Key points:
- Davis Social Services Commission to consider Village Farms affordable housing plan.
- Developer proposes alternative plan to meet city’s affordability requirements.
- The project’s affordability plan includes a $4.9 million down payment assistance program.
DAVIS – The City of Davis Social Services Commission is set to consider the Village Farms Davis affordable housing plan, a proposal that could reshape the city’s approach to meeting affordability requirements in large developments.
In a staff report for Monday’s meeting, city planners recommended that the commission find the developer’s Project Individualized Program (PIP) generates the same or greater level of affordability as required under city code, despite a proposal to dedicate roughly half the amount of land normally mandated.
The Village Farms project is among the largest developments ever proposed in Davis, encompassing 498 acres in North Davis. It includes plans for 1,800 homes—both market-rate and affordable—along with a 20-acre community park, a neighborhood park, greenbelts, a fire station, a pre-K daycare, an educational farm, and a 47-acre natural habitat area.
The development would also feature a 118-acre “urban agricultural transition area” to buffer farmland and neighborhoods.
The project is still years from construction and will require multiple approvals, including a Development Agreement and a Measure J-R-D vote, which gives Davis voters the right to decide on the use of agricultural land. That vote is tentatively scheduled for June 2026.
At the heart of the current review is how Village Farms will meet Davis’ inclusionary housing ordinance, which requires developers to provide affordable housing through on-site units, accessory dwelling units, in-lieu fees, or land dedication.
Based on city formulas, the project is obligated to provide the equivalent of 278.6 affordable units. Using the standard calculation, the developer would dedicate 18.573 acres of land, based on 15 units per acre. Instead, the developer is seeking to dedicate 9 to 9.5 acres and offset the reduction through a package of alternative contributions.
The proposed contributions include three main elements.
First, the land dedication parcel itself, which staff confirmed can accommodate 278.6 units under the city’s high-density residential designation.
Second, a $2 million payment to the city’s Housing Trust Fund, which staff said would help cover higher construction costs on the denser affordable site.
Third, a Village Farms-specific down payment assistance program, valued at $4.9 million, designed to provide $70,000 loans to 70 first-time homebuyers purchasing units within the project. Those loans would be repaid with equity sharing and eventually flow into the city’s Housing Trust Fund.
The developer has also committed to constructing approximately 82 units intended as limited equity cooperative housing, which would target moderate-income households often excluded from both market-rate and traditional affordable programs. If that model proves infeasible, the units would instead be developed as deed-restricted moderate-income rentals.
Staff’s analysis raised concerns about the tangible impact of the cooperative units and down payment assistance program.
Regarding the cooperative proposal, staff wrote that “without this information, the City is unable to ascertain the actual value of this proposed housing type for any income level. It is possible that the limited equity cooperative structure could be affordable to moderate-income households. But based on the current information, staff has no evidence to demonstrate that this would result in affordable housing prices for this income group.”
If infeasible, the fallback rental units could still provide moderate-income housing.
The down payment program, meanwhile, was described as both significant and problematic. Staff noted that based on current housing prices in Yolo County, the $70,000 assistance would still leave monthly costs above what most income-restricted households could afford.
“With the addition of utilities, none of the income levels at any of the household sizes shown in Table 4 qualify. Only above moderate-income households would directly benefit from this program based on staff’s assumptions,” the report stated.
Staff acknowledged that while the loans would eventually recycle into the Housing Trust Fund, the timing of repayments—potentially as late as 2060—means the affordability benefit would be delayed for decades.
The $2 million contribution to the Housing Trust Fund is another area of uncertainty. Staff wrote that it is unclear whether the payment represents a true substitution for land or merely offsets increased construction costs associated with denser housing on a smaller site.
“With a larger cash contribution, staff will have more confidence that the cash payment is contributing to the relative equivalency of the 9+ acres not being dedicated,” the report said.
The decision before the Social Services Commission is not to determine the overall value of the developer’s offer, but to decide whether the PIP meets city standards.
Staff noted that the commission must “find or not find that the VF Proposal meets the requirements for a PIP and determine if the proposed PIP has generated the same amount of affordability equal to, or greater than, the amount that would be generated under the standard affordability requirements.”
The commission’s recommendation is advisory. The Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council will have final say, with councilmembers weighing not only the affordability provisions but the overall development agreement and the larger Measure J-R-D vote.
If approved, Village Farms would not contribute to the city’s current 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle but could play a significant role in future ones.
Based on city projections, the project could provide 135 very-low income units, 135 low-income units, 90 moderate-income units, and 1,440 above-moderate units in the 2030–2038 and 2039–2047 RHNA cycles.
The City of Davis has struggled in past RHNA cycles to meet low- and very-low income targets, often overproducing above-moderate units while falling short on affordable ones.
The Village Farms debate comes amid broader community concerns about housing affordability and availability in Davis.
Earlier this year, Vanguard coverage highlighted the Davis Joint Unified School District’s struggles with declining enrollment, tied in part to the city’s housing shortage, as families increasingly find it difficult to secure affordable homes in town. Teachers, staff, and young families face steep housing costs, contributing to enrollment declines and workforce challenges.
Village Farms, if built, would add housing stock that city officials say is urgently needed.
But the project is not without controversy. In addition to concerns over the affordability plan, staff noted that the development would result in the loss of more than 396 acres of high-quality farmland.
About 70 percent of the site is classified as prime farmland if irrigated, raising concerns about long-term agricultural impacts. The city’s code requires mitigation for farmland conversion if the project is approved.
Village Farms has also drawn attention for its scale and design. It would be the city’s first project of this size, with 1,800 dwelling units and a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and multifamily units.
The proposal includes commitments to sustainability, such as an all-electric design without natural gas hookups, preservation of a wetlands habitat, and new transit infrastructure including a small station and bike crossings.
Staff described it as “unique in its scope and complexity” and noted its inclusion of “a broad range of housing product types and affordability levels.”
As the process moves forward, the Social Services Commission faces a complex decision: whether to recommend approval of a PIP that substitutes cash payments, cooperative units, and down payment loans for half the land otherwise required under city code. Staff cautioned that asking the developer to dedicate the full 18.573 acres “could cause them to withdraw the application.
The PIP does offer assistance with other housing objectives that are not part of the Inclusionary Housing Requirements, which would not occur if the developer withdraws the application”.
The commission will consider the staff recommendation and provide input before the plan advances to the Planning Commission and City Council later this year. The council is expected to hold an initial discussion on September 30, with formal decisions tied to the development agreement and Measure J-R-D vote to come in 2026.
Two points to make here:
FIRST “staff noted that the development would result in the loss of more than 396 acres of high-quality farmland.”
Almost all development in the state is going to cost farmland, its a fundamental tradeoff. But here is what is actually important: Its only a “waste” if it is developed at low density.
If we develop at higher densities, and by building housing form factors that are by definition more affordable, we allow more of our displaced workforce to not commute here from far away, and we can prevent other more distant farmland from being developed at low density for housing workers that come here in cars…
If WE develop at low density, it will be higher priced, moslty consisting of outbound commuters, and the inbound commuters will STILL likely inhabit cheaper single family homes further away also built on farmland.
There is no option on the table where “loss of farmland” is actually a decision WE get to make. We are only deciding on if our OWN land use decisions can be done responsibly.
SECOND: “Based on city projections, the project could provide 135 very-low income units, 135 low-income units, 90 moderate-income units, and 1,440 above-moderate units.
This is such a ridiculous disconnect from the reality of our actual needs, it borders on comical. These ratios need to be pretty much reversed. The project should be ~ 1400 moderate income units, maybe double the capital-A affordable ( land dedication ) and have only 135 of the above-moderate houses.
We do not need an increase in the supply of expensive homes! Its the opposite of our needs as a city. Single famiy homes are a money -loser fiscally, each house comes with 2 cars and are so spread out that good transit will never pencil…, they require twice the energy and water per unit… its IRRESPONSIBLE for us to continue building our city primarily out of Single Family homes.
—
( By the way… for reference… to be on-par with the “average” levels of land dedication for capital A affordable, per the standards we worked up for a potential measure J exemption.. this project would need to have 35 Acres dedicated for capital A affordable construciton. not 9.5. If you built those affordable units at the same density on 35 acres you would have over 1000 affordable units, instead of “135”)
This is probably the most critical point you’ve made here: “There is no option on the table where “loss of farmland” is actually a decision WE get to make. We are only deciding on if our OWN land use decisions can be done responsibly.”
The only real choice is whether you lose the farmland here or somewhere else.
Actually, that’s not the choice.
The only choice is whether or not Davis ALSO loses adjacent farmland – in ADDITION to what other nearby communities pursue.
I can assure you that Woodland, for example, is pursuing additional housing. (And if they can get taxpayers to pay for improving the levee system via a corrupt political process, they’re planning to extend the city southward along I-5 toward Natomas, as well.)
In the meantime, they’ll be adding 1,600 housing units in the technology park that’s planned adjacent to Highway 113. But that’s not the end of that, either. They will continue expanding on the side of the city closest to Davis, as well.)
The ironic part of all of this is that a lot of the people moving to the Sacramento region (including Davis) originate from places that are already-developed (e.g., the Bay Area). Places where public transportation is already robust, you don’t necessarily need air conditioning, etc.
Your missing the fact that both Davis and Woodland are operating under the same state laws.
You’re not actually making any point regarding that comment.
In general, Woodland does not pursue housing as a result of state laws. They were already doing so well-before the state’s laws were updated.
And again, the state’s laws aren’t working. There is no way for the state to enforce those laws, when cities in the Bay Area (for example) have permitted less than 10% of the state’s CURRENT “requirements”, let alone the next round of RHNA targets.
They can take every city in the state to court if they’d like, but it still won’t result in cities meeting those “mandates”.
My guess is that the state is really going to have its hands full dealing with this, in regard to the next round of “mandates”. Especially if they claim that the mandates that they themselves created are “not viable”, in regard to the “solutions” that cities submit for their “approval”. Especially for the vast numbers of cities which aren’t or can’t expand outward.
Your guess is not relevant to whether a city should follow state law.
I’m not “guessing” regarding the viability of the state’s mandates. There’s already direct evidence of failure on a massive, statewide level – and it’s not coming from me.
Again, the state can create whatever law it wants, but they’re simply not going to be able to force housing on the scale that they’re “requiring”.
Maybe they will “fail” just about every housing element submitted (for being “not viable”), and then sue every city in the state – should be amusing to watch.
Maybe they need two-or-three more attorney generals to handle this
You said, “my guess”…
O.K. – I withdraw “I guess”.
The state already has its hands full enforcing CURRENT requirements. They already also failed a bunch of CURRENT housing elements, let alone the next ones that will be submitted. (Last time I checked, there will still a few cities which don’t have approved housing elements, or perhaps didn’t even submit them.)
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
(I suspect that YIMBY Law did not expect their own dashboard to be referenced in this manner. In other words, they view the failures as a “bad thing”, while I view it as a “good thing”. So keep up the good work, YIMBY Law. Maybe you can get the state to sue every city, if you try hard enough.)
“The only choice is whether or not Davis ALSO loses adjacent farmland – in ADDITION to what other nearby communities pursue.”
This is entirely wrong.
Its about the economy, its about jobs. We dont change the absolute demand for housing by deciding to build it or not.
The demand is the demand. Our university will grow whether we like it or not, students and university staff will need housing whether we build it or not. And yes! We need to developing our innovation economy even further so the city can have sane / sustainable finances, whether Ron likes it or not!
OUR only choice is about how our economic growth is enhanced or hurt by how we manage our built environment, and the environment is definatley collateral damage here.
If we dont build housing, woodland and surrounding communities need to build MORE and those people will just get in cars and drive here its pretty simple, and it is EXACTLY happening right now..
Ron can engage in all of the “if they dont build it they wont come” wishful thinking he wants, but the real world doesn’t actually work that way, its not working that way right now, and it never will.
Tims says: “Its about the economy, its about jobs. We dont change the absolute demand for housing by deciding to build it or not.”
Glad you mentioned that, since your own support regarding developments like DISC is in direct opposition to your stated concern regarding a “housing shortage”.
How do you explain THAT?
Tim says: “The demand is the demand.”
What an absurd thing to say, given what you just said about economic development above.
And why is it that the housing activists ONLY want to examine the supply side of the equation, but not the demand side?
Tim says: “Our university will grow whether we like it or not, students and university staff will need housing whether we build it or not. ”
Don’t know if they’ll (in fact) continue growing, given that the overall number of college students is DRASTICALLY DECLINING across the entire country.
But if they do choose to continue growing without any concern for the city, there’s supposedly already an agreement (an MOU) which addresses UCD’s responsibility.
Whatever happened, by the way, in regard to the staff housing they were planning to build on campus?
Tim says: “If we dont build housing, woodland and surrounding communities need to build MORE and those people will just get in cars and drive here its pretty simple, and it is EXACTLY happening right now..”
Woodland will do so, regardless. And if you’re concerned about that, why aren’t you up at the Woodland city council, protesting what they approve? Why not take it up with the state itself, for that matter?
But what makes you think, for example, that building something like Shriner’s would result in fewer cars driving to campus and elsewhere? (And in the case of that proposal, driving right THROUGH town – as opposed to a development in Woodland where they’ll just drive straight to campus (or take a bus) down Highway 113?
Ron O
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The world isn’t going to suddenly have an incremental jump in birth rate to fill up Davis because its so special if Davis expands its boundaries. This is perhaps the most ludicrous thing you’ve ever said.
And Tim’s point isn’t confined just to “nearby communities”. This statement is true across the southern Sacramento and northern San Joaquin Valleys. We are part of a regional balloon where housing demand is omnipresent and the REGION needs to add supply to meet that demand to push back on price increases.
Again, your position appears to be consistent with a motive to increase property values in both Davis and Woodland for your own personal gain, just like the developers you berate, rather than achieving broader societal goals that improve the situation for those who are less well off.
Since you’re speculating on my motive, how would you explain my opposition to DISC?
And how would you explain Tim’s support for DISC, in light of the fact that he’s so concerned about local “housing shortages”?
And again, a lot of the people moving to the region originate from environmentally-superior places, such as the Bay Area. Places that have robust public transportation, less need for air conditioning, etc.
So why would you or Tim want to advocate in support of that? Why do you seek to CREATE local housing shortages (in regard to developments like DISC), while also encouraging people to abandon environmentally-superior areas?
As a side note, I don’t “blame” developers for this, as much as I blame people like you, Tim, and David. (I don’t normally see developers on here spouting nonsense, nor do I hear from the people that you and others are supposedly speaking “on behalf of”.
You believe that Disc would led to more housing demand, and you are opposed to anything that increases demand on housing fearing that would lead to more housing actually being built. – as you stated in your response.
In my view, there are several problems with your position. First, it assumes that the ONLY problem is housing supply, rather than as I have repeated pointed out the mismatch between housing and jobs. When you look at problems on a single-dimension you miss that they are often multifaceted. We don’t just have a housing problem locally, we have a mismatch between the housing we have and the jobs we have and it would be beneficial to rectify that for a host of reasons – affordability, traffic, and environmental concerns.
It’s not that I “believe” that something like DISC would create more demand for housing than it accommodates. That simple calculation was embedded directly in the EIR.
And yet, it was the housing shortage people who downplayed that fact, in support of the proposal. In fact, you outright denied it. You and the other activists have never been able to explain your own contradiction, other than to state that Davis needs “more of everything”.
But just to repeat – it was in the EIR itself.
(Of course, this assumes that the commercial component would have been successful in the first place – which was a highly questionable assumption.)
But how about if we let Richard answer my question (regarding (his assumption) in regard to my motivation? Especially since it makes no sense, and he’s repeated it more than once? I’d like to hear how his assumption makes sense, in his view.
You focused on the parts of the EIR you agreed with and ignored the parts that did not fit your agenda.
Not all “farmland loss” needs to be equal though, and that is VERY important. We cant gloss over that.
If we build 1800 missing-middle units at village farms instead of single family homes, we consume only 1/3 of the land.
GIven statewide norms, we can assume that alternative housing construction will follow the less responsible single family paradigm.
So the decisions really are:
a) Build here responsibly (from missing middle housing) = fixes displacement removes demand for housing elsewhere
b) Build here irrisonsibly – does nothing to solve our displacement / encourages out migration
c) Build nothing – Does nothing to solve our displacement, but doesnt encourage out-migration.
I hate to say it, but it would be better to build nothing than to build the wrong thing. At least if we build nothing we have a chance to build the right thing in the future. If we entitle the exact wrong type of growth from what we need, we make everything worse.
keep in mind… to keep up with jobs and housing for our workforce, we need to look at DOUBLING our city size in the next 50 years. DOUBLING. Lets keep the needs in perspective!
How do you prevent “sprawl” in the face of such incredible demand and conscience ANY low-density housing?
Tim says: “I hate to say it, but it would be better to build nothing than to build the wrong thing.”
(That’s for sure – glad we came to an agreement regarding this.)
The down payment assistance program is a waste of money and won’t be truly effective. It’s a way of shielding the real problem of building too many unaffordable single family houses and then giving a lucky few a one-time golden ticket to get in on the gravy train with the other wealthy house buyers in VF. The assistance program in no way makes those houses more affordable for future buyers (and on average these will be sold within a dozen years).
Instead, the housing should be scaled down to be affordable for the missing middle market without any subsidies or assistance programs. Those houses are much more likely to continue to be affordable to a broader set of buyers for an indefinite period through multiple transactions. Just kill this poorly conceived idea.
A lot of studies show the opposite.
For instance – the Urban Institute: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/expanding-down-payment-assistance-awareness-could-help-more-people-afford-home
Part of the problem right now is that building homes is too expensive, even with subsidies it’s difficult to build affordable housing. Down payment assistance can help because it lowers the monthly payments and it can eventually be passed down to the next homebuyer, whereas a subsidy is a one-time benefit that quickly gets used up.
For many first time home buyers, trying to save 3 to 20 percent of the home price for a down payment is a huge barier, whereas assistance programs that are in the form of grants, forgivable loans, or deferred loans, help bridge the gap, it’s similar to a Section 8 voucher in that way.
DG say: “A lot of studies show the opposite.”
Seriously, a small child could be educated on why that makes no sense. Why can’t you?
That’s not an actual argument
RMcC say: “The down payment assistance program is a waste of money and won’t be truly effective. It’s a way of shielding the real problem of building too many unaffordable single family houses and then giving a lucky few a one-time golden ticket to get in on the gravy train with the other wealthy house buyers”
Wait, I didn’t write thtat?
“Bike crossings” and “small station”???
It’s not clear what these mean, but it’s clear that the writer is not interested.
That said, I appreciate the comments about penciling out and a lower quality transportation environment: in theory, some people who live here who have campus as a regular destination won’t drive there but it’s not clear at all what’s going to happen to make that possible. There’s nothing concrete in the way of public transportation or cycling, and there’s no vision for that from the council or from staff – The current senior planner and the senior transportation engineer have been here for over 10 years and over 3 years respectively, and they have made no improvements – check out the consent calendar for the next council meeting in the conceptually cluster f*cked concept for Cowell! No imagination! No skill set! Just fudging things to keep their jobs and subservience to Caltrans.
I acknowledge that Unitrans is a good service, and has made some improvements, but there’s nothing certain if it’s going to be able to adequately serve this new development. Years ago Tim prepared a concept for some kind of bus rapid transit variant towards Downtown and campus, but private car drivers won’t let that happen. The concept also includes it as a feeder to the train station, but by the time anyone would take that all the way downtown, their car would be halfway to Sacramento.
Everyone who has a car who lives at this place will justify using it to all the destinations, hundreds of them, where parking is free! Woodland, Downtown, Target, Bay Area… Just in town, where are these people going to park?
Just like regional housing demand is mostly outside of the control of Davis-focused actors, so is the quality of original public transportation. There’s no funding in place and no guarantees that Capital Corridor services will improve at least through the medium term.
I’m not pretending that I support more housing – you’ll just have to believe that I do. But the infrastructure isn’t available to support this.
That was all correct, what TED just said.
What’s wrong with a few lucky people getting a golden ticket?
Because it’s at taxpayer’s expense and at a time when there are so many other things that need to be attended to in Davis like fixing the roads and taking care of the tree canopy.
I’m missing something here – what’s at taxpayer expense?
I’m on the wrong article, I was referring to the city’s proposed down payment assistance program.