DAVIS, Calif. — With a possible Measure J vote looming, the Davis City Council on Dec. 16 took up two central questions surrounding the proposed Village Farms project: whether changes are needed to the affordable housing component and how the city would address concerns about long-term maintenance funding.
Councilmembers focused on whether the current proposal adequately meets Davis’ housing needs and what, if any, revisions should be made before the project advances further in the approval process. They also examined potential risks tied to the project’s financial sustainability over time.
Village Farms is a proposed development that would create a new neighborhood in north Davis on former agricultural land. The plan includes approximately 1,800 housing units, some of which would be designated as affordable. In addition, the project would feature parks, open space, bike paths and community amenities.
City officials are currently evaluating the project’s potential effects on traffic, the environment and city finances. Under Measure J, the final decision on whether the project moves forward would be made by voters if the council places it on the ballot.
As proposed, the development would contribute $6 million to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and set aside 16 acres for the construction of 280 affordable housing units.
Community member Leslie Belvins spoke in favor of the project during public comment, emphasizing the need to attract more young families to Davis. “We need to have more young kids in town,” Belvins said.
Belvins also expressed trust in the developers, saying she believes they “want the best thing for this town” and that the project would help make Davis “more vibrant.” She added that her main hope was for the proposal to advance to the ballot for voters to decide.
Other residents raised concerns about the project. Susan Rainer questioned whether the Environmental Impact Report had been thoroughly addressed, warning that the development could come at a high cost to the community. She cited potential transportation issues and environmental risks, including PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” possibly affecting the landfill beneath the proposed housing.
“It just doesn’t make sense,” Rainer said. “It’s a big red flag that they didn’t have the wastewater figured out.”
Mayor Bapu Vaitla voiced skepticism about the project’s affordability, stating that he does not believe it will ultimately move forward. Even if it does, he argued, the proposed affordable units would not be accessible to most residents.
“In no universe can you call those affordable for normal people,” Vaitla said. “This is not pro-poor, not even pro–middle class.”
Other councilmembers expressed strong support for the project. Lina Deos said she was “100% behind this” and added, “I’m very pleased with this proposal.” Vice Mayor Donna Neville said affordable housing is the council’s “primary concern.”
Beyond comments from fellow councilmembers, Vaitla urged project planners to include a baseline guarantee of at least 100 affordable housing units rather than leaving that number as a goal. He also called for increased city oversight of the development.
Project planners disagreed with Vaitla’s suggestions, telling him they are “not willing to go into the baseline features.” They described the proposal as an “incredibly generous offer for the city.”
Vaitla responded sharply, saying, “I’ll fight you every step of the way, we can’t keep going in circles again.” The council decided to meet again on Jan. 6 and Jan. 13 to continue discussions.
The mayor ultimately made a motion directing a subcommittee to revise the proposal to address his concerns. The motion passed on a 4–1 vote.
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.
Wow Ms. Hamilton. You gave a short but very concise summary of the evening. I watched much of the Council deliberations on Public Access and was a bit confused by the Back and Forth between Council and Project Planners. You hit the pertinent points quite skillfully. Thanks for your excellent work.