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

Category: Housing

  • Why is a Portion of the Village Farms DEIR being Recirculated and has the Proper Process been Followed in Doing So?

    by Alan Pryor

    A portion of the Village Farms DEIR (contained in the Utilities and Services chapter) is being recirculated because the City, as the “lead agency” in the EIR process, has received a last-minute report from Brown and Caldwell dated November 7. This report indicates that the City’s existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) is perilously close to exceeding its maximum flow capacity and needs to be upgraded to meet the City’s wastewater treatment permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This information was not known by the City when they prepared and circulated the current Village Farms DEIR for comment.

    However, since the new information impacts the analysis of the Village Farms project’s impact on the City’s WWTP, the City determined that the portion of the Village Farms DEIR addressing Utilities and Services needs to be recirculated with the updated information for public comment prior to consideration of the revised FEIR for certification by the City.

    Unfortunately, the City has done a poor job explaining this need to the public when they recirculated the portion of the DEIR needing additional comment. Two questions immediately come to mind that should have been answered by the City in more detail and explained better when the DEIR was recirculated.

    1) What Information Came to Light that Necessitated the Recirculation of the Portion of the Village Farms Davis DEIR?, and

    2) Is this Process Proper and Legally Compliant with CEQA and State Regulations Regarding Public Noticing and Subsequent Consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council?

    The following discussion addresses these questions.

    (more…)

  • Planning Commission declines to even discuss Village Farms evaluation process

    By Roberta Millstein

    At last night’s Planning Commission meeting, I was the only (!) oral commenter, via the call-in option. I raised a series of concerns about the process and timeline for evaluating the Village Farms proposal, which I will paste in below. Yet neither staff nor any member of the Planning Commission chose to acknowledge the existence of my concerns, much less respond to them. I will let the reader decide whether I am making a mountain out of a molehill (possibly) or whether the Planning Commission shirked its duty by not even discussing the concerns.

    As background, the sole point of the meeting was to decide whether to “continue” the Dec 2 meeting until Dec 17, to “to allow for the final negotiations of the project’s draft development agreement to be completed such that the Planning Commission can take action before the draft is forwarded to the City Council for consideration.”

    Here is the slightly longer version of my comments that I emailed to members of the Planning Commission prior to the meeting, differing primarily in the second paragraph which I had to cut for time in my oral comments.

    (more…)

  • Yet another update on Village Farms proposal — is this proper process?

    By Roberta Millstein

    A few days ago, I wrote about two updates from the City concerning the Village Farms proposal, one of which let citizens know that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) would be recirculated in light of new information about impacts to the City’s wastewater treatment plant and the other which announced that the City was releasing a not-quite-final-Final-EIR — a draft Final EIR, if you will — to which information about impacts to the wastewater treatment plant would be added later. 

    I wondered then how that would impact the City’s timeline for evaluating the Village Farms proposal — when would the Planning Commission weigh in on it?  When would the City Council weigh in on it?  (There is some discussion of this in the comments on the earlier post).  The issue there is that the City has been aiming to have the project up for a Measure J/R/D vote in June 2026, but (it seemed to me) the delays from this new wastewater treatment plant would make that extremely difficult, if not impossible.

    Well, we have our answer now.  As I read the City’s new update (posted to the City’s website yesterday, November 25), it means that the City isn’t changing its timeline much, if at all.  In other words, the Planning Commission will weigh in on (recommend or not recommend) the project without having a completed Final EIR.  And then, the City will likewise weigh in on the project with the hot-off-the-presses Final EIR, using the (partial? conditional?) recommendation from the Planning Commission. 

    I’m neither a lawyer nor am an expert on land use policy.  But I have been following things pretty closely in Davis for the last decade or so.  And I have never heard of anything like this. 

    It seems highly irregular to me.  And it seems as though the City is shortchanging its analysis of the impacts to the wastewater treatment plant.  If the impacts legally triggered changes to the EIR, doesn’t that mean that they should be important enough for the Planning Commission to consider?

    Here is the new update, with information about when the above-mentioned meetings will occur:

    (more…)

  • Two updates on the Village Farms project

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is just to call people’s attention to two updates on the Village Farms project. We had been expecting to see a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), responding to comments on the Draft EIR, when on November 17, the City announced:

    New information has recently come to the attention of the City of Davis Department of Public Works Utilities and Operations related to the City’s overall Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) capacity. Preliminary results from an ongoing study – which is still underway – revealed that the wastewater treatment system is approaching capacity sooner than anticipated, in large part due to the City’s successful water conservation efforts. Simply put, reduced water flow causes a higher concentration of waste. Though the system is performing efficiently, changes to the composition of the wastewater and new assumptions about treatment necessitate modifications to the WWTP to ensure continued reliable service for years to come. Once the study is complete in early 2026, staff will facilitate a discussion with the City Council and community about next steps.

    Thus:

    … the City of Davis is recirculating the portions of the Village Farms DEIR that require revisions to reflect this new information. Until January 2, 2026, the public may submit comments on the recirculated portions. The City will prepare a revised “response to comments” document that includes comments on these revised sections of the DEIR, and intends to make the full Final EIR available to the public at least 10 days prior to City Council action to certify the EIR. Comments submitted during the initial circulation in early 2025, and the City’s responses to those comments, will be made available in draft form for public review prior to the Planning Commission consideration of the project.

    But then on November 21, the City made an additional announcement:

    A partial draft response to comments on the previously circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is provided at the link below. This document is a draft to provide the public and decision makers with an early preview of the partial responses to comments on the previously circulated DEIR for the project. This document is being released to the public prior to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project and is not required by CEQA regulations but is being provided for maximum public transparency. Minor revisions to this draft document may be required to fully respond to public comment received on the partially recirculated DEIR during its 45-day comment period (November 17, 2025 through January 2, 2026).

    “The link below” that is referred to in the quote is here: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Project-Applications/Village%20Farms%20Davis/VFD%20Partial%20Draft%20RTCs%20DEIR_Optx.pdf

    For those of us that have been waiting to see the FEIR and have been wondering what was going on (e.g., me), this gives us probably a close-to-final version of what the FEIR will be — as I understand these announcements. (It’s a Draft Final EIR responding to the Draft EIR — got it??)

    For more information on the Village Farms proposal, and for the text of the two announcements copy-pasted above, go here: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/village-farms-davis

  • DEIR for Willowgrove project released

    The Willowgrove Draft Environmental Impact Report has been released and is available for public review for a minimum 45-day comment period.

    The Draft EIR public comment period begins on Nov. 10 and ends Jan. 2 at 5 p.m. Members of the public may submit written comments before the end of the comment period. Written comments can be emailed to the Project Planner Eric Lee at: elee@cityofdavis.org.

    The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public comment meeting on the Draft EIR on Wednesday, Dec. 10, at 7 p.m. in the city of Davis Community Chambers (23 Russell Blvd). Members of the public or public agencies may provide comments at the meeting.

    To view the DEIR, visit https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Willowgrove/EIR-Draft/Willowgrove-Draft-EIR-Nov-2025-Combined.pdf

    To learn more about the proposed Willowgrove project, visit https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/willowgrove

  • No to Co-op at Village Farms

    [The following letter was shared with the Davisite for posting]

    November 1, 2025

    To the members of the:
    Davis City Council
    Davis Planning Commission
    Davis Social Services Commission

    From David Thompson, Davis Citizen and Affordable Housing, Advocate, Co-Founder National Cooperative Bank and Inducted into the US Cooperative Hall of Fame

    No to this flimsy, sketchy, ill-prepared and financially dangerous to co-op members Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC) proposed by Village Farms

    My first major point is that the path of an LEHC(laid out below) takes many steps and requires much over $2 million dollars of an entity’s money prior to even starting construction, The path to a LEHC if travelled, will take about five years from inception to occupancy. The member’s own investment of $50,000 each ($3.5 million overall) is likely at risk during the latter two years of construction. Dos Pinos took close to 3 years of active one on one marketing to get to 85% occupancy. At Dos Pinos, no one lives on top of anyone else. At 15 townhome units per acre it is an attractive community. Each owner member has a separate front door on the ground floor with a front and back patio. A four floor apartment building with no patios at 30 units per acre is not an attractive home ownership model.

    Much as I love LEHC’s, the Village Farms LEHC proposal is impossible to develop under present circumstances. To be fair to the City and to the citizens this proposal should be removed immediately or else it will be a huge waste of the City’s time and the citizen’s resources or it will be a major housing proposal seen as an ill-prepared developer’s red herring that should have been eliminated. Village Farms does a disservice to the City by presenting a thin dream without details to back up the Co-op.

    The City should immediately reject the Village Farm LEHC as being infeasible.

    (more…)

  • Urging a No vote on the Village Farms PIP

    [Note: This letter to the Planning Commission was sent by the author for posting. PIP = Project Individualized Plan]

    October 20th, 2025

    To Planning Commission for Meeting of October 22nd, 2025

    FR. David J Thompson, Affordable Housing Advocate

    Vote No on the VF PIP. My Arguments Against the PIP proposed by Village Farms

    After reviewing the Village Farms PIP I do not see how what is being proposed meets the requirements of Section18.05.050 that is equal to or better than what the city would get under standard affordability requirements.

    I urge the Planning Commission to vote no on the PIP before you.

    For example,

    Under Section 18.05.050 18 acres would be set aside to meet the standard affordable housing requirements. However VF intends to remove 50% of that required land and asks the city to accept 9 acres of land. Removing 9 acres of land for the use of affordable housing is more acres than any affordable housing project has received in the history of Davis’ affordable housing that began about 1980.

    It does not seem equal to the PIP requirements that 18 acres is culled down to nine.

    Or that, the number of affordable units required are stuffed into 9 acres (31 units per acre) rather than 18 acres (15 units per acre). The city requirement is for a project to host 15 units per acre.

    It does not seem equal to the PIP requirements that the density of affordable units goes up from 15 to 31 units per acre.

    The cities for sale units single family ownership units are usually about 5 + units per acre

    No single family affordable homes meeting the city’s requirements are being provided.

    (more…)

  • Village Farms Needs To Be Fixed

    By Elaine Roberts Musser

    I am trying to keep an open mind about Village Farms, a new housing development proposal for northeast Davis.  But try as I might, there are a couple of new concerns that have surfaced which really bother me.

    I am disturbed at two of the features being suggested for Village Farms: to wit, a fourth fire station and a city run down payment program.  Our municipality is in so much financial trouble, that it is short more than $2 million a year just for pavement management alone. The estate of a deceased Davis citizen was just awarded a whopping $24.2 million because of the city’s negligence in not properly maintaining its trees.  We face similar financial risks because of our neglect of other city infrastructure.

    The harsh reality is the city cannot afford a $3.4 million annual hit to its budget to pay for operating another fire station. Nor can it afford the cost of construction of a new fire station, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. Similarly, the city cannot bear the expense of running a down payment program for housing, and who knows at what expense?

    (more…)

  • Letter concerning the Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan

    [The following letter was shared for posting to the Davisite by the author]

    October 12, 2025

    Dear Mayor Vaitla, Social Services Commission Chair Sverdlov, Planning Commission Chair Weiss and to all the council and commission members and Community Development Director Sherri Metzker.

    I saw last week in a recent Davis Enterprise the city’s public notice re

    The Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan.

    The core elements of the revision are as follows;

    The number of units will drop from 226 units to 205 units

    A reduction of 21 units

    However, the number of bedrooms will increase from 322 to 444

    An increase of 122 bedrooms and therefore at least 122 more people at one person per bedroom but many more if any of the bedrooms allow 2 people

    If various fees are based upon people and vehicle usage, then the project will; 

    Reduce project income to the city by about 10% 

    While increasing the number of noncontributing municipal users by 37+%.

    It appears to me therefore that the reduction of 21 units, the city will have a measurable loss of project-based income to cover the long-term costs while substantially subsidizing and increasing dollars spent on the wear and tear on the city.

    I would like one of you to pose this question to the Community Development Director;

    (more…)

  • On Education, Accountability, and the Price of Pretending: Part One

    By David Taormino

    It has often been said, sometimes in reverence and other times in jest, that the Davis Joint Unified School District is “doing the Lord’s work on Earth.” And perhaps, in part, that is true. There is no higher calling than the education of our children—no greater trust than that which we place in those who shape young minds.

    But let us not, in our admiration, lose sight of the facts.

    The School District, noble though its mission may be, is also a business. It employs administrators, staff, and teachers, all of whom depend upon the continued operation of schools—regardless of whether the children who fill those classrooms live in Davis or are brought in from elsewhere. This is not criticism. It is recognition of reality. But reality, too, must be subject to the rule of law.

    That is why I have filed suit—on behalf of myself and future homeowners of Palomino Place—to challenge the District’s newly-adopted fee on new development. The total for a 2,000 square-foot home now exceeds $10,000. This fee, and the rationale for it, strain both legal boundaries and public trust.

    The Law Is Clear—and It Is Not Being Followed

    (more…)