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

Category: Health

  • Measure V is a Very Bad Idea

    By Glen Holstein

    The Environmental Impact Report provided by the Village Farms consortium includes the following: “groundwater beneath the project site…appears to have been impacted by the former landfill…Eight contaminants were found to exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level…detected …PFAS…compounds and manganese appear to originate from the Old Davis Landfill.  Three PFAS compounds exceeded their…USEPA water quality standards…Anomalously high…groundwater elevations were reported…for…dry seasons…the depth to water…was reported as 9.93 feet on September…elevations…not typical of dry-season conditions.”

    Despite their own EIR’s abundant evidence Village Farms consortium plans to invite home buyers to live just a few feet above toxic groundwater, which it has consistently either ignored or minimized.  The resulting potential outcome is no mystery.  A New York state school district  first built schools in such a place. and then arranged for homes to be built there as well so families would fill the schools.  The only problem was that when the toxic groundwater rose in elevation, as it often does, kids and their parents living there ended up in hospitals instead of classrooms.

    This Love Canal disaster of the 1970’s was so notorious it led to Superfund legislation, but those who made it happen could at least honestly claim nothing like it had ever happened before.  Those who fast tracked Village Farms in Davis, however, have no such excuse.

    (more…)

  • UCD Sustainable Transportation Plan Open for Public Review Through May 4

    Students navigate a mix of bikes, e-scooters, skateboards, and foot traffic on campus—illustrating the growing complexity of how people move through the Davis campus. (Courtesy photo / UC Davis)

    (From press release) UC Davis is inviting the broader Davis community to review and comment on a draft of its updated sustainable transportation plan through May 4.

    The plan—called Moving Forward Together—has been in development for over a year and outlines more than 100 possible improvements for how people get to and move through campus, from safer crossings and separated bike paths to better transit connections. It marks the first comprehensive update since 2009, with recommendations supported by input from more than 3,000 people, along with an analysis of travel patterns, infrastructure gaps, and collision data.

    Why this plan matters

    (more…)

  • 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…)

  • 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…)

  • Celebration of Abraham Raises Over $2300 for Joshua House Hospice

    (From press release) On February 1, 2026, the more than 130 members of the interfaith community of Yolo County were welcomed by Khalid Saeed to the beautiful new Woodland Mosque & Islamic Center for the annual Celebration of Abraham. This year’s theme was Returning to Abraham: Reflections in Courage. Abraham is a major character is all three Abrahamic traditions: Jewish, Christian and Islamic.

    The theme also reflected the site of the first Celebration of Abraham 2003 was at Holy Rosary Church in Woodland. Father John Boll (retired), who hosted the first Celebration in 2003, was this year’s first speaker and he presented the biblical story of Abraham beginning God’s call for him to leave his birthplace in Ur “into a land that I will show you.” (Genesis 12:1, HBFV)—the promised land. Rabbi Leah Julian, Director of Education and Youth at Congregation Bet Haverim then spoke. She said the ancient Rabbis saw Abraham as a man of great faith and courage and she cited stories of Abraham’s stand against prevailing idol worship, his courage to do the unpopular thing (smashing idols) and on some occasions, Abraham even stood up to the ultimate authority for what he believed was right. The Rabbi ended her speech with a heartfelt appeal for community unity through caring with courage. The third speaker was Imam Riaz Ahmed Quadri who leads the Woodland Mosque congregation. He noted that Prophet Ibrahim, as he is known in the Islamic faith, was one of 124,000 prophets that have been sent to mankind. In Islam, Ibrahim is called God’s friend and he was known for turning away from falsehood which took great courage at the time. He is a true example to follow where he turned to faith over fear.   After their prepared remarks, the Micheal Hirsh moderated the speakers responding to questions from the audience.

    (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…)

  • 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…)

  • Proposed changes to noise ordinance need to be sent back to the drawing board

    [The following email was sent to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org]

    Dear City Councilmembers,

    I am writing concerning Item 4B for tonight’s City Council meeting — specifically the changes to Davis’s noise ordinance. The changes would eliminate the concrete, objective measurement of too much noise — a decibel level — and replace it with the subjective determination of which sounds are “ordinary and reasonable.”  Left unclear is who is to make this determination, when such people would be available, and on what basis they would decide.

    As I understand it, the objective standard of a decibel level is being removed not just from public playgrounds, parks, and schools, but also from the regulations concerning sounds from animals, power tools, and vehicle repairs.  Thus, these proposed changes will affect every citizen in Davis.

    And let’s be clear.  This is a quality of life issue, yes, but it is more than that. Loud sounds have demonstrated physical and psychological harms on people and animals.  This is a public health issue.  Speaking personally, I find loud noises extremely debilitating. I can’t think properly, much less get any work done.

    Also, these changes will have people keeping their windows closed and using their A/Cs, unnecessarily wasting energy — and then still not really preventing exposure to the worst sounds.

    Yet despite the potential for serious harm, these considerable changes are poised to be passed without a staff presentation, without input from commissions, and without discussion of concerns raised by Davis’s citizens.

    I urge you to send this proposal back to the drawing board.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Roberta Millstein
    Davis citizen

  • Municipal Code “Clean-Up” Will Eliminate Noise Decibel Limits for All Parks, All School Grounds, Barking Dogs, Power Tools and More

    By Joe and Janet Krovoza

    On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the city council approved eliminating all noise decibel limits for every city park, all school grounds, barking dogs, non-commercial power tool use and vehicle repair in neighborhoods. The council did this under the guise of a Consent Calendar “clean-up” item buried among changes to nine different ordinance chapters. The subheading was “Remove outdated and unenforceable provisions–noise limitation.”

    Consent Calendar items are reserved for items deemed “routine and non-controversial” that “require no discussion.” This is not where one would expect a major overhaul of the Davis municipal code’s noise ordinance. During public comment at the February 3 meeting, we alerted the council to the magnitude of what staff had placed on the Consent Calendar and asked the council to pull the item for discussion. They did not. Agenda Item 4D passed unanimously with no public input on the noise section (other than ours), and no staff presentation.

    Ordinance amendments require two “readings.” The first reading is to receive input, the second reading is for the staff to present revisions if legitimate issues arise during the first reading. Staff have placed the second reading on the Consent Calendar for the upcoming February 17th meeting as item 4B. The meeting starts at 6:30 pm. No staff presentation is planned, no public input is invited – though comment must be accepted, as always, at the start of the meeting under General Public Comment.

    The changes have not been reviewed by any city commission. They should go to the Planning Commission, at a minimum. It’s unclear who the staff are that did the work on this. No experts or analysis is cited in the vague 168 word explanation for this radical new approach to city noise management. The short explanation of changes makes references to ambient noise making accurate readings difficult, ambient noise creating prosecution issues for the Yolo Superior Court, and the need for consistent application. These make no sense in the context of what’s being approved.

    The city’s stated reasoning for these alterations is that because the city “has grown larger and traffic has increased locally and on highways” it is now “more difficult to take accurate noise readings.” Really? Says who? We are very familiar with the various noise studies and exchanges with the city’s consulting sound engineers since 2019, and are deeply aware of the literature. Not once have we heard a consultant posit that ambient noise levels were making it difficult to take accurate measurements. This is a complete canard, invented by unidentified staff to deflect argument and justify the gutting of huge swaths of the ordinance.

    The subheading also indicates the amendment addresses “unenforceable provisions.” There’s nothing unenforceable when something exceeds a limit. Try telling a traffic officer this the next time you are pulled over for speeding. If anything, abandoning decibel limits for subjective police officer or city determinations makes enforcement more, not less, challenging. What’s easier and more defensible than enforcing an explicit limit? 

    (more…)