable.
There’s so much awfulness going around in the world, so at the meeting I was actually hoping for something more like:
“Dozens of cities challenged by RHNA obligations threaten lawsuit against State, claiming that it doesn’t provide enough financing for the necessary complements in climate-friendly infrastructure and programs.”
… transit-linked housing…” (Vaitla): Robust local plans for the two projects under consideration is unclear, and while there’s a draft regional plan, funding is completely uncertain and any new solutions decades away. What this means is that anyone who moves to town in the next 10 or even 20 years is still going to want a car, so many will still use them in town.
“We never hear what people want,” + “We only hear that it’s bad.” (Partida). I hope she would agree that there have been dozens of various types of visioning sessions in the city over many years, both in the government and organizational context. Davis Futures Forum… the much more recent DCAN activities? It’s more about good stuff that many people ask for which never happens: I was recently looking at 2013 city council meetings which mentioned the Beyond Platinum cycling development plan… A couple years ago I was told that it was aspirational… more recently, it’s not even being referenced.
“Housing supply is low… also we haven’t built enough housing in the country for a long time and so a lot of estimates suggest that we just need more housing of different kinds.”
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell
December 10 2025
Vacancy rates in Davis were 1%-1%-2%-4%-7%(estimated:) this year, measured in fall for the last five years. Lots of stock, average move-in rents dropping, vacant units, house prices dropping, lots of houses for sale giving price cuts, sometimes multiple times, for the last 12-18 months. Where is the shortage? There are apartments available and vacant, and houses a cheaper than two years ago. Maybe the missing middle is missing, whatever form that comes in.
Zillow currently lists 79 homes for sale with 24 of them priced over $1 million.
And 55 of them listed for under $1 million.
Why choose $1 million? Wouldn’t $800,000 or $840,000 be a more relevant threshold?
Because …
“The average home price in Davis, CA, is around $840,936, according to Zillow. Other sources show a median sale price of approximately $763,500 and a median listing price of around $799,990. The median listing price per square foot was noted as $486 on Realtor.com.
Average Home Value: Approximately $840,936 (Zillow)
Median Sale Price: Approximately $763,500 (Redfin)
Median Listing Price: Approximately $799,990 (Movoto)
Median Listing Price Per Square Foot: $486 (Realtor.com)”
“Perhaps any Measure J revision should contain a provision that the affordable exemption is only in effect when RHNA targets are not yet satisfied.”
“Might as well just say ‘in effect until Hell freezes over’.”
I didn’t mean to imply that the state will stop imposing RHNA numbers, but rather that once the target for a given cycle has been met, the Measure J exemption is withdrawn until the next cycle requirements are released.
Good suggestion Jim.
However, why are we even considering any amendments now, let alone incredibly rushed and poorly thought out amendments? As I said to the Council as input to their Tuesday discussion, “It is worth noting that you already are firmly committed to a Measure J/R/D amendment date. Specifically, 2030 when renewal of J/R/D is scheduled to be on the Ballot. It is also worth noting that at the Commission Palooza, two Planning Commissioners specifically and explicitly commented that considering a short term amendment to J/R/D made no sense given (1) the 2030 renewal realities, and (2) the current General Plan Update process.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Williams”
What is conveniently not included in this article is that there were only 2 commentators in support of amending Measure J/R/D but at least 30 public commenters (in person or by voicemail) which were solidly in opposition of amending Measure J/R/D. It is not hard to understand why. Since the City continues to place badly planned projects with major impacts and costs on the ballot, like Village Farms, the last thing we need is “amending” Measure J/R/D so that we go back to 3 votes of the City Council approving projects which should not be approved. The amendments being proposed are just loopholes for developers to pursue to just fulfill one “amendment”and the rest of the project could be disastrous in design, impacts and costs to Davis residents. There are good reasons Measure J/R/D was renewed in 2020 overwhelmingly by a 83% of Davis voters. The disastrous Village Farms proposal is exactly why we need to not “amend” Measure J/R/D.
Also, conveniently not covered in the article was the public comment made repeatedly that came from the previous Council meeting earlier in the year where it was revealed that the housing element has an alternative to amending Measure J/R/D written into it. The Housing Element explains that this alternative of adding city ordinances to help create affordable housing can be done, instead of amending Measure J/R/D. Here is the language and the alternative comes after “or”. This is the course of action the City needs to take, not amending Measure J/R/D.
“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. Any change to Measure J/R/D would require a public vote.”