An email sent out over the weekend from Greg House, a local citizen and organic farmer, triggered a fire storm of debate and criticism over a proposal by the city to decline an NRCS grant.
Moving forward with the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) grant “would permit the Yolo Land Trust to secure agricultural conservation easements on the First Bank of NW Arkansas Property.”
On the other hand, “declining the grant would retain opportunities to explore options to leverage the property for additional or alternative urban agriculture transition area acquisitions, and potential furtherance of local economic development strategies.”
Staff believes there were a number of inaccuracies in Mr. House’s communications, and have essentially pulled the item from the consent calendar and moved it to its own special meeting agenda.
The city acquired the 391-acre Mace Curve Property in November 2010 from the First State Bank of NW Arkansas for a purchase price of $3.8 million.
Two sources funded the purchase: Open Space Fund – Measure O ($1,325,000) and an internal loan from the Roadway Impact Fee account for $2,475,000.
The Yolo Land Trust, in partnership with the city, received authorization for a $1,125,000 NRCS grant on April 18, 2011 that would be used to fund approximately 50% of the easement costs to place a permanent conservation easement on the property.
The remainder of the costs comes from Measure O funding used to purchase the property.
The key to this proposal, however, is a proposed land swap.
Staff reports that a few months ago, a new Davis-based benefit corporation called Capitol Corridor Ventures “approached the City with an offer to essentially conduct a ‘swap’ of properties that would allow the City to gain a more robust conservation buffer along the northeastern edge of the City while acquiring a parcel that had a higher percentage (over 85%) of Prime Agricultural farmland.”
The city notes that the company claims it does not represent any developers.
The proposal would allow for Capitol Corridor Ventures to acquire the Mace Curve Property. They would reimburse Yolo Land Trust for costs incurred in this process and city costs for negotiating with Capitol Corridor Ventures.
Staff reports, “As proposed, included in the transaction would essentially be a swap of the proposed easement on 234 acre portion of the Mace Curve 391 Property for a conservation easement on the Shriner property, which is also approximately 234 acres. CCV holds an option on the Shriner’s Property.”
Staff continues, “Conservation easements are also proposed for the north east 157 acres of the Mace Curve 391 Property. The Measure O funds are proposed to pay for the easements described in this proposal.”
They further continue: “As proposed by CCV, at the conclusion of the transaction, the 234 acres of the Mace Curve 391 Property would not be subject to a conservation easement. CCV would have purchased the Mace Curve 391 Property and the City will have contributed the Measure O funds for the conservation easements described above.”
“In addition, the City and the Land Trust would be ‘whole’ at the conclusion of the addition of the Shriner’s Property into the transaction,” staff writes. “Any future, voter-approved development proposed by CCV in the Mace Curve area… is proposed to include a continuous, substantial and sustainable annual funding source for the City (in excess of traditional development fees).”
In summary, “This transaction would effectively swap approximately 234 acres on the Mace Curve 391 Property for approximately 234 acres on the Shriner’s Property. Capitol Corridor Ventures does not represent any developers and acquired the option to purchase the Shriner’s Property in an effort to assist the City with its goals of Fiscal Stability, Economic Development and Sustainability.”
Staff continues to recommend that the council decline the NRCS’s grant funding “to explore a proposed opportunity to gain additional acreage for conservation along the northeast border of the City.”
Council has a June 15 deadline in order to make the decision regarding the grant. Action by the council is required on June 11 (Tuesday) if it chooses to decline acceptance of the grant.
Staff argues that “because of their regulatory design, agricultural conservation easements place strict limitations on the use of the property with a key objective of soil conservation.”
“Pursuing an agricultural conservation easement on the Mace Curve 391 Property locks in agricultural uses but would also limit any significant use for research and development opportunities due to strict limitations on surface area used for structures and parking, including placement of greenhouses or research- related facilities,” staff writes, noting “The NRCS grant specifies that only two percent of the land area is the maximum typically permitted for greenhouses, structures, and parking.”
“Placing an agricultural conservation easement on the property at this time would narrow the scope of potential opportunities to utilize the Mace Curve 391 to meet multiple long-term City objectives, including larger and/or alternative urban agriculture transition areas that provide a better buffer adjacent to the City,” they argue.
Staff adds, “Furthermore, the Council’s adopted resolution recognizing the ‘Dispersed Innovation Strategy’ would be significantly hampered and choices would be removed from the community’s consideration. Therefore, land that could be in the City’s best interest for potential innovation park uses and related agricultural research facilities consistent with the City Council direction would be removed from any future consideration.”
“The Mace Curve area also presents location and infrastructure opportunities not found in other areas of the community,” staff argues. “Proximity to Interstate 80, the Mace Interchange, rail lines, a significant bicycle connector with Sacramento, the Second Street business park area, and existing drainage and utility facilities create opportunities to connect with the region and city core and university and to minimize greenhouse gas impacts.”
They argue: “Cost savings realized from proximity to these infrastructure resources could result in significant financial benefits, well in excess of what would be foregone with the NRCS grant.”
They would add, “Proceeding with the staff recommendation also provides an opportunity to explore cost sharing strategies that may reimburse incurred land acquisition costs and create a long term revenue stream for the city.”
Instead, they argue that the council should direct staff to leverage the Bank of NW Arkansas Land toward the objectives of fiscal sustainability, economic development and sustainability.
Staff writes, “Under this option the City would be exploring ways to utilize the Mace Curve 391 Property to gain a more significant implementation of the urban agricultural transition areas around the Mace Curve area and create a permanent buffer that is almost completely controlled by the City. This option would require the City to enter into public private partnerships to acquire land and easements necessary to implement the General Plan vision.”
The other option would be to go forward with the grant funding.
Staff writes, “If the Council chooses to continue with the NRCS grant, staff would be directed to immediately identify a purchaser for the Mace Curve 391 Property as farmland with a NRCS conservation easement co-held between the City and Yolo Land Trust. This approach is consistent with the NRCS Ranch Lands Protection Program grant to fund the acquisition of the agricultural conservation easement on the Mace Curve Property.”
Staff explores advantages and disadvantages to both.
The advantages of option 1 are that the land could be leveraged to acquire additional urban agricultural transitions. Utilizing this land for non-agricultural uses frees up land for council to adopt long-term economic development strategies.
They believe that the proximity to critical infrastructure, as well as cost sharing opportunities, would create a revenue advantage going forward.
The city lists some disadvantages to declining the grant proposal: “real estate acquisition or development concepts are always speculative”; “there are details that would need to be negotiated in the CCV proposal and exploration and vetting of concepts will be necessary”; and “the City would lose the NRCS grant funding.”
However, staff seems to miss the big one, which is an expressed desire by the community to protect agricultural land in general and not develop land east of the Mace Curve.
Likewise, the staff employs a very limited vision of advantages for accepting the NRCS grant, but does include the fact that “the land would be permanently preserved for agricultural use.”
On the other hand, they list a lengthy list of disadvantages to the alternative option of proceeding with the grant, including: “land use restrictions, such as limitations on the amount of greenhouse structures or other impervious surface area (no greater than 2% of the land area), limit future flexibility for uses other than strict agriculture…”
Brief Comment
While the staff view may well be accurate, it does appear that their use of advantages and disadvantages reflects their bias for rejecting the option, rather than an objective assessment of the situation.
From the community’s perspective, there are advantages of going forward with this proposal, but only if one buys into the idea that this is the appropriate land for creating a business park. If one believes that this is land that should be protected, that would represent a big disadvantage.
As much as staff wants to argue this point, it basically comes down to a philosophical view of growth and economic development, and a consideration of the value of preservation of agricultural land.
As such, the scheme may not be as subject to a cost-benefit analysis, as city staff implies.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The city notes that the company claims it does not represent any developers.[/quote]
Just trust us….wink…..wink
“To qualify (for the NRCS Farmland and Ranch Lands Program), farmland must be:
…privately owned….”
Wonder how this publicly owned parcel even got through the process since the program, for obvious reasons, seems to reject the such consideration.
“However, staff seems to miss the big one which is an expressed desire by the community to protect agricultural land in general and not develop land east of the Mace Curve. Likewise the staff employs a very little vision of advantages for accepting the NRCS grant but does include the fact that “the land would be permanently preserved for agricultural use’.”
The number of “advantages and disadvantages” doesn’t drive a decision. The permanency of the NRCS option is its principal advantage (and, in my opinion, an overwhelming disadvantage). Nothing calls for a perpetual easement to honor the expressed, reasonable desire some of the community, all of whom will be dead within a hundred years.
“Wonder how this publicly owned parcel even got through the process since the program, for obvious reasons, seems to reject the such consideration.”
I believe that’s where the transfer to YLT comes into play.
Worth noting that Capitol Corridor Ventures and techDavis share the same address and director. This is part of why the background of techDavis is worth exploring.
In yesterday’s thread about this subject I said, [i]”There are a lot of moving parts in this situation. […] The fact that Council is taking the time to thoroughly and properly assess those moving parts is both good decision making and good government. […] They appear to be processing the information as it comes to them. This is a group that has shown that they do not have to be held captive by past decisions that either are or have the potential to be economically damaging to the City’s fiscal health. Just ask Bobby Wiest. The Surface Water Plant has been downsized from 18 mgd to 12 mgd. They may even get the Wastewater Plant Upgrade RFQ process right and save Davis citizens another $47 million NPV. Their behavior isn’t strange. Over the past 12 months it has been well considered and rather prudent. […] In my opinion Council should not rush to judgment without making sure that they understand the consequences of any action they take.”[/i]
Today’s article by David reveals even more moving parts than we knew about yesterday. As a result, I’m even more convinced that Council should not rush to judgment without making sure that they understand the consequences of any action they take.
[quote]Worth noting that Capitol Corridor Ventures and techDavis share the same address and director. This is part of why the background of techDavis is worth exploring.[/quote]
Seriously? Unbelievable. Sorry, but if this is true then Rob White has just lost a lot of credibility with me.
The council needs to stop this. Reject the staff recommendation and proceed with the grant funding.
“A story published Tuesday about the recent Cap-to-Cap lobbying trip incorrectly stated that David Morris, managing director and co-founder of techDAVIS, also represents the Capitol Corridor AMTRAK route. Morris represents Capitol Corridor Ventures….” (From the May 3 Enterprise.)
Way too many “wink, winks” going on here. Don and stevem suggest an apparent conflict, one that better be handled firstmthing this evening. What is the purpose of CCV if not to develop properties?
This is no reason to adopt a permanent easement, however. The city should be using Measure O funds to buy up its own conservation easements from willing landowners, not borrowing money from our roadway development account to engage in perpetual easement programs.
From today’s Enterprise:
[quote]The Davis/Yolo County team included City Councilwoman Rochelle Swanson; Davis Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Kemble Pope; David Morris, representing techDAVIS and Capitol Corridor Ventures; [/quote]
This is a logical location for the community to consider expansion at some point in the future. Any development of the land will require a vote through the measure R process, which means it will require the support of the community for anything to happen. We should not preclude that option in perpetuity.
There is a plaque, commissioned by the developer, Paul Petrovich, honoring David Morris, at the NW corner of Pole Line and Cowell. Feel free to draw conclusions, if any [“follow the money”?].
I’ve got to say, there are some good sleuths on here.
Oh I’m sorry, I just realized that my last post was somewhat off topic. I don’t want to be accused of trolling and have other members posting the definition of a troll so please accept my sincere apology.
Get over yourself and your perceived ‘slights’, GI.
Geez, guys, focus! How would you like to be a city councilor, trying to make the best decision for our community on such short notice with the can of worms the council’s been served up today?
What a certifiable mess they’re facing this evening. From consent calendar item to special meeting notice within 48 hours. With action required today. With all the rolling disclosures, last minute revisions and questionable connections, there’s certainly a tangled web woven for them. One just has to pray they’ll be able to sort it all out and make the best call for our future.
[i]This is a logical location for the community to consider expansion at some point in the future. Any development of the land will require a vote through the measure R process, which means it will require the support of the community for anything to happen. We should not preclude that option in perpetuity.[/i]
Bingo.
The council is moving responsibly toward a responsible decisions. The no-growth conspiracy theory folks are being irresponsible.
And, with measure R, what are ya’ll afraid of? Are you afraid that a future vote to build a high-tech business park on this parcel will be pass?
Oh, the good old “what are you afraid of” argument.
The council should reject the staff proposal and move forward with the conservation easement.
I think there is a mis-use of the terms ‘permanent’ and ‘forever’ here. I hope somebody more familiar with the state regulations will weigh in here. As the Williamson Act has faded away, there have been conservation easement exchanges. The ‘permanent’ part is that a certain number of acres are permanently retained in agriculture. But those acres are not always on the same site. 100 acres protected under the Williamson Act could be exchanged for 100 acres to be protected somewhere else. There are strict criteria and regulations about exactly how that has to transpire. But from my reading of the rules ([url]http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/easement_exchanges/Pages/Index.aspx[/url]), if there is some day down the road when the city really, really wants to allow the development of that land, it is possible. The only thing that is ‘permanent’ is that a fixed amount of acreage somewhere has to be conserved in its place.
Again: somebody with greater expertise on this, please correct me if I’m wrong.
OMG, Mark West and Frankly, are you really suggesting that future generations of Davisites should have a right to vote for something different than the “expressed desire by the community to protect agricultural land in general and not develop land east of the Mace Curve.”
The council should reject the concept of locking in eternity when making decisions for us mere mortals.
Nothing is eternal.
Don, flip 234 acres of farmland for a different 234 acres of higher-quality farm land. What’s not to like about that… unless you are masquerading a no-growth opinion with a claim of only caring about farm land? The intensity of your opposition to this does not seem to add up. Have you checked to assess the actual ag benefits-impacts of this swap proposal?
I’m not ‘masquerading’ anything. Would you quit with your demeaning rhetoric, please? This is simple. I said it on another thread, and I’ll say it again:
[b]Prime farmland that is next to prime farmland shouldn’t be developed if your goal is to prevent the development of prime farmland. [/b]
The proximity to an existing city boundary, and the proximity to adjacent high-quality farmland, is a big factor in choosing which farmland to put into an easement. It is, in fact, a growth-management (not ‘no-growth’) issue, because urban sprawl — by definition — occurs on the edge of a city.
“and an internal loan from the Roadway Impact Fee account for $2,475,000.”
So the City had an opportunity to buy this land but didn’t have all the money so they raided the road funds for a loan. It looks like the road budget got spent on open space instead of fire fighter salaries.
This functionally is a proposed sale of the development rights for a specific piece of property to the Yolo Land Trust. The only way that it could be undone is if the YLT agreed to resell those rights, or swap them for something of similar value.
One reasonable question then is has the YLT ever agreed to any such deal in the past, or would such a deal violate their principles and bylaws. Everything I have seen regarding the YLT and deals of this sort is that they view them as permanent. This deal is intended to block development on this piece of land in perpetuity. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
[quote]Geez, guys, focus! How would you like to be a city councilor, trying to make the best decision for our community on such short notice with the can of worms the council’s been served up today?
What a certifiable mess they’re facing this evening. From consent calendar item to special meeting notice within 48 hours. With action required today. With all the rolling disclosures, last minute revisions and questionable connections, there’s certainly a tangled web woven for them. One just has to pray they’ll be able to sort it all out and make the best call for our future. [/quote]
Oh, please. As I said on the other post, there is no “short notice” here. The Council has known about this grant for over two years. The last minute disclosures are the result of the Council not making the issues more public before this.
[quote]Get over yourself and your perceived ‘slights’, GI. [/quote]
First of all hpierce there’s nothing “perceived” about it at all, you have no idea how many times my posts get erased so keep your two cents to yourself.
stevem wrote:
> Worth noting that Capitol Corridor Ventures and
> techDavis share the same address and director.
> This is part of why the background of techDavis
> is worth exploring.
A Google search also found the Boos Development Group at 105 E St. Suite 2C (See Link Below):
[url]http://local.napavalleyregister.com/boos+development+group.9.120514037p.home.html[/url]
The link below says the TechDavis guy working on E St. will be getting paid $240K (I bet the firefighters are jealous):
[url]http://citycouncil.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130305/05B Technology Economic Development.pdf[/url]
“Again: somebody with greater expertise on this, please correct me if I’m wrong.”
I’d be pleased to. The “permanent part” of the NRCS perpetual easement program means permanent or perpetual or in perpetuity or forever. The federal laws and regulations apply, not the Williamson Act or other state laws.
Even in rural areas, NRCS is required to hold to the contract.* That’s why it’s so misguided to use the program for a city owned property at the city limits–the most logical place for planning future development and expansion.
It might make sense for a farmer to sell off rights in order to have money to spend before passing on. It makes little sense for a municipality to do the same since it lives forever and its needs and values change over time. And for a relative pittance, hardly enough to pay for a few fire fighters!
But, let’s say you’re correct in suggesting this perpetual easement could be rewritten by trading off some similar site, sort of a mitigation approach, or buying back a Williamson-type protection. Why, then, would you be lobbying to enter into a perpetual arrangement if it wouldn’t be perpetual? Trying to have it both ways?
———–
*For an object lesson in the futility of a change of mind after signing an NRCS perpetual agreement, check out wallacebridge.com. This totally country easement is the target of a rich, ag-related developer with an equestrian dream that’s gained support from nearby governments, businesses, neighbors. He’s offered up more land and habitat over the years. The problem: a perpetual easement is, well, perpetual.
A farmer once told me that putting your land under a conservation easement is what you do if you are broke. Why else would you sell your property rights? I don’t think the City is broke.
City web site URL’s always seem to have problems. Trying again with the one SOD did:
[url]http://citycouncil.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130305/05B Technology Economic Development.pdf[/url]
The farmer that Toad spoke with is short-sighted and incorrect about many landowners that enter into conservation easements, but Toad is right that the city isn’t broke. At one time staff and the previous city council thought it proper to preserve this land for ag, but current staff and council may think differently. In the end, if the city decides to develop, or allow the property to be developed, the citizens will have to vote. Nothing the council does here will change that.
Looks like a good spot for a business park to me. Visibility and good access to and from I-80. The soils are mediocre at best. Only downside that I can see is that I believe the site is in a floodplain.
[i]Prime farmland that is next to prime farmland shouldn’t be developed if your goal is to prevent the development of prime farmland.[/i]
What about prime farm land that is next to prime farm land that is next to prime farm land that is next to prime farm land? So, your are making a case that we should preserve all contiguous prime farm land and never ever develop it? I think if we had held that opinion previously your business would not exist today. It is overly-simplistic to obsoletely value farming over every other possible land use.
For one, this part of world is near being classified as desert. Water use for irrigation has a social and environmental cost. So does the use of pesticides and the inevitable top-soil erosion that farming the land causes. Lastly, each new bit of farming results in greater farm-subsidy expense.
My point is that you begin to lack credibility for contributing to a fact-based discussion by making this sweeping requirement that we have to preserve all farm land at all opportunity costs. It really does appear to be an argument from someone that just dislikes growth in general. Because ultimately growth of Davis would require some farm land to be developed.
[quote]What about prime farm land that is next to prime farm land that is next to prime farm land that is next to prime farm land? So, your are making a case that we should preserve all contiguous prime farm land and never ever develop it? [/quote]
We should avoid developing prime farmland that is on the city limits and that is adjacent to prime farmland.
[quote]I think if we had held that opinion previously your business would not exist today. It is overly-simplistic to obsoletely value farming over every other possible land use. 

For one, this part of world is near being classified as desert. [/quote]
Not even close.
[quote]Water use for irrigation has a social and environmental cost. So does the use of pesticides and the inevitable top-soil erosion that farming the land causes.[/quote]
So, you’re saying a business park is a more environmentally acceptable use of farmland?
[quote] Lastly, each new bit of farming results in greater farm-subsidy expense.[/quote]
Really?
[quote]My point is that you begin to lack credibility …[/quote]
Actually, I’d say you do, based on your factual errors.
[quote]…for contributing to a fact-based discussion by making this sweeping requirement that we have to preserve all farm land at all opportunity costs. [/quote]
As always, you have misrepresented my views, using a standard but fraudulent rhetorical device of presenting a much more exaggerated version of my position. In fact, that does not even follow from the clear principle I have stated.
I have not said we need to preserve all farm land.
Protecting farmland is part of a growth management strategy. Part of Measure O (which was an open-space initiative, not specifically an ag preservation initiative) is identifying the sites that are highest priority.
For more information about Measure O, click here: [url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DraftMeasureOReport20130524.pdf[/url]
[quote]It really does appear to be an argument from someone that just dislikes growth in general. Because ultimately growth of Davis would require some farm land to be developed.[/quote]
Again (and again and again) I support orderly growth. Planned growth. Smart growth. Urban limit lines. I have stated repeatedly that there are sites that are reasonable exceptions. I have urged the council to move forward on any number of economic development proposals, including specifically annexation of Nishi.
Yet you persistently mischaracterize my positions. I wonder why.
I would bet that voters passed Measure O thinking that they were paying for land to create a buffer around their city as it existed at that time. I doubt they were thinking Measure O was a buffer that might be put in place after all future build out. As it is now, it looks like we’re paying for a floating buffer that maybe someday might actually be put in place after it has been moved back several times due to special interests. I doubt that was what Measure O was all about. If the city can’t implement Measure O properly then they need to refund all our parcel taxes with interest because in my opinion it doesn’t look like we’re getting what we’re paying for.
Selling easement rights sometimes is just a way to keep doing what one loves on land that could be sold off for lots of money. Other times, it’s a means of keeping a spot on this earth producing in a way the owner values for generations to come. One could argue that either reason is the sign of someone who is really rich, hardly poor.
There’s a difference between a farmer making this decision and a city. Farmers have private property rights. (Sell them, give them away, fine. You’ll be gone soon. Whoever comes next gets what he pays for.) On the other hand, city leaders have a different responsibility and need to be keeping public property options open for future city leaders who’ll face different problems than we do today.
“We should avoid developing prime farmland that is on the city limits and that is adjacent to prime farmland.”
This is the critical argument here. It obviously is the side that the city adopted when getting in league with the Yolo Land Trust on this parcel.
But, it’s growth obstruction tactic disguised as a farmland preservation strategy. What happens when the city decides to expand, however? (And, is there any doubt that day will come?)
GI: [i]If the city can’t implement Measure O properly then they need to refund all our parcel taxes with interest because in my opinion it doesn’t look like we’re getting what we’re paying for.[/i]
JS: [i]But, it’s growth obstruction tactic disguised as a farmland preservation strategy. What happens when the city decides to expand, however? (And, is there any doubt that day will come?) [/I]
While I understand the point GI is making, I think JS makes a stronger, contrasting point. Times have changed. When Measure O passed we were all feeling fat, dumb and happy gorging on a humping economy made strong by buckets and barrels full of real estate equity debt, and appreciating stock values. The unemployment rate hovered in the 4 and 5% range. We expected that we could maintain our parks, our roads, our special services. Although we were starting to talk about the absurd public sector pay and benefits, we expected a “miracle of revenue” to occur and delay the day of reckoning. We expected our well-educated children to find work and move out.
I think voter perspective on land use and economic development has shifted.
I think there are no-growthers that will always be no-growthers, but there is a majority that simply vote their self-interests and increased development and growth is now in their best interest. I think some of the active no-growthers sense this, and it is why they will work hard to block even a 1 for 1 land preservation swap.