In June, there is no way around it, the discussion on a potential land swap involving a parcel of land east of Mace, Mace 391, and the Shriner’s Property was a debacle. There are many reasons for that, which we have discussed previously and will not go into here. The process problems destroyed any chance to have a real conversation on the merits of the proposal – and there are, as well, some legitimate concerns.
Earlier this week, David Morris, who proposed this arrangement, repackaged the proposal and took the unique step of putting it out to the community and vetting the project proposal on the Vanguard where the public could ask questions, scrutinize the project, and criticize it if need be.
By offering us transparency and an open process that was lacking in June, we can now evaluate the project on its merits.
I want to clarify that my purpose in writing this is not to be a project advocate or proponent, but rather to facilitate further discussion.
This really comes down to a number of factors that we have been discussing rather vigorously over the last six months: (1) should Davis attempt to better utilize its proximity to UC Davis and become a location where new startups and university spinoffs seek to do business? (2) how can Davis better generate revenue to avoid having to make further cuts to city services? (3) what land is available for such projects? and (4) how can we best develop economically while preserving open space, ag land, and the unique character of our community?
The warning sign that came down was the move of Bayer/Agraquest, which was founded in Davis, grew up in Davis, but could not find a large enough landing spot to stay in Davis. We have been told that there is at least one more Davis company in a similar position. These are lost workers, lost tax base, and ultimately a loss in potential revenue.
The question comes down to where Davis can develop economically. Frankly, there are not a ton of options, but here are a few alternatives that can be discussed.
First, we have the Cannery Project which sits on about 100 acres of land that is zoned for light industrial. We have discussed this option fully, the landowners are not interested in a business park and people like Rob White, the City’s Chief Innovation Officer, do not believe the land is suitable.
Second, we have Nishi. Nishi is centrally-located, to the university and the downtown. It has significant access issues with Richards Blvd. However, recast with access to the university, it may be viable. However, it is probably too small a parcel for a significant business park location.
Third, we have Interland. Everyone I have talked to likes the idea of redeveloping it and building it upwards. It is away from residential areas but underutilized right now at a single story.
Fourth, we have Mace 391 and the proposal from Davis Morris.
Fifth, we have the subprime ag land to the west of Sutter-Davis Hospital, which might be viable as a business park even though its access would be 113 rather than I-80.
Sixth, we have the land in Solano County that is southwest of the university. The disadvantage of that land is that it is not in Davis and not in Yolo County, which would mean Solano County would get most of the benefits financially and fiscally of the enterprises.
It has been told to me – and I do not know that this is true – that if we do not find land in Davis to support university spinoffs, the university will make use of that land.
Right now, the area of Mace 391 is in preparation to become a permanent agricultural easement. A few years ago, this easement was greeted as a major victory in the fight for agricultural preservation and in the fight against the potential for sprawl and leapfrog development.
However, people like David Morris believe that this is not the best area to put into a permanent conservation easement. He wrote on Monday, “Conservation easement on Mace 391 will have a significant negative impact on the City’s economic development potential.”
“Shriners is a much better conservation opportunity for our community than Mace 391,” he argued, and noted that the public would have the right to vote on “whether or not we permanently remove Mace 391 from consideration as a portion of a peripheral innovation park as envisioned in the City’s economic development strategy.”
“To build this innovation economy, a key part of the mix is a large technology park,” Mr. Morris writes. “The 493 acres of land bounded by Mace Blvd, County Road 30B, County Road 105, and I-80 is the best location for a technology park in the entire Sacramento region. This equates to approximately 400 net developable acres. “
The key to his proposal is the swapping of better land, in his view, to put into a conservation easement.
He writes, “If our community is going to be asked to give up the planned Mace 391 conservation easement for technology sector economic development, then a conservation easement on better acreage has to be offered in return. If one’s overriding goals are agricultural land preservation and the creation of an urban limit, the best conservation acreage in the entire Davis sphere of influence is the 234 acre Shriners property immediately north of Covell Boulevard and east of Wildhorse.”
He argues that this is better farmland and makes the rather innovative proposal to turn it into the community farm that many of the proponents of Mace 391 in June were espousing.
He writes, “One of the objections to setting aside the NRCS grant was the loss of this community farm site. As discussed above, there is an outstanding site for a community farm on Shriners. Unfortunately, on June 11th the focus was more on process than on optimizing opportunities, so there is currently very little community awareness of the Shriners community farm alternative.”
He proposes giving “approximately 30 acres at the southwest corner of the Shriners property to the City for the purpose of establishing a community farm (this has a value to the City in excess of $1.125M in land and avoided infrastructure costs).”
He then writes, “As a condition of receiving the community farm site, the City will agree to grant CCV a no-cost option to purchase the Mace 391 property at the City’s purchase price of $3.8M and forego the planned conservation easement on the property.”
This matter would then go before the voters.
Mr. Morris writes, “CCV will place an initiative on the ballot so that the Davis voters can decide on whether or not a technology park will be annexed and entitled on the proposed 493 acre Mace site.”
If the initiative passes, the remainder of the Shriner’s property would be placed into a conservation easement. There would be “752 additional acres necessary to satisfy the 2:1 ag mitigation requirement” which “will be put into conservation easements.” And, he proposes that Capitol Corridor Ventures would “purchase the Mace 391 property for $3.8M, effectively repaying the internal loan from the Roadway Impact Fees and restoring $1.325M to the Measure O fund for new open space conservation efforts.”
So, while the city would be giving up a conservation easement on Mace 391, it would get Shriner’s, which has been a hotbed for controversy in the past, and 752 additional acres to satisfy a 2-1 ag mitigation requirement.
If David Morris is correct, this would lock in the land right around Mace 391 and prevent future sprawl out on the I-80 corridor.
And the voters decide on all of this. If the initiative were to fail, the city would retain the community farm parcel on Shriner’s and Capitol Corridor Ventures would abandon “the Mace 391 purchase option and the City places the property into a permanent conservation easement.”
Ultimately, the voters would decide on whether to go forward with this proposal.
In the end, the question comes down to whether the public believes that land – much of it is not prime agricultural land – is suitable for a 400-plus acre business park. That is a tough question and one that needs community discussion.
At least, this time around, the community is getting multiple chances to weigh in on the project and not face the pressurized conditions that existed in June.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Its a no brainer. Morris is making an offer only a fool would refuse.
Mr. Morris hasn’t answered the questions that were posed in response to his column by several of us.
Do we need to re-post those questions here now? Mine was pretty simple: who are the owners, shareholders, and directors of Capitol Corridor Ventures? To elaborate: has anything changed about CCV since June, or is it still just David Morris?
We are being asked to bring a long, above-board process to a halt, risking funds and losing an opportunity to protect some of the best farmland near Davis, to engage in a speculative land swap with unknown individuals.
“He argues that this is better farmland…”
This is a minor point, but I would appreciate his basis for this statement. I see no difference in soil quality, but I might be missing something.
I believe the conservation easement should go forward as planned.
I suggest if you have questions, post them here. Either Dave will come on, or I will email him the questions and post the answers.
You must have missed his answer. He said CCV is himself and his attorney.
No, he said that in June and Matt Williams repeated it. Hence my further question above.
Medwoman and Robb had questions on the other thread as well.
My understanding is that the status of CCV has not changed, it’s still basically David Morris.
Don: “[i]No, he said that in June and Matt Williams repeated it. Hence my further question above.[/i]”
So the question was asked and answered, which you acknowledge, but you insist on repeating it anyway? Do you not believe him, or are you just trying to gin up distrust?
Don: “[i]We are being asked to bring a long, above-board process to a halt, risking funds and losing an opportunity to protect some of the best farmland near Davis[/i]”
No, we are being asked to extend the public comment time to make sure we are making the best decision for Davis’ future. We are not risking anything as we already own and control the land. Since the NRC has given the City an extension on the time to implement the easement and sell the land, there is no reason not to take a pause and reexamine the question. What is the rush Don?
I don’t think anyone could argue that the Mace 391 parcel is a better location for a community garden and farm than the Shriners property. As David Morris pointed out in his proposal, the infrastructure to access the land safely is already in place at Shriners, but will require a multi-million dollar development at Mace 391. Does it not make sense to consider leveraging the work we have already done?
There is no need to race into this decision, especially since in the case of the proposed easement, that decision is a permanent one. The Council should take a pause, and re-examine what is in the best interests of Davis, now and for the future. In the end they may well choose to go forward with the easement, but that should only occur after allowing Staff and the community to fully evaluate David Morris’ proposal.
[quote]So the question was asked and answered, which you acknowledge, but you insist on repeating it anyway? Do you not believe him, or are you just trying to gin up distrust?[/quote]
I wish to know if anything has changed, Mark. That’s why I asked and why I extended the question with more detail. Hey, I’ve got an idea: maybe Mr. Morris could answer it, instead of Matt Williams, Mr. Toad, and Mark West.
“Rush” and “race” aren’t terms I would normally use to describe a process that has been ongoing for at least a couple of years in terms of establishing the conservation easement. This is a last-minute Hail Mary to block that, as far as I can tell.
Medwoman: Dr. Morris Since I have no business experience of any kind, I am unclear on some of the terms and concepts you are using and what they mean to you as a business man and as a citizen of Davis. 1.
The benefits of economic development focused on building a robust technology sector include more jobs, more tax revenue to the City’s general fund, and increased quality-of-life.
On other threads it has been noted that “increased quality of life” has markedly different meanings to different posters. On the one hand are those who perceive increasing population to 100,000 or so as leading to an increased quality of life, while others see this as detrimental to our quality of life. I am interested in your
perspective on what constitutes quality.
2.
It’s all part of building critical mass and establishing an ecosystem where technology company executives, investors, entrepreneurs, business services providers, and a highly-skilled workforce can all see that Davis has a vibrant innovation economy that they want to participate in – and is not a dead-end street where relatively small companies are forced to leave because we can’t accommodate their expansion.
I am not sure what you perceive as “critical mass”. From your own story of having built a company which you then sold, and starting several other smaller companies, and from your own examples of Marrrone Bio Inovations, Express Systems, Arcadia Biosciences, FMC Technologies Schilling Robotics, HM Clause, and
Mori Seiki/Digital Technology Laboratory, it would seem to me that there has been and is a great deal of successful business development that has gone on all with the Mace 391 and Shriners maintained as open space. So while you seem to be saying that we have rapidly developed, you seem to feel that we have not developed enough. My question is “what would you consider “enough” or the optimal amount of development for a city of our size ?
I am also puzzled by your use of the term “dead end street” with regard to opportunity to grow one’s business.
From my rudimentary understanding of what happens with many start ups, including the first company of yours that you sold, is that if they are promising enough, they are eventually bought by larger companies. This would leave me to characterize the start up nature of Davis as a “launching pad” rather than as a “dead end street”. And this would seem to me to be a highly appropriate role for a small city affiliated with a university. I do not see a company moving to West Sac so much as a loss for Davis as an ongoing asset for the region. I am not sure what the advantage is of necessarily grow bigger locally. And where is the end point. What is the maximal tech company size that you see as desirable ?
3.
The residual 187 acres is too small to meet the long term needs of the City.
What do you see as the minimal amount of acres that would be adequate to meet the “long term needs of the City”. What do you perceive as “the long term needs of the city? ”
4.
It is important to stress that placing a conservation easement on Mace 391 is permanent. It can’t be undone – ever – even if we really regret the decision at some point down the road and want to change our minds. As a consequence, our community is at an important inflection point.
Would it not be equally important to stress that once a parcel of land is developed and built upon either for residential or business, it will not be going back to its original state? Take the Cannery as a prime example here in town, it started out as ag land, was used for many years as an ag based company site, and is now being proposed as “mixed use” ( read primarily residential). There is no guarantee that when something is built that it will in fact be occupied and or be financially advantageous to the city. My example would be the adjacent pads to the Target. Another example might be the vacancies at some of our local shopping centers.
Finally, you specifically state that you are not a developer. However, it would seem to me from your article that you personally have quite a financial interest in the proposal that you are making. Do you think that this may be coloring your view of what is advantageous to the entire community ? Please correct me if I have misread your
personal interest in this swap.
Robb: Many questions here (honest ones). Here are a few. 1. Is Mr Morris proposing a ballot initiative that is NOT a Measure R vote? If so, how does the timing of that initiative fit with decisions that have already been made? Is this even in the realm of the possible? 2. Mr Morris writes that the soils and water situation at Shriners is better than the 391 property. How so? The soil types are not identical but, if I am reading the Yolo Soil maps correctly http://casoilresource.lawr.ucd…lweb_gmap/ I do not see anything but “prime farmland if irrigated” across all these properties. Perhaps someone can correct me (please do, I am a soil novice). 3. Where is this land? re:
752 additional acres necessary to satisfy the 2:1 ag mitigation requirement will be put into conservation easements.
4. Is 493 acres considered a “minimum”, an “ideal”? Why is a smaller site not possible? What is the smallest size that is still practical for such a park? What are the assumptions about size of structures “required” to attract new businesses to Davis?
5. I am struggling to understand the real “bite” of the guiding principles. What will stop anyone who acquires the rights from requesting a zoning change (see Cannery). We “know” housing is more lucrative than tech parks (or don’t we?)
I am interested in learning more about all of this–but especially the “logistics” of getting this on a ballot in any kind of realistic timetable given the CC recent decision about the swap. This all seems rather unreal to me unless Mr Morris is suggesting that the NRCS and the Yolo Land Trust are willing to offer a pause. If so, who is negotiating this pause? Has not the CC told staff to move ahead? Who is driving this process just now?
Thanks for any help you can provide.