There has been a lot of discussion following the story on the Business Park Study project. Much of that has focused on the issue of Cannery Park and the implications for what should happen with that project. While I understand that focus, I think there is a big looming issue that goes beyond Cannery Park.
That is the issue of 215 acres of business park build out over a 25 year period. Granted that is a long period of time, but the issue itself forces a discussion of peripheral development and building on farmland. The city has only 140 acres of potential business park with Cannery included in the mix. That means even considering Cannery the city is looking at 75 acres of development on agricultural land.
A look at the breakdown of the 140 acres bears that out. Only 46.1 acres are considered “high” on the developability scale with another 79.9 acres considered low.
How did we arrive at that 215 acres number? Well according to the study, “demand.” That seems a rather nebulous term but the study argues:
“Based on Davis 10-year historical development of ~8.6 acres/year and 25-year timeframe: Demand = 8.6 x 25 = 215 acres.”
That seems a rather arbitrary number to me, but the 215 is not a number to be easily dismissed. It necessitates growths and it does not clearly come from a solid and objective place. Rather it is a number that has been concocted by staff and justified through arbitrary means. We need the acreage because we have built out at that rate in the past rather than need it for some compelling economic reason? That was actually a point raised by the BEDC on Monday that seems much more compelling. We should not be creating arbitrary numbers like this that force land use decisions.
The staff’s preliminary findings are based on that 8.6 acre per year build out over 25 years. Again, other than a math problem, I’m less than certain how they have determined that that number represents the long term needs. However, they go on to conclude that we have insuffient inventory to meet those needs. Excluding 46 developable acres on Lewis, would drop the number down to 95 acres in town.
It seems obvious that we are going not toward an approval of Cannery as a business park, but actually somewhere quite different. This leads me to a very different direction for discussion as to where we went earlier this week.
The question to me is whether we are building in that “215” number as a means to justify exemptions to Measure J. To go with that is that the Measure J exemption apparently had a very specific location in mind. It was no arbitrary point of discussion, but rather Mr. Souza had a very clear development spot in his mind when he proposed it.
Let us go back to December, during the course of the discussion on Cannery, Councilmember Stephen Souza became part of the vote, perhaps the swing, on pushing for the duel-EIR for Cannery. But even at that time he acknowledged he did not think Cannery was the place that he wanted a business park, he also said that he had another place in mind and we knew it had to be outside of the current city limits, since we know there just is not another large plot of land inside the city of Davis.
Forward to the Measure J discussion and Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for and won by a 3-2 vote consideration for a business park exemption. He again indicated during the discussion that he had a very specific site in mind.
On Monday, Mayor Ruth Asmundson said that they were looking at a business park location northeast of Mace. This likely is the spot that Councilmember Souza has been considering for at least six months. This is land owned by developer Frank Ramos.
I find it interesting that there has been a side conversation on Cannery Park when the real threat at least for those of us who are concerned with expansion toward the Causeway along the I-80 corridor would be development northeast of Mace. This would certainly open this area to more development. It would also potentially open up areas north of Covell Blvd and east of Wild Horse as well.
All of this would appear to be a little too much of a convenience to be sheer coincidence. You just happen to have a proposal to exempt a business park from Measure J–a proposal that will like die before it reaches the ballot. You happen to have a specific development location in mind. And you happen to have a business park study that creates an arbitrary 215 acre number that would necessitate peripheral development. Why are the alarm bells not sounding within the slow growth community?
The simple answer is that everyone is looking at Cannery rather than to the east and they have gotten caught up in a fierce side conversation and ignore the real threat here.
At the same time, just to the east of Cannery is another not so idle threat in the form of Covell Village. It seems a strange time to be pushing these kinds of large developments–a time when we already have a fairly large existing housing stock, a large number of unsold houses on the market, and a time when projects that have been approved are not being built out because the market is not there to sustain it.
The truth is under the right conditions and in the right location, a business park is an option to take up. But pushing development to the northeast part of town is a huge red flag. We need to be far more concerned about this than we have been.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, in the BEDC comments thread, there actually was quite a bit of discussion of the Ramos site. Two posters (with the pseudonyms Lets get real and Chill Out) argued forcefully for that site, which prompted a number of replies that agreed strongly with the points you have raised herein.
My concern is that the issue isn’t simply a choice between the Cannery site and the Ramos site. Even at the reduced 95 acre inventory (with Cannery removed) we have over 10 years of inventory at the historical 8.6 acre build-out rate (more years at the slower build-out rate this moribund economy would appear to warrant). There is no need to rush a business park decision, especially when one of the points raised in the BEDC meeting was that many of the recent UCD spin-off companies generate virtually no sales tax revenue for the City.
For me the key issue is “we don’t know what we don’t know.” One place to start the process of knowing more about this important issue could be to talk about some of the possible choices that appear to be “in play.” Some of those choices (and each one of them seems to have significant challenges) appear to be:
1) Go with the Cannery site and potentially do a significant disservice to the north-central Davis neighborhoods
2) Go with the Ramos site northeast of the I-80/Mace intersection and potentially open up all the productive (dare I say prime) agricultural land east of Mace to urbanization.
3) Use the Parlin site west of Sutter Davis Hospital
4) Use the Department of Forestry site south of Chiles on the east side of town north of El Macero.
5) Do nothing about a business park and continue to see green technology companies that spin out of UCD go to other cities because Davis can’t accomodate their needs.
6) Do a better job of marketing Davis’ existing space on 2nd Street and in South Davis so that A) the UCD spin-out companies better understand what already exists here in our 95 acres of inventory and B) Davis better understand what the specific needs of those budding companies are . . . even before they are companies.
Discussion of these choices is a good place to start addressing the “We don’t know what we don’t know” question. I encourage people to come forward with additional ideas/options. We need to make the best possible decision for Davis as a whole. With over 10 years of available inventory to address any current business park demand, we have the time to first identify and then “do the right thing.
I wish people weren’t so freaked out by developing on agricultural land. Just because it’s been farmed on for the past 100-150 years doesn’t mean it should be considered holy and untouchable! Human needs change over time, and we’re only limiting our own potential success and happiness with this kind of thinking.
I’m all for having a business park at the Hunt Wesson site. I don’t think its impacts would be as horrible as the opponents think. The site is already located within the city limits, so all tax revenue would go to the city. And the Hunt Wesson site is already “paved over ag land”. If the MAJORITY of neighbors in North Davis are against it, then I think they should most definitely have their say. But I’m not convinced MOST neighbors are against a business park on the Hunt Wesson site.
Now why all the concern about expanding along the I-80 Corridor? It is a logical place to have a business park. I really don’t have that much concern about “urban sprawl” as some do in this town. Nor do I particularly care about paving over “ag land”. Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Ramos land in question being used as ag land currently? If yes, what is being grown on it?
WHAT I DO SEE IS A VERY REAL DANGER IS WATERING DOWN MEASURE J WITH A BUSINESS PARK EXEMPTION. SOUZA IS GOING BACK ON A CAMPAIGN PROMISE THAT HE WOULD VOTE TO LEAVE MEASURE J UNTOUCHED. MEASURE J NEEDS TO BE LEFT ALONE. IF VOTERS DO NOT WANT URBAN SPRAWL OR PAVED OVER AG LAND, THEN THE VOTE WILL GO ACCORDINGLY. TRUST IN WHAT VOTERS WANT. IT IS THEIR CITY, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY. SOUZA WANTS TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM THEM WITH HIS BUSINESS PARK EXEMPTION. SOUZA NEEDS TO BE UNSEATED IN THE NEXT ELECTION, SINCE HE DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTERS INTERESTS AT HEART, BUT ONLY HIS OWN – DEVELOPER INTERESTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED HEAVILY TO HIS CAMPAIGN.
Oops, forgot to note we need the tax revenue generated by a business park to pay for all those wonderful city services Davis provides.
It was pretty clear at the BEDC meeting that no one saw a compelling argument for a business park at this time and that there was no evidence that we need one. The studies appear to be in their infancy. Let’s finish those before we start talking about specific locations. Ramos’s land is still going to be there in 10 years and longer. If we ever do see evidence that we need a business park, we can act then.
If there is great neighborhood opposition to a business park at the Cannery site, then we need to listen to that. Currently, there is not a lot of evidence of that kind of opposition, and a survey might be a good idea. If there is not, that is a good site for siting some business park uses. I don’t see concerns about Davis losing university spin-offs to other communties to be a major issue for several reasons. One, the point was made at the BEDC meeting that most of those type of businesses do not generate significant tax dollars. Another, we have and have had land available for that type of business with few bites.
In my view, we do not want to consider exempting any land from a Measure J vote. Measure J was about preserving farmland and open space and controlling the developer-driven sprawl outward. A business park on farm land on our borders should go through the same process as any other type of development on peripheral ag land. We have fought for years to keep from opening up land east of Mace to development. It doesn’t take a genius to see that that would open up all that land for development–all the way to the causeway. We just fought off an attempt by Angelo, now we have Frank and family.
I agree with Matt that we should do a better job of marketing the land we do have available for business park type development. I also believe we need to wait until the current studies are done to determine whether we need more acreage for business parks and, if so, how much that might be. The figures staff mentioned are arbitrary. There is no basis for them. Connecting the dots between Ramos’s property, Steve’s exemption idea and the sudden need for 215 acres of business park was pretty easy. There is no need to rush into any decision about this now. And let’s hope wiser minds prevail, and Steve’s idea dies.
“I wish people weren’t so freaked out by developing on agricultural land.”
Once you pave over it, it’s gone. Some of us like the rural character of this community, and we don’t want to encroach upon that. We also fear gateway developments to more development of prime agland and sensitive ecological areas such as the causeway.
Observerand others:
Indeed human needs do change over time, but we are always going to need food, and that is what ag land provides. It also provides jobs, open space and habitat for a great many species. I don’t see our need for those things changing much. I don’t see protecting ag land as contrary to our hapiness. I see it as crucial to our happiness and well being.
The concern is not in development along the I80 corridor per se, but where along the corridor. Just as Angelo’s proposal to build housing and a business park next to the by pass was a terrible idea and went down in flames (at least for now), the proposal to put a business park on the east side of Mace is equally bad, as it opens up all the land between Davis and the causeway to development. And Ramos owns much of that land, so his intentions are clear.
Okay… I understand that some people want to preserve the rural character of the community, and that’s fine. But I just hope people are balancing that with the other things they want – like better city services, having a grocery store that’s close enough to walk or bike to, creating more local jobs, attracting more high-tech employers. Sometimes these demands are mutually exclusive.
[quote]WHAT I DO SEE IS A VERY REAL DANGER IS WATERING DOWN MEASURE J WITH A BUSINESS PARK EXEMPTION. SOUZA IS GOING BACK ON A CAMPAIGN PROMISE THAT HE WOULD VOTE TO LEAVE MEASURE J UNTOUCHED. MEASURE J NEEDS TO BE LEFT ALONE. IF VOTERS DO NOT WANT URBAN SPRAWL OR PAVED OVER AG LAND, THEN THE VOTE WILL GO ACCORDINGLY. TRUST IN WHAT VOTERS WANT. IT IS THEIR CITY, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY. SOUZA WANTS TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM THEM WITH HIS BUSINESS PARK EXEMPTION. SOUZA NEEDS TO BE UNSEATED IN THE NEXT ELECTION, SINCE HE DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTERS INTERESTS AT HEART, BUT ONLY HIS OWN – DEVELOPER INTERESTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED HEAVILY TO HIS CAMPAIGN.[/quote]
If Souza were proposing changed language to Measure J, I would agree with you. However, the way this is currently being considered that danger isn’t there. Measure J will be on the ballot “as is.” What Souza has asked for input about (from the citizens and the three Commissions) is a separate ballot item specifically on the merits of a Green Technology Business Park exception.
Lets get realistic. Even without the Commissions saying “No” what do you think the outcome of a vote on such a second Measure would be? Virtually every person who voted for Measure J (I expect it will be close to 60%) will vote against the Exception Measure. The only way it could possibly win would be if it comes up with Souza’s own “WOW Factor critera” and if it gets so far along in its planning process to do that, then it realy won’t be an Exception Measure Davis will be voting on, but rather a full blown Measure J vote. So lets dial back the rhetoric and all agree that a separate Exception Measure is DOA.
BTW, has anyone talked to Souza about this perceived violation of his campaign pledge? If so, what has he said?
Until I hear people sharing what Souza has said, I see his vote (in the 4-1 passage) on the Measure J “as is” motion as being a clear delivery on his campaign pledge.
To anon:
Forgot to mention in previous post: yes, the Ramos land is being farmed, and (being prime farm land)it grows just about anything.
[quote]I wish people weren’t so freaked out by developing on agricultural land. [/quote]
Observer, I don’t think people are “freaked out” but as has already been noted 1) we need land to produce food, and 2) once ag land is converted to urban use, it won’t ever go back. My home in El Macero was built in 1980 on prime ag land. What are the chances that it, or any of the other 410 homes and 37 condos will ever go back to agriculture? Zero. As they say, two wrongs don’t make a right. 20/20 hindsight calls into question whether building El Macero was a good idea from a land use planning perspective, but it isn’t a decision that can be undone. We have to learn from our errors of the past and make better decisions in the present and the future.
How is Souza offering up a business park exception, whether it is attached to or separate from Measure J, delivering on his promise not to mess with Measure J? To me this lame argument is splitting hairs. No exceptions – Measure J “as is”, period.
If I hear Souza’s “WOW factor” rhetoric repeated one more time, I think I am going to vomit!
“So lets dial back the rhetoric and all agree that a separate Exception Measure is DOA.”
If such an excepting is DOA, then why did Souza suggest it? Either Souza
1) has his own agenda, aligned with developers;
2) or is stupid to suggest something that would never float;
3) or both.
Either way, Souza is a sellout to developers.
What wildlife protection is provided by tomato farms? We will always need food but is the suppressing the growth of Davis a worthwhile cost for that benefit. Oddly enough a great deal of acreage has been taken out of production in the Central Valley because of shortages of water not shortages of farmable land. It would be better to allow Davis, a place that is already an engine of high tech innovation to grow and add value through development and shift food production to land that has been taken out of production in areas less favorable to research and development. We have all the elements here, the university, open space, access to air, rail and road transport.
As for David’s dismay at the need for more housing, the reason there is a glut of housing for sale is because people are still trying to too much for their houses. If prices would come down the market would clear. Housing in Davis is still 300/sq. ft. in Woodland it is less than half of that. As long as that inequality exists the economic incentive to build housing will keep the pressure up. All measure J does is protect the housing values of rich people who want to close the gate behind themselves.
[quote]How is Souza offering up a business park exception, whether it is attached to or separate from Measure J, delivering on his promise not to mess with Measure J? To me this lame argument is splitting hairs. No exceptions – Measure J “as is”, period.[/quote]
Ahhh splitting hairs. How did you feel about Lamar’s motion to make Measure J permanent by changing the term from 10 years to no limit? Did that fit into your period?
[quote]If such an exception is DOA, then why did Souza suggest it? Either Souza
1) has his own agenda, aligned with developers;
2) or is stupid to suggest something that would never float;
3) or both.[/quote]
Good question. Why don’t you ask him? Or wouldn’t that be nearly as much fun as sitting in judgment?
I have said before that Souza loves to make simple situations complex. He appears to be a “more is more” person. He loves to explore possibilities. That doesn’t sit well with the Manechean perspective of many of the people here, but in the end Souza’s possibilities have to come before the people for a vote, and then there is plenty of opportunity to vomit all over them (pun intended).
Black Bart:
Tomato fields still offer foraging habitat, and in winter when those fields are fallow, they are great foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks and other raptors, burrowing owls, some water fowl, etc. Check them out some time. I used to live next to farm land–for 20 years before Mace Ranch was built–it was virtually a wild life area year round.
Yes, surpressing the growth of Davis is DEFINITELY a worthwhile trade off to losing our farmland and ability to feed ourselves. The farm land in the central valley has been taken out of production due to lack of water. How are we going to shift production to land that is not currently in production due to lack of water, if there is no water? Anyway, the land that is out of production there will be back in production once we pass this drought, hopefully, but if we pave land over, it never goes back to ag. We are not talking just about Davis. We are talking about Yolo County, where some of the best farmland in the world still exists. I’m for keeping it and letting industry go to land that is not good farm land or has already been impacted by development.
Just out of curiosity what is your position on the Wildhorse horse farm (which is prime agriculture land) proposal to be developed into residential? Also,it has burrowing owl habitat and is a Swainson’s hawk habitat area.
It isn’t necessary to actually live in the middle of ag land in order to feed yourself. And if you continually supress growth in Davis, how to figure that housing prices will ever come down to a more affordable level?
People need to recognize that as long as Davis has good schools, relatively low crime, and is a nice place to live, housing prices are not going to come down unless on a regional level or a national level the economy continues to tank. They are certainly not going to appreciably come down based on local land use policies.
I’m coming late to this thread, and there are many issues that need to be addressed.
Probably the most misleading talking point is that putting an industrial park on the Ramos parcel (NE corner of the Mace interchange) will open up development to the east. This is simply not true.
This parcel, and all other parcels to the east, are under the control of Measure J. There will be no development on any of this land without the approval of the electorate.
To accept this canard, you must also accept the tortured logic that developing the Mace site will somehow eliminate Measure J or induce the electorate to start voting for every project to the east that comes down the pike. This is absolutely absurd.
More outrageous is the misinformation (being aggressively spread by opponents of the site) that Ramos owns much of the land between Davis and the causeway, and that he is secretly plotting with Steve Souza and others to open it up for development. This is the big lie that keeps being repeated.
In point of fact, Ramos owns just the one parcel at Mace. If you don’t believe me, go to a local title company and ask for a landowner map. You can get the same information from the county.
Of course the opponents don’t want the facts to get in the way of an inflammatory lie that has been so useful in promoting their agenda.
Dear Protect ag land,
Fitch issued a report last week that claimed California real estate will lose another 36% of its value by the second half of 2010. If Davis property values hold up it will just increase the pressure for more development.
Let’s look at the 215 number. It’s based on our historic adsorption rate of 8.6 acres per year projected out 25 years.
I don’t know what the “right” number is, but what I can say with some conviction is that our batting average of 8.6 is pathetic. And, consequently, 215 is almost certainly inadequate.
By constantly transposing our no-growth mentality to any significant effort to expand our economic base, Davis is evolving into some weird hybrid between a commuter suburb and a coal mining town (with UCD obviously being the coal mine). Our job to resident ratio (adjusted for the presence of UCD) is out of balance; and the situation is unhealthy for the city.
Because of the current status quo, we have (1) a city government that is overly reliant on residential development, and (2) too many residents that must drive elsewhere five days a week to earn a living.
Not very green on either account, is it? We have met the enemy … and he is us.
[quote]Just out of curiosity what is your position on the Wildhorse horse farm (which is prime agriculture land) proposal to be developed into residential? Also,it has burrowing owl habitat and is a Swainson’s hawk habitat area.[/quote]
I’m not save ag land but I’ll share my thoughts.
When I first began to do my homework about land use issues (lo these many moons ago) I was quick to hang my hat on the term “prime” with respect to farm land. It was easy to do, because all the land around El Macero has official scoring designations as “prime.” However, I pretty quickly learned from the farmers on the Yolo County Planning Commission that a term that is even more meaningful than “prime” is “productive.” Lots of land that scores well short of “prime” is extremely “productive.” Huge portions of both Napa and Sonoma fit this description. They went on to say that just because land has a “prime” score does not mean it is also “productive.” That can be for a number of reasons.
So, the operative question is Is the Wildhorse Ranch “productive” farm land?
With regard to your Burrowing Owl comment, I’m a birdwatcher and I can’t help but wonder if any Burrowing Owls have chosen to inhabit the Horse Farm amongst all those horse hooves. Burrowing Owls don’t actually burrow. They use pre-existing ground squirrel burrows. Most people who raise horses for a living believe ground squirrel burrows are broken horse legs waiting to happen. So, I gues my logical follow-up question is, When was the last time Burrowing Owls were seen on the Horse Ranch?
[quote]It isn’t necessary to actually live in the middle of ag land in order to feed yourself. And if you continually supress growth in Davis, how to figure that housing prices will ever come down to a more affordable level?[/quote]
Smaller lots and fewer square feet in the houses that are built is one way.
Building attached dwellings rather than detached dwellings is another.
Holding UC Davis accountable for living up to its pledge to the UC Office of the President to house 38% of its students on campus is another.
[quote]Fitch issued a report last week that claimed California real estate will lose another 36% of its value by the second half of 2010. If Davis property values hold up it will just increase the pressure for more development.[/quote]
Actually Bart I would expect the pressure for development to decrease. Home buyers will find homes outside of Davis to be even better relative values compared to Davis homes than they already are. The extra dollars spent on gasoline will be a relatively minor cost when compare to the purchase price savings.
Yes that has already happened Matt but the tuition for private schools as opposed to public schools in Davis is the marginal cost that matters most.
Since you are concerned about the same issues. What is your position on the development of the prime agricultural land which has burrowing owl and Swainson hawk habitat the Wildhorse Horse Ranch?
The “save ag land” posting earlier is why I am interested raising prime ag land loss and habitat and water issues regarding the Mace and I-80 site. You stated:
“Tomato fields still offer foraging habitat, and in winter when those fields are fallow, they are great foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks and other raptors, burrowing owls, some water fowl, etc. Check them out some time. I used to live next to farm land–for 20 years before Mace Ranch was built–it was virtually a wild life area year round.”
“save ag land” went on to state:
“Yes, surpressing the growth of Davis is DEFINITELY a worthwhile trade off to losing our farmland and ability to feed ourselves. The farm land in the central valley has been taken out of production due to lack of water. How are we going to shift production to land that is not currently in production due to lack of water, if there is no water?”
Whether you think that there are not Burrowing Owls at the Wildhorse Ranch site or not, the EIR for that project sure says that they have been there. Burrowing Owl’s and Swainson’s Hawks are just some of the wildlife and native plants that need to be protected.
In regard to the use of prime agricultural land subject that you posted. Agricultural land has many other uses in addition to growing crops. If your definition were the case this country would have not livestock business and you would not be able to have a hamburger or steak. Also, you would be putting the horse industry out of business. (By the way, do you not like horses for some reason? They are such beautiful animals.) Also, are you saying if agricultural land is not being farmed at the moment then it should not be protected?
Bart, no need to choose a private school. If the person works in Davis just apply to go to Davis ISD schools. The incremental cost is much less than private school tuition.
Are the Woodland and Dixon schools that bad that children shouldn’t go to them?
The fact that both Steve and Ruth are clued into the best site for industrial park development is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence that they are both on the ball and doing their jobs!
To frame this as a plot to open up the land to the causeway (while everyone conveniently has their eye on the Cannery) is just plain silly.
If you want to talk about real red flags …
Whitcombe and Streng have been pitching a map for their senior housing proposal that has 100 acres along Poleline with an unspecified land use. They have verbally acknowledged to people interested in the senior project that they are considering developing this land as a business park (and they point to the small business park east of Poleline as an example).
If you want to speculate about possible conspiracies …
Is the Cannery high tech park proposal being used by politicized elements of the staff to set the table for a Covell alternative? The staff knows (or should know) full well that no developer in their right mind will seriously consider building a high tech park at Cannery. Covell, on the other hand, could easily afford to use a high tech park as a “loss leader” to help drive development of a 400 ac mixed use project. They would lose money on the industrial but make a huge profit on the residential. We, on the other hand, would get large residential impacts and an underperforming high tech park crippled by a bad location.
Why the push for more development (this time for “business parks”)? We already have many empty “business” spaces within the city limits.
So, why aren’t the City economic development “specialists,” who are paid piles of money from our taxes, not filling the existing vacant spaces?
This entire argument about needing more acreage to meet our business needs is a sham (-for developers-), pure & simple. Let’s fill ourexisting, vacant business spaces first, then, we can begin to talk about how much additional acreage is needed for our “needs.”
The bottom line is that we already have a surplus of unfilled business spaces, and no indication that any (let alone all of those spaces)will be filled within the next 10 years.
So,who is driving the artificial “need” to develop even more land for “businesses,” when we have so much vacant business space today?
“So,who is driving the artificial “need” to develop even more land for “businesses,” when we have so much vacant business space today?”
We need more tax revenue, hence more business in Davis. However, you make a good point. Will new business really come to Davis, if the market just isn’t there at the moment? Sort of the “build it and they shall come” mentality, which has not served us well in the past.
The 25 acre Wildhorse proposal is infill, surrounded on three sides by development. I agree with Matt. It is not productive farm land. There is a big difference. Last time I checked, we were not eating horses here.
Re burrowing owls: From the EIR: One owl was found in December of 2006. in January of 2006, two owls were found and passively relocated prior to discing. Three focused surveys were done in April, June and July 2007. No owls were seen, but two burrows with potential owl signs were seen on site. There may or may not be owls on the site, but they were not seen. Other focused surveys will take place if this proposal moves forward prior to any ground work. If owls are found, they will be relocated to the near-by managed colony on the golf course.
It is interesting that some people who were strong advocates for Wildhorse itself (prime farm land), now oppose the Horse Ranch development because it is “farm land”. Sort of hypocritical.
Chill out: If our batting average for business park type growth is 8.5 acres per year (and this was the high number given), why would we speculate that we need more than that? This sounds like a developer driven idea to me.
As I mentioned in a previous post a few days ago, Chill out, if you don’t believe that putting a business park on the Ramos land on the other side of Mace will open all that area up to development, you need a realilty check.
You wrote:
[quote]The 25 acre Wildhorse proposal is infill, surrounded on three sides by development.[/quote]
You then tried to take cover behind Matt Williams and wrote:
[quote]It is not productive farm land. There is a big difference. Last time I checked, we were not eating horses here.[/quote]
Covell Village is also surrounded on three sides by development. By your logic, all Whitcomb needs to do is turn it into horse pasture and he’s good to go. Is that OK with you?
Let’s now turn your piercing analysis back on you …
It is interesting that some people who, for many years, were strong advocates for ag preservation, now support the Horse Ranch development because they argue that it is not really “productive farm land”. Not to mention the inconvenient owl problem that is apparently “manageable” if it’s a developer they like. Sort of hypocritical.
——
Quiz time! I notice that you have been repeatedly asked for your position on the Parlin project, but I can find no evidence of a clear response from any of the pseudo-names that you post under.
So let’s see if you are capable of responding to a simple direct question.
Do you support Parlin Development’s Horse Ranch proposal?
OK, you build a major business park. How many decent companies would want to occupy it? Look at Genentech, a major biotech that Davis would kill to attract. They built or are building production and research facilities in Vacaville and Dixon, not Davis. Why would a major business that needs to hire 100s to 1000s of employees would want to locate in a city with insanely overpriced housing that their workers would not be able to afford? $250k would buy a 4-BR house in Dixon while it would barely be enough to purchase a 2 BR 30+ year-old condo in Davis. If they wouldn’t mind expensive locale, they would stay in Bay Area where there is 10x more intense academic/entrepreneurial environment. Companies are moving out of Bay Area because they want to cut costs. 50%+ housing compared to the communities ~5-10 miles away is such a big turn-off.
The housing in Davis is so bad that new UCD professors are getting priced out of Davis even in this economy. No affordable housing, fewer kids (more school closures), fewer businesses (less tax), higher taxes for the residents. Good luck…
Hmmm. If someone doesn’t agree with “save ag land’s” paranoid claim that a high tech industrial park at Mace will result in development to the causeway, then they need a “reality check”. Well thank heavens for the self-appointed guardians of the reality distortion field that seems to engulf this city.
What really concerns me is the Parlin Development proposal. If we let this project go forward, then absolutely every bit of horse pasture around Davis is toast! Ramos already owns most of it, and Steve Souza hates horses!
But on a more serious note, this quote from “Chill out” pretty much sums up the issue:
[quote]Probably the most misleading talking point is that putting an industrial park on the Ramos parcel (NE corner of the Mace interchange) will open up development to the east. This is simply not true.
This parcel, and all other parcels to the east, are under the control of Measure J. There will be no development on any of this land without the approval of the electorate.
To accept this canard, you must also accept the tortured logic that developing the Mace site will somehow eliminate Measure J or induce the electorate to start voting for every project to the east that comes down the pike. This is absolutely absurd.
[/quote]
[quote]Covell Village is also surrounded on three sides by development. By your logic, all Whitcomb needs to do is turn it into horse pasture and he’s good to go. Is that OK with you? [/quote]
When I first read the quoted post above I asked myself, Why the personal attack?” as well as, “Why is discussion of a site that clearly will never have a Business Park on it co-opting this clearly Business Park focused thread?”
With that said, let me address your questions as best as I can. First, the Wildhorse site is so small and so poorly configured that it has virtually no viability as a site for the commercial growing of crops. If Gidaro purchased it, tore down all the fences and in effect merged it with the Shriners property, that problem would go away, but I can’t think of a single person who would support that idea. I certainly wouldn’t. On the other hand, the Covell Village site (if it were hypothetically being used as a horse farm) would have a whole raft of alternative agricultural uses, some of which would be growing crops. It could even be used for cattle grazing. Therefore, Whitcombe would not be able to advance his urbanization cause by moving horses to Covell Village.
[quote]Let’s now turn your piercing analysis back on you …
It is interesting that some people who, for many years, were strong advocates for ag preservation, now support the Horse Ranch development because they argue that it is not really “productive farm land”. Not to mention the inconvenient owl problem that is apparently “manageable” if it’s a developer they like. Sort of hypocritical.[/quote]
I don’t have an axe to grind one way or another with respect to the Wildhorse Ranch proposal, so I think I can look at that parcel from much the same perspective as the Housing Element Steering Committee did. First, as I noted above, growing a commercial crop on that land isn’t practical because of 1) the parcel configuration, and 2) the significant portion of its perimeter that borders on residential housing, which limits the farming practices on the parcel. Second, lets look at the parcel’s current agricultural use. If we went to the Agricultural Commissioner’s offices in Woodland and asked them what the economic contribution of the Horse Ranch was to the Yolo County agricultural economy over the past 10 years, would they even have data for us to review? When was the last time you saw a horse trailer pulling in the Horse Ranch driveway either delivering a horse or taking a horse away? I’ve never seen that happen even once in my eleven years driving along Covell. To the best of my knowledge there is no sign on Covell letting the world know they should bring their horses there for training and/or boarding. I have nothing against horses. Monday nights on KVIE @ 7:00 PM there is a great horse-oriented show that my wife and I watch, but I can’t help but wonder if the Horse Ranch is a horse ranch in name only?
If it is a horse ranch in name only, and there isn’t any viable alternative agricultural use, then is it unreasonable to say the parcel doesn’t meet the standard for “productive” farm land?
With that said, one possible agricultural use for the parcel could be as one of the Urban Farms that Mark Spencer argued effectively for in the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings. Do you think that would be a viable use of this parce? Is the existing horse ranch more or less viable than an Urban Farm?
[quote]Quiz time! I notice that you have been repeatedly asked for your position on the Parlin project, but I can find no evidence of a clear response from any of the pseudo-names that you post under.
So let’s see if you are capable of responding to a simple direct question.
Do you support Parlin Development’s Horse Ranch proposal[/quote]
Why is such a quiz necessary? Planning for this parcel is clearly a work in process. Untill the next proposal from Parlin is available for review, isn’t it appropriate to reserve judgment?
test
Matt:
Maybe the sarcasm was too oblique. My post about the Horse Farm (as To “save ag land”) was not meant to be taken at face value. So, there’s no point in responding to the questions. They were rhetorical, and directed at “save ag land” (who BTW hasn’t responded).
I was reacting to the tone of the last “save ag land” post in which this individual called out other people on this blog as:
(1) hypocrites
(2) developer shills
(3) delusional (i.e. in need of a reality check)
I generally reply in kind to personal attacks directed at me and/or my friends.
And, with all due respect, I would point out that you yourself co-opt the last thread on this issue (BEDC Votes …) with a lengthy discussion about housing. I merely drew an analogy with Covell to point out the absurdity of the rhetoric coming from the pro-Parlin wing of the progressive community. To characterize that as co-opting the thread is unfair and unwarranted.
You are right on both points. I [u]completely[/u] missed the sarcasm. My bad. And when Greg made his statement about students being zoned out of Davis, my response certainly did change the trajectory of the thread.
EAP here I come.
No problem Matt. Thanks for the response. Sorry for the excessively cryptic post.
Now, if we can just get “save ag land” to answer the question ……….
I’m sincerely curious about how a long-standing activist that is rabidly ag preservation/no-growth will reconcile being an obvious supporter of the Parlin Development Horse Ranch project. Will “save ag land” throw Parlin Development and its progressive allies under the bus or will “save ag land” make a clear endorsement of their proposal. Inquiring minds want to know.
This wouldn’t be an issue for me if the individual involved hadn’t been relentlessly attacking the city’s best option for economic growth with inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation about development to the east, dismissive personal references, a refusal to seriously engage on any of the specifics, and a drone of trivial talking points (under multiple aliases).
Also the attacks by opponents of the Mace option on the integrity of the council members (Steve Souza in particular) and the commissioners are really starting to irritate me.
No problem in return. For me the answer to your question is easy. As I said, I’m not a supporter of the Parlin Development Horse Ranch project per se, but there isn’t a doubt in my mind that the Horse Ranch left the ranks of “productive” ag land many, many years ago. Now it is possible that there is much more going on there than I know about, and the revenues from ag products and services are much larger than I suspect they are, but based on what I see, the Horse Ranch is outside the protection parameters.
I’m sure that it doesn’t come as any surprise to you that I agree with your concluding paragraph.
I’m also currently agnostic on the Horse Ranch project (and frankly not paying much attention). The project has other much more serious vulnerabilities and, if I really wanted to mount an opposition, it would not be on ag conversion.
So what do we have here? A discussion on
1) Wildhorse Ranch
2) Cannery vs East of Mace
3) Covell Village IV
In sum, my positions are:
1) Wildhorse Ranch – go ahead and develop, bc this is not prime ag land, is probably not being used as horse farm either, and represents good infill project from what I can tell;
2) Cannery vs East of Mace – Cannery and East of Mace are both good spots for commercial development, which we need more of, bc it will hopefully generate more tax revenue; we don’t need more residential housing on Cannery site
3) Covell Village IV – we don’t need this development; it will end up costing the city money, rather than generate tax revenue; the housing market is in the doldrums as it is, so this is not the time to even think about starting this huge project; if a senior housing project is built, it will bring an influx of seniors, which will strain our already meager public resources – BAD IDEA ALL AROUND.