By now I am sure you have seen plenty of teeth gnashing and hair pulling by folks who claim the former City landfill site poses extremely dire health risks to future Village Farms residents and widespread offsite contamination.
As a result, they say you must stop this project now and instead demand vigilant long term monitoring of these wells to avoid an unimaginable environment catastrophe. But these claims are simply false and not substantiated with any quantitative evidence.
Firstly, as explicitly noted in the DEIR, long term monitoring by the City of all of the monitoring wells, both on the landfill and the Village Farms site, is already required by the Regional Water Board which will continue indefinitely until the Water Board changes its order.
Secondly, of the 3 monitoring wells on the Village Farms site, the DEIR showed only one well with a forever chemical concentration of about 29 parts per billion which admittedly is above the drinking water standard established for the 6 forever chemicals regulated by the US EPA. But the DEIR otherwise noted that the concentration of this chemical in one landfill well was about 37 times higher and about 15 times higher in the other landfill well sampled.
No forever chemicals of any type were found in the other 2 monitoring wells on the Village Farms site. This is consistent with prior independent tests showing that the direction of groundwater flow beneath the landfill has changed since the shutdown of the old Hunt Wesson Cannery and is now generally migrating toward the northeast—away from the project site.
As a result, the Water Board has stated the following in a letter dated July 26, 2023, <Quote> Water Board staff reviewed available records for the Old Davis Landfill Disposal Site…based on concerns expressed by a City of Davis resident to the Water Board. The resident expressed concerns regarding the “leaking of toxics” to groundwater from the closed landfill, and the potential risks leakage from the landfill may pose to properties south of the landfill…Staff does NOT believe a risk is posed to the residential and commercial properties proposed for development if the development is connected to the existing City municipal water system and the City water system is the sole means of water used by the development” <unquote>.
Since the Village Farms project will rely entirely on City supplied water for all potable water and landscape uses, the Water Board believes that there is no risk of harm to future residents of Village Farms or the immediate environment. This detail has been conveniently ignored by project naysayers.
The problem, Alan P, is that you’re perceived as supporting this development – regardless of the underlying issues.
I witnessed this myself, in regard to the plants associated with vernal pools. Especially in response to a recent graduate from UCD, who apparently has some knowledge/expertise.
And I witnessed it again, at the last Sierra Club meeting (when you started to defend the project again in response to an issue that was brought up by a speaker).
Ron O
Alan need not fall into the line of groupthink of project opponents to disagree with incorrect assertions by vocal opponents. Trying to enforce orthodoxy, especially publicly, is what undermined the message of the Democratic Party in this last election cycle. Take on Alan’s message specifically, not in a broadside.
Richard: When you’re the local leader of the Sierra Club, and purposefully downplay environmental concerns (something I witnessed firsthand – and I didn’t see you there), there’s more than enough reason to be concerned.
Again, I’m referring to actual bias, and an effort to shut down those who raise concerns during the Sierra Club meetings. Some of those people were not necessarily opposed to a development there.
Ron raises valid points which I can confirm are true.
But let me address my comments to Alan on his letter trying to dismiss the toxics issues on Village Farms.
Alan,
How disappointing that you would try to dismiss the PFAS (forever chemicals) being leaking from the unlined Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant into the groundwater of the Village Farms.
First you tried to disprove the existence of the vernal pools claiming that they were just “alkaline soils” and since they were disced sometimes, they simply did not exist. Yet, all the evidence has been presented of the vernal pools at a local native plant environmental group seminar. Fortunately, the vernal pools survived the discing but the Burrowing Owls habitat did not during predecessor Covell Village project DEIR process. And since that did not work for you to promote the project, this time you try to dismiss carcinogenic PFAS contamination at the project. Wow…what an odd twist for the local Sierra Club chair to take.
It is astonishing that you would try to dismiss PFAS cancer causing chemical exposure is a huge concern nationwide particularly amongst environmental groups (including the National Sierra Club) because PFAS are long-lived chemicals that accumulate and magnify up the food chain impacting wildlife.
So, here are the facts that you have not explained in your defense of Village Farms PFAS’ contamination letter:
1) First you mention that out of the monitoring wells that only 1 on the Village Farms site has the PFAS level exceeding US EPA maximum concentration levels (MCL’s), but there are only 7 wells total clustered in the north-west section located relative to the property line between the unlined Old City Landfill. Far more monitoring wells need to installed on the 400 acres Village Farms site, and the recent UES study stated that.
2) Then you try to dismiss that “only” 1 out of 3 monitoring wells on the Village Farms site has the PFAS chemical level as if that doesn’t matter. You try to make the argument that the level is not as high as on the unlike Old City Landfill and Sewage treatment Plant. Seriously? The fact is groundwater from the Village Farms monitoring well level exceeded the US EPA maximum concentration levels and most people will care about the health risks of exposure to this carcinogen.
3) You fail to mention that the monitoring wells with this elevated PFAS level is the southern- most well on the Village Farms site which makes clear the PFAS is migrating southernly as well from the unlined Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant.
4) You present outdated information that the groundwater is migrating north-east, but the most recent UES study states that the groundwater direction of the PFAS and other chemical contaminants is undetermined and further studies and monitoring needs to be done to determine how big and where the plume is going. Groundwater flows change depending on various factors. Are Davis residents going to pay for this into the future?
5) You also did not mention that UES state that future monitoring needs to be continuously to monitoring the PFAS plume. So, who is going to pay for that. Davis residents?
Further, the concern that this contaminated groundwater could mix with channel water raised by one Planning Commissioner. This in turn runs east through Wildhorse and to the wetlands potentially contaminating them which is also a huge concern and was raised at the Planning Commission last night.
The bottom line is that PFAS contamination is not the only problem Village Farms has with toxics. The soil where the large park is planned has 1.2 MILLION mg/kg of toxaphene in the soil, a neurotoxin and potential carcinogen. That same soil has elevated levels of lead above maximum concentration levels as well where kids and adults would be recreating. And there is no defined plan in the Draft EIR of how they would deal with that massive contamination problem.
So, Village Farms has a multitude of toxics issues.
Eileen
If the VF parcels are so toxic why would we leave it in agricultural production? The water supply is brought in through open ditches or pumped directly from below the parcel, with both conveying the toxics to the soil. Only by switching the water supply to an external source (the City’s) can we eliminate that contamination pathway.
And to what extent does that contamination reach the soil? Right now its almost all open dirt which offers a source of toxic dust that is blown into either Wildhorse or East Davis depending on the prevailing wind.
The only appropriate solution is to cover over that land with new development that caps the exposure to those risks and removes the most likely pathway for the greatest surface contamination. The No Project Alternative actually offers the greatest environmental risk from this perspective.
I’ll put this observation in our DEIR comments. Thank you for prompting this.
Richard,
How could you “cap in” all of the soil in the entire project? So, would it be entirely asphalt and concrete? No front or back yards? No landscaping including shrubs or trees, unless they are potted? Sounds like 100% hard-scape, which is not very environmental nor desirable living conditions. Also, this be a massive hard-scape design, more like a parking than descent residential housing. Does not sound like a desirable place to live particularly for young families with kids. I think not.
Not sure how you can say that the soil could blow towards Wildhorse. That would take a south-east wind which is usually with rainfall. Most winds are north winds.
And on the ag issue, this is County land and that would be their decision They may need to use surface water to irrigate.
Ron O
Again, being a local leader does not mean that one must fall into the groupthink. Alan has long demonstrated his commitment to environmental issues, much more so than you or Eileen. I wasn’t at the SC meeting, so I can’t speak to the tone, but challenging and refuting incorrect facts or analysis is part and parcel of any meeting. No one has a right to express opinions unchallenged.
Richard: You haven’t been to ANY of the meetings that I’ve seen. And yet, you choose to comment about it regardless.
Regarding “commitment to environmental issues”, no one who advocates for sprawl can make that claim.
Again, I witnessed a purposeful downplaying of environmental concerns in a rather hostile manner, brought up by someone who might not (otherwise) even be opposed to the proposal.
But perhaps even more-importantly, no “chair” of the local Sierra Club chapter (as well as recently gaining a position on the Native Plant Society) should be attempting to influence those clubs on behalf of a development.
Again, the Sierra Club will likely determine whether or not to take a position on this development. They did so in regard to the Wildhorse Ranch development, which lost in a landslide. (The same site that is now bypassing Measure J, as a result of the state’s interference.)
Richard,
As Ron points out, you have not been attending these Sierra Club meetings and have not been subjected to Alan’s unacceptable behavior. He was trying to prevent public comment because he did not agree with the position of the commenters who were advocating to protect the vernal pools.
And, yes you can’t speak to the tone or what happened since you were not there, again, because you do not attend the local Sierra Club meetings. As a result of Alan’s outrageous behavior, the rest of the board does not allow him to facilitate anything on the agenda regarding Village Farms any more. Alan’s commitment is clearly not to the environment on the Village Farms issue. He tried to claim repeatedly that the vernal pools were not vernal pools, and of course he was wrong as the evidence that he refuted actually confirmed that they were in fact vernal pools including the endangered Tadpole Shrimp that were found. And even the City Biologist made clear that that these were vernal pools on Village Farms. Now Alan is trying to claim that there are no toxics issues but Village Farms has PFAS “forever chemicals”which are carcinogenic exceeding MCL’s. So here we go again…
Personally, I don’t claim to have much expertise regarding some of the environmental concerns.
But one issue that hasn’t really been discussed is the state’s “switch” from Level of Service (LOS) – otherwise known as traffic congestion) which has given-way to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs).
The state’s reason for this change appears to be political, rather than science-based. Part of their effort to encourage density, no doubt.
And yet, you don’t need to be physicist to know that greenhouse gasses are a product of “both” VMTs and LOS.
A vehicle might have “zero” VMTs and still emit plenty of greenhouse gasses while stuck in traffic.
Political?
I guess in some way. It’s kind of academic at this point because it out of the hands of local jurisdictions.
SB 743 was implemented in July 2020 and sought to reduce GHG emissions while promoting sustainable development
LOS measures traffic congestion and focuses on car delay at intersections, often leading to wider roads and more car-centric development. (Which seems to be something that people are complaining about).
Meanwhile, VMT measures total miles driven which better reflects the environmental impact of transportation, including greenhouse gas emissions.
VMT prioritizes reducing car dependency by promote]ing housing and business development near public transit, biking, and walking infrastructure.
So is that political? Depends, I guess.
David says: “VMT prioritizes reducing car dependency by promoting housing and business development near public transit, biking, and walking infrastructure.”
Well, if people are taking “transit, biking, and walking”, why are VMTs even being mentioned?
David says: “Meanwhile, VMT measures total miles driven which better reflects the environmental impact of transportation, including greenhouse gas emissions.”
Again, it’s not an “either/or” choice – it’s “both” VMTs and LOS. This is science-based, not opinion based – for the reason I already mentioned.
This is also the reason that vehicles have traditionally gotten better gas mileage on freeways (vs. city driving) – despite traveling much faster.
For one thing VMT is not just about cars. Even if a project encourages transit and biking, people still drive, and California wants to track and reduce total car usage.
VMT – has “vehicle” right in its name.
What type of “vehicles” are you referring to, in regard to VMTs? SUVs, pickup trucks, etc.?
And what does that have to do with the fact regarding LOS?
You should be asking what types of vehicle the law is referring to.
David says” California wants to track and reduce total car usage.”
The reasoning behind this has to do with greenhouse gasses – which again is also impacted by LOS.
Are you actually denying this simple, scientific fact?
No, I don’t deny that both impact GHG.
The question is which one is a better measure:
LOS focuses on short-term congestion relief but leads to more driving and higher emissions over time
VMT focuses on long-term travel behavior, reducing total car usage and supporting sustainable development
You seem to be wanting to argue about this, I was merely trying to provide you with information since you acknowledged your lack of expertise.
David says: “You should be asking what types of vehicle the law is referring to.”
You brought it up. Here’s what my “fact checker” says it is:
“VMT is calculated by adding up the miles driven by all vehicles on all roads in a given area over a specific period of time.”
LOS has almost nothing to do with GHG emissions. VMT on the other hand is highly correlated which is why the 2012 law was enacted and why OPR issued guidelines removing LOS. Also you information about cold start emissions is long outdated. CARB regulations on start up emissions has gone so far that it’s now more efficient to turn off a car for a 20 second stoplight than for it to continue to operate–not the case for pre 2004 cars. LOS is NOT an environmental consequence–it’s simply about convenience and obviously not included under CEQA. This is even more so than the weird claim that people talking and playing music is an adverse environmental impact.
Richard says: “LOS has almost nothing to do with GHG emissions.”
Putting forth a claim that defies common sense does not make it true.
I engaged in a detailed conversation with David yesterday, regarding the reason that your type of claim is factually incorrect (as related to inefficiencies in stop/go traffic, idling at intersections, cold starts (in regard to short trips)- when vehicles emit the highest amount of greenhouse gasses, etc.
Again, this is also the reason that cars generally get better gas mileage on the freeway, DESPITE traveling much, much faster than city driving. Do you actually not understand that?
Richard says: “VMT on the other hand is highly correlated which is why the 2012 law was enacted and why OPR issued guidelines removing LOS.”
The reason that the law was changed is because the state wants to force density and to weaken CEQA in regard to the impact from LOS.
Richard says: “Also you information about cold start emissions is long outdated. CARB regulations on start up emissions has gone so far that it’s now more efficient to turn off a car for a 20 second stoplight than for it to continue to operate–not the case for pre 2004 cars.”
Even if your claim was true (and you have not put forth any evidence whatsoever to show that) – how many older vehicles are on the road?
Also, when a hybrid, for example, shuts off its engine while waiting at a stop signal, the engine is ALREADY WARM. It is not a “cold start”. Do you actually not understand that?
“I engaged in a detailed conversation with David yesterday”
You did, but your comments made no sense, had little basis, and you ignored data and research that pointed away so I gave up trying to discuss things with you – I’m explaining this for Richard’s benefit.
What you did, David is to cut me off by stating that this is off-topic. And despite that, you allowed Richard to respond to me regarding that same topic.
Also, you actually agreed that LOS is a factor at one point during your incomprehensible/illogical responses.
Again, this is a science-based issue – not your (or my) “opinion”.
I have zero interest in crawling back into the Rabbit Hole with you.
David says: The question is which one is a better measure:
Again (as I already noted), this is NOT an “either/or” choice regarding greenhouse gasses.
VMTs traveling “through” a town do not have the same impact (greenhouse gas emissions) as vehicles traveling on unobstructed roads. Not even close.
As a result, you cannot “compare” two scenarios using only VMTs.
Maybe you should try to change the law if you think it’s flawed
Right – I’ll call up Newsom later today.
But again, this isn’t a matter of what I “think”. It’s a matter of science.
Another (related) issue is that vehicles emit a lot of greenhouse gasses when they’re first started. As a result, a vehicle making a shorter trip emits more greenhouse gasses per mile than a vehicle traveling longer distances. (And that’s without even considering LOS.)
Better to start with Cabaldon or Cecilia Aguiar Curry.
On your related issue, while it is true that short trips CAN have higher emissions per mile due to “cold starts” reducing overall driving ie VMT, is the best way to cut emissions overall.
David says: “On your related issue, while it is true that short trips CAN have higher emissions per mile due to “cold starts”
Nope. The word “CAN” is not accurate regarding that. The word “WILL” is accurate regarding this factor. It’s rather frustrating to respond to you when you deny science, as you seem to only adhere to it when it supports your point of view.
The reason being that cold starts are essentially a “fixed cost” regarding greenhouse gasses, the moment a car is started.
So a car traveling a block will already have this cost factored in to the same degree (same impact) as a car traveling 100 miles.
David says: “reducing overall driving ie VMT, is the best way to cut emissions overall.”
Again, there are (common) situations where this is factually incorrect, for the reasons I already mentioned.
As an example, someone driving 2 miles to work (in heavy traffic) is likely creating more greenhouse gasses than someone driving 5 miles to work (on unobstructed roads). (The actual numbers would require a test to determine.) And again, cold starts also factor into this, for the reason already mentioned.
Not necessarily. If I drive 150 mph or uphill, I might use more gas per mile.
But that’s missing the point.
Car A drives 2 miles to work and Car B drives 30 miles to work.
It’s possible depending on circumstances that Car A expends more gas per mile than Car B.
But, let’s say both cars take the same route and one car stops after two miles, at that point their profile is identical and Car B then proceeds to drive another 28 miles (both ways mind you) and thus expends much more gas and therefore much more emissions. And that’s just from an environmental point of view.
David says: “Not necessarily. If I drive 150 mph or uphill, I might use more gas per mile. But that’s missing the point.”
My response: No idea what point you’re trying to make.
David says: “Car A drives 2 miles to work and Car B drives 30 miles to work. It’s possible depending on circumstances that Car A expends more gas per mile than Car B.”
My response: The first thing that’s working “against” Car A is cold starts (greenhouse gas emissions per mile). Car B already has an “advantage” (per mile) regarding that.
David says: “But, let’s say both cars take the same route and one car stops after two miles, at that point their profile is identical . . . ”
They are not identical, due to cold starts.
David says: “and Car B then proceeds to drive another 28 miles (both ways mind you) and thus expends much more gas and therefore much more emissions. And that’s just from an environmental point of view.”
You’re stating that when a car drives “far enough”, it emits more (TOTAL) gasses than a car driven less distance (assuming that all other factors remain equal).
Is that actually the point you’re trying to make, “Captain Obvious”?
How about this example: Both cars are stuck in traffic and don’t even travel a mile, and yet are spewing out greenhouse gasses the entire time.
Again, greenhouse gasses are a function of both VMTs and LOS.
This is a waste of my time.
David: I understand. It’s exhausting and frustrating to try to deny science.
Though in the interest of science, I’d correct my own comment to acknowledge that if BOTH cars stopped after 2 miles (using your example), then their profile would be the same. That would be the exact same scenario.
The problem is that greenhouse gasses per mile are not measured until the completion of the trip. And since one of the cars is traveling further, it’s not measured at the end of 2 miles.
The “fixed greenhouse gas cost” of a cold start is stretched farther (per VMT) for the car traveling further.
Meaning that the car traveling further has a lower greenhouse gas emission (per VMT) than the car traveling a shorter distance.
Again, this example doesn’t even consider LOS (in regard to greenhouse gasses), which was the original point.
Interestingly, the topic of this article is contamination below the site of the Village Farms project, and the state Water Board evaluation of that risk.
None of the comments are on that topic.
Will fruit bearing trees and any “Farms” to fork
food grown on site and not in raised beds be affected by water contamination?