Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Month: November 2025

  • Yet another update on Village Farms proposal — is this proper process?

    By Roberta Millstein

    A few days ago, I wrote about two updates from the City concerning the Village Farms proposal, one of which let citizens know that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) would be recirculated in light of new information about impacts to the City’s wastewater treatment plant and the other which announced that the City was releasing a not-quite-final-Final-EIR — a draft Final EIR, if you will — to which information about impacts to the wastewater treatment plant would be added later. 

    I wondered then how that would impact the City’s timeline for evaluating the Village Farms proposal — when would the Planning Commission weigh in on it?  When would the City Council weigh in on it?  (There is some discussion of this in the comments on the earlier post).  The issue there is that the City has been aiming to have the project up for a Measure J/R/D vote in June 2026, but (it seemed to me) the delays from this new wastewater treatment plant would make that extremely difficult, if not impossible.

    Well, we have our answer now.  As I read the City’s new update (posted to the City’s website yesterday, November 25), it means that the City isn’t changing its timeline much, if at all.  In other words, the Planning Commission will weigh in on (recommend or not recommend) the project without having a completed Final EIR.  And then, the City will likewise weigh in on the project with the hot-off-the-presses Final EIR, using the (partial? conditional?) recommendation from the Planning Commission. 

    I’m neither a lawyer nor am an expert on land use policy.  But I have been following things pretty closely in Davis for the last decade or so.  And I have never heard of anything like this. 

    It seems highly irregular to me.  And it seems as though the City is shortchanging its analysis of the impacts to the wastewater treatment plant.  If the impacts legally triggered changes to the EIR, doesn’t that mean that they should be important enough for the Planning Commission to consider?

    Here is the new update, with information about when the above-mentioned meetings will occur:

    (more…)

  • Two updates on the Village Farms project

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is just to call people’s attention to two updates on the Village Farms project. We had been expecting to see a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), responding to comments on the Draft EIR, when on November 17, the City announced:

    New information has recently come to the attention of the City of Davis Department of Public Works Utilities and Operations related to the City’s overall Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) capacity. Preliminary results from an ongoing study – which is still underway – revealed that the wastewater treatment system is approaching capacity sooner than anticipated, in large part due to the City’s successful water conservation efforts. Simply put, reduced water flow causes a higher concentration of waste. Though the system is performing efficiently, changes to the composition of the wastewater and new assumptions about treatment necessitate modifications to the WWTP to ensure continued reliable service for years to come. Once the study is complete in early 2026, staff will facilitate a discussion with the City Council and community about next steps.

    Thus:

    … the City of Davis is recirculating the portions of the Village Farms DEIR that require revisions to reflect this new information. Until January 2, 2026, the public may submit comments on the recirculated portions. The City will prepare a revised “response to comments” document that includes comments on these revised sections of the DEIR, and intends to make the full Final EIR available to the public at least 10 days prior to City Council action to certify the EIR. Comments submitted during the initial circulation in early 2025, and the City’s responses to those comments, will be made available in draft form for public review prior to the Planning Commission consideration of the project.

    But then on November 21, the City made an additional announcement:

    A partial draft response to comments on the previously circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is provided at the link below. This document is a draft to provide the public and decision makers with an early preview of the partial responses to comments on the previously circulated DEIR for the project. This document is being released to the public prior to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project and is not required by CEQA regulations but is being provided for maximum public transparency. Minor revisions to this draft document may be required to fully respond to public comment received on the partially recirculated DEIR during its 45-day comment period (November 17, 2025 through January 2, 2026).

    “The link below” that is referred to in the quote is here: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Project-Applications/Village%20Farms%20Davis/VFD%20Partial%20Draft%20RTCs%20DEIR_Optx.pdf

    For those of us that have been waiting to see the FEIR and have been wondering what was going on (e.g., me), this gives us probably a close-to-final version of what the FEIR will be — as I understand these announcements. (It’s a Draft Final EIR responding to the Draft EIR — got it??)

    For more information on the Village Farms proposal, and for the text of the two announcements copy-pasted above, go here: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/village-farms-davis

  • Have a Rebellious Rebellious Christmas. la la la la

    (Sung to the tune of Rosie O’Donnell’s album holiday hit “Have a Rosie Christmas (Donna Summer’s lyrics). 

    By Scott Steward

    Perhaps Rosie O’Donnell, the abrasive and enduring talented comedian/artist, who also has a famous feud with Trump (dating back to 2004), will accept the recalcitrant Marjorie Taylor Greene, should Trump make becoming an expat in Ireland all the more attractive for Greene, too.  Mmmmm – except that Greene has been very mean about LGPTQ (and other people) until very recently. 

    O’Donnell and Greene are far apart, but share a talent for the spotlight, a caring for kids and families, and their persona non grata status with Trump.  You decide if this tumultuous declaration of Greene’s reconciliation is a path toward common ground, and while you’re mulling it over, here are some other rebellious pre-holiday actions to consider.

    (more…)

  • The Respite Center Saga: The Davis City Council Loves the Davis Manor, Huntwood Manor, and Old East Davis Neighborhoods — for Them to Poop On!”

    *** BE THERE !!!  7:25pm at Council Chambers – TONIGHT!  ***

    There was Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog.  Now locally we have:

    “Droppington, the Bureaucratic Pooping Pidgeon”

    Davis City Council:  “We love the Davis Manor Neighborhood, for us to poop on!“

    The City Council will be voting Tuesday night on the staff recommendation to keep the Respite Center at it’s current location.   

    I don’t know that there is anything civil left to say.  The Dave-Us City Council has pooped on our three neighborhoods adjacent to the Respite Center, over and over:

    • Initially, in 2019, the Respite Center was “supposed” to be at 3559 Second Street. This is near where the pedestrian bridge over the railroad and freeway crosses 2nd Street.  A large contingent of persons from both sides of the pedestrian bridge, persons from District 4 and District 5, descended on the Council Chambers to protest the siting, claiming among other things that their children would be threatened.  Note there are no houses adjacent or even near the proposed 2nd Street location.
    • The Council then voted at the same meeting to move the Respite Center site to L Street, despite this being on the agenda as only an alternative site, so those in the adjacent neighborhoods were not there to address the L Street location since there was no indication it would be adopted.
    • Note this site had both immediately adjacent residential houses as well as two nearby liquor outlets.
    • The Council listened to those who came from the rich Davis suburbs to the east where the homes on average are about $100k higher in price than those in Davis Manor!  But Davis Manor was unable to respond with concerns until after the decision was made.
    • The Davis City Council gave in to the pleadings of these rich suburbites and showed how much they cared about the welfare of their children; at the same time, the City Council showed that they don’t care about the concerns of the people of Davis Manor, nor have any concern about the children of Davis Manor.  
    • In moving the Respite Center siting over these concerns, the Council low key admitted there was reason to be concerned about the persons that would be using the Respite Center, yet showed a complete bias towards addressing the concerns only for the rich East Davis and South Davis suburbites.
    • This is a VIOLATION of the concept of Social Justice, where cities do not place the burden of infrastructure upon those with less money.  Davis Manor has among the highest concentrations of Hispanic persons in Davis, and has some of the most affordable housing stock for first-time buyers.  Placing the Respite Center in Davis Manor next to homes, rather than in a distant lot in District 4 shows that the Davis City Council TALKS about Social Justice, but is in fact exceptionally biased and overly-influenced by those with money, just like any other town.
    • The District 3 Council Member at the time told me personally that a Night Respite Center would be opened soon so that those using the Respite Center during the day would have a place to go at night, to alleviate our concerns about those using the Respite Center taking up residence in and around the neighborhood at night.  Except for a short-lived, doomed-to-fail, experiment requiring a 20 minute drive each-way to a migrant center in south Yolo, no such night-center materialized.
    • Since the establishment of the “rotating”, “pilot” Respite Center across from the liquor outlets on L Street, residents of Davis Manor, Huntwood Manor, and Old East Davis have experienced numerous issues and with so-called ‘homeless’ persons, far too many to elaborate on here.  Maybe I’ll take testimonies for another post someday to document all these.  While not all are caused by the Respite Center, there is no doubt the concentration of persons using the Center and coming to and through our neighborhoods has placed an undue burden upon us.  Meanwhile, those with more wealth and apparently therefore more influence from Districts 4 and 5 who complained about the proposed 2nd Street location back in 2019 continue on with their rich suburban lifestyles, blessedly UN-burdened.
    • The City has never explained why the safety of the children of Districts 4 and 5 are more important than the safety of the children of District 3.
    • On March 2, 2025, over 100 residents of nearby neighborhoods attended a meeting with the City about the Respite Center at Da Vinci campus.  Many incidents were vented.  City reps feigned giving a damn.  The universal message to the City from nearby residents was: ‘We have done our share, the Respite Center must be moved’.
    • In September 2025 the City Council held a meeting in which a 90-day closure and moving options were considered.  This looked promising at first, until some homeless advocates spoke up about how the Respite Center ‘services’ could not possibly have a moment of interruption, despite evidence some of the services supposed offered were non-operational.  One of the homeless advocates even testified that the neighbor’s concerns about the homeless were not even real, and were just unjustified ‘fear‘.
    • Tonight, scheduled for 7:25pm at Council Chambers, the City Council will consider the staff recommendation to keep the Respite Center where it is.

    — Will you come by and testify?  —

    Or shall Davis Manor, Huntwood Manor, Old East Davis, and District 3 in general — remain as the geographic center for the Davis City Council to POOP ON ?

    BE THERE !!!  7:25pm at Council Chambers – TONIGHT!  BE THERE !!!

  • Coalition of faculty unions prevails against Trump’s attacks on the UC

    UC administration is still laying low and not joining the fight

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is just meant to be a quick follow up to my earlier article, “Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally).” On Friday, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs in AAUP v. Trump, including the Davis Faculty Association, a preliminary injunction. By temporary court order, the federal government is prohibited from holding federal funds hostage in an effort to coerce the University of California into imposing policies that would violate our First Amendment rights.

    The judge’s decision is a rebuke of the “Demand letter” I wrote about in the earlier article (and I believe its arguments would likewise apply to the “Compact” that has been presented to other U.S. universities).  Judge Rita Lin writes:

    Plaintiffs have submitted overwhelming evidence. Across 74 declarations and more than 700 pages of supporting documents, Plaintiffs show that the Administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge “woke,” “left,” and “socialist” viewpoints from our country’s leading universities. Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the Administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.

    In her article on the decision, Davis Enterprise journalist Monica Stark helpfully explains that the order will stay in place until all of the required procedures under Title VI and Title IX are followed — in other words, the procedures that the Trump administration should have followed instead of simply declaring guilt and trying to impose an outrageous $1.2B fine with illegal conditions.  (See Stark’s article or the judge’s order for the list of required procedures).  The Trump administration’s conditions included, the judge states, “conditions on continued federal funding that impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights” (p. 74).

    Judge Lin offered examples of conditions on the granting or continuance of federal funding that would violate the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs’ members (meaning that the Trump administration is prohibited from doing the following):

    (more…)

  • Yolo County: It’s time to Fix or Nix the Cache Creek Parkway Plan

    Recent Google Earth photo of the 1,900 acre Cemex mining complex located one mile north of Madison and seven miles west of Woodland.

    By Juliette Beck

    In the early morning hours on July 4, 2025 as young campers were resting from their busy day at Camp Mystic, catastrophic floodwaters from Guadalupe Creek in the Texas Hill Country rose to a level that was deemed unimaginable. No parent would have ever knowingly put their children in harm’s way. They trusted their government — local planning departments – to do their jobs to protect public health and safety.

    This week, the Yolo County Planning Commission is considering a plan to extend deep pit gravel mining across more than 500 acres of the floodplain along Cache Creek. The county has hitched Cache Creek’s future to a long-term plan that involves the exchange of permits to mine aggregate deep into the aquifer in exchange for net gain “gifts” of land for a proposed 14-mile recreational parkway. However, this stretch of Cache Creek is a FEMA -designated floodway – designated to carry floodwaters to protect downstream communities, including the town of Woodland. Is it prudent to knowingly put birders, dog walkers, and recreational visitors in harm’s way?

    Yolo County staff are already in the hot seat — under investigation — for their lax code enforcement that led to the deadly July 2 fireworks explosion in Esparto. The staff report recommending approval of the permit application filed by CEMEX – an $18 billion global cement company – is full of assurances, Yet are these plans really climate proof?

    (more…)

  • DEIR for Willowgrove project released

    The Willowgrove Draft Environmental Impact Report has been released and is available for public review for a minimum 45-day comment period.

    The Draft EIR public comment period begins on Nov. 10 and ends Jan. 2 at 5 p.m. Members of the public may submit written comments before the end of the comment period. Written comments can be emailed to the Project Planner Eric Lee at: elee@cityofdavis.org.

    The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public comment meeting on the Draft EIR on Wednesday, Dec. 10, at 7 p.m. in the city of Davis Community Chambers (23 Russell Blvd). Members of the public or public agencies may provide comments at the meeting.

    To view the DEIR, visit https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Willowgrove/EIR-Draft/Willowgrove-Draft-EIR-Nov-2025-Combined.pdf

    To learn more about the proposed Willowgrove project, visit https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/willowgrove

  • “… mean Davis has a reputation for being the bicycle capital of the world”

    Gas Station on 5th St

    Click to access 6A-%20General%20Plan%20Update.pdf

    From “What Do You Do”, the City of Davis Bubble Gum Channel

    ********

    The Transportation Commission is discussing the General Plan at their meeting starting late this afternoon.

    I am hoping that they, Staff and any Councilmember present focus on efficiency, joy, safety and sustainability rather than performative actions, feigned accountability, feigned powerlessness, being good soldiers and lying…

  • Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally)

    By Roberta Millstein

    With so many people in Davis affiliated in some way or another with UC Davis, I thought it might be helpful to try to highlight the two fronts on which the University of California is under attack by the federal government, because it is easy to get lost and confused in the details.  And before I get into some of those details, you may wish to sign up at Stand for UC (open to anyone) for more information and ways to get involved. 

    Also, I want to call attention to this helpful webpage from the UCSD Faculty Association, which contains a statement calling on the UC Regents and UC President James Milliken to publicly reject Trump’s demands and has links to many relevant resources.  I’m drawing heavily on their work in this article.

    The two points of attack are:  1) the “Demand” letter that the administration sent to UCLA back in August and 2) the “Compact” letter that the administration sent to 9 schools in early October, later broadening its “offer” to all U.S. colleges and universities.  I had originally hoped to discuss both in one article, but just explaining the first of these took a lot of words, so I will try to discuss the “Compact” in a future article.

    The “Demand” letter seeks a $1.2 Billion “settlement” from UCLA for allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action.  Now, whatever one thinks of the way UCLA has handled things such as the pro-Palestine protests of last year — and I have my concerns — that amount of money is more than the UC system can absorb without serious damage. Governor Newsom accurately called it “extortion” [1]; President Milliken said it would “devastate UC and inflict real, long-term harm on our students, our faculty and staff, our patients, and all Californians.” 

    Importantly, this Demand letter has only recently become public (as of October 24).  The UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations had to file a lawsuit against the UC administration (yes, you are reading that correctly), who had refused to release the details of the letter.  The UC released the information after a California superior court judge ordered it to do so and the state Supreme Court rejected its appeal (see Monica Stark’s article in the Davis Enterprise for details of the Superior Court’s ruling).

    In addition to the monetary demand, the letter makes demands on UCLA that go well beyond addressing the alleged problems.  According to the SF Chronicle, the demands would require UCLA to (and this is not a complete list):

    (more…)

  • No to Co-op at Village Farms

    [The following letter was shared with the Davisite for posting]

    November 1, 2025

    To the members of the:
    Davis City Council
    Davis Planning Commission
    Davis Social Services Commission

    From David Thompson, Davis Citizen and Affordable Housing, Advocate, Co-Founder National Cooperative Bank and Inducted into the US Cooperative Hall of Fame

    No to this flimsy, sketchy, ill-prepared and financially dangerous to co-op members Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC) proposed by Village Farms

    My first major point is that the path of an LEHC(laid out below) takes many steps and requires much over $2 million dollars of an entity’s money prior to even starting construction, The path to a LEHC if travelled, will take about five years from inception to occupancy. The member’s own investment of $50,000 each ($3.5 million overall) is likely at risk during the latter two years of construction. Dos Pinos took close to 3 years of active one on one marketing to get to 85% occupancy. At Dos Pinos, no one lives on top of anyone else. At 15 townhome units per acre it is an attractive community. Each owner member has a separate front door on the ground floor with a front and back patio. A four floor apartment building with no patios at 30 units per acre is not an attractive home ownership model.

    Much as I love LEHC’s, the Village Farms LEHC proposal is impossible to develop under present circumstances. To be fair to the City and to the citizens this proposal should be removed immediately or else it will be a huge waste of the City’s time and the citizen’s resources or it will be a major housing proposal seen as an ill-prepared developer’s red herring that should have been eliminated. Village Farms does a disservice to the City by presenting a thin dream without details to back up the Co-op.

    The City should immediately reject the Village Farm LEHC as being infeasible.

    (more…)