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

  • Village Farms Contaminant Risks

    [This Op-ed article was originally published in the Davis Enterprise on March 22nd in response to February 18th Davisite and Davis Vanguard articles in which Alan Pryor asserted that valid concerns related to contaminants associated with the proposed Village Farms Davis project, are “myths”.  This is a slightly modified version of that article.]

    This map from the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which was not included in the Davis Enterprise Op-ed article, shows Village Farms proposed drainage and housing adjacent the Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant and monitoring well locations. The liner discussed in the Davis Enterprise op-ed article and the Partial Draft Response to EIR Comments does not appear in the Development Agreement or Baseline Project Features. 

    By Steven Deverel, Marjorie Longo, and Robert Okamoto

    There was a recent attempt to dismiss contaminant risks related to the proposed Village Farms project in north Davis. We herein summarize data and potential risks related to contamination from the adjacent Old Davis Landfill, Burn Area, and Wastewater Treatment Plant.

    First, it was posited that contamination from the landfill has dissipated, per and poly fluoralkaline substances (PFAS) are not a health issue and that Village Farms Davis will not be built on the landfill.

    Response

    (more…)

  • Who will really pay for the Affordable housing at Village Farms?

    By Matt Williams

    I learned something very interesting in the last few days that gave me an incredible sense of “Here we go again!” Specifically, where is the $6 million Affordable Housing contribution coming from?

    Alan Pryor has said on the Vanguard that the $6 million is coming from the developer, but is it? Or is it actually going to be coming from the taxpayers?

    The history of the Cannery tells us that there is a very good chance that the taxpayers will end up footing the bill for the $6 million. But because Village Farms is so sketchily defined/described, there is no way to know.

    Cannery was much better and more completely described/defined, but one year after the documents had all been signed, they came back to the City saying they “needed” $12 million more cash. City Council negotiated the $12 million down to $8 million … and then imposed a 30-year Mello-Roos Tax on the Cannery residents, with the taxpayer total payments of which amounting to more than $21 million taken out of those taxpayers’ pockets.

    There is nothing in the Baseline Features or the Development Agreement for Village Farms that tells Davis voters whether there will be a Mello-Roos levy (often called a CFD), and/or how large the Mello-Roos levy will be.

    To add insult to injury at The Cannery, the City Council never asked the developer what value the City would be getting back in exchange for the $12 million being asked for, or the $8 million eventually given. Unfortunately, the City got zero dollars of value in that Cannery situation.

    We have no way of knowing what might happen in the case over Village Farms. This is just one more way this project is not ready for prime time, and the only logical vote on Measure V is “No.”

  • An exchange over misleading Village Farms promises about affordable housing

    Greenwald concedes Village Farms could result in little or no affordable housing being built

    By Roberta Millstein

    I want to let readers know about some followups to my two previous posts about the toothless promises concerning Affordable Housing and affordable-by-design housing in Village Farms, which we will vote on in June as Measure V. One is that I meshed the two articles into one, did some more editing, and submitted the new article to the Davis Enterprise, where it appears, here. Now the analysis of affordable housing in Village Farms, which rests in large part on understanding the difference between Baseline Features and Development Agreements — and which “promises” appear where — is all in one place.

    The second thing I want to highlight is a response of sorts to my DE article from the Davis Vanguard, here. What I find interesting about this response is that at each point David Greenwald actually agrees with what I say about the promises of affordable housing. Indeed, there really is no other interpretation — it’s in black and white that the affordable housing is so flexible that the project could end up with little or no affordable housing at all. And he agrees that our city councils have a history of giving in to developers. Quoting from Greenwald’s article (my emphasis added):

    (more…)

  • Village Farms…Is It The Right Time? 

    By Georgina Valencia

    There is no perfect project and there is no perfect time.  But, there are good projects that come at the right time.  Such a project is Village Farms.  There are a few reasons I will vote YES for Village Farms. 

    First, Village Farms is contiguous with the City and I would label this site infill.  It is surrounded by The Cannery, F Street, Covell Blvd and Poleline Road.  While this land is farmland and has been planted under tomatoes, wheat, corn over the years.  It is surrounded by our community on three sides and is ideal for development.

    Second, the property that Village Farms sits on is in the sphere of influence created in 2008.  What is the Sphere of Influence?  “The legislature created the mechanism a “’sphere of influence’ (SOI) as a means for planning of probable physical boundaries and service areas within a local agency…SOIs are designed to both proactively guide and respond to the need for the extension of infrastructure and delivery of municipal services to areas of emerging growth and development.”  Village Farms (formerly Covell Village) is largely within the City’s SOI.  This means we as a community, former Councils as well as City Staff, have thought for decades about the areas of future growth and this is one of them.

    (more…)

  • Davis Deprives Younger Adults of Longterm Housing: Population Demographics

    by Hiram Jackson

    Introduction

    Davis has followed a policy of restrictive growth since 2000 when Measure J passed, which allowed city voters to approve of new projects on the margins of the city.  Since then, Breton Woods, designed for older (55+ years) residents, and the Nishi project, designed for UC Davis students, both passed in 2018. 

    Apart from that, every other proposed project, which notably would have been available for younger adults less than age 54, has been rejected.  This quarter century drought on peripheral developments for younger adults has consequences in our current demographic makeup.

    City of Davis census data show a local declining young adult population

    From 2000 to 2020 U.S. Census data show that Davis grew from about 60,000 to 66,000, an annualized growth rate of about 0.5%.  Within that time the population of 20- to 29-year-olds, which includes mostly UC Davis students, grew by about 2500.  The population of Davis adults aged 50 and older grew by 8,000, reflecting good health and the desirability of our community.  Meanwhile, the number of young adults aged 30 to 49 has shrunk by 2,000 during the same period (See Census chart). 

    Figure 1 – City of Davis Population – 2000 v. 2020 U.S. Census

    This last age cohort, specifically, includes parents who are likely to enroll students in the local public schools.   Based on the 2020 U.S. census, the 30 to 49 age cohort is proportionally larger, statewide and nationally, than either the Baby Boomer or older Gen X population, demonstrating that the Davis decrease is anomalous in not accommodating this age cohort.

    (more…)

  • The ballot arguments in favor of Village Farms are extremely misleading about affordable-by-design housing

    Arguably, they are downright deceptive

    By Roberta Millstein

    In a previous article, I explained how it is only the Baseline Features of a project that are guaranteed to be built.  I further explained that the Affordable Housing that Village Farms claims to provide is not part of the Baseline Features, i.e., the features that we will vote on as part of Measure V — it seems to be, but then by referring to the Development Agreement where it says only that the City “may elect to request Developer to construct the units” (emphasis added), it becomes clear that there is no guarantee of Affordable Housing at all. (Please refer back to that article for details).

    In this article, I will explain that the “commitments” to affordable-by-design housing that proponents tout in their ballot arguments and elsewhere are similarly ephemeral.  Voters should be aware that the project may not include much affordable-by-design housing at all.

    First, let’s clarify.  In California, capital ‘A’ Affordable Housing has a specific legal definition, with classifications based on income as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI).  In order to qualify to occupy an Affordable Housing unit, one has to fall into the requisite income class.

    But “lower case ‘a’”, affordable-by-design (also called “missing middle”) housing has no such income restrictions.  Anyone can purchase it, regardless of income.  However, as the name suggests, the point is that certain types of housing are likely to be less expensive, and thus more affordable: duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes are examples.  They are still “market rate” — they will cost whatever the market will bear — but the hope is that they will be affordable to those who do not qualify for Affordable Housing but who do not earn enough money to purchase larger, single-family homes.

    So, what do the Village Farms proponents promise? 

    (more…)

  • 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…)