Davis, CA – City staff is asking the Davis City Council to approve a list of recommended commissions to review the two projects. All fees and costs associated with processing the applications for Village Farms Davis and Shriners projects will be paid by the project applicants.
While this item is presenting in the consent calendar, it marks the first time projects will be reviewed under changes to the commission structure—changes that resulted in complaints from many of the most active stakeholders in the community.
“The original DiSC project is one of the most recent Measure J/R/D projects to be considered by the city,” writes staff in the current staff report. “Seven city commissions carefully and thoughtfully reviewed the DiSC proposal, providing a very robust set of recommendations on the project.”
Staff explained, “All of the advisory recommendations were provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as a part of the project staff report and ultimately informed the City Council’s decision to place the project on the ballot.”
Both Village Farms and Shriners will require a Measure J vote in order to obtain final approval.
Staff therefore recommends to the council “that the advisory commissions that were tasked to formally evaluate the DiSC project should also evaluate the Village Farms and Shriners projects and provide comments for consideration by the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council.”
The six commissions will be: Climate and Environmental Justice Commission, Fiscal Commission, Open Space and Habitat, Recreation and Parks, Social Service and Transportation.
“Staff recommends that these same commissions review and comment on the proposed Village Farms Davis and Shriners projects,” staff writes.
Staff noted that the Planning Commission is required to review the proposals by law, and “will do so at a public hearing, and make recommendations to the City Council.”
While this process will apply to both projects, first up will be Village Farms. The project is expected to go before the public for a vote in November 2025.
That represents a delay from the original timeline of March 2025, but the Project’s EIR has yet to be released in draft form.
The Draft EIR is now expected to be released in early 2025, and a Planning Commission public meeting will be held during the public review period to accept public comments. The final EIR will be released in Spring 2025.
The proposed project consisted of a mixed-use development community, with a total of 1,800 dwelling units, comprised of both affordable and market-rate single- and multi-family residences, across various residential neighborhoods.
The most significant change to the revised project is “the enlargement of the Urban Agricultural Transition Area where the groundwater recharge facility was originally proposed.”
At a previous council meeting, staff noted, “To offset the shift of 47 acres of developed land to habitat preservation, while retaining the same 1,800-unit count, the BRPA Equal Weight alternative results in densification of the remaining residential areas.”
Staff notes that this includes a net increase of 360 missing middle units, an increase to 20% affordable units (a net increase of 60 affordable units), and an adjustment to right size the Down Payment Assistance Homes unit count “to achieve a higher level of affordability impact with a meaningful down payment assistance dollar amount for each of the 90 units, while still balancing the overall project financial feasibility in light of the above noted adjustments.”
Outgoing Councilmember Will Arnold in November said that “over the course of the next few years, we need one or potentially several projects of this size, housing projects of this size in Davis, not something that you’re going to find with an ADU here and a duplex there, and a few apartments over a shopping center.”
Arnold explained, “We have a housing crisis that we are addressing, and we need a project of this size. I believe that’s undeniable. Secondly, I believe this is also undeniable. This is the absolute best place in town for that project to be full stop.”
But that figures to be a more contested viewpoint.
As Eileen Samitz, who figures to lead any opposition to the project, argued in November, “The site has serious handicaps and this project has major design flaws.”
She added, “Trying to shoehorn in 1800 housing units at Covell and Pole Line, which is one of the most impacted and congested intersections in the city, makes no sense. Adding tens of thousands of, or actually hundreds of thousands of more car trips is only going to exacerbate this.”
Whether some of these concerns can be mitigated through an expansive public process remains to be seen.
Arnold added that “the idea that it’s going to be an empty field for another 20 years would be a detriment to the future of our community.”
First, while both DiSC projects favorably received recommendations from the commissions, they were unwilling to fully commit to those recommendations, instead showing that they wanted the option to negotiate out of them in the future. That was unacceptable to the NRC in particular and none of us endorsed those. The first attempt probably failed due to the reluctance. That the City staff was skeptical (without cause because the recommendations were outside the expertise of the staff) showed that the staff really didn’t respect what the commissions had to offer. That further eroded the trust between commissioners and staff.
Second, several groups of citizens who strongly support new housing have offered alternatives that will further city goals. We’ll see if the City decides to act on those or leave all of the decision making to the developers. If the latter, there could be more opposition that could tip the balance against the projects.
BTW, instead of showing what looks like a park, are there any images showing what the community might look like available?
That’s not a park. That’s the developers private lake by their house.