DAVIS, Calif. — With the Nov. 3 election approaching, the proposed Willowgrove development has drawn support from longtime critics of peripheral housing projects, even as the vote raises broader questions about Davis’ ability to meet state housing requirements while maintaining its voter-approval process for development on agricultural land.
Measure W would authorize approximately 1,250 homes on 232 acres along East Covell Boulevard, including 250 deed-restricted affordable housing units, parks, trails and other community amenities.
Unlike Village Farms, which voters rejected in June following a contentious campaign, Willowgrove has faced relatively little organized opposition, a feature of the campaign noted in recent coverage by The California Aggie and other regional media outlets.
The contrast has become particularly evident in public statements from residents who opposed Village Farms but now support Willowgrove.
Former Davis Planning Commissioner Eileen Samitz, a longtime participant in local land-use debates, described Willowgrove as an exceptional project in a recent commentary, pointing to the extensive public involvement that shaped the proposal.
“The good news is that the project has benefited from much public input, and the resulting project has been worth waiting for,” Samitz wrote. “Willowgrove has many amenities and features that make it a desirable project for Davis.”
Samitz argued that the developers had completed a subdivision map before the Measure J/R/D election, providing voters with a more detailed picture of what would be built if the project receives approval.
“This is the first time in Davis history that a project has offered a completed subdivision map before the Measure J/R/D vote, allowing the community to see the final project design before it is approved,” she wrote.
She also highlighted the project’s agricultural mitigation arrangements, which would preserve farmland associated with Bullseye Farms, and the inclusion of smaller homes intended to serve families and residents seeking alternatives to larger, more expensive houses.
Samitz argued that the project’s development commitments distinguish it from Village Farms, which she opposed over concerns involving environmental impacts, flooding, contamination and affordable housing.
“Willowgrove does not have any of these complications,” she wrote. “It is a well-designed project, thanks to public input and Measure J/R/D, which gives our community the leverage to negotiate for better projects like Willowgrove.”
In a separate letter, Rena Nayyar also drew a distinction between the two developments, arguing that Willowgrove reflects a more comprehensive planning process.
“I enthusiastically support Willowgrove (Measure W) since it is a well- planned project and our community had much input into its design,” Nayyar wrote.
Nayyar pointed to the existing bicycle undercrossing beneath Covell Boulevard, the project’s affordable housing partnership and the absence of several environmental concerns she associated with Village Farms.
“It is clear by the documents that Willowgrove will actually deliver on its promises,” she wrote.
Both writers noted that their support for Willowgrove is consistent with their belief in retaining Measure J/R/D, the local ordinance requiring voter approval for certain conversions of agricultural and open-space land to urban uses.
“Fortunately, Measure J/R/D gives us the opportunity to choose the best possible projects to meet this growth requirement,” Nayyar wrote.
Their positions suggest that at least some previous development opponents distinguish between individual projects rather than rejecting all proposals for peripheral growth.
Samitz wrote that Willowgrove had attracted support from others who opposed Village Farms.
“That is one of the reasons why so many opponents of Village Farms, like myself, support Willowgrove,” she wrote.
The unusual alignment comes as the city’s housing policies face increasing pressure from state requirements governing residential development.
California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation system requires local governments to plan for sufficient housing across income categories, while state housing element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate that identified sites and programs can realistically accommodate those needs.
Davis has struggled to produce sufficient lower-income housing, with its 2026 annual progress reporting indicating that only about 30 lower-income units had been completed toward a target exceeding 900 units during the current planning cycle.
Willowgrove’s proposed 250 affordable homes would provide a substantial addition to the city’s development pipeline, although approval would not guarantee their immediate construction.
The relationship between Davis’ voter-approval requirement and state housing law has been a concern for state regulators for several years.
In a July 2021 review of the city’s draft Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development identified Measure J as a potential constraint on housing development.
The agency noted that four of six proposed rezonings subject to voter approval had failed since the ordinance was adopted and directed Davis to explain how the requirement affected sites identified for housing.
The concern was not simply whether the city had designated enough land for development, but whether its policies and approval procedures could prevent that land from being used to meet housing needs.
In August 2023, HCD subsequently issued Davis a notice of violation for failing to adopt a substantially compliant Housing Element.
That notice demonstrated the state’s willingness to pursue enforcement against the city over housing planning deficiencies, although it did not establish that Measure J itself was unlawful.
Under California law, jurisdictions that fail to maintain compliant housing elements can face litigation, financial penalties and other enforcement measures. In some circumstances, noncompliance can also limit a city’s authority to reject qualifying housing proposals.
However, rejection of Measure W would not automatically constitute a violation of state housing law or invalidate Measure J/R/D.
The state’s assessment would depend on Davis’ overall housing element compliance, the availability of other feasible housing sites and whether local policies unlawfully interfere with the city’s ability to accommodate its housing obligations.
Still, Samitz raised the possibility that continued failure to accommodate housing could eventually bring the city into conflict with state authorities.
“If we do not meet these requirements, the city could be sued and/or sanctioned by the state, as some other cities have been,” she wrote.
She also warned that Davis could face a challenge to its longstanding voter-approval requirement.
“In addition, we risk the possibility of the state attempting to overturn Measure J/R/D, in which case we would have no say in future developments requiring annexation,” Samitz wrote.
While no state agency or court has determined that a defeat of Willowgrove would automatically threaten Measure J/R/D, and the ordinance remains in effect, the state’s previous scrutiny of the ordinance provides a factual basis for examining whether repeated rejection of peripheral housing proposals could eventually become part of a broader housing compliance dispute.
The picture is further complicated by the city’s limited opportunities for additional residential development within its existing boundaries.
Davis has identified potential housing capacity through downtown redevelopment, accessory dwelling units and other infill opportunities, but actual construction depends on financing, infrastructure, property ownership and market conditions.
A site designated for housing does not necessarily produce homes within the period contemplated by state housing planning requirements.
For Willowgrove supporters, the project represents an opportunity to accommodate additional housing while preserving the voter oversight established by Measure J/R/D.
Samitz argued that the city’s limited supply of available infill land makes some peripheral expansion necessary.
“Since our city is essentially out of adequate land to accommodate its RHNA housing requirements, we need to expand onto land adjacent to existing neighborhoods,” she wrote.
She characterized Willowgrove as an example of how public involvement can produce a development proposal that addresses concerns raised during previous elections.
Nayyar reached a similar conclusion, writing that the project demonstrates the value of the city’s voter-approval system when residents are presented with a proposal they believe adequately addresses community concerns.
The question facing Davis voters Tuesday is whether Willowgrove meets that standard.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
