Critique and Alternative Recommendations Relating to: October 21, Staff Memo on Affordable Housing Production
October 19, 2025
To Mayor and City Council Members
Fr: David J Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Page 2. Article 18.05 Ownership Developments
Suggested Change: “Increase from 5% to 10% for stacked condominiums or vertical mixed use projects …”
Question Applicant could do one small ground storey commercial unit and gain the low affordable requirement. The city should set a minimum of 50% of the ground floor needs to be commercial
Is the housing referred to in this section also condominiums or are they also rentals? IF rentals this should be removed from Ownership Developments
Page 4. Paragraph 1 of text beginning with “In addition …affordable beds is used but not defined, they should so be defined by income category.
It should be added that “this student by the bed format is at this time not eligible for the RHNA count of Davis’ affordable housing requirement.
If it is not by the bed format; “The newly constructed Plaza 2555…’ should be removed from this section and moved to Multifamily Housing Units
Under For Sale Housing Units
Berry Bridge should include which income category the 8 units serve?
Page 7.
#1Affordable Housing Plan financial review
I support the staff answer of Yes to the clarifying question
Under #2 Project Individualized Plan…
I strongly urge the Council to insert 30% more units
“…to generate an amount of affordability equal to or greater than 30%…specifically and only in the ELI, VLI and LI rental category”
Under the PIP it should be required that the affordable ownership units should meet the long term affordability requirements of the city. Under the PIP it should be required that no category shall be exempt from the sustained/permanent affordability requirements of the city.
Page 8. Clarifying question
I support the staff Yes on A. But request the Council vote No on B.
We will not meet the RHNA requirements if we allow other purposes to use land set aside for affordable housing. The B format will allow specific organizations to lobby for a non- housing eligible use. In almost every case, the B format has and will severely reduce the city’s capacity to get the most housing units out of land set aside for affordable housing. Scale matters for affordable housing financing so getting the most eligible RHNA units out of the land should be the City’s ultimate goal.
Chapter 18 Housing, Page 9
(c) The City should ban any 4 bedroom apartments units and remove that loophole which substantially reduces the city’s fee income while housing non-paying users of city facilities.
(f) “General plan policies also require that affordable ownership units include a means for sustained affordability…” It appears to me that the Village Farms housing application seems to evade that requirement? Also page 15 the same requirement applies.
Page 16 (B)
PIP no public forum has been held and no notification to TPCF of projects
#3 Price of Affordable Ownership Units
Requires average affordability targeted at 100% of area moderate income. Are you sure that the Village Farms pricing of the units for this category will meet this requirement?
Does this mean that all buyers of affordable ownership housing in this category can sell their home soon after buying it? There used to be a two-year minimum that you had to live in the unit.
Page 20 18.05.060 Rental Development…
(1) Should include “the square foot size of affordable units by 1, 2 &3 bedroom category shall be the same size as the market rate rental units
Categories:
Breaking News City of Davis Land Use/Open Space Opinion
Tags:
Affordable Housing City Council David J Thompson Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation Village Farms
