Davis City Council Meeting – November 4, 2025

The Davis City Council met on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Chambers. The meeting began with ceremonial presentations, followed by the consent calendar, public comments, and a major workshop on the proposed Village Farms Davis project. No final decisions were made on the project; the council provided direction to staff on key issues including housing, transportation, sustainability, parks, and community benefits.

Ceremonial Presentations

• Six proclamations were presented: Veterans Day (Nov 11), Small Business Saturday (Nov 29), Law Enforcement Records and Support Personnel Week (Nov 10–14), Native American Heritage Month (November), 2025 Yolo Philanthropy Awards recipients, and reaffirmation of friendship with sister city Uman, Ukraine. Mayor Pletnyova of Uman spoke, thanking Davis for support during the war.

Consent Calendar

• Approved unanimously (5-0) with Councilmember Chapman recusing from item 4F (Downtown Business Improvement District assessment). Items included fiber-optic infrastructure agreement, accounting services contract amendment, firewall replacement, grant acceptances (FEMA/Cal OES cybersecurity, Office of Traffic Safety), DBID assessment, and second reading of zoning omnibus amendments.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Hate crime incident: A resident described a Halloween night attack at her home, alleging Antifa involvement. Commenters urged council to condemn such behavior.
• Divestment from Elon Musk: Multiple speakers (including UC Davis students and community members) urged the council to halt new contracts with Musk-controlled companies, divest from Tesla, and call on CalPERS/CalSTRS to stop Tesla purchases. They cited labor violations, misinformation, and democratic concerns.
• Village Farms Project: Over 60 public comments (in-person and voicemail) addressed the project. Supporters cited housing affordability, school enrollment, and smart growth. Opponents raised concerns about floodplain risks, toxic contamination from the adjacent landfill, traffic impacts, inadequate affordable housing commitments, and incomplete documents. Many called for a reduced footprint and binding commitments.
• Other: Comments on street conditions, bike/pedestrian safety (including a student's plea for safer crossings), the city's respite center, and arts funding.

Discussion Items

5. Village Farms Davis Project Workshop

This workshop was the main agenda item. Staff and the applicant team presented the proposed 1,800-unit development on 200+ acres (with 47 acres preserved for habitat). The council discussed each exhibit in turn, providing feedback:

• General Plan Amendment: Council supported staff’s recommendation for land use designation LU 1.1E and the agricultural designation for the borrow site.
• Pre-Zoning and Preliminary Planned Development: Council urged more attached/smaller-lot homes and fewer large single-family lots to improve attainability. They asked for further refinement with the subcommittee.
• Affordable Housing Plan: Council strongly opposed the proposed Project Individualized Program (PIP) that substituted land dedication and fees for on-site construction. They directed the applicant to pursue the ministerial approach (construct 275 affordable units on site) with a firm performance schedule, ensuring affordability for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The down payment assistance program and co-op proposals should be explored but not replace actual construction.
• Transportation Features: Council insisted that grade-separated crossings at Pole Line Road and F Street be included as baseline features. They preferred the vehicular connection to the Cannery roundabout be limited to bike/ped/emergency vehicles only, pending further traffic analysis. A grade-separated crossing at Covell Boulevard near Nugget Market was deemed a high priority.
• Sustainability Features: Council supported exploring local VMT mitigation instead of buying carbon offsets, and urged inclusion of infrastructure for a future microgrid (conduit, poll boxes). They asked for details on transit subsidies (e.g., YOLO bus passes) and enhanced bike infrastructure.
• Agricultural Mitigation: Council accepted the 107-acre borrow site for future agricultural use after soil restoration. They directed that strong restoration language be in the development agreement (not baseline features) with a five-year trial and mitigation fees if farming fails.
• Parks: Council prioritized early phasing of parks with affordable housing, lit playing fields, and inclusive playgrounds. They supported a gym/multi-purpose room as a potential resilience hub. Funding mechanisms (e.g., CFD) should be established.
• Community Benefits: Council supported the pre-K early learning center and educational farm in partnership with the school district. Regarding the fire station site, they requested a comprehensive analysis of long-term operational costs and alternative locations before committing.
• Wetland Preservation: Council concurred with staff’s three commitments: conservation easement, deed restriction, and long-term management plan.
• Phasing: Affordable housing and parks should be built early to maximize benefit. The applicant confirmed they are open to negotiating a performance schedule.

Key Outcomes

• Council Direction: The applicant team and staff will revise the affordable housing plan to ensure on-site construction of 275 affordable units with a binding timeline. The transportation, sustainability, parks, and community benefits exhibits will be updated accordingly.
• Next Steps: Staff will incorporate council feedback into the draft Development Agreement and baseline project features, then return for a public hearing (scheduled for December 16, 2025, or January 6, 2026). The project will ultimately go to the ballot under Measure J/R.
• AB 1234 Reporting: No reports were made.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:00 a.m. in honor of Betsy Marchand, former Yolo County Supervisor.