A few days ago, a press release came out of the city that there was a traffic alert for Road 102. The city laid out that there was going to be a major effort to haul dirt created by the Surface Water Treatment Plant to the Cannery Project.
The city reports, “The Contractor, CH2M Hill, will be hauling approx. 80,000 cubic yards of soil for use at the Cannery which equates to about 10,000 truckloads. CH2M Hill, expects that at its peak, a truck will be leaving the Surface Water Treatment Plant every 2-3 minutes, with 20-30 trucks per hour from 7am – 4:30 pm.”
They continued, “Expect traffic delays of up to 10 minutes on County Road 102 due to northbound lane #2 closure at the intersection of County Road 24 (East Gibson) and County Road 102. Motorists are asked to be on the lookout for construction traffic and to use detours and/or allow extra time to reach their destinations. Traffic signage will be posted on County Road 102.”
It makes some sense that the surface water project is producing extra dirt while the Cannery project sites needs dirt to fill in and level the site. But the impact is massive – 10,000 truckloads, 20 or 30 per hour, all day, perhaps though late August.
I was curious so I examined the Environmental Impact Report for the Cannery and found no mention of the impact of 10,000 truckloads of dirt. There was a mention on page 326 of the EIR, “The project applicant shall implement the following dust control measures during all construction activities.”
But this is a dust impact and covers “all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material.” It also interestingly notes, “All grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts measured by an on‐site anemometer) exceed 25 mph and dust has the potential to adversely affect adjacent residential properties.”
There was also a mention about a commenter requesting information related to the import of fill material during construction.
“This information is contained in the Draft EIR. Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR contains a detailed description of construction phasing and activities. The Draft EIR indicates that up to 110,000 cubic yards of fill material would be imported to the site over a period of 30 days. A hauling truck is assumed to contain 20 cubic yards of material, and this translates to approximately 180 round trips (360 total trips) by haul trucks per day for the 30-day period.”
They then downplay the impact with, “It can be assumed that haul trips would be evenly dispersed throughout the work day, and thus not concentrated during peak AM or PM periods. Moreover, it is likely that haul trips would utilize convenient routes in and out of Davis rather than directly through the City.”
They continue arguing that this level of hauling “would not have a significant impact on traffic and circulation, as it represents far fewer trips per day… than is the case for the project under operational conditions (12,040).”
They noted at that time, “The exact location of where the fill will come from is not known at this time, it is expected that it would be from one or more commercially available sources, without disruption to environmental resources or habitat.”
Clearly, at this point, the drafters of the EIR had no idea that the city would be able to cut a deal with the Clean Water Agency for dirt, but clearly, as well, the impact of this project is far greater than was let on in the EIR analysis.
None of this appears to have been publicly discussed prior to the announcement on July 10 from the city, and the impacts on traffic, specifically on Road 102, appear to far exceed what the EIR suggested.
In the draft EIR it notes that there will be about 180 haul trips per day for 30 days. However, my math indicates that only comes to 5400, nearly half of what they are now suggested as 10,000 truckloads, 20 or 30 per hour, a truck every 2 to 3 minutes on a narrow and congested roadway.
It is still may be a good deal for all involved, but the lack of public discussion here is a bit interesting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Where will those trucks enter the Cannery site? Will they go all the way down to Covell and then turn west to get there?
thought i read that they would entering from the north and avoiding covell.
Where will those trucks enter the Cannery site? Will they go all the way down to Covell and then turn west to get there?
thought i read that they would entering from the north and avoiding covell.
“None of this appears to have been publicly discussed prior to the announcement on July 10 from the city and the impacts on traffic, specifically on Road 102 appear to far exceed what the EIR suggested.”
It is only if you have never lived in close proximity to a major construction project that this will come as a surprise.
I have twice had this experience, once in Orange county when nearby strawberry fields were being converted to a cookie cutter housing development and once here when the build out of the phase of North Star north of Anderson was occurring. In both cases there were lengthy traffic delays and significant dust and air pollutant factors.
You are right that this never seemed to become an issue for public comment. I was guilty of making the apparently erroneous assumption that because I knew it, everyone else was also aware. What the developer will tend to present when pitching a project is how lovely it will be for the residents once it is completed, usually with a time line of about 15 years for the canopy to be restored. What they do not tend to present is what it will cost the adjacent residents, cleanliness of the neighborhood ( we lived with near constant visible dust in the air and thus on nearly every surface of our home for months ), need to use detours, noise pollution ( definitely a factor if you happen to work nights and sleep during the day, or have an infant at home both of which applied to me) during the North Star build out. I blame only myself for not bringing up these “hidden costs” during public discussion, not that I feel that it would have made any difference given the inexorable pressure to “make this happen” from the developer and those that they convinced would have a “lovely neighborhood” once the dust settled.
Why doesn’t the city require more mature trees to be planted? That would help.
Ask an arborist… which tree is most likely to be thriving best ten yearsafter planting: a 5 gallon tree, a ten gallon tree, a 20 gallon tree or a boxed tree.
The smaller the better when planted; follow-up care makes the most difference.
“None of this appears to have been publicly discussed prior to the announcement on July 10 from the city and the impacts on traffic, specifically on Road 102 appear to far exceed what the EIR suggested.”
It is only if you have never lived in close proximity to a major construction project that this will come as a surprise.
I have twice had this experience, once in Orange county when nearby strawberry fields were being converted to a cookie cutter housing development and once here when the build out of the phase of North Star north of Anderson was occurring. In both cases there were lengthy traffic delays and significant dust and air pollutant factors.
You are right that this never seemed to become an issue for public comment. I was guilty of making the apparently erroneous assumption that because I knew it, everyone else was also aware. What the developer will tend to present when pitching a project is how lovely it will be for the residents once it is completed, usually with a time line of about 15 years for the canopy to be restored. What they do not tend to present is what it will cost the adjacent residents, cleanliness of the neighborhood ( we lived with near constant visible dust in the air and thus on nearly every surface of our home for months ), need to use detours, noise pollution ( definitely a factor if you happen to work nights and sleep during the day, or have an infant at home both of which applied to me) during the North Star build out. I blame only myself for not bringing up these “hidden costs” during public discussion, not that I feel that it would have made any difference given the inexorable pressure to “make this happen” from the developer and those that they convinced would have a “lovely neighborhood” once the dust settled.
Why doesn’t the city require more mature trees to be planted? That would help.
Ask an arborist… which tree is most likely to be thriving best ten yearsafter planting: a 5 gallon tree, a ten gallon tree, a 20 gallon tree or a boxed tree.
The smaller the better when planted; follow-up care makes the most difference.
Who will pay to fix the damage that all these trucks of dirt surely will cause on Road 102 and the rest of the route?
The taxpayers will pay, that is the residents of Davis. We will pay with damaged roads, delays, inconvience, dust, and noise while it’s being built. Once it’s built we will pay for heavier use of our infastructure, noise, traffic, crowding and light pollution. The project will provide the city with income for ten years at which point it will cost the city money and that will continue for the life of the project which will be 50 to 100 years depending on the quality of construction. How does a city decide to okay a project which will only pay for itself for ten years? Because we have to add a certain number of housing units to fulfill our regional obligation to growth? What do we get out of it? More people, more competition for services, and more fiscal distress in the long run.
I learned the architect for the low income housing is the same firm that designed Ceasar Chavez Plaza which is a design that totally ignores our climate and the opportunities for natural cooling we have in the valley. I tried to talk to the architect after a city councl meeting but he just walked away when he realized I wasn’t amoung the many who think it looks great.
DB wrote:
> I learned the architect for the low income housing is the same
> firm that designed Ceasar Chavez Plaza
It will be interesting to see what the politically connected architects that design “affordable” housing in Yolo County get paid vs. the architects that design “market rate” housing (back when I worked in SF it was about twice as much, with much of the extra money expected to come back in the form of (perfectly legal) campaign “contributions” if they wanted to keep getting work…
Who will pay to fix the damage that all these trucks of dirt surely will cause on Road 102 and the rest of the route?
The taxpayers will pay, that is the residents of Davis. We will pay with damaged roads, delays, inconvience, dust, and noise while it’s being built. Once it’s built we will pay for heavier use of our infastructure, noise, traffic, crowding and light pollution. The project will provide the city with income for ten years at which point it will cost the city money and that will continue for the life of the project which will be 50 to 100 years depending on the quality of construction. How does a city decide to okay a project which will only pay for itself for ten years? Because we have to add a certain number of housing units to fulfill our regional obligation to growth? What do we get out of it? More people, more competition for services, and more fiscal distress in the long run.
I learned the architect for the low income housing is the same firm that designed Ceasar Chavez Plaza which is a design that totally ignores our climate and the opportunities for natural cooling we have in the valley. I tried to talk to the architect after a city councl meeting but he just walked away when he realized I wasn’t amoung the many who think it looks great.
DB wrote:
> I learned the architect for the low income housing is the same
> firm that designed Ceasar Chavez Plaza
It will be interesting to see what the politically connected architects that design “affordable” housing in Yolo County get paid vs. the architects that design “market rate” housing (back when I worked in SF it was about twice as much, with much of the extra money expected to come back in the form of (perfectly legal) campaign “contributions” if they wanted to keep getting work…
A hassle, yes. Avoidable? Probably not. To my knowledge, the trucks have every right to travel on the County road. Just as Mike Harrington who had dump trucks traveling up F Street for a week, leaving a trail of dirt all the way from 5th & D Street to the dump when he dug a basement on one of his properties. No one asked about mitigation, nor was he required to clean up after himself.
I appreciate the City telling us, so we can use Hwy 113 for the next month or so.
A hassle, yes. Avoidable? Probably not. To my knowledge, the trucks have every right to travel on the County road. Just as Mike Harrington who had dump trucks traveling up F Street for a week, leaving a trail of dirt all the way from 5th & D Street to the dump when he dug a basement on one of his properties. No one asked about mitigation, nor was he required to clean up after himself.
I appreciate the City telling us, so we can use Hwy 113 for the next month or so.
Aside from a few dozen bicyclists, like me, who ride out Road 29 and Road 102 regularly, the main impact of this giant dirt hauling project will be on the hundreds of Davis and Woodland commuters who use those two roads as a highway, half going one way, the other going the reverse course. It’s really quite amazing to me how many cars there are on Road 29 from 6 am and 9 am from Road 102 to Road 99. Road 27 also gets a lot of this “cut through” traffic from 102 to 113, but as a cyclist, I never use that route.
The one group which will not be impacted at all by this project will, of course, be the phony bag-banners, who based their b.s. rhetoric on the notion that Road 28H is covered by plastic grocery bags. (I mean you Mark Murray, Alan Pryor, and the hundreds of college kids who cried over this issue at Council.) I know they won’t be impacted, because clearly they’ve never spend any time in that terrain.
Aside from a few dozen bicyclists, like me, who ride out Road 29 and Road 102 regularly, the main impact of this giant dirt hauling project will be on the hundreds of Davis and Woodland commuters who use those two roads as a highway, half going one way, the other going the reverse course. It’s really quite amazing to me how many cars there are on Road 29 from 6 am and 9 am from Road 102 to Road 99. Road 27 also gets a lot of this “cut through” traffic from 102 to 113, but as a cyclist, I never use that route.
The one group which will not be impacted at all by this project will, of course, be the phony bag-banners, who based their b.s. rhetoric on the notion that Road 28H is covered by plastic grocery bags. (I mean you Mark Murray, Alan Pryor, and the hundreds of college kids who cried over this issue at Council.) I know they won’t be impacted, because clearly they’ve never spend any time in that terrain.
How many tomato trucks travelled this same route for years and years?
How about we take care of our own first before we take on the rest of the world?
I don’t have any trucks to take care of…
Back when Hunt’s/Con Agra was open for business, thousands of tomato trucks drove Road 102 every season. So that’s a good point, David. However, I suspect those dirt-hauling trucks weigh a lot more than a tomato truck.
For those of you (especially the bag-banners) who never experience Yolo County roads, you may be unaware of the fact that in our region of southern Yolo County and northern Solano County thousands of acres which had been planted in canning tomatoes in years past have, in the last 5-10 years, been re-cast as orchards. In fact, along Road 29 from 113 to 102, several new walnut and almond orchards have been planted the last 2-3 years. We are slowly reverting back to what we were from the late 1800s to about 1950: an orchard and grain farming region, with very few tomato farms. There still, of course, are a lot of canning tomatoes grown here. But it’s clear our farmers (largely due to China’s demand for walnuts and almonds and the loss of all the proximate tomato canneries) are planting fewer and fewer tomatoes.
That said, I saw something on Sunday which surprised me. I was biking out to Lake Solano, out on Road 29 or maybe 29A, I don’t recall exactly where I was, and I came across tomatoes being harvested (and consequently the roads covered in dirt clods from the tires of the tomato trucks). It’s a big surprise because it is very early in the calendar for tomatoes to be harvested. Those must have been planted far earlier than normal, and I guess that was done as a result of the lack of rain.
“However, I suspect those dirt-hauling trucks weigh a lot more than a tomato truck.”
It is doubtful that there is much difference. The maximum weight of the truck/trailer/load combination is determined by prevailing law and the appropriate truck/trailer combination is selected to minimize the total number of loads. Fully laden the two are probably similar in total weight.
Not to mention the trucks leaving fully loaded with canned tomatoes…
Plus sunflowers, and some pistachios (I’m aware of four pistachio orchards). And there’s even a chestnut orchard on the way out to Winters. Nut crops are replacing row crops all over Yolo and Solano Counties. If you add the value of walnuts and almonds together, they are now #2 in Yolo County behind processing tomatoes, and increasing substantially year to year. In terms of acreage: tomatoes are 36,000 acres (down), walnuts are 13,357 acres (up), almonds are 14,478 acres (up). Sunflowers are almost 22,000 acres and also increasing. Note those are 2012 figures, so they don’t reflect the short-term impact of the drought, nor the production of the newest nut orchards yet.
Don, do you know more-less why sugar beets, which once were a major crop in the Davis region, but now are gone completely, stopped being grown around here? I know that the Spreckels Sugar plant in Woodland closed in 2001, and that may have been a factor. However, sugar beet harvests in our area seemed to have ceased many years prior to its closure.
All I can guess–and perhaps you know–is that substitutes (like high fructose corn syrup and maybe more imported cane sugar) made beet sugar non-competitive?
I sat with a sugar beet farmer at a Bank of Dixon dinner one time in the early 1980’s, and got pretty much the whole rundown on the sugar industry in California. Essentially the only thing that kept the beet growers profitable here was the price support system, which kept the minimum price for sugar well above the world market price. When that was changed, it was no longer profitable here (though I guess it still is in some areas in the US). It was a marginally profitable crop grown on marginal soils, supported by government subsidies.
Brazil. Ethanol. Actually, ethanol may revive sugar beets in some counties where the soils are too marginal for good yields from higher value crops, there is enough water and there is a way to unload your ethanol economically.
Thanks, Don.
Rice is a similar story in our region. However, because the subsidies are so massive, it’s not “marginally profitable.” It’s VERY profitable. But if the subsidies and welfare payments to rice farmers were taken away, almost no rice would be grown in the Sacramento River rice belt.
A side note on rice: I wrote my very first column for The Davis Enterprise decrying the massive welfare payments to all grain farmers, but especially those to rich rice farmers in our region. One of those rich rice farmers, Charlie Rominger (who subsequently passed away) read my column and put up a defense of the subsidies. I thought most of his points were nonsense.
However, one thing he said was true, and I have no answer against it: Charlie said that without rice farming, the Pacific Flyway through the Sacramento Valley would not be able to support even 10% of the birds it does due to rice.
So in that sense there is an environmental benefit to subsidizing rice. But, considering fairness, I’d rather use that $1 billion a year in welfare payments the US government gives to rice farmers and instead help the poor. On the other hand, there are a lot of really nice cars bought by rich rice farmers with that welfare.
I was told by a lifelong Colusa County rice farmer that the duck clubs are extremely profitable. I wonder if the farmers would keep growing rice just to keep the hunters coming.
Rich wrote:
> That said, I saw something on Sunday which surprised me.
I saw something today that surprised me as I drove (in a car with AC not my bike in the 100 degree heat) past the Cannery twice today. Both times a private (no city logo) street cleaner was driving on Covell in front of the site cleaning up the mess from the dirt trucks…
SoD, it would not surprise me if a contract condition of allowing this dirt moving was that the developer or his subcontractor had to also pay for the street cleaner that you saw. Either that or the developer decided it would be really bad P.R. if Covell Blvd. became dirt covered or worse if someone had an accident.
Brazil. Ethanol.
Ooops. That was supposed to appear up above a little further.
Not to mention countless garbage trucks from Davis and Woodland heading to the landfill.
John Harvey with the UC Davis Pavement Research Center would be a good resource to check with if people want to get beyond speculation.
How many tomato trucks travelled this same route for years and years?
How about we take care of our own first before we take on the rest of the world?
I don’t have any trucks to take care of…
Back when Hunt’s/Con Agra was open for business, thousands of tomato trucks drove Road 102 every season. So that’s a good point, David. However, I suspect those dirt-hauling trucks weigh a lot more than a tomato truck.
For those of you (especially the bag-banners) who never experience Yolo County roads, you may be unaware of the fact that in our region of southern Yolo County and northern Solano County thousands of acres which had been planted in canning tomatoes in years past have, in the last 5-10 years, been re-cast as orchards. In fact, along Road 29 from 113 to 102, several new walnut and almond orchards have been planted the last 2-3 years. We are slowly reverting back to what we were from the late 1800s to about 1950: an orchard and grain farming region, with very few tomato farms. There still, of course, are a lot of canning tomatoes grown here. But it’s clear our farmers (largely due to China’s demand for walnuts and almonds and the loss of all the proximate tomato canneries) are planting fewer and fewer tomatoes.
That said, I saw something on Sunday which surprised me. I was biking out to Lake Solano, out on Road 29 or maybe 29A, I don’t recall exactly where I was, and I came across tomatoes being harvested (and consequently the roads covered in dirt clods from the tires of the tomato trucks). It’s a big surprise because it is very early in the calendar for tomatoes to be harvested. Those must have been planted far earlier than normal, and I guess that was done as a result of the lack of rain.
“However, I suspect those dirt-hauling trucks weigh a lot more than a tomato truck.”
It is doubtful that there is much difference. The maximum weight of the truck/trailer/load combination is determined by prevailing law and the appropriate truck/trailer combination is selected to minimize the total number of loads. Fully laden the two are probably similar in total weight.
Not to mention the trucks leaving fully loaded with canned tomatoes…
Plus sunflowers, and some pistachios (I’m aware of four pistachio orchards). And there’s even a chestnut orchard on the way out to Winters. Nut crops are replacing row crops all over Yolo and Solano Counties. If you add the value of walnuts and almonds together, they are now #2 in Yolo County behind processing tomatoes, and increasing substantially year to year. In terms of acreage: tomatoes are 36,000 acres (down), walnuts are 13,357 acres (up), almonds are 14,478 acres (up). Sunflowers are almost 22,000 acres and also increasing. Note those are 2012 figures, so they don’t reflect the short-term impact of the drought, nor the production of the newest nut orchards yet.
Don, do you know more-less why sugar beets, which once were a major crop in the Davis region, but now are gone completely, stopped being grown around here? I know that the Spreckels Sugar plant in Woodland closed in 2001, and that may have been a factor. However, sugar beet harvests in our area seemed to have ceased many years prior to its closure.
All I can guess–and perhaps you know–is that substitutes (like high fructose corn syrup and maybe more imported cane sugar) made beet sugar non-competitive?
I sat with a sugar beet farmer at a Bank of Dixon dinner one time in the early 1980’s, and got pretty much the whole rundown on the sugar industry in California. Essentially the only thing that kept the beet growers profitable here was the price support system, which kept the minimum price for sugar well above the world market price. When that was changed, it was no longer profitable here (though I guess it still is in some areas in the US). It was a marginally profitable crop grown on marginal soils, supported by government subsidies.
Brazil. Ethanol. Actually, ethanol may revive sugar beets in some counties where the soils are too marginal for good yields from higher value crops, there is enough water and there is a way to unload your ethanol economically.
Thanks, Don.
Rice is a similar story in our region. However, because the subsidies are so massive, it’s not “marginally profitable.” It’s VERY profitable. But if the subsidies and welfare payments to rice farmers were taken away, almost no rice would be grown in the Sacramento River rice belt.
A side note on rice: I wrote my very first column for The Davis Enterprise decrying the massive welfare payments to all grain farmers, but especially those to rich rice farmers in our region. One of those rich rice farmers, Charlie Rominger (who subsequently passed away) read my column and put up a defense of the subsidies. I thought most of his points were nonsense.
However, one thing he said was true, and I have no answer against it: Charlie said that without rice farming, the Pacific Flyway through the Sacramento Valley would not be able to support even 10% of the birds it does due to rice.
So in that sense there is an environmental benefit to subsidizing rice. But, considering fairness, I’d rather use that $1 billion a year in welfare payments the US government gives to rice farmers and instead help the poor. On the other hand, there are a lot of really nice cars bought by rich rice farmers with that welfare.
I was told by a lifelong Colusa County rice farmer that the duck clubs are extremely profitable. I wonder if the farmers would keep growing rice just to keep the hunters coming.
Rich wrote:
> That said, I saw something on Sunday which surprised me.
I saw something today that surprised me as I drove (in a car with AC not my bike in the 100 degree heat) past the Cannery twice today. Both times a private (no city logo) street cleaner was driving on Covell in front of the site cleaning up the mess from the dirt trucks…
SoD, it would not surprise me if a contract condition of allowing this dirt moving was that the developer or his subcontractor had to also pay for the street cleaner that you saw. Either that or the developer decided it would be really bad P.R. if Covell Blvd. became dirt covered or worse if someone had an accident.
Brazil. Ethanol.
Ooops. That was supposed to appear up above a little further.
Not to mention countless garbage trucks from Davis and Woodland heading to the landfill.
John Harvey with the UC Davis Pavement Research Center would be a good resource to check with if people want to get beyond speculation.
That is an amazing amount of soil. Cannery is only something like 20 acres, and they’re bringing in 80,000 cubic yards of soil? By my math that could raise the grade of the whole project by a couple of feet. I assume this has been factored into the drainage plan for the project?
This kind of thing leads to interesting soil issues for gardeners later. I think this soil being brought is good, but gardeners in Covell Park, or on the streets in Stonegate north of the lake, have had strange problems over the years due to what was done at the time of subdivision. If you’re on Astoria or Oyster Bay Avenue, my understanding is that you’re gardening on the soil that was dug out to create Stonegate Lake. And Covell Park was filled with, um, whatever was available, it seems. Salinity problems on F and Anza, chunks of asphalt on Jalisco, you name it.
Don wrote:
> Cannery is only something like 20 acres
It sure looked bigger than 20 acres to me. I found something from 2010 calling it a 98 acre site and the recent Enterprise article calls it “100 acres”:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/cannery-development-breaks-ground/#cat_arts
That makes a big difference. Yes, I see 100 acres with 20 acres of open space.
A quick and crude measurement using Google Earth, I came up with 97 acres…
The old warehouse at the cannery, alone, was 5 acres. I know because I worked on the 1979 re-roof. In any case, just looking at 5 acres of concrete six inches thick being removed means one would have to more or less replace that volume with soil or a soil-like stuff. Five acres six inches deep is 4,000 cubic yards. Then, just think about all that expanse of asphalt and concrete pads for the other buildings. I’m surprised they only need to bring in 80,000 yds.
I wonder where all that concrete is going? Do you suppose they will recycle it on-site?
Don’t know, but you should get on your bike and follow one of the concrete trucks and see if they go over to the Teichert plant.
FWIW, early this morning, I rode from my home off Sycamore out to Road 100A and Road 29, where the Teichert Plant is located, then east on 29 to 102 and then I took 102 out to 105 on Road 28H (and then many more miles from there). I mention that because I saw no troubles from the dirt-moving trucks, in terms of spillage or new road damage. And, probably because it was so early, I saw no trucks hauling concrete debris back to Teichert. But I think your supposition about Teichert makes sense.
As an aside … Did you know that out on Tremont Road, not far from I-80, there is a Cemex concrete plant? Cemex is one of the world’s largest concrete companies, and it is the most successful Mexican multinational corporation, not counting their drug-dealing outfits.
Where I live in West Davis, the top soil is actually bottom soil from the drainage ponds around us. Thankfully our lot is small because I have had to remove and replace a lot of it so that plants would actually grow in that pottery lacking any bio material.
So I think this “quality of soil” question is a good one. Hopefully they are not digging too deep at the water plant site.
That is an amazing amount of soil. Cannery is only something like 20 acres, and they’re bringing in 80,000 cubic yards of soil? By my math that could raise the grade of the whole project by a couple of feet. I assume this has been factored into the drainage plan for the project?
This kind of thing leads to interesting soil issues for gardeners later. I think this soil being brought is good, but gardeners in Covell Park, or on the streets in Stonegate north of the lake, have had strange problems over the years due to what was done at the time of subdivision. If you’re on Astoria or Oyster Bay Avenue, my understanding is that you’re gardening on the soil that was dug out to create Stonegate Lake. And Covell Park was filled with, um, whatever was available, it seems. Salinity problems on F and Anza, chunks of asphalt on Jalisco, you name it.
Don wrote:
> Cannery is only something like 20 acres
It sure looked bigger than 20 acres to me. I found something from 2010 calling it a 98 acre site and the recent Enterprise article calls it “100 acres”:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/cannery-development-breaks-ground/#cat_arts
That makes a big difference. Yes, I see 100 acres with 20 acres of open space.
A quick and crude measurement using Google Earth, I came up with 97 acres…
The old warehouse at the cannery, alone, was 5 acres. I know because I worked on the 1979 re-roof. In any case, just looking at 5 acres of concrete six inches thick being removed means one would have to more or less replace that volume with soil or a soil-like stuff. Five acres six inches deep is 4,000 cubic yards. Then, just think about all that expanse of asphalt and concrete pads for the other buildings. I’m surprised they only need to bring in 80,000 yds.
I wonder where all that concrete is going? Do you suppose they will recycle it on-site?
Don’t know, but you should get on your bike and follow one of the concrete trucks and see if they go over to the Teichert plant.
FWIW, early this morning, I rode from my home off Sycamore out to Road 100A and Road 29, where the Teichert Plant is located, then east on 29 to 102 and then I took 102 out to 105 on Road 28H (and then many more miles from there). I mention that because I saw no troubles from the dirt-moving trucks, in terms of spillage or new road damage. And, probably because it was so early, I saw no trucks hauling concrete debris back to Teichert. But I think your supposition about Teichert makes sense.
As an aside … Did you know that out on Tremont Road, not far from I-80, there is a Cemex concrete plant? Cemex is one of the world’s largest concrete companies, and it is the most successful Mexican multinational corporation, not counting their drug-dealing outfits.
Where I live in West Davis, the top soil is actually bottom soil from the drainage ponds around us. Thankfully our lot is small because I have had to remove and replace a lot of it so that plants would actually grow in that pottery lacking any bio material.
So I think this “quality of soil” question is a good one. Hopefully they are not digging too deep at the water plant site.