DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council this week moved deeper into its review of the proposed Willowgrove development, with councilmembers praising expanded affordable housing commitments and negotiated public amenities while also pressing for more clarity on bicycle safety, park programming and long-term housing trust fund protections.
The discussion centered on the work of the council’s development agreement negotiating team, led by Councilmembers Gloria Partida and Josh Chapman, who outlined months of talks with the applicant and city staff aimed at creating what they described as a more certain and enforceable package for voters and the broader community.
Partida said the negotiations were shaped by long-standing public skepticism toward development proposals and a desire to ensure that promised benefits are ultimately delivered.
“I want to again, thank the development team for rising to the occasion and I have much respect for the team and for everyone that listened and understood why the things we were asking for were important,” Partida said. “They made every effort to go as far as they could to get to yes for us.”
She said the city has repeatedly heard concerns about developers promising one set of amenities and later scaling them back.
“We hear the term bait and switch all the time,” Partida said. “Those developers are going to just promise one thing and then they’re going to say, no, it can’t be done or we’re going to get something different.”
Partida said the council team focused on making sure the financing was realistic and that the baseline features and development agreement would provide certainty both for the applicant and for residents.
“When they read what’s in the baseline features and when they read what’s in the developer agreement, we in good faith pushed so that everything that is in there is something that one, the community wants, that the community needs, and that there is a way to maintain and to pay for those amenities,” she said.
Chapman highlighted several areas he said were central to the negotiations, especially affordable housing production, timing of amenities and ongoing maintenance obligations.
“The biggest piece around this is not having the city subsidy with it,” Chapman said, referring to the affordable housing component.
He said the city also pushed to maximize the number of affordable homes by reallocating land that had previously been set aside for a public service space.
Chapman said phasing was another key issue, particularly ensuring that affordable units and parks are delivered early enough to benefit the first residents who move into the project.
“It was important for us to know that folks who were moving in, especially in the affordable units, would have a park to go to,” Chapman said. “We wanted to make sure that when some people are moving into those homes, they have somewhere to go to be outside and be with their family outside and enjoy it.”
He also pointed to inflation protections built into the park budget.
“Our presentation’s about $600,000 a year that’s added to that budget to account for inflation so that we know that we can deliver if this goes forward, we can deliver to the voters what is in the DA and baseline features,” Chapman said.
The council also discussed a proposed $1.8 million contribution to the city’s affordable housing fund, including whether the money should be more tightly restricted or directed toward specific ownership opportunities within Willowgrove.
City staff said the money would go into the city’s affordable housing fund, which is already limited to affordable housing purposes, though the council could choose to impose additional restrictions. The development agreement currently states the funds would be used in Willowgrove for ownership units.
Councilmember Bapu Vaitla asked why negotiators favored the trust fund contribution over requiring additional deed-restricted for-sale units.
Chapman said part of the discussion involved whether carving out deed-restricted units would reduce the overall housing count and how to balance permanent affordability with first-time ownership opportunities.
“The theory behind what we were doing, behind those 20 units, it was $90,000 income qualified to get them into those units off the bat,” Chapman said. “But they weren’t deed restricted after that first sale.”
Partida said she has broader philosophical concerns about ownership models that cap wealth-building opportunities for lower-income buyers.
“The people that get into those units, they don’t ever … The equity is always capped for them and philosophically, I feel that that’s unfair for folks,” Partida said. “If you instead help with the down payment assistance, it also gives them an affordable unit and then also gets them on this path for the generational wealth.”
Affordable housing financing also received public attention when Pacific Companies CEO Caleb Roop described how the project’s larger affordable component could be built without local subsidy.
“We have done this model dozens and dozens and dozens of time,” Roop said. “When you build at scale, you just have a better opportunity to bring per unit cost down.”
Roop said the company uses a vertically integrated structure, private gap financing and economies of scale to lower costs and close financing gaps.
“It’s a model that we’ve developed really back when redevelopment went away,” Roop said. “We’ve been implementing it for many years now.”
Another major point of discussion was circulation and safety, especially whether a third bicycle crossing should be added to better connect the site.
Vaitla said bicycle safety remained a significant concern and asked staff to explain why an additional crossing was not being recommended.
Staff responded that traffic studies did not establish the necessary nexus to require it and that right-of-way constraints, utility conflicts and costs made the option difficult to pursue, though staff said those challenges could theoretically be solved with additional resources.
Instead, staff pointed to planned modifications at the Harper intersection that would create a controlled crossing where vehicles would stop at a signal before pedestrians and cyclists proceed. Staff also agreed to bring back additional information on traffic volumes and design details at a future meeting.
The council also weighed how specific the city should be in dictating future park features, including whether language should guarantee two softball fields rather than allowing flexibility.
Partida said the city should avoid overcommitting to facilities years in advance when future needs and construction costs remain uncertain.
“We don’t have a crystal ball,” she said. “Maybe in the future, by the time we get to that point, it’s determined that, hey, maybe we need more soccer fields. Maybe we actually need something different and we wanted that flexibility.”
Staff added that Davis already has an established process through the Parks Commission and community needs assessments to determine programming and facility priorities, and did not want to constrain that future process with overly rigid baseline requirements.
Mayor Donna Neville praised the applicant team for community engagement and said residents had repeatedly told her the developers had listened to public input.
“That is what makes development projects work, is listening to the community because that’s what it is about,” Neville said.
Neville also strongly endorsed the project’s housing set-aside for individuals with developmental disabilities.
“I’m just a huge fan of the housing for individuals with developmental disabilities,” she said. “It’s a huge need in our community.”
The mayor also raised a longer-term policy issue, saying the city should revisit whether its current affordable housing fund should be formalized into a more structured trust with clearer guardrails and flexibility for future needs.
As the meeting concluded, councilmembers largely signaled support for the negotiated package while requesting additional technical details before the project advances further. The discussion suggested broad appreciation for the affordable housing commitments and public benefits, even as questions remain about transportation design and how future amenities should be implemented.
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.
Well I know that the in crowd is none too pleased with my declarations in a local blog about bike stuff in the Richards-80 project, but a grade separated crossing here doesn’t make the project safe for bikes, and getting kids to the to closest schools doesn’t make the project safe for bikes.
What makes a project less unsafe for bikes is a lack of products of motonormativity – cars, on the ascent in town, which people will know if they have been paying attention to recent General Plan discussions. Relatively safe internal circulation is only relevant for children and others new to cycling, because there’s no real network in this part of town which safely separates people on bikes from both people and cars and people in shoes (etc.)
And the marketing is going to highlight easy access to I-80… and if these people don’t drive home after work, they’re going to park at one of the Nuggets, Target or in Downtown. Is the enlightened development team building parking for them Downtown?
“Partida said she has broader philosophical concerns about ownership models that cap wealth-building opportunities for lower-income buyers.”
I’ve heard this sentiment expressed several times, at this point.
On the one hand, the complaint “is” wealth-building as a result of home ownership. On the other hand, it’s “me too”? (Also known as “keeping up with the Joneses”, and screw the impact that has on anyone else.)
So I guess it ultimately depends on who is paying for it, and who gets the benefit. (Assuming that there’s still a benefit to be had in future years.)
Pick a lane.
Also, as Todd just noted above, the “lane” actually leads to I-80, more than anywhere else. It actually might be the best location in the entire region from which to commute to Sacramento.
It’s a textbook example of sprawl, folks.
At least the other proposal (Village Farms) “looks like” infill when viewed from space (e.g., from a satellite orbiting the earth).
Couple of key articles on home ownership and wealth building…
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-homeownership-incentives-to-improve-household-financial-security-and-shrink-the-racial-wealth-gap/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/
Looking at those titles, it appears that they could be named “sprawl for equity” (instead of the usual “sprawl for schools” argument on here).
Black people are not going to be moving to Davis, regardless. They don’t even move to Woodland.
Nothing but whiteys and Asians move to Davis. Not even very many Latinos (other than perhaps in Affordable housing).
Maybe they should put racial restrictions (“reverse redlining”) regarding who can move into these developments? (Or, put such restrictions on the existing housing as it turns over?)
There is an easy solution to the equity building problem of people not capturing the full appreciation. If you set the cap on Affordable appreciation at some average amount based on the long term appreciation over time for the entire community the residents should eventually be made whole. You could even add a reset every few years to see how they were doing compared to the rest of the units.
The Affordable housing commitment is commendable, but the bigger question is whether WG will provide sufficient market-rate affordable housing. The answer lies in choosing the Environmentally Preferred Alternative #3 that meets several City goals. (The responses to comments on this issue are full of hand waving with no supporting analysis whatsoever. I wrote a follow up rebuttal that I submitted to the Planning Commission and Council.) A higher density development will create market-rate affordable housing by design.
Alternative 3 also will better meet the City’s environmental goals, particularly related to CAAP objectives. It will be more pedestrian and cyclist friendly and reduce traffic. It is the viable mitigation measure for significant environmental impacts–impacts that are avoidable contrary to the consultant’s unsubstantiated assertions.
In addition, any park should be placed within the development so that’s it accessible by walking or biking from anywhere in the neighborhood. The south side of Covell at that location faces the wall surrounding Alhambra Estates–there will be little use coming from directly across the street. The proposed placement will block transit access on Covell for WG residents unless the developers coordinates are transit line through the center of the development that runs into Palomino Place. We also do not need a softball field with bright night lights located right next to the multi family housing. I’m not sure that the residents of Alhambra would appreciate that either.
I would be surprised if the layout was changed placing the park on the interior of the project. One of the selling points of the current layout was making the park accessible to the entire community without bringing a bunch of traffic into the residential part of the neighborhood.
In regard to Affordable (or affordable) “for sale” housing:
There are people (including in Davis itself) who are wealthy, but low-income. As such, I’m wondering if they’d potentially qualify to but a deed-restricted house and turn it into a rental. (If there’s some kind of residency requirement, some might even be willing to move in for whatever period of time is required, while renting out their current house).
Perhaps to prevent this, they need to examine both income AND wealth. Essentially, conduct an audit on anyone who dares to buy one.
As for “affordable by design”, there is a part of me that hopes some external corporation (or wealthy individuals) comes in and buys an entire block of such housing, and turns it into rentals.
Assuming that the proposal is approved, of course.