This question is essentially asking whether I’d approve a project with a statement of overriding considerations. The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for any discretionary project that could result in a change in the physical environment. The EIR must outline the significant adverse environmental impacts, alternatives that could result in less significant effects, and mitigation measures to reduce unavoidable effects. If adverse effects cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, a project may nevertheless be approved, if the agency approves a statement of overriding considerations. The statement may be approved if the agency, upon balancing the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks, determines that those benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The question asks about Target’s air quality impacts. Of course, any additional incremental degradation in air quality is significant when the region is out of attainment. I’ve reviewed the EIR, and while it states the air quality impacts from the project will be significant, that finding is premised not upon violating the national or state ambient air quality standards, but for creating more air impacts than would exist under the current general plan. In fact the EIR concludes the project will not result in violation of standards for carbon monoxide, ozone precursors (ROG or NOx), or PM10.

I am not convinced Target will “greatly exacerbate” our existing air quality problems. Rather, we need to understand the net impact that automobile trips cause. Many Davis residents currently drive 10 or more miles specifically to go to Target. If a Target is situated in Davis , that may dramatically reduce the regional air pollution caused by Davis ’ residents’ travel out of the area to shop. Furthermore, the premise that Target would be a regional draw is not quite accurate. Currently there are Target stores in Vacaville , Woodland , and Sacramento . It is unlikely that Roseville residents, for instance, would drive to Davis to go to Target given the fact of closer venues. While there are many legitimate reasons people may not want a Target in Davis , creating air pollution is not likely to be among them. A more reasonable concern would be delaying the Frontier Fertilizer remediation. The proposed Target will be situated on top of the site, and will cover several existing monitoring wells.

Irrespective of Target, the question posed above really asks how I would approach these types of projects. As an environmental attorney, my goal is to ensure air quality is better for our kids, our elderly, and our future. As an environmental regulator, I understand the health impacts of poor air quality, such as asthma, allergies, etc. Many considerations go into a project, but with my credentials, I’m really in the best position to appreciate the environmental perspective, and I will ensure that perspective is brought to the council.

Regarding the Dixon Downs Race Track, legally speaking, it is a Dixon decision, beyond our control and jurisdiction. However, to the extent the project could result in significant adverse impacts upon the city of Davis , I would certainly work as a councilmember to ensure such impacts are avoided or mitigated. If the project goes forward, I would work to create additional mutual benefits such as additional agricultural buffers and bicycle trails between Davis and Dixon.