Davis Planning Commission Workshop on Village Farms Project – October 22, 2025\n\nThe Davis Planning Commission held a workshop on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 3:00 PM to receive public comment and provide feedback on the proposed Village Farms development agreement and related land use items. No decisions or votes were taken. The meeting included staff and applicant presentations, extensive public testimony, and commissioner discussion on exhibits covering affordable housing, sustainability, transportation, agriculture, parks, financing, phasing, community benefits, and baseline project features. The commission rescheduled the public hearing to December 10, 2025, to allow for completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report and a draft Development Agreement.\n\n### Consent Calendar\n- The commission approved the minutes from the September 10, 2025, meeting with amendments suggested by Commissioner Brinkley to include discussion of traditional ecological knowledge and to rephrase language about school closures to reflect that closures are not a foregone conclusion.\n\n### Public Comments & Testimony\n- Former Councilmember Dan Carson spoke against a fourth fire station (estimated $3.4 million annual cost) and a city-run down payment assistance program, suggesting the 2.5-acre fire station site be used for affordable housing instead.\n- Many residents expressed strong support, citing critical housing needs, declining school enrollment, and the need for workforce housing. Supporters included Leslie Blevins (Yolo County Association of Realtors), Hiram Jackson (school board member, personal capacity), and several teachers and young families.\n- Many residents voiced opposition, raising concerns about floodplain risks (100-year flood zone), toxic contamination from an old landfill and PFAS, traffic congestion on Covell and Pole Line, fast-tracking of the project, and lack of binding commitments in documents (phrases like "to be determined" and "if feasible"). Speakers such as Margie Longo, John Zeller, Alan Prior, Eileen Samets, and others urged scaling back the project or delaying until details are finalized.\n- Several callers on the record also supported the project, emphasizing its climate resilience, electric vehicle infrastructure, and habitat preservation.\n\n### Discussion Items\n- Staff Presentation: Dara Dunworth reviewed the general plan amendment, preliminary plan development, and development agreement exhibits. Key changes included withdrawal of the density-averaging text amendment and a shift to the biological resource preservation alternative (47.1 acres of habitat conservation).\n- Applicant Presentation: Rochelle Swanson and Brian Foster presented the project: 1,800 residential units (360 affordable, including 140 very-low-income and 140 low-income units, plus 80 co-op units), $4.9 million in down payment assistance, 100% electric with no gas, and two grade-separated bike/ped crossings (Pole Line undercrossing and F Street overcrossing). Phasing starts with grading, then phase one includes L Street extension, roundabout, and undercrossing.\n- Commission Discussion (by exhibit):\n - Affordable Housing Plan (Exhibit E): Commissioners generally supported Social Services Commission recommendations but wanted stronger financial contributions (beyond $2 million), an income cap on down payment assistance (80-120% AMI), and more certainty on the co-op model. Some suggested a lump-sum payment instead of incremental.\n - Sustainability (Exhibit F): Broad support for all-electric, solar, and microgrid provisions. Concerns raised about building in the 100-year floodplain; Commissioner Valencia suggested developing only outside the floodplain (about 1,100 units).\n - Transportation (Exhibit G): Support for grade-separated crossings and bike/ped improvements. Discussion on the cannery road connection (traffic doubling but still low volume), cut-through traffic analysis, and desire for a Covell bike/ped overcrossing. Commission favored including crossings in baseline features.\n - Agricultural Features (Exhibit H): Debate over the borrow pit restoration. Commissioner Valencia argued the 107-acre area functions as a detention basin and should not be designated agriculture. Others supported a performance bond for restoration and a fallback ag mitigation if restoration fails.\n - Parks (Exhibit I): General concurrence with Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations; indoor gym noted as desirable but not mandatory.\n - Financing (Exhibit K): Questions about a community facilities district (CFD) for maintenance and the impact on affordability.\n - Phasing (Exhibit L): Appreciation for front-loading affordable housing. Commission wanted clearer color differentiation and timing estimates.\n - Community Benefits (Exhibit O): Split on the fourth fire station; many preferred dedicating the 2.5 acres for future city use rather than a fire station. Educational farm and pre-K land dedication supported but noted need for school district commitment.\n - Baseline Project Features: Commission recommended including grade-separated crossings, affordable housing commitments (with increased cash contribution), full electrification/solar, and a guarantee that the borrow pit is restored or mitigated (two-to-one ag mitigation) in the baseline features voters will see.\n\n### Key Outcomes\n- The commission did not take any formal action; the meeting served as a workshop to inform ongoing development agreement negotiations.\n- The public hearing on Village Farms was rescheduled to December 10, 2025, to allow staff to release the Final Environmental Impact Report and a draft Development Agreement well in advance.\n- Commissioners emphasized they would not vote on the project without a final EIR and a draft DA.\n- Key directives for staff and applicant: strengthen affordable housing financial commitments, ensure grade-separated crossings are in baseline features, clarify the borrow pit restoration plan with a performance bond, and provide more detail on the down payment assistance program (income cap, administration).