- Supporters of the project have pointed to Davis’ ongoing housing shortage, rising housing costs and declining school enrollment as reasons to consider large, master-planned developments on the city’s periphery.
- The proposed development would include up to 1,800 housing units across a mix of densities, ranging from single-family homes and duplexes to higher-density multifamily housing.
DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council is scheduled to hold a public workshop next Tuesday on the proposed Village Farms Davis development, a large-scale housing and annexation project that could ultimately go before voters in June 2026 under Measure J/R/D.
City staff say the meeting is intended to give council members an opportunity to review the proposal, hear from the applicant and the public, and provide direction on unresolved policy issues before the project advances to formal hearings.
Village Farms Davis is a proposed residential development on roughly 497.6 acres at the city’s northern edge. The project application was submitted in April 2023 and has been under review for more than two years, including multiple commission hearings, environmental analysis and negotiations over a development agreement.
Because most of the site is currently designated for agricultural use under Yolo County land use plans, voter approval would be required to annex the land into the city and allow urban development.
According to a staff report prepared for the City Council and Planning Commission, the workshop will include presentations from city staff and the project applicant, followed by public comment.
Council members are expected to provide feedback on a proposed pre-General Plan amendment, pre-zoning and preliminary planned development approvals, and a draft development agreement. No final votes are scheduled for the workshop.
City staff frame the Village Farms proposal as one that could advance several long-standing council goals, including increasing housing supply, improving fiscal resilience, supporting climate and sustainability objectives and maintaining infrastructure and service levels.
Staff also note that all costs associated with processing the application and preparing environmental documents are being paid by the applicant through fees, not by the city’s general fund.
The proposed development would include up to 1,800 housing units across a mix of densities, ranging from single-family homes and duplexes to higher-density multifamily housing.
Plans also include neighborhood-serving commercial uses, a community park, a neighborhood park, greenbelts, open space, a future fire station site, an educational farm and a pre-kindergarten early learning center. Portions of the site would remain in agricultural use or be preserved as habitat.
Supporters of the project have pointed to Davis’ ongoing housing shortage, rising housing costs and declining school enrollment as reasons to consider large, master-planned developments on the city’s periphery. City staff note that Village Farms is one of the largest remaining opportunities to add significant housing capacity within the city’s sphere of influence.
At the same time, the proposal has generated sustained opposition from some residents concerned about farmland loss, traffic impacts, infrastructure costs, water and wastewater capacity, and the long-term fiscal implications of peripheral growth.
Measure J/R/D, which requires voter approval for conversion of agricultural land to urban use, was adopted in part to give residents direct control over such decisions.
A key component of the Village Farms application is a proposed amendment to the city’s General Plan. In addition to establishing land use designations that would take effect only if annexation is approved, the project includes a request to remove outdated language from the General Plan that once sought to cap Davis’ population and number of single-family homes.
The staff report quotes the provision proposed for deletion as calling to “[c]reate and maintain an effective growth management system designed to keep the population of the City below 64,000 and the number of single-family dwellings below 15,500 in 2010.” Staff describe the language as obsolete and say its removal would be a minor cleanup ahead of the city’s broader General Plan update.
Another notable feature of the proposal is a 107-acre area in the northwest portion of the site designated to remain in agricultural use. This land would initially serve as a soil borrow site to raise developed portions of the project out of the floodplain, then be restored for farming.
City staff report that the applicant has committed to a soil restoration plan and that the land would retain an agricultural designation within the city if restoration is successful. Critics have questioned whether the land can realistically be returned to productive agriculture after excavation, while staff say the development agreement includes enforceable requirements.
The draft development agreement, which has been negotiated over several months, is intended to define the obligations of both the city and the developer. Staff describe development agreements as voluntary, long-term contracts that provide certainty around project features, infrastructure, timing and financing.
The agreement does not override city ordinances but can vest certain development rights while requiring public benefits beyond minimum code requirements.
Affordable housing has been one of the most closely scrutinized elements of the Village Farms proposal. After receiving feedback from the City Council in November 2025, the applicant revised its plan to include dedication of approximately 16 acres of land to the city for affordable housing development and a $6 million contribution to the city’s Housing Trust Fund.
Staff report that the revised plan would support construction of 262 units affordable to very low- and low-income households and 98 units affordable to moderate-income households, exceeding the city’s standard inclusionary requirements. Some housing advocates have welcomed the revisions, while others argue that affordability commitments should go further, given the project’s scale.
Transportation impacts are another area of debate. The project includes proposed roadway connections to Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard, traffic calming measures on nearby streets, and grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings.
City staff report that traffic studies indicate intersections would continue to operate within the city’s acceptable level-of-service standards with the identified improvements. Opponents have raised concerns about congestion on Covell Boulevard and the cumulative impacts of multiple large projects in North Davis.
Environmental review of the project is ongoing. A draft environmental impact report was circulated earlier this year and drew more than 200 public comments. In October 2025, new information about the city’s wastewater treatment plant capacity prompted a partial recirculation of the draft EIR.
Staff note that the capacity issue was not caused by the Village Farms project but must be addressed under state environmental law. The recirculated portions of the EIR are open for public comment through early January 2026.
If the City Council ultimately approves the project entitlements and certifies the environmental impact report, the council would then decide whether to place the project on the June 2026 ballot.
Voters would be asked to approve or reject the project’s Baseline Project Features, which include key commitments related to land use, infrastructure, transportation, open space and community benefits.
City staff stress that next Tuesday’s workshop is the next step in that process, not a final decision point. They say the meeting is intended to surface remaining questions, clarify policy tradeoffs and inform both council members and the public ahead of future hearings.
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.
So right in the middle of the holidays, when people are busy trying to enjoy the holidays, the City is piling on meetings when it is far less likely that the public can attend to give their input on these important issues. For instance, this past week, last Tuesday’s City Council meeting involved the City’s efforts to undermine and weaken Measure J/R/D with loopholes that they are calling “amendments” (i.e which at least has been postponed until 2027-2028).
Now in the City’s efforts to fast-track the disastrous Village Farms project, there is the Planning Commission scheduled for the next day AFTER the City Council meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 17. This meeting is for a Planning Commission comprehensive Village Farms review, despite the fact that there is still NO Village Farms Final EIR (Note: historically, this type of convoluted “process” has NEVER been done in Davis before.)
But wait, on top of that is now is this Tuesday Dec. 16th City Council meeting which was originally to be a Village Farms public hearing, but that was suddenly postponed a week ago until Jan. 20th. But, now the City shoe-horned in yet another Village Farms City Council meeting with this “workshop” on Village Farms on Dec. 16th to facilitate getting the project on a premature ballot in June 2026. This is, of course, to accommodate the developers wishes (John Whitcombe of Tandem properties) rather than doing what is in the best interests of the community.
This “process” of having this City Council meeting BEFORE its Planning Commission advisory commission meeting, particularly when there is NO Final EIR to review yet, makes NO sense in an honest planning process. This City planning “process” of the Village Farms project is aberrant, and it is to the detriment of Davis and our community’s future.
First of all, it’s not in the middle of the holidays, DJUSD is still in session this week. Second, it’s a workshop. It’s not a decision-making meeting. There will be plenty of other outreach and meetings before a decision is made whether or not to put it on the ballot.
David,
Seriously, you do not consider the Dec. 16 City Council meeting as well as the Dec. 17th Planning Commission in the middle of the holidays? Give me a break.
Where and why did this City Council meeting come suddenly about for this Tuesday, for a “workshop” and public comment with no advance notice to the public? How can the public be expected to to be available to attend this last minute meeting to comment, particularly in the middle of the holidays? This lack of City transparency continues to erode public trust with the City.
I definitely do not consider the week before Christmas to be in the middle of the holidays. Generally speaking, you’re safe the week before Christmas and I’ve seen things held on even the 22nd and 23rd get good turnout in Davis, though I would avoid it if it’s the same week as Christmas.
More importantly, and maybe I’m just cynical having done this for 20 years now, I don’t think it matters. People who are going to oppose a project are going to show up, and do so. The council will vote to put it on the ballot, in part because they have the state breathing down their neck and in part because they know the voters have the final say. The project almost always loses the vote and ultimately it’s going to be up to what the state wants to do – and you know my view of how that will likely play out. Nothing that happens this week or next is going to change that equation.
Oh please David! The Christmas/ Hanukkah and winter break sends home a multiple of UC Students eligible in Davis City Elections. Many others are occupied with holiday activities. The City Council and wealthy developers are engaged in a strategy of subterfuge to minimize the honest and pertinent information being delivered to the vast majority of Davis voters. I for one, am ready to
Put up No on “Pillage Farms” signs and canvas neighborhoods. City Council. Stop. Take a deep and honest breath. Make your final push towards irreversible peripheral sprawl in the spring. Let’s have a mid-winter break before we have to deal with the impending dissolution of the small town spirit of Davis.
This is the first time anyone but myself seems to care about student voters participation in Davis politics.
Ironically since most students favor housing projects and John Cooper does not
Sadly, the calendar is being driven by the decision made by the 2023 housing sub-committee of Vaitla and Arnold to not put any Measure J projects on the ballot in 2024. This has caused two projects to pile up for 2026 and is driving the schedule to get Village Farms on the June ballot.
The irony was palpable at the last meeting with the Mayor asking when an amendment he is pushing to Measure J could reach the ballot? Had Village Farms gone to the ballot in 2024 there would be ample time to deliberate the placement of the Shriners property on the ballot in 2026 as well as an amendment to Measure J. Ironically the Mayor seems totally unaware of his role in creating the situation the CC now faces of trying to get two Measure J projects to the ballot this year and is frustrated by his colleagues lack of support for a Measure J amendment on the same ballot as a Measure J project.
Agree with Ron here. There is a constant push and pull – where likely opposition argues a project is not ready, not good enough, too rushed, or the hearings are held at inconvenient times – much of which is driven by the calendar and the realities of when viable votes can be held. In the end, those voices lose out on process but win on outcome.
California’s move to a June election date is a major part of the problem. Back when the elections were earlier in the year in the Spring the deadline for getting a ballot measure ready did not conflict with the Holiday period. Everyone was in town and could participate. Staff was also available.
June has long been the date for the California primary. It got moved a few times for political reasons. Your rule is the exception.
“In the end, those voices lose out on process but win on outcome.”
Maybe yes but maybe no. Time will tell.