Davis City Council Workshop on Village Farms Affordable Housing Plan – January 13, 2026

This special workshop focused exclusively on proposed revisions to the Affordable Housing Project Individualized Plan (Exhibit E) for the Village Farms Davis project, a major infill development. The Council discussed alternative delivery mechanisms, baseline project features, and developer obligations. No final decision was made; direction was provided to staff to incorporate specific changes into the Development Agreement and baseline features for the January 20 final action meeting.

Consent Calendar

• No items were pulled; the consent calendar was approved unanimously without discussion.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Teresa (last name unclear): Claimed unlawful eviction from her senior home and alleged misconduct by a commissioner. Urged council to address the issue.
• Rachel Swanson (former council member, representing applicant team): Emphasized the project's benefits ($1.24 billion tax base, 1,147 new students, 47-acre habitat protection) and highlighted the improved affordable housing offer: 16 acres (finished lot value $24 million) plus $6 million cash, totaling over $30 million for 360 deed-restricted units (280 low/very low-income, 80 moderate-income).
• Georgina Valencia (Planning Commission member, speaking personally): Criticized the lack of deed-restricted for-sale affordable homes in the plan, calling it a "real miss" and urging council to include such units.
• Benton Bucher (UC Davis student): Expressed disappointment at only market-rate and rental affordable options; urged for-sale affordable units to help young families.
• Ken Wagstaff (former opponent of Covell Village): Supported the affordable housing direction, citing David Thompson's analysis and the Dos Pinos model as keys to success.
• Ellen Callark (Interfaith Housing Justice Davis co-chair, speaking personally): Supported rental affordable but urged for-sale affordable deed-restricted units to address historical redlining and generational wealth gaps.
• Brooke A. G (public school teacher): Strongly supported Village Farms, citing need for missing-middle housing to keep schools open; urged placing the project on the June 2026 ballot.
• Dana Lambang: Expressed shock that no for-sale affordable homes are indicated in Exhibit E; urged correction before moving forward.
• Brian Lowe (resident): Said it was fine not to have a for-sale requirement in baseline, allowing the market to decide.
• Seha Sky: Supported the project and affordable housing plan; asked to move to ballot.
• Forgotten Stewart: Supported revisions but questioned the ratio: suggested more homes affordable to 85% of residents rather than only 20%.
• Rachel Falco (Planning Commission member, speaking personally): Supported maximizing affordable delivery but cautioned against placing the 100-unit requirement in baseline features due to financing uncertainties; favored keeping flexibility in the DA.

Discussion Items

• Staff Report (Sherri Metzker, Community Development Director): Presented the current Exhibit E (16 acres, $6 million, 360 affordable units) and the friend amendment from Dec 16 directing a subcommittee to develop trigger/alternative delivery language. The staff report included proposed trigger options: timing of land dedication, phase three building permits contingent on commencing 100 affordable units, city partnership deadline, meet-and-confer procedures, and fallback rights. Negotiations were ongoing over the sunset clause (developer proposed 10 years, city countered 15).
• Council Subcommittee (Mayor Neville & Councilmember Partida): Clarified that the subcommittee did not endorse the staff report recommendations but presented them for discussion. Emphasized the goal was to lessen city burden, not increase it.
• Applicant Team Presentation (Rachel Swanson): Presented two options: the December Exhibit E or the same plan plus the trigger language submitted on Jan 5. Stressed that phases 1-2 carry majority project costs and cautioned against untested triggers that could delay build-out.
• Council Deliberations:
  • Councilmember Vaitla: Argued Exhibit E as is was "dead on arrival" because the city cannot realistically fill the $125 million+ financing gap. Supported the alternative unit delivery option with modifications: remove the sunset clause, give the city the option to retain resources (16 acres + $6M) and release permits, rather than devolving them. Insisted that the 100-unit obligation must be in baseline project features (not just DA) so voters know what they are voting on.
  • Councilmember Partida: Agreed with Vaitla on sunset clause removal. Wanted the 80 moderate-income units clarified as for-sale (deed-restricted) and possibly in baseline. Concerned about developer's ability to walk away from phase three after 150 permits.
  • Councilmember Chapman: Opposed returning to Exhibit E. Supported alternative unit delivery with modifications: no sunset clause, and suggested that the 100-unit requirement in baseline could include a council option to waive it (similar to DA flexibility). Concerned about risk of developer walking away with only 150 permits built.
  • Councilmember Deos: Favored flexibility, not strict baseline requirements. Open to alternative unit delivery but not committed to placing 80 for-sale units in baseline. Supported removing the sunset clause.
  • Mayor Neville (subcommittee member): Summarized negotiated points: developer agreed to remove sunset clause, to include city option to retain resources or shift obligation, and to reference the 100 units in baseline features. The developer requested that the trigger be after the first 150 permits in phase three (instead of before phase three) to protect project financing. Councilmember Vaitla countered that this reduces leverage.

Key Outcomes

• Motion 1 (regarding Development Agreement): Moved by Councilmember Partida, seconded. Directs staff to: (1) remove the sunset clause entirely; (2) no building permits for phase three until the city receives the final $3 million contribution (total $6 million); (3) no additional building permits after the first 150 permits in phase three until commencement of construction on 100 affordable units, with the city having the option to exercise after 150 permits. Passed 4-1 (Councilmember Vaitla opposed, preferring the option before any phase three permits).
• Motion 2 (regarding Baseline Project Features): Moved by Councilmember Vaitla, seconded. Directs staff to include an explicit obligation in baseline features that construction of 100 affordable units must commence prior to issuance of the final 150 low-density residential (LDR) units (phase three). Passed 4-1 (Councilmember Deos opposed, favoring flexibility).
• Direction to Staff: Staff will draft revised Exhibit E language incorporating these changes, to be included in the packet for the January 20 meeting. The subcommittee may continue minor negotiations regarding the timing of the city's option.
• Next Steps: January 20 regular meeting will include certification of the EIR, final approval of the Development Agreement, and a resolution to place the project on the June 2026 ballot. Council agreed to start a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Jan 20 to handle ceremonial and consent items before the public hearing on Village Farms.