- The City Council will soon be making a decision with serious consequences of whether to certify the Village Farms EIR. It is critical that they deny certification.
The City Council will soon be making a decision with serious consequences of whether to certify the Village Farms EIR. It is critical that they deny certification. This EIR is seriously inadequate and flawed, and certifying it would expose the City to liability while surrendering the City’s leverage to correct course on this disastrous project.
Background
A similar version of Village Farms, Covell Village, was rejected by Davis voters 60:40 in 2005 for many of the same reasons this project and its EIR must be rejected now. The developer, John Whitcombe (Tandem Properties partner) bought the 386-acre parcel in bankruptcy due to the many obstacles making it impractical to develop (originally costing $11 million) for a mere $3.2 million. The site has long been handicapped by an enormous floodplain, unmitigable traffic, access issues, extraordinary infrastructure costs, and toxics from the adjacent unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant.
Aberrant, Chaotic, Rushed Process
The Village Farms “process” has been aberrant. The developer demanded that the City push his project ahead of other projects being processed. The City caved and has been accommodating him ever since, to the detriment of the community. The apparent objective has been to rush this “legacy” project onto the ballot, but the EIR and key documents still contain a plethora of “to be determined,” and “if feasible” language.
Public meetings were rushed through the holidays, when many residents were unavailable to comment. In backwards order, the City Council held a workshop the day before the Planning Commission was asked to recommend certification of a Final EIR that did not yet exist. Never in Davis’s history has the Planning Commission been asked to recommend certification of an EIR before it was complete, yet staff pressured for that recommendation anyway. That’s not transparency, it’s corner‑cutting. The City has prioritized a June 2026 ballot timeline over the community’s right to a fair, thorough CEQA process.
Village Farms: Serious Impacts, Costs, and EIR Inadequacies
Massive traffic
Village Farms would add at least 15,415 car trips PER DAY, from 1,800 housing units on the 498‑acre site, the largest residential project ever proposed in Davis. This is likely an underestimation because it assumes substantial public transit use. Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road, already heavily impacted, would be gridlock, degrading streets to Level of Service “F”. Cut-through traffic would impact many neighborhoods of cars trying to avoid this congestion.
200‑acre FEMA floodplain
Village Farms has an enormous 200-acre FEMA Hazard Zone A floodplain, predominantly north of Channel A. The flood extends massively to the north (see FEMA flood plain graphic). A fundamental planning principle is to never build on a floodplain this large. State legislation discourages such approvals because it cannot be expected to bail out cities that build in major flood hazard areas, especially with climate change and more atmospheric rivers. Surrounding neighborhoods including Wildhorse would be susceptible to massive flooding. The flood control is still in the planning process, yet the developers are claiming that it will be “ok” and that should be enough to certify the Final EIR.
Furthermore, FEMA’s current moratorium affects the project’s assumed floodplain relief pathway. Village Farms and the City are making an unwarranted assumption that FEMA will provide timely relief to support the project’s expectations. Buyers, lenders, and insurers will not accept wishful thinking, and neither should the City Council. The Village Farms Draft EIR conveniently did not include some key General Plan policies regarding flood plains—a relevant EIR inadequacy.
It is important to note that a failure to engineer a large flood plain in Davis occurred in the 1990’s. The reason the City owns Howat Ranch is because the Mace Ranch engineer’s flood plain control plan failed. As a result, the Howat Ranch located to the north-east flooded, and they sued the City. The City settled by purchasing the 760-acre Howat Ranch. In the case of Village Farms, it would be neighborhoods like Wildhorse that would flood, and there is no way the City could buy their way out of a disaster like this. Yet, the Village Farms flood control plans are not completed and are being deferred until after the developer gets entitlements, like a certified EIR which is clearly inadequate.
Toxics from adjacent unlined Old City Landfill, methane, and burn‑pit contamination
Village Farms borders directly adjacent to the unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant, which has never been cleaned up. Groundwater monitoring has revealed high levels of carcinogenic PFAS “forever chemicals” and manganese migrating to Village Farms. For 30 years, this dump also operated as a massive burn pit for unregulated waste, raising the likelihood of carcinogenic residues (dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Yet, the DEIR did not include: testing for burn‑pit residue toxics typically resulting; the need for a 1,000-foot exclusionary buffer; nor methane testing and protections needed near old landfills. If the City certifies first and asks questions later, it leaves the City wide open when agency enforcement and lawsuits inevitably follow.
Soil‑toxics
The project’s own testing reports ultra‑high toxaphene and elevated lead levels at the proposed Heritage Oak Park where children would play. There is still no clear, Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) led cleanup pathway with binding standards, sequencing, and oversight sufficient to support certification. If the City is going to put a park near known contamination, the regulatory coordination and enforceable remediation plan must come first.
Channel A reroute, habitat destruction, and the “dig‑pit as agriculture” fiction
The planned rerouting of Channel A is being sold as “flood control”, but appears insufficient to replace what nearly 500 acres of agricultural land currently absorbs. It would remove hundreds of trees, devastate channel habitat, and require massive earthmoving, including ONE MILLION cubic yards of soil from the former Urban Agriculture Transition Area (UATA) site.
The project now claims this 107‑acre,10‑foot‑deep dig‑pit crater will, instead, be designated “agriculture,” which is absurd. This dig-pit and secondary detention basin, are urban uses, not agricultural uses. This convenient relabeling then deprives the City of the required 2:1 agricultural mitigation for an urban use. The designation must be corrected back to UATA, and the City’s own 2:1 mitigation requirement must be enforced—no more giveaways to the developer.
This “plan” looks seriously inadequate to control the massive flooding as commented in the DEIR by UCD Geosciences professor and flood control expert Dr. Nicholas Pinter. There is also an obvious water‑pollution risk where the contaminated groundwater can mix with Channel A from below, and storm events can carry contaminated water and sediments from the dig‑pit basin to Channel A from above. That runoff moves east through Wildhorse, then through wetlands to the Vic Fazio Wildlife Area and through downstream waterways, to Yolo Basin and eventually the Sacramento River. These are foreseeable pathways that demand serious analysis and enforceable protections before certification. This DEIR concern was raised by hydrologist Dr. Steve Deverel, who has overseen the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund site clean-up in Mace Ranch for over 25 years.
Unprotected vernal pools
The vernal pools remain at risk from massive grading and fill, soil movement, yet currently there is still no conservation easement or management funding in place. The EIR downplays this rare habitat and its protected species, including the endangered Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp.
Unsafe access issues and infrastructure cost impacts
The Pole Line Road. and F St. bicycle/pedestrian grade‑separated crossings are still described with “if feasible” language, and even the revised optimism offers no certainty. So far, the City is requiring the developer to only pay 20% of these multi‑million‑dollar projects, imposing costs to the community. The same developer has failed to deliver the Nishi grade-separated crossing or the housing. What makes us think he would deliver TWO grade-separated crossings at Village Farms? If the City wants these improvements, it must require 100% developer funding and enforceable deadlines.
Unaffordable housing that will not bring hundreds of kids
Village Farms plans at least 80% market‑rate housing where the cheapest home would be $740,000. This means a house payment monthly of $6,000 to cover mortgage, taxes, insurance, CFDs, and fees. The project is being marketed as a remedy for school enrollment decline. But local workers and families with young kids cannot afford these houses. The project will not bring hundreds of kids as the school district would like to believe. Further, the floodplain compliance uncertainty undermines any near‑term housing timeline as well. Further, the Village Farms buildout would last at least 15 years of construction traffic mayhem. This includes moving one million cubic yards of soil to try to raise the massive flood plain, and re-routing Channel A, the main drainage system of the City.
Affordable housing is being shortchanged. Now, just days before the Council is deciding whether to entitle this project, there isn’t even a final affordable housing agreement. Instead, there is a “tentative agreement” with convoluted caveats and pitfalls. The developer is trying to secure entitlements before all of these details are fully thought through by the City. Also, the developer is only dedicating 16 acres of 18.6 acres required (another giveaway), and not defining its location or configuration.
The EIR must not be certified
The Village Farms proposal is too big, has too many impacts and costs, and the vast majority of the housing is unaffordable to most local workers and young families.
Furthermore, Village Farms has been fast‑tracked through a process that has prioritized the developer’s wishes over the community’s need for a fair process and a legally adequate EIR. Davis has a certified Housing Element until 2030. There is no emergency justifying impacts of flooding potential, toxics exposure, destroying habitat, fiscal risks, infrastructure costs, massive traffic, or basic CEQA compliance.
Most glaring is the failure to analyze a reduced‑footprint alternative like the environmentally superior alternative included in the prior Covell Village EIR. Yolo County planning staff and Davis residents formally asked the City for a reduced‑footprint alternative for developing only below Channel A, but were ignored. The vernal pools would be protected and the housing reduced to 900-1,000 units. That alternative must be analyzed because it distances housing from the floodplain and the toxics, and it would reduce major impacts, including traffic.
Certifying this EIR would relinquish the City’s ability to correct course and expose Davis to years of risk and litigation. The City Council must not certify this inadequate and incomplete Village Farms EIR for this disastrous project.
Residents concerned about Village Farms can contact Citizens for Responsible Planning at citizens@dcn.org or (530) 756‑5165.
Eileen Samitz is a former Davis Planning Commissioner and served on the City of Davis 2001 General Plan Update Land Use Committee and the subsequent Housing Element Update Committee.
Not certifying the EIR? Not going to happen.
I would go further. The approach advocated here would expose the City to substantial litigation risk.
David, arguably the City’s decision to move forward with the starting of an EIR process/analysis on an incomplete-at-best, partially-defined project was professional malpractice. The developers probably have a liagility damages claim against the City since the City requires the developer to pay for the consultant’s fees in preparing EIR.
In essence City staff was gambling with the developer’s money, and is exposed to considerasble litigation risk for doing so.
Matt – I think your comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the great latitude given to Lead Agencies (e.g. the City of Davis in this case) to describe the scope of a project including when and which Alternative analyses are selected and whether this FEIR is deficient in that regard.
For instance, many have expressed concerns that the initial recommendations for the Alternatives to be analyzed in the DEIR were made by the City Council prior to completion of an Initial Impact Assessment as part of the Scoping Process. However, there are no CEQA provisions mandating the timing of Alternatives determination or recommendations.
In fact, Alternatives can be legally identified and selected for analysis in the DEIR even before a full impact analysis is even initiated much less completed. Additonally, in the CEQA process the selection of alternatives often begins at the same time as the Scoping phase or even earlier during project planning.
In the Village Farms Davis DEIR, the selection of the Alternatives was recommended by the City Council following a noticed Public Hearing after the issuance of the NOP. In this case, the project’s major impacts had already been clearly identified by the time the Council held the fully transparent and noticed Public Hearing because of the robust outreach process and information disclosed in the earlier 2004 EIR and this project’s solicitation of comments on the NOP. There was nothing untoward or sneaky and CEQA was not violated by law or in spirit by the timing of the Alternatives selected by the Council in the current process.
Concerns were also expressed that the initial recommendations for the Alternatives to be analyzed in the DEIR did not include a Reduced Footprint Alternative whereby only the portion of the project site below Channel A were to be developed. The City Council determined that the Reduced Footprint Alternative did not allow for the Project Objectives to be met including the space required for numerous amenities demanded by the City and/or requested by the DJUSD, including;
1) Donation of Land and $ to the City for an Emergency Sevice Center,
2) Donation of Land and $ to DJUSD for an Pre-K Early Learning and Day Care Center,
3) Donation of Land and Improvements to DJUSD for a Learning Farm,
4) Preservation of the Wetlands/Alkaline Playa plus a bufer totallig 41 acres
5) 19 acres of land + $6 million donated to the City for Subsidized Affordable Units.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative was not considered viable by the City Council to meet the Project Objectives re: the number and types of housing proposed and the other amenities desired for the site by the City. It is abundantly clear that the City was fully within their legal authority to select the chosen alternatives especially since numerous courts have ruled that Lead Agencies (i.e. the City of Davis in this case) are given great deference and latitude to select the alternatives to be analyzed in EIRs. The Sierra Club was a Plaintiff in one adverse (to us) ruling so I had a front row seat for the proceeding, arguments, and eventual ruling. IMO, the Village farms FEIR is bullet-proof in this regard but folks can always decide for themselves if they wish to pursue litigation.
Concerns were also expressed that the Planning Commission considered recommendation for certification of the FEIR based on a “non-final” version because the chapter on Utilities in the DEIR was revised and recirculated for comment when it was disclosed after the release and comment period for the DEIR that the secondary treatment system in the WWTP had insufficient capacity. The comment period for this recirculated portion of the DEIR had not ended prior to consideration of the FEIR by the Planning Commission. That said, it is actually very rare that a Planning Commission actually ever sees the “final” FEIR in its deliberations because the FEIR is almost always subsequently modified by the Lead Agency (e.g. the Davis City Council) in their later review of the project’s FEIR; whether due to changes in the features of the project or the imposition of additional mitigation measures on the project – just as has occurred with the Village Farms FEIR. You will not find a judge willing to say CEQA was violated by law or in spirit based on the fact that the Planning Commission considered an “incomplete” FEIR when they made their recommendation in the current process.
Alan, you have used a lot of words to talk around the point I was making, rather than understanding that point.
If you follow an apple pie recipe perfectly word for word, step by step, but use unripe apples the pie will be inedible.
With that said, your comments about the reduced footprint considerations by the City Council and staff are very interesting. They show a huge concern for the “toys” you have described but little or no consideration of addressing the housing ownership affordability issues that numerous polls of Davis residents have said is the #1 issue Davis faces. The “affordable” $740,000 low priced homes included in the project will cost the people who buy them with a 6.5% mortgage over $81,000 a year in housing costs. Using the standard rule that housing costs should be no more than 30% of total household income, that means a total annual household income of over $270,000. Council needs to show true leadership and enact policies and directions that incentivize developers to build smaller houses on smaller lots that will sell for $500,000. Houses at that price will actually be affordable for DJUSD teachers and young families with children and lower income members of the Davis workforce.
The “unripe” EIR was commenced before any considerations of affordability by owner-occupied buyers could be made. As a result the EIR is like a ship with no rudder going wherever the winds and the currents take it.
Further, the EIR standards you so blithely accept don’t look at the local jobs market when doing the VMT calculations in the traffic study. With the low-priced homes requiring an annual household income of over $270,000 and the $1.3 million homes requiring considerably more, how many jobs are there available in the City Limits or UCD campus that have an annual income that large? Davis is a city of predominantly low to moderate paying service jobs with nothing even remotely approaching a household income of $270,000 to $400,000. The current Davis residents with jobs that pay at that level commute to Sacramento or the Bay Area incurring significant VMTs in the process. But the EIR doesn’t take that into consideration when calculating the project’s VMT impact on the environment.
Staff has “baked a pie” with unripe apples.
David,
How so?
In my view, the problem is that the state would interpret Davis using the CEQA process to impede housing production it is otherwise obligated to allow. That is precisely how HCD and the AG have framed their recent enforcement actions under Bonta.
The state doesn’t consider land outside of cities in regard to their housing “requirements”. If they start doing so, all farmland throughout the state will be under threat, as would all related EIR approvals.
The state’s own Williamson Act is INTENDED to block development on farmland. Are they going to eliminate their own Act?
CEQA was eliminated within cities for housing, not outside of cities. (In other words, too bad if there’s a sensitive creek running through a city which hasn’t yet been paved over.)
But it seems to me that the city could very well be sued for APPROVING the EIR, from different sources. If anything, that seems far more likely – especially in regard to all of the concerns brought up regarding the EIR.
You’re gambling with other people’s money that the state will see it your way even though they have given every indication that when it comes to housing that they don’t
What “gambling of other people’s money” are you referring to?
Again, it’s the city itself that’s gambling by certifying the EIR. (There was a mistake in my comment above, but probably doesn’t matter.)
And the developers might be long gone, by the time such a lawsuit arises (e.g., regarding toxics, flooding, etc.). It’s not just the site itself that’s potentially impacted by those factors.
Now, I’m not sure what the level of risk regarding that actually is, but what I do know is that there is no advantage whatsoever to the city to approve this proposal. We know what the negatives are, but I’ve yet to see any coherent argument regarding what the advantage/benefit actually is. This thing doesn’t even address the fake RHNA targets, despite its massive size.
That is true David, but all of the State’s/Bonta’s actions to date have been against municipal jurisdictions that are implementing processes WITHIN their own municipal boundaries. Measure J does not in any way impede development or zoning within the City Limits of the City of Davis.
But that assumes that they will distinguish between the two. They’ve already asked the city to account for J, so I’m not believing that’s a thing for the state
You can “believe” whatever you want to David, but the fact is that there are no laws, policies, regulations, or inventory of land surrounding cities that the state uses to force sprawl outside of city limits.
That was never the intent of the state’s laws in the first place. And if they “go there”, it’s going to open up a can of worms beyond Davis – impacting agricultural zoning, mitigation land, urban limit lines, the state’s own Williamson Act, etc.
So rather than your pathetic, ongoing attempt to scare people into thinking that their only choice is to vote “yes” on every sprawling proposal that arises, why not just do what you suggested earlier, and see what happens?
What good is Measure J in the first place, if the only choice is to vote “yes”?
And what makes you think that councils would automatically approve sprawl, in the absence of Measure J?
As Jim Frame pointed out, developers themselves are not going to get what they want by attacking Measure J, either – due to the other restrictions such as Affordable housing requirements under the “builder’s remedy”.
We have “train wreck” and now “can of worms”. I doubt the state will see it as such.
David: Does the state expect entities (such as cities) to disregard issues in an EIR as a result of the “housing crisis”?
If so, tell us where that’s documented.
What’s the point of an EIR, if the only choice is to certify it? (Similar to the question regarding Measure J, which you didn’t bother to respond to.)
Why not just type up whatever Jack Nicholson repeatedly typed in The Shining – and certify it, in that case?
After all, according to YIMBYS like you – regulations are only of use if they REQUIRE building. All other regulations are simply “NIMBY red tape”, according to you.
You’ve already seen on round of CEQA reform, my guess is it won’t be the last
David, regarding, “They’ve already asked the city to account for J,” staff in presenting the Measure J Amendment material to the Planning Commission clearly and aggressively stated that the State had made a demand of the City in writing, and that the document conveying that demand was in the Staff Report documents for that Planning Commission meeting. When anyone reviews the packet material, no such demand exists, whether over or covert. There is no question that staff is a co-conspirator in the effort to amend Measure J/R/D. The security of their workload, and therefore the security of their jobs depends on the amount of work that comes into the Department. Lying to the Commission to protect their paychecks is a very Trumpian pattern of behavior.
David,
“The approach advocated here would expose the City to substantial litigation risk.” That’s speculation. Measure J/R/D does not compel the city to approve objectively bad and ill-advised projects, “or else.” This is a scare tactic. You’re basically saying, build this project as proposed or “the state will sue us.” So, this seems to be the angle that you are trying to get others to buy into to convince people to vote for this Village Farms project which has a plethora of serious problems. I mean…come on. Why not just bring Davis better projects? What a novel idea!
But, when the city has to pretend that the landfill/burn dump/contaminated groundwater don’t exist in order to get through CEQA … you may have a bad project.
When the city has to pretend that vernal pools are “alkaline playas” to avoid oversight, odds are you may have a bad project.
When the city has to require a plastic liner on the bottom and walls of the new Channel A and detention basin to keep contaminated groundwater from coming to the surface and polluting state and federal protected waters downstream … you may have a bad project.
When you have to move over a million cubic yards of fill dirt to lift homes out of the FEMA floodplain (during a regulatory moratorium on fill dirt permits) … you may have a bad project.
This project is a train wreck and needs to go back to the drawing board. Also the Village Farms EIR is grossly inadequate and must not be certified, or it will leave the City open to serious impacts and litigation particularly due to the toxic’s exposure to residents and flooding potential.
That’s a lot of hyperbole (train wreck) that I doubt the state buys into.
David, like I said below, the question of what “the State buys into” will be whether the State believes it is only constrained only by its own morality, brushing aside the inconveniences of the law.
Davis certainly has an unusual process but the locomotive driving the train is Measure J. Get rid of Measure J and get back to good planning but don’t blame the council for being hamstrung by the calendar measure J dictates.
Ron, The Cannery was not constrained by Measure J. How good do you think the planning was for The Cannery?
It would be interesting to get an attorney’s perspective on this, but I’m thinking that before the state can take any action against the city on peripheral development, the land proposed for development would have to be under city jurisdiction. Otherwise, the city can deny any such claim by saying, “We don’t control that land, it’s in the county,” i.e. the claim isn’t ripe. So the developer would first have to annex his land to the city, then say, “I want to develop this land,” and *then* the state can hold the city responsible for approving development on it. I expect the reason this isn’t the way it’s been done is that as soon as the annexation is effected the land becomes subject to city taxes, and given the potential for years of delay the developer might not be anxious to fork over that tax money.
I agree Jim. And even an attorney’s perspective is going to be subjective opinion. The question will be whether the State believes it is only constrained only by its own morality, brushing aside the inconveniences of the law.
I’ve thought about this quandary of annexation. I think one solution might be to mandate conditions under which the County be required to develop property that cities refuse to annex or mandating that counties be eligible to buy into city utilities for county peripheral development.
Currently the Yolo County policy is to leave development on annexation to the cities and its been that way for decades but that policy could be changed by the board of supervisors especially with a legislative push from the state.
“Currently the Yolo County policy is to leave development on annexation to the cities and its been that way for decades but that policy could be changed by the board of supervisors especially with a legislative push from the state.”
There’s no need to change the policy, because if a landowner wants to annex his land to the city, he simply applies to LAFCo and, barring some unusual condition that makes annexation unwise — no such conditions pertains to any of the lands peripheral to Davis that I’m aware of — the annexation is approved by the vote of the annexing landowner. The city doesn’t have veto authority over LAFCo proposals; there are some political pressures that might be brought by the city, but I don’t believe they would carry enough weight with LAFCo to effect a veto. In effect, annexation is a landowner decision, not a city decision.