Davis, CA – Planning Commissioners Wednesday took the first of many steps toward the eventual potential placement of the Village Farms project on the ballot.
The commission listened to nearly two hours of public comment—often contentious—before making their own brief comments on the EIR.
In a heated session of the Davis Planning Commission on February 13, 2025, commissioners and local residents gathered to scrutinize the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the controversial Village Farms project. The meeting, marked by passionate public comments and rigorous debate among commissioners, highlighted the complexities and challenges of urban planning in the face of environmental and community concerns.
“I think we had an excellent set of public comments, and I’m really glad that you guys were here to hear them in person,” Chair Michelle Weiss remarked, emphasizing the importance of community engagement.
Commissioner Vince McLaughlin echoed this sentiment, praising the quality of the comments and expressing disappointment over the absence of a reduced footprint alternative in the draft EIR. He raised concerns about traffic constraints and environmental risks, drawing on his experience as a former general counsel of an oil company.
McLaughlin said, “I shared the disappointment of some of the speakers that we were not provided with a reduced footprint alternative in the alternative section of the draft EIR.”
As was the case in 2005 when the project came forward as Covell Village and was ultimately rejected by the voters, traffic emerged as a central issue, with McLaughlin and others questioning the feasibility of ingress and egress solutions.
The comparison to Sacramento’s rail yards overpass underscored the need for innovative solutions to alleviate traffic congestion. Environmental concerns were equally pressing, with McLaughlin stressing the need for detailed mitigation strategies to prevent potential liability issues for the city.
Commissioner Georgina Valencia highlighted the need for a storm water control plan and questioned the feasibility of safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Her concerns about the educational farm component of the project reflected broader skepticism about such initiatives’ practicality.
“I think that the storm water control plan really does need to be prepared and there needs to be an analysis of that,” she said.
Commissioner Alan Bennett critiqued the structure of the EIR, describing it as “overwhelming” and confusing. He suggested a clearer comparison of alternatives to the BRPA (Build-out Resource Protection Alternative) to aid understanding.
Greg Rowe offered the most extensive critique focused on the EIR’s alternatives analysis, which he described as “corrupt.”
“I’ll be blunt, I think the city has corrupted the alternatives analysis. I have real concerns about the veracity and the integrity of this alternatives analysis,” Rowe said pointedly. “For one thing, it seems like what was done when the city was giving guidance to you as the EIR consultant is they kept ratcheting up the number of units until they hit the VMT target they wanted and they finally hit 2,700 units and they said, bingo, we’ve got it. We now have met the regional and local VMT targets.
“In all the years I’ve looked at hundreds of EIRs, I’ve never seen an EIR that had an alternative that increased the intensity of the project by 50%. That just doesn’t make sense.”
He added, “To be really blunt, what it seems to me has been done is when you look at the staff report page five, it lists seven different impact areas that could have significant or unavoidable impacts, and we’ve sacrificed those factors on the altar of VMT and I think VMT has got a lot of problems with it.”
He continued, “Somewhere in the document it says that if we had this project, people who currently commute to UC Davis from Woodland, Roseville and Elk Grove could instead live here. That totally ignores the reality that maybe those people that live in Woodland or Elk Grove or Roseville have a significant other in the household who works in those cities.”
He added, “It makes no sense, you’re going to be trading one kind of traffic for the other.”
Overall, he said, “I don’t think the EIR addresses them correctly. I don’t think the EIR has the correct alternatives evaluated.”
His concerns about increased project intensity and the reliance on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metrics sparked a broader discussion about the validity of such measures in urban planning.
“To me, the VMT thing… I just don’t think it takes into account reality,” he said.
Safety concerns dominated discussions, particularly regarding the need for grade-separated crossings to ensure the safety of students and pedestrians. Commissioners and residents alike stressed the inadequacy of proposed traffic mitigation measures, with Commissioner Johannes Troost highlighting existing traffic issues and the potential dangers of increased congestion.
“If we don’t have a really healthy traffic plan, not just for here but for our city, how are we going to get across the north? We do need that over grade crossing up there,” Troost said.
Commissioner Catherine Brinkley emphasized the need for a comprehensive general plan to guide future development decisions. Her comments reflected a broader frustration with the current planning process and the lack of viable alternatives in the EIR.
“I agree with Commissioner Rowe that I don’t think that a viable and desirable alternative was presented,” Brinkley said. “I differ a bit because I do think VMT is a great metric and there are a lot of benefits to density.”
As the meeting concluded, Chair Weiss encouraged commissioners to submit further comments in writing, underscoring the importance of thorough feedback in shaping the final EIR.
Greg Rowe says: ” . . . and I think VMT has got a lot of problems with it.” His concerns about increased project intensity and the reliance on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metrics sparked a broader discussion about the validity of such measures in urban planning.”
“To me, the VMT thing… I just don’t think it takes into account reality,” he said.
My response: That’s for sure, as discussed yesterday. It does NOT adequately measure greenhouse gas emissions, for one thing.
Greg Rowe says: “Somewhere in the document it says that if we had this project, people who currently commute to UC Davis from Woodland, Roseville and Elk Grove could instead live here. That totally ignores the reality that maybe those people that live in Woodland or Elk Grove or Roseville have a significant other in the household who works in those cities.”
My response: It ignores ALL KINDS of realities. Starting with the fact that you get “more for your money” outside of Davis. This isn’t going to change, nor is it going to cause people to abandon their existing housing.
And even if they did sell their existing house, another commuter would live there.
Almost everyone buying a house in Spring Lake, for example, can probably afford a pre-existing house in Davis in the first place. The reason above tells you why they didn’t do so.
Greg Rowe says: “It makes no sense, you’re going to be trading one kind of traffic for the other.”
My response: That’s right – one type of traffic (e.g., from Village Farms) goes THROUGH the city; the other type (e.g., from Woodland BYPASSES the city).
Greg Rowe says: “In all the years I’ve looked at hundreds of EIRs, I’ve never seen an EIR that had an alternative that increased the intensity of the project by 50%. That just doesn’t make sense.”
My response: It’s the direct result of electing people like Bapu to the council.
Regarding VMTs, this seems to be on-topic in this article.
Again, I would ask how much greenhouse gasses are being spewed during the times that motor vehicles are not even moving (stuck in traffic – zero VMTs)? (With the exception of hybrids/electric cars, which are only a fraction of vehicles on the road.)
The answer to that is the reason that Level of Service (congestion) is DIRECTLY RELATED to greenhouse gasses.