By Greg Rowe
This article responds to the endorsement of the Village Farms project by Councilmember Linda Deos, published by The Davisite and the Davis Vanguard on May 9. Deos was appointed to the planning commission during my tenure as chair. While dealing with many complex planning issues and projects, Linda impressed me as thoughtful, articulate and deeply caring about her community. It was therefore with pleasure that I subsequently endorsed her city council candidacy.
I continue to applaud Linda’s council performance, and share her concern that Davis must become a viable, vibrant home for new residents without losing its soul and core values. Along with Mayor Donna Neville, Deos had the demanding task of negotiating the development agreement (DA), ballot baseline project features, and other legal documents for the Village Farms Davis (VFD) project.
Among Linda’s reasons for endorsing VFD are the grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings of F Street and Pole Line Road, and preservation of the 47-acre alkali playa wetland habitat. As explained below, these project components are not due to any benevolence or authentic community commitment on the part of the developer (North Davis Land Company, LLC). These requirements were, in fact, imposed on the developer as a condition of placing the project on the June ballot. In the case of the alkali playa wetland habitat, specimens collected in the 1950s by UC Davis faculty and historical aerial photography clearly demonstrate that the existence of this rare habitat should have been known to the developer.
Grade-Separated Bike and Pedestrian Crossings
The developer published a VFD project description on 7 April 2023 (revised 19 July 2023). In that document, the developer committed to nothing more than vaguely stating that “Collaborative discussions with appropriate stakeholders will continue to identify the best path forward to achieve the long standing community goal of completing the Davis Bike Loop…with grade separated crossings.”
The project description went on to make the equally ambiguous statement that “Assuming all parties agree upon a reasonable and feasible solution…” the developer would be willing to participate in a capital contribution, along with grant funding and other transportation infrastructure funds” (page 35). In other words, the developer indicated it might be willing to help build safe grade-separated crossings, but only if proceeds from other unidentified sources were forthcoming.
As for the grade-separated crossing on the eastern portion of the Village Farms site, the project description merely said the developer was working closely with the City Public Works Department and Yolo County to identify reasonably feasible options for a separated grade crossing. As to a grade-separated crossing of the project site’s western side, under the railroad and F Street to Northstar Park, the project description included similar non-committal verbiage, merely stating the developer would work closely with the City as it negotiated with Union Pacific Railroad and California Northern Railroad to identify reasonably feasible options for a separated grade crossing. Nowhere was it indicated what would constitute “reasonably feasible.” (It should be noted that the VFD “Mobility, Bicycle and Trail Exhibit” (page 34 of the July 2023 project description) did not even depict a grade-separated multi-use crossing of the train tracks and F Street.
The developer’s continued anemic commitment to grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossings was later evident in a staff report to City Council on 19 November 2024, which stated “The proposed project and project alternatives continue to provide an opportunity to explore grade separated crossings. Collaborative discussions with appropriate stakeholders will continue to identify the best path forward…” (page 05-9).
When another planning commissioner and I met with the VFD development team on 25 September 2025, we asked what constituted “reasonably feasible.” Did it mean financial criteria, construction and engineering considerations, or both? The response was that it meant financial feasibility. In other words, if the developer did not believe infrastructure to safely convey cyclists and pedestrians to and from the VFD site was affordable, they weren’t fully committed to funding and constructing those facilities.
The conditional “reasonably feasible” clause was still in effect when the planning commission discussed the project’s draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on 12 February 2025. During that meeting other planning commissioners and I emphatically stated that the developer’s imprecise commitment to grade-separated multi-use path crossings was completely unacceptable, and that a definitive commitment to both the Pole Line Road and railroad/F Street grade-separated crossings must be included in the project’s baseline features.
The planning commission also emphasized that the VFD developer should bear the sole financial responsibility for implementing grade-separated infrastructure. I am convinced that absent the planning commission’s insistence, the project’s development agreement (DA) and baseline features approved by City Council on 20 January 2026 would not have included the F Street overcrossing and the Pole Line Road undercrossing.
Unfortunately, Exhibit L to the DA provides a potential way for the VFD developer to largely escape financial responsibility for the grade-separated crossings. As specified in this document, titled “Impact Fees, Fee Credits, and Municipal Financing Mechanisms,” under certain specified conditions the developer “…shall be entitled to receive reimbursement of 80% of the cost of constructing…” the Pole Line Road Overcrossing and the F Street Undercrossing (DA pages 87-89).
It is also worth noting that this very same developer was expected to construct a bridge over the Union Pacific railroad tracks to enable vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to traverse between the voter-approved “Nishi 2” project and the UCD campus. Given that this project was approved seven years ago, and included just one grade-separated crossing for which construction has not yet begun, how can voters be assured that the same developer will complete two crossings for the Village Farms project? Given the “bail out” clauses in DA Exhibit L, it would be unsurprising if the developer finds a way to avoid paying the full cost of the VFD grade-separated crossings.
47 Acres of Permanently Preserved Habitat
The developer’s July 2023 project description included numerous site exhibits, most notably a land use plan (page 13). None of those exhibits included the 47-acre “alkali playa/alkali wetland area” slated for preservation in the DA approved by City Council earlier this year. Quite the contrary, the July 2023 land use plan shows that a “South Village” residential low density neighborhood would occupy much of the area subsequently identified as “alkali playa/alkali wetland.” This same development exhibit appeared in a City Council staff report on 24 October 2023, which described initiation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project.
In late 2023 the City conducted Village Farms EIR scoping, which is the process for soliciting suggestions for subjects the EIR should study. Among the comments was detailed information documenting the presence of numerous vernal pool vegetation species that were collected within the VFD alkali playa/alkali wetland area during the 1950s by UC Davis faculty. As noted in comments submitted by 2023 UCD biological sciences graduate Kees Hood, Google Earth photos between 2016 and 2022 and historical aerial photography dating from 1937 clearly show the alkali wetland habitat area, and how it markedly differs from its surroundings. Those images indicate that agriculture had not occurred in the alkali wetland area.
Kees also pointed out that the 2004 EIR for the previously proposed Covell Village project on the same site documented the presence of a rare vernal pool species. He additionally noted that the alkali playa area contained “…a remarkable density of present and possibly present rare plants in a single area…”
The comments by Kees were corroborated in a December 2023 EIR scoping letter by UCD biologist Glen Holstein–who is also an emeritus U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Certified Vernal Pool Crustacean Expert. Additional documentation of the historically known vernal pool/alkali playa biological resources within Village Farms was provided by UCD College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences faculty emeritus Carol Hillhouse, who noted in her scoping comments that records for several special status species exist within the California Natural Diversity Database.
Despite the documented historical evidence for the alkali playa/alkali wetland, the VFD developer nonetheless indicated twice during 2023 its intent to construct housing in that area. The developer’s actions in this regard could reasonably lead an impartial observer to conclude that the developer hadn’t perform appropriate due diligence before devising the VFD land use plan.
Based on the historical evidence, it came as no surprise that a biological resource assessment published on 13 December 2024 for the Village Farms EIR revealed the presence of the alkali playa/alkali wetland in a sizeable portion of the proposed “South Village” residential area. With that information, the proposed project evolved into a Biological Resource Preservation Alternative (BRPA), which replaced the previous “South Village” with a Natural Habitat Area (Figure 3, BRPA Equal Weight Alternative, City Council staff report, 19 November 2024, page 05-8).
This type of wetland is under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, which has important implications. Assuming the voters approve Measure V, the developer’s ability to move forward with the VFD project will depend on securing permits from the Army Corps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and possibly the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As stated in DA Exhibit N, final determination of the boundaries of the proposed “Preservation Area,” the cost and terms of the required Conservation Easement and Management Plan, and the structure and amount of the required permanent management endowment will be established in consultation with the permitting agencies.
As with other development costs, it could very well be that these permitting requirements could impose an unaffordable financial burden on the VFD project, or at the very least incur financial obligations that could boost home prices. This is an exigency about which the developer is aware. As VFD attorney Rochelle Swanson stated at an Open Space and Habitat Commission meeting on 8 September 2025, the development team at that time had “…no idea what the regulatory agencies will mandate in the natural habitat area.” Based on my experience consulting with those very same permitting agencies over a 13-year period, the time and cost associated with those efforts is utterly unpredictable.
Conclusion
The upshot of these details about the grade-separated crossings and the unknown cost and time for obtaining natural resource permits could call into question the viability of the Village Farms Davis project. Moreover, the VFD developer should not be commended for implementing critically important infrastructure improvements and mitigation measures for which there should have been a firm commitment from the outset.
___________________________
Greg Rowe has been a Davis planning commissioner since 2018 and chaired the commission 2022-24. The comments herein are strictly his own as a private citizen.
Davisite 
Leave a comment