Category: Land use

Taormino Response to Staff Report Open Space and Habitat Commission Hearing
On Friday, Sept 9, David Taormino sent the following email concerning wildlife tunnels at Bretton Woods to the Open Space and Habit Commission in advance of their meeting yesterday.
Dear Commissioners,

Below is my response to the Staff Report Recommendations.

Response to Staff Report Recommendations, Background and Analysis:

I am not appealing the original Tentative Map Conditions. nor your original commission recommendations, nor the Development Agreement. I was ready to design according to these conditions when Public Works staff said, essentially: We want to eliminate the “natural creek bottoms” and substitute stamped concrete and “multiple ledges”.

I am willing to support certain staff-initiated changes set forth in the Staff Report, but these changes result in different infrastructure requirements that were not contemplated when the DA and map conditions were agreed on with the City Council and Planning Commission.

Discussion and my alternatives to staff requested changes:
1. Concrete lined bottom of all four tunnels: two tunnels along Covell Blvd and two at the north Bretton Woods channel connecting to the new John Jones Detention Pond. I am agreeable. It contributes to good maintenance practices and minimization of clogging.
2. I am in agreement that all four tunnels are to be built without custom stamped concrete as initially required by staff as a replacement for natural creek bottom. This also eliminates the need for oversizing the tunnels.
3. Ledges in all four tunnels: I am not entirely agreeable as explained below.
My Recommended Alternative and Explanation:

Culvert ledge example 2

The original ostensible and practical purpose of ledge(s) was to provide a “dry” walkway under Spirit Street somewhat akin to the current ledges on the foundations of the two corrugated steel tunnels under Risling. (see John McNerney’s example photo attached: Culvert Wildlife Ledge example 2)

Typical tunnel

I agreed to the concept of ledge(s) because the ledge(s) were an integral part of the foundation for tunnels with natural creek bottoms as specified in the Tentative Map Conditions. Those foundations with ledge(s) are necessary to build such tunnels. When changing to four-sided concrete tunnels without a natural creek bottom. no foundation is needed. The four sides of the concrete tunnels are smooth (see photo of typical tunnel attached), thus any ledge needs to be hand made and hand installed in a space that has only four feet of height to work in. It is time and labor intensive.

My alternative: Install a 2 X 8 redwood board ledge along the length of the tunnel and attached to the wall of the tunnel closest to the North edge of the Covell Channel, located furthest from Covell Blvd. Anchor the redwood ledge to the side/top of the Covell Channel for ease of animal access. This redwood ledge provides animals a safe below-grade route (below Spirit Drive). It would be located away from Covell Blvd and closer to the landscaping on top of the channel. One 2 X 8 board inside the length of the tunnel will not likely impede water flow in heavy rains and would require little city maintenance. This location is the safest connection point to where animals are likely to walk. (See attached drawing of the tunnels originally proposed by Staff for a visual.) Having one conveniently located ledge with above ground access is ample considering the overall likely use is by smaller critters like possums, skunks, racoons, etc. that will use the side or bottom of the Covell Channel and landscaping for cover. In John McNerney’s report he states:

“I recommend that the City uphold the agreed upon wildlife conservation measures for the project including the installation of culvert wildlife undercrossings. It is my opinion that while the Covell and John Jones Road drainage channels are not significant migratory corridors for wildlife. they do provide cover and movement habitat for small to medium sized urban wildlife. Installing new roads across these channels will indeed create a barrier to wildlife movement and increase the risk of vehicle strike mortality. Installing the wildlife ledges, as proposed, is a relatively cheap and effective method to provide safe passage for wildlife.” (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion on Covell Channel Tunnel: One ledge closest to the landscaping meets the intent of providing a safe alterative below ground path under Spirit Street for animals to avoid cars and is consistent with expected use.

North Bretton Woods channel tunnels (2).

My Recommendation: No ledges necessary.

Explanation: Unlike the Covell Channel, there is no street crossing that impedes the animals from moving safely from the Bretton Woods Channel to the John Jones Detention Pond and vice versa. The two north Bretton Woods Channel tunnels go from one “open space” area to another. Any animal prevented by drainage water from using the underground tunnels below the levee can simply walk over the top of the levee from one side to the other. A ledge is unnecessary since there is no street to cross nor other impediment for a safe crossing. The overland route is no different than going up one side and down the other side of the dirt channel.

Respectfully Submitted, Dave Taormino

Bretton Woods
September 13, 2022
Part 1 Candidate Responses to the Sierra Club Yolano Group Questionnaire for the 2022 Davis City Council Election

Land Use and Housing Development – Peripheral Development

______________________________________________

Introduction – As has been our custom for over 20 years, the local Sierra Club Yolano Group has prepared candidate questionnaires for some local elections in Yolo County. The questionnaire for the 2022 Davis City Council race asked for candidates' views and opinions on a wide-range of environmental issues of interest to our local membership.

The questionnaire received answers from all 5 candidates in the 2 City Council Districts for which an election is held this November. Listed in alphabetical order by their first name, the candidates are:

District 1 (West Davis): – Bapu Vaitla, Dan Carson, and Kelsey Fortune

District 4 (East Davis) – Adam Morrill, Gloria Partida

Questions were asked in the following general categories:

Part 1 – Land Use and Housing Development – Peripheral Development

Part 2— Land Use and Housing Development – Downtown Core and Student Housing

Part 3 – Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Part 4 – Transportation Management

Part 5 – Waste Management

Part 6 – Toxics in the Environment and Other Environmental Issues

The article below reports the candidates' responses to the questions posed to them in the first category, Part 1 – Land Use and Housing Development – Peripheral Development. The following 3 questions were asked of each of the candidates in this category:

Question #1 – Measure H – Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus

Did you support or oppose the development of the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus mixed use business park in Davis on the June ballot as Measure H and why?

Question #2 – New Proposed Peripheral Housing – Projects on Covell and Mace

There are 3 new proposed large housing projects on prime farmland in east Davis for which pre-applications have been submitted to the City – Palomino Place, Shriners, and On-the-Curve. All will require General Plan amendments and Measure J/R/D votes by the citizens. Do you support these projects and, if so, would you require any changes from their pre-application? If you do not support these projects, why not?

Question #3 – Measure D (Measure J/R) Modification

Do you support any modifications to the recently renewed (2020) Measure D (formerly Measure J/R)? Why or why not?

Subsequent articles with candidate responses to questions asked in the 5 other general categories will be reported in the coming days.

(more…)

September 3, 2022
Arriving Soon: Davis’ Bigger, Better, Costlier, Extravagant Toad Tunnels

An example of stamped concrete

By David Taormino

After 6 years of wrangling with Davis City Staff, Bretton Woods is under construction. The actual election process was easy compared to finalizing the details with Davis staff. We still have half-a-dozen important and extremely costly imposed conditions that impact costs to homebuyers.

The craziest staff imposition requires customizing the new drainage tunnels to make the “World’s Fanciest Frog and Toad Tunnels”, reminiscent of the 1995 famous toad tunnel fiasco that brought national embarrassment to Davis. As bizarre of a request as it sounds, that tunnel only cost $14,000, these four cost approximately $200,000. Two Davis staffers, the Open Space Manager, and a Public Works engineer, are demanding the two bigger, better, fancier, customized 110-foot-long tunnels paralleling Covell Blvd near Risling Drive, and two more in our Bretton Woods Channel to accommodate critters. Without the details, it doesn’t sound unreasonable on its face.

To “critter customize” these tunnels will cost each senior home buyer in Bretton Woods somewhere around $600 per home. While not a “princely sum”, it is only one of a dozen unnecessary costs heaped on Bretton Woods by city staff. What does each homebuyer get in return? Absolutely nothing, nada! What do the critters get for the extra cost? Only the staff knows, and they aren’t sharing, just demanding.

Where the critters are coming from or going; no one knows. I requested the staffers produce scientific evidence, or really any evidence, that this costly customization provides any more worthwhile conditions than normal tunnels. Does the staff have evidence that critters will need the customization compared to a standard tunnel? Just like 1995, NO!

Sadly, the unintended consequence of this forced customizing may be more 2019-like flooding of Sutter-Davis Hospital. Has the staff learned anything from the 1995 Toad Tunnel debacle or the flooding of 2019? Judge for yourself.

(more…)

August 27, 2022
Explaining what shouldn’t need explaining

Spending one million dollars is a sign of a mis-managed campaign

By Roberta Millstein

In his most recent apologia for the Yes on Measure H campaign, David Greenwald suggests that it is inevitable that developers will spend “exorbitant amounts of money” to promote their projects.

But nothing forced the Yes on Measure H campaign, led by “Honorary Chair” Councilmember Dan Carson, to outspend the No on Measure H campaign by more than 14-1, as Alan Pryor reported.

In 2020, the Yes campaign spent around $323,000 to promote the DISC project. Let’s consider how the developers might have reacted to that loss. They might have talked to voters to find out what, in their eyes, would make for a project that was better for Davis and modified the project accordingly.

Instead, they polled Davisites to find out what would “sell” to voters and rushed a virtually unchanged project to voters (just cut in half) only a year and a half later. Apparently, voters like parks, greenbelts, environmental sustainability, and affordable housing, so those are the features that they poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into highlighting, even though these aspects were at best incidental to the project and at worse deceptive. The graphic of the stand-up paddleboarder was perhaps the most egregious example of this.

And they dumped in almost three times the amount of the previous campaign – a campaign that had itself had spent large sums of money – in order to sell the project. That includes over $200,000 on a heavy-handed free-speech-squelching developer-funded lawsuit, which, bizarrely, Greenwald says is not a campaign expenditure issue.

(more…)

August 24, 2022
Yes on H Burned One Million Dollars

Yes on Measure H Committee Total Expenditures and Accrued Expenses Approach $1 Million vs Less than $69,000 for the No on Measure H Committee

by Alan Pryor

Executive Summary

A total of 19,787 votes were cast in the City of Davis Measure H ballot, according to the Yolo County Registrar of Voters, with 12,588 (63.62%) opposing the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus and 7,199 (36.38%) supporting it.

The most recent Yes on Measure H financial disclosures made to the City for the period ending 6/30/22 showed total monetary and in-kind expenditures and accrued expenses totaled $981,038. This works out to $136.27 for every "Yes" vote cast in the election. ($981,038 / 7,199 "Yes" votes). To date, all except $8,000 of these total expenditures were contributed or will need to be contributed by the two principals of the DISC project, Ramco Enterprises and Buzz Oates LLC of Sacramento.

By contrast, the most recent No on Measure H financial disclosures made to the City for the same period ending 6/30/22 showed total expenditures equaled $68,771. This works out to $5.46 for every "No" vote cast in the election ($68,771 / 12,588 "No" votes). All of this money was contributed by 201 individual donors or lenders to the campaign exhibiting broad community support for the No campaign as also reflected in the election outcome.

The "Yes" campaign spent approximately 14.3 times as much money than the "No" campaign on the election which is fairly consistent with past Measure J/R/D election campaigns. It is believed that Measure H is the most expensive Measure J/R/D campaign ever waged in Davis.

(more…)

August 22, 2022
Legal Fees Owed to the Lawyers for the Six Defendants Sued by Dan Carson over Measure H Ballot Statements were Finally Paid on His Behalf by the Yes on Measure H Campaign Committee

But Numerous Questions Remain Unanswered

by Alan E Pryor

Executive Summary

In the June 7, 2022 election, Davis voters were asked to approve the annexation of 102 acres of land off Mace Blvd into the City of Davis for the construction of a large industrial project known as the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus. The matter was on the ballot as Measure H and was resoundingly defeated by voters by almost a 2:1 margin.

Prior to the election but immediately following the submission of ballot statements to the City Clerk by the proponents and opponents of Measure H, Davis City Council member Dan Carson, as a private resident, sued the six Davis citizens who authored and signed the Argument Against Measure H alleging that their ballot statement contained numerous references that were false and misleading.

After ruling on the matter generally in favor of the defendants and making only very minor changes in the ballot statement language, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dan Maguire also later ruled that Dan Carson must repay $42,209.25 in legal fees to the Counsel for the six defendants in the case. In his ruling he stated the defense by the six defendants "served a public benefit purpose…as the public in a democracy has a strong interest in political debate that is 'uninhibited, robust and wide open'." After the election, this fee award was finally paid on behalf of Council member Carson by the Yes on Measure H campaign committee.

Assuming no monetary or other consideration was given by Council member Carson to the Yes on Measure H committee, the payment of the fee award for Council member Carson, an elected public official, by the Yes on Measure H campaign is probably considered a "Gift" under California law. Any such "Gift" to an elected official in excess of $520 per calendar year is prohibited under California law and, if so determined to have occurred, is subject to administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per violation or three times the amount of the gift received.

Further, any such gift may also also subject to an Internal Revenue Service levy of income tax on the donor of the "Gift" rather than the recipient. In this case, the responsible party incurring that liability would be the Yes on Measure H committee, which potential liability has not been reported on their Form 460 financial filings with the City.

Background

On March 21, 2022, Davis City Council member Dan Carson, as a private citizen, filed a lawsuit against 6 Davis residents (including this author) who wrote and signed the Argument Against ballot statement supporting a No vote on Measure H on the recent June ballot in Davis. The lawsuit against the six individual ballot statement authors/signers (the "Real Parties of Interest") sought to suppress almost 1/3 of the language – over 80 words - in the ballot statement, alleging the statements were "false and misleading".

Dan Carson was a long-time supporter of the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus (DISC) project, which the Measure H ballot sought to approve and be annexed into the City. Of further interest, Council member Carson was part of the 2-person City Council subcommittee that negotiated the terms of the DISC industrial project with the developer on behalf of the City.

After he voted to put the project before the citizens on the ballot, Council member Carson also then became the "Honorary Chair" of the Yes on Measure H committee, further clouding the nature of his relationship with the Yes on Measure H committee and the managing partner of the development project, Dan Ramos of Ramco Enterprises..

On March 30, 2022 Judge Maguire ruled that only 2 minor changes needed to be made in the ballot statement – deleting the word "only" from one clause and changing the unit of measurement of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the project in another clause. The ballot statement was otherwise left unchanged and the functional intent of the language remained in place.

Shortly thereafter, Counsel for the six defendants, Strumwasser and Woocher, filed a Petition for Award of Attorney's Fees requesting reimbursement of their legal fees and expenses incurred by the firm defending the six Davis residents from the Carson lawsuit. Counsel for Mr. Carson subsequently submitted their own petition for award of attorney's fees from the six Davis defendants alleging that he, Dan Carson was, in fact, the "successful party" in the litigation and was thus entitled to reimbursement of legal fees from the six individual Davis defendants.

This was a highly unusual request because both Council member Carson and Dan Ramos had both previously publicly admitted that the Yes on Measure H committee had funded the lawsuit on behalf of Dan Carson. Payment of these legal fees to Mr. Carson's attorney's prosecuting the case, Nossaman LLP, was confirmed by the Yes on Measure H committee Form 460 financial disclosure filings with the City of Davis.

Thus, although Mr. Carson had not actually paid any legal fees himself, he still petitioned the court to order the six individual Davis defendants who successfully fended off his lawsuit, to reimburse the legal fees that were otherwise actually paid for by the developer through the Yes on Measure H committee.

After a hearing on the matter, on June 1, 2022 Judge Daniel Maguire ordered Dan Carson, as the plaintiff in the lawsuit, to pay $42,209.75 in legal fees to Counsel for the six Davis defendants. In his ruling Judge Maguire stated,

"As explained below, while both sides gained some of their objectives in this litigation, the Real Parties in Interest have achieved the greater share of success, and are awarded a net fees recovery of $42,209.75."

He further explained his ruling stating,

"Under the ‘American Rule,’ litigants in this country generally pay their own lawyers, win or lose. In contrast, under the "English Rule," the loser pays both lawyers…

There are exceptions to the American Rule, and one is the private attorney general doctrine. Its purpose is to encourage "meritorious public interest litigation vindicating important rights."…

The private attorney general doctrine accomplishes this purpose by awarding attorneys' fees to litigants who advance the public interest by successfully bringing or defending a lawsuit. (Ibid,) The aim is to incentivize legitimate public interest litigation, not to punish the losing side. (Ibid.) Without the prospect of a fee award, litigants may be unable or unwilling to undertake or defend litigation that transcends their own private interest, even when doing so would benefit "a broad swath of citizens."

…

"The Real Parties in Interest also satisfy this requirement, as the public in a democracy has a strong interest in political debate that is 'uninhibited, robust and wide open.'…Our society has a deep commitment to free speech, especially in political matters, and by defending their right to make their argument in their words, the Real Parties in Interest have also enforced an important right affecting the public interest."

In summary, Judge Maguire based his Award of Attorney's Fees on the finding that the six defendants, the Real Parties of Interest, were more "successful" than Mr. Carson in the outcome of the litigation and that the award "advanced the public interest" by "defending their right to make their argument in their words".

According to the most recent Form 460 financial filing by the Yes on Measure H committee, these required legal fee reimbursements were paid to their Counsel, Nossaman LLP, on June 21 for forwarding to Strumwasser and Woocher, the Counsel for the six defendants. However, Nossaman LLP did not forward any payments to Strumwasser and Woocher until July 26, telling Strumwasser and Woocher that the Yes on Measure H committee had not paid them until them.

Unanswered Questions Concerning the Payment of Mr. Carson's Legal Award Fees by the Yes on Measure H Campaign

1^st Question – Is the Payment by the Yes on Measure H Campaign of the Legal Fees Owed by Mr. Carson Considered a "Gift" to an "Elected Official" Not Allowed Under State Law?

The California Political Reform Act restricts gifts, honoraria, payment of travel expenses, and loans in excess of $520 per calendar year to 1) elected officials and candidates for local elected offices, 2) most local officials, 3) judicial candidates, and 4) designated employees of local government agencies.

In determining whether the payment of the awarded legal fees by the Yes on Measure H committee on Mr. Carson's behalf is a non-allowable "Gift" to Mr. Carson, the following information is provided in the Fair Political Practices Commission publication FPPC Ed – Pro 046 10-2021, October 2021 (https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gift-fact-sheet/LocalGiftFactSheet_Final_2021%20Version_2_Gendered%20Terms_Clean_Copy.pdf).

"What is a "Gift"?

A “gift” is any payment or other benefit that confers a personal benefit for which a public official does not provide payment or services of equal or greater value….(Section 82028.) (See Regulation 18946 for valuation guidelines.)"

The award of attorney's fees by Judge Maguire explicitly orders a payment by Petitioner, Dan Carson, to Counsel for the Real Parties (the six defendants). However according to the Form 460 reporting Yes on Measure H committee finances filed on July 28, 2022 with the City of Davis City Clerk, full payment for the obligation by Dan Carson was actually instead made by the Yes on Measure H committee. The payment was purportedly made by the committee on June 21 to Counsel for the six defendants, Strumwasser and Woocher, to the committee's Counsel, Nossaman LLP, acting as the payment agent for the Yes on Measure H committee.

Conclusion – In the absence of any recompense otherwise made by Mr. Carson to the Yes on Measure H committee, it would otherwise appear that this payment of Mr. Carson's obligation by the Yes on Measure H committee would be considered a "Gift" to him from the Yes on Measure H committee.

"Enforcement”

Failure to comply with the laws related to gifts, honoraria, loans, and travel payments may,

depending on the violation, result in criminal prosecution and substantial fines, or in

administrative or civil monetary penalties for as much as $5,000 per violation or three times the amount illegally obtained. (See Sections 83116, 89520, 89521, 91000, 91004 and 91005.5)".

Conclusion – If the payment of Mr. Carson's legal fees by the Yes on Measure H committee is construed to be a "Gift", it could result in criminal penalties in addition to imposition of administrative penalties up to $128,127.75 ($42,709.25 x 3).

Possible Exceptions – The primary exception to the restrictions and limitations on "Gifts" to elected public officials exists as follows,

"Existing Personal Relationship. Benefits received from an individual where it is clear that the gift was made because of an existing personal or business relationship unrelated to the official’s position and there is no evidence whatsoever at the time the gift is made that the official makes or participates in the type of governmental decisions that may have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on the individual who would otherwise be the source of the gift. (Regulation 18942(a)(19).)"

However, this exception would seemingly not apply in this instance because Council member Carson has publicly declared on numerous occasions that he has no business or economic relationships of any kind with the Yes on Measure H committee, the developer Ramco Enterprises, or the DISC project itself.

Further, it is clear by by being part of the City Council subcommittee that negotiated the development agreement between the City of Davis and the project, that Council member Carson "makes or participates in the type of governmental decisions that may have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect" on the principal developers of the project who, not coincidentally, are the principal funders of the Yes on Measure H committee. Additionally, because one of the developers of the DISC project, Ramco Enterprises, also has numerous other properties within the City in which Mr. Carson "makes or participates in the type of governmental decisions that may have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect" on those properties, this exception to the restriction of a gift is not applicable.

Conclusion – The payment of the award of legal fees by the Yes on Measure H campaign committee is seemingly not excepted by FPPC regulations regarding restrictions on "Gifts" and otherwise could be considered a gift to Council member Carson because it "confers a personal benefit (to Council member Carson) for which a public official does not provide payment or services of equal or greater value."

We assume in this discussion that Council member Carson has not provided or agreed to provide any past or future favorable treatment of any matters before the City by the developer by virtue of the developer's many other property holdings within the City. But if any such promises or inferences were otherwise made in exchange for the payment of the Mr. Carson's legal fees, it otherwise could be construed as a "Bribe" rather than a "Gift" for which much more substantial criminal and civil penalties could result.

2^nd Question – Will any such "Gift" to Dan Carson of the Payment of His Legal Fees by the Yes on Measure H Committee Impose any Additional Income Tax Liability?

According to the Internal Revenue Service,

"The gift tax is a tax on the transfer of property by one individual to another while receiving nothing, or less than full value, in return. The tax applies whether or not the donor intends the transfer to be a gift. The gift tax applies to the transfer by gift of any type of property. You make a gift if you give property (including money), or the use of or income from property, without expecting to receive something of at least equal value in return." (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/gift-tax)

"The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead." (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes)

In the present circumstances, the "Gift" to Dan Carson by the Yes on Measure H committee (by virtue of their payment of legal fees owed by Mr. Carson) would presumably generate an income tax liability on the part of the Yes on Measure H committee, as the gift donor rather than by Mr. Carson as the recipient of the gift.

In their most recent financial 460 report (through June 30) filed with the City in which the payment of $42,209.25 by the Yes on Measure H committee was noted, there was NOT any corresponding accrued expense noted to reflect the additional income tax liability potentially incurred by the committee by virtue of their "Gift" to Carson.

3^rd Question – Why Does a Discrepancy Exist in the Reported and Actual Date of Payment of Awarded Legal Fees to Counsel for the Six Defendants?

The $42, 209.75 fees ordered to be paid by Mr. Carson to the Counsel for the 6 defendants was supposedly paid by the Yes on Measure H committee through Carson's Counsel, Nossaman LLP, on June 21 according to the most recent 460 campaign financial statements submitted by the Yes on Measure H committee to the City on July 28 for the period ending June 30, 2022.

However, the award amount was not forwarded by Carson's Counsel to the six defendants' Counsel, Strumwasser and Woocher, until July 26, 2022 and the delays were continually attributed by Carson's Counsel to ongoing delays in receipt of the payment from the Yes on Measure H committee. Perhaps there is an honest accounting error here but these discrepancies in timing have not been explained.

________________________________________________

Alan Pryor is the Principal Officer and Treasurer of the No on Davis Innovation and Sustainable Campus Campaign Committee and one of the defending Real Parties of Interest in the lawsuit brought by Mr. Carson.

August 10, 2022
Please Donate to Help Us Stop Indiscriminate Open Pit Mining in Yolo County

Photo of Prime Farmland Set to be Destroyed by Proposed Open Pit Mine

The Sierra Club Yolano Group, together with its local partner, Yolo Land and Water Defense, is desperately trying to stop a massive new sand and gravel open-pit mining operation. This proposed project will forever destroy 300 acres of productive prime farmland just off of Cache Creek a few miles west of Woodland. Almost in the city's backyard, this huge new surface mine will leave behind a wasteland of methyl mercury contaminated impoundment ponds, no guarantees of successful farmland reclamation, potentially serious decreases in local groundwater levels, and greenhouse gas and priority pollutant emissions far greater than estimated (see below for more detailed information about the project's environmental shortcomings).

Our lawsuit challenges improper mining project approvals. Over vigorous objections about the lack of appropriate environmental protections as required under California law, this project was recently approved by the Yolo County Supervisors when they certified a defective Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and awarded lucrative 30-year sweetheart mining rights to Teichert Mining. The company is a subsidiary of a billion-dollar mining and construction behemoth. To stop this ill-advised and destructive project unless necessary protections are put in place, the Sierra Club with our partners recently sued Yolo County and Teichert Mining to rescind certification of the EIR and project approvals.

The Sierra Club and a number of members of both organizations have already made very substantial contributions, but we urgently need to raise $12,000 more to continue this lawsuit all the way through trial. Please help us force Teichert Mining to act responsibly so that our children and future Yolo County generations can enjoy unpolluted habitat, productive agricultural land, safe and reliable access to good quality water, and clean, breathable air.

Please consider making a tax-deductible donation of any amount.

1) By Credit Card or Paypal – Click on the online donation link here (https://www.mightycause.com/story/Yolanogroupsc)

2) By Check – Send your check payable to Sierra Club Foundation, c/o Yolano Group, 2736 Brentwood Pl in Davis CA 95618.

(more…)

July 25, 2022
Kelsey Fortune Announces Her Candidacy for Davis City Council in District 1

>>from press release<<

I am honored to announce my candidacy for Davis City Council in District 1.

I was raised in small town Wisconsin to believe everyone should play an active role in shaping their community. I moved to Davis nine years ago to pursue my PhD in economics, determined to live in accordance with my values for respect, inclusion, and sustainability. I use my bicycle as my main form of transportation and have woven close relationships with a wide variety of people through my involvement in our community. I volunteer my time as the Associate Director of Purple Tree Cafe and on the Boards of Bike Davis and Cool Davis.

Faced with a climate emergency that threatens to exacerbate already unacceptable levels of inequality and is currently degrading our environment, I believe our diverse and compassionate community is our greatest strength. I see untapped potential for progress and action in the City of Davis. The people and elected leaders who came before us laid the groundwork for a vibrant, sustainable community, and our city government and citizenry can again become an example of an equitable and effective response.

The city is also faced with an unsustainable budget, a public safety and justice system that does not best serve the people, an extreme dearth of both affordable and dedicated low-income housing, and lack of transparency, effective communication, and action from our City Council. Our children’s future depends on our ability to act now to address these problems.

That’s why I’m running for Davis City Council in District 1.

______________________________________________________

For more information, contact FortuneForDavis@gmail.com, 530-220-2001

July 22, 2022
The City of Davis Propaganda Machine & Sky Track – Tales of the Bizarre

Last night, less than an hour after the Rec & Park Commission meeting considered Sky Track #large echo & trumpets#, a bizarre posting appeared on a Facebook Page with the City Logo that reads like an oil company trying to claim environmental brownie points after running an oil tanker into a reef full of penguins:

The capstone of the posting: "The City of Davis and its staff work diligently to ensure a vibrant community that enhances the quality of life for residents, families, children and students."

Oh please. Gag me with a spoon. Make me vomit. I'm heading to the vomitorium to hurl chunks.

Who wrote that, and why? What is really going on here that the City has that written in an hour, and up on the web? It's too perfect. Why would a City website post something so vomitously self-serving? That's not what cities do . . . they are government, not private. Cities shouldn't make proclamations about how great the city and its staff are. I've met several great City staff btw. This isn't about how great or not great any particular staff is. It's about the fact that it is not government's place to toot it's own horn — and we should all be asking: why is it doing so in this case? Something is rotten in West Davis.

And why is the City providing a forum so City residents can get into a Facebook war? So assholes can berate and belittle the neighbors for what, having an issue with the constant sound of metal grating on metal? I had no idea the degree of vitriol from users and abusers of the zip-line. What part of 'metal grating against metal' don't you people understand? This isn't rocket science, it's not even sound science. We all fucking know that metal on metal and a constant grating noise next to where we live can destroy daily life. That isn't a sound you just get used to. We don't need paid sound scientists to use meters and numbers to justify my love when we all know whatever the damn meter says that 'metal grating on metal' is an awful sound. I have not been so disgusted by some Davis people since the Trackside defenders.

More on the Facebook forum There are those playing the 'envy card' — 'you own a house!' – imagine the gall of someone owning a house in Davis :-|. There are those playing the 'you hate children' card, even though they say they never minded any of the sounds or children playing or shrieking in joy — only the grating of metal on metal. There are those playing the 'you get special treatment' card, even though the Krovozas and others are getting shat on by asshole zip-line users/abusers and City government. There's the 'you knew there was a park there when you bought your house' card, even though the Krovoza's pointed out repeatedly that they moved in next to a park and had no problem with that, the zip-line came much later and that is the only and specific noise issue. Metal on Metal!

And why is the City now a propaganda machine? Not that many years ago if I wrote to the City Council, two or three Councilmemebers would write me back with their personal response. Now an 'information officer' sends me a pre-packaged response about how my email was sent to all the Councilmembers. This is a new position paid for with your taxpayer money, and what we get is pre-packaged pablum. Now the propaganda machine is expanded to bizarre City-serving Facebook posts with forums for citizens to berate citizens. The City isn't a corporation that needs a slogan that it "enhances the quality of life for residents, families, children and students." Why are we putting up with this shit?

That meeting last night was bizarre. Truth is lies. Words are reality. Coneheads roam City parks. All that virtual meeting proved to me is a lot of people got dropped on their heads as infants.

Anyway, have fun playing 'Spot the Flaming Davis Assholes' as you read the comments in the Facebook page 😐

P.S. Why do we call it Sky Track with capital letters like it's some special thing with a proper name — instead of "that fucking zip line" ? 😐

June 22, 2022
Do NOT Change Noise Ordinance Standards nor Formulas

Recreation & Parks Commission,

I am highly concerned about the proposal to change the sound standards for the City of Davis. My understanding from articles written by former mayor Joe Krovoza is that standards are in consideration to be changed in terms of duration, levels, and measurement of peaks.

I have aural nerve damage in one ear and so have had to, out of necessity, learn how sound affects the human body. Loud sounds can cause me splitting headaches emanating from the inside of the ear, severe ringing in the ears, internal ear pressure, disorientation, burning, aural misinterpretations, etc. Sound frequency, duration, distance, peak-volume and distortion all factor into the severity of an 'event' as I have come to know them.

Though dependent on particular circumstances, in general shorter bursts of loud sounds are more damaging than longer duration of softer sounds. That is why going with some sort of 'averaging' system would be a tragic mistake. This would ignore the very real damage done by peak sounds. My world-renowned ear doctor from Stanford Ear Clinic would back me up on this. He has coached me on how to live with my condition, which is not treatable.

My ear doctor explains that there is a 'threshold' level at which the noise becomes damaging to hearing (in my case, the threshold is much lower than those with a healthy ear). The PEAK noise is almost always the problem. Therefore, changing the city noise ordinance to consider some AVERAGE measurement as the standard is not only unwise, it is INSANE.

To give an example of how unwise this is, an example everyone can understand – consider train horns. A train horn — at 100' in front of the horn — ranges from 96 to 110 db. Even at the low end this is painfully loud, and on the high end can cause ear damage in just a few seconds. But, if you averaged the railroad noise around the tracks over a period of hours, it would show very low AVERAGE noise as over time there are few trains. The PEAK noise is when the damage is done; AVERAGING OVER TIME would FAIL to CATCH the DAMAGING peak sounds.

While I am more bothered by sound than those with healthy hearing, ear disease is rampant and hugely under-diagnosed in this country. There are many people with my condition and many other hearing diseases who are intolerant of various sound conditions. This is not just about an annoyance, it is at times debilitating.

Another thing to consider is that those close to a noise source suffer from the exposure repeatedly and over time. Those adjacent to noise sources are the people who must be considered paramount and above all else. Let's say a nightclub with sub-woofers goes in next door to someone's house. But ON AVERAGE less than 1% of the people in town even hear the noise. The standard must be on how the noise effects those adjacent, not on the fact that 99% of Davis voters never hear it. Another abominable use of 'average' exposure.

I urge the commission, the City, and the Council to retain current noise-ordinance formulas and standards, and reject any attempt to change the noise ordinance to be more allowing of harmful peak noise exposures.

Sincerely,

Alan C. Miller, District 3

June 21, 2022