Joint Commission Meeting on Measure J/R/D Amendment - October 8, 2025

The Climate and Environmental Justice, Fiscal, Open Space and Habitat, Planning, and Social Services Commissions held a special joint meeting on October 8, 2025, to discuss potential amendments to Measure J/R/D (the Citizens Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands). The meeting was driven by state Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements tied to the city's certified housing element. Staff presented several possible exemption categories to incentivize affordable housing and community benefits. Commissioners and public speakers provided extensive feedback, with no formal votes taken. The feedback will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Matt Williams (former commissioner): Stated Davis has a housing shortage, not a crisis, and urged focus on building smaller, naturally affordable homes (e.g., 900 sq ft, $500k max) rather than large luxury units.
• Jean Jackman (55-year resident): Strongly opposed amendments, arguing Measure J already has exemptions and 83% of voters renewed it in 2020. Criticized recent council actions (reducing commissions, public comment time) as authoritarian.
• Jim Flanagan (longtime resident): Opposed amendments, citing the 83% vote for Measure D. Stated existing exemptions are adequate and that any change would undermine citizen oversight.
• Mark Houser (Vice Chair, Transportation Commission, personal capacity): Urged that any environmental mitigation exemption must address transportation emissions (79% of CAP baseline). Criticized listing roads as a community benefit, arguing they increase driving.
• Jim Watson (resident): Supported Measure J but wanted clear definitions of affordable housing. Questioned the feasibility of 50% affordable and called for projects that keep teachers and police in town.
• Tim Hoban (50-year resident): Begged commissions to protect Measure J, warning that even small amendments could invite legal challenges and gut the measure. Feared reckless growth.
• Elizabeth Ray (resident): Opposed changes, arguing Measure J is the only check on developer-driven projects. Cited consolidation of commissions and reduced public comment time as erosion of democracy.
• Rena Neyer (resident): Urged keeping Measure J intact. Blamed past city councils for allowing in-lieu fees instead of building affordable housing. Stated HCD letters do not pose imminent threats.
• Desiree Rojas (resident): Opposed amendments due to national uncertainty and lack of infrastructure. Called for smarter, inclusive development with at least one-third affordable set-asides.
• Alex Ackamore, Richard McCann, Tim Keller (Davis Citizens Planning Group): Supported targeted amendment focused on workforce housing. Proposed density (15+ units/acre), a transit line along Covell, and land dedication instead of unit percentages to avoid perverse incentives. Provided detailed handouts.
• David Sandino (attorney): Argued the city is already in compliance with HCD by adopting housing ordinance changes. Recommended postponing Measure J changes until 2028-2029 and focusing on current projects (Village Farms, Willow Grove, Nishi).
• Eileen Samets (former planning commissioner): Strongly opposed amendments. Said HCD letters contain no threats. Stated Measure J is needed to stop bad projects like Village Farms, which has toxics, floodplain issues, and traffic impacts.

Discussion Items

Staff Presentation (Sherri Metzker, Community Development Director):

• Explained that HCD required the city to consider amending Measure J to facilitate affordable housing as a condition of housing element certification.
• Noted that the current 100% affordable exemption has never been used and is effectively unattainable.
• Presented four potential exemption categories: (1) 50% affordable housing (mix of moderate, low, very low, extremely low), (2) substantial environmental mitigation (e.g., carbon neutrality, microgrid, ag mitigation), (3) community benefits (e.g., renewable electricity, shelters, roads), and (4) an urban limit line.
• Emphasized that exemptions would still require full public review through planning commission and city council.

Climate & Environmental Justice Commission:

• Commissioner Jim Cramer: Supported exemptions but only for truly exceptional benefits, not items already required by code. Suggested net-zero VMT or GHG reduction as a criterion. Expressed doubt about the feasibility of 50% affordable.
• Commissioner Ann Daniel: Called for creative community benefits, such as funding for urban forest and tree ordinance enforcement.
• Commissioner Alana Gamage: Questioned relying on the market for climate/environmental justice. Suggested a broader theory of action.
• Chair Jacob Byrne: Supported VMT reduction as a metric, recommended adjacency to existing development to prevent leapfrog, and argued that Measure J currently impedes affordable housing, harming environmental justice populations.

Fiscal Commission:

• Commissioner Nile Garritson: Favored a direct financial contribution in lieu of Measure J vote; dismissed other community benefits as too subjective or global (not local).
• Commissioner Eric Vink: Called most exemption ideas “squishy” and urged focus solely on affordable housing as the objective, objective criterion.
• Vice Chair Mitchell Marubayashi: Suggested community benefit agreements (CBAs) could address specific local concerns (e.g., traffic). Emphasized the need for public education that the state is driving this change.

Open Space & Habitat Commission:

• Commissioner Steve Greco: Proposed requiring developers to establish endowments for management of natural drainage features (like West Pond). Supported a tight urban limit line combined with Measure J for areas outside it, with periodic votes (e.g., every eight years).
• Commissioner Marc Vayssieres: Skeptical of carbon farms (not measurable/permanent) and renewable electricity on ag land. Found the urban limit line interesting if it excluded sensitive habitat.
• Commissioner Sara Geonczy: Favored extensive habitat features as a community benefit, and an urban limit line that avoids requiring extensive hydrological engineering.
• Chair Patrick Huber: Preferred a case-by-case approach where developers make the case to the commission; wary of a rigid urban limit line that could stifle creative solutions.

Planning Commission:

• Commissioner Rachael Fulp-Cook: Recommended a single exemption for projects providing at least 50% affordable housing. Supported an urban limit line considered separately.
• Commissioner Catherine Brinkley: Urged clear metrics, not squishy negotiations. Suggested designating JRD-exempt parcels during the general plan update. Emphasized public trust and the need to preserve open space.
• Commissioner Vince McLaughlin: Predicted a tough election if the amendment is poorly messaged. Recommended focusing on an urban limit line as the most understandable option. Called for immediate public education about state pressure.
• Commissioner Georgina Valencia: Questioned the rush since Measure J expires in 2030 and the housing element runs to 2029. Argued that climate and community benefit issues belong in the general plan, not in JRD. Called the 50% number unfeasible without analysis.
• Commissioner Greg Rowe: Noted that affordable housing is effectively subsidized housing; the old 35% inclusionary worked only with redevelopment funds. Supported studying Urbana’s timing-and-sequencing model for an urban limit line. Recalled that in 2022, planning commission asked council for clear guidelines but got none. Opposed putting multiple projects and JRD amendment on the same ballot.

Social Services Commission:

• Vice Chair Sarah Brown-Blake: Leaned toward an urban limit line for simplicity and voter comprehension. Warned against multiple exemption criteria that confuse voters and against placing the amendment on the same ballot as major projects.
• Commissioner Chris Ringer: Emphasized that the state wants to remove governmental impediments; we need clarity on what that means. Found the entire exercise “squishy.”
• Commissioner Judy Ennis: Gave a detailed statement supporting ambitious but achievable exemptions. Recommended 25% deed-restricted affordable (big A) plus additional pathways (co-ops, missing middle) to reach 50% total. Called for climate-ready design and community resilience hubs. Argued that the current 100% exemption was written to be unused.
• Commissioner Dillan Horton: Stressed the need for extensive public outreach; warned that many voters are unaware of the state’s role. Insisted affordable housing must be the chief exemption, not secondary to other benefits.
• Commissioner Chris Ringer (second): Urged staff to consult with actual affordable housing developers to determine a feasible percentage. Noted that many California cities have similarly unworkable 100% exemptions.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. The meeting was designed for discussion and feedback only.
• Consensus emerged on several points:
  • Any exemption must be simple, objective, and voter-friendly.
  • Affordable housing should be the central focus; community benefits and environmental mitigation are secondary and risk being “squishy.”
  • The 50% affordable number needs feasibility analysis; some suggested 25% as more realistic.
  • An urban limit line was viewed as a potentially clear and understandable tool, but concerns were raised about flexibility and long-term changes.
  • Public education about state pressure is essential for any ballot measure to succeed.
• Next steps:
  • Feedback from all commissions will be compiled and presented to the City Council.
  • Several commissioners recommended further discussion within individual commissions and with the Transportation Commission (not present).
  • The general plan update process was seen as the appropriate vehicle for some related decisions (e.g., urban limit line, climate metrics).
  • No timeline for placing an amendment on the ballot was set; some urged waiting until 2028-2029.