Sierra Club Yolano Group Comments on Village Farms DEIR

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://newdavisite.wordpress.com/2025/02/02/draft-eir-for-village-farms-released-for-public-comment/).

1. 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 exist
ing 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.