Last week the Vanguard discussed three possible sites for the Sports Complex as well as the need for such a complex and the cost associated with it. It seems that some believe that the former landfill site is the best of the three locations for such a complex. They view it as relatively close to town, it is closer to a greenbelt hook up for a bike path, it is still a distance from homes, at least to the south (although perhaps not the east), and it is city owned property and would not be contingent on a deal with a developer.
There are some expressed concerns that having a sports complex with be growth inducing, however, the general belief is that Measure R would mitigate such concerns and sports complexes with the noise and lights are not ideal neighbors.
However, we actually have some previous studies of the area, first the 1997 EIR from the Covell Center project and then the 2004 EIR from the Covell Village project. Based on these findings, we might want to be a bit more concerned about the prospects of putting a sports complex with active children on top of a former landfill.
The 1997 Draft EIR shows that “the investigation found one volatile organize compound (vinyl chloride) that exceeded the MCL allowed by the State Title 22 water standards… An Evaluation Monitoring Report prepared for the landfill in 1995 indicates that traces of vinyl chloride have been detected in two monitoring wells at a depth of about 45 feet.”
The Hazards Assessment for Covell Village for the EIR in 2005 is much more thorough in terms of assessing possible hazards. It says, “Of principle concern here is possible contamination from the old Davis landfill site immediately to the north of the proposed project. When the landfill was constructed, the excavations were unlined and no leachate systems were installed.”
Furthermore, “Materials disposed in the landfill included residential, commercial, industrial, and demolition-type wastes. Some of this dumping took place before tight controls governed how toxic or hazardous materials were disposed of. The landfill most likely contained toxic or hazardous materials, and it would not be surprising to find hazardous chemicals in the groundwater under the site and flowing away from it, particularly given the length of time this area was used as a disposal site.”
In other words, this was a toxic waste dump that did not utilize proper storage and environmental protection processes and policies that would be around today. Basically it was in operation up until 1975.
The original findings showed vinyl chloride at levels 4 to 5 times the limit. “Of the VOCs, only vinyl chloride was detected at levels exceeding the MCL designated for that compound, and it exceeded the State Title 22 drinking water standards. The vinyl chloride was found in DM-MW-3 in two of the four rounds of monitoring at the entrance to the old landfill at levels 4 to 5 times the MCLs for the compound.”
The hazards report seemed surprised and concerned with some of the findings, especially that some of the VOC’s disappeared, particularly since vinyl chloride does not degrade in water.
“Vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen. The fact that it was found on at least three occasions in the groundwater in the landfill or on-site is significant. Though it has not been detected in recent years, along with other VOCs, its presence and potential for future problems should not be dismissed. It is interesting that VOCs in general have disappeared since the 1995-96 testing by Dames and Moore. Vinyl Chloride, as one example, does not degrade in water, and it is possible it is still in the groundwater somewhere beneath the site. Is it also interesting that though VOCs have generally disappeared, nitrates and selenium and other non-volatile compounds have remained relatively high. This raises some questions.”
Furthermore, “Since vinyl chloride, and other VOCs are volatile, sampling method and handling are important. If the well is not purged sufficiently before the sample is drawn the sample may be from water that has been standing in the well casing and the VOC would have volatilized. If the sample is not handled properly before being assayed (appropriate collection protocol, appropriate collection vessel and conditions), the VOC can also volatilize or degrade.”
These are some of the concerns about the testing methods that the report raised and they stressed that until there are adequate studies to determine that these materials are no longer present, they ought not allow homes to be built over contaminated groundwater or NEXT to a potentially contaminated site.
“Who performs the groundwater sampling for the city? What is the protocol for collection of samples? How are the wells purged? How are we assured that the collection is from fresh groundwater pumped into the well, and not old water standing in the casing? What kind of vessel is used to collect the sample? What are the conditions in the vessel? Is it kept cold? What are the conditions of analysis? What analytical protocols are used? Where are the QA data? If appropriate methods are not used for collection, handling and analysis, false negatives can result. Has the city actually done adequate studies (soil and groundwater sampling) to determine that vinyl chloride or other hazardous VOCs are not present any longer in the groundwater at and down gradient from the landfill? These are questions that should be answered before allowing homes to be built over possibly contaminated groundwater or next to a potentially contaminated site.”
The hazards report has more concerns, all concerned with the methodology and handling of the tests.
On October 5, 2004, Geocon Consultants, an environmental consulting firm hired by Covell Partners, submitted a report attempting to answer questions raised about a possible contaminant plume and detections of vinyl chloride on the Covell Village site. The report does not adequately address the issues. The report dismisses the high levels of some of the chemical of concern by stating that background levels were not determined. What does that mean? That high levels are of no concern? Regardless of “background” levels, some of the chemicals were detected at levels above their MCLs.
The report repeatedly states that there is no evidence of a “plume”of contaminated groundwater because monitoring data does not support it. No attempt was ever made to delineate the boundaries of the contamination, nor was there ever any attempt to determine a “plume”. There may not be a “plume”, but there is contamination in groundwater under the landfill and under the project site.
The report also refers to the “very low concentration” of vinyl chloride in 2001. This concentration is nearly 6 times the MCL, and is not insignificant. The report makes no mention of detections of vinyl chloride in wells on the Covell Village site. In fact, a representative of Geocon at a meeting of the Natural Resources Commission stated that vinyl chloride had never been detected on the Covell Village site, in direct contradiction of the statements made by Jones and Stokes in the Draft EIR for Covell Center
The report also refutes any danger of chemicals from soil or groundwater entering habitat ponds planned for the proposed site if developed, but this depends on the depth of the ponds. Groundwater this past year was as high as 12 feet below ground surface due to a wet year. We have just had another wet year. Ground water levels vary. Groundwater could very well be higher than the bottom of a pond and contaminants in the groundwater could very well enter the pond.
The report also notes two statements of concern in the draft EIR from Covell Village.
“On page 4.10-10, the draft EIR states that “Based on the results of groundwater monitoring activities and documented VOC impacts, this facility has a high potential of impacting the Covell Village project site.” and on page 4.10-24 the EIR states “Overall, based on the results of groundwater monitoring activities and documented VOC impacts, this facility could result in significant impacts to groundwater on the Covell Village project site.””
Furthermore, “.” Referring to the reports discussed here and on recommendations from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the EIR goes on to state, “Based upon the above information, the possibility cannot be excluded that the new well location could result in potential groundwater impacts associated with the Davis Landfill.” These are serious statements, yet there is no evidence of mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR. What measures will be taken to ensure that the Covell Village site is not in future impacted by the landfill and what measures will be implemented if it is? “
There are questions then about the adequacy of the Draft EIR for the Covell Village report and the implication that potential hazards were glossed over or left unexplored during that process.
It is at least worth noting that while the Covell Partners specifically hired Geocon Consultants to “answer questions raised about a possible contaminant plume and detections of vinyl chloride on the Covell Village site,” the EIR for the Covell Village project was performed by Raney Planning and Management, the same company that has been hired by the city to do the EIR from this project.
It is also worth noting that the EIR and impact of the vinyl chloride focused on impacts from an off-site chemical plume and groundwater tests, whereas in the case of the sports complex, the complex would be built directly on top of the former site. They told us in 2004 it was safe, but it is unclear that they took the necessary steps to ensure that six years ago. Now with the prospects of building sports facilities directly on top of a former uncontrolled toxic waste landfill site, it is unclear that the necessary steps were taken to ensure this site represents no hazard.
And while we can argue perhaps that all will come out in the EIR report, there is at least reason to believe that this did not occur back in 2004-05 and with the same company involved, it is unclear that anything will change in the future.
I understand that the sports folks do not like the Howatt site, and perhaps the city needs to find another possibly location. However, if the sports folks are looking for the path of least resistance, it is looking more and more like the Landfill site is not going to net them that. There are enough concerning findings here both in terms of method and actual finding to necessitate reasonable people to look for a simpler alternative.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]It is at least worth noting that while the Covell Partners specifically hired Geocon Consultants to “answer questions raised about a possible contaminant plume and detections of vinyl chloride on the Covell Village site.” [/quote]
Oops, please fix.
Put the period in the wrong spot. Fixed.
In regard to the proposed Sports Complex, I would note the following:
1. The city cannot afford the money to pay for an EIR for a Sports Complex at this time. If we cannot fix potholes, we cannot spend money on the EIR. And anyone who wants to use the argument that the money for the EIR will come from a “different pot of money that cannot be spent on anything but the things like an EIR”, read DPD’s previous articles on Verona. This argument won’t wash. The Sports Complex is a frill that the city cannot afford right now…
2. The developers of Mace Ranch insisted it was safe to build next to a toxic dump site, where liners were used to contain any contaminants. And looked what happened – a toxic plume leaked out of the liner and is now underneath the new Target store and heading towards the homes. To put children’s playing fields on top of a toxic dump is the height of stupidity. As a parent, there is no way I would allow my children to play there…
What is the city thinking? Talk about stuck on stupid…
“The city cannot afford the money to pay for an EIR for a Sports Complex at this time”
Apparently the city has already done the EIR, so that portion is moot, despite my agreeing with you on that.
One wonders what the City has done in the past six years to resolve the hazard questions in the earlier EIR and to monitor the magnitude of the possible problems since then. On what basis does our city staff tell the Council that everything can be handled just fine if the Council selects this site for the sports complex?
A bigger curiosity is why our youth sports leadership isn’t protesting use of a dump site with toxic history as a sports complex location. I’ve enjoyed and supported Davis youth sports programs for more that 30 years and appreciate everything these folks do for the quality of life here, but am wondering if this project really has been thought through.
Don’t mean to be an alarmist, however, what are sports groups thinking? Our youngsters’ games and practices draw everyone from sensitive newborns to geezerly grandparents. But, sports leaders and council members could look at it strictly from a business standpoint: What happens after we make our big investment at this location and a couple kids get some unexplained illness? (Even if the new EIR doesn’t certify any known hazards, how many children will miss sports opportunities when parents find out the history of the site and are too worried to let their children participate?) Why even consider this site?
Vanguard, thanks for this informative article. I find it astonishing that the City would even consider including a toxic landfill dump as a potential option for a sports complex which is intended primarily for use by children. This toxic landfill site should be removed from the EIR as an option for a number of reasons.
The concept of a sports complex in this vicinity had been fielded years ago as part the Covell Center project in 1997. The traffic numbers were damning, as were the impacts from night lighting, public address systems and other noise that would be generated by the 80 acre proposal at that time. There was major opposition from the surrounding neighborhoods and from others who studied the data from the city reports.
Even more damning at that time was the feasibility study which revealed that the sports complex would not pencil out. In fact one consideration mentioned was the possibility of needing to sell alcohol to help improve the numbers. Between the impacts and the infeasibility of the sports complex in that location, the sports complex and Covell Center were not approved by the City.
Now, after the history of all of the many reasons why a sports complex does NOT belong in this vicinity the city wants to consider placing a sports complex on a toxic landfill site? The concept is unthinkable.
First, and of utmost importance is the health, welfare, and safety of the children who would be playing sports on this toxic landfill site, and so this site is clearly unacceptable. Furthermore, the incompatibility due to the traffic, night lighting, and noise issues which historically raised major neighborhood opposition also make it unacceptable.
The new proposed EIR suggests selling our downtown Civic Center Field (next to City Hall) and the Little League Park at the corner of F St. and Covell Blvd for revenue to help finance a sports complex. This is another bad idea. The city should not sell ANY of the existing sports fields it currently has. The most important park to preserve is the downtown Civic Center Field which is the only active recreational park that the downtown has.
If the sports groups can raise the money to build and maintain a sports complex the logical site in the study is the Howat Ranch site. The City owns this 700 acre site and it is only a mile outside of town. It could handle the larger events without the impacts on neighborhoods.
I urge everyone to submit your comments of concern to save our existing parks and to oppose the consideration of locating a children’s sports complex on a toxic landfill dump by emailing Anne Brunette at ABrunette@cityofdavis.org who is the staff member handling the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the sports complex EIR. THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS ON THE NOP FOR SPORTS COMPLEX EIR IS THIS COMING FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2010 AT 5PM.
For more information the web link for the NOP is at:
http://cityofdavis.org/pgs/property/pdfs/Davis_Sports_Park_NOP_(with_Initial_Study)%5Bfinal%5D.pdf
Eileen: Thanks for providing the NOP link. This is an eye-opener. And a real help to someone who hasn’t heard anything about this proposal until recently. (A search of the Enterprise archives–“Davis Sports Park”–produces only two items in the past three years, one an April commission meeting announcement and the other a similar Sierra Club notice.)
[quote]“The proposed project would require General Plan Amendments and rezoning of two existing City-owned parks for future residential uses – the Civic Center Ball Field, located at 23 Russell Boulevard; and the Davis Little League Fields, located at 1865 H Street…” and “Following approval of entitlements, the City would sell the rezoned site and the proceeds would be used for the construction of the Sports Park.” (June 16, 2010; Notice of Preparation of an EIR.)[/quote] Who decided that this project requires selling off these two parks for high- and medium-density housing development?
It sounds as though decisions on this EIR still are to be made (by [u]someone[/u]), contrary to what we’ve been reading here:
[quote]“The City of Davis is also soliciting comments (by July 17) on the scope of the EIR from interested persons.”[/quote]
I think I’ve read enough to decide two things for sure:
1.) The landfill site doesn’t need more EIR evaluation. Don’t waste any more money looking at a site that parents won’t accept once they hear about it.
2.) While a Davis Sports Park might be a desirable addition, we shouldn’t trade off existing in-town parks to pay the bill. City plans say we’re already short 100 acres of park space; future generations will be pleased if keep what we’ve got. Then, let’s look at use alternatives for the present City Center and Little League park space IF the Sports Park ever gets built.
Don’t we have lots of already approved housing sites? If selling off parks would be our major “infill” success in the first two decades of the program, then I no longer support the concept.
DMG: “ERM: “The city cannot afford the money to pay for an EIR for a Sports Complex at this time”
Apparently the city has already done the EIR, so that portion is moot, despite my agreeing with you on that.”
How could the city have already done the EIR, when this is a Notice of Preparation for an EIR? What am I missing?
Here’s an explanation of the CEQA process: link ([url]http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/lead_agency/Notice_of_Prep.html[/url])
[quote]Does the Lead Agency need to wait until responses from other agencies to the Notice of Preparation are returned before preparing the draft EIR?
No. The Lead Agency may begin work on the draft EIR immediately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation. The draft EIR in preparation may need to be revised or expanded to conform to responses to the Notice of Preparation. A Lead Agency cannot circulate a draft EIR for public review before the time period for responses to the Notice of Preparation has expired.[/quote]
To: JustSaying and everyone who hears about this Sports Complex EIR,
It is so important that you submit your co email address again is:
ABrunette@cityofdavis.org. The Staff and City Council need to know how bad these proposals are.
I imagine when the downtown residents find out that the City is trying to take away their only recreational park at Civic Center Field they will be furious. Likewise, the north Davis neighborhoods which are not far from the toxic former landfill site will be just as angry after having opposed a sports complex in this vicinity due to all the impacts not that long ago.
It seems hard to believe that such bad planning proposals could have gotten this far and that we get to pay $200,000 for an EIR studying illogical and destructive “options”. The most obvious option to analyze is to keep all existing parks and simply add the Howat Ranch site if the sports groups can generate the funding themselves. The sports groups need to do their own fund raising like the school foundation has been doing.
As David Greenwald stated, the EIR process has begun. The time to debate the inclusion of one option or another in the EIR was actually back when the Council debated which sites to include. Changing the EIR at this time would, in my opinion, most likely increase the cost of the EIR.
Although there have been some studies in the past on this site, those studies are a bit dated and were not related to the kind of project we are discussing. Inclusion of the landfill site in the EIR provides the opportunity for information to be brought forward relating to this site so that an informed decision can be made.
The real decisions will come when the EIR is complete and the Council will debate the options that are available. This process has been going on for years – all I can say is that if you are interested in the project (either for/against the project, for/against the location, or for/against any particular aspect) then you need to follow the project as it moves through the public process. It has been a very public process all along.
Charlie, I have to disagree with you. Just because the city has decided to start the EIR process prior to responses to the NOP, if that is indeed the case, that does not mean that the EIR cannot or should not be changed. In fact, now is indeed the time for interested parties to tell the lead agency what they consider important issues to be included in the EIR. In my view, if the city did begin the EIR in any significant way, without first receiving responses to the NOP, thereby potentially increasing the cost of the EIR, then it shows even more irresponsibility on their part. An NOP is provided so that interested parties can have meaningful input into what is included in an EIR and the NOP is the instrument through which the public is afforded an opportunity to participate in the public process.
I am quoting a section from the CEQA link David provided below.
. “What must the response to the Notice of Preparation include?
The response to the Notice of Preparation, at a minimum, should identify:
* The significant environmental issues and reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures which the Responsible Agency will need to have explored in the draft EIR; and
* Whether the agency will be a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency for”he project.”
Here it clearly states that responses to the NOP should include significant environmental issues to be included in the EIR and reasonable alternatives. One of those reasonable alternatives would be to exclude the toxic land fill site as an alternative site. It is very clear that the landfill is contaminated with several VOCs including vinyl choride, a known carcinogen, and that vinyl chloride has been found in the ground water in monitoring wells on the site a levels that are 4 to 5 times the state of California MCLs for the contaminant. That is highly significant. Since vinyl chloride does not degrade in water, it would be surprising that it is not still present.
The city has been monitoring the wells on the site since 1999. I would like to see the ground water monitoring reports over that time, and I would also like to know what other studies the city has done to determine whether or not vinyl chloride or other hazardous VOCs are present on the site. I would want to see studies that can demonstrate that toxic or hazardous chemicals no longer occur on the site at levels that could threaten users of the site before I would want to even consider the site as a sports park for children.
Why is this being considered now? The city can barely afford to pay its bills or fill potholes, and we are now talking about a sports park that was shown to be fiscally infeasible the first time it was suggested. Also, why are we suggesting selling land in the city that is currently being used for sports in order to build an expensive facility on peripheral land that will create more driving, at the same time we are talking about implementing some of the Climate Action Team’s ideas for lowering our carbon footprint?
Pam, I’ll stand by my opinion that to make changes at this point would potentially raise the cost, by altering it. Hard to say. I’ll also stand by my point in saying that including it is valuable as it will give us clear and current information within the context of this project. Including it in the EIR doesn’t mean that it will be accepted.
The sports park project has been going on for years, it is not something that just popped up this year. Several of your questions have been discussed in great detail in the discussion with the earlier article by Dave, I’ll not repeat them all here.
Regarding peripheral locations – as you may recall from the Mace Ranch Community Park committee (where I believe I first met you), interior sites are opposed by people, so we are left with peripheral sites.
CCRussell: You seem to hold the institutional knowledge on this: Thanks for joining the discussion.
Why would the City Staff schedule a June 30 “NOP Scoping Meeting,” then choose to hurry up and lock in expensive decisions before the public comment period ends on July 16? Still rushing after all these years?
How much did the City Council increase the EIR cost by adding the landfill site? Seems like that would be the amount SAVED by making an informed decision now instead of waiting to eliminate the site after the EIR is completed? (And, why didn’t they use the funds to look at the Signature site instead? Seems like the site donation is a stronger possibility than parents wanting to haul their kids to play ball at a landfill with documented toxics history.)
[quote]“The real decisions will come when the EIR is complete and the Council will debate the options that are available.”[/quote] That’s disconcerting, not reassuring. The most critical decision involved (in my opinion) is whether the city should turn precious parkland over to housing developers in order to fund construction of a park outside the city limits. And it sounds as though the Council already made that decision as a keystone for everything else.
The Davis parks study reports residents say neighborhood parks (95%) are the “most important recreational sites and facilities”—followed by trails (92%), greenbelt (86%) and open space (87%). West and central Davis residents value neighborhood parks even more. How will they feel when they finally hear about this plan?
[quote]“The time to debate the inclusion of one option or another in the EIR was actually back when the Council debated which sites to include.…you need to follow the project as it moves through the public process. It has been a very public process all along.”[/quote] I’d like to give this the weight you’d like it to have, but why do specifics of the project seem like news to many? What efforts have the sports groups and the city made in recent years to publicize project plans or to encourage participation by the broader public? There’s little evidence in the Enterprise (just a couple meeting announcements in five years), the Vanguard (looks like David just picked this up a week ago) or the Davis Voice (best results so far with submissions last year by Kemble Pope).
So, what kind of public input influenced the incremental decisions so far, and why do many residents feel left out? How about: [quote]“The conceptual plans were developed based on prior input provided by the youth soccer groups, baseball, softball, in-line hockey and BMX. The plans were reviewed by the groups and the consultant modified the plans accordingly.” (From June 9, 2009 Staff Report)[/quote]
Whatever location gets public support is fine with me. I just don’t think the landfill ultimately will have enough support even from those closest to the interests served by the new park. More public involvement might have made this clear to the Council earlier.
CCRussell: How much is expected if the two existing parks end up being sold to fund the new project’s construction? What other sources of funds have potential to replace this money if the Council doesn’t support selling off our park space when the time for “real decisions” comes?
I’d like to see a Davis Sports Park developed before we’ve all passed on, but our in-town parks are too scarce and valuable to toss into the pot. This part of the proposal needs to be excised before the decision becomes irreversible.
The city does not now have adequate funds to maintain present facilities. Why consider acquiring another facility that may or may not be maintained by a group that is a fairly small section of the community? If a one mile bicycle trip is too far, what are these people going to do at at sports facility?
I am trying to understand, how can a City “process” be so backwards? How does rushing ahead with a $200,000 EIR help matters when all the proposals make no sense except for one (i.e. consideration of adding the Howat Ranch site)?
A “Notice of Preparation” (NOP) usually means that since Davis residents are paying $200,0000 for a study, that the City needs to get the public’s input BEFORE the study is initialed. Not AFTER the study has already been started which seems indicate that “the study” is being pushed in a certain direction for certain conclusions which actually are NOT good for our community.
One of the most disconcerting issues is that the city is proposing selling off existing city parks to helping generate funding for a sports complex. Losing city parks is definitely NOT the answer.
I URGE EVERYONE TO HELP SAVE OUR EXISTING PARKS BY EMAILING THE CITY YOUR OPPOSITION OF SELLING OFF ANY EXISTING PARKS TO HELP FUND A SPORTS COMPLEX AND TO OPPOSE USING THE TOXIC FORMER LANDFILL SITE FOR A CHILDREN’S SPORTS COMPLEX. PLEASE SUPPORT STUDYING THE USE OF THE CITY OWNED 700-ACRE HOWAT SITE FOR A SPORTS COMPLEX WHICH IS JUST ONE MILE EAST OF DAVIS (i.e. IF THE SPORTS GROUPS CAN RAISE THE FUNDS NEEDED.)
WE NEED COMMON SENSE PLANNING. PLEASE HELP BY E-MAILING CITY STAFF NOW ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE TODAY BEFORE THE SPORTS COMPLEX EIR DEADLINE WHICH IS COMING UP IN ONLY 10 DAYS ON FRIDAY JULY 16, 2010 AT 5PM.
PLEASE HELP TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN BY E-MAILING YOUR COMMENTS TO THE CITY ON THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROPOSALS. TO: ABrunette@cityofdavis.org BEFORE THE FRIDAY, JULY 16TH DEADLINE AT 5PM.
Just a quick observation re: the old City Landfill site…On the NOP map showing the proposed layout of the sports park are areas 17 and 18 which ore labeled Hilltop Park, Picnic Area and Overlook and burrowing owl habitat. These areas appear to be located on top of what was the old landfill hill and adjacent shooting area (used by the Davis P.D. and other law enforcement folks for years for target practice,bomb disposal, and burning of confiscated illegal fireworks)
I do hope those who are accomplishing the EIR are considering the tons of lead deposited in the backstop as well as the residue from explosives destruction and burning of confiscated fireworks. On more than one occasion I recall the five cu. yd. dumpster in which the fireworks were burned blowing wide open and scattering ash and unexploded fireworks far and wide. Probably not a real good idea to designate soil that is impregnated with literally hundreds of thousands of rounds of copper jacketed lead bullets as burrowing owl habitat.
one more reason to get out of davis california…did you people know that ucdavis is the site of a radioactive dump site? why has this not been publicized?>
http://safetyservices.ucdavis.edu/environmental-health-safety/environmental/lehr-superfund-site/lehr-newsletter/lehr-newsletter-3
one big giant hole. don’t you people know that youre getting ripped off??
Hi again, Charlie.
We did indeed meet when we were designing the Mace Ranch Park. What people objected to then were lighted fields and to a lesser extent, noise.
But, we are not talking about turning some interior site into a sports field. What I mentioned was that we already have two sites in town that are currently used for sports–Civic Center fields and the Little League fields. No one is complaining about uses on those sites. Civic fields are also the only open space for that north Davis neighborhood. Our GP guarantees a certain amount of open space within certain distances for all neighborhoods. Now, some of us are talking about taking that internal open space away and building houses on it in order to support/justify a need for a peripheral sports park.
It only makes sense that we continue to use and enhance parks and sports fields that are already inside the city, throughout the town, that are more easily accessed than a peripheral site would be. I believe this was an argument when the first sports complex was suggested at CC. This way, we continue to have fields interspersed throughout the city, cutting down on driving and helping to keep our carbon footprint in check.
As to the EIR. It will indeed be changed at this point. The NOP comments must be included in the drafting of the EIR. Otherwise, the public process has broken down completely. If this has been coming along for years, why is it that none of us who normally follow these sorts of things heard anything about it until recently? Could it be that it has been shepherded throught the process under the radar intentionally?
I read the previous blog on this topic and commented there on the toxics. My questions were obviously not adequately answered there. I would not be raising them now if they had been.
I have two main issues with this. The landfill site is contaminated until shown to be otherwise and should be removed from consideration. Why do we want to spend money considering a toxic site? And, before we go too far along with this, wasting at least $200,000 of our tax dollars, I want to see the sports groups’ plans for making this fiscally feasible without requiring more of the city’s money to pay for it.
pn:”I have two main issues with this. The landfill site is contaminated until shown to be otherwise and should be removed from consideration. Why do we want to spend money considering a toxic site? And, before we go too far along with this, wasting at least $200,000 of our tax dollars, I want to see the sports groups’ plans for making this fiscally feasible without requiring more of the city’s money to pay for it.”
Exactly, nor do I want current athletic fields sold off to pay for a new sports complex. I’ll say it again – the city is stuck on stupid with this cockamamy idea during these tough economic times…
CCRusssell: Why is renovation of the Little League field not being given serious consideration?
I think there may be legitimate concerns about building the sports complex at the old landfill site. However, the idea is not new at all, it is not necessarily dangerous to anyone, and as the Blue Max people will tell you, it has been a big success already in Davis for 30 years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of old landfills which have successfully been converted to parks.
This is a good example ([url]http://www.virginiabeach.com/attractions/amusement-parks/mount-trashmore[/url]) of one: [quote]Close to the heart of Virginia Beach is a 165 acre park named Mount Trashmore. This unusually named park was once a landfill hence the name ‘Trashmore”. The old Landfill was filled with layers of soil and opened to the public in 1973, since then it has grown in to a place that allows adults to relax and children to use up excess energy
Mount Trashmore has sloping grasslands, two lakes filled with plants that naturally filter pollutants, a skate park, a children’s play area with volleyball courts and more.Mount Trashmore
There are three different hiking trails for you to follow at Mount Trashmore, the perimeter trail follows the edge of the park and is almost 2 miles long, the lake trail which follows the edge of lake Trashmore which is 1.45 miles and then the shortest trail at 1.35 is the Mountain trial which goes around the two huge hilly mounds. The trails are marked by mile markers so you can keep track of how far you have walked.
The skate park is an enclosed area of 24,000 square feet, skateboarders, inline skaters and BMX riders are all welcome to use the park which features a street course and a vert ramp, helmets are required at all times. [/quote] I know of a few others in California, including this one in Berkeley ([url]http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_miles_pipe_underground/[/url]).
Here is one in Arizona ([url]http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/01/06/20100106cr-landfillpark06.html[/url]).
[quote]“However, the idea is not new at all, it is not necessarily dangerous to anyone, and as the Blue Max people will tell you, it has been a big success already in Davis for 30 years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of old landfills which have successfully been converted to parks.”[/quote] Mostly true, Rich. First such conversion was nearly 100 years ago, and there “are more than 250…may well be more than 1,000” such conversions (http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/ccpe_places_article_8_06.pdf).
However, costs of turning landfills into parks are higher than using “regular” sites. I didn’t notice anything in the three examples about dealing with toxics other than the routine methane, groundwater contamination, settling, etc. With the already documented toxic issues at the Davis landfill, construction and maintenance costs–as well as future liability–will be higher than your average landfill conversion. Maybe lower costs at other sites could eliminate the need to sell off our existing parks.
While the average low=toxicity conversion project might “not necessarily” be dangerous to anyone, who will certify that for the Davis site? And, what confidence do you have that health-conscious Davis families are at all interested in taking the risks? With two or three other sites such superior circumstances, why even consider the landfill?
Actually, I much prefer your earlier “Nguyen-Nguyen Plan” to sell off much of our Howat Ranch holdings, then use the $1-billion proceeds to build the sports park at the best location to do all kinds of other great things for Davis.
David: You said “I understand that the sports folks do not like the Howatt site” – I don’t think that is an accurate statement. There are a number of people who favor that site, but I think that the majority would be happy with that site if it is the one that ends up making the most sense. Keep in mind that the sports groups didn’t ask for a particular site, and didn’t ask that the Landfill site be included in the mix. It was expected that the Howatt site was going to be the one, then the City Council added the two other sites.
One person asked about renovating the current Davis Little League site – that won’t work. It is too small, the only way you can create legal DLL sized fields is to reduce the number of fields there. By itself, that won’t help. You can see a DLL article on the need for fields at this link (note that this was written several years ago, before the other sites were added into the mix):
[url]http://www.davislittleleague.org/howatt.asp[/url]
Charlie: Glad to hear that, i got the impression last week that Howatt was not the preferred site. I suspect most of the sports groups will be perfectly happy if a facility gets built, on the other hand, it seems that community members might be more particular about the location. Something you may wish to take into account as you look to potentially form alliances and coalitions.
David, the sports groups don’t get to pick the site. The city picks the site, the sports groups have to make it work.
We thought we had fields picked decades ago, in the General Plan, but then the planned fields that we needed didn’t get built. Pam said that all that was changed at Mace Ranch Community Park was that lights were not included? That is not accurate. There were supposed to be multiple soccer fields and multiple dedicated baseball fields, but the fields in the master plan didn’t get built and we ended up with half the fields in a configuration that makes them inadequate for what was needed (and there are other examples of planned fields that didn’t get built as planned).
We thought that the “sports park” site was picked years ago and everything was gearing up to work there, then the City Council decided to add two alternative sites to the mix. These were not added at the request of the youth sports groups. We are watching and waiting for the City to make a decision.
Individuals may express a preference for one site over another based on preliminary information, but that isn’t a decision to support one or the other by the groups. Everyone is entitled to their individual opinion (as we see in this blog all the time).
When the EIR is done we will have additional information about each site. I actually hope that the City Council doesn’t pick the site at that time, because there are other issues that have to be decided as well. For example, if the EIR says that the Mace Covell site is best environmentally, should they pick that site? Well, no, because we don’t have answers to questions such as what the City has to do to acquire the site. So the EIR is a piece of the puzzle, with other things to consider.
I should note, again, that I’m expressing my own opinion and outlook on this, I am not representing any sports group.
Charlie: In a technical sense you are correct that the sports groups will not pick the site. However, their views and their numbers will play a large role. I suspect that unless an EIR precludes one of the sites, public opinion is going to play a huge factor.
Now that said, it seems possible that the city will not want to go with the Shriner’s site because of the strings attached, if the EIR reveals concerns with the landfill site, then it may be true that the site will pick itself. But I’m not sure that’s really a likely outcome and I wouldn’t rule out a fourth as yet unnamed site emerging if there are strong objections leveled on Howatt.
[quote]“We thought we had fields picked decades ago, in the General Plan, but then the planned fields that we needed didn’t get built.” and “there are other examples of planned fields that didn’t get built as planned….”[/quote] Charlie: It must be frustrating to the youth sports leadership for the city staff to spend so much time and money planning only to have the Council decide something different or keep kicking the decisions down the road for so long.
I’d be concerned that the timing and particulars of the current initiative don’t bode well for the Council to change the pattern it’s already established. (Overall economic situation, city’s bleak budget outlook, various political problems with the sites getting environmental review, no housing construction to help with the costs, potential resistance to selling off existing parks–this stuff all adds up.) David may be right that other sites could come up for consideration. Shouldn’t the Council decide on a preferred alternative before spending much more on planning costs and EIR work?
Has there been any recent discussion about possibilities of upgrading current fields and adding some new national-standard fields in parks around town (and maybe even on school grounds and at Nugget Fields)? Would this draw tournaments? We were all over Davis watching the recent ASYO World Cup, and it seemed to work well for the soccer folks.
“One person asked about renovating the current Davis Little League site – that won’t work. It is too small, the only way you can create legal DLL sized fields is to reduce the number of fields there.”
This is not a true statement. Ten minutes on Google Earth and the National Little League web site makes it clear that the DLL site is more than large enough to accommodate two regulation size fields. Moreover, there is abundant underutilized space in the park immediately to the west.
Norm: You can’t expand the current fields unless you remove other fields that are in use there. In any case, refer to the article in the DLL web site as to why MORE fields are needed, and issues over the current site.
JustSaying: I can’t speculate on “other sites”, it is easy to say that but until someone brings one up, how can we comment on it? And I won’t count on a new site coming out that has any less strings attached than any of the current sites.
Note that you ask about “on school grounds and at Nugget Fields”. The city doesn’t have any control over school property. Nugget Fields is only 9 acres, far short of what we need, and it is already being used. Putting something there doesn’t add more fields. Nugget Fields can go away with 90 days notice when the school district decides to dispose of it. Putting fields on any other school property is not a good idea – there isn’t enough to accomodate the needs, we already know that they won’t accomodate the kinds of things we need (this has been demonstrated multiple times), any field on school district property is difficult to work with because the School District has to take care of its priorities first. AYSO currently uses school fields for activities – it is a major source of hassle and irritation. If the youth groups are going to put a lot of money into fields, it can’t (in my opinion) be on school property because we can’t control the use, and it tends to be MUCH more expensive and a hassle to work with for a variety of reasons.
Thanks for your response. I’m sorry I wasn’t very clear about my questions.
I know the city doesn’t “control” school district property, but was thinking there could be some cooperative efforts by city, school and youth program leaders to agree on field construction and use, property exchange or purchases (Nugget?), etc. My main question for you is: [quote]“Has there been any recent discussion about possibilities of upgrading current fields and adding some new national-standard fields in parks around town [s](and maybe even on school grounds and at Nugget Fields)[/s]? Would this draw tournaments? We were all over Davis watching the recent ASYO World Cup, and it seemed to work well for the soccer folks.”[/quote] My thought was that this would provide [u]more[/u], albeit dispersed, fields, allowing whatever needs to be done to provide two regulation fields at the current park.
I wasn’t looking for speculation on other sites. My question really was directed at the process: [quote]“Shouldn’t the Council decide on a preferred alternative before spending much more on planning costs and EIR work?”[/quote]
It sounds as though the baseball program faces the most serious issues, and has been patient and persevering for longer than is reasonable. Have you already looked at a less ambitious park, just to accommodate baseball needs? That might be more practical these days. Maybe the next developer donation could support a smaller plan? Depending on what can be negotiated, the present fields could be kept and improved.
Keep up the good fight!
Just for the record, if Charlie’s reference to “Pam” was me, I did not say that all that was changed in the Mace Ranch park plan was that lights were not included. What I said was that the major objection for most folks was lighted fields and to a lesser extent night noise.
Many of the fields did not get built at least partly because there was a large contingent of community members who wanted to protect the burrowing owl habitat in Mace Ranch and who wanted fewer fields and a “natural park” for the burrowing owls. That small area was established, but, as it happened, the near-by foraging areas for the owl park were left un-mowed (not good for burrowing owls) and the owl park itself was eventually mostly surrounded by development, fragmenting the habitat for the owls, and they appear to have disappeared.
Finally, as I recall, the sports groups wanted far more fields than would fit on the site. When we tried to design the site, they just would not fit. It was also a case of trying to dump everything on Mace Ranch and, because part of the design committee was composed of Mace Ranch residents, there were objections.
I still believe the best idea is to utilize existing internal park/field sites, enhance those with what ever is needed and for large intercity tournaments, use part of the Howat Ranch site.
“You can’t expand the current fields unless you remove other fields that are in use there.”
CCRussell: This is also not a true statement.
For the record, the “other fields that are in use there” refers to two minimally improved fields which I assume are for younger kids and/or practice. There is adequate land on the site for two regulation size fields and these two smaller fields.
Davis kids have been playing ball on this site since 1954. I still haven’t heard any compelling reason to turn it into high density housing.
JustSaying: The basic premise for the sports park is that we need a significant number of additional fields, just to be able to catch up with the shortage that wasn’t built as a part of the existing General Plan, and also to create a space that we can expand in as the city grows in the future. So, if we look at existing parks, they are already filled with fields to the capacity they should have. The only options in existing parks are to cannibalize existing space, and that is not a good option in my mind. So, we need more fields.
Also note tht the main purpose of this is NOT to create facilities for more tournaments. There may be some more tournaments in some situations, but that isn’t the main goal. We need more fields to handle the demands we have in town.
Norm: Regarding the DLL site – the DLL web site I referred to earlier makes a good case why the current site is not adequate. There are a number of reasons. In any case – there are four very active fields there, for “Farm” league, “AA”, “AAA” and “Majors”. To expand the “AAA” and “Majors” fields would require major reconfiguration and the elimination of one or both of the smaller fields, which are NOT just practice fields. So, starting with four fields, ending with two fields, doesn’t increase the number of fields available. And, as DLL states, they need MORE fields than what they have now to be able to provide the field capacity that they are required by the National organization.
[quote]“The only options in existing parks are to cannibalize existing space, and that is not a good option in my mind.”[/quote] I look at building more fields at existing parks (and, [u]maybe[/u], school properties) as a way to help meet current DLL needs, not as cannibalizing anything. Moving the smaller fields to another park, and expanding AAA and Majors fields to meet standards seems like an option we should give fair consideration.
Financing a sports park by selling off our park space to housing developers is far more a cannibalization affecting Davis’ quality of life in my mind. Our existing parks can benefit more than just DLL players and those of us who love to watch them.
I checked out[url] http://www.davislittleleague.org/fields.asp [/url]and [url]http://www.davislittleleague.org/howatt.asp[/url]–and recommend it as important background reading for anyone interested in this matter, thanks.
Let me try this once more: [quote]“Has there been any recent discussion about possibilities of upgrading current fields and adding some new national-standard fields in parks around town [s](and maybe even on school grounds and at Nugget Fields)? Would this draw tournaments? We were all over Davis watching the recent ASYO World Cup, and it seemed to work well for the soccer folks.[/s]”[/quote] I’m just wondering whether any thought has been given to options other than a full-blown Sports Park, at least as an interim measure in these hard times? What is it people say, something like: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
1) Personally, I’m not in favor of selling the Civic Center site – it was a late addition to the City proposal, it can be removed if the Council wishes. This wasn’t added at the request of the youth sports groups. The idea of selling that for housing actually came up as a separate idea by some Council members (as has been discussed in one of these discussions in this blog) – someone thought it would make sense, the only change is that the money be applied to this project rather than a different parks related project.
2) The current DLL park is primarily for the benefit of DLL – they pay for the maintenance of it now. Losing that doesn’t have a big effect on park usage of non-DLL people.
3) I don’t really see any “unused” park space in the city – so if you take a portion of some other park and change its use to be ball fields, you are taking out something that someone else is using. The sports park plan ADDS net park space to the city, and that is a good thing.
4) Joint school/city uses have always been contentious, and many of the youth groups have a lot of difficulty in using school related sites. The schools are required to manage their assets for the benefit of the schools, not of the youth sports groups. It has been tried in many ways, there has always been a problem. Those situations that have been working to some degree are temporary situations that can be changed by the school at any time – and we need permanent solutions, not temporary ones.
5) We’ve been working with ‘temporary’ solutions for years – it is time to find permanent solutions. This sports park won’t be built overnight if approved, it will take time.
6) Give me an example of a suggestion for “adding some new national-standard fields in parks around town”. Mace Ranch Community Park? We have backstops, but the neighbors don’t want lights. Adding fences then takes away access to soccer, thereby reducing the available fields to that group. We don’t need to just improve the quality of existing fields, we need to increase the number of fields that we have, over time.
Lots of thought is given to improving things in the city, but nothing that has the chance of meeting the needs in the General Plan that were established. There have been some incremental improvements where possible – such as the creation of the all-weather field at Playfields Park, which makes it available during the winter when the older field was unusable. These are small improvements when you consider what is needed.