Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Category: Housing

  • DEIR for Willowgrove project released

    The Willowgrove Draft Environmental Impact Report has been released and is available for public review for a minimum 45-day comment period.

    The Draft EIR public comment period begins on Nov. 10 and ends Jan. 2 at 5 p.m. Members of the public may submit written comments before the end of the comment period. Written comments can be emailed to the Project Planner Eric Lee at: elee@cityofdavis.org.

    The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public comment meeting on the Draft EIR on Wednesday, Dec. 10, at 7 p.m. in the city of Davis Community Chambers (23 Russell Blvd). Members of the public or public agencies may provide comments at the meeting.

    To view the DEIR, visit https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Willowgrove/EIR-Draft/Willowgrove-Draft-EIR-Nov-2025-Combined.pdf

    To learn more about the proposed Willowgrove project, visit https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/willowgrove

  • No to Co-op at Village Farms

    [The following letter was shared with the Davisite for posting]

    November 1, 2025

    To the members of the:
    Davis City Council
    Davis Planning Commission
    Davis Social Services Commission

    From David Thompson, Davis Citizen and Affordable Housing, Advocate, Co-Founder National Cooperative Bank and Inducted into the US Cooperative Hall of Fame

    No to this flimsy, sketchy, ill-prepared and financially dangerous to co-op members Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC) proposed by Village Farms

    My first major point is that the path of an LEHC(laid out below) takes many steps and requires much over $2 million dollars of an entity’s money prior to even starting construction, The path to a LEHC if travelled, will take about five years from inception to occupancy. The member’s own investment of $50,000 each ($3.5 million overall) is likely at risk during the latter two years of construction. Dos Pinos took close to 3 years of active one on one marketing to get to 85% occupancy. At Dos Pinos, no one lives on top of anyone else. At 15 townhome units per acre it is an attractive community. Each owner member has a separate front door on the ground floor with a front and back patio. A four floor apartment building with no patios at 30 units per acre is not an attractive home ownership model.

    Much as I love LEHC’s, the Village Farms LEHC proposal is impossible to develop under present circumstances. To be fair to the City and to the citizens this proposal should be removed immediately or else it will be a huge waste of the City’s time and the citizen’s resources or it will be a major housing proposal seen as an ill-prepared developer’s red herring that should have been eliminated. Village Farms does a disservice to the City by presenting a thin dream without details to back up the Co-op.

    The City should immediately reject the Village Farm LEHC as being infeasible.

    (more…)

  • Urging a No vote on the Village Farms PIP

    [Note: This letter to the Planning Commission was sent by the author for posting. PIP = Project Individualized Plan]

    October 20th, 2025

    To Planning Commission for Meeting of October 22nd, 2025

    FR. David J Thompson, Affordable Housing Advocate

    Vote No on the VF PIP. My Arguments Against the PIP proposed by Village Farms

    After reviewing the Village Farms PIP I do not see how what is being proposed meets the requirements of Section18.05.050 that is equal to or better than what the city would get under standard affordability requirements.

    I urge the Planning Commission to vote no on the PIP before you.

    For example,

    Under Section 18.05.050 18 acres would be set aside to meet the standard affordable housing requirements. However VF intends to remove 50% of that required land and asks the city to accept 9 acres of land. Removing 9 acres of land for the use of affordable housing is more acres than any affordable housing project has received in the history of Davis’ affordable housing that began about 1980.

    It does not seem equal to the PIP requirements that 18 acres is culled down to nine.

    Or that, the number of affordable units required are stuffed into 9 acres (31 units per acre) rather than 18 acres (15 units per acre). The city requirement is for a project to host 15 units per acre.

    It does not seem equal to the PIP requirements that the density of affordable units goes up from 15 to 31 units per acre.

    The cities for sale units single family ownership units are usually about 5 + units per acre

    No single family affordable homes meeting the city’s requirements are being provided.

    (more…)

  • Village Farms Needs To Be Fixed

    By Elaine Roberts Musser

    I am trying to keep an open mind about Village Farms, a new housing development proposal for northeast Davis.  But try as I might, there are a couple of new concerns that have surfaced which really bother me.

    I am disturbed at two of the features being suggested for Village Farms: to wit, a fourth fire station and a city run down payment program.  Our municipality is in so much financial trouble, that it is short more than $2 million a year just for pavement management alone. The estate of a deceased Davis citizen was just awarded a whopping $24.2 million because of the city’s negligence in not properly maintaining its trees.  We face similar financial risks because of our neglect of other city infrastructure.

    The harsh reality is the city cannot afford a $3.4 million annual hit to its budget to pay for operating another fire station. Nor can it afford the cost of construction of a new fire station, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. Similarly, the city cannot bear the expense of running a down payment program for housing, and who knows at what expense?

    (more…)

  • Letter concerning the Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan

    [The following letter was shared for posting to the Davisite by the author]

    October 12, 2025

    Dear Mayor Vaitla, Social Services Commission Chair Sverdlov, Planning Commission Chair Weiss and to all the council and commission members and Community Development Director Sherri Metzker.

    I saw last week in a recent Davis Enterprise the city’s public notice re

    The Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan.

    The core elements of the revision are as follows;

    The number of units will drop from 226 units to 205 units

    A reduction of 21 units

    However, the number of bedrooms will increase from 322 to 444

    An increase of 122 bedrooms and therefore at least 122 more people at one person per bedroom but many more if any of the bedrooms allow 2 people

    If various fees are based upon people and vehicle usage, then the project will; 

    Reduce project income to the city by about 10% 

    While increasing the number of noncontributing municipal users by 37+%.

    It appears to me therefore that the reduction of 21 units, the city will have a measurable loss of project-based income to cover the long-term costs while substantially subsidizing and increasing dollars spent on the wear and tear on the city.

    I would like one of you to pose this question to the Community Development Director;

    (more…)

  • On Education, Accountability, and the Price of Pretending: Part One

    By David Taormino

    It has often been said, sometimes in reverence and other times in jest, that the Davis Joint Unified School District is “doing the Lord’s work on Earth.” And perhaps, in part, that is true. There is no higher calling than the education of our children—no greater trust than that which we place in those who shape young minds.

    But let us not, in our admiration, lose sight of the facts.

    The School District, noble though its mission may be, is also a business. It employs administrators, staff, and teachers, all of whom depend upon the continued operation of schools—regardless of whether the children who fill those classrooms live in Davis or are brought in from elsewhere. This is not criticism. It is recognition of reality. But reality, too, must be subject to the rule of law.

    That is why I have filed suit—on behalf of myself and future homeowners of Palomino Place—to challenge the District’s newly-adopted fee on new development. The total for a 2,000 square-foot home now exceeds $10,000. This fee, and the rationale for it, strain both legal boundaries and public trust.

    The Law Is Clear—and It Is Not Being Followed

    (more…)

  • Clarifying the Realities of Downpayment Assistance in Davis

    By Barbara Clutter

    In their August 11 piece in The Davisite, Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser rely on a preliminary report from the City’s Fiscal Commission subcommittee on Downpayment Assistance to argue that Davis should align with existing state programs, such as CalHFA (CA Housing Finance Agency), which assisted 30,000 California homebuyers in 2025. Carson/Musser point out that only two of those recipients were from Davis, implying a missed opportunity for our city. However, what they do not acknowledge is the underlying reason so few Davis residents qualify for CalHFA is the high cost of housing. Families working under CalHFA's income limits generally find that qualifying housing is virtually nonexistent in Davis, making the program largely inaccessible in Davis.

    Musser and Carson also highlight SB 417, a proposed $10 billion statewide housing bond measure which would primarily fund rehabilitation of infrastructure and existing housing. While it earmarks $1 billion for downpayment assistance, no community is guaranteed any of these prospective funds, even if the bond measure is passed in 2026.

    (more…)

  • Fiscal Commissioners Propose the State Pay for New Housing Program Instead of Davis Taxpayers

    By Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser

    We were disappointed when the Davis City Council adopted an ordinance last January authorizing a new city-funded downpayment assistance program for lower-income Davis homebuyers. It put on the books a potentially expensive new program city taxpayers can ill afford. It did so with a blank-check ordinance lacking normal programmatic limits, like how much money would be given to a potential homebuyer. 

    At the time, advocates of the new downpayment assistance program lobbied for an annual allocation of new General Fund monies of $1 million or more from Measure Q.  Measure Q was an increase in the city sales tax approved by city voters last November. 

    That didn’t happen once the full impacts of out-of-control spending by the City Council became clear. Excessive pay hikes and bonuses for city staff, including another round of new contracts rushed through in May, have gotten the City of Davis into very serious financial trouble. A new fiscal forecast shows that within the next couple of years the city will have zero financial reserves, with spending exceeding General Fund revenues by millions annually. 

    Essentially, all that new money from Measure Q has gone up in a puff of smoke. This, despite campaign promises by the Council of new housing programs and fixes to our city infrastructure. Promises that were made in public statements and official ballot arguments the Council signed and that were sent to every registered city voter.

    (more…)

  • The General Plan won’t be a Genial Plan

     

    Screenshot 2025-07-30 8.22.55 PM"The goal is to manipulate

    Heavy hands to intimidate

    Snuff out the very idea of clarity

    Strangle your longing for truth and trust

    Choke wisdom sapience and prudence

    The war economy is inviolable violently

    Suppresses all intelligence that conflicts

    With the stakes of those who drive it."  - 

    From "Melodie is a Wound" by: Laetitia Sadier, Tim John Gane. Performed by Stereolab. Album: Instant Holograms On Metal Film. Released: 2025.  https://youtu.be/Nndpg90P2O8?

  • No Measure J/R/D amendments

    Suburban sprawl
    It was disappointing to read the recent Davis Enterprise article regarding the City Council meeting item on  Measure J/R/D on May 13th. To be clear, there was no “confusion” by the public of what was being discussed or what could have resulted from that meeting. The Council was deciding if and when the City would add “exemptions” to Measure J/R/D on a ballot.  Any project including any of these exemption conditions would avoid a Measure J/R/D vote and disenfranchise Davis citizens from voting on it. 

    Also, there was no mention about the huge number of citizens who expressed their opposition to any Measure J/R/D “amendments” (exemptions) in person, by voicemail and by email at the meeting.

    How coincidental, that this subject of “amending“ Measure J /R/D was raised just when the egregious Village Farms project is supposed to be the next project on the ballot? Unless of course, it was somehow “exempted” by an “amended” Measure J/R/D.  Village Farms is a 1,800-unit project at Covell and Pole Line with a 200-acre floodplain, toxics from the adjacent unlined Old City Landfill, massive infrastructure costs, and enormous traffic and unsafe access issues.

    To be clear, any amendment(s) to Measure  J/R/D to exempt large projects which would annex in large parcels of ag land or open space for development, is for the benefit of the developers, not our community. Measure J/R/D already has exemptions built into it including for affordable housing.

    While the Housing Element Update citizen committee evaluated addressing new housing needs,  they did NOT make any recommendation to amend or add  Measure J/R/D exemptions. That concept came up between the City Staff and the State. Was this Staff’s idea, or was Staff given that direction, and by whom, to offer the concept of amending Measure J/R/D?

    With democracy on the line on a daily basis, we don’t need that happening here in Davis. The intention of Measure J/R/D is to give the public the ability to support good projects, and reject bad projects. Measure J/R/D is “The Citizens Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands”.  It passed 83%:17% when last renewed in 2020.  Measure J/R/D is democracy in action, and it does not need any “amendments” to weaken or invalidate it.

    Eileen M. Samitz