by Tia Will
My expertise is not in city planning or disaster management. My expertise is in the area of human health and prevention. From my thirty years in medicine, I do know that one would never design a hospital with only two exit doors, side by side onto a crowded thoroughfare. This is the basic design plan for a community projected to have approximately 1,500 inhabitants. I have many reasons for not favoring this project. There is only one however, that I believe is both a deal breaker and which may or may not have been adequately addressed.
I do not know the answer, because I have not read the entire EIR. However, I do know that a previous concern I had about the proximity to the north-south rail line with unknown contents of its cars was not addressed in the EIR, nor were any of our city council members able or willing to respond with the answer although two did say they would look into it. This issue was only satisfactorily addressed by one of my neighbors with extensive experience with the railroads. Not an entirely reassuring omission on the part of the city, which prompts me to question what else might be both missing, and essential.
When I raised the issue of safety, the first response from several sources was to trivialize the issue, one saying “it hasn’t happened here yet”, and another saying the concern is “de minimis”. I would prefer to look at this issue from a basis in fact.
There are many different types of natural and man- made disasters than can occur.
I decided to focus on just one; gas line explosions. I limited my search to the United States and to events of enough significance to have made it to the pages of Wikipedia. In the past decade, there have been 211 explosions/or leakages with the potential for explosion reported in the United States. Twenty-eight of these occurred within 2013. Of these, eleven resulted in either evacuations, deaths or both. I leave it to the reader to decide if this represents a”trivial concern”.
One such disaster has special pertinence to this particular project design. That is the gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno in 2010. San Bruno is a suburb of San Francisco.
In 2010 a pipeline explosion there killed eight and destroyed somewhere between 40 and 50 homes and severely damaged many more. It was the aerial views of this disaster that caught my attention. The explosion occurred near the juncture of two major roadways in the community. I then looked at the proposed map of The Cannery. This project is essentially one big cul de sac. There are two major north south streets which converge into one exit path with two exits onto Covell. What I wondered is, what is the contingency for evacuation of the population should an explosion occur at number nine on the Cannery schematic ? Is there an alternative route in or out that would not be blocked by emergency vehicles attempting control and rescue ?
I cannot see that this contingency has been addressed. If it has, then I believe that it should be readily available in the EIR. It may be that it has been, and that all of our
City Council members have simply been too busy to reply to my requests on this issue. However, if it has not been, I would sincerely request that our city staff safety officers and our city council take the time to address this very real concern before proceeding with a “yes” vote. At a minimum, I would recommend taking a look at the San Bruno pictures, taking a look at the design of The Cannery and asking some very basic questions.
1) What is the likelihood of a disaster occurrin ? Is the risk really so low as to be discounted ?
2) If one feels that the risk is significant, is there a realistic evacuation plan in place ?
3) If there is no realistic evacuation plan in place, is it possible to modify the project such that one can be built into the design ?
I am sorry if I sound unreasonable,repetitive or impatient with this concern. But please, understand, that just as I would make a disclaimer of any personal or financial interest before giving an educational talk, I am disclosing here that I have no financial or personal interest in this project . My primary concern is, as it has been throughout my career, the health and safety of individuals and our community.
I do not believe that this project, as designed, meets those concerns.
In a major emergency the people could walk out to the fields to the north or east if they couldn’t drive out.
Mr. Toad
[quote]In a major emergency the people could walk out to the fields to the north or east if they couldn’t drive out.[/quote]
Incredibly enough, a council member actually said that to me last night. That might work for the able bodied in an event such as an earthquake which was the example given. How well do you think that strategy will work for the elderly or others of limited mobility, or for the parent at home with an infant and two toddlers, or in the event that the disaster involves toxic fumes ?
Infants, children, physically and mentally challenged and senior citizens are simply not valued as much in Davis. Oh, and apparently our animals are not valued much, either.
Evidence is those ridiculous comments that everyone could just walk out.
This is a very well written article, madwoman.
*medwoman*. I swear that was a horrible typo. Sorry.
And God forbid if you are growing some organic food, you can just walk away from your hard-earned food for your family, too. Just go buy your four week old bagged lettuce from Safeway after you walk out to the field. I bet there are lots of nutrients and good stuff in that bagged lettuce.
medwoman, have other residential developments been required to submit evacuation plans prior to approval? I must confess that I have never seen an evacuation plan for the entire development where I live.
medwoman wrote:
> In the past decade, there have been 211 explosions/or
> leakages with the potential for explosion reported in
> the United States. Twenty-eight of these occurred
> within 2013.
You can add one more since someone started a gas leak and tried to kill some Fraternity guys here in Davis a few days ago (but since Fraternity guys are mostly white it was not covered by David on the Vanguard).
> I am disclosing here that I have no financial or
> personal interest in this project.
While I believe that you don’t have any “financial” interest, someone that has no “personal” interest in something does not make over 100 posts against it and write a 700 word guest post to a Blog against it (pretending to care about safety).
A few questions for medwoman:
Have you ever written about the safety of another neighborhood (or like the fake senior group that popped up to stop the Cannery) is this the only neighborhood you are worried about?
Why did you chose to raise your kids in Northstar that like the Cannery only has two ways in or out (unless you don’t think it is a problem and just want to stop the Cannery)?
If your “primary concern is, as it has been throughout my career, the health and safety of individuals and our community” why not write about a neighborhood that like El Macero or Northstar where people actually live and are in danger with only two ways in out (unless you just wanted to stop the Cannery)?
ebowler- your little neighborhood community could come up with an evacation plan. Ask our fire dept. to help you. They are very kind and helpful. My daughter & her friends did it in their apt. complex in San Francisco, for earthquake awareness week.
Re: emergency evacuations: My south Davis neighborhood suffered a fire in 2006. You could look into the history of how long it took the neighbors, with help from the hard-working fire dept.(thank you, davis firefighters) to evacuate just 15 homes. I shudder to think of the process if it were hundreds of families. Shudder. A teenager who had a key to my home helped my labrador retriever because I was at the grocery store at the time.
“In a major emergency the people could walk out to the fields to the north or east if they couldn’t drive out. “
really? that doesn’t sound safe, sensible or practical.
P.S. re: safety evacuations:
The fire dept. was also very kind after the fire, when I needed a letter to my employer to prove my home was evacuated to prove why I had to miss some time from work. (Smoke damage in my home.)Multiply all that work times hundreds of families who will need assistance, God forbid, in an emergency.
Oh boy I have a lot to say about evacuations. At SCIF and WIC we had a few bomb threats and/or safety drills and had to evacuate our building of over two hundred people. Those folks were all in the same building; it still took a long time. Really think about all the different kinds of evacuations that could occur, like a gas line, like medwoman noted. Or other kinds of false alarms. Please really give this some serious thought. Two exits are simple not enough. Thank you to medwoman for explaining this so well. Good job.
“really? that doesn’t sound safe, sensible or practical.”
Why not? Is driving out in an emergency somehow safer?
“or for the parent at home with an infant and two toddlers, or in the event that the disaster involves toxic fumes?”
You would probably be asked to shelter in place in that type of situation.
As for your vegetables or other property in an emergency they are expendable. Human life always gets the highest priority. People who lack mobility might need to get out by car but people who are ambulatory could walk or bike out freeing up the roads.
“Why not? Is driving out in an emergency somehow safer? “
yes, depending on what the emergency is, it may not be close.
“They are expendable.”
Your definition of human life is more valued in the village of Davis. Our trees, our labradors, our cats and fish, our healthy vegetables. All creatures great and small are also expendable, all in the name of the almighty buck. Thank you for explaining what Daivis is becoming so eloquently.
I wondered what new manufactured concern would arrive to try and stop development of the Cannery. Nice imagery of our older citizens and pets unable to escape the confines of this new smartly designed neighborhood as a cloud of toxic fumes engulf it. Do you people write for Hollywood, or is it just a hobby?
The author of this piece would have more credibility if she hadn’t been opposed to this project from the start using every Imaginable reason to try to kill the project.
“all in the name of the almighty buck. “
No, for the safety of humans.
“The author of this piece would have more credibility if she hadn’t been opposed to this project from the start using every Imaginable reason to try to kill the project. “
because only people who agree with you can conceivably have a valid point? she either has a valid point or she doesn’t? we can evaluate it indpenendent of her view of the project.
Looking at the map of the current proposal, I see a maintenance road possibly opening onto F Street. I see several streets dead-ending on the West side that could be turned into exit routes with very minor design reconfiguration. I am not sure what kind of emergency is likely — is there actually a gas line under this project that is old enough to be a risk? It’s been quite awhile since we had a serious earthquake in our region, and that was between Vacaville and Winters in the late 19th century.
Rather than ask city council members, I’d suggest you address your questions to the appropriate staff people in public works, city planning, and the fire department.
No, for the safety of humans.
My friend with muscular dystrophy, who has a trained golden retriever at his side, would disagree with your cruel remark. His dog is his life line.
My mom’s alzheimer’s facility would also disagree with you about the value of our feline friends who comfort our seniors.
Every creature great and small has value on this planet.
I bet you wouldn’t mind shooting a few more coyote moms and their baby cubs, too.
*baby pups*
Listen to the boy scouts and be prepared. Look at the school in Oklahoma that was not properly built to withstand tornadoes. Maybe some politicians and short-sighted citizens rushed that project through, also.
Without arguing the validity of this concern as such, I suggest that there are several other neighborhoods in Davis that currently have similar single-entry-point design. The concern is as applicable to an older neighborhood as a new one. As for the example, I am not certain that there is a large gas main running near the Cannery site.
What I am certain of is that there is a high-pressure petroleum pipeline on the south side of the east-west railroad line the runs from Richmond to Sparks, NV. On May 12, 1989 a similar pipeline was damaged by a train derailment in San Bernardino. The damage was not caught by pipe inspectors, and 13 days later the high pressure ruptured the pipe and sprayed the neighborhood with petroleum, which ignited, destroying 11 houses and killing two. This potential hazard exists in Davis today for existing neighborhoods and downtown. This is not “news”, but occasionally citizens should be made aware.
“I bet you wouldn’t mind shooting a few more coyote moms and their baby cubs, too.”
In a life and death emergency, given a choice between saving humans and saving coyotes, I’m going with the humans every time.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”I wondered what [b]new manufactured concern[/b] would arrive to try and stop development of the Cannery. Nice imagery of our older citizens and pets unable to escape the confines of this new smartly designed neighborhood as a cloud of toxic fumes engulf it. Do you people write for Hollywood, or is it just a hobby?”[/i]
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”The author of this piece would have more credibility if she hadn’t been opposed to this project from the start using every Imaginable reason to try to kill the project.”[/i]
My personal opinion is that both the above comments are off the mark. Medwoman has been beating the safety drum for well over six months. This is neither non-credible, nor new, nor a manufactured concern. If you think otherwise you simply haven’t been listening.
JMHO
First it was an “innovative design.” Then she demanded a healthy lifestyle. Now a level of safety she doesn’t enjoy in her own home where there are actually more real threats from rail cars and pipelines. In JMHO, she has no credibility whatsoeve,r she has forfeited it by her constant fishing for reasons to deny the project.
[quote]medwoman, have other residential developments been required to submit evacuation plans prior to approval? I must confess that I have never seen an evacuation plan for the entire development where I live.[/quote]
I don’t know the answer to this question. if the answer is “yes” then it is remiss if it has not been considered here. If the answer is “no”, then in my opinion it is time to start considering safety including a feasible evacuation route for future projects.
Medwoman wrote:
> I don’t know the answer to this question.
But you do know the answer to my three questions.
[quote]“The author of this piece would have more credibility if she hadn’t been opposed to this project from the start using every Imaginable reason to try to kill the project.”[/quote]
So only people who support the project our deemed credible when expressing concerns over it? I believe it’s possible to not support new housing projects in a general, AND have legitimate critiques of the specific plans for one. Not everyone’s actions have ulterior motives.
SouthofDavis
[quote]Have you ever written about the safety of another neighborhood (or like the fake senior group that popped up to stop the Cannery) is this the only neighborhood you are worried about?
Why did you chose to raise your kids in Northstar that like the Cannery only has two ways in or out (unless you don’t think it is a problem and just want to stop the Cannery)?
If your “primary concern is, as it has been throughout my career, the health and safety of individuals and our community” why not write about a neighborhood that like El Macero or Northstar where people actually live and are in danger with only two ways in out (unless you just wanted to stop the Cannery)?
[/quote]
I am happy to answer your questions.
1) Yes, I have expressed my concern about the Olive Drive community on a number of occasions. Once in person to two of our current council members who can vouch for me and on a number of posts here where I have stated that I see the Cannery as an “upscale” trap much like Olive Drive. Please check previous posts it shouldn’t be hard to find.
2) The personal reason that I raised my children in North Star is that I gave in to unreasonable demands of my emotionally abusive husband in a last ditch, futile effort to save my family. Now, as to the correlation to the Cannery, there isn’t one. The two situations are very different. While there are only two exists they are at opposite ends of the development, one of the east, one on west, one exiting onto F st and the other via Anderson. There are two directions on F street onto which cars could be diverted if necessary, one north, one south. With the Cannery, the only publically available exits are to the south and within a few yards of each other. Maybe you do not see this as a major difference, but I do.
3) I have stated on a different thread that I am not familiar with El Macero and therefore cannot speak to it.
My answer to the North Star issue is as above. One final point. I do not see that my opinion could possibly be of any use in changing the existing configurations of either El Macero or North Star. If these are indeed dangerous situations, does that mean that we should construct yet another ? However, since the Cannery is not yet built, perhaps this concern could be taken into account before it is actually built.
Honestly, it really doesn’t matter to me who does or does not believe that I have credibility.
What matters to me is that concerns that have the ability to affect many lives are considered prior to making suboptimal choices, no matter how many times suboptimal choices have been made in the past.
In my presentation to CC last night, I felt that I made it clear that 1) my opposition to the Cannery is at this point conditional based on the answer to the safety issue I raised. I also made it clear that I do not know the answer. There may not be a gas main or any other major risk. If not, that might reduce the risk to the negligible. There might be a plan for evacuation that would meet a reasonable standard, if so then, at least per community sentiment, the project should go forward. My goal is not to block a project that is desired by the majority of the community even if I do not feel that it meets their stated goals or is a good fit for our community.
2) I am not arguing to block it. I am arguing to make it safe. Given that I have stated that I do not favor it for a variety of reasons, I fully recognize that large numbers of people have worked to make this a better project from their point of view and it would seem that the developers have worked with a number of groups to try to improve it. This does not alter the fact that building an intrinsically unsafe community, if that were to be the case, is not a wise decision. Given the 2010 situation in San Bruno, how could someone reasonable argue against looking into the safety factor prior to proceeding ?
Frankly
[quote]Do you people write for Hollywood, or is it just a hobby?[/quote]
Well if I do, I had to go no further than the news clips of San Bruno for source material. I can only imagine that the folks whose families were destroyed by that blast would have appreciated a little more attention to safety.
Don Shor
[quote]Rather than ask city council members, I’d suggest you address your questions to the appropriate staff people in public works, city planning, and the fire department.[/quote]
This is a solid point. However, I have neither the time, energy or knowledge of the individuals involved. And, one further reason for going directly to the CC. They are the one’s who will be voting. I feel it is their job to weigh all the pros and cons and make a decision.
[quote], I am not certain that there is a large gas main running near the Cannery site. [/quote]
There’s a gas transmission line that crosses Covell at L Street. I believe it runs along the east side of the Cannery parcel and north into the county. PG&E recently replaced it; you may have seen the bore-and-jack operation that was in progress a few weeks ago.
Why can’t there be an exit onto F St on the North/East end? Was it concerns regarding the noise associated with a railroad crossing?
This is what I was referring to in an earlier comment: [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Canneryaccess.png[/img]
Why isn’t a main exit being considered onto F St.?
There will not be a crossing from the cannery to F St. at grade because the railroad would never allow it. There will never be an above or below grade crossing to F St. from the cannery because it is astronomically expensive. There may eventually be one for bicycles and pedestrians, And the city should prepare for this eventuality for when Coville Village is built, but it is probably not reasonable to build it for this project due to the economics.
“There will not be a crossing from the cannery to F St. at grade because the railroad would never allow it. “
Why?
It looks as though there will be some kind of frontage road, access road, maintenance road or whatever along the railroad tracks along F Street. So in the event of an emergency, presumably people from the north end of the project could be evacuated by safety professionals along that.
B Nice
[quote]“There will not be a crossing from the cannery to F St. at grade because the railroad would never allow it. “
Why?[/quote]
I hope Alan will correct me if I have this wrong. I believe it relates to safety / liability concerns on the part of the railroad with regard to accidents at grade level train / road intersections.
California Northern has a lease and runs the trains on the north-south line, but Union Pacific owns the land. The City requested a similar ’emergency crossing’ to evacuate Olive Drive, across the tracks from L Street and 2nd, and the railroad fought this along with the pedestrian crossing from Olive Drive to the Amtrak station. Such emergency crossings are not common. Railroad policy is to slowly reduce the number of at-grade crossings over time, and there is an unofficial UPRR policy that requires an entity to pay to close two crossings if one crossing is added. There is no distinction for what the city is calling an emergency crossing. While an at-grade pedestrian crossing may cost a couple of $million, a grade-separated, auto-ped bridge averages about $30million, less in a rural setting, considerably more in a dense urban area where land acquisition and building removal are necessary, and considerably more for an under-crossing. My guess is an auto, “emergency” crossing without lights would be in the $3-4 million range, but it also will never happen. The railroad will fight it, appeal it, and use their formidable legal power to tie up the idea for years. Also, I believe that idea was dropped from more recent versions of the plan due to “noise considerations”, but I suspect practicality was the actual reason.