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

  • 75% fossil fuel reduction by 2030

    As the group of students, staff, and faculty whose meeting with Chancellor May in December 2021 led to a plan to eliminate fossil fuel use by UC Davis (Fossil Free UCD), we are pleased to see the release of the Fossil-Fuel Free Pathway Plan (FFFPP), as reported in the Davis Enterprise.  We are grateful to Chancellor May for his continuing dialogue and leadership. 

    The FFFPP calls for eliminating 95% of fossil fuel use from university operations by 2040.  Equally important is the shorter-term goal contained in the plan: a 75% reduction of fossil fuel use by 2030. 

    This shorter-term goal is essential because deep and swift emission cuts from burning fossil fuels is the only appropriate response to the dramatic consequences of climate change we are already experiencing.  To meet this 75% reduction target, UCD will need to work together with other UCs and our state and federal legislators to secure funding.

    As a leading university, UCD educates our students for a successful future. Our teaching mission comes with a responsibility to ensure that we graduate our students in a world where they enjoy a stable climate. UCD is showing by example that we can greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels within years, not decades. This leadership will hopefully inspire other universities and government entities to swiftly enact plans to go fossil-fuel free as well.

    UCD affiliates who wish to join our ongoing efforts are encouraged to contact us via our website at https://fossilfreeucd.org/

    Cort Anastasio
    Patrick Cunningham
    Mark Huising
    Brianna Mcguire
    Helene Margolis
    Elizabeth Miller
    Roberta Millstein
    Emma Saffel
    Suzana Sawyer
    Stephen Wheeler
    Sandy Xie

    On behalf of Fossil-Free UCD

  • State Protections Sought for Vanishing California Burrowing Owls

    (From press release) Conservation groups petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission today to protect five imperiled populations of the western burrowing owl under the California Endangered Species Act.

    The petition seeks endangered status for burrowing owls in southwestern California, central-western California and the San Francisco Bay Area, and threatened status for burrowing owls in the Central Valley and southern desert range.

    “These fascinating ground-dwelling owls need relief from being bulldozed or evicted to make way for urban sprawl,” said Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I’ve witnessed the disappearance of burrowing owls from much of California over the past two decades, and it pains me to watch their extinction trajectory. They need immediate protections if we want to keep these owls around to grace our grasslands and open spaces.”

    The only owl species that nests and roosts underground, the burrowing owl was formerly widespread in California and commonly nested in grasslands throughout low elevation areas of the state. Burrowing owls have suffered significant habitat loss due to urban development, conversion of grasslands to agricultural lands, and large-scale wind and solar energy infrastructure. They are also killed by rodenticides and collisions with wind turbines and cars.

    The owls rely on burrowing mammals such as ground squirrels to excavate underground burrows for nesting and roosting. Urban development removes suitable nesting and foraging habitat, while ground squirrels are routinely eradicated from ranching and agricultural lands.

    “When a formerly common species disappears from our landscape, what does it say about the health of our ecosystems? Abundant burrowing owls once brought so much joy to residents of our valley, but development has pushed them to the brink of extinction,” said Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society.

    Protecting the burrowing owl under the California Endangered Species Act would require state and local agencies to manage threats. That would include ending the state policy of allowing owls to be evicted from lands slated for development and requiring adequate mitigation for habitat loss. Regional planning efforts, and in some cases direct intervention to boost owl abundance, are needed to prevent the imminent disappearance of burrowing owls from many areas of the state.

    “State protections are urgently needed since the environmental review process hasn’t meaningfully protected or conserved burrowing owls,” said Catherine Portman with the Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. “We’ve tried to get mitigation for owl habitat destroyed by scores of development projects in Yolo County, but owl colonies are routinely evicted without requiring habitat protections. For example, 103 acres of prime burrowing owl breeding habitat in Yolo County were developed in 2015 in exchange for only 19.5 acres at a mitigation bank that has never hosted nesting owls.”

    (more…)

  • Tonight at City Council: Weigh in on I-80 widening

    By Roberta Millstein

    Just a quick heads up to let folks know about an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed I-80 widening project.  The subcommittee of Councilmbers Arnold and Neville have drafted a letter for City Council consideration that recognizes the objections raised by many Davisites to the project and expresses concerns.  See proposed letter here: Download 04-Subcommittee-Recommendation-Transportation-Letter

    I think it is a fairly weak letter, and would urge something stronger, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that it is at least more of a stand than the City Council has been willing to give prior to this.  So a comment on the order of, "thanks, this is good, but we can do better" seems appropriate.

    As a reminder:

    • In person public comment: This is item #4 on the agenda, tentatively scheduled for 6:55 PM.
    • Submit written public comments to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org. Emails are distributed to City Council and staff. To ensure the City Council has the opportunity to review information prior to the meeting, send emails by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
    • Submit comments by voicemail prior to the meeting: Call the city’s dedicated phone line (530) 757-5693 to leave a voicemail message for public comment. Staff will play comments during the appropriate agenda item. Comments will be accepted from 12:00 noon until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Voicemail public comments will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m. Speakers will be limited to no more than two minutes.

  • I-80 A Threat to Housing Affordability?

    Blinder siloVideo: A Widening Goal is for More Bay Area ”Super Commuters”

    By Alan Hirsch 

    The Davis  General Plan is on Tuesday’s city council agenda- not just in the item so labeled, but reverse  of the city policy of “strongly supporting” the I-80 widening.

    I-80  is not just about climate, it also impacts having housing, affordable housing for local residents.

    While we in Davis can zone in more density like Cannery,  push Davis developers to increase their affordable set aside a few percent points, and even  vote a tax on ourselves to fund a housing trust, the benefits for current resident will easily be diluted by demand generated from over  ten thousand commuters a day  the 33% increase in freeway capacity enable.

     Prices are set by demand vs supply,  If  more people have access and want housing here the prices will go up- as will demand for subsidized affordable units.

    (more…)

  • Will Davis Council get serious about Climate & I-80?

    Cartoon fist grabing freewayReview of policy to “Strongly Support” the widening at Tuesday Meeting

    By Alan “Lorax” Hirsch

    On Tuesday March 5th  Davis  Council  Meeting, there will FINALLY be a full discussion of the I-80 policy for the City of Davis. it will likely be in cryptically worded agenda item called Legislative Policy.  

    This is follow-up to the January 9th Council meeting where the city council wrote a highly critical letter about the problems with the environmental analysis for the widening.  And the June 6th 2023 meeting Caltrans pressured the city council and said “agree to partner with us- tonight–  or you won’t get mitigation money.”

    Currently,  Davis City policy is expressed in letter written to federal government and California Transportation Commission to “strongly support” the I-80 freeway widening. This is based on two lines slipped into a 10 page city council’s lobbying policy agenda item three years ago (2/16/21).  The BTSSC (Davis city transportation Commission) has never been consulted on this policy, neither has the council ever before had a in depth discussion targeting support or opposition this $465Mil project. Contining this  policy put obtains the missing $200- $350 mill need to complete construction of the project- and funding it mitigation of its GHG above real transit improvements. 

    ACTIONS NEEDED:

    If residents  want to speak up on this project, they can do one of these actions:

    • Show up council chambers and make a 2-minute comment— (you can make comment in general comment period before 7 pm and still make an election night party)
    • Leave Voice msg noon at 4pm on Tuesday 5th. 530-757-5693
    • Email: Davis City Council citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org

    Talking Points:

    (more…)

  • Letter: No to PG&E Contributions

    I recently read the Enterprise’s article about campaign contributions in the District 4 Yolo County Supervisors race. I was very disappointed to learn that a candidate in that race took money from PG&E. As a climate advocate, PG&E is the last corporation I want to see involved in our local elections. PG&E is responsible for dozens of wildfires, hundreds of deaths, and thousands of homes destroyed in California. As a Davis resident, my rates have also been hiked by PG&E, all while my service worsens.

    PG&E has been flexing its political power to pass its liabilities onto ratepayers. Who could forget the money PG&E spent to defeat Yolo’s effort to join SMUD? As a community, we need to create a locally-controlled energy grid that relies on 100% renewable energy. Electing people who take money from PG&E is two steps backwards.

    Yolo County is also beginning to implement its climate action & adaptation plan. As PG&E cuts investment in renewables due to their bankruptcy, the last thing we need in Yolo County is a Supervisor beholden to PG&E. The Enterprise reporting also begs the question: how can PG&E even give money to candidates with their recent bankruptcy? Is that what my higher rates are paying for?

    I encourage everyone to read the Enterprise coverage of the contributions to the Supervisor race. I will be voting for a candidate who did not take money from PG&E.

    Elias Bunting

  • The Ever-Changing Justification for Widening I-80

    Why can’t Caltrans Tell Yolo County the True Cost?

    By Alan Hirsch

    On Tuesday March 5th the Davis City Council will review and hopefully reverse the current city policy that endorses I-80  freeway widening for cars. This policy was set quietly in 2021 as two line buried  a 10 page policy  statement  on thing the city would lobby by an ad hoc committee of Lucas Frerich and Dan Carson.  But now I-80 has surfaced before council as a threat to the City Climate Change Plan its clear the current council needs to reexamine it if it want to be taken seriously on climate change.

    The January 9th ye open staff report to reviewing the I-80 Draft EIR also heighten interest.. At that meeting,  Councilmember Will Arnold the former Caltrans Director Of Media Relations, shared Caltrans policy  which he  summarized:  believing  freeway widening will fix anything is the definition of insanity. (Link to transcript of Arnold’s remarks)

    Every-changing Justification for I-80 Widening

    (more…)

  • Council to Commit to De-Commissioning Commissions?

    MusicalChairs

    There's some metaphor here… ask the Council about it?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Today, January 30th, the City of Davis City Council will “Consider Recommendations Related to Commissions”. Please show up this evening – item 5 is scheduled for 7:20pm – or call the comment line at (530) 757-5693 before 4pm.

    Let's look at some recent history first… and then tonight's meeting:

    June 3rd 2021

    “City Council Subcommittee and All-Commission Chair Meeting”. Video. 

    This was a two-hour meeting between all Commission Chairs with then City Council member Lucas Frerichs – who chaired the meeting – and Gloria Partida.

    It’s worth noting that two of the Commission Chairs – Bapu Vaitla and Donna Neville – are now on the City Council. Vaitla does not reference this meeting in the Council sub-committee proposal scheduled for this evening.

    While the meeting is certainly worth a focused viewing, for now I will focus only on statements made at the meeting related to future activity (e.g. further similar meetings with Chairs, Council agenda items, etc):

    “Hopefully not the last meeting” (Lucas, earlier in the meeting)

    “Update to the City Council Coming shortly” (Frerichs @ 1:59:40 – it’s not clear if this meant any minutes from meeting would be passed along to Council)
    “Hopefully on a regular basis” (Frerichs @ 2:00:00 – Referring to an intention for similar meetings with Chairs.)
    “I’m sure that Kelly [Stachowicz] and Zoe [Mirabile] also will […] put together some minutes.” (Partida – 2:01:00 – As no publicly-distributed minutes are taken, it’s not clear what this referred to. )

    At the end Colin Walsh – the Chair of the Tree Commission -  asked about when there would be another similar meeting “in the not too distant future”.  Partida responded:  “It was pretty clear that that’s one of the main takeaways here… we will be setting that up”. She also said  “…What I heard was that people are we really wanting twice a year to meet this way…so I can [should or will be able to] confirm that”  (Walsh, Partida from 2:04:25)

    Despite what Frerichs and Partida said or intended, there were no meetings – between Chairs and a Council non-quorum or in City Council – until February 2023, 20 months after the 2021 meeting. 

     

    February 7th 2021

    City Council Meeting. Community comments start at about 2:34. Some highlights:

    * Alan Hirsch. gives a good comprehensive look at the overall poor state of things regarding respect for Commissions. 

    *John Johnson – a member of the NRC -  talks about NRC not having enough time to do what it needs to

    * Alan Miller suggests a great, truly-democratic and also streamlined idea for organizing the Council and Commissions. 

    * Roberta Millstein makes clear the paternalistic functioning of Council and Staff

    * Colin Walsh criticizes the generally low-quality process

    Based on Colin Walsh's observation at the meeting, there were very few members of the Public at the meeting. This would indicate a likely lack of communication about the agenda topic. I also don’t understand why it was called a “workshop”, as it didn’t have this form.

     

    Present Day:

    Two pieces earlier this week in Davisite:

    Council to Eliminate Tree Commission Tuesday

    City Commissions Merger Proposals are Ill Conceived – Testify Tuesday

     

    In the sub-committee report for today’s meeting: 

    "The Council Subcommittee spoke with all AVAILABLE chairs (or vice-chairs) [emphasis mine] of existing commissions to receive their feedback on what is working in the present structure and what could be improved." [page 4]

    "In reviewing the scopes and structure of each of the City's 14 advisory commissions, the subcommittee undertook the following research: […] * Met with [ALL?] chairs and vice-chairs of each commission to gain a better understanding of what works well and areas of potential improvement, especially with respect to Council direction about what areas of commission activity would be most valuable; [page 7].

    What actually happened? Did the Chairs and/or Vice Chairs coordinate with each other? Did they have the opportunity to e.g. get questions from Chapman and Vaitla and then get input from their Commission before speaking with Chapman-Vaitla?Are there minutes of these meetings?

    The proposal would – in the long-run – have a total of approximately 28 fewer Commissioners than the current 98, so just under 1/3 less participation from the same city (and possibly expanding) population, with similar low to mid level staff, same senior staff and same council numbers, and still minimal involvement from youth (see below)

    While there would be less staff hours, it's not clear if this will reduce staffing expenditure (I don't fully understand how staff gets paid when working evenings, etc)

    The new language comes from state-mandates on General Plans, but it's clear that the "Element" names don't have to be included in the names of the related Commission.

    We then have the proposed "Circulation and Active Mobility" – and they don't get the correct name for the BTSSC again!  – but I think that Circulation is a somewhat old-fashioned term which I believe – and not only superficially – relates to LOS (Level of Service)

    The archaic and unusual name of "Circulation…" as the new name for what’s unfortunately and informally oft-referred to  as the "bike commission" with "….and Active Mobility" which in aggregate is… poor English (just like the current BTSSC, as “Bicycling” is a subset of “Transportation” (outside the sporting context) and “Street Safety” is mostly a quality of the situation, 

    I would prefer e.g. “Efficient, Joyous and Safe Mobility Commission”, as it covers all forms of transportation using conveyances, walking, other means of travel, resources/climate change issues and the social sphere!

    "The required Noise and Safety elements [of the Consolidation] are not listed; community engagement for these will be led by Staff.)" (page four) Seriously, what the actual f*ck?? Is there any actual logic for this or a similar and official mechanism in any other part of the proposal

    There's a promise at the end that no one will have to leave, presumably Commissions will change as people term out, but will there will perhaps be more split votes for a long time due to math: 7 to 7, 6 to 6, 5 to 5, 4 to 4 votes (before Commissions "settle" again at 7 members.

    There's NO proposal for a Commission of Youth Members/Youth Commission. About 90 cities and towns in California have these!  At the very least, there's no proposal for more youth OR age of minority-age ex-officios for ALL Commissions

    There’s NO promise of more communications – via social media, the City’s website, etc – to encourage more attendance and attention of Commission meetings and ongoing work, inclusive of biographies of Commission members. One should not have to Google a Commissioner’s name to see their affiliations, job, a bit about their experience, etc.

  • City Comissions Merger Proposals are Ill Conceived – Testify Tuesday!

    997436a9-42d2-42cf-856b-30517f0720da

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The City Council is hearing proposals to consolidate commissions on Tuesday night. These changes have serious implications. Here are the proposals:

    (more…)

  • Arnold calls $465mil I-80 Widening “Insanity”

    Council Member & Former Caltrans Employee’s Remarks on I-80

    Will arnold picture

    Submitted by Alan Hirsch

    Below is a transcription of Councilperson Will Arnold remarks on the I-80 widening for the video of the 1/9/24 Davis Council meeting. Arnold was the Manager of Media Relations at Caltrans HQ until August  2023.  His testimony adds to that of the Hi level whistle blower Jeanie Ward-Waller  She accused Caltrans of violations CEQA in moving ahead freeway widenings and I-80 project in specific. YoloTD Board has never asked their staff or Caltrans a single question about that in any open board meeting.

     (Link to city website with video see time stamp  3:51:29)

     

    “Thank you,  Mayor Chapman.

    There is an important note I want to read:

    ‘Highway investments over the years have contributed to a dependence on automobiles and supported development patterns that have made walking, cycling and transit use inefficient, challenging and sometime dangerous in many parts of the state.  Highway investment have also contributed to the displacement and division of some neighborhoods and imposed noise and safety hazard on many others.

    Further research over the past several decades had demonstrated that highway  capacity expansion has not resulted in long term congestion relief and in some cases has worsen congestion, particularly in urbanized regions. (ed note: all emphasis his)  Projects in urban area that add travel lanes result in changes in travel behavior due to a short-term reduction in travel time and improvement in reliability. This phenomenon known as “Induced travel” explains why adding capacity has rarely succeed in reducing congestion over the long term or supported alternatives to driving and more transportation efficient land uses.

    Finally, highway expansions are costly. Expansion of the existing highway system means less available funding for other transportation needs and priorities as well as continued increase to long term maintenance costs for the existing system. As a result, we cannot continue the same pattern of highway expansion investment in California and expect different results.  3:52:52

    Rethinking our approach to highway expansion programs will be a critical part of insuring we are working toward equitably meeting our climate change goals.  3:53:01 ‘

    This is part of the state Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, known as CAPTI. This is a document passed in 2021 by the state transportation agency signed by Davis Hi Alumnus David Kim, former (CA) Secretary of Transportation 

     They Know. THEY KNOW (Arnold emphasis), They know what we are saying it true. 

    This isn’t a secrete in Sacramento, this it isn’t a secrete in any of the 12 Caltrans districts, even District 12 in Orange county. They know.

    And yet, we reach these inflection points where it’s time to put our money where our mouth is as a state in how we invest our limited transportation dollars, and we each these inflection points and the same thing keep happening when we invest in what we know, which is more freeways, or lanes expecting a different result. 

    Which we know is the definition of Insanity.” ends 3:54:18