Willowgrove Project Advances to November Ballot After Unanimous Davis City Council Vote
DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to place the proposed Willowgrove housing development on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot, advancing one of the city’s largest and most closely watched housing proposals under Measure J/R/D.
Project representatives said the 5-0 council vote followed years of community engagement and revisions designed to align the development with Davis priorities related to sustainability, affordability, transportation and inclusivity.
According to the project team, Willowgrove has undergone more than 70 public meetings and rounds of community input since its inception.
“From the outset, this has been a community-driven effort demonstrating the value of Measure J/R/D,” said James Koppert, lead owner of the project. “Years of dialogue, input, and refinement challenged us to do more; to invest more, to refine more, and to ensure that our project could earn the support of voters.”
Koppert added, “If approved by Davis voters this November, the project is fully prepared to begin construction next year.”
The proposed development includes 1,250 homes and is structured around a mix of market-rate and affordable housing, parks, recreational facilities and neighborhood-serving retail space.
Project representatives emphasized that Willowgrove is the first Measure J/R/D proposal in Davis to secure a Tentative Subdivision Map before receiving voter approval, a step they say could accelerate the construction timeline.
According to the applicants, the project could begin construction in 2027, with housing occupancy and new student enrollment potentially occurring by the 2028-29 school year.
The development team said reversing declining enrollment in the Davis Joint Unified School District was a major consideration in the project design.
“Willowgrove marks a major step forward in expanding housing opportunities for our community,” said Alan Fernandes, a former Davis Joint Unified School District trustee. “The project’s attainable housing, open space, parks, and recreational facilities will attract young families, which are essential to increasing enrollment in Davis schools that are suffering from declining enrollment.”
Project materials state that 43 percent of the housing units would consist of attached housing types, including townhomes and affordable units.
The development would include 250 affordable housing units constructed in the project’s first phase without city subsidies, according to the applicants. The project team also stated it would contribute $6.8 million toward affordable housing efforts.
At least 20 homes are planned for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
“Access to stable, affordable housing is foundational for people with developmental disabilities to live with dignity and independence in their own communities,” said Dr. John W. Decker, director of Community Services and Supports for Alta California Regional Center. “The project team’s commitment to affordability and accessibility serves as a model of inclusivity for the building industry.”
In addition to the affordable housing units, the project includes 288 townhomes that applicants describe as “attainable by design” and intended to expand affordable ownership opportunities.
The proposal also includes a regional park and recreational complex that project representatives estimate as a $21 million investment funded by the development rather than local taxpayers.
Planned amenities include lighted soccer and softball fields, pickleball courts, a tournament-grade gymnasium, integrated trail systems, urban forest features and neighborhood-oriented retail and green spaces.
According to the project applicants, the recreational facilities are intended to support broader community use and increase opportunities for girls’ sports, including softball and basketball.
Councilmember Josh Chapman, who served on the Development Agreement negotiation subcommittee, praised the project team during Tuesday’s meeting.
“Each time we asked the Willowgrove team of something, they made it happen,” Chapman said. “And that’s not usually how these negotiations go.”
He continued, “They went above and beyond with not just what the community asked, but with what staff and council asked as well. I fully support it and I’m looking forward to voting for it in November.”
With council approval secured, the Willowgrove proposal will now head to Davis voters this fall under the city’s voter-approved growth control ordinance.
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.
This project is pretty much the best we can expect under the developer-led measure J system, and I applaud them for being brave in speccing much more multifamily housing, but being the best possible option under a system that is incapable of good planning is a dubious honor.
The development team here is great and I get the impression that they REALLY want to make the best possible project. But one-off developments like this are incapable of being coordinated with the overall growth of a city, or future-proofing for transit connectivity to the inevitable adjacent property also being developed… whether it be next year or a 50 years from now.
I understand that the key goal of any proposal like this is to “win at the polls” which is why they also make the same regretable mistake of putting a park at the bottom of the project, offering a “regional park” which is in effect a bribe to existing neighbors… and while I understand the desire for such a community resource, the layout of this project with that park taking up the exact spot where transit MIGHT be able to serve higher-density housing in the future means that this project is permanently hostile to transit service. We are trading a feature that helps the project win in the immediate term against a frankly horrible decision in terms of land use and sustainabiliy.
Im sorry to be that frank about a project that I support, but that is the unvarnished truth.
Under measure J, winning the election is the only thing that matters.
As a consequence all of those people living in the more affordable, more energy efficient mediumm density housing WILL be getting into a car for every single need outside of their home.
We deserve a well-planned, coordinated city, and we will NEVER get that under measure J. A measure J amendment that overlays those kind of master-planned features over these peripheral properties ( including village farms) I think is now necessary in November. That is the only way to move this project from “best we can get in a broken system” to “Actually meets our needs”.
Personally, I think Im voting for it. But with significant concerns, and I think its MORE than time now for us to address the REAL housing problem.. which is the limitations of measure J
This project is SO close to being compatible with the much more sustainable, transit-served, master planned vision for our city and could be part of that landscape that DCPG has been advocating for – the park just needs to move north and a connection needs to be provided to the property to the east. As it is currently, if we pass this and don’t demand the smallest amount of changes to provide that more sustainable future is possible, then we lose that opportunity forever.
I’ll start off by saying since I dropped off the PC, I’ve stayed away from Davis news etc. I know nothing about this development but if all that’s true, you’re absolutely right. So…
What’s your take on the “…“attainable by design” and intended to expand affordable ownership opportunities.” I don’t see how any dwelling unit can stay attainably affordable unless restrictions/equity sharing, some sort of boundaries put in place. What say you?
“As a consequence all of those people living in the more affordable, more energy efficient medium density housing WILL be getting into a car for every single need outside of their home.”
The location of the park would make absolutely no difference regarding that. They’d all be getting cars (two or three of them per household, most likely) – regardless.
It is an excellent location, if one wants to create a community of commuters to Sacramento.
“It is an excellent location, if one wants to create a community of commuters to Sacramento.”
Yes Ron, not just Sacramento, but also a community of commuters to downtown Davis.
Keith, how do you suggest that Davis meets its RHNA targets?
I realize you didn’t ask me, but send me a map of Davis and I’ll mark it up for you. Probably take me all of 5 minutes.
Just like they do in the vast population centers along the coast that aren’t expanding outward.
And if HCD doesn’t like my “plan”, I’ll give them the map and let them mark it up instead. Needless to say, they (like me and the city itself) have no authority to mark up land outside of city limits.
It would be nice if you let someone else answer for a change
Ron O
Wrong again. That land is within the City of Davis sphere of influence so we have authority to “mark up the map.”
You can mark it up all you want, but HCD already indicated that they’re not going to accept that as a “plan” (future housing element) – unless it’s already approved by voters.
This will ALWAYS be true – for every single parcel that’s subject to a Measure J vote.
So, “plan away” if you want to, but it’s going to be rejected. (If I worked for HCD, I’d reject it myself.)
On the other hand, they will accept fake plans overlayed onto an existing city (and that’s exactly what they’re doing now – statewide).
So like I said to David – give me a map of Davis and I’ll come up with a fake plan within 5 minutes. And if HCD doesn’t like it, they can come up with a fake one of their own.
You can’t come up with a fake plan. You have to show that it actually has a reasonable likelihood of being produced and then you have to make progress towards that. HCD doesn’t come up with plans of their own either.
Again, HCD has approved fake plans across the entire state. If they’re suddenly going to start holding them up to “realistic” expectations, cities across the entire state are going to have the same response that I just noted.
So unless the state wants to acknowledge that their entire effort is already doomed, their options are realistically limited (statewide).
They can certainly de-certify hundreds of housing elements if they want to do so, and take every city and county across the entire state to court. (They might need to hire a bunch more attorneys, etc.) But the housing still won’t get built as a result of that type of threat.
Now, I’m sure that you’ll say that Measure J is at risk (despite the fact that NONE of the state’s laws require, or even suggest that cities must sprawl outward to address fake targets). Of course, they’d also have to go after other similar “restrictions” on land outside of city limits (statewide), as well. I can name several, right off the bat.
But pushing sprawl has never been a publicly-stated state goal in the first place.
What is a fake plan in your estimation?
Take your pick – there’s lots to choose from. Basically every one that’s “off target” (or out of compliance).
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
Personally, I’d like to see the state try to sue all of them. At some point, it becomes rather comical.
No, I asked you to define it
David, I just did. If they’re “off target” (or out of compliance), there’s very little chance of them being fulfilled (housing actually built) by the end of the current cycle.
Plans that have no chance of succeeding are fake plans. You noted this yourself, regarding Davis’ fake plan. (But of course, you’d prefer to pretend that Davis is the only city/county with a fake plan, so that you can undermine Measure J.)
You must think your readers are pretty stupid, and can’t see right through what you’re doing. Even those who are on your side know this.
Off target doesn’t mean fake.
Obviously, if they remain off target through the end of the cycle – they’re not realistic plans.
And then the state will require another round of unrealistic plans, after the current round.
Not realistic = fake.
This isn’t really even in question – no one is arguing that the plans (statewide) are realistic. (Though state politicians and mainstream media seem to avoid acknowledging the reality, for the most part. The reason being, of course, is that they’re essentially engaging in a publicity campaign – more than trying to create serious plans.)
The state is essentially trying to see what they can get away with via intimidation and claims regarding a fake housing shortage (that their sponsors came up with). Sponsors meaning those who benefit from those claims (as well as some who “created” unaffordability in places like Silicon Valley).
A janitor who works at Google headquarters isn’t going to find “affordable” housing within 30 miles of that place – regardless of state “requirements”.
Nonsense
“A janitor who works at Google headquarters isn’t going to find “affordable” housing within 30 miles of that place – regardless of state “requirements”.”
That’s probably not true.
Within 30 miles includes: Below Market Rate (BMR) units, Section 8 voucher programs, nonprofit affordable housing developments, inclusionary units tied to market-rate projects, teacher and workforce housing programs, and developments financed through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and local subsidies.
Moreover, the unaffordability you cite despite existing mandates is not evidence that intervention has failed, but that stronger intervention is necessary. The very thing you are arguing against is the way to address unaffordability. But you just want to throw up your hands and cry uncle.
As you know, there is a lot of competition for subsidized housing (e.g., waiting lists, etc.).
Maybe the problem isn’t “housing” – maybe it’s income inequality. And perhaps if Google needs a janitor, they should pay him/her enough to live nearby. But it’s going to be pretty tough to do, when janitors are competing for housing with AI developers, executives, venture capitalists, etc. (I was going to include “software developers”, but a lot of them are apparently getting laid-off these days.)
Or, hire someone who (one way or another) is able to make that work. Or, create a robot to do it (problem solved that way, for sure).
Ultimately, Google’s challenges in finding a human janitor (while paying unlivable wages) is not “everyone else’s” problem. That is, it wasn’t until the technology industry decided to use their massive wealth and influence to corrupt state politics, and to declare war on their neighbors/neighborhoods which predated the industry’s dominance.
If there is a lot of competition for affordable housing that means we don’t have enough of it.
Perhaps society (e.g., middle class taxpayers) shouldn’t be subsidizing housing for janitors who work for billionaires.
In a world where $200 or $300 K per year doesn’t buy you housing, not sure what you believe you could pay janitors to enable them to afford market rate housing in the Silicon Valley. I’m all for paying people living wages, but the cost of living is too high and housing is a huge part of it.
Again, a problem that the tech industry itself created.
Not sure why you’d advocate for taxpayers to bail out billionaires so that their trash gets picked up. Sounds more like a billionaire problem (“it’s so hard to get good flunkeys, these days”).
Perhaps the janitors could get side-hustles polishing up the billionaires’ electric Lamborghinis.
No, it’s a problem that NIMBYs like you created. You point the finger at everyone. You try to do anything to solve the problem other than the obvious solution – build more housing, build more affordable housing.
Again, I’m not sure what world you live in, where you think that any amount of market-rate housing is going to allow janitors to live in locales (such as Atherton) where the average housing price is $8 million.
Especially when the SAME BILLIONAIRES who created this discrepancy don’t want the janitor at their company living next door to them in the first place (if it was even possible).
And let’s be honest, here – everyone reading this is essentially in the same position as the janitor (at least, when compared to the billionaires).
And that, my friend, is why the Davis Vanguard is not the “Atherton” Vanguard.
You, me, and anyone reading this will never be a homeowner in Atherton (or anywhere in Silicon Valley, most likely). And yet, we’ve taken steps to ensure that we don’t HAVE TO live there in the first place.
Let the billionaires figure out how to get their trash picked up. (They’re bright people – and probably already have robots doing so).
There you go again
Seems appropriate that you’d quote the guy who created “Reaganomics”.
:-)
Hook, line, and sinker.
Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us that “they’re eating the cats . . .”
The single family residents will undoubtedly be sacramento bound. This is true, and its part of why its so insane that THIS is our housing process.
But there is a substantive amount of multifamily housing, which is far more likely to be occupied by local workers, and that at least is a small win.
Ron O
Not true. The data presented in the General Plan Update workshops shows that for workers who live in Davis, 50% do NOT drive to work. And we’ve had a flight of workers employed in Davis to other cities. So we have worsened our traffic situation in Davis by failing to build sufficient housing to meet our needs.
I saw that you made that claim the other day – would you care to provide the actual “study” so that we can analyze how it was conducted, who participated/responded, and where they actually work?
Are you, for example, referring only to housing lunatics who showed up at a “workshop”? (And a subsample, therein?)
And where do their spouses/partners/children living at home work, and how do they get there?
One of the few times I actually drove every day to work was when I lived and worked IN Davis. When I got a job in Sacramento (but remained in Davis), I took advantage of employer-subsidized public transit, instead.
David himself stated that he drives to work from his home in Davis, to his “office” in Davis. (Not sure if he’s also dropping off kids at schools he doesn’t pay for, since he lives in Affordable housing.)
Did you make an attempt to locate it?
Do you know the difference between data and anecdotes?
Ron O
You can’t even bring yourself to look at the GPU workshop materials. If you’re as informed as you claim to be, you would already know that the consultant had presented this information to the commissions at Commissioapolooza April 13. If you’re not a housing lunatic, maybe you shouldn’t be involved in these discussions if you’re trying to put yourself as an outside “expert.”
https://www.davisgeneralplan.com/_files/ugd/7c2d34_edd4b92a4a65446a9cf16f4c5043874c.pdf
Slide 21 shows that 67% of commute trips in Davis use a car. Slide 20 shows the shares of workers who commute to jobs inside and outside of Davis. Based on a conservative assumption that 90% of Davis residents working outside of town drive to work, we can calculate that only 49% of those who live and work in Davis drive to work alone or carpool. You can run the calculations yourself.
Your reliance on transit was laudatory but fairly unique. Yolobus carries only a small fraction of those commuting to Sacramento and even fewer to the many other cities in the region.
I didn’t say that NO ONE drives to work in Davis–its about half who do. Your argumentation method is quite annoying, always trying to go to the extreme implied outcome.
The survey in those slides shows that 42% of workers commute to Davis for work, 56% leave Davis for work, and 44% of employed Davis residents work in the city, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey during a five-year sample period.
Since there are more people “leaving” Davis for work (than commuting “to” Davis), this would indicate a housing shortage in OTHER locales, using the logic put forth.
It further showed that there was an increase in driving alone (67%), and a decrease in carpooling (to 5%), a decrease in use of public transit (to 6%), and a decrease in biking (to 16%). The survey does not indicate whether or not this only applies to Davis residents (but it appears to only apply to them).
No other information is provided regarding how the survey was conducted (e.g., how to account for those who don’t respond).
Bottom line is that it appears that (at least) 67% of Davis working Davis residents drive alone (to wherever they’re working), and another 5% carpool. And that there have been significant decreases in the use of biking and public transit among DAVIS residents.