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.
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
What happened? Drilling down into the data
By Matt Williams
Precincts
To get to an apples to apples comparison of the results of Measure H and Measure B, one has to start with the understanding that the Yolo Elections Office reported Measure H in two consolidated precincts
… one for the western portions of Davis plus Downtown and Olive Drive (seen in light blue in the left graphic below), and
… the other for the northern, eastern and southern portions of Davis (seen in the darker blue in the left graphic below).
Back in November 2020 the reporting of Measure B came in eleven (11) consolidated precincts, which are shown in the right side of the graphic below, with the precincts that had more than 50% “Yes” votes shown in green and the precincts that had more than 50% “No” votes shown in light blue.
Fortunately, the underlying precinct boundaries did not change between 2020 and 2022, so a one-to-on comparison of the two Measure H consolidated precincts can be made to their Measure B equivalents.
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
by: Janet and Joe Krovoza
Regarding Arroyo Park’s Sky Track, here’s the latest reveal: data omitted from a March 1, 2022 noise report shows that for the three years of the Sky Track’s use, the apparatus has been in constant violation of the city’s noise standard of 55/50 dBA (day/night). This same data shows that alternative locations in Arroyo Park will violate the noise ordinance – day and night.
Last December, the city’s Acoustic Group, Inc. (AGI) consultants collected, but then buried, the relevant maximum (Lmax) noise data from the new March 1 report. With the Lmax data conveniently missing from its 40 pages, the AGI report continued the city’s bizarre use of average noise (measured in Leq) and the equally necessary policy assertion that “Maximum Noise Level (dBA)” explicitly stated in the ordinance really meant “average.” This theoretically allowed for a potential new Sky Track location in Arroyo Park to squeak by within .5 dBA of compliance.
Confronted again on its use of Leq and their it-says-maximum-but-means-average trick, staff refuses to own their mistaken decision and they are now asking the Rec and Park Commission to clean up their mess by endorsing a reinterpretation of the noise ordinance that will increase every noise maximum in the city by 20 dBA – huge increases on a logarithmic scale, with citywide implications. This 20 dBA increase would apply to residential, commercial/industrial, and high traffic corridor noise – all in the name of placing an amusement park caliber apparatus close to homes. We lay this out further below.
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Al's Corner is a place to comment on local issues and articles/comments from other local forums that you may or may not have been banned from. For the few Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is".
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Today the D. Vanguard recycled some old content from January 2021 in a 'new' article "Commentary: Long Troubled by Some of the Comments on Pacifico" and sprinkled in some recent content from an Anti-NIMBY Council-meeting public comment.
I, too, am disgusted by some of the comments on Pacifico, but the comments I find twisted are the opposite comments Greenwald is troubled by — those by David Greenwald, Georgina Valencia and some much-DV-recycled comments by Gloria Partida . . . and the rest of the Usual Suspects of the "Anti-NIMBY" crowd.
My position remains immortalized in the following letter:
An Open Letter to South Davis (January 2021)
Hello South Davis,
I don’t live in South Davis, but I’m looking at District 3 100’ away out my window.
I share your problems and your concerns. There is a spot 200’ from my house where drug addicts / drug dealers / thieves camp outdoors. This is not a homeless encampment, it is a revolving crime den. In Spring 2020 I had three scary men on meth (I believe) approach me late at night and one threw rocks at me. There were numerous incidents of mental health outbursts. I slept little for two months as these people were up all night.
Our neighborhood mostly solved the problem *this time* eventually by having meetings with both the Police Chief and his Lieutenant, and relentlessly pestering the City Council. That took two months.
Your problems I have heard regarding Pacifico are similar, and thankfully also seem better but not solved. I am here with you in unity. We cannot participate in these issues only when the problem is next to us. We must support other Davis residents who have similar problems, as the problem is bigger than Pacifico, and bigger than the location next to me.
God Bless the people who are helping the truly homeless population that are in need. Those who spoke today on that are I believe sincere. However, the problem is not the needy, but the criminals. We cannot conflate these.
There have been times when residents, and subtly even our leaders, have shamed “the homed” for being “privileged” and not being sensitive to those in need. These are separate issues. We must recognize the needs of the truly homeless. We must also recognize that there is no shame in having a home and a roof over our heads, nor the need to protect our families and yes, our things.
When people talk of drug dealers and thieves, they are not talking about the needy homeless; we must not conflate the two as a rhetorical trick. We must recognize and acknowledge that shaming the ‘other’ and demonizing those with homes, and those without homes, will not result in constructive resolution. We must recognize the needs of all parties as legitimate. Except for criminals, they ‘need’ to be removed.
Alan C. Miller is a resident of Old East Davis
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
City Councilmembers,
I note that Healthy Davis Together (HDT) is scheduled to end its public testing services at the end of this month. I am concerned about the timing of this closure during a large surge of Covid-19. The surge is not unexpected with masking reduction, public burnout and a highly-contagious variant. True that far less people are dying, but why shut down testing just as there is a huge upsurge in cases and a small uptick in deaths?
Last time the HDT program was slated for shutdown, I suggested rather than shutting down the program, start charging for testing, and allow for those testing to 'sponsor' more tests by paying for tests for others in need. I believe the community will respond generously. Many I have have spoken to are dismayed at the end of H.D.T testing, and would welcome the continuation of the program as a pay service. I encourage Council to push for this option.
I saw pictures of the previous (first live) City Council meeting in 'a local blog'. Great photos of all of you. But no one on the dais was wearing a mask. Photos of the audience showed a spattering of maskless and masked — using cloth, surgical, N95. What is the mask policy? What is the message the Council wishes to send? Why the choice to have the first live meeting and not wear masks as we headed into a surge?
Society today — supposedly compassionate towards marginalized peoples — is being oddly cruel in dismissing that Covid-19 "only" kills the old and the sick. Are 'old' and 'sick' not marginalized groups that we should care for? Being that I will be 'old' soon (in the category where Covid-19 death is much more likely), I would prefer to live in a society that gives a crap.
I go to one business downtown and they require full N95 masking for all clients who enter. I go to another business wearing a mask and am taken to a closed office with a maskless woman who never even asks if I'd prefer she wore a mask. Many people seem done with Covid-19. Yet, I know more people who have contracted Covid-19 in the last two months than the previous two years. My pre-Covid-19 work building was just declared a 'severe outbreak location' for the first time in the pandemic. But apparently we are tired of Covid-19, so end the testing, end the masking?
Official health guidelines are insanely confusing. The County lists a state website that grades types of masks by their usefulness. N95 is 'very good', surgical is 'good', cloth is 'fair'. This is for a deadly virus.
Can you imagine if health officials used a similar system for prophylactics? Latex is 'very good', lambskin is 'good', a plastic baggie is 'fair' ? Of course for something non-fatal health officials are clear that the only way to protect one's self, and others, is to use a latex condom. But we teach that a cloth mask is a 'fair' option. As the concept of masks has changed from 'everyone helps everyone' to 'everyone for themselves', and all masks are widely available, it is paramount that the vulnerable public is guided to use only the most protective masks.
As well, home Covid-19 tests have proven to frequently give false negatives. This is worse than no tests at all, as people may visit an old and/or vulnerable family member with the false security of having taken an inadequate home test.
I recently learned that although HDT is shutting down, a "test -to-treat" facility is opening in Woodland, offering a same day full round of Paxlovid if one tests positive. I learned about this not from the City, but from the California Aggie. Will a "test-to-treat" facility be opening in Davis soon?
I urge the Council to: A) Wear masks at meetings while the surge continues; B) Continue Healthy Davis Together as a paid program allowing donations for the needy; C) Give a clear message as to where we are in the pandemic that considers a balance between business needs, healthy citizens, and vulnerable citizens; D) Give clear information about testing and treatment available to Davis residents beyond June 30.
Sincerely,
Alan C. Miller
District 3
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Al's Corner is a place to comment on local issues and articles/comments in other local forums that you may or may not have been banned from. For the few Rule-ez at Al's Corner, see "Pages" –> "Al's Corner – What It Is".
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
By Roberta Millstein
What makes a juror too biased to serve on a case?
Recently, I was called for jury duty selection for case that involved repeated sexual assault on a person who was a minor at the time. I was not selected; the prosecuting attorney used one of his peremptory challenges to dismiss me. I’m OK with that – the trial would have been weeks long – although I do, in an idle curiosity sort of way, wonder about the reasons. My friends insist it is because I have a PhD (apparently many of my fellow PhDs have been dismissed from juries), but I’d also note that the prosecuting attorney seemed very concerned about having people on the jury who were not in favor of the district attorney, who was on the ballot for re-election.
But it wasn’t the prosecuting attorney’s dismissal of me that I found troubling. Instead, it was process, largely led by the defense attorney and, if I understand correctly, allowed by the judge, for dismissing people “for cause.”
I know at least some of what I say here will be controversial and perhaps heretical. It won’t be as well-organized as I’d like because I am still thinking through some things. But perhaps the reader will think through things with me.
The defense attorney’s questioning of potential jury members was very haphazard. He asked what was ostensively the same question in different ways, to the point where they seemed like different questions, although I don’t think that was his intent. Some people were queried more intensively than others. And it seemed to me that women were queried more intensively than men.
That was bad enough, but as the process went on, it became apparent that anyone who had experienced sexual assault or who had someone close to them who had been sexually assaulted was being dismissed for cause on the grounds of “bias.” Since something like 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted, this was quite disturbing. A lot of people were being dismissed. (Of course, some people are going to find it too painful to serve, and those people were rightly dismissed – but the dismissals were going beyond that).
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
(From press release) We are pleased by the overwhelming defeat of Measure H, which we believe would have resulted in a development that was harmful to Davis.
It was a true grassroots effort of many volunteers over many months, who poured countless hours of their personal time into the campaign. It was also the result of many passionate supporters who donated to the campaign, displayed lawn signs, wrote letters to the editor, and participated on social media. We thank everyone who was involved in the effort.
We hope the resounding defeat of Measure H leads to more collaborative community discussions that engage Davisites in creating future projects which will be truly sustainable and environmentally progressive.
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
I haven't read the aftermath article that was no doubt in the Vanguard Wednesday morning. I have grown yawn of the analysis/spin and the predictability. I could write the article. I will go read it for the comments, but without Alan Miller and Keith O., the comments have really become dull. And Ron O., by his descriptions here, half his stuff is censhored. How is censhored content either a discussion or entertaining?
But what has changed is that the key issues/peoples the Vanguard champions died last night. Here's my prediction (or a post-diction since it's already been written): the article will include Measure H, Chesa Boudin and Reisig. Am I close? The Vanguard lost, and all such progressive/woke initiatives are going down, like a sinking submarine. They didn't just go down, they were all massacres. Sinking massacres. Mixed metaphors.
Measure H? 64% vs. 52% last time. So it's getting worse, horribly worse, for the prospects of development. Probably not ever going to be developed unless every taxpayer in Davis is bribed $1000 to vote 'yes'. More voters would have mattered? Doesn't matter, that's how it is. Where were all those student voters voting 'yes' that didn't last time? Not voting, as usual, as students don't. In one of the Valley's most liberal towns, it went down. Must be all the racists on the 'no' SIDE.
Chesa? An initiative on 'defund the police'. Doesn't matter what the stats are. The public has had it. In one of the countries most liberal cities.
Reisig? He stooped pretty low with the child molester attempted link. Then the lipstick-on-a-pig flyer came out. OK now they both stopped low, so no moral advantage there. But again, people in a Valley county with a super-liberal town/city, even Yolo leans law & order. And for me, Reisig's dept. put a murderer behind bars who killed a friend's partner in front of them and their young child. And the murderer should NEVER get out of jail, unless the living victim says so. Period. Majority of us don't believe in term limits for murderers.
MOOB!
Posted by
on
in
|
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Davisite 
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