Four women earn Soroptimist cash awards
Come check out the Whole Earth Festival this weekend

The Proposed Village Farms Davis Development Project is NOT Threatened by Groundwater Contamination from the Former Davis Landfill Site

By Alan Pryor

Executive Summary and Conclusions

This article reports on potential groundwater contamination beneath the former Davis Landfill site north of the City of Davis on Poleline Rd. and the adjacent site proposed for the Village Farms Davis development project immediately south and southeast of the old landfill site.

During the contentious Measure X election in November, 2005 in which the proposed Covell Village project (on the same site as the current proposed development, Village Farms Davis) was rejected by voters, allegations were made that the site’s groundwater was contaminated by leaching of pollutants from the former Davis landfill site just north of the project. In particular, it was alleged that a carcinogen, vinyl chloride, was in the groundwater beneath the project site rendering the project unsuitable for development in as much as a deep well was proposed for the site to add to the City of Davis potable water supply.

In a recent City Council meeting (April 4, 2023) in which the possible timing of bringing peripheral projects before the voters were discussed, one public comment again stated that vinyl chloride was in the groundwater beneath the old Davis landfill and the proposed site for the Village Farms Davis project.

The parcel itself has so many problems. It has toxics in the north end from the land fill site. The old land fill site was not lined so there is vinyl chloride leakage from the old land fill and it’s substantial. Vinyl chloride does not go away.

These claims of vinyl chloride and other toxic compounds in the groundwater were based on data from the early 1990s though 2005 which showed some intermittent groundwater contamination (including some tests showing the presence of vinyl chloride) in shallow groundwater test wells beneath the old landfill and immediately to the south beneath the then proposed Covell Village project. These earlier monitoring well test results were reported in the EIR issued in the Covell Village EIR issued in 2005 and are further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.

These reported findings were considered important at the time because, as stated above, the Covell Village project proposal included a new deep well on the project site to provide drinking water capacity for the proposed project and connecting into the City’s potable water supply network. Concerns were expressed that the shallow water contamination could worsen and impact the deep aquifer from which potable water would be drawn. Potentially compounding the problem was the discovery that the groundwater plume was migrating from the landfill toward the south and southwest in the direction of the proposed Covell Village project.

Annual testing of the monitoring wells subsequently occurred in the period since the Covell Village EIR from 2012 – 2019. These later tests showed a substantial reduction in groundwater contamination in the intervening years and the report from consulting engineers engaged by the City to evaluate the groundwater contamination showed the following results;

  1. NO Vinyl Chloride was found at all in any sampled groundwater from 2012 – 2019 nor were there ANY other VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) or metals found in any of the test well samples above the EPA's Primary Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
  1. There were some measurements of nitrate (probably from past agricultural fertilization on the site) in the monitored wells that were in excess of Primary MCLs and some other naturally occurring minerals (selenium, manganese, and sulfate) that were intermittently in excess of Secondary MCLs but not hugely in excess of other well waters in the area.

    However, these are NOT a human health concern because the groundwater beneath the Village Farms Davis project site will NOT be pumped and used for drinking water purposes. Instead, the project will rely on City of Davis municipal drinking water supplies as delivered to the rest of the City.
  1. The plume of groundwater beneath the former landfill site and the proposed development project site was most recently determined to be moving toward the northeast away from the Village Farms Davis project site as a result in changes in groundwater extraction rates in the area. Thus, even if there was very unlikely leaching from the landfill site future in the future it would NOT migrate in the direction of the proposed development project.
  1. Based on the sampling results from 2012 - 2019 indicating no detectable amounts of vinyl chloride and no amounts of volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) or heavy metals in excess of established EPA MCLs, it was recommended that the City discontinue annual testing and request a No Further Action letter from the Regional Water Board thus confirming the area is no longer considered a threat to groundwater contamination.

These later test monitoring results from 2012 – 2019 are also further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.


The 400-acre site of the currently proposed Village Farms Davis residential development project is bordered on the northeast side by the former 31-acre City of Davis waste disposal site. Historical records indicate the waste disposal activities at the Site began in the 1940s as an open burn dump. Operation as a direct-bury Class III landfill began in 1969 and received waste from residential, commercial, and industrial clients and construction debris until 1975, after which no additional waste was received.

Yearly records of the number of truckloads received were used by the City of Davis to estimate that approximately 300,000 tons of mixed waste was deposited in the landfill during its operation. The City of Davis also reported that NO hazardous classified waste had been disposed of at the landfill.

Figure 1 – Old Davis Landfill Vicinity Map

Fig. 1 - City Rpt 2019 Q4 M

The Site was also used as the location of the former City of Davis Waste Water Treatment Facility, which included 5 surface water aeration ponds and a processing facility (Figure 2). The inactive ponds remain at the Site but the processing facility has been demolished and removed. An active Go-Kart racing facility, and an active Paint Ball facility currently occupy the southern portions of the former landfill site.

Figure 2 – Old Davis Landfill Site Map

Fig. 2 - City Rpt 2019 Q4 M

Summary of Well Monitoring Findings

Periodic water sample testing from a series of seven monitoring wells both on the old landfill site (3 wells), on the Village Farms Davis project site (3 wells), and on the east side of Poleline Rd adjacent to the Wildhorse Golf Course (1 well) has been performed since 1992.

Concentrations of Water Contaminants - Pre-Covell Village EIR (Before 2005)

The early history of testing for contaminants (including vinyl chloride) is summarized best in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Covell Village issued in 2004 from which partial excerpted sections are quoted below;

Old Davis Landfill, County Road 28H.

Vadose soil impacts were not detected immediately beneath the landfill facility. Trace level volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations were detected in the downgradient wells including vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloropropoane and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Elevated selenium, chloride and nitrate were further reported for the downgradient wells. D&M concluded that groundwater downgradient of the former landfill facility had been impacted by landfill leakage with some contaminant levels above California Maximum Contaminant Levels. In 1996, D&M prepared an Evaluation Monitoring Report (EMP) for the former landfill facility….Only one VOC (1,2-DCP) was detected in groundwater samples obtained from the onsite CPT probes at concentrations ranging from 0.72 to 1.2 ug/l. VOCs were not detected in any of the onsite wells during four sampling events performed in 1995 and 1996. Based on the low levels detected, D&M recommended no further action, with semi-annual groundwater monitoring.

Groundwater Sampling in 2003

The results of sampling in February 2003 did not indicate detectable VOCs in any of the monitoring wells. Only dichlorodifluoromethane was detected in onsite wells HLA-MW1 & 2 and DM-MW4 at concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 6.4 ug/l between 1999 and 2002. The CVRWQCB completed a Monitoring Report Compliance Checklist for the landfill facility in March 2002 confirming that formal monitoring should continue in addition to a determination of background water quality.

Groundwater Sampling in 2004

The Report states that the aforementioned groundwater wells were sampled on Tuesday, February 10, 2004. The results showed little change in inorganic aqueous chemistry. One organic compound, dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon-12), was detected at monitoring well DM1. This compound has been detected onsite in the past and the concentration of 5.1 parts per billion (ppb) was slightly higher than the previous results of 3.90 ppb. Both levels are well below the State’s Action Limit for drinking water standards.

Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIR, numerous Comments to the DEIR were submitted indicating that the continued presence of vinyl chloride constituted a future risk to inhabitants of the proposed Covell Village project. This was addressed in the Response to those Comments in the Final EIR (FEIR) subsequently issue, as follows;

According to both the City of Davis Public Works Department and GEOCON Consultants, the statement on page 11-5 of the 1997 Jones & Stokes Covell Center EIR is incorrect, because vinyl chloride has not been detected in either groundwater or vapor samples collected from the monitoring wells located on the Covell Village property. As further stated by GEOCON Consultants in March 2005, review of the source document referenced in the 1997 EIR (Evaluation Monitoring Report and Proposed Corrective Action Plan, Old Davis Landfill prepared by Dames & Moore, dated June 1997) does not corroborate the statement that vinyl chloride was detected on the Covell Village property. Vinyl chloride was detected in well DM-MW3 located on the City-owned landfill property during the initial groundwater sampling events performed in March and July 1992 at concentrations of 2.0 and 2.7 ppb, respectively. Subsequent sampling performed by the City's consultant (Dames & Moore) between September 1992 and August 1996, including five cone penetrometer test (CPT) groundwater samples collected from the Covell Village property, did not indicate detectable levels of vinyl chloride. Biannual groundwater sampling performed by the City of Davis since 1999 has only resulted in one detection of vinyl chloride; 2.8 ppb in well DM-MW2 located on northern portion of the City-owned landfill property in February 2001. The lack of persistent detections suggests that vinyl chloride is not present in groundwater beneath the former landfill or adjacent Covell Village property as a stable migrating plume”

Concentrations of Water Contaminants - Post Covell Village EIR Monitoring (2012 – 2019)

Subsequent to the defeat of Measure X at the polls and pursuant to an order from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board (CVRWQCB), the City again began testing of the groundwater in the 7 test wells from from 2012 – 2018 on an annual basis and then twice in 2019 (the later two tests to see if any seasonal variation occurred in sample concentrations). In 2018 the City retained the consulting engineers, Wallace Kuhl Associates to evaluate the well water test results and recommend an appropriate course of action, if any.

A report detailing the findings of constituents in the groundwater beneath both the landfill and the Village Farms Davis site prepared by the City’s contractor, Wallace Kuhl Associates (Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019– Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, January 23, 2020). According to this report, there was no groundwater contamination by any heavy metals or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of their established Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) and none of the samples showed the presence of any vinyl chloride contamination at all.

A Change in the Direction of Underlying Groundwater Flow

Generally, groundwater flow beneath Davis is toward the east. However, groundwater testing during the early 1990s indicated the directional flow of groundwater beneath the former landfill site was toward the south and southwest. According to the analysis performed at the site by Dames and Moore in 1997, groundwater flow was generally toward the south during fall – spring changing toward the southwest during the summer months.  At the time, “this was attributed to increased pumping of groundwater at the Hunt-Wesson Plant to the southwest of the landfill...during the onset of the tomato canning season...from late-June to mid-October groundwater pumping at the plant is on the order of 2 to 2.5 million gallons per day compared to approximately 400,000 gallons per day in the off season”. It was reported this dropped local groundwater levels on the order of 7 ft. thus establishing the downgradient flow from the landfill through the Covell Village site towards the Hunt Wesson Cannery.

By 2019, however, the City’s consulting engineers had determined that the directional groundwater flow had completely changed direction as a result of discontinuance of groundwater pumping at the Hunt-Wesson plant which closed in 1999 (Wallace Kuhl Associates (Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019– Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, January 23, 2020). Their report stated that, “The groundwater contours generated based on groundwater-surface elevations indicate that on October 22, 2019, the groundwater gradient was northeast at a gradient of 0.009 feet per foot. Figure 3 depicts groundwater surface elevation contours for the modeled potentiometric groundwater-surface at the Site”.(Emphasis added).

Thus even if further contamination leakage from the landfill site commenced in the future, it will migrate away from the Village Farms Davis development site. The groundwater gradient is graphically shown in the following figure.

Figure 3 – Groundwater Directional Map

Fig. 3 - City Rpt 2019 Q4 M 

Final Assessment of the Former Davis Landfill Site

A final assessment of the former Davis Landfill Site was made by the City’s contractor, Wallace Kuhl Associates in a report entitled Site Characterization Report – Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, June 20, 2020. The main findings excerpted from this report follow (with bold emphasis added).


No metal concentration in groundwater exceeded its established EPA Primary MCL Maximum Concentration Limit. No VOC was detected at a concentration that exceeded its established EPA MCL.


Beginning in September 2012, the City of Davis Department of Public Works Utilities & Operations resumed groundwater monitoring at the Site. Analysis was limited to VOCs. In 2019 the City of Davis retained WKA to conduct groundwater monitoring.

WKA conducted second and fourth quarter 2019, groundwater monitoring and sampling at the Site in June and October of 2019, respectively...Analytical results from the Fourth Quarter 2019, sampling event revealed that Nitrate was detected is groundwater samples at a concentration exceeding its MCL of 10 mg/L. Manganese, Sulfate, and Selenium were detected at concentrations exceeding their respective secondary MCL.


  • Terminate quarterly groundwater monitoring and abandon wells DM-MW-1 through DM-

MW-5, as well as HLA-MW-1 and HLA-MW-2.

  • WKA recommends that the State Water Board close the case and issue a No Further Action ruling for the Site.”



All data on the site and groundwater contamination for this report was obtained from the following pertaining to the former landfill site. Copies are available upon request.

  1. Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Report, Report for Old Davis Landfill, Dames and Moore, January, 1993
  1. Evaluation Monitoring Report and Proposed Corrective Action Plan - Old Davis Landfill, Dames and Moore, June 1997
  1. Covell Village Draft Program Level Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2004062089, Raney Planning and Management, December, 2004
  1. Covell Village Final Program Level Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2004062089, Raney Planning and Management, May, 2005
  1. Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2019– Old Davis Landfill, WKA No. 12395.01P, Wallace Kuhl Associates, January 23, 2020


Alan C. Miller

Just plain weird to have AP supporting this housing and defending its developer with the same TLDNR fervor that was formerly reserved for fighting developments. I say this as someone who voted for Covell Village. Not as thrilled with this proposal, it'll take some convincing. As for the groundwater, I used to work in the profession, and what is presented here passes the smell test.

Ron O

I agree, Alan M.

I can envision someone like Alan P. possibly supporting something like Palomino Place (or even Nishi), but not a 400-acre, primarily single-family housing proposal on 400 acres of prime farmland - extending beyond (and wrapping-around) The Cannery, as well.

Don't know if he cares about traffic on that side of town, but this thing would also be a traffic nightmare (especially since The Cannery and Spring Lake have been built since Covell Village I was defeated).

Good luck trying to get to CostCo or Home Depot from Davis, after that. Already, there's a lot of traffic going up Road 102 to connect with I-5, as well.

Not to mention the freeway access points at Mace. (It will REALLY be something if the Chiles Ranch and "100% Housing DISC" proposals are approved at some point, as well.)

And ALL of these properties are far from UCD.

Truth be told, I don't understand why ANYONE would support it, other than those hoping to make a buck off of it (one way or another).

For those hoping for lower housing prices, the rise in interest rates is starting to take care of that - far more than a single development (anywhere) would. The Sacramento region is experiencing some of the largest declines in housing prices in the country, at this point.


My kneejerk was to start with a "forest for the trees" angle, but also stating that Alan Pryor is certainly nearly unassailable as a big picture thinker in environmental protections.

BUT, instead:

* "When push comes to shove" - e.g. when they feel desperate for housing in a particular place, or with accessible schools in a particular place - do they finally put aside various environmental risks and "bite the bullet"? I Googled "Are people concerned about air and water pollution when choosing a home" and didn't see an immediate answer: Just like water quality minutiae, this is outside my skill set...
* However, I see a lot of people living in relatively near homes right next to I-80, which is nearly constantly noisy and -depending on monitoring site - variably polluted with gasses and particles... and a small fraction also live downwind of In&Out, but I digress..
* So my guess is that people won't care if they live on top of or next to a poisoned site. "Americans' kvetch constantly but.... people want to sleep somewhere with locked doors and climate control.
* Speaking of noise pollution, the go-karts are really annoying.


I semi-intentionally used a bunch of common phrases above to highlight the need for a compassionate community to use language properly and honestly:

"Village Farms" is not obviously not farms - and people will just be taught or convince themselves that transferring corporate agricultural land to mostly single-mostly genetic family homes is inevitable. It's also obviously not a village, but who in the USA even knows what a true village is any longer? Village Homes is also mostly not a village. (Imagine aliens in some Kurt Vonnegut book visiting Village Homes and not finding a village.) I lived in a place called Studio Village in Culver City ("The Heart of Screenland") and live in a Village-named place now in Davis. People love villages, even if people in named villages aren't in villages. So... while "West Davis Active Adult Community" was kind of a designation and the final name is related to some kind of worship of the Post WWII economy, curious if "Village Farms" will also be changed to e.g. "Compassion Acres" or more perversely and honestly "Downtown Merchants persuade Council to permanently ban paid parking as Village Farms residents drive their electric cars to shop in east Woodland Village not-Village".

Let's compare this to DISC I and II. Alan Pryor is a true hero in his role in defeating those exercises in multi-million dollar developer masturbation with government facilitation, and I would like to hear his answers and everyone else's. For my part - and I lived across Pole Line from the proposed development for a year and way more peripherally - still in Davis - since October 2021.... because I see the stats in the Campus Travel Survey, I see how little biking there is at distances over 15 min from campus, and that's for many people who can't easily afford cars. I don't see how the proposed density and availability of private vehicles, parked fare free in or next to their homes will ever result in a significant use of public transportation. I see no solution for 102 aside from closing it to through traffic except for ag-related business. People will drive to Oaktree Plaza, we know this, right?

If we build this, we just encourage Woodland to further expand south and perhaps in other directions, we will see SACOG to shrug its shoulders so hard in powerlessness that it will crush its own head... we should be joining Caltrans (and Amtrak) to sue the frack out of Woodland and other places so they stop expanding, as this gives a rather robust middle finger to any possibility of a robust regional public transportation network.

The water argument would be important if there were a wide range of environmentally-beneficial reasons to build it. There are not, so it's not.

(Note: This is the same comment I made in the Davis Vanguard, repeated here for folks who don't visit that other publication as they feel it doesn't pass "the smell test".)

Nancy Price

As for the groundwater and all the testing, I see no mention that any one of the large family of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances = PFAS "forever chemicals" were tested for, nor do I see a PFAS chemical listed as tested in my water bill. So, I'd like to briefly here pass along some information.
Across the country, leachate from old and current landfills that contain a myriad of products manufactured with PFAS chemicals to make them grease, stain, water, and heat resistant or add other properties is contaminated with PFAS, often the source of contamination of drinking water sources. PFAS chemicals are known to be carcinogenic and have serious impacts on health.
Additionally, firefighting foam with PFAS has been used for decades at military and commercial airports; even the new formulation is considered as toxic. And finally, the International Association of Fire Fighters has mobilized to inform firefighters of the danger of PFAS in their turnout gear and high rates of cancers among firefighters.
For information: and also,
and the Sierra Club has a good factsheet, just do an internet search to download.

California has set low limits on PFAS in drinking water because the EPA has still not set national limits.

Ron O

To clarify my initial comment, I'm agreeing that it's strange that Alan P. would be supporting this. As far as the potential toxics on the site, I'll leave that to others to discuss/analyze.

Eileen Samitz

There can be no assumption that the Village Farms site is safe for development. It is surprising and disappointing to see this article attempting to dismiss the significant concerns that have been raised in the past, and recently, regarding toxics contamination from the former City landfill site and the former City sewage treatment plant, which are immediately adjacent to the Village Farms property.

There is much to respond to regarding this attempt to ignore the toxics concerns including the fact that the studies done were focused primarily on the former City landfill site, and there was no major clean up action but minimal monitoring. Furthermore, there is the former sewage treatment plant which is located immediately adjacent to the former landfill site which was unlined and could not provide a barrier to prevent the leakage.

The fact is that vinyl chloride, which is carcinogenic, was found on the former City landfill site as well as the Village Farms site by the Dames and Moore study, plus other toxic chemicals. These issues were raised by many concerned citizens during the Covell Village EIR review, including by Pam Nieberg and myself. Pam served as president of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group for 28 years, and she worked in the toxicology field for over 38 years and has expertise in this subject. She, like I, see that there has not been adequate monitoring or adequate analysis for this 400-acre Village Farms site and so the very same concerns stand, including toxics, traffic, floodplain, unaffordable housing and unsafe bike/pedestrian access issues. More to come on this issue.

Greg Rowe

Aside from the topic of this article, there is another aspect of this proposed development that may warrant examination. For many years the Covell Farms applicant (through his company, Tandem Properties) executed "Master Leases" on its apartment buildings with UCD. This set aside those apartments for exclusive occupancy by UCD students. This action had several negative consequences. First, it removed those units from the overall rental market; i.e., they were unavailable for occupancy for anyone but students. Second, because UCD is a non-profit entity, the existence of a "master lease" between the applicant's company (Tandem Properties) allowed Tandem to apply for a property tax exemption from Yolo County. I don't know whether Tandem actually did apply for such exemptions, but if it did, that would mean that Yolo County and the City of Davis have potentially been deprived of a great deal of property tax revenue in past years. Fortunately, the MOU executed among UCD, the County and the City in 2018 ended the master lease practice, but it would be interesting to know how many of Tandem's properties had master leases and how many obtained property tax exemptions; and moreover, how much tax revenue was lost.

I am a City of Davis Planning Commissioner, but these comments are strictly in my capacity as a private citizen.

S. Rainier

If the developer is so keen to build housing, why not CLEAN the site? Without a full restoration and regeneration to purely natural setting - NO.

How can Alan P. be the head of the local Sierra Club and be for this kind of greed driven ignoring of valid concerns for human health? I don't understand this.

If the developer and Alan want to camp out on the site for say a week or so to prove it's safe, let's see it. Pitch a tent, drink the groundwater....

This is a sad action by the land owner, very sad. Leaving ecocide to poison others....genocide. It's the way of the greedy without conscience happening globally.

Alan C. Miller

"How can Alan P. be the head of the local Sierra Club and be for this kind of greed driven ignoring of valid concerns for human health? I don't understand this. "

Look to Davis history for other examples of this. Leopards don't just change their spots, they are enticed to become striped tigers, or elephants. This would be like Alan Miller suddenly advocating for a freeway widening, or an overpass at the train station (go under, go under), or supporting Fletcher the Frog. None of this is going to happen. I'm not even necessarily going to vote against this project, though leaning that way at the moment. I'm just always curious about species change before my eyes. Not accusing, just mighty fascinated.

George Galamba

I don't know about the toxics, but the traffic on Pole Line Road and Covell Blvd. are already unacceptable. This notion that one can constantly add demand on existing infrastructure is ludicrous. If the developer can move the development a bit to the west and make Pole Line Road 4 lanes up to Gibson Road in Woodland, then maybe.

Ron O

George: It would have to be 4 lanes all the way to the connection with I-5, to make that "work". (For that matter, I-5 itself could probably use another lane between Woodland and Sacramento, even now.)

There's already traffic jams on Road 102 prior to the the I-5 freeway entrance points, at times. Backing up at the "CostCo intersection" where it intersects with Road 102.

Not to mention the intersection at Pole Line and Covell, on the "Davis" side. And from there, continuing down Pole Line through Davis, or spilling onto Covell - either/both directions. Ultimately impacting the freeway access points to I-80, as well.

And that's without even considering the possibility of Palomino Place, Shriner's, 100% Housing DISC, and whatever that proposal is called on the south side of Mace.

Since Covell Village I was proposed and defeated, The Cannery and Spring Lake have been built (though still not complete), and there's another 1,600 housing units planned adjacent to Spring Lake (at the so-called "technology park" that "moved" from Davis before it even reached voters).

Part of the "justification" for The Cannery was to provide an "alternative" to Covell Village, Act I. I'm hoping that it can be stopped at Act II, and doesn't reach the point that DISC has (DISC1, 2, 3 . . .). At least, I think DISC #3 is coming up, soon. I lose track, partly because they keep changing the names of all of these development proposals.

For those who believe that cars "should" be simply wished-away (or regulated into non-existence), good luck with that.

Ron O

I do have one idea for all of the growth advocates. (Those who haven't even defined what the supposed "increased need" is in the first place, in terms of numbers, etc.) And also haven't put forth any analysis whatsoever regarding how that supposed "increased need" has ALREADY been addressed (e.g., at The Cannery, Spring Lake, etc.)

How about if they inquire as to the status of Chiles Ranch (which has been owned by a local developer for more than 10 years), and which is planned for some 96 housing units within city limits - BEFORE advocating for more sprawl? Is that too much to ask? (I've asked probably 30 times on the Vanguard over the years, with no response.)

The "reason" for that non-response is (no doubt) related to not "liking" the question in the first place.

For that matter, when is this same developer going to start building on Pole Line (yet another 30 single-family housing units)?

And by the way, don't forget the cumulative traffic impacts of all of THOSE already-planned developments. And yeah, I'm sure that I'm leaving out other developments, as well.

Ron O

My mistake - Road 102 is already 4 lanes, beyond Gibson. In fact, I think there's 4 lanes right before that intersection. (Forgot, even though I drive it frequently.) In any case, it does get backed up at the "Costco intersection" at times. Mostly from people traveling through (e.g., to get to I-5, from Davis).

Alan C. Miller


A.P. Say: " . . . the obvious target of any such litigation likely would be to overturn the City's voter-approved Measure J/R/D allowing citizens the right to vote on peripheral housing projects in Davis. I believe this to be a real and urgent concern. So to potentially save the authority of Davis voters to approve or deny future peripheral projects, I am advocating that the City place on the November 2024 ballot at least one of the currently proposed 4 larger peripheral projects . . . "

In other words, to save the ability of Davis voters to decide YES/NO on projects, we must very soon vote on a project :-| I assume this is to show the Authoritarian State of California that Davis voters can be trusted to vote YES, so their ability to vote NO isn't taken away. Which then begs the question: who cares if we have the right to choose if we must always vote YES in order to keep the right to vote YES or NO ???!!! If Davis votes NO, that would accelerate the State's timeline to take away the right to vote NO. And, anyone care to guess which of the "4 larger peripheral projects" A.P. would like to see on the '24 ballot ? I'll give you ONE guess . . . :-|

Through the looking glass . . . and into the toilet bowl :-|

Ron O

. . . if we must always vote YES in order to keep the right to vote YES or NO ???!!!.

Yes. In order to "save" the ability to vote "no", you must vote "yes" on all proposals.

So if you're opposed to Measure J, you should vote "no" on all proposals (to ensure Measure J's destruction).

Or so goes the argument presented.

."And, anyone care to guess which of the "4 larger peripheral projects" A.P. would like to see on the '24 ballot ? I'll give you ONE guess . . .".

Can you ask a more-challenging question than that?

One that doesn't involve 400 acres of sprawl, which was already/previously rejected?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)