SN&R August 26, 1999
But environmentalists say that rezoning is the real issue.
"We don’t want to get to that point because then we’ve already lost it," said Tim Vendlinski, coordinator of the Arcade Creek Restoration Project, a group of private citizens dedicated to protecting Arcade Creek and its environs from development.
The Gleaners are engaged in "poor planning," according to environmentalist Alta Tura of the Sacramento Urban Creeks Council.
Vendlinski wrote his UC Davis senior thesis about Arcade Creek, and has pushed to preserve the creek and its environs. In 1994, Vendlinski, Tura and other enviros succeeded in persuading the city to preserve Arcade Creek with a master plan for Del Paso Regional Park. The small parcel now proposed for development was a concession he says he reluctantly made to the city at the time.
When Vendlinski thinks about the Longview oaks, his thoughts often turn to a group of Mira Loma High School students who, like him, are studying seasonal movements of the habitat. Cindy Suchanek, a Mira Loma environmental science teacher, began an ecology project with 140 of her International Baccalaureate program students last year based around Arcade Creek, whose water flows into the Longview oaks site by way of a culvert running under Longview Drive. Two of the five sites her students used in the area are on the contested land.
The student project entails monthly visits to collect data for seven separate studies of plant development, mammal and bird behavior, and the effects of urban runoff from the nearby golf course and softball field around Arcade Creek.
"I love what the Senior Gleaners do," Suchanek said. "Both my parents are Gleaners. But do they have to come over creek side and develop? It’s not even what the kids are doing. I’d hate that to be disrupted, but more importantly, a natural habitat would be disrupted."
Vendlinski and Tura said that the site is considered an oak savannah, the sort of woodland removed to make way for other developments near Arcade Creek like the Haggin Oaks Golf Course and the city’s softball complex. Yet unlike other similar plots of land that have been modified to become drainage ditches, this site remains untouched, forming a natural drainage swale that traps rainwater and sends it into Arcade Creek.
Some of the oaks on the Longview parcel are considered "heritage," more than 200 years old. And around them, Tura said, are healthy young oaks, adding that regenerating oak woodlands are increasingly rare in California. During intense rains, when Arcade Creek’s waters move at high speeds, the Longview oaks, with their relatively calm waters, may also serve as refuge for creek animals, Tura said.
The natural benefits of the land include soaking pollutants out of water in the swale, some of which drains from under the Gleaners facility. Finally, Tura says that drivers on I-80 can see the field of oaks from their cars among the warehouse development, and the site can be refreshing.
"Without the natural areas, there are no reference points for what Sacramento looked like before we came here. This is about the city. It’s not surplus land; it’s integral. Having a functioning habitat like this has a lot of benefits for the community," Vendlinski said.
Vendlinski, who has said "taking on Senior Gleaners is like taking on Mother Teresa," said he has tried to focus responsibility not on the Gleaners, but on the city.
According to Vendlinski, at some point, the city surreptitiously switched the land’s status to "surplus" and put it up for sale without informing the Arcade Creek Restoration Project, which was a stakeholder in the master plan.
Once the land became surplus, it could be shopped around. The city tried to lure a hotel there, but when that fell through, the Gleaners stepped in to purchase it. The property is now in escrow for a $640,000 sale to the Gleaners, while the city considers the rezoning. Without the ability to develop it, the land is useless to the Gleaners.
Also firm in Vendlinski’s memory is how in 1988 the Gleaners expanded onto a new acre with extra pavement for truck maneuvering in 1988. Now, he calls that one-acre paving part of the Gleaners’ "creeping incrementalism" toward the edge of the property.
As for the trust issues, those remain. Vendlinski says he has analyzed the conceptual drawings of the new warehouse and 170-car lot unveiled by the Gleaners, and it would cut down 209 of 239 trees on the lot.
Magel, however, maintains that his plans would remove only 18 trees.
"If we move, we lose our whole volunteer work force in the area," Magel said. He also is wary of the cost and headache of a large move, noting that the Gleaners have already spent about $4 million to $5 million on their current site. "We’re buying the land to save money on the improvements we made and to preserve the heritage of our business," Magel said.
As far as the 1988 expansion, he says it resulted in six transplanted trees and many new parking spaces. But for the new room for cars was not enough to keep Gleaners from having to park along dangerous Longview Drive.
Regarding the swale’s scenic value for I-80 drivers, Magel said, "People aren’t going to look at it as anything. They go by it so fast all they do is shake off the leaves. Tim’s got a vendetta that he doesn’t want it developed since the master plan in 1984. He’s the only ‘no’ in the whole bunch. He’s pissed off because they didn’t tell him they were going to sell it to us. That’s not our fault."
City planning commissioner Philip Harvey voted to approve the rezone, but seems equally concerned about preserving trees and the tributary of the creek.
"The Gleaners have to come back to us with a site plan that preserves the oaks and the tributary," he said. "We made a mistake a long time ago by declaring the site surplus. I’m not quite certain that the Gleaners totally understand the issues, and one of those issues is preserving one of the best oaks preserves left in the city."
Harvey also validated what Vendlinski and others have long claimed: that the Gleaners will eventually outgrow the site completely and have to move anyway. This points to what the enviros claim the city should be doing: moving the Gleaners’ operations to the vast spaces of the defunct McClellan Air Force Base nearby.
"I think it’s pretty logical, and I think if reasonable minds would take a look at the issue, they’d see that they’ve outgrown this site in five years so who knows what’s going to happen next?" Harvey said.
Lockhart said he also has encouraged exploration of a move, but he warned that "re-use of military facilities is a Byzantine issue." He added that "senior citizens don’t like change. They’ve got considerable physical investment in the site. I think they’ve kind of developed a relationship with the land."
Burris said that the Gleaners and the city explored the possibility of moving to McClellan (as well as two other bases: Mather Air Force Base and the Army depot), before deciding that remaining at Longview would be best for the Gleaners.
Vendlinski questions the extent to which the city researched a move to Mather, McClellan or the Army depot, since he’s never seen any documentation on it. "If they were really concerned about the Gleaners. They would have worked with us to find a more spacious home years ago," he said.
Magel is stern. "We don’t intend to outgrow the site," he said.
An interview with city parks manager Vic Edmisten shows that Vendlinski’s hopes to block the expansion probably will not bear fruit.
"There’s no one person in the city who can say, ‘Let’s call this whole thing off,’ " he said. "There’s too much history. The city has ultimate authority. The site is in escrow - it’s a real estate transaction."
"I think to do this right, the city should: One, honor their commitment as far as advertising the property for sale. Two, it should accommodate the Gleaners; we don’t want to lose them to Roseville or something. I think we all admire what they do, and we’re glad they identify with Sacramento. Three, it should protect as much we can of an environmentally valuable area. And four, we should commit the resources we gain to another park area in north Sacramento, like the Robla Park."
Regarding environmentalist fears that the whole lot will wind up paved, Edmisten said, "I don’t see how that could possible happen."
"Whatever is being said about the environmental value is correct. It’s all very, very true," he added. "Whatever they do there has to go through a process of environmental evaluation. There’s a lot of work ahead there."
The money from the land sale could go toward funding a litter cleanup and other park services, Edmisten said.
But as far as trading the oak swale to fund Robla, says Vendlinski, "Why would you sacrifice one park for another?"