DAVIS, Calif. — The proposed Willowgrove development is set to go before the Planning Commission, where commissioners will be asked to recommend that the City Council certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a procedural step that could ultimately place the project before voters on the November 2026 ballot.
City staff are recommending that the Planning Commission advance the proposed Willowgrove development to the City Council, urging certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approval of key planning documents, while emphasizing that the commission’s role at this stage is limited to making recommendations.
The staff report states, “Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and…” then “approve the resolution recommending City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report…” along with additional approvals.
The recommendation also includes that the commission “approve the resolution recommending City Council adoption of the General Plan Amendment, Prezone/Preliminary Planned Development, and Development Agreement,” and “approve the resolution recommending City Council approval of the Vesting…Subdivision Maps, Affordable Housing Plan, and Final Planned Development.”
At this stage, the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend action to the City Council on the Environmental Impact Report and related approvals.
The project represents one of two significant proposed housing developments on the city’s periphery currently under consideration.
According to the staff report, “The project is proposing a new 232-acre neighborhood with 1,250 dwelling units,” with “residences…comprised of a mix of housing types and densities.”
The proposal includes a range of housing types intended to address different segments of the housing market, including single-family homes, townhomes and multifamily units.
A central component of the project is its affordable housing commitment.
Staff notes that “the project will provide 250 affordable rental units on a 10-acre site,” representing 20 percent of the total units proposed.
The report further notes the “provision of 250 affordable rental units (20% of total project units)” and specifies “construction of the 250 affordable units in a single phase.”
The report also states that “a minimum of 10 of the affordable units [will be] to serve individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities,” identifying a uniquely targeted component of the project’s affordability plan.
In addition to the affordable rental units, the broader housing mix is intended to provide a range of price points, with smaller units and higher-density housing designed to offer more attainable options alongside larger homes.
The inclusion of affordable units as a single phase component means those units would be constructed alongside or early in the development process, rather than deferred to later stages.
The size and configuration of the affordable housing site—10 acres—also indicate a concentrated approach, with units likely developed in a cohesive section of the project rather than dispersed in smaller clusters.
Staff concludes, “Staff finds that the Final EIR was prepared consistent with CEQA and adequately analyzes the project’s environmental impacts.”
However, the report makes clear that the environmental analysis identifies impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
“Impacts…have been identified as Significant and Unavoidable,” the report states, including farmland conversion, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic impacts and infrastructure demands.
The report further explains that “any impact that remains significant…is considered a significant and unavoidable impact,” under CEQA standards.
Because of those findings, approval of the project at the City Council level would require an explicit policy determination.
“Approval of a project with significant and unavoidable impacts requires adoption of a statement of overriding considerations,” staff wrote, a standard requirement under CEQA.
Among the impacts identified is the conversion of agricultural land.
The report notes “impact from conversion of designated Farmland to non-agricultural use.”
The site’s location on the city’s edge places it within an area historically used for agricultural purposes, making farmland preservation a central issue in evaluating the project.
Conversion of farmland has long been a focal point in Davis land use debates, particularly given local policies that prioritize the protection of agricultural land and open space.
While the report identifies the impact, it also centers the project within a broader policy context in which housing demand and land preservation goals must be balanced.
Traffic impacts are also identified as part of the project’s environmental footprint.
The addition of 1,250 dwelling units is expected to increase vehicle trips in and around the project area, contributing to congestion on nearby roadways and intersections.
The EIR evaluates these effects and identifies them as part of the project’s overall impact profile, alongside other transportation-related considerations.
Increased traffic can also have secondary effects, including longer travel times, changes in traffic patterns and potential implications for transit and bicycle infrastructure.
The report includes these considerations within its broader analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA.
Other impacts include increased greenhouse gas emissions and demands on infrastructure systems, including utilities and public services.
Despite these identified impacts, staff indicates that the project meets applicable planning standards and aligns with city goals related to housing production.
City commissions that reviewed the project expressed general support.
“The commissions were all generally supportive of the Willowgrove project,” the report states.
Staff further notes, “Staff has not identified any significant concerns or outstanding issues.”
Public comment has also been largely supportive.
“The majority [of comments] have expressed support for the project,” staff writes.
The report identifies an alternative design that would reduce environmental impacts.
“The environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 4: Same Number of Units — Smallest Footprint Alternative,” which “would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project.”
That alternative would concentrate development within a smaller footprint, reducing land disturbance and some environmental effects while maintaining the same number of housing units.
However, staff is not recommending that alternative.
The Planning Commission’s action is one step in a broader approval process.
Even if the commission recommends approval and the City Council certifies the EIR and approves the project, the development cannot proceed without voter approval.
“Approval of the land use entitlements…are contingent upon a successful Measure J/R/D vote,” the report states.
The report further explains that “Measure J/R/D requires direct citizen participation in decisions affecting…agricultural lands.”
“The ballot measure…is anticipated to be scheduled for the November 2026 election,” the report states.
As a result, the Planning Commission’s role is limited to recommending whether the project should move forward to the City Council, which would then determine whether to place the measure on the ballot.
Because of Measure J, the final decision will rest with Davis voters.
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.
The color of those roofs would absorb, rather than reflect heat from the summer sun. I assume that the drawing doesn’t match the proposed reality.
Also, the drawing doesn’t show the development that will be built on the former adjacent horse ranch.
Overall, this is by far a worse location than Village Farms. It’s essentially a commuter housing for those who work in Sacramento, not UCD. There is no way to describe this proposal as anything other than sprawl.
Pretty sure that all opponents of the current Village Farms proposal acknowledge that “something” will likely be built on part of that site, someday. Perhaps the last peripheral proposal that will ever be approved, given the reversal of population growth, etc.
““The environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 4: Same Number of Units — Smallest Footprint Alternative,” which “would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project.”
That alternative would concentrate development within a smaller footprint, reducing land disturbance and some environmental effects while maintaining the same number of housing units.
However, staff is not recommending that alternative.”
The consultant and staff have failed to provide any evidence supporting their assertion that Alternative 3 does not adequately meet the objectives of the project. They have no analysis assessing the tradeoffs between meeting the environmental requirements specified in the City’s CAAP and how the project is now envisioned. That lack of rigorous analysis highlights a failure to seriously consider other alternatives.