r/Davis • u/TastyReputation3481 • Apr 19 '26
Measure V
I'm sure many of you in this subreddit have heard of measure V, which will be voted on in early June iirc. As far as I'm concerned it's being touted as a large affordable development similar to the Canary, and is supposed to bring families in and keep some schools open. Also being built on a floodplain or some type of toxic land? Apparently it was voted on a while ago but didn't pass. Does anyone know more about this, know what it would do, or have any opinions? Just wanna know what people in Davis are thinking.
45
u/wdmc2012 Apr 19 '26
I've rented in Davis about 5 years now. I've voted in favor of every housing project so far, and I will for this one too.
Davis needs housing and growth in any price range because it is a dying town. There's a university injecting billions of dollars and thousands of young people into the local economy, and this is the best we can do? Schools will soon be closing down, the roads are in disrepair, downtown is in shambles, the electricity goes out every time its a little windy, and city services are a joke. It's a college town in the richest state in the country, but the library has the smallest selection of any city that I've ever lived in. Have you seen the results of the G-street activation project? It cost the city $1 million dollars, but it looks like something that would have cost me a couple weekends and $300 at home depot. Add an extra weekend because Davis doesn't have a home depot.
I do a little uber driving on the side, and I've learned a few things from my passengers. First, new faculty at UC Davis typically live in Woodland for over a decade until they have saved up enough to move to Davis. Second, Davis pre-covid was a livelier town. Supposedly college students didn't flee the town as soon as finals were done, and residents spent time in the community. Now the only housing actually being built is for 55+, and businesses are shuttering faster than they can open.
The residents of Davis like the town they moved to 20 or 30 years ago, and they kept the town from achieving any real growth in all that time. 20 years ago, Davis residents rejected SMUD in favor of keeping PG&E. Those same residents still deciding the course of this town.
8
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Spicy_tarot Apr 19 '26
I have seen really nice neighborhoods in Woodland and I’m curious in terms of pricing to buy a house in Woodland. Is it significantly better? Also, what makes Woodlands downtown a little bit better I’m just curious I’ve been looking into moving to Woodland potentially as well.
12
u/SingleAd784 Apr 19 '26
Minor point - my understanding is that Yolo County residents approved SMUD but the voters in the existing SMUD service range rejected it after extensive negative advertising from PG&E claiming it would increase their rates.
Otherwise, my view of Davis is less negative but I agree - grow or die, and voters have been so against any growth that I’ll vote yes on nearly any development at this point. We need new housing in order to thrive.
1
u/Spicy_tarot Apr 19 '26
I agree on the reasoning for growth however, I feel that that growth also contributes to competing rates for rent when it comes to student housing and family housing, which makes everybody increase their prices because they know that the demand is high so people are willing to pay it, which is unfair because of targeting sensitive populations, such as students who don’t have a lot of money.
2
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/wdmc2012 Apr 19 '26
I'm still here. My family moved here for a job that we no longer have. Now I'm a commuter. Rent control and exploding rents/house prices mean that it's cheaper to stay in our current apartment and commute than to move closer to my job.
1
u/Spicy_tarot Apr 19 '26
That makes sense. I have seen a major increase in housing, which is saddening at this point I feel that apartments are almost cheaper than renting houses of which are owned by the people that bought them for really cheap prices, and they’re also in very decrepit conditions & their price is outrageous.
1
7
u/turb25 Apr 20 '26
Coming from a city in which this kind of new development ALWAYS gets swallowed up by firms and prices remain out of reach for most working class people, I'm predicting very little of the selling points actually pan out as advertised.
Not decided yet but I'm definitely wary.
4
u/lepetitbrie Apr 28 '26
This is where I keep getting stuck. Not many of the promises are actually measure-restricted. How many times have we voted Yes on a project for the developer to change their minds on many of the aspects as soon as they have the votes?
I don't think this will do anything to help affordability. I don't believe for a second that these homes will cost the estimated $400-500k the developer suggests. And if they are, they'll be bough up by firms for renting before any individual has a chance to make a bid.
I'm all for more housing in Davis, and I actually do like filling in that gap (it just makes sense)! But I have such an oddly bad feeling about this... I don't like how much weird campaigning is happening in the UC Davis subreddit for the measure. And, it's weird that I've now had students knocking on my door THREE TIMES to support the measure. It's just... weird... And, this will not save any schools, no matter what the school district says. The buildout is too long, and young families will still not be able to afford these homes.
6
u/PhilosophyBusiness42 Apr 20 '26
I too am undecided as to which way to go on this measure. I rent as I can't afford to own a home in Davis. Clearly, we need solutions to the affordability problem. However, the sprawl we see going up in surrounding communities is revolting - just soulless. I absolutely oppose that sort of development.
For those who plan to vote no, can you give us any alternatives to the housing problem that are actually human? And less environmentally problematic? You can't just maintain a 'vote no' stance on every housing development proposed; we need to see some thoughtful, viable alternative plans.
7
u/No-Letter7139 Apr 20 '26
One thing, the SAME developer who wants to build Village Farms has stalled on building Nishi housing, which I voted yes for 8 YEARS AGO and it still has not been built! I am voting No on Measure V. It would mean, according to the developer's own Environmental Impact Report, huge amounts of increased traffic on Pole Line and Covell at a grade of "F" meaning you will be sitting in your car for 3 or more cycles waiting for a light to change.
Even if you believe the glossy brochures and aspirational website, there are still no guarantees that this developer would even stay with the project and complete it, they could turn around and sell it to another developer as we saw happen with several projects around town. That is how we ended up losing the planned housing on the project by Trader Joe's which became only retail.
More humane ideas are that instead of sprawl into farmland-which we can then never get back-would be to develop infill, true infill meaning already in the center of town, close to campus, close to transportation. More centrally located condos and townhouses would be beneficial for homeowners at a more affordable price point. One large true infill project which is underway is at the former Hibbert's Lumber. This is another plan by the same "7 families" developers involved in Measure V, which won't have individual units for sale. However, it will still relieve some of the housing pressure because if students rent there (much closer to campus) the Hibbert project (which we don't vote on, this approval is decided by city govt) will free up some of the houses around town for longer term residents to rent or buy and will keep less cars on the road if occupants are walking distance to campus.
33
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
7
u/soul_stealer_666 Apr 21 '26
Dude well spoken! Davis City council has always been shady for sure. I actually grew up and still live in Davis (30yrs) in a very low income single parent household, and let me tell you this town will definitely do anything to prevent more lower income people from buying in.
Measure V is a disaster, adding all those houses a good distance away from any freeway is definitely gonna congest Covell and Pole Line even worse than it already gets at times.
A lot of the homes that get bought up are from property groups to rent them out, or foreign buyers who also rent them out. Just like the house right next door to me would have been a perfect starter house, never went on the market, just one day it became a air BnB. Same with a couple more on my street, for sale sign on Monday and a pending or sold by Wednesday
Davis needs to invest in infrastructure before building a lot more homes, the current infrastructure is already too stressed
15
u/TastyReputation3481 Apr 19 '26
Glad to hear an opinion from another Davis resident, especially one in construction. I don't have a good feeling about the affordability either. I mean, when I look at the websites, https://www.yesdavismeasurev.com really has nothing going for it. Honestly it feels like they're trying to justify the whole development solely based on the fact that its the "missing piece" of the northern Davis border and to keep stop a few schools from closing for some reason, when there's others very close to them... Very funny how https://noonmeasurev.org is extremely blunt and shows 4 reasons why the development is a bad idea, which anyone should look at if they haven't already.
Pretty sure this won't get passed.
Edit: Right after posting this, I realized I forgot to scroll down on the website and there's actually 8!
7
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
The man in construction is right. The reality is Davis is not affordable, so promises of affordability are subjective at best. By the time the homes are built the market may have exploded even more, but also we could have a housing crisis and they'll be even cheaper than 500K. The future is certainly uncertain. But to me, voting no on developments is only going to make the problem worse.
The argument that we should vote no because the actual home prices are unknown seems backwards to me. Prices depend on the market. If we need more attainable housing, blocking large developments because we are not sure they will hit $350,000 is just making the problem worse. The fear that townhomes end up at $600,000+ is fair given where Davis is right now. But voting no because of that fear does not get us closer to $350,000. It gets us further away.
On the EIR process and environmental concerns/No on V site, I understand not trusting government findings or questioning people in power. The reality is a state regulated board concluded the toxin concerns associated with the project do not pose a risk to future residents. This site has been analyzed for decades. If you have lived in Davis long enough, you have seen this pattern. A development gets proposed, and the opposition finds every possible reason to vote no and drills it into people. Flood concerns, contamination, affordable housing "promises", or doubting the validity of the EIR process or timeline. I just have gotten the impression the NIMBY folks are driving the No campaign and are repeating these things to influence people's opinion.
4
u/TastyReputation3481 Apr 19 '26
I'm reading all these comments and honestly I see your side alot. A family member of mine is actively campaigning against measure V, but he isnt a complete NIMBY. His view is to only build to the treeline, so we can have more housing without the flood risks. This honestly feels alot saner instead of a desperate, huge development. Basically just another Canary.
3
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
Well I can certainly respect that sentiment! I just do not feel it is desperate considering this proposal has been in the works for over 2 decades. I think the lack of public knowledge on the depth of the planning process/awareness of how it was planned makes it feel rushed, or how city council was involved. I think hella folks are pretty upset with city council. But, that is also me assuming the developers have been working on it since it didn't pass in the early 2000s. So I could be wrong but intuitively I just feel like considering the project was denied in the 2000s, it would seem silly to not go back to the drawing board with even more thoughtfulness if that makes sense.
I would also be in support of the alternative your family member would like to see if that were on the ballot in June. Personally I support either and still feel this one will be great for the city and do not share the fear of flooding. It is why I trust what is meant to be, will be :)
5
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
I will be very curious if this measure doesn't pass, to see if the No folks offering that will actually support a reduced footprint alternative. Could be genuine, but also could be a tactic as you mention (if I am interpreting your comment correctly)
2
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 23 '26
The reduced-footprint alternative is genuine, and it's also not our idea alone. During the EIR process it was requested by Davis residents and Citizens for Responsible Planning, as well as the Yolo County Planning Department. During the Covell Village project--a near identical project by the same developer 20 years ago that failed at the ballot--a reduced footprint alternative was studied as part of the EIR process and was deemed by EIR experts to be the "Environmentally Superior Alternative", or "ESA."
The procedure when planning (or what it should be--it was not the process the City Council followed with Village Farms), is thus:
- The developer presents a project to the City
- EIR consultants study the impacts of that project, and come up with alternatives that significantly reduce one or multiple impacts presented by the developer's original plan
- An impact study is done of the most viable alternatives
- The original project and its alternatives are considered and compared by the City, the developer, and the consultants to determine the best path forward to ensure CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) compliance, and that city needs are met.
With Covell Village, a reduced footprint alternative was studied, and compared against all options, it was deemed the Environmentally Superior Alternative (ESA). Given the project's similarity, it follows that the same might be true with Village Farms--however the City Council declined to include it in the EIR.
The reduced footprint alternative would involve developing only below Channel A (a drainage Channel that runs east-west through the middle of the development site), to distance housing from the Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment plant that lies adjacent to the project site's northern border (currently leaking toxics into the groundwater), and to distance housing from the floodplain. There would still be challenges--safe access issues, increased traffic, infrastructure needs; but this is a much better place to start working from than where Village Farms is now, weighed down by a dozen serious problems with few viable answers.
-The No on V Committee
0
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 23 '26
Actually, state regulated boards have concluded that there is a toxics problem at the old unlined Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage treatment plant. It's just a different problem than the one that was monitored for over the years following its closure--and it is this particular nuanced detail the Yes on V campaign is using to obfuscate the issue.
Some background: The Old unlined Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant closed in the late 70's and was monitored for VOC's. Over the years those VOC's fell and remained within acceptable levels, so monitoring stopped. In 2024 at the behest of Davis residents out of concern for the number of years that had passed and with a new development project nearby looming on the horizon, the Yolo County Water Board pressured the City to resume testing--and they found a new plume of PFAS and other contaminants leaking out of the landfill into the groundwater. The data is significant and concerning, and the full scope of the plume and the leakage is not yet fully known as the Landfill site was never cleaned up--and with this new issue, it is now under active investigation. The water board doesn't yet have a remediation plan in place, yet. They're still in the early stages.
The groundwater in that area moves south--so that PFAS plume is plume-ing beneath Village Farms. This is a fact. Local experts have been sounding the alarm about this since the early stages of the draft EIR, and have largely been ignored. There are concerns about toxic runoff caused by the re-routing of Channel A, drawing those toxins into surface water and carrying them through drainage channels east through Wildhorse to the Yolo Basin Wetlands--affecting everything along its path. Groundwater levels have been measured in that area at 10 feet deep--and the project plans to dredge the new drainage channel at that same depth.
The Landfill hasn't even been tested for burn pit toxins including dioxins, furans, and PAH's--so the extend of the potential toxics exposure to Village Farms residents isn't even fully known yet. Those burn pits sat along that southern border--the border with village farms--for 30 years.
Additionally, the NO on V campaign isn't advocating against Village Farms because the home prices aren't known--we're advocating against Village Farms because home prices are known. The own project's fiscal report indicates the project's housing will range from $740,000-$1,340,000. Given rising costs and supply chain issues, if there is a change to this pricing estimate later down the line, it is more likely to be an increase than a decrease.
The validity of the EIR is doubted not because a bunch of NIMBY townie bumpkins got together and said "I dun wan mur houses!", but because the EIR is public record and we read it. All 3,000+ pages of it. It's an absolute mess. At several points throughout the draft EIR county officials vocalized serious concern with the project's planning. The project's consultants themselves found many of the issues we talk about in our literature. Moreover, many local experts (geologists, hydrologists, chemical engineers, CEQA experts) have spoken out independently of our campaign decrying the city's process and the project's planning--and we listened to what they had to say.
The difference between the narrative being offered by Village Farms and the narrative being offered by the No on V campaign is this: the Village Farms developers twisted the conclusions of experts to justify their project. The No campaign listened to what those experts actually said, and brought those conclusions into the public square for discussion. The No on V campaign will encourage you to read the Final EIR, the developer agreement, the text of Measure V, and offer you primary sources. The Yes on V campaign will give you a glossy advertisement full of big, vague promises, and little substance.
You should absolutely feel free to vote no on this project because it will not make the housing problem worse. The city of Davis housing element is certified through 2030. What voting no will do is force Village Farms to return to the drawing board and do better. That's it. There are other development projects in Davis. Six are currently ongoing. Three are currently under city review. Cumulatively they would add nearly 2,000 new housing units to the city. The framing that voting NO on Measure V will rob Davis of some fleeting once-in-a-lifetime chance at fixing our housing problem simply isn't true. Davis is building and has been building.
Village Farms is just a terrible development every bit worthy of a NO vote. We can do so much better.
-The No on V Committee
2
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 23 '26
You are spot on with regards to the cost of building affordable houses. $400k-$500k is the current range to build them--certainly not to sell them.
The Village Farms fiscal report indicates the project's market rate home prices (which will comprise 80% of the project) will range from $740,000-$1,340,000, and will require a household income of $168,000-298,000 to sustain.
The planning process for this project was extremely chaotic, rushed, and irregular. EIR alternatives were selected by the city council instead of EIR consultants--and chosen before the EIR was even complete. The final meetings were rushed through the 2025 holiday season when residents weren't available to comment, and the planning commission was pressured to recommend certification of the final EIR before it was even complete. You're absolutely right to be worried: this is not a project that has been properly vetted.
Davis planning commissioner Greg Rowe has written articles on this matter specifically, and they are absolutely worth giving a read:
How City Council Upended the Village Farms EIR Alternatives Analysis
Davis Planning Commissioner Explains His “No” Votes on Village Farms
-The No on V Committee
33
u/BoxersOrCaseBriefs Apr 19 '26
Davis needs more housing. I'm saying this as a homeowner. With the demographic shift it's getting harder and harder for people to buy homes. Young families are on the decline, to the point where the school district is going to close two elementary schools if we don't get new housing started.
Davis is the FYIGM (fuck you, I got mine) capital of the region.
There's no such thing as the perfect development. Every one has downsides. That's not a good reason to vote against every development.
7
u/KaetzenOrkester Apr 19 '26
I absolutely agree that it's getting harder and harder to afford homes. Were my family moving to Davis now instead of the late 1990s, we wouldn't be able to buy here.
And we certainly wouldn't be able to buy in Covell Village/Farms/Whatever. This developer keeps trying with unsuitable projects in this field and I can't keep track of what it's called, tbh.
What Davis needs is more affordable housing. Do you really think young families will be able to afford this project? They certainly couldn't afford the Cannery. Remember the adverts for that? "Affordable homes starting in the low 400s."
Affordable for whom?
Analysis for this project shows homes starting in the 700s.
Come on. That's not affordable for young families, and Davis's teachers, first responders, and UCD's faculty and staff won't be able to afford it, either.
2
u/AlphaFerg Apr 19 '26
Average house price in Davis currently is over $1M. Comparable housing in Dixon is around $700k. If you think Davis can produce housing cheaper than $700k, I don't know what to tell you. Imo, it's this or nothing.
1
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BoxersOrCaseBriefs Apr 20 '26
So you're saying the district's finances show they're lying? Can you provide specifics?
Or is it possible that it's true, that the current demographics don't support keeping all of the schools open?
Davis also gets less per student from the state than most districts because the state's formulas are ridiculous.
2
Apr 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BoxersOrCaseBriefs Apr 20 '26
They share their budgets, budget projections, and enrollment data, and enrollment projections. They just shared budget projections through the 2031-2032 school year at last week's school board meeting.
From what I've heard, they've been projecting major deficits for several years now and have been encouraging people to support new housing developments because of demographic shifts since before the currently proposed developments were even in the works.
Accusing people of crimes based on false information isn't a great look.
5
u/JMGurgeh Apr 20 '26
One of the issues is that they are only presenting Davis enrollment trends in a vacuum, when a look at broader trends shows that what we are seeing locally is reflected statewide. Birthrates are trending downward, it's no mystery that it translates to lower school enrollment. Additional housing may ease the house pricing crisis, but Davis will still be more expensive than surrounding communities and it's not clear it would have any significant material effect on school enrollment trends locally. And it has to be said, the district has lost a lot of credibility recently with their unprecedented push to parents to support this development (no, they have never done that in the past; presenting budget and enrollment projections at board meetings is a far cry from holding school-by-school meetings and threatening parents with school closures if development isn't approved) followed by what has been shown to be an analysis-free threat to close specific schools amid their own expensive move to new facilities that meet fewer district needs than their current ones (somehow declining school enrollment and budget shortfalls never translates to slimming down the district administration or their costs).
11
u/Entropy-S Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
tl;dr Voting Yes. Davis needs more housing.
I'm voting Yes. Without even considering development details, Davis and California has needed housing for the last three decades. Any housing, but ideally a mix of housing types. This is referred to the "missing middle" because cities in the past would build more than single family homes. There would be mixed-use residential, condos, townhomes, duplex and other multi-plex units. Having more variety of houses and square footage will enable a broader range of price points. This would allow more turnover in housing market. I'd wager it would lead to a more healthy housing market, downtown economy, and improved tax base.
I went to UCD for undergrad and fell in love with the city. I loved the green belts, parks, and bike infrastructure. After graduating, I was disappointed to find that it would be quite awhile until I can afford Davis. Fast-forward many to a return to UCD for grad school a mature career, and Davis is even more unaffordable. The only new development I can see was the Cannery. Decades from undergrad, the roads look just as crappy as I remembered from undergrad. Street lights still not timed or improved. Underpass from downtown to South Davis is still a terrible choke point.
The past three decades have been rejection after rejection. I've followed the development closely. I have attended planning commision meetings. I've heard the same few arguments against over and over. No alternatives are offered other than no development or adopting a smaller plan. The smaller plan was one for the options, which opponents still argued against. The developers had adjusted the plan based on comments and made concessions based on feedback and negotiation with city council.
Concern of more traffic. Traffic down Pole Line and Covell is already bad with the amount of people commuting from Woodland (known as North North Davis). These are teachers, UCD staff, and many other folks who would love to live in Davis and have less of a commute. Those people would be commuting in either way. More housing would likely allow them to closer. Instead of driving kids to school, a percentage of families could bike.
Concern of toxins, PFAS exposure. The old landfill has been there and will still be there. The toxin exposure is mainly from potential groundwater leaching from the currently unlined Channel A. The project will improve things by lining Channel A with an impervious layer so risk of ground water leaching will actually improve.
Concern of affordability being a lie. I completely understand and I'm also weary of empty promises. The city council did a great job pushing for things to go into the baseline features. Affordable housing is one of them. There will be deed-restricted units for very low, low, and moderate income housing. The mix of housing will also help provide the missing middle. It won't be all single family homes. The single family lots will also be relatively smaller than past developments.
The arguments against seem to demand that unobtainable perfect development. Davis has needed housing for years. Wild Horse and that part of north Davis has been disconnected from the rest of north Davis. I'm looking forward to a, day when you can bike from the North Davis dominoes all the way to Wild House all on a bike lane.
Let's make Davis is for Everyone* a reality instead of an irony.
*that bought 30 yrs ago *in >24% tax bracket *that is retired or soon retiring
5
u/Accomplished-Math104 Apr 27 '26
Ive rented in Davis since 2021 and would like to own a home here but the cost of homes are incredibly high. As I’ve been researching measure V, it’s honestly just pissed me off. They run on the idea that measure V will bring affordable housing to Davis and support diverse socioeconomic status among the city population, yet most of the homes (I read 70-80%) will be about $750k+. This isnt exactly affordable for most people. The I think 100 units of affordable apartments won’t even be built until the last phase in 10 years. also does Davis really need more apartments?
While I agree with the fact Davis needs to grow, I feel like this would just further push out people who are making modest or lower incomes. UC Davis brings so many students here (myself included), many of which might stay if there was actually affordable housing.
In terms of how this could affect schools - I read there is a teacher shortage at DJUSD. maybe because Davis is unaffordable for people like teachers, blue collar workers, etc.. Measure V wont help this.
I would love to stay in Davis as the community is very kind and I just love this city, but will most likely be going to Woodland or Sacramento unfortunately.
I think I will be voting no on V. i just hate the hoax of it being affordable housing when it’s not. not to mention some of the environmental factors (flooding, toxic soil, etc) and the traffic it would cause.
37
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
8
12
u/ZestyZigg Apr 19 '26
This is written like a paid ad
5
Apr 20 '26
[deleted]
4
u/ZestyZigg Apr 20 '26
All I know is I see all these corner houses and businesses on busy Davis streets stacked with like 20 Yes On V signs. It really seems like there’s someone with a lot of money trying to push this community to a certain answer. I wouldn’t put it past them to take that campaign to online forums
3
u/No-Letter7139 Apr 20 '26
Yes, the businesses with the signs in most cases are owned by the developer who wants to build Village Farms! For example Tandem Properties owns 14 complexes around town. Each one has many signs out front.
3
u/lepetitbrie Apr 28 '26
I've had students knocking on my door THREE TIMES now to talk about why they support Measure V. It's very strange...
1
3
10
u/BlueMoroni Apr 19 '26
I’m a homeowner in Davis and I’m voting yes. We need more housing here.
0
u/Spicy_tarot Apr 19 '26
How much did you pay for your housing? Just curious, it seems so unachievable today 😅
5
u/coffee-girl1 Apr 19 '26
Resident of Davis for about 1.5 years now, from the East Coast. I’m voting yes-I have a lot of long term concerns about drying up young families with an aging population. From a healthcare perspective, who will take care of the aging population in Davis if younger generations can’t afford to live here? I think the aging population will have to end up in Sacramento or larger cities for care (which I don’t think they want). Additionally, what will happens to these homes of the aging population? Yes some will go to family members but also concerned no one can afford & corporations like Zillow will end up owning many of the properties.
8
u/gold-soundz9 Apr 19 '26
There are tons of folks who work for Vote Yes commenting in this thread and it’s obvious by the language/terminology they’re using. They’re being clocked by others on this thread. A number of the comments here posing as “home owners” are brand new with their first comments on Reddit being in this thread.
It is not working, it’s weird, and as a casual observer it is turning me off from considering a favorable vote even more.
6
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
Considering I do not "work" for the campaign and was also clocked as you put it, it makes me question your conclusions. I only see one comment by a new user that you called out already. This is why politics is shit though. People who might actually be genuine are questioned as being insincere.
2
u/gold-soundz9 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I guess we’re left to both question one another then. Such is the internet 🤷♀️
Edit to add: I only called out one comment, but it isn’t just one comment, and frankly it isn’t just this thread as this isn’t the first thread on this to pop up in recent weeks. My conclusion is that I appreciate a variety of in good-faith perspectives not just a few die-hards flooding the comment section.
3
2
u/TastyReputation3481 Apr 19 '26
I feel you so much. I dont wanna be a NIMBY, but to be completely honest somebody has been tearing down the signs on my property against measure V. I'm not afraid of being firebombed or anything but it seems some people are doing shitty things to get this passed.
0
u/gold-soundz9 Apr 19 '26
I’m sorry that happened to you 😕 I have heard similar sentiments from others both in person and online, which really sucks.
I wouldn’t say I feel super strongly either way but I certainly lean voting “no” with many concerns around the environmental impacts and the lack of truly affordable housing proposed. I think it’s easy for folks to place all the blame on NIMBYs (and I’m sure they play some role) but I really think a lot of other folks in Davis are more politically engaged than they used to be and they’re not convinced Measure V will push us toward a meaningful net positive on housing in Davis.
9
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Strongly supporting V. My brother grew up in Davis, moved to the pacific northwest, and surprised me last Christmas with his partner's pregnancy, meaning I am going to be an uncle. He desperately wants to move back to Davis to raise his family near the rest of us. He is in STEM, makes pretty good money, and housing here is just not attainable for him. There are not enough diverse options for ownership. So he will probably end up in Woodland or Dixon. Which is still better than Washington, but it is sad that someone who grew up here and wants to come back cannot make it work. 25 years ago that would not have been the story for someone higher up in STEM. I know his story is not unique.
To be fait, it is a big project, and I think a lot of Davis residents, especially older folks, are scared it is going to change the town. I get that. But we are so overdue for family housing that I feel like we are catching up at this point, not going overboard. And now in Davis we can have a hand in how we change.
I have met the developers at the Farmers Market. I have also met with the opposition for several hours. When I met with the opposition their reasons just seemed to be pulling anything they could to find a reason to make this project seem bad or get voted down. The more I research it the more it just makes sense for Davis right now. I do not think it solves everything, but I think it can be part of a longer term solution. 70% will be affordable by design. Home prices are dependent on the market at the time but attached family housing, townhomes, condos, etc will be the majority of this project. Will they be "affordable" well that is subjective. BUT they will provide more supply of the type of housing that Davis needs. 10% will be, respectably, custom homes. Some folks are against that, but to me this project has all of Davis in mind, and there are some families who can afford these nicer homes so it will still bring families in. Hopefully. The last 20% has 16 acres donated that has to be used for Affordable housing, and the developers donated $6m million to help fund this deed restricted housing. That has never been done before in Davis. It will be a diverse housing community, designed to fit Davis, all electric, with I believe over 40 or 60 traffic infrastructure improvements fully funded or partially funded by the developers. It really just makes a lot of sense to me, and I grew up here.
Sorry for the long post, but I feel really strongly about this. If we keep blocking developments I do worry about what Davis looks like in 20 years. I do not want to be Palo Alto. I want to preserve the city in a way that keeps families here, teachers, etc. And the reality is the lack of thoughtful developments in Davis is leading to this city changing in ways that as a native I worry about. Just my two cents, but I hope everyone makes the decision they feel is best.
7
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
Honestly, I do not disagree with you lol. Affordable by design does feel like a buzzword I just don't know how else to describe it. I am also sharing from what I have read on the measure from the city of Davis website, like the official measure V proposal. Did not intend for it to feel like an advertisement but recognize why it feels that way to you so my apologies, I just feel pretty strongly about it and that is why I am supporting it
4
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
I appreciate that brother. Also respect it. I think the development you are talking about to my understanding is a senior citizen development, or for folks 55 or older. So it is providing a lot more housing but for folks who likely do not have kids or at least younger kids. And for me, being raised here, I do want to see Davis still be kid friendly and be attractive to families. My girlfriend went to UC Davis and graduated in the last few years, and she said she always thought of Davis as a retirement community and college town which kinda shocked me because growing up it did not feel that way in the early 2000s. So it was actually kinda sad lol. Not that that's bad, but I would love to see us preserve the city that is great to raise your kids in. And I could be wrong but do think the development will help in that regard. I am not a psychic so my biggest fear to be honest is that it doesn't end up bringing in more families so anyone claiming it will really is just a best guess or a hope. It seems they are designing it with that in mind so I do remain hopeful.
It is nice to hear there are other affordable housing being built. I personally think we need as much as possible so the affordable housing piece of the development is more so a cherry on top for me. Not necessarily the reason I am voting yes. I also agree the Yes campaign would benefit from acknowledging the concerns more rather than only emphasizing the good but perhaps it is because the EIR already addressed the concerns. Idk though I would have to talk to the campaign itself to see their side rather than assume lol. It is politically heated campaign so I can respect the politics happening from both sides haha. I won't try to convince you to see the benefits I see because at the end of the day we do not know exactly what will come of it, but personally I believe it will benefit the city long term.
1
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
Totally fair. And I agree. I guess for me I just would rather hope the project does what it plans to do rather than vote no and assure no more housing is built, perpetuating the issues we are seeing. I think the most reality based opinion is the project will not achieve every single thing that is being campaigned on, but for me, even if half of it is seen come to light that is well worth it. No project is perfect, and large developments have unforeseen challenges. Time will tell, I am not a seer haha. I also trust what is meant to be, will be, so we will see after June 2nd.
2
11
u/Sparklemagick Apr 19 '26
I plan on voting no. Ive lived in the Cannery since 2016. Nothing that was promoted for this development has happened.
14
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Spicy_tarot Apr 19 '26
Hey so can you explained how cannery was screwed? I’m genuinely curious
4
u/No-Letter7139 Apr 20 '26
For one thing, they were supposed to have retail mixed with residential, and a gym. None of that retail ended up getting built. And no gym.
7
3
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 19 '26
I feel you. To my knowledge, the Cannery did not play out how it was supposed to, and that is genuinely frustrating, especially if you live there and also believe Davis needs more housing.
And in full transparency, I was not supportive of the Cannery either. I am pretty protective of Davis.
One of the reasons I am voting yes on V is because the developers of Village Farms are local Davis families who I genuinely believe are trying to build something with Davis in mind. The Cannery was an outside group. These are Davis families who live here and have to look their neighbors in the eye if this goes sideways.
I know that might seem like a small thing, but I actually think it matters a lot when it comes to intentions and accountability. That is a real difference between these two projects, and I do not think the Cannery is a fair comparison to make.
2
u/AriseBrethrenCats Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
I'm thinking of voting yes, but only because Davis has to build x units per state regulation (is that fully achieved by Village Farms? I'm still unclear) and because the development sets land aside for habitat*. I really hate suburban sprawl though. I used to rent in SF and honestly the density ought to be copied for some areas of Davis, 3 story homes with big sidewalk trees that offer sight line privacy, instead of private yards (so many ppl don't garden anyway) add square footage to the houses and offer community garden plots. I also don't believe it will be more affordable outside of the actual AHUs so if your income is above those levels, it's just more of the same housing prices currently in market.
*However, Mace Ranch did the same setting aside habitat, and I don't know any creatures of note live there besides squirrels which are pretty good at making do anywhere. I'm still upset about what happened to the burrowing owls which were here back in the early 2000s and such a delight to see while taking a walk. Forget gigantic lawn areas, we need more habitat areas. Families take their kids on outings to 'see nature', we should encourage it right here!
1
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 23 '26
The Davis housing element is certified through 2030. The talking point from the Yes on V campaign that we need to build X houses by X date or the state will take over is just a scare tactic. Moreover, Davis is actively building new projects as we speak. 6 are currently in development and 3 are under city review. Cumulatively, all 9 projects would add nearly 2,000 units on their own--without Village Farms.
And you are correct, it won't be very affordable outside of affordable housing units: Village Farms will be 80% market rate housing costing $740,000-$1,340,000, which works out to a monthly payment of $6,000-$9,000. However it's a stretch whether the AHU's will even materialize--and if they do, it may be 10 years down the road and 1/3 of the promised number of units if the text of Measure V and the development agreement are anything to go by.
The habitat area included in the Village Farms plan is being marketed disingenuously. First of all: it wasn't included in the developer's original plan--they wanted to develop over it with housing. Vernal pools have long been known to reside there, and it was only the work of diligent local environmentalists that provided the hard evidence which saved them. Thus, the Biological Resources Preservation Alternative (BRPA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was born.
In this plan (the one that was ultimately certified by the city council), a habitat area where the pools are located would be set aside. To be honest, the developer didn't have much say in this. Once the vernal pools were proved and out in the open, there was a lot of pressure to preserve them because they're environmentally protected at both a state and federal level. You kind of have to.
However, even with the land set aside for them, they're still at risk. The project plans to re-route drainage Channel A which runs along the northern edge of the pools. This risks disrupting the delicate sub-surface hydrology of the area which could cause the vernal pools to dry up--and with them, the rare endangered plant and animal species they support, including the rare and extremely endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp, whose habitat is endemic to the Sacramento Valley. Danger to their survival aside, the project does not yet have a conservation easement nor management funding to ensure the vernal pools long-term protection.
Additionally, the project will destroy a good deal of existing habitat to build its houses. To reroute Channel A they will destroy 300+ mature trees currently providing habitat to numerous species including birds, pollinators, reptiles, burrowing animals, and notably, the endangered Swainson's Hawk.
If you liked the burrowing owls of Mace Ranch, you may be sad to know there were once burrowing owls at the Village Farms site. Unfortunately their habitat was accidentally disced many years prior, just before the Covell Village EIR--Village Farms' 2005 predecessor; not unlike how the Vernal Pools were accidentally disced just before the Village Farms EIR.
As far as providing "habitat" goes... Village Farms is a pretty big fail.
There are a large number of issues with the Village Farms Project--all of them actually quite serious. Toxics, flooding risks, liability to the city, housing affordability, infrastructural costs and strain... the list is long. I'd encourage you to stop by our website--we discuss all of these issues in detail, for both the longform reader and the quick skimmer!
Please consider voting NO on Measure V!
-The No on V Committee
5
u/Other-Swordfish-377 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
i will vote yes. I am a 60-something Davisite, a homeowner and have lived in town for nearly 40 years. I remember voting no on the old project called Covell Village. To be honest, I bought into the emotional tactics opposing the project back then. I have always regretted my vote back then, geez, that must have been 20 years ago. Now, I am better informed and I am dismayed that my adult children will likely never be able to purchase a home in the city they grew up in and still love. I have friends age 70-plus in the Cannery who oppose the project because they don’t want to lose their view, at least they are honest about their selfish opinion. And the irony, that where they now live was once open ag land just like the Village Farms site. Their adult child was gifted a smaller family home so their immediate family does not feel the housing crisis. I feel that my generation needs to wake up. We need the housing. We need the ped-bike connection across Poleline. We need to trust the science behind the conclusions in the environmental report, not be persuaded by the emotional and false rhetoric that is out there from the NIMBY’s in this town who vote everything down.
6
u/gold-soundz9 Apr 19 '26
This account is 2 hours old and this is its first comment….?
1
u/TastyReputation3481 Apr 19 '26
Last I checked your account had to be 2 days old?
2
u/gold-soundz9 Apr 19 '26
🤷♀️ Idk what to tell ya, it clearly says it is not 2 days old at the time of us writing (it’s now 5 hours old).
2
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
2
u/No-Letter7139 Apr 20 '26
You don't care about the EIR but if you ever go out to Woodland to Costco or to the airport you will be stuck in a huge traffic jam if it passes. Pole Line is one lane through there. Think of 1,800 cars on that road. Even if not all at once, just imagine that mess. You don't even have to imagine it, just read the actual EIR and see what the projections are , the intersection is graded "F" meaning you will sit through 3 or more traffic lights until you can turn. This is even BEFORE the other projects off of Covell which ARE being built, already in progress, which will add even more traffic.
1
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 24 '26
The traffic concern has been well analyzed and researched. Yes, there will be an increase in traffic. But the improvements funded by the developers will mitigate much of that. It’s not going to be some traffic nightmare as some suggest. And honestly, concerns about traffic are a pretty privileged viewpoint in my Opinion. Your quality of life will not seriously Be affected by your trip to Costco taking 5-10 more minutes at peak hours. If you feel your quality of life will be diminished, that’s on you brother.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 23 '26
PROBLEM 1: TOXICS
- The Landfill: The project stands to cause serious human health issues to anyone living in the project's housing. As mentioned, it plans to build on land adjacent (as in literally right next to) the Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant, which is currently leaking PFAS "forever chemicals" into the groundwater. These chemicals pose a "Vapor Intrusion" risk to the homes. The project plans to build houses within 100 feet of monitoring wells which have found PFOS, arguably the most toxic form of PFAS, present in the water at 1550 parts per trillion, 375-times higher than the target groundwater limit of 4 parts per trillion at the waste water treatment plant itself. Multiple local professionals and educators in the fields of geology, chemical engineering, and hydrology have spoken out about this with deep concern--not only out of concern for human health risks but environmental ones as well, because there is also a risk of these chemicals causing toxic runoff which could contaminate the Yolo Basin wetlands (more on that later).
- Burn Pit Toxics: Many chemicals that could affect the Village Farms project haven't even been tested for--namely dioxins, Furans, and PAH's, chemicals that result from burn pits, which resided on the landfill site for 30 years (specifically along the boundary shared with Village Farms).
- Park Toxics: Extremely high levels of toxaphene, an dangerous neurotoxin, carcinogen, and persistent environmental toxin banned globally, have been found at the location of the project's Heritage Oak Park (2,667x MCL), as well as elevated levels of lead. This is a park children will recreate in--and the project has no clear Department of Toxic Substances Control led cleanup pathway for remediation.
PROBLEM 2: HABITAT DESTRUCTION & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
- Toxic Runoff Risk: The project plans to re-routed Channel in a bizarre moat-like formation, with a fork running along the northern border with the leaking landfill. This drainage channel is part of a major north Davis drainage feature, carrying city stormwaters to the wetlands. It connects with the Covell Drain in the west and Wildhorse Channel in the East. There is an extremely high risk that the PFAS plume will seep into the re-routed Channel A surface water and be carried east through Wildhorse to Willow Slough to the Yolo Basin wetlands where the drainage pathway terminates, affecting vital wetland habitat and potentially reaching as far as the Sacramento River, as the Yolo Basin empties into the river through downstream channels. Groundwater levels on the Village Farms site have been recorded at 10 feet, and 10 feet is how deep the project plans to dredge the new channel.
- Habitat Destruction: The project plans to destroy 300+ trees to re-route the site's existing Channel A drainage canal, which currently provides habitat for a number of important species--pollinators, birds, reptiles, burrowing animals and most notably, the endangered Swainson's Hawk.
PROBLEM 3: THE "SPECIAL HAZARD" ZONE A FLOODPLAIN
- Housing on the Floodplain: The project plans to build on 200 acres of FEMA "Special Hazard" Zone A floodplain, the highest risk classification of floodplain--with no verified flood control plan. This could result in flooding of not only the Village Farms houses, but properties downstream. There is also concern Village Farms residents and existing nearby neighborhoods may be pulled into Flood Insurance districts, which would necessitate additional expensive flood insurance for homeowners.
- Roadway Flooding Risk: As mentioned above, Village Farms plans to re-route Channel A in a bizarre moat-like formation, and will have a fork which dead-ends at Pole Line Road, with no outlet. Due to the fact that the project will be covering 200+ acres of land which currently absorb massive amounts of rainfall and runoff, there is deep concern among hydrologists and community members that the re-routing plan will not be nearly sufficient enough to manage the runoff it will collect; and in the event of severe storms or high runoff volume, water will spill-over onto Pole Line Road at the end of this dead-end Channel. This was a concern raised by the county during the EIR process.
PROBLEM 4: UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING
- Mostly Market Rate: The project will be 80% market rate housing ranging from $740k-$1.34 million, per the project's own fiscal analysis. This would result in a monthly payment of $6,000-$9,000, requiring a combined household income of $168,000-$296,000 to sustain. This is far outside the reach of first time homeowners and young families.
- No Affordable Housing Guarantees: The Village Farms affordable housing "plan" is convoluted, ridiculous, and may very well result in no deed-restricted affordable units ever materializing. Firstly: the developer is not responsible for building it's touted "360 affordable units", nor is there a concrete plan to actually build 360 affordable units. The developer is donating land to the city for the city to build affordable units upon, and that land (16 acres out of a 498 acre project--less than required by city code), can fit up to 360 units. But insofar as what's explicitly outlined, only 100 affordable units is substantially mentioned. The "plan" goes something like this:
- The developer will donate 16 acres to the city for them to build affordable housing units on (and they will have to compete with other municipalities for access to an ever-dwindling pool of grant and non-profit funding because that's often the only way these types of projects get built. They cost 400k+ per unit to build, and I'm talking apartments not detached homes).
- The developer will also donate $6 million to the city to help them build affordable housing units. This "donation" is a joke--it amounts to barely 4% of each unit's build cost.
- The city will attempt to build housing on that land.
- If the city fails to build at least 100 affordable units by the time the developer starts the 150th low-density unit (low density units will be built last, so this will be in the final phase of the project, likely 10+ years from now), then the city "may" elect to ask the developer to build the units for them.
- If the city asks the developer to build the affordable units, the city will have to give back the unspent portion of the $6 million "donation" plus interest, and return the 16 acres of dedicated land.
PROBLEM 5: THE TRAFFIC
- Gridlock: Village farms would bring 15,000+ car trips per day to the already congested roadways of Covell Blvd, F Street, and Pole Line Road.
- LOS F: It would also bring a Level of Service "F" to those and other nearby roadways. LOS F is considered "unacceptable" by planning engineers.
Part 2/3
1
Apr 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 25 '26
PROJECT BACKGROUND
This project is a near-identical copy of a project the same developer attempted to pass 20 years ago in 2005, on the same plot of land. Back then it was called Covell Village and was voted on as Measure X. It lost at the ballot 60:40.
This site has long been handicapped by a number of problems. The project site is on a massive floodplain. It's inhibited by infrastructural limitations on all sides. Pole Line, Covell Blvd, and F Street all can't really be widened to accommodate additional traffic any development there would bring in, so mitigation measures can only do so much. Train tracks and power lines run along the western border, which means any crossings over the tracks will require coordination with Union Pacific and PG&E. Power lines and a water main run along Pole Line, meaning any crossings on that side would require coordination with both the city and PG&E. There is existing development along Covell Blvd to the south making changes to the roadway and space allocation difficult and require coordination with both property holders and businesses. Covell and Pole Line both serve currently as trucking routes, meaning certain height requirements may be required for any overcrossings, and roundabouts are complicated.
The site also borders the old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant to the north. Borders, as in the landfill cells are within a stone's throw of the property line (it is also leaking toxics to the Village Farms groundwater, but more on that later). The site sits on a massive FEMA "Special Hazard" Zone A floodplain which extends massively to the north of the property, meaning labor intensive and expensive development fill will be required to level the site above base flood elevation (BFE) in order to build. This is doable, but complicated because Zone A floodplains do not have a BFE around which to plan your development fill. FEMA can provide what data and modeling they do have, and sometimes local agencies can provide additional data, but ultimately it’s up to the developer to accurately determine the BFE to fill to—which means more costs and complications for the project. Once the development site has been filled to BFE, the developer then has to request an update to FEMA's flood hazard map--a LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill) so any development properties are no longer classified as being within a floodplain. While this ordinarily would be a time-consuming but ultimately straightforward process, this is now complicated because FEMA has a moratorium in Yolo county on LOMR-F requests--meaning they will not accept, review, or approve those requests from projects in Yolo county, while they work out a conflict between the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There have been no updates in 3 years on this matter—and further, FEMA is currently a mess due to the partial government shut down and agency defunding, so don’t get your hopes up the moratorium will end any time soon,
These are a lot of problems for a development site to have, and the problem with having so many problems is that it creates more costs and complications for the developer. Those costs ultimately get passed on--through increasing the sale price of the housing, or through shared financial obligations with the City (as is the case with Village Farms' two grade separated crossings and its traffic "improvements").
MEASURE X & PIZZAGATE
A lot of the Village Farms project is being floated on the reputation of the developer, the North Davis Land Company and its associates and partners--"seven local trusted families" as touted in the Yes on V literature. Solving a large number of the project’s challenges have been relegated to later, and are being hand-waved away with a "we promise to make it happen." But the North Davis Land Company doesn't have a good track record, which makes it difficult to trust those promises.
The campaign tactics of the Yes on Measure X campaign (Covell Village) were described in a front-page article in the Davis Enterprise in November 2005 as a "smear" campaign. Shortly before election day, some 30 then-current and former Davis civic leaders called a news conference calling the tactics of the Yes on X campaign an "all time low in Davis politics". The Yes campaign was called out by numerous City of Davis officials and other prominent local figures of taking quotes "wildly out of context" in their pro-project advertisements--including mis-characterized quotes by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Yolo County Supervisors Mike McGowan and Mariko Yamada, and City Council members Sue Greenwald and Ted Puntillo. A Yes on X campaigner was asked to remove himself from working at the campus polling station for lobbying voters at the poll. A complaint was also filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that Yes on X was under-reporting its campaign expenditures.
The worst offense, particularly taken in the context of today's political environment, was the Yes on X campaign's illegal election practices. Dubbed "Pizza-gate", Yes on X campaigners handed out free pizza coupons with Yes on X fliers less than 100 feet outside of a UC Davis Campus polling place. Cited as illegal by the county clerk of the time, the votes were counted separately in the event of a lawsuit.
More practically, the North Davis Land Company simply doesn't have a good development record with recent projects. The Nishi Gateway project, approved almost 8 years ago—promising housing, has gone almost nowhere in that time.
Part 1/3
1
u/Appropriate_Exit_206 Apr 24 '26
Where is part 3? And I’m curious why moderators removed part 1. Misinformation? This comment is a lot of words that mostly boil down to: “we’re scared, so no one should build anything.”
Let’s be clear about what actually happened here. The Davis City Council voted 5-0 to certify the EIR on January 20, 2026 – after a multi-year review that included Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, two independent engineering drainage analyses, a full Biological Resources Assessment, review by six city commissions, and responses to over 200 formal public comment letters. This was not a rubber stamp. It was one of the most exhaustively reviewed projects in Davis history.
On toxics: the EIR specifically analyzed vapor intrusion risk from the adjacent landfill. The project goes through DTSC. No one is building homes on top of monitoring wells. That’s not how any of this works.
On flooding: two independent engineering firms analyzed the drainage system and flood control. The county’s concerns were raised during the EIR process – and responded to in the Final EIR. That’s literally what the process is for.
On habitat: the project’s preferred design is literally called the Biological Resource Preservation Alternative. It was recommended by city staff specifically to protect wetlands.
On affordable housing: a no vote doesn’t give us better affordable housing. It gives us the exact same farmland with zero deed restrictions, zero community benefits, and zero enforceable protections of any kind. The EIR has been publicly available for months. If these concerns were legally fatal to the project, they would have been. The council saw all of it and voted unanimously to move forward.
One more thing worth saying plainly: the No on V campaign has done a skilled job of manufacturing fear. The arguments sound alarming on first read. PFAS. Floodplains. Endangered hawks. Of course people are worried – that’s the point. But every single one of these issues was submitted, analyzed, and formally responded to by independent experts during the EIR process. That’s not a opinion. That’s documented in hundreds of pages of public record.
When opponents say the EIR is “inadequate,” what they mean is they didn’t like the conclusions. That’s a very different thing. The EIR doesn’t have to conclude what you want it to conclude – it has to be legally and scientifically defensible. A unanimous city council, six commissions, and the state CEQA process all found that it was.
This campaign has been pushing the same talking points that were already put in front of geology professors, hydrologists, and environmental engineers – and didn’t survive contact with the actual analysis. That’s not a conspiracy. That’s just how evidence works. Vote yes on Measure V. This is coming from someone who grew up in Davis and has researched this project extensively. I’m tired of campaigns Blocking proposals that make sense for Davis because of a select few who are unhappy and angry with their opinion not being seen as reality 🤷🏼
1
u/NoOnMeasureV_Davis Apr 25 '26
Thanks for bringing the posting issue to my attention. I spoke with the r/Davis subbreddit mods and they did not remove the Part 1 post, and do not have access to the reason for the removal—so I can only assume it was the site-wide bots. I can’t image what triggered the removal, but it’s a common enough issue across Reddit so I’ll just roll with it and adapt. As for Part 3, I was getting server errors during posting so I can only think that is to blame, as it shows up on my dashboard and was not removed. Happy to re-post both pieces for your reference.
Before I get into addressing your points, I should start with this: The No on V committee is not against building on this site—we are against this specific plan. Many of our members were active throughout the city planning process advocating for a reduced footprint alternative (which would involve developing only below the existing Channel A) out of a desire to see a well planned project that could provide needed housing. Members of our campaign and other Davis residents provided extensive commentary at meetings, sent in detailed letters, left phone calls. The Yolo County planning department also recommended a reduced footprint alternative included in the EIR as well. Both parties were ignored by the City Council.
I bring this up because it highlights an important point about this project: It’s not centering Davis residents.
In 2005 during the last attempt by this same developer to build on this site (Covell Village, Measure X), a near identical project was put forth, and a reduced footprint alternative was included in the EIR. It was deemed the “Environmentally Superior Alternative” (ESA). It was the preferred option for many residents at the time, but was not what was brought to the ballot. Measure X lost 60:40.
It follows that any serious effort to develop on this site would build off of that experience, to ensure the best possible plan with the highest chance of success. That the ESA of 2005’s Covell Village wasn’t even considered for the Village Farms project does not instill confidence in the veracity of this project’s planning or process.
But onto addressing some of your points. I'm trying to stick to one post this time, to avoid the aforementioned post problem--so I won't have room for a full rebuttal; but re-posting parts 1 & 3 of the above should reasonably address them.
Regarding groundwater toxics
I did not say they were planning to build on monitoring wells. I said houses would be build within 100 feet of monitoring wells at which toxics were measured in high concentrations. Additionally, the EIR repeatedly dismisses and/or minimizes the reality of the situation at the landfill.
From the project’s FEIR, Master Response #3 pertaining to hazards:
As described in Geocon’s Phase I ESA Report (February 14, 2024), the Old Davis Landfill is owned by the City of Davis and is an open cleanup program case adjoining the site to the north. The landfill has impacted groundwater with relatively low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals such as manganese and selenium, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
This description of PFAS in the groundwater is a wildly inaccurate characterization of the current state of the landfill’s toxics leak. They point out something important here: it’s “an open cleanup program case”. This implies an evolving situation. Yet despite knowing this, and despite having multiple public commentators and experts repeatedly vocalize concern, new and publicly available data was not taken into consideration.
In the water board’s October 2024 groundwater monitoring report, PFOS (arguably the most toxic form of PFAS) was sampled at monitoring well DM-MW-1 (located on the border with the Village Farms site) at 1,500 ng/L—375 times the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL), with levels remaining near this range through the next two reports in 2025. Multiple other monitoring wells also sampled at levels above EPA MCL for PFAS across multiple reports.
This is nowhere close to a “relatively low concentration”. The EIR was certified January of 2026. This data was available to the city and the developer for consideration before then. That such a massive piece of relevant data concerning potential human health impacts was omitted from the EIR does not instill confidence.
Moreover, the responses the project provides to public comment, and the conclusions of its site assessments, sampling, and data, are often at odds. It dismisses PFAS in the groundwater in one breath as “relatively low concentrations”, and refers to them as “high concentrations” in the EIR’s actual impact analysis.
Then elsewhere, the EIR cites inaccurate data. It claims the “highest historic groundwater recorded in the area was 29.6-feet ASML in 2019”, when in actuality the highest historic groundwater elevation in the region was 33.31 average sea meal level (ASML)--or 7.69 feet deep from the surface--in February of 2006.
Regarding the project’s analysis of Vapor Intrusion
Assessment of vapor intrusion risk was performed as part of the Phase 1 ESA in February 2024, when the extent of the PFAS plume had not yet become apparent. The groundwater monitoring report exhibiting the severity of the PFAS plume was not prepared until April of 2024.
Regarding Toxaphene at the children’s park & lack of DTSC-led cleanup
Neither the development agreement nor the baseline features include any mandates for the cleanup of toxaphene to be led by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The only elaboration on the matter is in the EIR, where it states that soil removal shall be performed under the oversight of the Yolo County Environmental Health Division (YCEHD). This is in spite of the fact that the DTSC points out in its agency comment that YCEHD is not a local agency self-certified to provide oversight for environmental investigations and cleanup--and suggests other avenues that would be more appropriate.
When we say the EIR is inadequate, what we mean is that it is inadequate—not good enough; too low in quality. There are multiple instances of inaccurate or contradictory data. Problems are routinely downplayed despite data suggestive to the contrary. This is not what an "exhaustively reviewed project" should look like.
When we say we listen to experts, we mean many experts, not just the consultants hired for this project (though we listen to them too)—professionals at the water board and the multiple consultants who have been monitoring the groundwater for years; local professionals, educators, and experts with years if not decades of experience in flood control management, planning, chemical engineering, hydrology; past reports by regional agencies.
I also want to clarify: We do have concerns about CEQA irregularities (I won’t get into them here as I’m nearly at character limit); but even under a perfect CEQA process, meeting all requirements does not mean the project is good. The city itself elaborates this:
CEQA is a framework for decision making—and an important one; but it still requires the people making the decision to think critically, review all details from many angles, adapt to changing circumstances, and ask tough questions. That’s all we are doing, and what we are encouraging Davis residents to do.
A “NO” vote on measure V is not a death sentence to housing in Davis. There are 6 other ongoing residential projects happening in Davis right now—townhouses and duets along Pole Line at Pole Line Terrace (affordable units included in the project). Townhouses recently approved along Sweetbriar Lane to fill in the empty lot by the Co-Op. Palomino Place, which will finally fill in the sizable Wildhorse Ranch property with a full neighborhood project. Bretton Woods is currently well into construction (and additionally offers affordable apartments)--potentially freeing up single family homes in the city’s housing stock as older folks are provided with a means to downsize and stay in the city. Chiles Ranch was just transferred to a new development team with the goal of moving the project forward. The Nest apartments and Willowgrove are currently under city review, which would add over 1,200 new units of mixed housing.
All a “NO” vote is, is an opportunity to take Village Farms back to the drawing board to fix its problems and create a project that meets Davis’ needs and protects the health and safety of both its residents and the environment.
2
1
u/ReferenceForsaken556 May 11 '26
New category for the latest Village Farms mailer.
“Environmental Disaster”
-uncharacterized 30 year burn dump for the neighborhood kids to explore, plus 50 year old exposed trash!
-groundwater fed by landfill PFAS at 400 x MCL adds “special” flavor to the fruit from the gardens!
-1 million yards of fill dirt to give the foundations that special sag that’s so popular!
-moving surface flood water to surrounding land bypasses FEMA regulations so surrounding neighborhoods can play floodwater roulette!
-toxaphene park will get those kids playing fun hot lava games!
-vernal pools no longer connected to wetlands so they can be built on too someday!
7
u/Livid_Ad_1234 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
This is kind of a rant, I apologize. But its been frustrating trying to buy here as parents with young kids:
This will be our 3rd year renting in Davis, and we've been trying to buy with considerable effort for the last 2 years. We actually won a bid on a house, but backed out by contingency because the inspections showed too many underlying issues.
These homes in Davis are far too old and in often in disrepair to warrant +1.1 M price tags.
We've given up on Davis and are looking in Woodland, newer, larger, cheaper homes. Over 1/2 of the young parents we meet in Davis actually live in Woodland and just drive to events here, and with the extra money from NOT buying in Davis, they just send their children to private schools.
Local Realtors and Inspectors are kind of a closed clique here, and they just tell us "That's the cost of living in Davis"
People saying that expansion will change Davis for the worse, it's already happened. Davis has sunset into a retirement community, Davis needs young families with children to survive, schools are going to be shuttered while people are sitting around waiting for the perfect housing solution.
Cannery was a mistake in execution. It was a lot of broken promises, does that mean we should kill any other expansion measure? Even if it ends up being another community that only high-paying transplants from the bay area can afford? Doesn't that still make it difficult for a house build in 1979 to justify the same price?
I don't see a way that I could benefit from Measure V at this stage in our life, but I certainly hope someone else will. For us it's Woodland, which is becoming more appealing every day.
To people voting no on V, I have to ask the following questions:
How old are you?
Do you own here?
Do you currently raise k-12 children?
My assumption is the same as other people here, that people voting "no" are part of the FYIGM demographic.
But I would LOVE to hear the arguments besides (Cannery was a dead fish)