DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council will hold a public workshop on Tuesday to review and discuss the Village Farms Davis project, a proposed 498-acre development in North Davis that could bring roughly 1,800 new homes, a community park, open space, and extensive infrastructure improvements to the city’s northern edge.
The workshop marks the latest step in a process that could ultimately place the project before voters under the city’s Measure J/R/D growth control ordinance in June 2026—though the timeline is now extremely tight.
According to the staff report prepared by Community Development Director Sherri Metzker and Principal Planner Dara Dungworth, the workshop will include presentations from both city staff and the project applicant, public comment, and council feedback on several key entitlements: a Pre-General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning and Preliminary Planned Development, and a Development Agreement.
The Planning Commission is expected to hold a public hearing on December 2, 2025, to advance the project to the City Council, which could vote on the proposal at meetings scheduled for December 16, 2025, and January 6, 2026.
If approved by the Council, the project would move to the ballot for voter consideration. The city’s review process will also include certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of Baseline Project Features, which legally define the commitments made by the developer and cannot be changed without voter approval.
The Village Farms Davis proposal covers nearly 500 acres of land currently used for agriculture. The development would include 1,800 market-rate and affordable homes, a 20-acre community park, a 7-acre neighborhood park, an educational farm, a pre-K childcare center, a natural habitat area, and a network of greenbelts and bike paths. The project also includes a site for a new fire station, a major stormwater conveyance system, and open-space preservation zones along the periphery.
The plan divides the 497.6-acre site into multiple residential and non-residential uses. Approximately 210 acres are designated for housing, while the remaining acreage is planned for parks, open space, roads, utilities, and agricultural transition areas.
Under the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, 278 of the proposed homes must be affordable. The applicant has proposed to meet this requirement through a Project Individualized Program (PIP), which was approved by the Social Services Commission in August. The PIP includes a 9.3-acre affordable housing land dedication, 82 moderate-income cooperative or rental units, a $2 million contribution to the city’s Housing Trust Fund, and a $4.9 million down-payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers.
City staff noted that while the PIP meets the minimum affordability thresholds, only one of the three proposed contributions—the land dedication—directly supports new affordable construction. The down-payment program and trust fund contribution would help support affordability indirectly over time.
The Social Services Commission recommended approval of the plan with added conditions, including income caps for buyers and a larger contribution to the Housing Trust Fund to improve project feasibility. The Planning Commission later expressed support for those recommendations, emphasizing that down-payment assistance funds should be unrestricted when repaid to the city.
Sustainability is presented as a central component of the Village Farms proposal. The developer has committed to an all-electric design for all residential and commercial buildings, rooftop solar on every structure, and pre-installed infrastructure to support Level 2 electric vehicle charging.
The project would comply with the city’s Reach Code standards, which exceed state energy efficiency requirements, and would include pre-wiring for battery storage to enable future participation in microgrid systems.
The sustainability plan also includes drought-tolerant landscaping consistent with the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, along with on-site stormwater management using bioswales and pervious pavement. The site design will accommodate existing drainage infrastructure, but major changes are proposed to Channel A—a city-managed watercourse that runs east-west through the property—to reduce flood risk and improve flow capacity.
Much of the site sits within the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. The developer proposes raising residential areas above flood elevation using soil from a nearby 107-acre “borrow site.” That parcel would be excavated to provide fill, then restored for agricultural use. Staff and commission feedback has focused heavily on whether the borrow site can remain viable farmland after excavation.
In March, the Climate and Environmental Justice Commission reviewed the project’s sustainability plan and expressed support for its overall direction.
The commission commended the developer’s emphasis on housing development aligned with the city’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), while urging continued evaluation of stormwater, floodplain, and energy resilience features.
City staff later recommended that the Development Agreement include detailed provisions for sewer maintenance, stormwater infrastructure financing, and long-term monitoring of flood mitigation measures.
The transportation plan for Village Farms Davis proposes multiple new road connections to the city’s existing network, including intersections at Moore Boulevard, Donner Avenue, and Picasso Avenue, as well as a potential link at the Cannery Loop traffic circle.
The project’s transportation analysis indicates that, with proposed improvements, key intersections in the area would operate between Level of Service (LOS) C and E—within acceptable city standards.
However, several commissions emphasized the need for robust pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The applicant has proposed grade-separated crossings for cyclists and pedestrians over F Street and under Pole Line Road, with a potential third crossing over Covell Boulevard to improve access to nearby schools and shopping areas.
The Transportation Commission recommended that written commitments to build the crossings be included in the Development Agreement.
The commission also urged that the project incorporate cycle tracks—protected bike lanes separated from vehicle traffic—along Covell Boulevard, and that routes to Holmes Junior High and Birch Lane Elementary be designed for maximum safety.
Planning Commissioners later echoed those recommendations, calling for additional traffic studies, on-street bike lanes throughout the project, and potential parking reductions on residential streets to make space for bicycle infrastructure.
Agricultural preservation remains one of the most contested aspects of the proposal. The project’s northern edge includes an 11.25-acre agricultural buffer and a 107-acre soil borrow site intended for excavation and restoration. The applicant has requested an “Agriculture” land use designation for the site, along with an exemption from the city’s agricultural mitigation ordinance.
City staff expressed reservations about granting those exemptions without a detailed soil restoration plan.
The consultant hired by the developer, House Agricultural Consultants, concluded that the site could eventually return to agricultural use if topsoil is properly stockpiled and restored. To address uncertainties, staff recommended that the city conduct a five-year review after soil removal.
If the site proves unfarmable, the developer would be required to mitigate the loss by permanently protecting 214 acres of farmland elsewhere.
The Open Space and Habitat Commission supported the revised plan by a 3-1-2-1 vote, backing the agricultural designation and five-year review requirement.
Commissioners also endorsed the revised buffer design and recommended sufficient wildlife cover to promote habitat connectivity. Staff noted that the buffer design now aligns with city code and mirrors existing buffers like the one along North Davis Channel.
The Development Agreement, which remains under negotiation, will ultimately define the project’s commitments and the city’s obligations.
A Council subcommittee composed of Councilmembers Donna Neville and Linda Deos has been guiding the negotiation process.
According to the staff report, the Development Agreement will include exhibits detailing affordable housing, sustainability, transportation, agricultural conservation, financing, and phasing.
It will also specify how infrastructure improvements will be financed and maintained over time. The city anticipates refining these terms following public input at the November 4 workshop.
City staff noted that the workshop is intended as a forum for public education and feedback before formal hearings begin. The Planning Commission is expected to consider the final draft in December before forwarding it to the City Council for potential certification and ballot placement early next year.
If approved by voters in June 2026, Village Farms Davis would mark the city’s first large-scale annexation under Measure J/R/D since the passage of Bretton Woods in 2018.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe 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.
The project looks fine, especially keeping the open space near the neighborhoods to the south. Where are all the people who strenuously opposed development of apartments the intermural field along Russell? No one told them that they should be satisfied with the little park on College, Central Park and open space along B Street. I oppose moving the park and giving us a wall of apartments where we currently have views north. I think the people demanding changes are viewing the project in isolation from other neighborhoods and expect that the neighborhoods to the south to once again bear the burdens of new development, without any benefits.
Village Farms is not contrary. It has toxics leaking for the adjacent unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage treatment plant including PFAS “forever chemicals” , soil toxics in massive levels of over 1.2 MILLION micrograms/kg of toxaphene a neurotoxin and carcinogen, an enormous 200-acre flood plain serious flooding risks, unsafe access due to the busy streets of Covell Blvd, Pole Line Rd, and F St. with unconfirmed “promises” of building two grade-separated crossing and if developer will pay for them (after all the developer has not delivered the grade-separated crossing of his project and the housing 7 years after being approved), huge infrastructure costs such as for an unneeded 4th Fire Station since 90% of the Fire. Dept. calls are medical calls, not fire related, when an EMS service makes far more sense for a fraction of the cost, unprotected vernal pools which have no conservation easement, unaffordable housing since the cheapest market houses would be $740,000 then up to $1.3 million+ which means a monthly house payment of $6,000 – $7,500 with property taxes fees which most families with kids cannot afford, so there is NO WAY that Village Farms would bring 700 school aged kids, and then there would be massive added traffic when traffic is already so congested at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. but the project would bring more than 15,000 cars per the Draft EIR ( and that is a gross under-estimate.)
The $740K figure seems about right (or perhaps a little low) for the cheapest new house, given that the cheapest new ones in Woodland are selling for the mid $500K range. (Personally, I’d buy a pre-owned one for that price – better deal, better location, larger lot, better-quality materials, less or no Mello Roos, etc.) Mature landscaping on streets and in yards, generally wider, more-accessible streets, etc.
I’ve noticed an increasing number of pre-existing houses for sale in Mace Ranch and in the Stanley Davis homes area, and it seems like prices are declining for them. (Including a really nice 4 bedroom, 3 bath two-floor house for $815K, though it is “pending”.)
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2805-Prado-Ln-Davis-CA-95618/16544972_zpid/?msockid=1631d1c8be7d61641c04c3e5bf3160c8
So while some are apparently waiting for a developer to build them a house (and apparently want to pay more for less), others are acting upon their goal, instead. (Though we never actually do hear from the people looking for a house on here. Instead, we hear from their “de facto” self-appointed representatives.)
Actually, I’m not sure if the cheapest new houses are subsidizing the crazy subsidy program that the developer came up with (and no one understands). But if so, tack on a few thousand more for that.
Eileen
You have misread Section 4.8 on hydrology in the EIR. It identifies flows at 20 feet below the soil surface and shows no risk of exposure to residents.
But more to the point, if this property creates such a hazard, it creates an even GREATER hazard if it is continued to be farmed. First, the crops grown on the property are irrigated at least in part by groundwater pumped locally. Those crops contain the hazardous materials you’ve pointed to and they are sold for human consumption. A residential development will get none of its water from this local groundwater source, instead getting 100% from the City system. Second, the dirt on the property would contain those hazardous materials, and winds out of the north and west blows dust from that field into the adjacent neighborhoods. Under the presumption that your assessment is accurate, the continued operation of that field creates a GREATER hazard than putting a clay soil cap on the parcel and converting to a development.
Only the Northern Zone A is within a 1 in a 100 year flood zone. It’s not the entire property. The southern half is not. Note that our group is advocating for the development to be largely contained in this southern area.
You’re correct that current proposed design will create housing that is too expensive for the many present Davis workers who cannot afford to live here. That’s why we have proposed higher density with lower cost housing for that cohort of households. Creating more housing for local workers will also decrease traffic as we have strong evidence from the UCD Travel Survey that locally employed residents use their cars only a third of the time to commute to work, versus the 92% who live outside of Davis and commute in. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5vf1b6s1#page=15
And you’re correct that the location of a new fire station needs to be more closely examined. Putting it in Village Farms seems too arbitrary.
Sharla
I did not oppose putting housing on the intramural field. However, that field is heavily used by all communities. It’s used much more than the Nugget Field which is in a comparable location in Wildhorse.
“The applicant has proposed grade-separated crossings for cyclists and pedestrians over F Street and under Pole Line Road, with a potential third crossing over Covell Boulevard to improve access to nearby schools and shopping areas.”
The Cannery *proposed* a bike/ped connection to the H Street bike/ped tunnel – then they *proposed* a connection from the SW corner of their project to the ball fields via a bridge. But at the last minute — and I mean *day of* Davis/Frerichs came up with a new, cheap, and completely useless loop-de-loop plan that just brought people up to the existing overpass. The passed this even though it wasn’t an option in the agenda materials and I was told the night before that they were going to pass the bridge proposal.
And don’t forget Nishi *proposed* an underpass under the railroad. I think they *proposed* housing be built there, too. Hmmm.
All these big reasons I voted for these projects, all lies. So I’m done trying to figure out if these transportation projects are really going to built, or are just “proposed”. We’ve been lied to by the City and the developers so many times I don’t believe any explanation anymore. I used to vote yes on most Measure J/R/D projects, now I’ll vote NO. Fool us four times, shame on us.
And especially because Whitcomb wouldn’t let the Cannery-H Street connection run through Cranbrook, which it totally could have done, keeping kids off of streets to bike to school. And it would have worked for the Village Farms kids, too! But, he killed that.
And what is this *potential* third overcrossing? What is “potential” ? One step even further removed from really being built than *proposed* ?
And an “over”-Crossing? Really? People just don’t like to use those. Undercrossings, yes, but a well-timed, well-striped crossing with light at L Street would be better than an OVER-crossing.
But it’s only *potential”, so no worry, NOTHING will be done at all.
And don’t give me the whole, “Well you should have known if it’s not in the X agreement than it isn’t required, you should have known that before you voted”. No, don’t show me pretty pictures of gliders and gondolas in canals and then tell me after the election that those were just pretty pictures and we get a meteorite and drainage canal instead.
We’ve been lied to too many times. No on everything!
That sounds like support for Measure J.
But yes, it’s beyond absurd that there isn’t an iron-clad commitment from the developer to build a grade-separated crossing.
And yes, he would have been better-off working out something with the Cannery. (Not sure why a businessman/developer who obtained the proposed Covell Village site at a bargain price can’t see that.)
In any case, I’d personally prefer tomatoes and corn instead of traffic jams. I honestly don’t know why anyone in Davis wouldn’t see it that way, in regard to the Costco Highway.
Forgot to add the most “scenic” of all – sunflowers.
Drove by the recently-plowed site again today – the soil itself appears to be high quality (which it is). Don’t know why anyone would advocate paving it, not to mention dumping a bunch of other dirt on it from the pit that they’re calling a nature preserve (or whatever they’re calling the giant, proposed excavation hole closer to the former dump).
I’d really like to know if the residents of Davis (those that are even considering supporting this) have collectively lost their minds.
Somebody said to me that the houses are too expensive so only doctors will be able to afford to live there. To which I say luckily Davis has a large supply of doctors of all sorts.
Those that have suggested that a fire station shouldn’t be built there and should instead there should be more affordable housing are actually correct. Davis can’t afford another fire station. Building one there will add a huge amount to our structural deficit.