Davis City Council Defers Decision on Microgrids for New Housing Projects

• Davis City Council defers decision on microgrids in proposed housing projects.
• Council approves $185,000 traffic fee study to move housing developments forward.
• Residents urge the council to prioritize affordable housing to boost local economy.

DAVIS, CA — The Davis City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to defer a decision on requiring community microgrids in the city’s two proposed peripheral housing projects, Village Farms and Willowgrove, while approving a $185,000 traffic fee study to move the developments forward.

The council directed staff to prepare options for climate resiliency that could be included in future development agreements but stopped short of mandating microgrids, citing concerns about feasibility, cost, and potential delays. Instead, the council asked staff and subcommittees to return at a November 4 workshop with broader recommendations consistent with the city’s Climate Action Plan.

Vice Mayor Donna Neville stressed the need for caution. “I don’t want us to take any actions tonight or on November 4 that cause delays or result in recirculation of an EIR,” she said.

“We hadn’t defined what [a microgrid] meant because it doesn’t always mean the same thing. And as Mayor Vaitla said, depending on what’s already in the EIR and what you’re proposing to do, it may or may not trigger recirculation. So there’s a lot of nuances to it, but I really like us relying on our new resiliency coordinator to come back to us to tell us what are some of the sustainability features that we can reasonably require that are not going to delay these projects.”

Before the council discussion, dozens of residents weighed in on the projects. Chris Beg, a Davis parent, said, “Davis truly needs more affordable housing so that young families can live here and people who work here can afford to live here as well. So I’m encouraging the city council and the development teams for Village Farms and Willow Grove to work together to put the strongest possible housing proposals on the ballot as soon as possible.”

Jessica Gure, a mother of three and former special education teacher, told the council, “I want to call to speak on agenda items four and voice my support for Willowgrove and this project that’s ready to move forward to bring critical housing to Davis. Specifically, I wanted to touch on the importance of their willingness to propose certified housing for vulnerable populations such as developmentally delayed adults. As a former special education teacher and advocate, I believe that is necessary for a city and I don’t want to delay Willowgrove any further.”

Nora, a UC Davis educator and longtime resident, said, “Both my kids the past two years have had multiple friends both at school and just in the community have to leave, basically just get priced out of Davis. Most moved to Woodland, and that’s really a loss for our community. These are great families, really good friends of my kids, and they all want to stay in Davis schools. They want to stay in our neighborhoods and use our beautiful parks, but unfortunately they can’t because we don’t have enough housing being built to keep up with the demand. We have declining enrollment in school because people can’t afford to stay here and nothing is really being done about that.”

Heather Jones said, “With the declining enrollment in Davis schools, the city cannot afford to wait any longer on Willowgrove. I urge the city to not delay Willowgrove any further.”

Sarah Osh asked the council to act quickly. “Please not delay Willowgrove any further. Please support it housing specifically for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It does not exist in Davis and Willowgrove is proposing set aside housing for this vulnerable population, which already has a difficult time securing affordable housing.”

Molly DeSantis added, “A lot of my kids’ teachers can’t afford to actually live in Davis due to the housing shortage. And so if we keep putting off more housing projects, it’s going to impact not only our schools, but the people who work there and that’s not sustainable for our economy.”

Educator Christina Buffs called Willowgrove “thoughtful” and “designed with affordability and different populations in mind, such as their attention to the disabled population and providing housing for disabled adults.” She urged, “We need growth in Davis. There is a lack of housing, there’s a lack of affordable housing, and because of that school enrollment is declining. We cannot afford to wait and hope that something will magically work out.”

New parent Joshua Cote tied the issue directly to property values and school funding. “My family chose to move to the city one year ago for its schools, but as you know, the district has warned it will decline without new housing. If that happens, property values will fall and families like mine will move our tax dollars elsewhere. We support developments like Willowgrove so we can keep our schools strong, protect property values, and ensure Davis keeps control of its future instead of leaving it to the state.”

Real estate professional Jill with Max Gold stressed that regional competition is siphoning families away. “So many of my clients who are young families have been unable to enter the Davis real estate market because price points for them were below a million dollars. They really want your school. They want a future in your community. They believe the community is one of well-educated and usually benevolent folks, but your resistance to allowing new houses, especially in more affordable price points, is diminishing a vital demographic that keeps your schools full and thriving.

“People with young families increasingly find themselves gravitating to outlying areas like Woodland, for example. Don’t get me wrong, Woodland is growing and thriving with their new builds and increased tax revenues, but it’s such a shame to watch Nimbyism toward growth in Davis impact your diminishing school aged children and the demise of your business community.”

Alyssa Seger said, “As a family with a young child, it’s very hard for us to find affordable housing. So something like Willowgrove would be wonderful for our community. This would mean meeting enrollment standards for schools and keeping public schools opened, which I am very, very passionate about. As a former educator, I think that the more young families that we can bring into our community, the more it will thrive.”

Cole Seger added simply, “I think Davis needs more affordable housing, more housing in general. Enrollments in schools need to be high, keep everything good for our students, our family, and I hope that this project is approved.”

Longtime resident Krista Hoffman directed her comments specifically to Village Farms. “I am commenting to voice my strong support for the Village Farms Davis Development Project and to urge this council to avoid taking any actions tonight that would slow down or add new requirements to its progress. The Village Farms Davis project is already moving through the established review process. I urge you to not attach new requirements that trigger additional environmental review. This would create only years of delay and push back much needed housing and revenue for our city.”

Developers also weighed in on the proposed fee study. Sandy Whitcomb, representing Village Farms, said the project was committed to paying its share but raised concerns about timing and cost. “We’ve been assured multiple times that embarking on this study will not interfere with our path to our June election. So I want to get confirmation on that tonight. Basically we’ve been assured that our development agreement can include language, allowing our fees to be determined by this future study. So I really, really need clarity or really just confirmation because we have received clarity, but it’s very important to us.”

She added, “I really can’t think of a single rational reason that you guys would want to burden Village Farms and Willowgrove with $185,000 when you don’t have any clarity about what actually will be approved or be built. And so if this is all based on we’re agreeing to these future fees and we’re both doing that in our DA, that’s fine, but why not wait until after the elections and then do the study based on reality and save $185,000. That’s just all insane. Why throw that away? That could do some real good in the world, in my opinion, with everything going on out there right now. So it seems crazy to me.”

Some residents highlighted the importance of exploring microgrids. Transportation Commission vice chair Mark Ing said, “We have an opportunity here to not delay housing, but to also do this right. This space is moving so fast. Five years ago we had barely any storage on our grid. Now we have 22 megawatt hours enough to offset usage for most of the day on most days of California. The problem with that is for us to get that to our homes, we use transmission that PG&E owns and charges us for through the nose. If we can generate some of that energy locally and store it locally, we can offset the significant cost and rapidly rising cost for our future neighbors in these communities. So this is not an affordability issue. It is an affordability issue if we don’t address this right now.”

Another resident, Norman, told the council, “I am in favor of having microgrids as a way to create more local and democratic control of society’s resources and infrastructure as well as to create greater resiliency around the impacts of climate change and to also try to reduce those impacts as much as possible. I do think it might make sense to defer the specifics around what those types of infrastructure could be until there’s broader community-based discussions and decisions around such policies. But I do hope that if those discussions and decisions are deferred, it’s still possible to implement microgrids and other such things as part of the currently proposed peripheral projects.”

After the public testimony, the council focused first on the fee study. 

Neville said, “Doing this study is also going to be a really important factor in terms of making our SQL [structured query language] process as a lead agency much more legally defensible. And that’s worth a lot if you’ve ever had to defend a SQL lawsuit. And I’ll just say I support the staff’s recommendation here and for me too, one of the guiding principles for me tonight is not wanting to cause any delays in either of the current pending applications.”

Deos agreed.

“I do support the recommendation from the staff to go with alternative number two that you all share in the cost of doing this. I feel that there is enough clarity going forward for you to move on this and I think it’s going to be done in enough time that it’s not going to slow down the vote or anything around that. It does not reflect the true costs of traffic issues in town. And so I do want to get that updated and I think this is a big step towards that happening.”

Partida asked how the costs would be reimbursed, and staff explained the city would pay consultants up front and developers would reimburse later.

Chapman reaffirmed his focus on timing.

“The North Star from me here this evening is not having delays to the projects moving forward. So I’m fully supportive of alternative two. Happy to make a motion when it’s time.”

Mayor Bapu Vaitla also supported the study. The motion passed 5-0.

On the microgrid issue, councilmembers coalesced around deferral but not dismissal. 

Partida said, “Option one doesn’t feel right to me or it doesn’t sit right with me that we completely defer the concept of creating a microgrid until the general plan because that it sort of runs counter to our climate action plan that we’ve already made decisions on.”

Vaitla argued against the binary choice.

“I’m not a fan of option one or option two. It would be great to check in with our new climate resilience coordinator, have a chance to absorb the climate action plan, familiarize himself with the project descriptions that are out there, and then come up with some ideas broadly about what’s reasonable to ask for.”

Neville called for pragmatic options. 

“I really like us relying on our new resiliency coordinator to come back to us to tell us what are some of the sustainability features that we can reasonably require that are not going to delay these projects or cause recirculation.”

Chapman endorsed exploring compromise.

“I think maybe there is some sort of middle ground. I’d like to dive into that and see what it is. So I’m happy to support the ideas have been thrown out here this evening and have something a little bit deeper dive into some of the topics we’ve talked about tonight.”

The council agreed to direct staff and subcommittees to consult with the new climate resilience coordinator and return in November with a menu of options, short of mandating microgrids outright. 

Vaitla concluded, “It would be good to have some options though on November 4 instead of, yeah. Okay, great. Thank you city manager for clarifying, structuring that.”

Both Village Farms and Willowgrove remain on track for ballot consideration. The traffic fee study will proceed, with developers responsible for reimbursing costs. On energy, the city will continue exploring resiliency options but without immediate mandates that could delay housing. The November 4 workshop will mark the next stage of the city’s effort to balance Davis’s urgent housing needs with its long-term climate commitments.

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.

Categories:

Tags: