Sierra Club Yolano Group Comments on Village Farms DEIR
February 26, 2025
The following comments were emailed by the Sierra Club Yolano Group to Dara Dungworth, Principal Planner City of Davis Department of Community Development, on Feb 25. 2025, concerning the Village Farms DEIR. (See https://www.davisite.org/2025/02/draft-eir-for-village-farms-released-for-public-comment.html).
- Alternatives
a) Recommend Consideration of Co-op Housing - Evidence suggests that a housing co-op model can provide stable, affordable workforce housing for individuals and families (see California Cooperatives: Today's Landscape of Worker, Housing and Childcare Cooperatives). Providing affordable local housing for people currently commuting to Davis from outside Davis will lessen the VMT and GHG emissions impact of this project and should be considered as an effective mitigation measure.
We recommend that the FEIR analyze as a Project Alternative a co-op model (perhaps similar to Dos Pinos or Muir Woods) as a supplement to the proposed starter-home program to explore the environmental benefits that such a model could produce.
b) Recommend Consideration of Alternative Only Below Channel A - On December 8, 2023, the County of Yolo Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments sent a letter to the City of Davis commenting on the Village Farms NOP which stated, "The Draft EIR should consider a reduced footprint alternative that defines the northern project boundary south of the existing Davis Drain and explores the opportunity for increased density, thereby maximizing housing options without compromising economic returns". Quoting from Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14: "Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. "
We similarly recommend that a reduced footprint alternative be examined with its northern project boundary south of the existing Davis Drain to determine if building 1,000 or more units on such a reduced footprint can provide increased density and maximize housing options while preserving more trees and habitat and still meeting project objectives.
2. Biological Resources
a) Ambiguous Tree Mitigation Needs Clarification: The DEIR states that approximately 952 trees are planned to be removed by the project, acknowledging that more trees than this may be killed or damaged during construction. 888 (93%) of the trees anticipated to be removed are non-native (see Table 4.4-10- Alternative Tree Impacts ). The EIR otherwise states the project “would additionally comply with General Plan Policy UD 2.2, which requires maintenance of and an increase in greenery”. (see Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics, p. 4.1-15). The Proposed Project and the BRPA would include new plantings of native, drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, and seasonal grasses within the proposed Heritage Oak Park and Village Trails Park, as well as within the greenbelts that would occur along portions of all the site’s boundaries, as well as adjacent to and/or within the proposed residential villages”. Additionally, the project will be required to comply with the mitigation measures of the Yolo Habitat Conservancy and the California Dept of Fish and Wildlife for loss of habitat for sensitive species.
The DEIR also notes that “the Proposed Project and BRPA would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of Davis Municipal Code Chapter 37,” which states,
“Final mitigation requirements shall be determined by the City of Davis and may include the following options:
- Incorporation of existing healthy trees into the design of the project;- Replanting of trees on-site;- Replanting of trees off-site in City-owned open space or park; and/or- Payment to the City’s Tree Preservation Fund in lieu of replacement.”
This is ambiguous, however, because a simple payment to the Project could conceivably satisfy all mitigation obligations for these removed trees without otherwise providing the mitigation benefits of replacement tree plantings.
We therefore recommend that option to pay into the City’s Tree Preservation Fund not be utilized as a mitigation option to ensure that trees anticipated for mitigation are actually planted and that this be accounted for by providing calculations determining impacts of off-setting mitigation on carbon sequestration and raptor nesting habitat.
3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Further Groundwater Disclosures Recommended: The DEIR discusses the results from testing water quality in a number of groundwater monitoring wells on the former landfill site and a few wells on the northern portion of the Village Farms project site. However, conflicting information is given. In one place the DEIR states that “the project site/BRPA site appears to have been impacted by low levels of VOCs, as well as general minerals and inorganic constituents (including alkalinity, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, selenium, and total dissolved solids [TDS]) at concentrations higher than the assumed naturally occurring background levels” (Page 4.7-11). However, elsewhere it states that “UES concluded that aluminum, arsenic, selenium, and nitrate can be attributed to larger regional trends because water districts and regulatory agencies in the region and across the central valley have reported levels of these analytes above MCLs and at similar concentrations reported in the monitoring wells associated with Old Davis Landfill. UES concluded that the detected concentrations of aluminum, arsenic selenium, and nitrate are not specifically connected to activities at the Old Davis Landfill.” (p. 4.8-9).
The DEIR also states, “Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected. Salt concentrations in surface soils were higher than those detected in subsurface soil, but the UATA Phase II ESA determined that such levels are likely the result of former agricultural uses, rather than activities associated with the Old Davis Landfill.” (p. 4.7-30)
“VOCs” are Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that have a high vapor pressure at room temperature, allowing them to easily evaporate into the air. They are commonly found in many household products, such as paints, cleaning supplies, and solvents, and can have adverse health effects when inhaled. Different VOCs were measured at low concentration in the various groundwater testing wells in the 1990s. In a recent City Council meeting (April 4, 2023), one public commenter stated, “The old land fill site was not lined so there is vinyl chloride leakage from the old land fill and it’s substantial. Vinyl chloride is carcinogenic and does not go away.” However, a report detailing the findings of constituents in the groundwater beneath both the landfill and the Village Farms Davis site was prepared by the City’s contractor, Wallace Kuhl Associates (SemiAnnual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019 – Old Davis Landfill, W KA No. 12395.01P, January 23, 2020). According to this report, there was no groundwater contamination by any heavy metals or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of their established Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) and none of the samples showed the presence of any vinyl chloride contamination at all.
More recent testing February of 2024 has disclosed the presence of a variety of PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in high concentration under the Old City Landfill and in a lower concentration in one of the on-site wells. Before 2024, PFAS concentrations were never previously tested in any earlier well testing. PFAS, are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in various consumer products for their water, grease, and stain-resistant properties. They are often referred to as "forever chemicals" because they do not break down easily in the environment and can accumulate in the human body over time, posing potential health risks. The 2024 testing also concluded, “Organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, organophosphorus pesticides, and chlorinated herbicides were not detected above their respective laboratory reporting limits in any of the water samples collected. None of the water samples collected were found to contain concentrations of Acrolein, Acrylonitrile, and 2-CEVE (2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether) above their respective laboratory reporting limit.”(Universal Engineering Services, Groundwater Monitoring Report – Old Davis Landfill, April, 2024).
The Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a letter on July 23, 2023 stating, “Central Valley Water Board staff (Staff) reviewed available records for the Old Davis Landfill Land Disposal Site (L10001389487) case based on concerns expressed by a City of Davis (City) resident in a 5 June 2023 letter to the Central Valley Water Board. In brief, the resident expressed concerns regarding the “leaking of toxics” to groundwater from the closed landfill, and the potential risks leakage from the landfill may pose to properties south of the landfill that are proposed for residential development. Staff does not believe a risk is posed to the residential and commercial properties proposed for development if the development is connected to the existing City municipal water system and the City water system is the sole means of water used by the development" (Bold emphasis added). (see p. 604 of 697 in DEIR_Appendix F_Phase 1 ESA [Urban Development Area].
Given i) the conflicting statements on the impacts of the Old City Landfill on inorganic chemicals in the groundwater, ii) the history of early but decreasing VOC contaminant levels in the well water beneath the Old City Landfill not discussed in the DEIR, iii) and the more recent inclusion of testing for PFAS showing PFAS levels in the groundwater, the DEIR is confusing as to impacts of the Old City Landfill on groundwater and the project, we recommend that all of the historical and more recent results of all the water quality testing in the monitoring wells on the Old City Landfill water quality be disclosed in the DEIR with simple tables or graphs for viewing and analysis by readers.
4. Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Add Language Disclosing Impacts of 100-year and 200-year Flood Events on Golf Course Channel A - On p. 4.8-38 of Chapter 4.8 - Hydrology and Water Quality of the DEIR, the following statement is made, "In general, the BRPA would result in equal to or reduced water surface elevations outside of the BRPA site, with some areas in the undeveloped farmland showing small increases. Generally, the increases are less than 0.05-foot with the majority of increases being 0.01-foot or less. The 100-year, 24-hour storm event does show some isolated areas with larger increases that would occur within drainage features along Covell Drain in the Wildhorse golf course. The largest increase shown is approximately 0.4-foot to 0.5-foot, directly over the pond in the northeast corner of the golf course, which would not impact structures." However, similar concluding statements are not included for the impact of a 200-year, 10- day storm event and the 100-year, 10-day storm event.
We recommend that similar concluding statements be made in the DEIR of the impacts of a 200-year, 10- day storm event and a 100-year, 10-day storm event on the Wildhorse Golf Course Covell Drain.
b) Recommend Golf Course Channel A Inspections by the City and Golf Course - When the golf course was constructed in the early 2000s, the City and the golf course anticipated entering into an Environmental Compliance and Management Plan. A draft of this agreement stated that annual inspection of the newly designed Channel A floodplain should be conducted each year by the golf course in coordination with the City Flood Control staff and preferably the design engineer. It appears this agreement may have never been finalized and the City and golf course have not co-inspected the golf course since. On September 12, 2024 Eric Spann, Deputy Director of Public Works Utilities & Operations for the City of Davis, wrote in an email to a Wildhorse resident who inquired about the status of the anticipated inspections: “We have not inspected the Wildhorse Golf Course channel. We are still trying to figure out if the document was finalized and recorded. Without knowing if it was finalized, we cannot enter their property for inspection purposes. Unfortunately we cannot just ask them for permission because of liability concerns. We might have to enter into an MOU with the property owners to gain inspection access. I am reaching out to the City Attorney to see what our options are. ”
In light of these developments, we recommend that the site be jointly inspected by the City and the golf course as anticipated by the original draft Environmental Compliance and Management Plan to determine if has been properly maintained for flood control purposes after entering into an MOU if necessary. We further recommend that ongoing inspections of the Wildhorse Golf Course channel be negotiated.
5. Transportation
a) Report Total VMT in Addition to Per Capita VMT: The transportation analysis only reported residential per capita VMT and did not report total VMT that would be added by the project. Total VMT is commonly reported in EIRs including in the recent EIR for the proposed DISC project in the City of Davis. Reporting total VMT is recommended so that the City Council and the citizens of Davis have this key piece of information to assist in understanding the full impact of the project. This is because newly added per capital VMT could be around average while the total VMT that would be added by the project could be significant. In other words, disclosing the total VMT added by the project enables a more complete analysis and understanding of potential environmental risks.
We therefore recommend that Total VMT generated by the project should be clearly disclosed.
b) Analyze and Report Impacts on VMT of Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Grade-Separated Crossings: The project description states: "Additionally, if feasible, one pedestrian/bicycle crossing would be provided through an undercrossing near the Pole Line Road/Moore Boulevard intersection. The Pole Line Road undercrossing would land in the vicinity of the Nugget Fields parking lot. The Proposed Project also provides an opportunity to explore a grade-separated crossing at F Street." However, the DEIR should analyze and report how the aforementioned grade-separated crossings would reduce both per capita VMT and total VMT, especially in light of the increasing use of electric bicycles and electric scooters.
We therefore recommend that the impacts of such grade-separated crossings on total and per capita VMT be analyzed and reported.
c) Specify that Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Includes Charging Stations for Bicycles and Scooters and Analyze Impacts: The DEIR mentions "electric vehicle charging infrastructure in excess of existing Tier 1 CBSC requirements" as a mitigation measure. According to the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Tier 1 requirements, new multifamily housing projects must have 35% of parking spaces equipped with low-power Level 2 EV charging receptacles; additionally, for projects with 20 or more units, 10% of parking spaces must be equipped with full Level 2 EV chargers. However, the Tier 1 CBSC requirements do not specify whether this includes charging infrastructure for bicycles and scooters in addition to automobiles and trucks.
Given that the project intends to serve people with a variety of incomes, we recommend that this requirement for electric vehicle charging should be amended to also include minimum electric charging requirements for bicycle and scooter parking spots and include calculations estimating the impact such mitigation measure will have on per capita and total VMT.
Of course all of this should be seriously taken and considered.
Posted by: Donna Lemongello | February 26, 2025 at 11:07 AM
PFAS “forever chemicals” are of great concern because they are they cause many health of health impacts and are potential carcinogens. The Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant has a long history of leakage into the groundwater that it shares with Village Farms. That included vinyl chloride which is a carcinogen which is the result of breakdown process of chlorinated compounds in landfill soil and groundwater in landfills which resists breakdown due to its chemical nature. Plus, it continues to be generated in old landfills where there are chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The City stopped testing the 7 monitoring wells clustered together (3 on the Village Farms property and 4 on City property including 3 on the Landfill) in 2020. The monitoring never should have stopped and needed to resume particularly because of the Village Farms project proposal in 2023. In April 2024 the UES study revealed the PFAS’ above EPA maximum concentration levels migrating from the unlined old City landfill and the Sewage Treatment Plant to Village Farms. So, 1 out of the 3 wells on Village Farms revealed PRAS levels exceeding EPA maximum concentration levels (MCL’s) as well as manganese levels exceeding maximum concentration levels coming from the unlined Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant. PFAS’ are a major concern because they cause serious health impacts including cancer, liver, immunological and reproductive diseases. This is what they are being tested for any France has recently banned the use of PFAS’ in consumer products.
One of the many issues not addressed in the DEIR was that more monitoring wells are need than only 7 monitoring wells in the north-east area where the 400-acre Village Farms site and the 118-acre Urban Ag Transition Area (UATA) are both immediately adjacent to the unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant. The UES study made clear importance of continued monitoring to determine “potential migration of the plume and to determine any future impact to local water sources” and to monitor for any changes in the amount of contamination present.
Another issue not adequately covered in the DEIR are the soil contamination issues like the 1,200,000 mg/kg of toxaphene (a neurotoxin and carcinogen)and the 6.1-8mg/kg of lead exceeding DTSC maximum concentration levels (MCL’s) in the soil where the large Oak Heritage Park would go. The park is also located on the corner of Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. which is where the children would be exposed to all the car exhaust fumes and particular matter from the gridlocked backed up car exhaust from the 1,800 housing units traffic added to the already hugely impacted traffic at the intersection of Covell Blvd. And Pole Line Rd.
The other soil contamination issue is the Urban Ag Transition Area (UATA) soil with arsenic 56X-73X higher than what should be in residential soil. The developers want to use this high arsenic content contaminated UATA soil to move ONE MILLION CUBIC YARDS of to it to fill in the massive 200-acre flood plain. That would take 100,000 ten cubic yard trucks added to the already highly impacted Pole Line Rd. traffic. Imagine the greenhouse gases produced from that? Then housing would be built on this high arsenic content soil in the flood plain. The health risks of this kind of exposure to residents and the liability exposure to the City would be disastrous if and when residents became sick from this high-level arsenic exposure.
Posted by: Eileen Samitz | February 26, 2025 at 05:22 PM
It seems strange that the Sierra Club is not objecting to 952 trees being ripped out, since they:
1) Provide habitat for wildlife including endangered species like the Swainson's Hawk.
2) Provide a windbreak around which helps prevent erosion.
3) Help with flood control and protecting the channel from erosion since the trees soak up plenty of water.
4) Provide conversion of CO2 to O2.
Also, I'm not seeing any acknowledgement that VMTs do not account for greenhouse gasses from vehicles stuck in traffic.
Greenhouse gasses per VMT are much lower when traffic if free-flowing. That's why vehicles (other than hybrids) get much better gas mileage on freeways (as well as less wear-and-tear), despite going much, much faster than vehicles in stop-and-go driving. This is a case of common sense.
And in the summer, add the power draw of vehicle air conditioning. Not sure if hybrids, for example restart their engines simply to power their air conditioning systems, when stuck in traffic at some point.
Nor do VMTs account for cold starts (the higher amount of greenhouse gasses emitted when an engine is first started). A car driven for a block emits the same amount of cold start emissions as a car driven for an unlimited number of miles.
The switch from LOS (congestion) to VMTs appears to be a political decision, by the state. In reality, it's not an "either/or" choice - it's BOTH, in regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
Then there's the lack of grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian access, which the club does acknowledge.
Posted by: Ron O | February 27, 2025 at 12:32 PM
The removal of 77% of the trees on this property is extremely destructive to the habitat that the local wildlife, including raptors, has depended on for decades. It is also extremely wasteful and thoughtless. Implying that the removal of these trees is helpful because many are considered to be "non-native" is also highly misleading. Furthermore, the DEIR calls for removing California Native trees, such as the Red Willow trees. Why?? There are many other non-native species of trees considered to be just as, if not more, drought tolerant as California native trees. Thus this language in the DEIR is highly deceptive and implies that non-native trees are somehow bad and should be removed. Our climate is getting much hotter and choosing to keep mature trees derived from desert climates (that are currently thriving along the channel) is smart and thoughtful. Removing these trees is, per usual, short sighted and poor planning.
Many of the trees, even though they are non-native, are highly drought tolerant (Arizona Ash, Chinese Wingnut, Chinese Elm, Black Walnut, Crepe Myrtle and Siberian Elm tree, for example) and since they are already established will require little water. There are no highly flammable eucalyptus trees on site. All new trees, including drought tolerant oaks, will need regular water before they are established, which could take many years. Why destroy thriving drought tolerant mature trees? And suggesting to replant/move such mature trees looks conciliatory on paper but this process has a spectacularly high failure rate mostly due to most developers not taking appropriate care of the replanted/moved trees. Let's not uproot and/or destroy trees that have already confirmed that they appropriate for the area and thriving.
Let's plan to develop only south of channel A.
Posted by: Elizabeth Reay | February 27, 2025 at 04:15 PM
I wonder why he Sierra Club is recomending Cooperative Housing since without tons of taxpayer subsidies it almost never works, Here in Davis we had the
"Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association" meltdown a little over a decade ago and the "Pacifico Student Housing Cooperative" at 1752 Drew Circle (that like DACHA defalted on their loans and had to be bailed out by the city) has been sitting mostly empty for DECADES (it is pathetic that the city has let the place sit empty for so long).
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/crime_fire_courts/man-arrested-for-south-davis-shooting/article_4397d307-3760-5546-aa6b-b6c6698e969f.html
Posted by: South of Davis | February 27, 2025 at 10:02 PM
I certainly agree that the Village Farms DEIR needs to add and to analyze a Reduced Footprint Alternative located entirely below Channel A.This avoids toxics leaking from the unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant. However, language needs to be added that the Reduced Footprint Alternative would preserve the Vernal Pools, avoid the 200 acre Flood Plain, and build 1000 units OR LESS.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative was recommended by several citizens at the December 12, 2023 City Council meeting where alternatives were discussed and determined. Unfortunately, a smaller footprint alternative was not included in the DEIR and this needs to be corrected. CEQA requires that DEIR alternatives have lesser impacts, like those of the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Instead, most of the Village Homes DEIR alternatives have the same or more impacts than those of the proposed project.
It is disturbing that the submitted Sierra Club DEIR comments include excusing the destruction of 952 trees with the baseless reason that many are non-native trees. Is there a Sierra Club policy that favors native trees over non-native trees? The Sierra Club should strongly advocate that none of these trees be destroyed. Many of the trees are 50-100 years old and it would be tragic to destroy them. Even if replaced, it would take decades to recover the benefits of so many wonderful trees that the proposed Village Farms project plans to destroy.
Posted by: Jim Flanigan | February 28, 2025 at 08:09 PM
Some of the comments above seem to think that the purpose of making comments on a DEIR is to either support or criticize a project. But that is not what DEIR comments are for. The purpose of making comments on a DEIR is to point out problems with the study or its writeup that can be fixed in the FEIR. Nothing in the Sierra Club’s comments should be construed to either support or criticize any aspect of the project. All of the comments are directed to the DEIR.
Other members of the community may have chosen to use their DEIR comments to express their criticisms of the project itself, rather than the DEIR, and that is their choice, even though this is not the sort of comment that is solicited and used for the FEIR. My point is just to clarify what the Sierra Club did.
(I am a member of the Yolano Group Management Committee, but I am speaking for myself here, even though I suspect everyone on the committee would agree.)
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | February 28, 2025 at 08:34 PM
"I wonder why he Sierra Club is recomending Cooperative Housing since without tons of taxpayer subsidies it almost never works"
Let's not paint with such a broad brush. The ones you site are more scams where people make money by naming things nice names like cooperative housing and then governments and/or tricksters get involved for political or monetary gain.
The much more organic movement that has formed housing coops in Davis such as the N Street Coop, or the many coops of SCHA are successful and have provided cooperative living at (usually) lower rents for decades in Davis.
The examples you gave just give the cooperative housing movement a bad name when you claim this is the norm for cooperatives. It's only the norm with shysters and government fails.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | March 01, 2025 at 05:26 PM
I was involved with Greek cooperative housing as an undergrad and with rare exceptions fraternities and sororities "cooperative housing" needs to be subsidised to work. In the case of fraternities and sororities with cooperative housing they are usually subsidized by alumni and non resident members but are often also "taxpayer subsidised" (like the "greek housing at UCD and many other public colleges in the US). I don't know much about the N Street Coop in town other than when I met the founder about 20 years ago (when he was on the city housing element comittee) he did a ton of work to keep the thing going and when I Googled the site they are asking fro donations right now to subsidize it. I have no problems with cooperative housing it is just when the government gets involved with it the taxpayers often end up making truly massive subsidies.
P.S. I just read that after years of paying more than $10K a MONTH for a place to park RVs in a cooperative housing project SF is shutting it down:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/welcome-to-camp-dismal-residents-of-bayview-safe-18638370.php
Posted by: South of Davis | March 01, 2025 at 09:53 PM
Roberta,
Actually, I think that the comments posted about the article are very legitimate and made valuable insights concerning the Village Farms DEIR relating to: toxics, the destruction of 952 trees, traffic impacts on the community (via gridlock, vehicle gas exhaust, and greenhouse gases), particulate matter degrading air quality, and the need to include a reduced footprint alternative (below Channel A with 1,000 units or LESS).
It is disappointing that the Sierra Club Yolano Group's comments were not what they could have been to be more effective in addressing these and other issues in the Village Farms DEIR.
Jim Flanigan
Posted by: Jim Flanigan | March 05, 2025 at 10:27 PM
Jim, you still are conflating criticism of the project itself with criticism of the analysis of the project. The Sierra Club sought to only do the latter, not the former, since that is what is called for at this stage of the process. Only criticism of the analysis will be responded to by the City. Of course, as I said already, citizens may choose for their own reasons to criticize the project at this stage, but Sierra Club is following the process and will decide at a later date, after the environmental analysis is finalized, what sort of stand to take on the project. The logic here is that without a complete analysis of the environmental impacts of the project it is premature to weigh in on it.
(again just speaking for myself)
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | March 05, 2025 at 11:20 PM