Davis City Council Meeting – December 9, 2025

The Davis City Council met on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, at 2:30 PM (local time) to discuss a ceremonial proclamation for Yolo County Housing's 75th anniversary, hear public comments on various community issues, and deliberate on potential amendments to Measure JRD. The council took no final action on the amendments but provided direction to staff on preferred exemption categories and timing. The consent calendar was approved 5-0.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda was approved unanimously (5-0) after a roll call vote due to remote participation.
• The consent calendar was also approved 5-0 with no items pulled.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jean Jackman (Davis resident 55 years) expressed concern about reduced public comment time (2 minutes) and inability to show illustrations, calling it "authoritarianism creep."
• Wayne Raymond (Voices of California) invited the council to the chorus's holiday show on December 13 at the Richard Brunel Theater.
• Jack (Davis Skate Park Association) thanked the council for supporting the skate park project, emphasizing its community-building value.
• Ingrid Gennetty (neighbor of L Street respite center) criticized the center's failure after six years, citing broken promises and safety concerns for nearby Da Vinci Charter Academy students. She asked the council to honor the initial plan to move the center.
• Ningwan made disjointed claims about forgery and family assets involving a person named Jenny Tan; comments were not directly relevant to the agenda.
• Alan Miller (neighbor) sang a song calling for shutdown of the respite center, labeling it a "total failure."
• Tristan (skate park supporter) reiterated the mental health and community benefits of a new skate park.
• Beth complained about sexually explicit books in the Davis library's teen section, urging removal. Council warned her not to disrupt the meeting.
• Aaron (skate park supporter) expressed support for additional funding for park features.
• Larry Strozick (voice message) opposed the Village Farms project, citing previous emails.
• Unidentified caller advocated for expanded democracy, including making UC Davis part of the city.
• Laswan Skog opposed building along the railroad track and requested a complete EIR.
• David K. called for a complete EIR for Village Farms, criticizing the push during the holiday season.
• Multiple callers and in-person speakers opposed amending Measure JRD, citing the overwhelming voter approval (75% in 2010, 83% in 2020) and arguing that the measure is not the problem—poorly planned projects are. Examples: Mary Ann Hernandez, Susan Rainier, Elizabeth Ray, Rena Nyer, Sharon Monteuth, Victoria Link, Nancy Price, Elaine Roberts Musser, Alan Miller, Ricardo Masselli, Dr. Grant Holstein, Alan Jack, Catherine Keller, Smith Wang, Ginga Zeitenberg-Strosic, Carl Timothy Wallace, Christina Buss (supported amendment but not on same ballot as pending projects), and others.
• Connor Gorman supported additional exceptions but with high affordability thresholds (e.g., >15% affordable).
• Margie Longo pointed out existing exemptions in Measure J, stating no amendment is needed.
• Several callers requested deferral of discussion until after the holiday season and until 2030 renewal.

Discussion Items

Measure JRD Amendment Options

Staff (Sherry Metzger, Community Development Director, and Kelly Stakowitz, Assistant City Manager) presented results from a joint commission meeting ("Commission Palooza") held in October 2025. Commissioners suggested several potential exemptions from a Measure JRD vote:

• Achieving carbon neutrality or net-zero VMT.
• Creating renewable energy systems or resiliency hubs/microgrids.
• Payment into a community fund.
• Setting an urban limit line (pre-zoning and pre-General Plan land use designations).
• Higher affordable housing percentages than inclusionary ordinance requirements.
• Transit/infrastructure improvements (e.g., Covell Boulevard line).
• Based on poor soil quality (less viable agricultural land).

Staff emphasized the need for measurable, objective criteria. Council discussion focused on affordability, carbon neutrality, and community benefits.

Council Deliberation

• Councilmember Chapman (subcommittee member) clarified that the evening's purpose was to receive staff feedback, not to make a final decision. He emphasized that any exemption must be measurable, focus on affordable housing production (e.g., 20-30% low-income), include a significant community benefit, and consider carbon neutrality. He rejected soil quality exemption as too easily abused (e.g., Village Farms site).
• Mayor Pro Tem (referred to as Mayor in transcript) framed the discussion around housing equity, stating Measure J has contributed to residential segregation and fiscal challenges. He proposed a high bar for exemptions: 50% income-qualified housing (e.g., 10% extremely low, 10% very low, 10% low, 20% moderate), net-zero carbon, and discretionary community benefits. He argued for putting the amendment on the November 2026 ballot, noting the city is already two years late on its housing element commitment.
• Vice Mayor Neville supported further analysis of an urban limit line but opposed placing the amendment on the 2026 ballot to avoid confusing voters with two pending development projects (Village Farms and Willow Grove). She emphasized honoring the council's earlier commitment not to combine them. She also questioned the feasibility of the existing 100% affordable exemption and noted that staff should study the urban limit line idea more.
• Councilmember Deos (remote) supported the concept of creating a unified vision but expressed concern about setting affordable housing percentages too high, fearing no projects would be built. She was intrigued by the urban limit line but wanted more information. She agreed not to put the amendment on the 2026 ballot to avoid muddying the waters for Village Farms and Willow Grove.
• Councilmember Parcita (remote) thought amendments should be considered because the measure is 25 years old and community values evolve. She emphasized affordability as the top priority, and that other proposals (carbon neutrality, etc.) should be standard for all developments, not exemptions. She was skeptical of the urban limit line. She supported more community outreach beyond commissions.
• Mayor ultimately requested continued work on the amendment content in parallel with General Plan updates, and suggested a poll to assess voter sentiment on a dual ballot (development project + JRD amendment). Staff and project applicants (Gloria from Village Farms) pushed back, citing capacity constraints and cost. A majority of council (Neville, Deos, Parcita) opposed a 2026 ballot, with some open to 2027 if fiscally feasible, but no later than 2028.

Key Outcomes

• No final decision on Measure JRD amendments or ballot timing.
• Council directed staff to focus future analysis on affordable housing thresholds (e.g., 50% income-qualified), carbon neutrality/net-zero, and possibly an urban limit line (mixed council support). Soil quality exemption was dismissed.
• No consensus on ballot timing: A majority of council opposed putting the amendment on a 2026 ballot. The mayor's suggestion to poll the community was effectively tabled after pushback from staff and the Village Farms applicant.
• Staff will continue work but prioritize pending development projects (Village Farms, Willow Grove) due to capacity. A workshop on the Village Farms development agreement is scheduled for December 16, 2025.
• Next steps: The item may return after the General Plan update process or following the 2028 election, with council hesitant to commit to a specific date. Councilmember Parcita called for more community input outside the usual commission process.
• Other: The ceremonial proclamation for Yolo County Housing's 75th anniversary was approved. The council also set a long-range calendar with workshops on December 16 and potential public hearings on Village Farms in January 2026.