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

Category: Environment

  • Letter: Katie Porter is the fighter we need

    [Note: This letter first appeared in the Davis Enterprise online on Apr 6 and in print on Apr 12]

    Davisites, let’s throw our support behind Katie Porter for CA Governor — now, when we can really make a difference.

    California has a “top two” primary, meaning that the top two candidates from the June election will be the candidates we vote on in November. Right now, there are so many Democrats in the race that there is a serious risk of splitting the vote so badly that we will end up having a choice between two Republicans.

    We cannot let this happen. Thus far most candidates, even those with low polling numbers, won’t drop out. So we have to coalesce around one of the Democrats.

    I urge that we coalesce around Katie Porter.

    Porter is most known for her fiery whiteboard talks, holding corporate CEOs accountable, especially with regard to health care and big pharma. As a US congressperson, she passed laws that reined in the greed of the health care industry.

    She has a strong environmental record and will fight to expand clean energy and defend our clean air laws. She has pledged to protect our wildlands, open spaces, and oceans.

    She will work for federal funding for housing and to foster CA businesses.

    She has been endorsed by the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals, the Orange County Employees Association, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and California’s Amalgamated Transit Union.

    Porter will bring the fight that we need in these difficult political times. Please write a letter or send a donation now to register your support.

    Roberta Millstein

  • Let’s Play Contamination Whack-a-Mole with Opponents of Village Farms Davis

    By Alan Pryor

    INTRODUCTION

    A recent article was published in the Davis Enterprise (3/22/26) entitled “Village Farms Contaminant Risks” which purportedly discussed the alleged “risks” of environmental harm due to concentrations of a class of chemicals found in the groundwater beneath the Old Davis Landfill. These chemicals, known as PFASs, are likely found in the groundwater as a result of seepage from the long-since closed Old Davis Landfill. This article was later reprinted in a slightly altered form in the Davisite and Davis Vanguard on March 29,

    Unfortunately, however, the authors of the article really only repeated information already known about the concentrations of this only remaining organic contaminant currently found in  the groundwater.

    Further, the authors completely failed to actually quantify any real environmental “risk”of any type that this reported contamination might actually cause. Instead, the authors essentially  just say,”It’s there and it’s really bad”! – albeit saying that in a very ponderous and sonorous but seemingly credible manner. 

    But the authors did not even attempt to quantify the real likelihood of any environmental risk in their article. Why?…Because the risk of contamination is so infinitesimally low that to properly quantify that risk and disclose that information to the public would completely undermine their attempts to scare and frighten the public. This is not a thoughtful, deliberate scientific report. This is yellow journalism pure and simple.

    Let me explain.

    (more…)

  • No on Measure V campaign at April 4th Farmers Market

    (From press release) The No on Measure V campaign will be at the Farmers Market tomorrow, Sat. April 4th, with literature and lawns signs and  volunteers to meet with Davis residents wanting more information. The campaign now  has a website, NoOnMeasureV.org posted with information about many reasons to vote NO on Village Farms on June 2nd.

    Village Farms is a proposal for a 1,800-housing unit project on 498 acres, at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. It is the largest project ever proposed in Davis, with the worst impacts and it would  impose costs on Davis residents.

    The project housing would be unaffordable particularly to local workers and families with young children. The vast majority of the project would be housing priced at $740,000 – $1.34 MILLION  per the BAE fiscal report which means a monthly housing payment of at least $6,000 to cover the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD, and other fees.  Families with young kids cannot afford this so the project will not bring hundreds of kids as the School District believes, and therefore it will not help the schools as claimed.

    The developer is not responsible for building the affordable housing , except possibly 100 apartments in the last phase of the project 10+ years into the development.

    Concerns also include toxics, including carcinogenic PFAS’ “forever chemicals” leaking from the adjacent Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant into the project site. Vapor intrusion can result exposing future residents to these carcinogenic chemicals. The project also has high levels of could toxics including neurotoxic toxaphene and lead on the proposed Heritage Oak Park site where kids would play.

    (more…)

  • Village Farms Contaminant Risks

    [This Op-ed article was originally published in the Davis Enterprise on March 22nd in response to February 18th Davisite and Davis Vanguard articles in which Alan Pryor asserted that valid concerns related to contaminants associated with the proposed Village Farms Davis project, are “myths”.  This is a slightly modified version of that article.]

    This map from the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which was not included in the Davis Enterprise Op-ed article, shows Village Farms proposed drainage and housing adjacent the Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant and monitoring well locations. The liner discussed in the Davis Enterprise op-ed article and the Partial Draft Response to EIR Comments does not appear in the Development Agreement or Baseline Project Features. 

    By Steven Deverel, Marjorie Longo, and Robert Okamoto

    There was a recent attempt to dismiss contaminant risks related to the proposed Village Farms project in north Davis. We herein summarize data and potential risks related to contamination from the adjacent Old Davis Landfill, Burn Area, and Wastewater Treatment Plant.

    First, it was posited that contamination from the landfill has dissipated, per and poly fluoralkaline substances (PFAS) are not a health issue and that Village Farms Davis will not be built on the landfill.

    Response

    (more…)

  • Village Farms…Is It The Right Time? 

    By Georgina Valencia

    There is no perfect project and there is no perfect time.  But, there are good projects that come at the right time.  Such a project is Village Farms.  There are a few reasons I will vote YES for Village Farms. 

    First, Village Farms is contiguous with the City and I would label this site infill.  It is surrounded by The Cannery, F Street, Covell Blvd and Poleline Road.  While this land is farmland and has been planted under tomatoes, wheat, corn over the years.  It is surrounded by our community on three sides and is ideal for development.

    Second, the property that Village Farms sits on is in the sphere of influence created in 2008.  What is the Sphere of Influence?  “The legislature created the mechanism a “’sphere of influence’ (SOI) as a means for planning of probable physical boundaries and service areas within a local agency…SOIs are designed to both proactively guide and respond to the need for the extension of infrastructure and delivery of municipal services to areas of emerging growth and development.”  Village Farms (formerly Covell Village) is largely within the City’s SOI.  This means we as a community, former Councils as well as City Staff, have thought for decades about the areas of future growth and this is one of them.

    (more…)

  • Why I Now Support Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    Introduction

    I have been a fairly consistent opponent of most peripheral development projects in Davis over the past decade. For instance, I was the Principal Officer, Treasurer, and Chair or Co-Chair of the No on Nishi 1 (Student Housing),  No on West Davis Active Adult Community (Senior Housing), and both the No on both DISC 1 and DISC 2 campaigns (primarily Commercial).

    All of those peripheral annexation measures failed except West Davis Active Adult Community. But none of these projects provided for family housing for modest income buyers. I think Davis desperately needs that type of family housing and I believe the Village Farms Davis project provides it so I support the Project.

    As a result, I recently both publicly endorsed the Yes on Measure V campaign and was a  co-signer of the Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure V that will appear on the June ballot.

    Many folks that I had previously worked with opposing other projects have accused me of abandoning my slow-growth and/or environmental principles after hearing of my endorsement of Village Farms Davis or reading some of the articles I have published about various environmental aspects of the project. Some are saying it is inexplicable to them why I would make this seemingly sudden change in my views toward peripheral development and endorse this Project.

    Well, the reasons are actually pretty simple. I opposed past peripheral development projects because I did not feel any met all of the 3 primary criteria that I look at when considering supporting or opposing a project. And the reason I can now support Village Farms Davis is because I can now check-off each of the boxes for the same 3 criteria – 1) the Features of the Project itself, 2) the Location of the Project, and 3) the Quality of the Developers of the Project.

    Let me explain.

    (more…)

  • What are the guaranteed parts of the Village Farms project?

    Looking at Affordable Housing in particular

    By Roberta Millstein

    With the for and against ballot arguments for Village Farms and their rebuttals posted to the County’s website (as Measure V), and the campaigns starting to ramp up, I thought it was important to highlight what are technically known as the projects Baseline Features. These are available as part of the “Full Text of Measure V” on the County’s website, and I encourage Davisites to take a close look at them, but I wanted to point out a couple of things first.

    Most important to note is what it means to be a Baseline Feature. As the text of the Measure itself clarifies:

    Beyond the Baseline Project Features there are other additional requirements for the Project, including but not limited to, the mitigation measures set forth in the Village Farms EIR, and the Development Agreement that, while important to the Project, are not Baseline Project Features and may be modified with the approval of the City after the appropriate public process (emphasis added).

    Another way of saying this is to point out that only the Baseline Features are guaranteed parts of the project. Anything else can be changed with a vote of the City Council — and here one should keep in mind that membership of that future City Council could be somewhat or even substantially different from today’s City Council. Thus, anything that is not a Baseline Feature is not a guaranteed part of the project.

    And even then, it’s important to read the Baseline Features carefully, as some of us learned when Bretton Woods was able to jettison its promised memory care facility. Let me give an example that is tied to one touted feature of the project that is of great interest to many voters: Affordable Housing.

    The rebuttal to the argument against Measure V states that the project will have “360 units serving very low to moderate income households.” But is this true?

    (more…)

  • Rebuttals to for-and-against ballot arguments are now available

    Roberta Millstein

    In an earlier article, I posted the for and against arguments for the Village Farms project. The rebuttals to each of these arguments are now available on the County’s website, and I have pasted them below. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Village Farms that will appear on our ballots in June (the rebuttal to the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • Ballot arguments for and against Village Farms now available

    By Roberta Millstein

    This post is to just let people know that the arguments for and against the Village Farms project are up on the County’s website. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments are due by March 3; I will post them at some point afterward. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the argument in favor of Village Farms, i.e., in favor of Measure V, that will appear on our ballots in June (the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • The City’s handling of the noise ordinance: The good and the bad

    By Roberta Millstein

    The City’s handling of the proposed noise ordinance was good in some respects and quite bad in others.

    First, the good: At Tuesday night’s meeting, led by Mayor Donna Neville, the council agreed that the noise items weren’t an ordinance clean-up item and that they deserved a true staff report and separate consideration.  The noise ordinance (Chapter 24) items were pulled from the Consent Calendar and Item 4B’s noise ordinance “clean-up” will come to the council at a later date.

    I am grateful to the Council for hearing the Davis citizens who emailed and gave public comment concerning the noise ordinance.  (Previous Davisite articles about the proposed changes can be found here and here). 

    Now for the bad: This should have never been on the Consent Calendar in the first place, which is for noncontroversial items that do not need discussion.  I’m not quite sure how or why it was put there, or why the Council passed it unanimously at its “first reading” (Tuesday was the “second reading”), but to me it’s a continuation of a “trust staff implicitly” mentality.  I hope that this is a sign that the Davis City Council recognizes that it (the Council), not staff, is the responsible party who we voted for and that oversight is needed.

    Another concern is the way that comments emailed to Councilmembers were handled.  I received a reply from Barbara Archer, the City’s “Public Information Officer,” asserting (in essence) that the concerns I raised were not valid.  There are several problems with this:

    (more…)