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

Category: Land use

  • Why I Now Support Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    Introduction

    I have been a fairly consistent opponent of most peripheral development projects in Davis over the past decade. For instance, I was the Principal Officer, Treasurer, and Chair or Co-Chair of the No on Nishi 1 (Student Housing),  No on West Davis Active Adult Community (Senior Housing), and both the No on both DISC 1 and DISC 2 campaigns (primarily Commercial).

    All of those peripheral annexation measures failed except West Davis Active Adult Community. But none of these projects provided for family housing for modest income buyers. I think Davis desperately needs that type of family housing and I believe the Village Farms Davis project provides it so I support the Project.

    As a result, I recently both publicly endorsed the Yes on Measure V campaign and was a  co-signer of the Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure V that will appear on the June ballot.

    Many folks that I had previously worked with opposing other projects have accused me of abandoning my slow-growth and/or environmental principles after hearing of my endorsement of Village Farms Davis or reading some of the articles I have published about various environmental aspects of the project. Some are saying it is inexplicable to them why I would make this seemingly sudden change in my views toward peripheral development and endorse this Project.

    Well, the reasons are actually pretty simple. I opposed past peripheral development projects because I did not feel any met all of the 3 primary criteria that I look at when considering supporting or opposing a project. And the reason I can now support Village Farms Davis is because I can now check-off each of the boxes for the same 3 criteria – 1) the Features of the Project itself, 2) the Location of the Project, and 3) the Quality of the Developers of the Project.

    Let me explain.

    (more…)

  • Letter: Why we need to talk about the word “may”

    Roberta, thanks for recently highlighting this huge legal loophole in the official language citizens will be voting on in Village Farms June ballot.

    “City “may” elect to request Developer (Village Farms) to construct the units”

    I asked Google AI for a description of the word “may”

    Google AI Overview
    “May” is a versatile modal verb used to express possibility/uncertainty (“It may rain”), grant or request permission (“May I leave?”), or express a polite wish (“May you be happy”). It signifies a ~50% chance of occurrence and acts as a more formal, slightly less certain alternative to “might” or “can”.
    Merriam-Webster

    It would appear that every lawyer can explain and defend the meaning of the word ‘may”. So clearly this housing may or may not be built. “May” has a very different meaning than “will” or “shall”.

    So rather than me saying , “I “may” not vote for the VF project, with “may” remaining in the language the citizens will be voting on I will “not” be voting for VF. The city council should not have approved “may” in the wording.

    David J Thompson

  • Let’s Talk Honestly About Village Farms Home Prices

    By Leslie Blevins

    There has been a lot of certainty lately about what homes at Village Farms will cost. Too much certainty compared to what the facts actually show.

    Project opponents continue repeating that every home in the development will “start at $740,000,” as if that number is locked in, guaranteed, and unavoidable. It isn’t.

    The $740,000 hypothetical figure being cited comes from a fiscal modeling assumption for a hypothetical average 1,740 sq ft home used in an economic analysis — not from a builder price sheet. The modeling assumption itself states that medium-density homes are projected at an AVERAGE sales price of $740,000 not starting sales price.

    But that number was used to estimate tax revenue. It was NOT a declaration of a minimum sales price. There is a big difference between a modeling input and a market reality.

    The truth is, we do not know what homes will cost in five to ten years when these units are actually built. Construction costs fluctuate. Interest rates change. The economy shifts. Lending standards evolve. Labor markets tighten and loosen. Anyone claiming certainty about 2029 home prices is speculating.

    (more…)

  • Phase Out the Zoning Code’s Planned Development (PD) Districts to Boost the Davis Economy

    By Greg Rowe

    This article is a slightly modified version of a letter I recently sent to the Davis City Council in support of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (Plan) discussed at the March 3 Council meeting. In particular, my letter endorsed the Plan’s recommendations for simplifying the City’s Zoning Code and development application procedures.  Specifically, I advocated significant revisions to the Planned Development (PD) District provisions in the Municipal Code (Article 40.22.010- 210), and recommended that achieving the Plan’s aspirations would be bolstered significantly if the PD provisions were completely expunged from the Municipal Code.    

    Concerns:

    Development in Davis has been hindered by an inordinately complex, prescriptive, rigid and incomprehensible zoning code and land use entitlement process, which makes achieving development outcomes cumbersome, time consuming, and unpredictable.  A central goal of the General Plan Update (GPU) and its implementing zoning code should be a simple, flexible, expansive and predictable development framework. Davis has long had a regional reputation as a difficult place in which to “do business,” which to a large extent results from the current complex and regimented zoning code (which implements the General Plan).

    Instead of a General Plan that strives to preserve a “small college town atmosphere,” there is an imperative need for integrating the General Plan Update, zoning code and economic development strategy to position Davis as a dynamic, forward-facing city ready to meet the future as part of a vibrant regional economy.

    Planned Development (PD) Districts Impose a Layer of Complexity

    (more…)

  • What are the guaranteed parts of the Village Farms project?

    Looking at Affordable Housing in particular

    By Roberta Millstein

    With the for and against ballot arguments for Village Farms and their rebuttals posted to the County’s website (as Measure V), and the campaigns starting to ramp up, I thought it was important to highlight what are technically known as the projects Baseline Features. These are available as part of the “Full Text of Measure V” on the County’s website, and I encourage Davisites to take a close look at them, but I wanted to point out a couple of things first.

    Most important to note is what it means to be a Baseline Feature. As the text of the Measure itself clarifies:

    Beyond the Baseline Project Features there are other additional requirements for the Project, including but not limited to, the mitigation measures set forth in the Village Farms EIR, and the Development Agreement that, while important to the Project, are not Baseline Project Features and may be modified with the approval of the City after the appropriate public process (emphasis added).

    Another way of saying this is to point out that only the Baseline Features are guaranteed parts of the project. Anything else can be changed with a vote of the City Council — and here one should keep in mind that membership of that future City Council could be somewhat or even substantially different from today’s City Council. Thus, anything that is not a Baseline Feature is not a guaranteed part of the project.

    And even then, it’s important to read the Baseline Features carefully, as some of us learned when Bretton Woods was able to jettison its promised memory care facility. Let me give an example that is tied to one touted feature of the project that is of great interest to many voters: Affordable Housing.

    The rebuttal to the argument against Measure V states that the project will have “360 units serving very low to moderate income households.” But is this true?

    (more…)

  • Rebuttals to for-and-against ballot arguments are now available

    Roberta Millstein

    In an earlier article, I posted the for and against arguments for the Village Farms project. The rebuttals to each of these arguments are now available on the County’s website, and I have pasted them below. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Village Farms that will appear on our ballots in June (the rebuttal to the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • Ballot arguments for and against Village Farms now available

    By Roberta Millstein

    This post is to just let people know that the arguments for and against the Village Farms project are up on the County’s website. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments are due by March 3; I will post them at some point afterward. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the argument in favor of Village Farms, i.e., in favor of Measure V, that will appear on our ballots in June (the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • Setting the Record Straight – Part 1

    Myths vs. Facts about Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    I. INTRODUCTION

    Opponents of Village Farms Davis have made numerous misleading and/or outright false claims about the Project and its supposed adverse environmental impacts on Davis and its residents. Their allegations are made without almost no quantitative supporting data from independent, verifiable 3rd-party sources to support their claims. Unfortunately, these naysayers instead rely on speculation and innuendo to attempt to disparage and denigrate the proposed Project.

    This article is the first in a series that will present detailed information that factually refutes each of these untrue “myths” and false allegations made by project opponents . This first article summarizes the false claims and provides a brief summary response followed by a more in-depth discussion refuting some of the allegations that require additional information to refute them. Subsequent articles in the coming weeks will further address some of these false claims in much greater detail.

    (more…)

  • Suggested changes to Ordinances for the Village Farms Project

    [The following was sent to the Davisite for posting]

    February 2, 2026
    To: Mayor Donna Neville and Council Members
    Fr: David J. Thompson, Affordable Housing Advocate
    Re: My Suggested Changes to Exhibit E Affordable Housing PIP Report

    Could you please address these questions and concerns before tonight’s final City Council vote on the second reading regarding Village Farms?

     Due to a number of issues I have located I have made the following suggestions by section number on the “Affordable Housing” agreement:

    Click to access 04E-Second-Readings-Village-Farms-Davis-Ordinances.pdf

     1)    Section 2. General Clarification, All 360 units are to be “deed restricted permanently affordable”. However, in Section 5. Which provides specific detail, the term ‘deed restricted permanently affordable’ is missing and should be included in Section 5.

     2)    Section 4.1. Do not understand why requirement of 18+ acres has been reduced to 16 acres?

     3)    Section 4.1. I have previously stated to the Council that the closer to transportation and shopping center the sites wins extra points in the funding competitions. Not knowing where these parcels will be should have been set by now to ensure the sites gets highest extra points for location. Why will the siting be unknown when the citywide vote occurs?

     4)    Section 5. ’80 ownership units for moderate income households…’.  I have previously provided you with an analysis why this is not likely possible with a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative. The only other option is to do a condo which I think is equally difficult for much the same reasons. How does the city plan to get the ownership units built?

     5)    Section 5. I would suggest you allow for these 80 units to be also done as rentals which are a more feasible, of value and a likely option. They could be delivered much earlier. The likelihood of acquiring funding for moderate income ownership housing is a long shot at best.

     6)    So the City may well be left with NO affordable housing and land use dedication which will not be developed in the near future, or perhaps ever.

     7)    Section 6.C. Given the trend in financing low-income housing $2 million may not be enough at $20,000 per unit to complete the subsidy funding of the initial 100 units. What are the additional dollars per unit Mercy Housing is asking for per unit at Bretton Woods?

     8)    Section 7.2. For me and perhaps for others, the section below definitely confuses me.

    (more…)

  • What happens when you build primarily high-end housing?

    By Roberta Millstein

    Two recent articles about Vacaville, our neighbor to the south, caught my eye. Both have to do with what has happened to Vacaville in the wake of building more high-end (i.e., expensive) housing.

    The first article was in the SF Chronicle, “This Bay Area exurb is full of McMansions — and may be the ‘next frontier’ of the housing crisis.” Here is an excerpt:

    Unlike Vallejo, which has yet to fully recover from its 2008 bankruptcy filing, Vacaville has signs of a suburb on the rise: a burgeoning biotech presence, a median household income in the low six figures, several new higher-end subdivisions. But the more people flock to this bedroom community for cheaper housing, the more its rental prices veer toward San Francisco levels. Over the past half-decade, Vacaville’s share of cost-burdened renters has swelled more than any other Bay Area community. 

    “If you’re a renter in Vacaville, there’s so many different market forces working against you,” said Robert Eyler, an economics professor at Sonoma State University. “Until you’re actively looking for a rental there, it’s hard to understand just how bad it is.”

    Some priced-out renters have been surprised to learn that Vacaville has no problem greenlighting construction. It’s the type of projects that’s the issue. 

    According to Vacaville’s official housing reports, it completed around 2,900 residential units between 2015 and the end of 2021, more than double what it had targeted. That was enough to put Vacaville among the top 10 Bay Area cities in overall housing production. 

    But the bulk of the building has been for large single-family homes. Along Vacaville’s southern edge, construction crews are working on a 2,400-acre development called Lagoon Valley, which will include more than 1,000 houses spanning 14 distinct neighborhoods, retail and office space, a golf course and a community event center. 

    Meanwhile, Vacaville has long ranked toward the bottom of Bay Area communities in producing multifamily homes. Housing projects such as townhomes, duplexes and triplexes, often called the “missing middle,” make up less than a 10th of the city’s housing stock. 

    Then an article in The Reporter, “Vacaville Council rejects DIF recommendations,” caught my eye. In the context of rejecting recommendations from a 2025 Developmental Impact Fees Nexus Study, Lisa Vorderbrueggen of the BIA Bay Area stated, “Vacaville has added housing yet student enrollment is declining, a clear sign that middle-income families are being priced out.”

    I leave the relevance for the upcoming discussions about Village Farms as an exercise for the reader.