Last night the city had an EIR Scoping Meeting for the Sports Complex. Members of the public were able to come to an open meeting and ask questions and also make comments about three proposed sites for a sports complex.
There is strong support for the sports complex which would consist almost entirely outdoor fields in the sports community, however, there are specific oppositions both among some neighbor groups who oppose the city selling existing fields such as the Civic Field between A and B north of City Hall. There are also people concerned about some of the proposed locations, which we will get to shortly.
A representative from Raney told the Vanguard that the EIR is underway and expected to be completed in three months with a DEIR ready for public viewing and scrutiny. One of the concerns about the landfill property is the potential for health impacts. Ann Brunette told us that the potential for health impacts will be determined in the EIR. She said there is precedent for the conversion of old landfills into sports facilities citing Berkeley and a location in the Central Valley.
Talking to representatives of two of the sporting leagues, they mentioned the possibility of brownfield money which would be federal grant money specifically designated to clean up old landfills and convert them into parks.
One of the bigger concerns that have been expressed on this site in its limited coverage of this issue, is the question of costs. The city is paying for the EIR, which is an equal weight EIR looking at these three locations. According to Ann Brunette, once an EIR is completed and location is found, the city would pay for the laying of infrastructure, in the form of streets. The money from that would likely come from the selling of the Civic Fields and also the Little League Fields on the corner of F and Covell. More on that shortly.
Once the street and other infrastructure is laid, the non-profit sports associations would have responsibility to build and maintain the sites. Now Ms. Brunette presented it as though that money from the sports associations is in place, however, talking to them, they are going to have to find ways to raise money and maintain the cites. Ms. Brunette told the Vanguard that this is not really the net adding of facilities, rather they are replacing three key cites Nugget Fields, Walnut Park, and DYSC Soccer Fields, all of which will go to other uses.
Each organization would then be responsible for the things in their own boundaries. Right now there appears to be four groups, two soccer, one softball, and one little league. There would be an oversight management group made up of city and group representatives that would oversee operations and other concerns.
However, in talking to the sports league representatives it appears that there is somewhat of an expansion of facilities, in that currently the softball facilities are either inadequate or unavailable to various city uses.
From the standpoint of the sports associations they increasing costs of city services is a burden that is threatening to put the average person out of recreational leagues. For example, adult softball, the cost is $450 for a three month league, a cost that is prohibitive to the average person. Right now they do not believe they have adequate facilities and the costs are increasing.
They see good sports complex as a money generator for the city as leagues and tournaments could then come in and provide the city with money. They also believe there is a possibility of having parking covered with solar panels to generate money for the sites and also possibly to sell back to the city.
The issue of location might be the biggest question here. One of the points that the sports representatives made was that they would prefer the fields to go up away from existing housing. They see it as a problem to have neighbors. It means that balls could do damage to existing property. It means noise complaints. And neighbors obviously do not like the bright sports lights near their homes.
For that reason the Guidaro site is their least favorite. It is also the only site not owned directly by the city and its development would come with some strings that aside from the issue of sports does not seem to be what they want to deal with.
The Howatt Ranch site has been the site longest under consideration. It is a site of 800 acres of which they would use just 150 for the sports complex. The downside however is that it is a one mile trip from Mace Blvd which they believe is too long for bicycling.
Right now their preference seems to be the landfill site. As Ann Brunnette suggested it has the greenbelt hook up which many consider ideal. It is away from existing housing which would mean that it would not cause noise and light problems from their perspective. And while they understand the concerns about development, they believe that the message sent by the voters on Measure R was strong and clear and as long as Measure R is in place, building housing that spot is problematic.
That is the perspective of the sports people. There are two groups expressing concerns. One is the neighbors around the Civic Park who would prefer to maintain the current park and not see it sold and developed either as an additional office or residential housing. Part of the plan does seem to hinge of the city selling existing fields and turning them into infill sites and that concerns the neighbors there greatly.
Slow growth advocates are nervous that the landfill site will be growth inducing. They argue that this is a toxic landfill site and that sports fields do not belong on landfills. They believe this is an effort perhaps by the Covell people to build around the Covell site in hopes that that will make the public and council more receptive to development.
We will find out in the EIR whether the fact that it is a landfill is a concern. I would say the strongest argument at this point against the use of that spot is the amount of traffic such a complex would generate particularly on nights of league events or tournaments. If in indeed the site is going to generate 6000 cars going to an event, then the concerns of the Covell Village campaign about traffic impacts will indeed apply.
While I understand concern about the Howatt site in terms of distance, frankly the Covell site is not that close to most of Davis either and it will also generate even with a bike route and greenbelt connection considerable traffic, the use of minivans, and other vehicles.
The concerns about growth are legitimate although it is noted that with Measure R in place, it is largely a community decision rather than a developer or even council decision. The potential concerns about health impacts are noted. I suspect that the sports leagues will be happy if they get a complex and are not going to fret too much if happens to be Howatt because Howatt generates less resistance from neighbors and other slow grow advocates than the other two spots.
I am concerned about plans to sell city assets such as the Civic Fields and the Little League Fields in order to generate the revenue to lay street infrastructure. Moreover, I am concerned that if that is what does happen the city is operating basically with zero street maintenance budget and therefore prioritizing the sports complex over infrastructure is problematic. On the other hand, in terms of costs, aside from the initial expenditure, the rest of the costs seem to be in the hands of the sports leagues. The city seemed to indicate the funding was there but the sports leagues indicated otherwise.
I understand the concerns of the sports leagues in terms of the existing infrastructure, the difficulty of that infrastructure meeting their needs and the high costs. I remain concerned about the costs to the city in terms of street maintenance and the ability of the sports leagues to truly be able to build, run, and maintain their sites. That will be the subject of further discussion.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What are the ‘other plans’ for Walnut Park? I don’t like replacing nicely accessed sites with driving only sites. Doesn’t seem to sync with our community. And ut us ludicrous to be talking costs at this time. What ARE they thinking??
The NOP says that “parks” are exempt from a Measure J (R) vote.
David cites the potential loss of three existing sites. Nugget Fields – the school district owns that, and when the housing market improves they are likely to sell that property. They can remove it from recreational use with just 90 days notice as it stands now. DYSL (not DYSC) fields are on leased land, the owner can take that back fairly easily, althought that is probably the least likely to be lost in the short term. As far as Walnut Park – one of the soccer fields is actually on County land that was intended to be used for a branch library (not going to happen soon, but could happen) and another of the soccer fields is on land set aside for a city pool or water park (also not going to happen soon, but there is a lot of pressure from neighbors to see that). So, each of those sites could be removed in the future, but probably not immediately.
I wouldn’t worry about which location is favored by the group representatives (not all were there that evening) at this point, we will see what the EIR comes out with first.
Some sites offer better expansion capabilities than others. In the very long term, we would hope that we would end up with a net gain in facilities, anticipating the eventual growth of the city. If we lose the existing sites, and we build at one of the proposed complex sites, we at least stop the loss. However, I hope that in the long run we can end up with the ability to expand what we have. The Parks Facility Master Plan, part of the General Plan, states that we should have more recreational fields and parks than we do now, and we need to work on filling those needs.
I am very confident in the sports groups abilities to run and maintain the facility once built. We have a model, on a smaller scale, of how that can be done. Several models, actually. AYSO (and before that, the Davis Sports Foundation, which I was treasurer for) maintains Nugget Fields. DYSL maintains the DYSL fields. These groups have extensive experience with running and maintaining facilities. Nugget Fields was built as a public/private partnership, and that model works very well. The larger youth sports groups have been working on fundraising for quite some time now. Some fundraising efforts can’t be implemented until we have a specific site selected and a plan in place.
The loss of parks to infill within the city limits with mitigation parks built outside the city is worse for the quality of life for those in the city than peripheral growth. A simple case of beware of what you wish for.
I’m not thrilled about the loss of Civic Center park – that suggestion originally came from Sue Greenwald, who wanted to sell it to have subsidized housing for city employees (that originally was a suggestion independent of the sports park issue). It wasn’t the idea of the sports groups, city staff and Council suggested this.
The Little League park sale makes sense. The current park was built in the 50’s and it is very inadequate for Little League use. It is too small and doesn’t fit the requirements of the national organization for the older players. It isn’t the safest location for the kind of use, and loss of this land isn’t that big of an impact since it isn’t general park space AND it is right across the street from Community Park. The sale of that property, to fund a sports park, was originally recommended by Davis Little League when they were offered some land outside of town by a developer in a swap – that is what started the whole process as far as a sports complex, and the original study that brought us to look at Howatt as a possible site.
Loss of the DLL field won’t have a huge impact on quality of life for the neighbors – some might even think it would improve quality…
[i]”… the neighbors around Civic Center Park would prefer to maintain the current park and not see it sold and developed either as an additional office or residential housing.”[/i]
One of the most unfair taxes we have in Davis is the parks maintenance parcel tax. The reason it is so unfair is because properties surrounded by lots of parks and greenbelts benefit far more from this tax than those in parts of Davis where there is less public greenspace. Yet every property pays the same amount. The large, newer homes, like those Avocet Avenue abutting Northstar Park and others on La Playa Drive abutting La Playa Park, are taxed the same as a small cottage on F Street in Old North Davis.
If you look at a map of Davis, what you will find is that the one section which has the least in parks and greenbelts is the center of town, the oldest part of Davis. All they have is Central Park, which is dominated at least two days a week by market days and other events which serve the entire city (and a lot of out of town visitors), and Civic Center Park. As such, the idea to take away this one small section of greenspace from central Davis strikes me as a horrible idea.
If there is a sports complex, and I an not understanding where the money is coming from in these hard economic times, the landfill site is the worst location and a dangerous one. The landfill site was a dumping ground for years including toxic materials and it is unstable ground as well. Digging it up to level it will only resurrect the toxic substances. Do parents really want to have their children playing sports on a toxic landfill site?
The added traffic of 6,000 cars a day to the Covell Road and Pole Line Road area which is already had huge traffic problems is an obvious insurmountable problem added to the night lighting and night public address system they will want to put in. This concept of a large sports complex was floated years ago the the Corner of Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road and it was proven to be a no-go because of the damning traffic numbers, the night lighting, the public address system issues and the fiscal analysis which revealed that the sport complex could not possibly pencil out.
The Shriner’s land is unaffordable so it is not likely to happen. The idea of taking away the civic fields downtown is a terrible idea and should not be considered. It is the only active green space for recreation for the downtown area. In fact no existing parks should be lost. Just add the Howet site.
If a sport’s complex is to happen the obvious best site is the 700 acre Howet Ranch site. The city owns it, it is located within a mile, it is also near enough to I-80 to handle the traffic and offers plenty of land for expansion. Most importantly the sports complex would have the least impacts located there.
Actually, I’ll dispute one comment by Davis Epiphany – the fiscal analysis for the Covell site had major flaws and was subsequently shown to be inaccurate by a later committee the city set up to examine this issue. Under the model of a public/private partnership the Covell site would have been feasible. At that time the sports groups were challenged to show that they could maintain a site like this without City assistance. The youth soccer groups subsequently demonstrated that it could be done, with the DYSL and Nugget Fields as examples. Regardless of which site is chosen (I’m not endorsing any at this time), the sports groups can maintain them and the cost to the city will be very small, or zero. That addresses just maintenance, which is the issue that is the most difficult for the City to handle.
Development costs haven’t been penciled out in detail, that is difficult to do until one particular site has been chosen and we can create specific plans. There are a lot of funding sources – a surprising number even with the current economy.
I agree with Greenwald, Rifkin, Toad, and Epiphany. Selling existing sports fields to help pay for a big new facility on the periphery is a bad idea.
“Development costs haven’t been penciled out in detail, that is difficult to do until one particular site has been chosen and we can create specific plans. There are a lot of funding sources – a surprising number even with the current economy.”
CCRussell:
On the issue of development costs, picking a site and then doing the detailed fiscal analysis makes no sense. In fact, in a resource constrained environment development costs should be one of the primary criteria for site selection.
I’m still not convinced on the fiscal issue. I am concerned about what happens if the sports groups are unable to raise adequate funds. The city basically said that they were already maintaining these cites and this wasn’t additional land, but it’s not clear to me that’s accurate.
Under very specific fiscal and land use conditions I would support this, but I’m not there just yet.
I don’t normally agree with Toad, but I think he/ she is right, if we are taking out our parks to build then to me that’s not any better than paving farmland. It’s one thing to put housing at the DJUSD District Headquarters, it’s one thing to put it on the PG&E site if that’s even possible, it’s another thing to build where there was parkland and open space.
I don’t know if this is a good idea or even legal, but what about:
1) selling off 675 acres of Howat Ranch — the entire property is 775 acres — for one billion dollars and
2) use those proceeds to develop the sports complex on the proposed 100 acres and
3) create an interest-bearing park-maintenance fund which could pay for any amount of upkeep not covered by the groups using the park?
As they say in Hanoi, that would be a Nguyen-Nguyen.
“We will find out in the EIR whether the fact that it is a landfill is a concern. I would say the strongest argument at this point against the use of that spot is the amount of traffic such a complex would generate particularly on nights of league events or tournaments. If in indeed the site is going to generate 6000 cars going to an event, then the concerns of the Covell Village campaign about traffic impacts will indeed apply.”
The traffic would not be much different than the current numbers headed to Nugget Fields, where soccer tournaments are held frequently. Also, the car traffic is not “all at once.” People come and go just for their games and teams tend to carpool. The traffic would be primarily in the evenings for local games and on weekends for youth tournaments. So would not affect commuters or people driving to work or schools.
[i]”The traffic would not be much different than the current numbers headed to Nugget Fields, where soccer tournaments are held frequently.”[/i]
Nugget Fields is 10 acres. The Sports Complex is proposed to be 100 acres, all developed for a variety of sports. So I would presume it will bring 10 times the traffic.
Norm, on one hand I would agree with you, picking based on financial feasibility makes sense. On the other hand, if the EIR comes out and says that one site is dramatically worse than another, using that bad site just because it is more feasible would be a problem. I can’t say what the Council’s thoughts will be on this (and we’ll have two new members soon) – but in any case, an EIR has to be done so that we know what the community impact will be. If the EIR’s are equal, then we can compare the fiscal issues. And that is setting aside the political aspects of the choices involved.
Rich, thanks for making me laugh – a billion dollars for Howatt? I’m not sure where you get that idea. For farmland, we are talking a few thousand dollars per acre. If you want to sell it for housing, then perpahs more money can be found, but I don’t think that we want to get into that. Besides, the eastern portion of that property (not considered for sports uses at this time) aren’t suitable for much other than agriculture or habitat due to flood plain issues.
David, you speak of concerns about sports groups raising adequate funds – are you talking about development or maintenance? Those are two very different issues. Development is a concern – but if funds can’t be raised then it isn’t built, or at least that is delayed. And, you won’t see 100 acres of sports park built all at once, it will be phased in over many years. Maintenance isn’t that much of a concern to me, we’ve demonstrated that it can be done already. And it usually costs less for the sports groups to do this than it does for the city.
“Right now their preference seems to be the landfill site. [u]As Ann Brunnette suggested it has the greenbelt hook up which many consider ideal.[/u]”
This is not accurate. It is 1,500 ft from the end of the existing bike path to the site. In addition, there is no underpass to get kids safely across Poleline Road. Dismissing these very real costs in the rush to select a site will not make them disappear.
The city staff has a very good handle on the cost per foot to construct new bike path. In addition, they recently constructed a bike crossing under Covell Blvd to the SW corner of the Shriners property, so we have a recent comp for this cost. So why not disclose the total bill for connecting the city bike system to the landfill site?
The other extraordinary costs associated with the landfill site would be (1) grading the land and (2) mitigating the toxics.
Why are we even having a discussion of this location without these numbers on the table?
“… but in any case, an EIR has to be done so that we know what the community impact will be.”
CCRussell: I’m sorry, but it is also a bad idea to use the EIR process to help drive a political decision. Just trust your common sense.
Traffic impacts – Dump > Shriners > Ranch
Light/noise impacts – Shriners > Dump > Ranch
Cost to connect to the city bike system – Ranch > Dump > Shriners
Toxics – Dump > Ranch/Shriners
Proximity – Dump/Shriners > Ranch
etc., etc., etc.
There is no easy answer. All the EIR will do is give staff and the Council political cover for their ultimate decision.
In my opinion, fiscal feasibility needs to be front-and-center.
Hah – Norm – thanks for that comment. I don’t agree that the EIR just gives staff/council political cover. But then, that is opinion.
What I’ve learned from working on this issue, in varioius forms, since about 1996 is that logic doesn’t apply to issues in Davis, politics rules all. Perhaps a jaundiced view of things, but I’ve seen politics overrule common sense and logic too many times.
My purpose in leaving comments here is not to endorse a particular site over another – I don’t have enough information to make my mind up at this time. And, I do realize that there are a lot of unanswered questions that relate to many issues, with fiscal ones high on the list. I also have a number of questions about aspects of this that haven’t been brought up here, although I tend to be a person who looks at organizational details too much sometimes.
The EIR phase is just one of multiple places where public input is sought – and there have been quite a few public meetings about the sports park over the years. All views are welcome.
Regarding Ryan Kelly’s comment: “People come and go just for their games and teams tend to carpool. The traffic would be primarily in the evenings for local games and on weekends for youth tournaments.”
All the more reason why the Howet Ranch site makes more sense. In fact that commuting happens currently going to the former outdoor theater site south of I-80 now where soccer fields were created by the Sports Foundation.
The impacts would be enormous for a 100 acre complex as were revealed by the last proposal for an 80 acre sports complex at the corner of Covell and Pole Line which was opposed by neighbors and non-neighbors. The impacts go beyond traffic. The night lighting even if oriented downward can be seen for miles and would be incredibly intrusive to residents east and west of the landfill site. Incidentally, the night lighting bill for the 10 acre south Davis baseball fields cost $60,000 annually over 10 years ago. Imagine what it costs now for that 10 acre park and what it would cost for a 100+ acre sports park? Can the sports groups raise $100,000+ per year just to turn on the night lighting?
The incredible noise issues were raised from the crowds and the public address system was an obvious issue as well years ago when a sport park was proposed at Covell and Pole Line, and it would be now as well.
Then there is the most disturbing issue of even considering putting children’s playfields on a toxic dump site is astonishing. I would not allow my children to play on toxic fields and I can’t imagine any parent risking the health of their child for the sake of gaining more sports fields. Vinyl chloride toxics were documented in this area years ago is just one example of the toxics that children and adults alike would be exposed to especially with irrigation and disturbing the soil to level it. The ground is not stable either.
With all of these issues of health hazards and neighborhood impacts (which have already been raised and opposed historically) how did the toxic landfill site even get considered to be an option? It needs to be removed as an option from the EIR now. It is not ok to ruin neighborhoods and place this complex in an area which has toxics and which can not handle the traffic, noise, and lighting impacts. A sports complex does not belong on the old landfill site. Don’t waste the time and money on studying it. Howet Ranch is the only logical site if the Sports Foundation can prove that they can finance building the sports complex and maintaining it.
Ah, I think I know the identity of “Davis epiphany” – we talked last night. I do prefer knowing who is talking, although I understand the value (to some people) of anonymity.
To correct a few misconceptions:
1) The entire sports park would not be lit. Not by any means. If you look at the conceptual plans (and those aren’t by any means final plans), you will see that the majority of the fields will not be lit. Few of the soccer fields, lights are primarily intended for baseball and softball. And those fields will be phased in over the years. And, yes, I believe that the sports groups that will use lit fields will be able to afford them. Davis Little League already is paying for lights on their current site, and the newer styles of lights available these days are much more cost effective. Soccer users need only a few fields lit, and they would only be used on a much more limited basis if we look at the way that the organizations use these kinds of facilities now.
2) Public address systems – again very small number of fields might use that. Soccer certainly wouldn’t, the use by Davis Little League would most likely be fairly limited, although I’ll agree that there would possibly be some use there.
3) The sports groups didn’t put this site, or any site, on the list for the EIR. That was the city council in their desire to have alternative sites. As was pointed out to me by another person at the scoping meeting, you should always have alternatives in the EIR process (that particular person wanted another alternative that I couldn’t make sense of). And, when you say “Sports Foundation”, I’m not sure what you are referring to, as one doesn’t exist. Somewhere in the process a non-profit organization will have to be set up, with the youth sports groups being members, to manage the site. But that hasn’t taken place yet.
4) Toxics and the landfill – according to city staff there are safe ways of dealing with the toxics issues, and there are examples in other parts of the country that have done this successfully and safely. That is one of the issues that should be addressed in the EIR, and I’ll withhold opinion on that site until the EIR is complete.
[i]”4) Toxics and the landfill – according to city staff there are safe ways of dealing with the toxics issues, and there are examples [b]in other parts of the country[/b] that have done this successfully and safely.”[/i]
Not just in other parts of the country. The Blue Max Kart Club ([url]http://www.bluemaxkartclub.com/aboutbluemax.htm[/url]) has successfully used the old landfill site for the last 40 years in Davis.
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000IOQO.jpg[/img]
Not just in other parts of the country. The Blue Max Kart Club has successfully used the old landfill site for the last 40 years in Davis.
Yeah, but those guys create their own toxic waste, and breathe it as well…..
“What I’ve learned from working on this issue, in varioius forms, since about 1996 is that logic doesn’t apply to issues in Davis, politics rules all.”
CCRussell: Given your experience with the politics of this issue since 1996, why do you think it is being advanced again during the depths of the Great Recession? It makes no sense.
Norm, I don’t have my documents in front of me now. But, this isn’t something that has just come up. This particular facility has been moving slowly through the system for years. We started it when Jim Antonen was city manager. The EIR process finally got started this year. Years ago we thought it would have taken place much sooner, but that is beyond my control. Timing would have been better years ago.
If we stop future planning now, nothing will happen in the city. Getting through the EIR now doesn’t necessarily mean that the project will be built this year (it wouldn’t happen that fast). But it is the next step. We eventually will get to the point where we can build something, but there are a lot of steps to take before then.
Hope that makes some sense – thanks for the feedback.
I’m still curious about our most recent specialized sports park–near COMCAST.
Does anyone know:
1. The original costs and who paid,
2. The annual maintenance costs and who pays,
3. The annual income,
4. The size of the parcel, and
5. Where there’s a usage report showing how many events, players, etc. have used the facility since construction?
Would our experience with this project be instructive in any way with regard to the current proposal?
DMG: “I am concerned about plans to sell city assets such as the Civic Fields and the Little League Fields in order to generate the revenue to lay street infrastructure. Moreover, I am concerned that if that is what does happen the city is operating basically with zero street maintenance budget and therefore prioritizing the sports complex over infrastructure is problematic. On the other hand, in terms of costs, aside from the initial expenditure, the rest of the costs seem to be in the hands of the sports leagues. The city seemed to indicate the funding was there but the sports leagues indicated otherwise.
I understand the concerns of the sports leagues in terms of the existing infrastructure, the difficulty of that infrastructure meeting their needs and the high costs. I remain concerned about the costs to the city in terms of street maintenance and the ability of the sports leagues to truly be able to build, run, and maintain their sites. That will be the subject of further discussion.”
Sell off city assets to pay for infrastructure to pay for a new Sports Complex, when the city doesn’t have money to pay for basic road repairs. It doesn’t make any sense – and certainly not good fiscal sense. The city is also paying for three EIRs at a time when they can ill afford the cost of essential services. And it is not clear at all whether sports groups can pay for upkeep of the fields/lighting, etc. This is just plain crazy… but business as usual for the city of Davis – not a care in the world for the taxpayers’ collective pockets. I want city staffers to show me how this is going to pencil out as fiscally neutral to the city – and mark my words, it won’t. I smell a new tax coming on…
That’s part of my concern here, there is a big picture. Yes you can balance selling assets for laying infrastructure, but we are not able to maintain our current infrastructure. In the end, they may be right in terms of being able to maintain, but getting to that point both from their perspective and the city’s perspective calls into question the timing. That’s not to say its insurmountable.
Justsaying: I don’t have answers for all your questions, but here are a few comments.
I assum that you are referring to Playfields Park in South Davis. Note that this is an entirely different situation from what is being proposed. This is a city managed park, and the proposed sports park would be managed by a non-profit agency set up to handle management.
Playfields park is 16.5 acres. Fees are charged for users who rent the facility. Fees should cover the costs of operating the park for the periods that it is in use, but I’m reasonably sure that this doesn’t cover the full cost of operation (but I could be wrong on that, I’m checking).
It is a city owned and operated park that is in high demand, with a large percentage of use going to adult recreation.
You can’t really draw parallels between Playfields Park and the proposed sports park, as far as I see it.
“4) Toxics and the landfill – according to city staff there are safe ways of dealing with the toxics issues, and there are examples in other parts of the country that have done this successfully and safely.”
[u]CCRussel[/u]l: I’m not sure a general statement from “city staff” is enough to justify spending EIR money on this site. Do they provide any details on successful rehab work methods for toxics issues and parks or case studies on the successful example? We’ve been misled by city staff before on similar issues, sometimes by errors of omission. Here’s a positive report on the practice: [url]http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/ccpe_places_article_8_06.pdf[/url],
but there are issues (piping away methane, ground settling, etc.).
“The other extraordinary costs ([u]in addition to bike path construction expenses[/u]) associated with the landfill site would be (1) grading the land and (2) mitigating the toxics…Why are we even having a discussion of this location without these numbers on the table?”
[u]Norm[/u]: I agree. Seems like it would take only a couple weeks of study to determine whether paying EIR costs for this site aren’t a waste of time. Maybe we need to staff up the planning department.
“…the city has already commission(ed) Raney Consulting to do an equal weight EIR of three properties….”
[u]David[/u]: And the cost?
At city council meeting where senior housing options were being discussed, Lamar also suggested looking at selling civic center fields and developing it. As someone who only lives a couple of blocks from civic center fields I think it is a great idea. It is not much of a park unless you are playing baseball. As far a lush green parks go, central Davis has the best access to the real crown jewel of Davis “parks” and that is the arboretum. If you want a sports field and live in the neighborhood, all you have to do is walk from 7th to 14th streets and you are there. It is a perfect infill site which is close to downtown, the university, and the senior center. That being said I do feel that using the site for building subsidized housing for city employees is truly insane.
Re: CCRussell:
I am not understanding how existing sports parks (like the South Davis baseball park with the bright and expensive night lighting) would not have parallels with an even larger sports park, so I would have to disagree with you on this point.
Regarding your other comments from 1:43 PM:
1) It does not matter whether the entire 100 acre sports park is lighted or not. The problem is ANY portion of the sports park having the large and bright lights lit at night are an impact and can be seen from miles away. Please give us the specifics on the projected costs of the “more cost effective lights” that you refer to. I doubt that they would be less than $60,000 per year as the costs had been for the 16 acre park in south Davis 10 years ago.
2) On ANY public address system, SOUND RESONATES in wide open spaces, and it will do so to ALL of the neighborhoods east, west and south of the old landfill site.
3) I did not name the sports groups as the entity to recommend the landfill site but I find it astonishing that the sports groups are not proactively rejecting the old toxic landfill site especially given that they have participated in this debate before and have heard the strong opposition to a sports complex in this vicinity before.
4) On toxics and landfill. From a health, welfare and safety standpoint, this is a common sense issue. “Brownfields” have been used for commercial sites but they are NOT allowed to be used for residential and there are very good and legal reasons for that, as well as common sense reasons. Likewise, a toxic landfill site should not be considered for a children’s sports complex.
JustSaying: Keep in mind that city staff didn’t place this in the EIR – the City Council did. Don’t blame staff for this one.
Davis epiphany: I’m saying that size is very different, use is very different, costs are very different, maintenance arrangement are very different, it is just a different type of situation. And, note, that the city rarely gets complaints about this park from neighbors.
1) I’m not saying lights won’t have an impact. I’m disagreeing with your implication that the entire site would be lit.
2) Yes, there could be a public address system in use, and it could impact neighbors. Maybe, maybe not. Again, I’m clarifying that it isn’t the entire set of fields that will have this.
3) The sports groups aren’t being asked to pick a site at this time, and there is a lot of discussion going on. Some representatives favor it at this time, we’ll see what the support is from them after the EIR.
4) I understand your position on this, as a neighbor (I believe).
We’ve disagreed on things before, we’ll probably disagree on things in the future. Personally, I’ve not made a decision on this, and I welcome having this site in the EIR so that we will have good numbers as to what the issues are and what the impacts will be. Better informed, better decisions.
“Better informed, better decisions.”
CCRussell: On this topic, why isn’t the old Signature Properties proposal on the table. Didn’t they offer to pay for the Sports Park in exchange for development of the relatively small infill site SW of the Mace curve? Why isn’t this included in the EIR?
It seems to me that to make an adequately informed decision regarding all the options, this option ought to be in the EIR as well.
Norm, I’m working off the top of my head for this one – I wasn’t directly involved in these portions of the process as it wasn’t something that came through the Park/Rec Commission or through any of the athletic field needs committees – it was all city council stuff.
I don’t believe (could be mistaken) that there was ever a proposal to pay for a sports park in return for developing the signature property inside the curve. I don’t recall that as a specific offer.
There was interest by them in participating in some way, as they own the property outside the curve as well as inside the curve. However, the land owner of the Shriner’s property offered to pay for a portion of the EIR on their property (I don’t know if it covers the entire cost of their portion, but it was a significant amount towards it as I understand it), while the Signature people declined to put any money into the EIR that would be required for their property. So the City Council took that site out of consideration.
Again, just my recollection, I wasn’t directly involved with that. And there could have been other issues involved that I don’t recall.
CCRussell: So Signature was dropped from equal weight consideration because they refused the city’s demand for pay-to-play.
[quote]…while the Signature people declined to put any money into the EIR that would be required for their property. So the City Council took that site out of consideration….
[/quote]
So, who has committed money to this venture so far? And how much?
RE: CCRussell
Many questions come to mind that perhaps you can help answer. For instance please define “the sports groups”. Has the “Davis Sports Foundation” disbanded? You state that the sports complex “can be done”. Please explain how the funding from the “sports groups” is currently, or would be, structured. For instance, would all “the sports groups” be pooling all of their funds and other resources to build and maintain the sports complex? If so have they all agreed to this? What fiscal analysis has been done and by whom, to conclude that a sports complex “can be done”? Also, are you saying that no public funding would be needed for the building or maintenance of a 100 acre sports complex into the future? What mechanism would allow purchase of the Shriner’s property (which would obviously be very expensive to purchase) in addition to building and maintaining a 100 acre sports complex?
Finally, yes there is obvious disagreement on a number of points. However, it also seems rather cavalier to “welcome” a toxic landfill site to the sport complex EIR despite the clear history of opposition to a sports complex in this vicinity due to all of the impacts that it would impose on the nearby neighborhoods.
Eileen, including the landfill site in the EIR doesn’t mean that it will be chosen. There are people who have asked about the site, and there are people who like the site. As well as those who don’t. My point is that there are questions about the viability of this site – by including it in the EIR we will get answers to those questions. If I were to be in your shoes, as a neighbor, I would welcome it because then we would see exactly what the traffic and toxics impact will be. If they are severe, you have the information you need to support your standpoint. At this point I’m not supporting any of the three sites directly, as I would like to have the information that the EIR will provide. It is a significant component of the overall decision on a location.
The Davis Sports Foundation no longer exists. Many of our goals were achieved, some were not. A number of the intial board members are no longer residents in Davis. We successfully developed the Nugget Fields site, administered a scholarship fund for disabled athletes until the funds were used, and were involved with a number of smaller projects that aided athletics in our schools. This organization was not going to be the one that would have administered the sports complex – a new non-profit organization will most likely be created to do that, with the participation of any sports groups that have an interest in the site.
I looked through all of my statements above, I don’t see anywhere that I said no public funds would be used to build the site. And, I view things a bit differently than you (no surprise there!), I split the costs into three areas. Acquistion of land, development of the park, maintenance of the park. At this point there is no firm answer on the first two, as a site hasn’t been selected. Each has it’s own dynamics. What I did say clearly is that the intent is that little or no city funds be used to maintain the site.
The city commissioned a study a number of years ago that examined the development of a sports park and there were several options and conclusions. One of the options/conclusions was a public/private partnership and in that mode it was shown that this was feasible.
The specifics of the organization that would operate this, and which groups would be involved, has not been finalized. That is something that has been discussed for a number of years, but a final plan hasn’t been put in place. If you look at the conceptual plans for the locations you will see that the primary youth sports groups would be AYSO, DYSL, Davis Little League and possibly DYSA (softball). I’ve talked to representatives of each of the first three and they are all very interested in this (and several have been setting aside funds for this for years). I haven’t talked to DYSA lately, officially, but they have always been supportive.
Going back to a comment/question by Norm about the Signature people offering sports park in return for developing inside the curve – earlier I said I wasn’t aware of that offer (I wasn’t) – subsequently I came across a letter from them to the City regarding the EIR issue, where they referred to a prior article (a year or more ago) that involved a “refund of the Sports Park purchase price if and when the entitlements for a residential project on the 43 acres…”. So there was a proposal of some sort, and the city didn’t accept it. Based on this incomplete info, I’d say that it probably made sense to not accept it at that time.
“probably made sense to not accept it at that time”
CCRussell: It makes no sense to exclude the site from equal weight consideration in the current EIR.
“I split the costs into three areas. Acquistion of land, development of the park, maintenance of the park. At this point [u]there is no firm answer on the first two, as a site hasn’t been selected.[/u]”
I thought the answer was liquidation of existing public assets (e.g. Civic Fields) to pay for the infrastructure (acquisition and improvements).
If site selection is determinative with respect to financing strategy, doesn’t that suggest an intent to rely on developers to finance all or part of the project?
Norm, I can’t speak for the City Council, and they didn’t ask my opinion at the time.
My recollection was that Mace Covell offered to pay some or all of the costs (I don’t recall which) of the EIR for their site, Signature refused to participate on that basis, and Council decided that it wasn’t fair to let one in without paying while taking money from the other. Or something like that.
Like I said, not my decision…
Regarding the costs – without the EIR we don’t know what the cost of development will be. Without an agreement over acquisition of the site, we don’t know what the cost will be. So we can’t say if the sale of the two sites would cover acquisition and development costs.
Keep in mind, once an EIR is done that doesn’t mean that everything is in place and that a park will be developed. It is just one part of the overall process.
wesley506 and Charlie:
Actually, I never suggested the Civic Center fields for subsidized housing. But after a closer inspection of the boundaries, it was determined that I own property barely within the 500 foot distance to the Civic Center fields, so I am conflicted out of the discussion as long as civic center fields is on the table. I can talk to citizens privately about the matter, but can’t talk with staff, council, or those involved in the planning process.
As a matter of general principle, I have been interested in finding some larger, attractive sites near downtown on which to build more ownership housing within walking distance to downtown.
[quote]while the Signature people declined to put any money into the EIR that would be required for their property. So the City Council took that site out of consideration. [/quote]The Signature owners did offer to donate land that they own in North of Covell, adjacent to the Shriner’s property, in exchange for building some units on their property within the Mace curve. They were very cooperative, and even offered to build a teen center adjacent to the high school as part of the deal. They offered to put open space adjacent to the existing houses.
The land North of Covell that they offered for a sports park is much further from existing housing than the signature property. Don Saylor was adamantly opposed to including the Signature land in the EIR.
I had asked to have the Civic Center fields issue, which is a small part of the picture, be separated out of the discussion so that I could participate in the remainder of the discussion, but the council majority refused.
Correction:
The land North of Covell that they offered for a sports park is much further from existing housing than is the Shriner’s property. Don Saylor was adamantly opposed to including the Signature land in the EIR.
Another correction: “They were very cooperative, and even offered to build a teen center adjacent to Harper Junior High school as part of the deal.”
Charlie,
I was glad that I was able to attend the City’s EIR scoping meeting this week. It was important for me to hear what you and other sports folks had to say, and to speak to other residents with concerns like mine about the impacts of a sport complex, both physical and financial. I express my strong opposition to losing any parks, particularly the Civic Center Field since it is the only active recreational park that the downtown has. I strongly opposed Civic Center Field being considered for housing when I was on the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee for the same reason.
The other issues of concern that I discussed with you and others at the meeting was that the former landfill site was the worst location for a sports park if there is to be a sports park in Davis. This issue came up years ago when Covell Center proposed a sports complex at Covell and Pole Line and the traffic, noise, and night lighting impacts were damning as was the feasibility study. The surrounding neighborhoods strongly opposed this vicinity for a sports complex for all these reasons and the project was not approved.
So in spite of the neighborhoods historically opposing a sports complex in this same vicinity due to the impacts, and now to propose using a toxic former landfill site for 100 acre sports complex is shocking. I do not understand why there is no concern about the health risks, particularly to children, from exposure to toxics on a former landfill site? Toxic clean-up is very expensive and since there is clearly a lack of funding for a sports complex who would pay for any attempts for a toxic clean up?
The other issue is of course the fiscal issue which now seems to be a trade off of taking away the only downtown park to sell to finance a sports complex and then trying to locate it in on a toxic dump where the traffic, noise, and lighting issues would ruin other neighborhoods?
Finally, if the sports groups are able to raise money WITHOUT selling off existing parks, I agree with exploring the City Staff’s original recommendation for the Howet site which the city owns. How did this recommendation get off track?
I understand the desire for a sport complex, but to try to take away the downtown park and to try to locate it on a toxic dump which would also bring impacts to ruin other neighborhoods is not logical.
As always, Sue, I’ll defer to your recollection on these things. I had thought that the original suggestion for the Civic Center site (and housing) was from you, pre-dating and separate from the discussion of the sports park, but I apparently had some confusion on that.
And, I will say that from the beginning of the process when we first looked at sites, and Howatt was (at the time) the only site under consideration, your support of this project has been outstanding and very welcome.
Eileen: Regarding the inclusion of the landfill site – I guess the best I can say at this point is that I didn’t ask for it to be added. I can’t defend it’s addition as it wasn’t a decision I was a part of. The City runs this show – the process isn’t controlled by the sports groups. The city will make a decision on the site, the sports groups will work with whatever site is selected.
Selling off of parks – let’s split this into two issues. The Davis Little League park is only used by Davis Little League, it isn’t generally open park land. It is substandard on many points when you consider the current needs. The premise from the beginning was that selling this would help provide funds for some aspect of the sports park. I don’t see any problem with this myself. The other issue is Civic Center Park. That is a relatively late change to the concept. I don’t believe that any of the sports groups asked for this. It didn’t come from the Parks/Rec Commission. I can’t say what the exact history of that as far as why it is included, other than it provides additional funds – but there has to be more to it than that. As a member of the Park/Rec Commission (speaking for myself, not representing the Commission) I am concerned about the loss of park land at this location. I don’t think that this is a “done deal” at this time, by any means. There has to be some reason why the City has included this other than the simple issue of providing funds for the sports park, and I don’t now what those other reasons are.
And, finally – yes the sports groups can raise money, but I didn’t say that they could raise ALL of the money for development. They certainly can (in my opinion, and others) raise the money needed for maintenance, and a significant amount for development. However, the selling of Davis Little League park has been a part of the formula since we first started discussion of the sports park at Howatt. It is a key source of funding.
I had thought that we were well on the way towards developing at Howatt – City Council brought in other sites relatively recently. The sports groups didn’t (as a group, I can’t speak for individuals) advocate for these particular added sites. But, now that they are included, I’m interested in seeing what the EIR’s say about each of them.
I will note that there was probably pressure on City Council by some individuals who think that Howatt is too far out of town, which is probably why some closer-in locations have been brought into consideration. It is an interesting catch-22. Suggest that we build it away from the city so lights, etc are not an issue, we get lots of people who insist it is too far out and must be closer to town. And I’ll note that I spoke to several people at the EIR scoping meeting who said exactly that. Suggest that we build it closer in to town, and then we get a different group of people who insist that it is too close to their neighborhood. So, here we are, three sites under consideration, some closer and some farther away…
Charlie,
On the location of Howat Ranch, it is only a mile east of Davis. The soccer groups currently drive further than that to get to the soccer fields on the old outside movie theater site now so that is really not an argument against Howet. And on impacts ruining neighborhoods versus the inconvenience of going one mile further, the impacts clearly take precedence. Most importantly, the health and safety of the children and adults using the fields takes even more precedence when we are taking about toxic land being used and irrigated versus non-toxic land for a sports complex.
On the sports complex EIR meeting feedback, the residents I spoke this past Wednesday were unaware of the toxics involved on the landfill site and they were rather surprised that that information had not been raised earlier. Were the sports group parents informed about the landfill toxics at your meetings?
Eileen – when you say “your meetings”, I’m not sure what you are referring to. The City Council added the Landfill site, as I’ve said multiple times, to the EIR in a public City Council meeting. The youth groups haven’t been holding meetings to decide which sites where to be included – that is the City Council’s decision. And, as I’ve said before, a major purpose of the EIR is to examine these kinds of issues. I’m still puzzled why you seem to think that the whole issue of the landfill is going to fly under the radar when the EIR is specifically designed to bring these issues out. The EIR will inform people of the issues that are involved in this aspect of the overall plan.
And, regarding location – I agree with you that it is only one mile, I agree that people often travel further, I agree with you that it isn’t a problem. I participated in the Ad Hoc committee meetings held by the City Council (Sue and Ruth) when the original Howat site ended up being the recommended site, before the two alternatives were brought in the picture. However, you are using logic – and logic doesn’t always win. The fact is, there are a number of people who have expressed their concern that this site is too far out of town and that a closer site should be selected. A large number of people – and they are people who vote in city elections just as you and I do (I assume you vote…). This political pressure is probably a factor in why other sites were added (I’m guessing here). The opposition is there, and it has been there for quite awhile. So it must be addressed. Just because YOU think it isn’t too far, doesn’t mean that OTHERS don’t think that it is too far. And there were several people at the EIR scoping meeting who strongly made that point to me.
Charlie,
You assert that “a large number of people have expressed their concern that the (Howet Ranch) site is too far out of town”. Please explain where this input is coming from. I assumed that it would have been meetings that you and the sports groups have been involved in. And I did not see a reply to my question of were these people informed about the landfill toxics issue.
The concern here is that this is very relevant information for everyone to know in order to have an informed opinion on the landfill site and whether it should be an option to study before we spend over $200,000 of Davis residents money for the sports complex EIR.
And to reiterate my point about the opinion of folks at the sport complex EIR meeting this past Weds., my understanding is that the one mile distance of the Howet site seemed to be emphasized, yet the toxics issue at the landfill site was not even mentioned. I did not see any information displayed explaining to the public that the landfill site had toxics, did you?
Where the input has come from? (1) People who expressed this to me at the EIR scoping meeting, (2) People who expressed this at prior public meetings that addressed the Howat site (multiple public meetings held prior to the Council’s inclusion of the additional sites in the EIR) that have been held at various times over the past few years, (3) people who have contacted me directly on this issue as I’ve spoken about it at other public meetings, private meetings and even while working at a booth at the Farmer’s Market on totally unrelated issues, (4) A joint city council – Park Rec Commission on the Howat site held in city chambers several years ago. Note that the Howat site has been under consideration for several years.
I assume that you have been involved in EIR’s in the past, this is the first that I’ve been involved with in this detail. According to the public notice, this was an “EIR Notice of Preparation Scoping Meeting”, to provide the public the opportunity to suggest additional environmental issues which should be studied. It seems to me that this is what was done.
It wasn’t the presentation of the EIR, it wasn’t a meeting to decide on which alternatives to include as far as I understand the process. The purpose of this meeting is to let people comment about the scope of the EIR.
Pages 37 and 38 of the NOP document clearly state that hazards and hazardous materials at all sites are to be studied – so as I have said, these issues will be studied as a part of the EIR process and things won’t be hidden. Yes, the information on the potential for hazardous materials at ALL of the sites (since the other two have been agricultural sites there could be issues there as well) was available along with all of the other materials.
“things won’t be hidden”
CCRussell: The city is only planning to do a Phase I ESA (see page 14). This typically does not involve actual sampling of soil, groundwater, air, etc. The city can’t really hide what it doesn’t know, so your statement is probably correct. The phrase willful ignorance comes to mind.
I would be very interested to hear from an attorney out there in cyberspace about the appropriateness of limiting the hazards analysis to a Phase I ESA on a known brownfield site.
I’m also curious about what the additional cost would be to the taxpayers if the city is compelled to “upgrade” to a Phase II ESA midstream.
Again, I ask:
[quote]“…the city has already commission(ed) Raney Consulting to do an equal weight EIR of three properties….”
[/quote]
David: And the cost?
[quote]“…while the Signature people declined to put any money into the EIR that would be required for their property. So the City Council took that site out of consideration….”
[/quote]
So, who has committed money to this venture so far? And how much?
Sue, David, CCRussell–Can any of you help out on these EIR cost questions?
Links to the NOP and other background on how we got to this point? Thanks!
I have just been catching up on the Vanguard for the past few days and this sports complex issue goes beyond disturbing me as a Davis taxpayer and I have some questions too.
1) Is it true that the cost of the sports complex EIR is $200,000?
2) Where is the financing for the construction and maintenance of a large sports facility supposed to come from?
3) Is it true about the toxics issues?
4) Who is responsible for designing this EIR and are Davis taxpayers paying for this EIR?
CCRussell:
Some one should thank you for all the document digging and info… Oh yeah… Thanks…
I can’t find a document in my posession that states what the final EIR cost was. I have a staff report heading into the Council meeting where the EIR was approved, but that is significantly different than what we ended up with. I’ll see what I can find, but I’m going hiking in the Sierras for a few days and won’t be back until mid-week.
It was more than $200,000, when you add in the Landfill alternative. The cost of the Mace Covell Gateway alternative is covered by the developer.
My recollection (again, I don’t have supporting documentation at this time) is that the funds used to cover this are park development funds – sources that can’t be used for maintenance, personnel, or things like street repairs and so forth.
I don’t have links to documents on the history of this – I have piles and piles of documents in my office going back to the Parks Facilities Master Plan back in the mid 90’s to cover most of this (but it isn’t well organized – a lot of my materials were tossed the first time I retired from the Parks/Rec Commission). My understanding is that the city has a staff intern who is working on gathering the historical info for the entire thing. It should be available well before the Council takes a vote on anything – the EIR process takes at least 9 months.
It has been a fun discussion – I wish everyone a happy Fourth of July – and I’m off to take wildflower pictures in the Sierras…
The landfill site is already known to contain toxics in the soil and groundwater. There are monitoring wells on the site and on the CV site to the south. The city has been monitoring the site since 1999. There is a lot of information on the toxics, but I will mention only a couple here.
According to a City of Davis report titled “City of Davis, Old Davis Landfill Report, Second Half-2004” there have been detections of VOCs in wells on the landfill site and in the monitoring wells on the CV site to the south. Vinyl chloride, an known carcinogen, was detected in well DM-MW-2 on the landfill site at a concentration of 2.8 ug/l–nearly 6 times the MCL.
In 1992, Dames and Moore conducted a study of the landfill site as part of a regulatory requirement for all landfills in the state. The study reported halogenated and aromatic VOCs including vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, and tetrachloroethene in down-gradient wells. Only vinyl chloride was at levels above its MCL. As a result of the study, Dames and Moore concluded that the groundwater down gradient of the former landfill had been impacted by leakage with some contaminant levels above the California MCLs.
The landfill was originally an open-pit burn dump from the 40s or 50s until 1969. When the landfill was constructed, the excavations were unlined with no leachate systems. The landfill was in use from 1969 to 1975. Materials disposed there included residential, commercial, industrial, and demolition-type wastes. Some of this dumping took place before there were tight controls over how toxic or hazardous materials were disposed of. It is not at all surprising to find hazardous materials in the groundwater.