- The Davis Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing Dec. 17 on the proposed Village Farms Davis project, a residential development that would add up to 1,800 homes on nearly 500 acres in north Davis.
DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing Dec. 17 on the proposed Village Farms Davis project, a residential development that would add up to 1,800 homes on nearly 500 acres in north Davis, according to a city staff report.
City staff are recommending that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to “receive Staff presentation on the proposed project,” “receive Applicant presentation on the proposed project,” “receive public comment,” and “deliberate,” before voting on whether to recommend that the City Council certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report and approve the requested land-use entitlements.
The proposed Village Farms Davis development is described in the staff report as “an approximately 498-acre residential neighborhood development located in North Davis, that includes land uses to create 1,800 market-rate and affordable homes.”
The project site encompasses 497.6 acres and includes a 382.72-acre parcel and a 114.88-acre portion of a second parcel, part of which currently lies outside the city’s sphere of influence.
According to the report, the project would include a mix of housing types and densities along with “a community park, a neighborhood park, a natural habitat area, a site for a future fire station, a site for an educational farm, a site for a pre-K daycare, greenbelts, and an urban agricultural transition area.”
The proposal requires several discretionary approvals, including a pre-General Plan amendment, pre-zoning and preliminary planned development approval, a development agreement, and annexation.
Because most of the land is currently designated agricultural under Yolo County’s General Plan, voter approval would be required under Measure J/R/D.
The staff report notes that the City Council would consider “the resolution calling for the project to be placed on the June 2026 election.”
Central to that potential election are the project’s Baseline Project Features, which would be presented to voters as part of the Measure J/R/D ballot language.
The staff report explains that Baseline Project Features are “commitments made by the applicant and which are considered and acted upon by the voters of Davis in a general election.”
The report states that the Baseline Project Features include “project goals, a land use summary, and project commitments,” and that these commitments are generally “features or improvements that are beyond what those that are required by the City of Davis Municipal Code or other regulation.”
The staff report states that the Baseline Features include commitments related to “land uses (residential and non-residential); the annexation of the project site into the City of Davis; roadway improvements, active transportation/mobility and transit; agricultural land, open space and habitat; and financing.”
The land-use commitments detailed in the report include 1,800 total residential units spread across low-, medium- and high-density designations. The proposed breakdown includes 310 low-density units, 1,130 medium-density units and 360 high-density units, which would include both market-rate and affordable multifamily housing. Non-residential uses include land reserved for neighborhood-serving mixed-use development, public facilities and open space.
Open space and conservation commitments are also embedded in the Baseline Project Features.
The staff report describes approximately 47.1 acres designated as a natural habitat area and an additional 107.1 acres designated for agriculture.
The report notes that a portion of the site known as the Northern Agricultural Area would be restored and returned to active agricultural use after serving as a temporary soil borrow site.
According to the report, “the requirements for the restoration of the NAA to a viable agricultural use are provided in the draft DA to the City’s satisfaction.”
The Baseline Project Features also incorporate agricultural mitigation requirements.
The staff report states that agricultural land would be preserved at a ratio of “two acres preserved for every acre of agricultural land changed from an agricultural use to a non-agricultural use as part of the Project.”
The location of that land would be determined later through implementation of the Development Agreement.
Transportation-related commitments are another key component of the Baseline Project Features.
The staff report explains that these commitments include roadway improvements, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and transit-related features. Proposed improvements include multiple access points to the project site, grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings and contributions toward traffic signal coordination along Covell Boulevard.
The report also notes that the Baseline Project Features include financing-related commitments, which are further detailed in the development agreement.
These commitments are intended to ensure that “the financial obligations of the Project are clear and enforceable throughout the term of the DA.”
It establishes the framework for development impact fees, fair-share infrastructure contributions, dedication of rights-of-way, and confirms that all project processing costs, including preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, are paid by the applicant, while clarifying that the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve the financing structure itself.
City staff emphasize that the Baseline Project Features remain in draft form and could be revised by the City Council prior to final approval. “The City Council, at the January 2026 public hearing, may elect to seek revisions of the Baseline Project Features before taking action to approve (or deny) them,” the report states.
As currently drafted, staff write that they are “supportive of the draft Baseline Project Features as provided with this staff report and recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed pre General Plan Amendment.”
Affordable housing commitments are addressed both within the Baseline Project Features and through a Project Individualized Plan that would be incorporated into the development agreement.
According to the staff report, the applicant proposes to “dedicate approximately 16.0 acres of land to the City in addition to committing a $6,000,000 contribution directly to the City’s Housing Trust fund.”
The report specifies that the affordable housing plan would include “262 affordable units reserved for very low and low-income households” and “98 units for moderate income households.” Of the very low- and low-income units, “a minimum of 50% of the units will be affordable to very low-income households (≤50% of Area Median Income).”
Transportation impacts and mitigation measures are analyzed extensively in the staff report.
According to the report, the project’s transportation analysis shows that with the proposed improvements, intersections would operate at “a Level of Service between C and E, which is within the allowed threshold.”
The staff report also states that the applicant has agreed to contribute $100,000 toward traffic calming improvements on Picasso Avenue and to fund a feasibility analysis of potential bicycle and pedestrian crossings of Covell Boulevard. Staff further recommend a roadway connection to the Cannery project, noting that even with increased traffic, the Cannery roundabout “remains a Level of Service A condition.”
Environmental review of the project has been ongoing for more than a year.
The staff report states that the Draft Environmental Impact Report “evaluates the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, includes feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, and identifies the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project.”
The report explains that a partial recirculation of the Draft EIR was required after new information emerged regarding wastewater treatment capacity.
Staff noted that “through no fault of the Village Farms applicant or as a result of the proposed project,” the environmental analysis required revision.
The report further states that “the Village Farms Davis development proposal is not responsible for the capacity concern nor did the project itself trigger the need for the recirculation.”
If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the City Council is expected to take up the project in January, when it would consider certifying the Environmental Impact Report, approving the development agreement and deciding whether to place the Village Farms Davis proposal before voters.
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.
It is unreasonable and unconscionable that the City Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Village Farms EIR for many reasons starting with there is not even a Final EIR released yet. On top of that, the Draft EIR has a major error in it assuming that there was enough wastewater treatment capacity, but there is not. So that section of the Draft EIR is being recirculated until Jan. 2nd.
On top of that, the Draft EIR still has many inadequacies and unresolved issues regarding the flooding potential due to the 200-acre flood plain, soil toxics including the carcinogenic toxaphene on the Heritage Oak Park site where kids would play and toxics issues including carcinogenic PFAS “forever chemicals” leaking from the adjacent unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant.
How can the Planning Commission certify an EIR when it is not even finalized? Yet, that is what the City Staff is asking of the Planning Commission at this Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting.
The City of Davis has NEVER asked for certification of an EIR before it was finalized because it makes so sense and it must not start doing so now simply because the developer, John Whitcombe of Tandem Properties, wants it so.
The City has already given special privileges to this developer by allowing him to get away with no ag mitigation requirement so far in the 107-acre dig-pit to use to try to fill the massive 200-acre flood plain. A dig-pit is an urban use NOT an agriculture use. On top of that this developer is getting away with less land dedication than what is required by our Municipal Code. So, is the City now going to allow the developer to have a certified EIR which is not even completed but still inadequate with unanswered questions and deferments of so many important issues until “later”? The Village Farms documents have a plethora of deferred planning issues to not be determined now, instead using “to be determined” or “if feasible” language on many issues.
For instance, while developer has agreed to build the F St. overcrossing but it is conditional on IF they can work out an agreement with the railroad. But the Nishi project with the same developer had this same issue and that project has not moved forward in 7 years. What make anyone think this same developer will build TWO grade-separated crossings?
The F St. overcrossing relies on uncertain railroad cooperation and who knows what other obstacles? The Pole Line undercrossing is also uncertain per the Draft EIR due to the water main under Pole Line and other existing infrastructure issues.
But what about the costs for these two multi-million-dollar grade separated crossing that this developers Village Farm needs.? Who is going to pay for all of this? Well, apparently Davis residents will be paying for up to 80% of these two multi-million-dollar grade-separated crossings which means the City is only asking the developer to pay 20%. The developers “fair share “ should be 100% since it is his Village Farms project requiring these two very costly grade-separated crossings.
On top of that, the developer would be reimbursed 50% of the engineering design fees for the F St. over crossing which means Davis residents would pay for the other 50%. The only thing the developer would pay entirely for would be for the Pole Line Undercrossing engineering designs. The reality is that the developer needs to be required to pay for 100% of the engineering designs 100% of the construction costs for both grade-separated-crossings that his Village Farms project is creating the need for. So, this adds to the enormous infrastructure costs that Village Farms would impose on Davis residents.
The City need to stop with these giveaways to the Village Farms developer and to stop caving on these cost issues. In short, the City needs to stop prioritizing this Village Farms developers desires and demands over the needs of the community. This means we need a proper process of the Village Farms project, not the fast-tracking charade that is going on now.
Hopefully, the Planning Commission will see how unreasonable it is that they are being asked to certify an Final EIR which does not even exist yet, and reject any recommendation to certify an incomplete EIR which is also still seriously inadequate. The EIR currently has too many problems and unanswered questions and deferred planning with no certainty. We need the Planning Commission to back up the needs of our community rather than Village Farms developer, and demand a proper Village Farms project process. The current aberrant “process” that the City is undergoing must not be allowed to continue. This fast-tracking of the project and allowing its seriously inadequate EIR to move forward to accommodate the wishes of the developer, simply to get his Village Farms project to a premature vote in June 2026 is unacceptable and a mockery of good planning.
The Planning Commission must not feel pressured to certify the Village Farms EIR also because this would not be the first time an EIR was not supported by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission denied the approval of the Covell Village EIR, the predecessor of Village Farms with the same developer then, for many of the same reasons why the EIR must not be certified now. But in that case, at least there was a Final EIR, unlike with Village Farms where there is still no Final EIR yet.
Finally, the City piling on all of these Village Farms meetings including the last-minute City Council Village Farms “workshop” meeting this Tuesday in the middle of the holidays when our community is busy with the holidays and many not even in town is unfair and unreasonable. This obviously diminishes the amount to public input on the Village Farms project with all its problems and the aberrant process underway.
Nice! Our UC Students will be gone for Winter break. They are eligible for city elections, but let’s hide City Politics by having consequential meetings while they are home for the holidays. They CAN chose to register in Davis. But our City and City Council will engage in what never subterfuge serves the local developers best.