Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Give your feedback to the city on the Village Farms project proposal

By Roberta Millstein

Heads up for Davis City Council “workshop“ on Village Farms, Tues, Dec 16, approx 7:20 PM. This is an opportunity for you to let the city know your views on the project.

Item 6: Staff recommends the City Council conduct a public workshop on the Village Farms Davis project (VF) applications, as follows:
a. Receive Staff presentations on the proposed project;
b. Receive Applicant presentations on the proposed project;
c. Take public comment; and
d. Consider the following project applications and documents and provide feedback:


i. Pre-General Plan Amendment, including provisions for Baseline Project Features as required by Chapter 41 of the Davis Municipal Code; and
ii. Pre-Zoning and Preliminary Planned Development; and
iii. Development Agreement.

Details here: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/2025/2025-12-16/06-Village-Farms-Workshop.pdf

IN PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Speakers will be asked to line up at the podium and state their name for the record. Comments are limited to no more than 2 minutes per speaker.

WRITTEN AND VOICEMAIL PUBLIC COMMENTS:

  1. Submit written public comments to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org. Emails are distributed to City Council and staff. To ensure the City Council has the opportunity to review information prior to the meeting, send emails by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
     
  2. Submit comments by voicemail prior to the meeting: Call the city’s dedicated phone line 530-757-5693 to leave a voicemail message for public comment. Staff will play comments during the appropriate agenda item. Comments will be accepted from 12:00 noon until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Voicemail public comments will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m. Speakers will be limited to no more than two minutes.
     
    Note: You must leave a separate voicemail for each item you wish to comment on. Please indicate your name and which item you are speaking about.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

, , , , , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

12 responses to “Give your feedback to the city on the Village Farms project proposal”

  1. Greg Rowe

    Actually, the Planning Commission public hearing on the entire project is on Wednesday, Dec 17 at 6:00 PM (one hour earlier than normal). But, the Council will also conduct a workshop the preceding night, Tuesday Dec. 16. It is item #6 on the agenda. It is a continuation of the hearing the commission convened on Dec 2nd. So, yes, 2 meetings on consecutive nights on the same subject.

    Reply
  2. Greg Rowe

    Well, what I meant to say is that the Planning Commission hearing on Dec 17 is a continuation of the brief meeting the commission had on Dec 2 (yes, a Tuesday, but that was the only night available that week). The Planning Commission packet is 142 pages long. I advise those wishing to comment to start reading now and submit written comments as soon as possible. It is highly unlikely that commissioners will have time to read a flurry of email comments that arrive on Wednesday.

    Reply
  3. Roberta Millstein

    Greg, yes, I was so surprised to see a Village Farms “workshop” pop up on the City Council’s agenda that I whipped off this heads-up post very quickly and neglected to remind people of the Planning Commission meeting on Dec 17 and to point out that there were two Village Farms meetings in a row, City Council on Dec 16 and Planning Commission on Dec 17. (It didn’t help that my original version of this post had the date wrong, although that was quickly fixed and had been fixed by the time you made your comment). Anyway, thanks for the clarification and the suggestion that people get their comments in early.

    Maybe you knew already that there was going to be a Dec 16 City Council meeting on Village Farms, the day before the Dec 17 Planning Commission meeting, but I hadn’t seen it anywhere. For example, it’s not mentioned on the City’s page for Village Farms: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/village-farms-davis

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    I have found that the council is not actually interested in what the public has to say, as demonstrated by some of the comments from council members Chapman and Vaitla after hearing a LOT of comments opposed to eliminating Measure J.

    There was also reference to the “commission-palooza” in regard to that issue (implying that sufficient “input” was received from the SAME COMMISSIONS that they decimated and consolidated some time ago, and apparently partially-stacked them with those who think as they do).

    This proposal’s ACTUAL workshop will occur when it appears on the ballot, assuming that the council isn’t somehow successful in eliminating Measure J. So unless this workshop includes some suggestions on what to plant on the site after it’s defeated (e.g., tomatoes, corn, or sunflowers), I’m not seeing the actual point of it.

    (A more useful “workshop” might also include a discussion of what lands to preserve surrounding Davis, via agricultural mitigation. Hopefully, including at least the vast majority of this site.)

    Reply
  5. Eileen Samitz

    Thanks for this update Roberta. So right in the middle of the holidays, when people are busy trying to enjoy the holiday, 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, 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.

    Reply
  6. Greg Rowe

    Roberta, the only way I knew there would be a City Council workshop on Dec 16 is that it was announced by Planning Staff at the end of the Planning Commission’s Dec 10 meeting, which was for the purpose of receiving DEIR comments on the proposed Willowgrove project. Also, at the end of the Dec. 9 Council meeting, the City Manager informed Council that they should hold their schedules open for meetings on January 6 and 13 to make final decisions on Village Farms.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      Greg, whoa, my head is spinning. Maybe being a commissioner on the Planning Commission limits what you can offer opinions about, but I think this is really unprecedented — and not to sound like a broken record, but very bad process. A sudden announcement of a city council meeting for an unplanned “workshop” in the middle of December! And what happened to the promise of their being 10 days between the final draft of the FEIR and the council making a decision? If citizens have until January 2 to comment on the DEIR, then there is no way that the city council can meet on January 6 and make a final decision without going back on that promise. I suppose in principle that the staff could have the FEIR ready in time for the January 13 meeting if they don’t receive many comments from citizens. But that is a head spinning turnaround. What happened to the January 20 meeting? That was already light speed.

      Again, none of these meetings are announced on these city’s website for the project. And this is all happening during the holiday season. I feel like any objective observer would conclude that the city is trying to steamroll this project through at lightning speed while keeping citizen input to a minimum.

      Reply
      1. Greg Rowe

        Roberta, I am reading the Planning Commission staff report and it also references a January 20 Council meeting. Regarding your comments, the Brown Act precludes planning commissioners from commenting on the project prior to the meeting at which the project will be discussed and acted upon.

      2. Eileen Samitz

        This City “process” on Village Farms is chaos and out of control. 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.

  7. Ron O

    What exactly is the purpose of the “workshop”? If it’s to provide input regarding the type of crops that might be considered when this proposal loses – I’m all in. (Though I’m pretty happy with the current rotation of tomatoes, corn, and sunflowers in particular).

    Reply
  8. Eileen Samitz

    Regarding the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, here are some of the many issues to consider commenting about on Village Farms.

    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 Public 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.

    Reply
  9. Greg Rowe

    Well, if this helps matters any, the Village Farms staff report for the Tuesday City Council meeting is identical to the Planning Commission public hearing report for the next night, Dec 17, with just a 2-page cover introduction. I was thinking that I’d need to read 2 completely different reports. The Planning Commission staff report is 142 pages of very dense text, so I suggest starting to read now for those who intend to submit oral and/or written comments. I spent most of Saturday night and all day Sunday reading the report and putting together a list of my own comments and questions.

    Reply

Leave a comment