Over the past several years, the city of Davis has been spending millions through Measure O funds and other Roadway Impact Fees to purchase farmland around Davis with the express purpose of putting that land into a permanent agricultural conservation easement. Such a status protects the farmland and is said to permanently set that land aside as agricultural land, preventing future urban development.
However, the Vanguard received a communication this weekend from Greg House, a local citizen and organic farmer.
In his communication, he writes that the city used roughly $1.325 million of Measure O funds plus another $2.475 million of Roadway Impact Fees to “purchase 390 acres of farmland at the Mace Curve in November 2010 with the stated intention of placing a permanent agricultural conservation easement on the land and then selling it off as permanently protected farmland.”
The decision at this time, according to the staff report, is whether to move forward with the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) grant which “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 is recommending that the council decline the NRCS grant and explore alternative acquisitions.
Measure O, which was the Open Space measure created from about a $25 per year parcel tax, was approved by the voters of Davis in 2000 and has been used to purchase large swaths of farmland to protect farmland and wildlife habitat around the city.
Measure O itself prohibits the monies from this fund from being used for any other purpose. The City’s Open Space and Habitat Commission (OSH) oversees and advises the city on the use of Measure O funds.
According to Mr. House, “While this Mace Curve farmland purchase was being negotiated, the City entered into an agreement with the Yolo Land Trust (YLT) that YLT would receive and maintain the intended farmland easement, and also that YLT would apply for a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to defray half of the cost of the farmland easement.”
He adds, “The FRPP grant program is highly competitive and grants are awarded on a priority ranked basis. YLT was successful in getting this grant for $1,125,000; it was one of only two such grants from the FRPP in the entire State of California during 2011.”
On the consent agenda on Tuesday’s council meeting, staff recommends that the council “[a]uthorize staff to notify the Yolo Land Trust that the city will decline to proceed with NRCS funding for the resale of the First Bank of NW Arkansas Property and further direct staff to explore options to leverage the property for urban agriculture transition area and local economic development strategies.”
According to staff, the Mace Curve Property was acquired by the city in November 2010.
They write, “The Yolo Land Trust, in partnership with the City, received a $1,125,000 Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS), grant on April 18, 2011 to permanently protect the farm. The grant amount was 50% of the appraised value of the conservation easement. The actions recommended in this report would allow for the resale of the property.”
As staff notes, one of the General Plan principles calls to: “Create an open space buffer between urban and agricultural uses to maintain the integrity of the adjoining agricultural/natural areas, to serve as a transitional space between urban and rural lands, to provide a visual edge, and to be an aesthetic and recreational resource.”
However, over the past two years, “this area has also been the subject of discussion for non-agricultural uses that could potentially support long term economic development strategies. Specifically, efforts of the Innovation Park Task Force and subsequent City Council actions have resulted in direction to pursue a ‘Dispersed Innovation Strategy’ to accommodate existing and future business development and retention needs.”
Staff notes that in November 2012 the council adopted a resolution which would recognize “that the East and West ‘edge’ sites offer viable options for location and size of larger innovation centers meeting needs of growing midsized companies, and should continue to be explored as part of a mid-term Dispersed Innovation Strategy.”
Staff recommends that the council decline the NRCS grant and explore alternative acquisitions.
They note, “By 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 this property, while locking in agricultural use, would also limit development opportunities of the land due to strict limitations on surface area used for structures and parking, including placement of greenhouses or research-related facilities.”
They add, “Placing an agricultural conservation easement on the property at this time would narrow the scope of potential opportunities to leverage this land for multiple long term City objectives, including larger and/or alternative urban agriculture transition areas that provide a better ‘lock’ adjacent to the City.”
“Furthermore, leveraging the land could result in potential innovation park uses and related agricultural research facilities consistent with the City Council direction to pursue a Dispersed Innovation Strategy,” staff writes.
They argue that this area presents opportunities not found in other areas of the community, including the proximity to I-80, “the Mace interchange, rail lines, a major bicycle corridor, Second Street, and existing drainage and utility facilities create opportunities to connect with the region and city core and university and to minimize greenhouse gas impacts.”
“Proximity to these existing infrastructure resources, in combination with flexible land configuration options, and adjacent agricultural and open lands, also positions this area well for ‘green’ industry and research companies,” staff argues. “Retaining flexibility for innovation center scalability is critical as successful new facilities that support innovation and technology companies are different from traditional business parks.”
“Two important components in new innovation centers are the ability to draw a critical mass of innovators and to provide ongoing opportunities for informal, interdisciplinary face-to-face interactions,” staff argues.
At this point, staff does not believe there is not enough information to provide details of where acquisitions and easements would be acquired.
Staff believes there is merit to exploring alternatives in the vicinity of the Mace curve.
It is curious that this item, which represents a major departure in city land use and open space protection policies, would be placed on the consent agenda. However, while Mr. House presents the concern that there would be no discussion on the item, items of this nature are routinely pulled in order to allow a full discussion.
He argues that this proposal represents the city “reneging on its agreement with YLT to go through with this farmland preservation agreement, and is casting aside $1,125,000 in hard-won grant money from the US government.”
In so doing, he argues, this goes against the advice of the Open Space and Habit Commission which “strongly recommends that the City follow through with its agreement and formally complete the work it started with YLT, and permanently preserve this 390 acres of land for agriculture. OSH also recommended to the City Council that it set aside 30 acres of this land for community farms and gardens that would give the citizens of Davis public access to open space and farmland.”
Michelle Clark, Executive Director of the Yolo Land Trust has “publicly stated that YLT has grave misgivings about its reputation and ability to qualify for grants in the future if the City reneges on its agreement with YLT to follow through on its commitment to accept this grant.”
He writes, “For several years now the City Council has been meeting in closed sessions to discuss this property. At the OSH Commission meeting of June 4, those attending the meeting learned that several property owner/developers have been discussing with the City the development of a business park on this very site in conjunction with their own adjacent properties.”
Mr. House adds, “The development proposals, of course, are too nebulous to outline in any detail. Instead, the City is greenwashing whatever deal they have cooking with the developers by saying the City is ‘exploring options to implement the Urban Agriculture Transition Areas in a permanent fashion.’ “
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This all seems to go against Measure O and what all homeowners are paying a parcel tax for.
What an interesting trap we’ve gotten into. The outfit that would get paid for maintaining the easement argues we’re destroying their professional reputation if we don’t sell lock up all development rights to the property we own.
What a great local fight this sets up: the no-growthers vs. the business parkers. That many folks are on both sides should make for some fascinating intramural arguments.
The city certainly can limit development as much as and for as long as it wants without easements. This easement, of course, presupposes (and guarantees) that future Davis citizens will have no alternative plans in perpetuity.
…sell off and lock up…
[quote]through [b]Measure O[/b] funds [u][b]and other[/b][/u] [b]Roadway Impact Fees[[/b]/quote]Interesting news on at least two levels… that Measure O funds are considered to be Roadway Impact fees, and that Roadway Impact fees IN ADDITION TO funds acquired as Measure O revenues, are being used to acquire land/development rights… what’s that expression re: “heads rolling”?
I’d like to read the staff report, but the city’s website isn’t responding…
.
David wrote:
> the Vanguard received a communication this weekend
Was it an e-mail, a phone call, did a courier bring a letter?
> Over the past several years, the city of Davis
> has been spending millions through Measure O funds
> and other Roadway Impact Fees to purchases farmland
> around Davis
Any idea where I could find a list of the property that Davis has bought with the millions of dollars? In San Mateo and Sonoma County I’ve noticed that over the years much of the millions to purchase land or pay for conservation easements have gone to politically connected land owners who have either got above market money for crappy land or got paid millions to put a conservation easement on land that they had planned to keep empty anyway.
> The city certainly can limit development as much as
> and for as long as it wants without easements. This
> easement, of course, presupposes (and guarantees)
> that future Davis citizens will have no alternative
> plans in perpetuity.
As a student of California land use I’ve seen the owners of land they want to develop work to push land better suited for development in to land trusts so their land is left as the “only” alternative…
SouthofDavis speaks truth.
What was the time frame on the YLT Conservation easement? These easement usually expire in 25 or 50 years. It looks like the city decided to keep its options open for a shorter duration. There are also, i believe, other areas that have been preserved between here and Woodland and here and Dixon through this process so it looks like the council is recognizing that it will not be too long before all the infill opportunities are developed and Davis will need land on the periphery for development. Seems like a sensible approach to me but I’m not usually bothered by such plans and can see the value added to the community by having an area for post-industrial business development outweighs the historic, aesthetic, cultural, agricultural and economic values of preservation of that area.
This does sound odd, impact fees being used to stop development rather that to construct facilities “needed” because of new developments.
Lots of conservation easements go to farmers who never have any intention of doing anything other than farming their land and don’t want their kids and grandkids doing anything else when they inherit. That’s part of the beauty of the concept: buy rights for reasonably low amounts per acre for large parcels. Farmland, wildlife lands, etc., are assured for decades or forever for relatively little public investment. That’s a good thing.
Whether a city should foreclose all options for land it owns immediately adjacent to its developed borders (and with access to all the public facilities as we have in this area) is a more complicated question. It seems the present council will be looking at possibilities which the council that joined the Trust’s efforts did not foresee.
Maybe the “urban agriculture transition area” concept being recommended now will better meet municipal ag-land protection objectives as well as leave open the possibility of ag-related and other research/business park developments that will support other high priority city needs.
I think, Mr.Toad, that NRCS (USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service) contributes only to perpetual farmland protection easements now. The NRCS funding process is a highly competitive one, but I’d be surprised that the highly qualified and regarded Yolo Land Trust has (or needs to have) “grave misgivings about its reputation” and future capabilities should this contract not be completed. Potential partners and landowners drop out at many points in the process.
A strange aspect to this proposal is that current NRCS regulations require private ownership in order to be eligible for consideration. Obviously, publicly owned land already is “locked up” for public good. So, why would government money be needed to assure public benefit? There must be more to this arrangement than is reported here.
RE: SouthofDavis: “As a student of California land use I’ve seen the owners of land they want to develop work to push land better suited for development in to land trusts so their land is left as the “only” alternative… “
The broker who worked with City Staff member Mitch Sears on the purchase of the “Arkansas property” was developer Tim Ruff. Ruff is a partner with John Whitcombe on the Nishi proposal and the point person in their dealings with the City. SouthofDavis make very a good point.
Might be interesting to review the Form 700 report for City staff involved in the open space acquisition program.
Side bar… might be interesting to disclose Form 700 forms for the CC members, particularly those who have announced that they intend to seek ‘higher office’.
[quote] … staff recommends that the council “[a]uthorize staff to notify the Yolo Land Trust that the city will decline to proceed with NRCS funding for the resale of the First Bank of NW Arkansas Property and further direct staff to explore options to leverage the property for urban agriculture transition area and local economic development strategies.”[/quote]
The council [u]should not approve this recommendation[/u], but should instead proceed with the planned preservation of the property as farmland.
[i]The council should not approve this recommendation, but should instead proceed with the planned preservation of the property as farmland.[/i]
I think farmland is over-rated when there are other uses that provide benefits to the general population. Land is a natural resource. All natural resources require conservation, but having a goal of 100% conservation is silly.
If the city is really interested in developing business uses east of Mace — a line it has long resisted crossing — it should look at the Bruner and Ramos parcels, which together comprise about 180 acres. They’re much better situated with respect to Mace/I-80/UPRR, have the same access to utility infrastructure, and are surrounded by the Arkansas parcels that would serve to limit the temptation to continue sprawling north and east.
I think the staff recommendation is not a good idea, and I hope the council rejects it.
.
[quote]having a goal of 100% conservation is silly.[/quote]
Yes, it would be silly. But that isn’t anything I’ve ever advocated, obviously.
Too many questions to proceed with any perpetual agreement yet. There’s certainly no rush if the city already owns the land. This easement contract would be one decision that never can be revisited once it’s done. Has there been much public input with the present council or during the Open Space and Habit Commission evaluation?
Strange that a topic with as much built-in controversy as this staff proposal would show up on the consent calendar. (Unless council members have hashed this out with staff in all the closed sessions and just need to ratify their decision. Maybe it’s already a one deal.)
Don, you always have the useful land use links. Got anything on surrounding ownership and/or existing easements? Thanks.
“The council should not approve this recommendation, but should instead proceed with the planned preservation of the property as farmland. “
Why?
David wrote:
> According to Mr. House, “While this Mace Curve
> farmland purchase was being negotiated,
Are we talking about just the inside/west side of the “Mace Curve” or are they looking to buy land on the outside (north and east side) of the Mace Curve?
Then Hawthorne wrote:
> The broker who worked with City Staff member Mitch
> Sears on the purchase of the “Arkansas property” was
> developer Tim Ruff. Ruff is a partner with John
> Whitcombe on the Nishi proposal and the point person
> in their dealings with the City. SouthofDavis make
> very a good point.
If I owned a piece of land that was hard to get to (just think of 500 cars a day driving down Olive Drive or even worse through the Richards tunnel, on to campus to get behind Solano Park to wait for the crossing gate for them to open so they could get to work) I would not want the owners of a piece of land near the big modern Mace exit (that already had a train track overpass) to have any chance of developing the land…
[quote]Don: “The council should not approve this recommendation, but should instead proceed with the planned preservation of the property as farmland. ”
Mr Toad: Why?[/quote]
I’ve answered that question many times on other threads on which you’ve participated.
[quote]I would not want the owners of a piece of land near the big modern Mace exit (that already had a train track overpass) to have any chance of developing the land…[/quote]
Nishi is likely to go forward long before anything could ever happen on Mace.
[quote]Are we talking about just the inside/west side of the “Mace Curve” or are they looking to buy land on the outside (north and east side) of the Mace Curve?[/quote]
The land in question doesn’t actually touch Mace Boulevard, though it comes close at one point. It comprises 3 parcels, contiguous in a sort of zigzag fashion, that lie east of Mace. The largest is adjacent to the west side of Howat Ranch, and is 1/2 mile east of Mace Boulevard.
.
Jim Frame, does the city already own this land or are “they looking to buy it?” If we own it or have funds to buy it, what is the purpose in giving up our rights to use it as the city sees fit, now or in the future?
The city can choose to leave it in agriculture without an easement in place. The amount of one-time cash we’d get wouldn’t be much for what we’d give up.
[quote]The amount of one-time cash we’d get wouldn’t be much for what we’d give up.[/quote]
My understanding is that the city owns the parcels. Once the conservation easement is in place the city would sell the underlying land to be farmed, while YLT would retain the easement. The city would then roll the sale proceeds (unencumbered value minus the easement value) into future conservation purchases.
.
Unless there’s a loophole I’m not aware of, developing these parcels would require a Measure J/R vote, so I can’t see why the council would want to reverse course on its conservation program given the resistance that would bring about. The risk/reward ratio seems awfully big to me.
The city is set to throw away over a million dollars in grant money and the hard work of the Open Space & Habitat Commission and the Yolo County Land Trust, in order to build an “innovation park” (while pretending to be concerning about an agriculture buffer) on land that was purchased with taxpayer money that was designated to be used for maintaining open space. This is all while Davisites have been crystal clear about their feelings about expanding the borders of the city into surrounding agricultural land.
Davisites should show up in force at the Tuesday Council meeting to protest this travesty.
[quote]Unless there’s a loophole I’m not aware of, developing these parcels would require a Measure J/R vote, so I can’t see why the council would want to reverse course on its conservation program given the resistance that would bring about. The risk/reward ratio seems awfully big to me.[/quote]
Yes, this is exactly right.
“The council should not approve this recommendation, but should instead proceed with the planned preservation of the property as farmland.”
I thought you might have a reason to back up your position.
So here is the deal. The City owns the land. Doing the land trust deal and taking the Feds money ties the hands of the City going forward. The City is actually being prudent by not limiting its options for future generations.
“The City is actually being prudent by not limiting its options for future generations. “
Well I guess that would depend on how one defines prudence. I was told at one point that the city if it ended up developing a business park east of Mace would have to cut a deal where it puts adjacent land into conservation easement. The problem at this point is that if the city pulls out of this easement, they seem to lose credibility to cut that sort of deal. That means that what may seem prudent to you and now, might actuall