On Sunday, the Vanguard supported the Davis City Council re-examining whether putting a permanent Agricultural Easement on Mace 391 was the best use of the city-owned land asset. While this was not support for putting a business park on the easement, the City’s Chief Innovation Officer reminded Vanguard readers that the idea of pausing the grant application process was originally floated at the June 11 meeting and that such a move would not be without consequences.
“I want to remind our own dialogue here on the Vanguard that the staff report (both original and modified) for the June 11th was to pause and take a harder look at more than just the one option for an easement,” Rob White wrote on Sunday.
The key point he raised, “Yes, it meant losing the NRCS grant funds of $1.25 million.”
“The reason that we had a June 15th deadline was because the NRCS gave staff (in writing) a deadline for making a decision to continue down the easement pathway with Yolo Land Trust or stop the easement process,” Mr. White wrote. “I believe that deadline was real and continues to present us problems if we negate the grant. The reason is because NRCS made it very clear to staff that by waiting on making decisions to execute the grant meant NRCS would have diminishing returns to be able to redeploy the funds. That is why the June 15th deadline was important… to let the agency have time to redeploy the funds.”
Mr. White continued, “The point is that city leadership was trying to quickly determine options for the Council so that we could provide them flexibility in decision-making. Sadly, none existed and it came down to a decision between abandoning the grant and take your chances on a future opportunity (regardless of what it was) OR take the grant and move forward.”
“I believe the council was asked to consider a no-win situation due to many culminating factors and they did the best they could,” he writes.
The question now as we move forward is can we still vacate the grant?
Rob White is blunt here, “Yes, but honestly it will create collateral damage to long-standing partnerships and relationships. As put to me by the NRCS assistant state conservationist, they don’t consider an easement a done deal until it is signed in ink at the courthouse steps. She shared candidly that others have negated a deal at the last minute, but realistically, this is not without consequences when you are a public agency like the city.”
“So, to be fair, the community needs to be very aware of what this discussion means,” Mr. White added.
As the Vanguard reported last week, council did make the determination to have an information-only item on the Mace 391 process to get an update on where things stand.
They did so at the urging of roughly twelve members of the business, tech, and start-up community.
As we noted in Sunday’s commentary, people who do not ordinarily come before the Davis City Council did so to push for the opportunity to develop land that could be used in a business park.
Schilling Robotics, for example, is a Davis business that might be the next AgraQuest and be forced to leave. As Tyler Schilling told the council, “We’re going to approach 300 employees here shortly and we’re going to need a bigger facility probably within two years.”
He moved here at four-years-old in 1963 and said, “I really enjoy the quality of life here and it helps us attract and retain the kinds of employees that we really want in our business. I must say that customers that visit us mainly from oversees really always comment on what a wonderful community it is that we have here.”
He wants to see Davis have options so that his company can stay in Davis and build a new and larger facility.
Bob Medearis founded the $4 billion Silicon Valley Bank where he served as Chairman from 1983 to 1989, and is now Director Emeritus. He is a retired Consulting Professor for Stanford University’s School of Engineering and, at the University of California Davis, the School of Management.
He told council, “You all know what to do on this east side, you know that we badly need business parks to develop ideas that are generated with this fine university that we’ve had and allow incubators, but more than just incubators, business to develop over in those areas.”
Ken Ouimet, Founder of Engage3, told the council that he started a Venture Capital backed company in the 1990s, and they had trouble getting funding in Sacramento County. Ultimately, they went to Arizona and became successful with one of the fastest growing companies.
“We decided to come back and headquarter our company here in Davis – we see a lot of opportunity for growth. We have already acquired a company in Sacramento and moved it here. We’re going through explosive growth,” he said, but they are already crowded in their facilities.
To move forward, he said they need additional space. “That’s one of the concerns we have,” he said. “As I talk to Venture Capitalists, I’m seeing a lot of excitement about Davis being the Silicon Valley of Agriculture. Looking forward, we’re going to need a lot of room for that growth and the technology companies that come out of that.”
As a number of people noted, this is not a push to create a Mace 391 business park, but instead a movement that the city of Davis needs to have a community discussion.
Clearly, the fallout consequences that Rob White noted yesterday need to play a role in that discussion.
As staff explained on June 11, “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 remaining portion of the easement would be credited from the Measure O funding used to purchase the property.”
They note, “Utilization of the NRCS grant would require that the escrow for the Mace Curve 391 Property undergo the following simultaneous closings to meet the legal requirements of the NRCS grant.”
“In order for the land sale using the NRCS grant to be financially whole, the City would need to receive a minimum of $1,350,000. (plus interest) to pay back the Road Impact Fee loan. The sale would also need to include enough excess so that a broker fee could be paid and the YLT would receive an endowment for ongoing easement enforcement.”
On Saturday, Rob White also laid out some of the critical financial calculations for a business park. He wrote, “Should an innovation park be approved at some future date by the city council and then the voters (because it will likely be on lands that require a Measure R vote), the city leadership are already working out shared revenue models that may be applied to capture several different lines of funding, both one-time and on-going.”
To caveat his calculation he noted: “The potential for any development of an innovation park is significant, and we have the demonstrated demand from local companies and those that would like to move to Davis. All of my examples are just that, examples, and they may (not) reflect the actual situation at any future time if an innovation park is determined to be right for the community.”
Property tax – changes to the land valuation will result in a property tax increase and will allow the city to capture a percentage (about 20 to 25%) of every dollar of property tax. The property tax rate in California is about 1% of total assessed value (though it is higher in many cities due to additional bonds and assessments for schools, levees, etc.). As a simple example, a $50 million commercial/research building can generate $500,000 in property tax, and Davis would get 20-25% of that (or about $125,000). One note: Commercial property is treated slightly differently that residential in that its assessed valuation is dependent on improvements AND leased space. And empty commercial building is therefore worth less than a full one if it stays empty for long.
Unsecured property tax – this tax is on major equipment, like in manufacturing. As an example, many current day manufacturers use equipment that can range in the $100s of millions, and we get the same property tax rate on that equipment (though it gets devalued yearly as part of the usage). The good news is that equipment technology is changing so rapidly that many manufacturers upgrade frequently.
Sales tax – equipment and retail goods purchased by commercial users gets charged sales tax and we currently get 1.5% on each $1 of sales in Davis. The extra 0.5% is due to the city measure that assessed the extra on each taxable sales and goes directly to the city (but ends in the near future, unless reenacted by a follow-on measure). Additionally, sales that are recorded in other locations by Davis residents (like cars, some things on Amazon, etc.) means that of the 1.5%, the 1% portion records to the other jurisdiction, but the 0.5% still comes to Davis.
Fees – most construction and renovation in the city has a set of fees associated with the activity. These fees are meant primarily to pay for the cost of delivering the service, so they are meant to create a net zero financial burden on the city for staff time. However, part of our fee structure contains some impact fees that go to current and future impacts created by the project. Again, I am way oversimplifying, but you get the idea.
Trade-offs as part of a development agreement – these are typically negotiated on large projects and include things like traffic and bike-way improvements. They are part of the current development environment across California (and nationally) and are based on a negotiation of what makes the project acceptable to the community. These are a fine balancing act for a city as you want to ask for as much in a development agreement as you can to ensure that a project truly enhances the community, but asking for too much can cause the developers to give up and walk away (think Lewis Homes and the previous
Cannery proposal – after spending $10 million in pre-development costs, they decided it was too much costs balanced against the requirements). We are having these discussions with the current Cannery development applicant, and there is a team of two council members, the city manager, and city leadership working on what is the right balance of asks to make the project a truly Davis project and valuable to the community, while balancing the point at which the developer no longer believes the project in their best interest.
Mr. White noted, “In the framework of a new innovation park (regardless of size or location), several tools can also be used to create additional funding sources: “
Mitigation – most areas identified in the work of the Innovation Park Task Force and adopted by Council in November 2012 include areas that are currently outside the city boundary. In order for any of this acreage to be used for an innovation park, it would require two things: a vote of the community to support annexation, and an entitlement process that would identify what and how the development could occur. Part of that process also includes the designation of at least 2 acres of conserved land for every 1 acre of developed land. Conserved land is typically qualified as that that is open space, habitat or agricultural. The city currently owns some lands that would be appropriate to have easements placed as part of that mitigation requirement and the city could get paid for that action or even barter in trade. This has many details that would need to be worked out on where, how, when, but it is a revenue potential.
Equity partner – since the city has some lands that may be used for mitigation, etc., we could require any new development proposal include the city as a type of equity partner to garner upside potentials from development. As the land gets more valuable from entitlement and development, we garner some part of that increased equity. This type of transaction would need to be extremely well understood, as it does include some risks and it needs to follow federal and state laws. But there are examples of cities doing this in places like Redwood City and Mountain View.
Leasehold – the city could possibly retain the rights to some lands it owns in fee title that would be used for development and become part of the equity stakeholders through a leasehold arrangement. This would be long term leasing, but would potentially create annual and long-term revenue streams. As any development does well, we get more upside, so our interest become aligned. We could also potentially mitigate risks because under at least one scenario, we could just lease the land and not participate in the development costs. Our share is smaller, but we mitigate our risks.
Development agreement – my early post about revenue sources highlighted that there are usually other requirements financially for the approval of a development. These are typically infrastructure and are tied to the nexus of the projects impacts on a community. But one area that city leadership are exploring is could we have an annual charge on a square footage basis for development in an innovation park? As a VERY rough example – if commercial and research space in a new innovation park is being leased at $1.50/square foot per month, could we add a 10% assessment that is revenue to the city for the opportunity to build? In this example, 1 million square feet of leased space would generate $150,000 monthly, or $1.8 million annually. Some have opined that there is enough demand in the tech world that as much as 5 to 8 million square feet could be realized over the next 15 to 20 years. To run this out a little further, that could be $9 to $14.4 million annually at full buildout and would be a percentage of the lease amount, so it would grow as values grow. And the typical commercial/research park has a lifespan of about 40 to 60 years (depending on construction). Such an assessment could legitimately generate about $360 million (low end) to over $864 million (very high end) in city revenue over the lifetime of the project. But before anyone runs out and spends this money, this type of assessment is very tricky from a land use consideration because it likely needs to be done under a development agreement and again needs to meet the federal and state legal requirements.
Construction/Tenant improvements – Something that is often overlooked in the revenue discussions is the construction, tenant improvement and then refurbishment of existing spaces over time. The materials used in this activity often come with a sales tax component. And there is state precedence that we can require most of the sales tax to record in Davis as the end user, regardless of where the materials are purchased. And no matter what, we will collect 0.5% sales tax when it is taxed at the Davis rate. Again, this is a complex situation, but it is revenue and on something of this scale, we are talking millions of dollars over the life of a project.
The Vanguard at this time is only seeking further discussion. The willingness for a city official to engage in community dialogue is important and the fact that Mr. White seems willing to lay out the good with the bad should increase community confidence in this process.
Time, however, is short and the council needs to make a critical decision in just over a week that may well heavily impact our future economic development potential.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
someone explain to me what’s the different between the land being put into an easement and the city owning the land?
If the land was in an easement, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because it prevents any non-ag uses in perpetuity. City-owned land can be developed at the discretion of a majority vote of the city council, subject in some cases to a public vote.
[quote]City-owned land can be developed at the discretion of a majority vote of the city council, subject in some cases to a public vote. [/quote]
And this would be one of thoses cases. Correct?
DP: I found this definition useful when wondering the same question:
An agricultural conservation easement is a voluntary, legally recorded deed restriction that is placed on a specific property used for agricultural production. The goal of an agricultural conservation easement is to maintain agricultural land in active production by removing the development pressures from the land. Such an easement prohibits practices which would damage or interfere with the agricultural use of the land. Because the easement is a restriction on the deed of the property, the easement remains in effect even when the land changes ownership.
As I understand easements the city doesn’t own the land, but the owner of the land is compensated (I’m not exactly sure how) for putting a use restriction on the land.
These are rolls over questions from yesterdays article relating to this:
.[quote].idea of pausing the grant application process was originally floated at the June 11 meeting and that such a move would not be without consequences.[/quote]
[b]1. Is is still an option for the city to use $1,125,000 NRCS grant to buy easements on property’s beside the Mace 391.
[/b]
This statement may answer my question but I’m not entirely sure what it means:
[quote]”I believe that deadline was real and continues to present us problems if we negate the grant. The reason is because NRCS made it very clear to staff that by waiting on making decisions to execute the grant meant NRCS would have diminishing returns to be able to redeploy the funds. That is why the June 15th deadline was important… to let the agency have time to redeploy the funds.[/quote]”
[b]2. If question 1 is not possible and we decide to turn down the grant will it effect our ability to receive future NRCS grants?[/b]
See all these revenue generating ideas?
All of them go away if we convert the property to ag easement.
There is great irony in this NRCS grant money argument. The “use it or lose it” fear argument when the city is heading toward insolvency is almost laughable from my perspective.
The analogy is that family living in a nice house funded by 20 credit cards all nearly maxed out and with no ability to service the payment debt adding another credit card getting an offer to be given a new 700 series BMW if they also agree to not pursue ideas to increase their income.
One more thing… I work with grant-giving federal and state agencies all the time. Their memories are short. They tend to see each new program funding appropriation as another challenge to deploy that round of funding. What gets measured gets done… and what gets measured for these government programs is how much money they deploy or spend, because that then helps cement political attention and validates the existence of the programs and the bureaucrats that run them.
If this grant goes away, there will always be opportunity for another, and another, and another… as long as the program lives.
Mace 391 is not the only potential source of revenue to help with the city’s budget problems.
Rob White has said there would be consequences; you say memories are short and imply there would be no impact on future relationships with those agencies. He has no agenda. You do.
[i]Mace 391 is not the only potential source of revenue to help with the city’s budget problems.[/i]
It is the only one on the table. Are you aware of any other proposed development projects that provide this level of revenue-generating potential?
[i]Rob White has said there would be consequences; you say memories are short and imply there would be no impact on future relationships with those agencies.[/i]
There might be weighted “reliability” criteria for future grants that might have some negligible impact on Davis. However, look around and you will note that most communities in CA and the rest of the country are trying to attract innovation parks on their periphery. There is not a flood of communities applying for these grants. Davis can apply again and again and again, and each one will be evaluated on its merits, not with any “hurt feelings” problems because we didn’t use one we had been granted.
I don’t have the stats handy, but I think I remembered reading that a large percentage of NRCS grants never get implemented due to the dynamics of politics, development and community interests.
[i]He has no agenda. You do. [/i]
Interesting. Maybe you can tell my what my agenda is different than Robb, because I am not aware of it.
Sorry – “Rob” not “Robb”
[quote]Mace 391 is not the only potential source of revenue to help with the city’s budget problems.[/quote]
From Matt’s article’s is appears it also not the only property that an ag. easement can be placed on. Again I’m new to this, so I’m sure it’s been discussed, but it is there some reason, this land was initially chosen over the others Matt identified to use the grant money for? (the wording is really bad, hopefully you get my point).
Let’s assume for the moment that we could never get another USDA grant for a conservation easement b/c the CC negates the easement, and the Mace 391 is developed into a business park:
1. Approximately 800 acres will have to be conserved b/c of the 2 for 1 mitigation requirement (please read carefully – twice as many acres are conserved, at the expense of the developer, not the city)
2. The City can recoup all of its purchase price, and much, much more than the 1.25MM from a conservation easement by selling the land to a developer or participating in a public private venture.
3. Over time, city tax revenue increases significantly.
Even if USDA puts Davis on the Never Do This Again List, so what? At best, we would lose access to a relatively small amount of money (no more than a few million) over a period of many years. Has anyone asked how much money USDA allocates nationwide to conservation easements? How much does CA receive of the national allocation?
So, what happens if we scuttle the easement but don’t develop the 391? Ag land values have increased significantly since the City purchased the land. The City should be able to recover all of its investment, and probably more by selling the land. Alternatively, the city could place the easement on the land without the USDA grant, then resell. It is likely that the city could recover much of its investment, but probably not all. No big deal.
All together, given the potentially very lucrative opportunity for the city, entering into the conservation easement b/c we might lose access to USDA funds seems very, very shortsighted.
Don: [i]Rob White has said there would be consequences; you say memories are short and imply there would be no impact on future relationships with those agencies. He has no agenda. You do. [/i]
Actually, I thought Rob and Frankly both have an agenda to see the City develop economically? Are you saying that Frankly has some other agenda? Is he involved in the transaction personally somehow?
[quote]Davis can apply again and again and again, and each one will be evaluated on its merits, not with any “hurt feelings” problems because we didn’t use one we had been granted. [/quote]
I’m concerned that while they shouldn’t hurt feelings could come and would into play. I’m also worried that our “merits” might be damaged if we back out at the last minute. Not sure if either of these are legitimate concerns though…
[quote]It is the only one on the table. Are you aware of any other proposed development projects that provide this level of revenue-generating potential? [/quote]
The Innovation Park Task Force identified multiple sites, as well as a dispersed-site approach. In choosing how Davis should grow, the city council and voters will be selecting from among those sites. Whether there is a specific development proposal “on the table” is irrelevant to making the best land-use decision. And if one site is taken off the table, it probably increases the likelihood of a development proposal coming forth for another site.
So: up to this point there were three specific sites that I can remember proposed for a business park: Cannery, Northwest Quadrant, and Mace. If Cannery is approved for housing, and Mace is put into ag easement, then the likelihood of development in NW Quadrant increases.
[i] It is likely that the city could recover much of its investment, but probably not all. No big deal. [/i]
Great points Adam.
[i]If Cannery is approved for housing, and Mace is put into ag easement, then the likelihood of development in NW Quadrant increases.[/i]
Not necessarily. There are too many variables and uncontrollable for you to be able to make that claim. I don’t have a problem with developing the NW Quadrant, but we don’t know what the neighbors will say. We don’t know about the drainage problems with that land. We don’t know if there will be sufficient interest by businesses.
B. Nice – Don’t worry about hurt feelings of USDA officials responsible to distribute grant money… they simply are not like a wife that remembers everything her husband ever said and did to hold it over him for the rest of his life. For them, each year is a new year where they have a primary responsibility to move the funds to meet the program objectives. If Davis comes in with a new grant request that helps them meet their objectives, it would not matter that a previous grant went stale.
[quote]There are too many variables and uncontrollable for you to be able to make that claim. I don’t have a problem with developing the NW Quadrant, but we don’t know what the neighbors will say. We don’t know about the drainage problems with that land. We don’t know if there will be sufficient interest by businesses. [/quote]
We don’t know what the neighbors in East Davis will say about developing Mace 391. We do know what those who favor conserving ag land will say when it goes to a Measure R vote.
What don’t we know about “drainage problems with that land” in NW Quadrant? I am unaware of insurmountable problems in that regard. Do you have some other knowledge about that? (Genuine question, not rhetorical).
We seem to have sufficient interest by businesses to fill any business park developed anywhere.
[quote]B. Nice – Don’t worry about hurt feelings of USDA officials responsible to distribute grant money… they simply are not like a wife that remembers everything her husband ever said and did to hold it over him for the rest of his life.[/quote]
Two things, one have you been talking to my husband, and two, that is kinds of a sexist remark, are you baiting me?
[quote]For them, each year is a new year where they have a primary responsibility to move the funds to meet the program objectives. If Davis comes in with a new grant request that helps them meet their objectives, it would not matter that a previous grant went stale.[/quote]
I would hope this to the case. My husband works with public agencies a lot and he has a different opinion on this.
[quote]Even if USDA puts Davis on the Never Do This Again List, so what? At best, we would lose access to a relatively small amount of money (no more than a few million) over a period of many years. Has anyone asked how much money USDA allocates nationwide to conservation easements? How much does CA receive of the national allocation?
[/quote]
So I guess this would be my 3rd question: How significant to our community is the potential lose of future NRCS grants?
[quote]How significant to our community is the potential lose of future NRCS grants?[/quote]
NRCS grants are an important part of developing a network of conservation easements. Conservation easements are an important tool for the process of establishing an urban growth limit and greenbelt. So my answer would be: very significant.
“So my answer would be: very significant.”
yes but you think every inch of class I farmland should be preserved so what is significant to you may not be representative of the current needs of the community I live in.
As I have said before on other threads, this is not about “hurt feelings” from the NRCS. It’s about an actual criterion of closing effiency that we would be judged negatively on. The Yolo Land trust made that quite clear.
As for why this piece of land “instead” of others — correct me I’m wrong, but this was the land that was available. I am sure if the other properties under discussion had been available, the Council would have sought to buy those as well. [i]After all, that is what Measure O is for.[/i]
Don: [i]”We seem to have sufficient interest by businesses to fill any business park developed anywhere.”[/i]
except Cannery???
[i]Two things, one have you been talking to my husband, and two, that is kinds of a sexist remark, are you baiting me?[/i]
I cleared it with my wife first!
[i]NRCS grants are an important part of developing a network of conservation easements. Conservation easements are an important tool for the process of establishing an urban growth limit and greenbelt. So my answer would be: very significant. [/i]
One does not really need to think deeply about this to understand the motivations and concerns of those pushing it. Davis has some of the strongest direct democracy processes compared to almost any other small city. This has been strengthened with measure J. We have aoutstanding community participation. The Vanguard has added value there.
We have hit a major economic speed bump that ripped the wheels and transmission out of our forward progress. It is not business as usual.
But then there are those pushing the fear factor that if we don’t spend that granted USDA money we will lose it.
Why are they doing this?
Because they are worried about the vote.
Previously they have relied on Davis’s direct democracy processes to block development and support their NIMBYism and change aversion.
But, today they are worried. They are worried that Davis voters might value an innovation park at Mace 391 for all of the financial and other benefits that it would provide.
So, they want the city to pull the trigger on the easement so they can sleep better at night knowing that their little hamlet is safe from change… even as it heads towards a plunge off a fiscal cliff, and young families and young professionals still feel unwelcome here.
As already mentioned, the value of this parcel will continue to increase to exceed the amount of the NRCS grant. The city owns it. We have a well-functioning political process to ensure that it will not be used for anything that the majority of the residents do not want it to be used for.
Moving to put this land in a permanent ag easement at this point would be politically and fiscally irresponsible.
NRCS money will be available again if this is the direction that Davis wants to go.
[quote]But, today they are worried. They are worried that Davis voters might value an innovation park at Mace 391 for all of the financial and other benefits that it would provide. [/quote]
No, not worried, at least not in the way that you say. If the Council does become convinced to forgo the grant and go forward with the Innovation Park, it will lose the Measure J/R vote. Then we will have lost the NRCS grant money and wasted more time and money in a costly and divisive campaign, instead of putting an innovation park in a less controversial area.
What motivates me to keep bringing up the NRCS problem is your repeated unsubstantiated assertions — assertions that I have shown to be false in the past — that our past behavior won’t prevent our future success. It would be better for you to be honest and just say that you don’t care about future NRCS grants.
[quote]As I have said before on other threads, this is not about “hurt feelings” from the NRCS. It’s about an actual criterion of closing effiency that we would be judged negatively on. The Yolo Land trust made that quite clear. [/quote]
This is what I was wondering, would we actually get an official strike against us, that isn’t subjective. (something akin to a negative report on a credit score).
[quote]I cleared it with my wife first! [/quote]
What about all the other wives?
[quote]But then there are those pushing the fear factor that if we don’t spend that granted USDA money we will lose it. [/quote]
If this is a possibility then people should know about it. I don’t see them pushing the fear factor on this issue, anymore then you and other’s are pushing the fear factor of the economic impacts of not developing the land.
[quote]But, today they are worried. They are worried that Davis voters might value an innovation park at Mace 391 for all of the financial and other benefits that it would provide.[/quote]
You are ascribing ulterior motives to people’s actions, that you can’t prove. Why don’t you let people say for themselves what or what not they are worried about?
[quote]One does not really need to think deeply about this to understand the motivations and concerns of those pushing it.[/quote]
The motivation is to protect and conserve the farmland. Nothing deeper than that.
[quote]But then there are those pushing the fear factor that if we don’t spend that granted USDA money we will lose it. [/quote]
We will certainly lose this specific grant, yes. That isn’t a fear factor. It’s an obvious reality. Does it make it less likely that we’ll get grants in the future? You say no. Others say it may be a concern. More to the point: if we lose this grant, we have to start over.
This has been a long process of getting to this point. It has been put through all the requisite commissions, agendized with public notice and public comment. It meets specific goals of our council, our planning policies, and our long-range goals. It has been an ongoing discussion for something like three years. Any number of people in town have been fully aware of it. And it is at risk of being derailed by a proposal that came out of the blue, that has not specific substance yet, no tenants, no development plan, no financing that we’re aware of.
The part of the process we can trust will be fully realized in the manner described to the public is the ag conservation easement that is slated to occur in late March. There are other sites that can be developed to meet the city’s economic development goals. It’s not Mace or nothing.
[quote]So, they want the city to pull the trigger on the easement so they can sleep better at night knowing that their little hamlet is safe from change… even as it heads towards a plunge off a fiscal cliff, and young families and young professionals still feel unwelcome here. [/quote]
So we can continue to make progress toward a reasonable balance of conservation and economic development, using the lands that are most appropriate and best suited for each.
$4 million for 160 acres = $25k per acre for farm land. What did we pay for the Mace 391 land?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/farm.jpg[/img]
Why are we not talking about this parcel?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/willowcreek.jpg[/img]
Lost in this is the motivation of the measure O, open space committee people. Measure O created a little sinecure in our city with a funding mechanism. Honestly they have done a pretty good job carrying out their mandate up until now but the way they blocked the 391 deal by ringing the alarm bells can be seen as self serving. One thing I want to know is if 391 in placed into an easement, most of the land will be leased to someone to farm with only a small fraction of a few acres available to the community, so, what is the process for determining who gets the lease? Another thing I wonder is does the community know that most of the land preserved at 391 will not be available to the public?
For those of you interested, I just commented on Sunday’s post to defend myself from the aspersions cast on me by Matt Williams. I try to keep my work and personal life balanced, so it’s rare that I’ll ever read, much less comment, on a blog post or email on the weekend.
Kemble K. Pope
Executive Director, Davis Chamber of Commerce
Mr Toad – if the city places the conservation easement on the 391, they will very likely sell the property, and will not be involved in the leasing decision. New owner be responsible for farming or leasing.
So if that is the case we get the open space but not the ability to use it?
From SacBee today “Elk Grove wants to expand by 8,000 acres to the south.”
For the record, comparisons between development in Elk Grove and Davis are greatly exaggerated.
How do we know the sale won’t be a sweetheart deal? Will there be a competitive bidding process?
[quote]but not the ability to use it?[/quote]
Are you accustomed to wandering around on working farmland? I don’t think there are going to be fences; you’ll probably be able to walk onto the property if you have some desire to. But it’s a farm. Do you use the property right now?
We are using public money supposedly for the public benefit but the public will not be able to use the land. I’m not sure the taxpayers of Davis are aware of this. My guess is that the voters thought measure O would provide open space they would be able to access for recreation and other purposes.
[quote]they would be able to access for recreation and other purposes.[/quote]
Why would they have thought that?
[quote]My guess is that the voters thought measure O would provide open space they would be able to access for recreation and other purposes.[/quote]
Given it’s been 13 years, and I have a hard time remember what I did this morning, but I remember Measure 0 being primarily about acquiring/preserving farmland. I couldn’t find the verbiage of the measure online, I’d be curious to read it if someone has access and could post it.
All about Measure O (pdf): [url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DraftMeasureOReport20130524.pdf[/url]
Thanks Don!
“Why would they have thought that?”
Because open space implies access.
I wonder how popular Open Space would be going forward if the people of Davis realize they are paying taxes to preserve land they will not have access to visiting. Go ahead make that argument.
If you look at the link I provided above, you will see that the majority of the sites already purchased by Measure O funds do not have public access.
Well that should certainly be part of the debate.
This point about land access has been brought up before by me. I have been a bit perplexed about all those seemingly stuck on the ant-business park / pro-ag easment track. Do you know that many farmers will shoot at you walking around on their land! Well maybe not, but they generally don’t like people trampling crops and creating liability problems.
Now here is one of many new business parks with ponds and open space and trails.
[url]http://carnerosbusinesspark.com/project.html[/url]
Why not have the city decide to develop it with 25-50% of the land to be included as recreational?
Sure, let’s put Measure O back on the ballot, along with Measure R. Go for it.
“The Carneros Business Park is located in Sonoma County on Eighth St. East near Highway 121 South of The Sonoma Skypark. Centrally located to both the Sonoma and Napa county markets, [b]the total size of the Park is 53 acre[/b]s with approximately 42 acres in 13 separate lots available for sale. Beautifully landscaped the Park has lakes, fountains and trails running throughout. The Park’s roads are paved and infrastructure is complete with all utilities in ground except for individual water wells. Presently, there are two major occupiers of space in the Park – Ganau Cork and Laura Chenel Goat Cheese. In addition there is one spec building in the Park, Carneros Business Center, available for lease.”
Interesting example. Should fit on any number of sites.
Don – I’m sure you get the point. The city owns the land. The value of the developed land and the revenue generated allows for a hybrid business-recreational park design.
That is a win, win, win. Economic development, jobs, tax revenue, open space… what’s not to love?
That it paves over prime farmland, and moves the urban edge of Davis further east. But it’s a great idea near the hospital, or on another site.
[quote]We do not see another location in or around Davis that would be as well suited for a business park as the Mace space at 2nd Street given its ease of access from the freeway and frontage road signage opportunity. Marrone Bio Innovations[/quote]FMC also wants to be at Mace. I’m not aware of a single company that has been willing to state on the record they prefer the NW quadrant.
I don’t think that now is the time to have the debate about the best site for a business park around Davis. But some commenters continue to advocate for the NW Quadrant, so I think it appropriate point out that there are several significant advantages for the Mace 391. In my view, they are:
1. Access and visibility to I80, a much more heavily trafficked Interstate, compared to 113. The NW Quadrant doesn’t compare well at all from this perspective.
2. Lack of proximity to neighborhoods and hospitals, whose residents may not appreciate the sights and sounds of a business park, including those associated with greenhouses and the very bright night lighting that usually accompanies them.
3. Access to rail – a significant advantage for the Mace 391 site.
I think the only advantage the NW Quadrant has is that it contains slightly worse soils, but the Mace 391 is far from being great ag soil. From the soil quality perspective, there are portions of each site that are very poor ag soils, and portions that are good ag soils. Further, neither site has access to surface water, which means that as irrigated ag land, each of them are draining aquifers of water that we need in the city of Davis. If preserving quality ag land is the goal, there are much better sites than either of these two.
[quote]FMC also wants to be at Mace. I’m not aware of a single company that has been willing to state on the record they prefer the NW quadrant.[/quote]
I think it is almost certain that a business park in the NW quadrant would fill with tenants, given the apparent demand for business space that we have all been told about in recent days. Where one particular tenant wants to locate isn’t the issue.
I will leave it to someone else to explain why the soil in NW quadrant is poorer quality than Mace 391. Do you have some special expertise on that subject?
“Draining aquifers” is also not a particularly valid argument. We don’t “need the aquifers” because we are going heavily to surface water. And I’m guessing, though I don’t know for sure, that they are pumping from the mid-level aquifers if they’re using well water, and our groundwater use will be from the deep aquifers.
[quote]But some commenters continue to advocate for the NW Quadrant[quote][/quote][/quote]
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis hereby resolves to:
Pursue a “Dispersed Innovation Strategy” offering flexible space (scalability) supporting needs of growing and new businesses. A combined approach of near term close-in hub with mid-term, larger less constrained edge sites offer the best mix of University proximity and expansion capability for the City:
1) Maximize Existing Inventory to increase development certainty, and flexibility.
2) Review existing land use, zoning and tax structure with objectives of supporting
retention and growth of innovation businesses and maximizing revenue
opportunities.
3) Near Term – The Gateway (Downtown Research & University Innovation
District) option offers the best close/in location due to the proximity to University and property owner and University interest, and should be pursued as the City’s top innovation center priority.
4) Mid-Term – The East and West “edge” sites offer viable options for location and size of larger innovation centers meeting needs of growing mid-sized companies, and should be continued to be explored as part of a mid-term Dispersed Innovation Strategy.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Davis on this 13th day of November, 2012
—–
The NW Quadrant site has been given equal weight and consideration throughout the peripheral task force deliberations. It isn’t “some commenters” advocating it. This is the result of a long analysis. What we are getting on the Vanguard is an aggressive push for the Mace 391 development by participants, based on anecdotes. We are seeing a very clear lobbying effort here, and before the council. The peripheral task force used a formal process of evaluation and did not rank one site higher than another, so far as I can tell.
It is reasonable to conclude that both sites would be suitable for a business park, probably equally suitable by most objective criteria.
“I think it is almost certain …” That’s your opinion, not a fact. Rob White has already cited examples of poorly sited business parks that are failing.
“Where one particular tenant …” Disrespecting the preferences of our high value tenants (Marrone and FMC) is not good strategic planning for the City.
Soils is a red herring. If that’s a sincere concern, then swapping Shriners for part of Mace 391 is the best outcome.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”So I guess this would be my 3rd question: How significant to our community is the potential lose of future NRCS grants?”[/i]
After a long day of one meeting after another, it is nice to carch up to the Vanguard. B.N. the simplest answer to your question can be found if you go to [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130611/Special-Meeting-02-Mace-Curve-391-Presentation.pdf[/url] and scroll down to the third from the last page, which is entitled “NRCS Relationship Assurance” That page has an image of an e-mail from James Gore, the then head of NRCS in Washington in which he says,
[b][i]”No hard feelings if you guys have to rescind your application.
Best to you in all your endeavors.
James Gore Assistant Chief Natural Resources Conservation Service | USDA[/i][/b]
Don Shor
[i]”The motivation is to protect and conserve the farmland. Nothing deeper than that. “[/i]
I agree 100% Don.
To that end, I (as an unaffiliated individual) am not supporting any individual specific alternative at this time. Instead, I am supporting a process for discussing all alternatives. I absolutely will not support any proposal that does not guarantee a considerable amount of agricultural land be protected from future development, nor will I support any proposal that prioritizes housing ahead of jobs creation and innovation retention.
The real question is “Can We Have Our Cake and Eat it Too?” by focusing on “Yes” rather than “No” with all the core constituencies getting positive answers to their individual “What’s In It For Me” questions.
— The Farmland Preservation portion of the Davis community would see the dream of a conserved agricultural border transformed into reality, with upwards of 3,000 acres of prime ag land on the Urban Fringe conserved.
— The Riparian Habitat portion of the Davis community would see two riparian corridors rehabilitated.
— The Fish Spawning Habitat portion of the Davis community would see the efforts to restore salmon spawning habitat in the Putah Creek complex enhanced and expanded.
— The economic vitality community in Davis would see upwards of 950 acres of Innovation Park identified that would put Davis in a position to be proactive about keeping good companies in Davis rather than losing them to other cities/states.
— The Ag Technology Research community spinning out of UCD would see well over 1,000 acres of permanently conserved ag land made available for field research adjacent to the Innovation Parks (as in the current Harris Moran model on south Mace and the Bayer/AgraQuest model just committed to in West Sacramento).
— The taxpayers in Davis would see additional revenues generated by the increase in economic vitality that comes with retained/added jobs that match the UCD/Davis core competencies profile. As a result further tax increases should be forestalled.
— Thousands of individual Davis residents would see their homes that are currently in the FEMA floodplains removed from the risk of flooding, saving them whatever annual FEMA flood insurance premiums they are paying.
As I have said before, I’m sure there are other perspectives that those seven bullet points above don’t capture, and I’m equally sure that as the open, transparent community dialogue continues, those perspectives will step up and be heard. The objective is a well-informed community dialogue. We owe that to ourselves.
Kemble Pope said . . .
[i]”For those of you interested, I just commented on Sunday’s post to defend myself from the aspersions cast on me by Matt Williams. I try to keep my work and personal life balanced, so it’s rare that I’ll ever read, much less comment, on a blog post or email on the weekend.
Kemble K. Pope
Executive Director, Davis Chamber of Commerce”[/i]
For those of you who are interested I just posted the following response (Part One) to the questions that Kemble has raised.
Matt
[quote]Kemble Pope said . . .
“Matt Williams – I am very disappointed that you would so carelessly launch public accusations against my character, integrity and/or quality of work. You are now wasting my time and the resources of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. I don’t know if your motives are dishonorable or this is just an example of shoddy worksmanship to prove a point, but after all the time, trust and feedback that I’ve freely given you in the past, it’s a real shame that you couldn’t take the time to ask me directly.
I asked you to clean up your mess this morning, but since you haven’t, I guess that I’ll have to do it for you in order to protect my character.
05/20/2010 – I sent an email entitled “Serving the City of Davis, It’s Been Great!” to about 40 community leaders announcing that I would be winding down all of my volunteer work to focus on my career. I stated in that email (that I’m willing to forward with recipients) that my term on OS&H expired in September of 2010 and that I would not be reapplying.
09/13/2010 – My last meeting as a member of the OS&H. Unfortunately, I could not attend, but the agenda kindly has Item 7 “Adjourn in honor of retiring Commissioners Pope and Takei”.
10/05/2010 – I received an email from the City Clerk’s office asking me to complete my Form 700 as an outgoing appointed Commissioner. ”
[b]Kemble, I have been at a sequential series of meetings all day, so haven’t been able to address your concerns, which frankly surprise me in their magnitude. I will address those that I can here and now and am seeking additional documentation of some others that do not have existing electronic copies on the City’s website.
I appreciate the fact that the events of the three dates above indicates that you had decided to end your formalized governmental interest in all things Open Space and Habitat related, but does that mean that on September 13, 2010 you flipped a switch inside your brain shut down all consideration of and interest in either the workings of the Open Space and Habitat Commission or Measure O or the continued interest of Davis citizens in open space and habitat? Did Steve Souza similarly flip a switch in his brain when he left the Council? Did Sue Greenwald? The list of people who stepped away from public office is infinitely long, but I suspect that the list of those who lost all interest is probably no longer than the total number of fingers and toes on your body. [/b][/quote]
Kemble Pope said . . .
“For those of you interested, I just commented on Sunday’s post to defend myself from the aspersions cast on me by Matt Williams. I try to keep my work and personal life balanced, so it’s rare that I’ll ever read, much less comment, on a blog post or email on the weekend.
Kemble K. Pope
Executive Director, Davis Chamber of Commerce”
For those of you who are interested I just posted the following response (Part Two) to the questions that Kemble has raised.
Matt
[quote]Kemble Pope said . . .
“10/11/2010 – OS&H (without me)considers, for the first time, a staff presentation that there is an opportunity to purchase Mace 391. I dug up that document… not a single mention of NRCS grant.”
[b]Your comment above reads like the first half of a Paul Harvey news program. Here is “the rest of the story”
• First, Mace 391 came before OS&H before October 11, 2010.
• Second, the evidence of that is in black and white in the November 16, 2010 Staff Report to Council http://city-council.cityofdavi…Option.pdf, which says in Attachment 5 dated October 5, 2010, “The acquisition sub-committee (Commissioners Aptekar, Davis, and House) visited the site with staff in late September. The Sub-committee will provide a verbal presentation to the full commission summarizing the site visit.”
• Third, in order to have an Acquisition Subcommittee the OS&H Commission would have had to create on at a noticed meeting.
• Fourth, in your e-mail to me earlier today you said, “My last meeting was September 2010 (which I could not attend), but I had not attended since May due to the OS&H tradition (which I started) of using the summer for Working Groups (which I did not participate in that year).”
• Fifth, if your e-mail comment is correct, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then the very latest that the OS&H Commission could have taken a noticed action to create The Acquisition Subcommittee would have been September 13, 2010. If your Working Group statement is accurate, then the May meeting is the more likely date when the Acquisition Subcommittee would have been formed. The minutes of the OS&H Commission will provide us with a clearer picture on that timeline.
Regardless, your statement “10/11/2010 – OS&H (without me)considers, for the first time, a staff presentation that there is an opportunity to purchase Mace 391.” is inaccurate.
Now lets look at a bit more of “the rest of the story.” You state that “I dug up that document… not a single mention of NRCS grant.” You should have dug a bit deeper because the Council Staff Report based on the OS&H recommendation based on the September site visit resulted in the following:
[u]”If completed, the property acquisition price as specified in the purchase option agreement would be $3.8 million dollars. As detailed below, the City will be pursing Federal and State grant funds for agricultural conservation.
If the Council authorizes execution of the purchase option agreement, staff will prepare and submit grant applications in Spring 2011 to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program and the California Department of Conservation for easement acquisition matching funds. These funding sources match up to 50% of the easement value of the transaction. The City and its partners (i.e. Yolo Land Trust), have been successful in past grant applications to these funders and staff believes this property will be competitive in the next round of funding. [/u]
That Kemble . . . is the rest of the story.[/b] [/quote]
[quote]”I think it is almost certain …” That’s your opinion, not a fact. Rob White has already cited examples of poorly sited business parks that are failing.
“Where one particular tenant …” Disrespecting the preferences of our high value tenants (Marrone and FMC) is not good strategic planning for the City.
Soils is a red herring. If that’s a sincere concern, then swapping Shriners for part of Mace 391 is the best outcome.[/quote]
So you believe a business park in the NW Quadrant would fail? Why, then, would the Peripheral/Innovation Task Force have even considered it?
I am not disregarding their preferences. They are just that: preferences. Nobody I am aware of has rejected NW Quadrant, either.
Soils are not a “red herring.” The soil quality is one factor, location is another, proximity to other developable high-quality soil is another.
Why are you so negative about Northwest Quadrant? It’s been part of the planning process and discussion throughout this whole process. The only reason I can think of for denigrating it is a strong interest in keeping the focus on Mace 391 to the exclusion of all other alternatives.
Kemble Pope said . . .
[i]”For those of you interested, I just commented on Sunday’s post to defend myself from the aspersions cast on me by Matt Williams. I try to keep my work and personal life balanced, so it’s rare that I’ll ever read, much less comment, on a blog post or email on the weekend.
Kemble K. Pope
Executive Director, Davis Chamber of Commerce” [/i]
For those of you who are interested I just posted the following response (Part Three) to the questions that Kemble has raised.
Matt
[quote]Kemble Pope said . . .
[i]”I knew next to nothing about Mace 391 until I heard some allusions to an ill-timed grant in mid-April 2013. Then, nothing until the day after I returned from a 3 week vacation in June 2013.
How is it possible that I went from deep in the OS&H/conservation conversation to very little awareness? Easy. I focused every bit of attention and energy that I had on growing my business, then I met the love of my life, I got a great (demanding) local job, we bought our first home, we got married and … well, I’ve been living my life.”[/i]
[b]Kemble I appreciate this explanation, but again it doesn’t appear to be the whole story. When you were appointed as the Executive Director of the Chamber the Davis Enterprise ran a story that included the following quote in which I have underlined a key piece of information. [i]”[u]In 2010, past Chamber board chairman Bill Alger, chief operating officer of Woodland Healthcare, appointed Pope to chair the Chamber’s Government Relations Committee.[/u] During their tenure, Alger and Pope worked with several other community leaders to create the local business and economic development advocacy group Designing a Sustainable & Innovative Davis Economy (DSIDE).” [/i]
Was every bit of attention and energy so focused (on growing your business, and then building a relationship with the love of my life) that your role as the GRC Chair fell by the wayside? As the sitting Chair of the GRC of the Chamber, is the following quote from the November 16, 2010 Council Staff report not a noteworthy government relations topic that should have been on the Chamber’s radar?
[i]“If the Council authorizes execution of the purchase option agreement, staff will prepare and submit grant applications in Spring 2011 to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program and the California Department of Conservation for easement acquisition matching funds. These funding sources match up to 50% of the easement value of the transaction. The City and its partners (i.e. Yolo Land Trust), have been successful in past grant applications to these funders and staff believes this property will be competitive in the next round of funding.”[/i]
Again, I appreciate your explanation, but is it really the whole story?[/b] [/quote]
“Sure, let’s put Measure O back on the ballot, along with Measure R. Go for it.”
I agree, we should put measure O back on the ballot, then we could have a full debate about how our tax dollars are being spent to the detriment of the community by preventing future generations from deciding their own land use fates through in perpetuity conservation easements and find out if the community really understood that their tax dollars would go to purchase property the citizens would never be able to access.
Mr. Toad
[quote]Another thing I wonder is does the community know that most of the land preserved at 391 will not be available to the public?[/quote]
I can only speak as one individual, and one who has not followed this issue closely over time. I have never equated “open space” in my mind with my ability to access it at will for recreational or any other purpose.
“Open space” means exactly that to me, it says nothing about the public use of the space, only that it will not be built upon.
Frankly
As someone who has no experience in business park development, I am curious about the seeming contradiction between two points of view put forth on this thread. On the one hand, you have presented the
concept of a “beautifully landscaped” area with fountains, lakes and trails. Now I for one, after watching the video did not find this area particularly attractive, but that is just a matter of personal aesthetics. The bigger issues is that there have been at least two concerns here about “what the neighbors” would have to say as has been raised a number of times regarding the Cannery as a less than optimal site because it would be disruptive of the neighbors. So it would seem to me that people have concerns about the location of a business park, regardless of how beautifully landscaped, because of truck traffic, noise factors, lighting factors, and probably a number of “neighbor unfriendly factors” of which I am unaware. Can you help me reconcile what appear to be two legitimate concerns ?
“Open space’ means exactly that to me, it says nothing about the public use of the space, only that it will not be built upon.”
Well then what did you envision? It returning to tule swamp?
“”Open space” means exactly that to me, it says nothing about the public use of the space, only that it will not be built upon. “
Me too.
This is so absurd its beyond belief. At the same time that we densify with infill we make the surrounding land out of use to the population. With the future of both the little league fields and the Nugget Soccer fields in dispute and demands for ever more dense housing why the community would want to create land ownership patterns that deny access to the community as if we were peasants trying to gain entrance to the property of the landed gentry is outrageous. At what point is the community going to decide that commodity production is not the paramount value of the community.
I had two interesting conversations with old friends last week. The first who was anti-fluoride told me the new water system was being built to facilitate growth and he didn’t want the growth because he planned on selling his house in about five years and leaving. He felt restricting supply would get him the best price.
The second old friend, who was pro-fluoride told me he moved here because years ago he couldn’t stand the commute to his job in L.A. and doesn’t want Davis to grow because of the impacts of people on traffic. “Let people live in Woodland or Dixon” he told me.
I asked him where the 2 billion people born since he moved to Davis should live. Shouldn’t we take our share? “I didn’t reproduce, I’m doing my part” was his response. How sad.
Both of these people were being completely selfish. They are old friends but they are, like most of the community, putting self interest first. However neither has completely been able to stop growth only concentrate it. The cost of that concentration coupled with the farmland worshipers bears a different kind of cost creating a denser community without access to needed land where increasing numbers of people means ever more control over lifestyles where everything from making noise to fires in fireplaces are outlawed. Where there is no place for gardens in a community famous for agriculture and where real estate values are so large that the places where kids play get developed. I guess our only hope is to become so expensive that nobody with kids will be able to live here then we won’t need the space for the kids to play. I have no problem with senior housing but when the largest real estate project in the city in over a decade is an assisted living facility it calls into question the sustainability of sustainability.
[i]Can you help me reconcile what appear to be two legitimate concerns ? [/i]
It is really quite simple. There is very little housing directly adjacent to the Mace 391 property. Conversely, there are is significant residential population adjacent to the NW Quadrant property. There is a hospital, there is a high-end senior living property. Business parks tend to generate their activity and potential related impacts during working hours. Most residents are also away working at the same time. But then there is the hospital and the seniors property.
I don’t have a problem with developing the NW quadrant property. I have said so. My point was that we don’t know if the neighbors in that area will feel the same way. I think there is a greater potential for opposition over impacts because of the proximity to the residential properties on the other side of covell and the hospital. However I don’t know this for a fact.
I am not arguing one over the other. I would like us to develop both. I just see the Mace 391 property as an obvious better choice for a business park. And, the city owns it so we are in the driver’s seat to maximize our financial benefits by developing it. And since we own it, we can get creative in its design and include a bunch of useable open space.
Matt Williams – The “whole story” is that I nearly gave up on Davis in the Fall of 2010 because I couldn’t find paid work. I began commuting to SF (on the 5:45am or 6:45am train) most days of the week to work on consulting projects for a friend. So, yes, I did “flip a switch” when it came to OS&H.
As a past Chair of the GRC and current ED of the Chamber, I can tell you that there are MANY “noteworthy government relations topics” on the Commissions, City, County and State’s legislative dockets that should get attention from us but don’t due to a lack of time and resources. Should this item have received more attention back then? Perhaps. But a quick review of our agendas from those days show that we were focused on the water project, waste water project, the “fee pile”, Park & Recreation Facilities Master Plan, and the creation of DSIDE. On 06/17/10, we had an update on the Business Park Land Strategy, but as I’ve pointed out, Mace 391 was not on the radar at that point. We have TWO HOURS PER MONTH to discuss the highest priority business community items… that is the whole story.
You are being obtuse re: my wind down of community activities. You quoted from it, so I know that you read my 05/20/10 email which stated, “My work in service of the Chamber of Commerce’s Government Relations Committee and the City/Chamber 2×2 is not done. We are half-way through an exciting year of positive action and I will complete my appointment to these groups and pass on the torch in January 2011.”
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that the Chamber is not a land developer. We can only research, comment on and possibly support those opportunities and issues that are presented to us or publicly available. Had Mr. Morris brought his matter to the GRC at anytime prior to the June 2013 City Council vote, then the Chamber could have pursued the matter further. He did not do that, neither did anyone else, and so we were caught flat footed in June. Should I have known more, connected more dots, remembered CC Agenda items from three years ago? I think I’m a capable guy, but that’s setting the bar rather high, don’t you think?
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that there are many, many development schemes in some form of half-baked floating around out there.
[quote]”It’s whispered/I heard from (insert credible name) that (insert developer name) has an option on (insert parcel of land) and they’re going to submit a plan for (insert type of development) by (insert future date).” [/quote]
I hear something along those lines every other week. We simply don’t have the time nor the resources to proactively track every single one of these phantom developments, especially when so few of them actually come to fruition. Should we be? That’s a question for the Chamber’s Board of Directors, but my instinct tells me no.
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that the Chamber is trying its honest best to promote the concept and need for economic vitality and a jobs/housing balance in our community. The Chamber’s work over the past 3 years has ignited more community discussion on these topics, and we believe real movement forward, than any time in recent memory.
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that you’re trying to throw the Chamber under the bus at a time when it is most needed.
And lastly, on a personal note, why is it MY responsibility to “dig deeper”? Why would you accuse me without having dug deeper yourself?? In the future, may I suggest that before you throw former allies under the bus that you get your facts lined up?
And now, I’m going to log off and try to accomplish some items on my task list. We’re still accepting applications for Chamber Day on the Quad on Wednesday, October 16th. That event is one of the few affordable and turn-key opportunities for local businesses to get on campus and interact with students, faculty and staff. Call 756-5160 to register. Also, folks should mark their calendars for our next Lunch & Learn, “Quickbooks for Small Businesses” on November 5th.
[quote]After a long day of one meeting after another, it is nice to carch up to the Vanguard. B.N. the simplest answer to your question can be found if you go to http://city-council.cityofdavi…tation.pdf and scroll down to the third from the last page, which is entitled “NRCS Relationship Assurance” That page has an image of an e-mail from James Gore, the then head of NRCS in Washington in which he says,
“No hard feelings if you guys have to rescind your application.
Best to you in all your endeavors.
James Gore Assistant Chief Natural Resources Conservation Service | USDA[/quote]
I’m really getting tired of debunking this to the same people over and over — people who seem to think that by repeating the same nonsense it will somehow become truth.
“No hard feelings” means nothing.
“Closing efficiency” on past grants, which is an actual written criterion for future grants, has real meaning. I’m glad no ones feelings will be hurt. But that is not the issue.
[i]”Closing efficiency” on past grants, which is an actual written criterion for future grants, has real meaning.[/i]
It is de minimis criteria. It means nothing in consideration of all the other key criteria. It is also based on an assessment of current capability, not historical experience. The criterion assesses the level of closing efficiency for the current grant request, not past grants.
If Davis has a future grant request, that request will be vetted based on its merit despite the fact that a previous grant was not utilized.
The continued attempt to frighten the uniformed that we need to spend this money so as not to piss off any USDA officials is out of line.
[quote]The continued attempt to frighten the uniformed that we need to spend this money so as not to piss off any USDA officials is out of line.[/quote]
I’ll go instead with Rob White’s words: [quote] Could we technically still vacate the grant? Yes, but honestly it will create collateral damage to long-standing partnerships and relationships. As put to me by the NRCS assistant state conservationist, they don’t consider an easement a done deal until it is signed in ink at the courthouse steps. She shared candidly that others have negated a deal at the last minute, but realistically, this is not without consequences when you are a public agency like the city. So, to be fair, the community needs to be very aware of what this discussion means.[/quote]
and
[quote] the view on the NRCS is the one I am told, but a further checkin with the Feds is really the only way to know for sure what exactly their view might be.[/quote]
It’s not clear to me the purpose of the Kemble Pope witch hunt. Rob White posted Sunday that “community leadership” has had actual knowledge of the Morris land swap proposal for over 2 years. Delving into whether Pope should have had knowledge is akin to investigating the privates, corporals and sergeants for war crimes, while the generals go untouched.
“What is destructive in this continued dialogue is the continued villianization of members of our community. And usually with facts not in evidence.” Rob White VG post on Sunday
The problem, Rob, is the community leadership has been saying they didn’t know about the land swap / NCRS grant / conservation easement issue until the last minute. They said they didn’t have an opportunity to weigh the matter. Indeed, my recollection of the June CC meeting is various CC members harshly criticizing staff for the rushed process. Now you’re saying the “community leadership” knew about the swap for over 2 years. It’s really hard to square the two. Perhaps the seeming contradiction is due to now knowing who is included in “community leadership”. Are those CC members, senior city staff, commission chairs, the leadership of key stakeholder groups, who?
“But re-painting a situation with murkiness is not beneficial to the end result, which is a community wide dialogue about our path forward.” -Rob White VG Sunday post
A community wide, constructive dialogue would be nice. The problem here is the affair started out murky and has become steadily murkier with contractions piled on top of non-disclosure piled on top of disinformation. The situation has not been re-painted with murkiness it was initially painted quite murky. I don’t see where any effort has been undertaken to provide transparency or proper analysis of the various opportunities/alternatives. Perhaps such an effort will begin with the October 15th staff report. We shall see.
-Michael Bisch
we need to make the right decision for this community – whatever the community decides. if that means we need to slow down, then so be it.
davisite4, you raise a very good point about “closing efficiency.” The question I have for you (which I don’t know the answer to) is what has Davis’ closing efficiency been to date. We have been very active (one might even say prolific) in our pursuit of and closing ag easements. Here’s an example from the eight year period from 2005 through 2012 from the City’s report called “Measure O — Open Space Protection Special Tax Fund”
2005 — 300 ac McConeghy Ranch; no public access. Adjacent to Ebey/Laughtin Ranch
2006 — 146 ac Ebey/Laughtin Ranch; no public access. Adjacent to McConeghy Ranch
2008 — 80 ac Barger Ranch; no public access, protected riparian corridor.
2008 — 80 ac Wasserman Farm; no public access, protected riparian corridor.
2009 — 300 ac Staib Farm; no public access, protected riparian corridor.
2009 — 488 ac Miles/Kidwell Farm; no public access. Adjacent to McConeghy Ranch
2009 — 85 ac McIssac Farm; no public access. Adjacent to Barger Ranch
2010 — 90 ac Stanley Farm; agricultural easement; no public access.
2010 — 72 ac Staib 72 Farm; fee title to be sold to conservation buyer.
2011 — 390 ac Mace Curve; fee title to be sold to conservation buyer.
2011 — 90 ac Kerr Farm; Swainson’s hawk easement; protected riparian corridor; no public access.
2012 — 392 ac Eoff Farm; no public access. Adjacent to Staib easements
Total — 2,513 Acres
12 easements closed in 8 years. Is there another jurisdiction in California that has a “closing efficiency” that even approximates that? In baseball the idea of batting 12 for 12 is the stuff of dreams. Indeed batting 12 for 13 is beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. So the question that I have about how NRCS looks at “closing efficiency” is, is it a what have you done for me lately approach or a what have you done over time approach? I honestly do not know the answer to that question and would love to learn more.
[quote]but a further checkin with the Feds is really the only way to know for sure what exactly their view might be.[/quote]
Council should direct staff to have this conversation. I don’t think staff is going to ask if they aren’t told to do so. Remember: the default position right now is to proceed with the conservation easement. Nobody has told anybody to pause, nor has such an item been agendized. Council requested a report, not a reconsideration.
Question to Matt, since you have that file open: how much Measure O funding has been spent on those parcels over that eight year period, and how much has Measure O generated each year?
Thanks Matt.
Those making this NRCS grant “hurt feelings” point seem to be telling us that NRCS only has a memory for the last failed grant. But if the criteria is really closing efficiency… then as you point out, we have earned a large pile of chips that we can spend without losing our ability to still play the game.
[i]the view on the NRCS is the one I am told, but a further checkin with the Feds is really the only way to know for sure what exactly their view might be.[/i]
This is absolutely the case. A comment from one assistant state conservationist does not a policy make.
By the way, I would have called in or checked their website for a final final if the Democrats had not decided to exploit the demands of the GOP as a scorched-earth tactic that is a continence of their divide-and-conquer political approach. The USDA office and website is closed for business.
What would happen in Davis if half the council decided they “would not negotiate” with the other half, and then used executive power and political maneuvering to punish the public so they would loudly cry “uncle” and demand that the other side give in?
Don, I don’t know how much is generated, but the report draft indicates that the cost was $4,566,000.
I have e-mailed the pdf to you. It has some formatting problems that you may want to contact Mitch Sears about.
[quote]By the way, I would have called in or checked their website for a final final if the Democrats had not decided to exploit the demands of the GOP as a scorched-earth tactic that is a continence of their divide-and-conquer political approach. The USDA office and website is closed for business.
What would happen in Davis if half the council decided they “would not negotiate” with the other half, and then used executive power and political maneuvering to punish the public so they would loudly cry “uncle” and demand that the other side give in? [/quote]
Oooooofffffffff topppppic!
As this debate continues it becomes less clear, not more. Wasn’t the initial purchase clearly for open space and agriculture preservation 2-3 years ago? As part of that process the City applied for and received a grant to fulfill this goal. As much time passed, and perhaps priorities of some changed due to budget,economic, speculative, or political purposes it occured to some that this would be better leveraged. Thus a last minute proposal was put forth that forced staff to rush to Council since the grant money was expiring. This changed the intent of the original purchase and upset the open space contingency who worked hard over the previous 2 years to make this a reality? This is not a debate on whether to build business park east of Mace. There appears to be 185 acres for that purpose. This is a now a debate on whether to have potentially a 185 acre business park plus an additional 391 acres for the future = 576 acres of business park. I think the 576 acre business park was what was rushed before Council, certainly not the conservation grant that was 2 years in the making. For strictly business purposes the 576 acres certainly makes a compelling case, but at the expense of the open space process. I guess the point is, the rush job was the business contingent, not the grant. So why all the finger pointing?
“As this debate continues it becomes less clear, not more.”
i second that point. i’d like kemble to explain exactly why he thinks williams took a shot at him and williams to explain what he meant by the initial post.
then i want to understand why this all matters? it’s clear that we the public did not know what was going down until the end and by that time the issue of time deadlines were thrust in our face.
From the Draft Measure O report:
[quote]“The City’s projected revenue from Measure O is well on target to meet initial fund-raising expectations. When Measure O was initially passed in 2000, City planners estimated it would raise $17.5 million by 2030 for the acquisition of open space within the Davis planning area (Greenwald and Freeman 2000).
Since then, an average of approximately $635,000 has been collected every year, with only 1-2% variation among years, resulting in a total collection to date of almost $7 million. If that rate continues, by 2030 the Measure will have raised $19 million.
Measure O has provided an excellent leveraging opportunity with state and federal funding sources. Active pursuit by City staff of state and federal grant funds, cooperative partnerships and other creative funding arrangements have brought in an additional $12 million to City of Davis open space projects over the last eight years. (Comment from draft copy: “Mitch, is this still correct?”)
The City’s expenditures for Measure O purposes have exceeded overall initial expectations described in the 1998 Open Space Implementation Plan (Economic Planning Systems, Inc. 1998). That Plan identified 2,351 acres of open space protection needs at a cost of $10,665,051 (in 1998 dollars) for acquisition and improvement and $1,493,921 (in 1998 dollars) in operation and maintenance. Since 2000, the City has protected 2,513 acres (162 more acres than initially expected) at a cost of $4,566,000 — $6 million less than expected!”[/quote]
So a budget through the year 2030 indicates total funds 2012 – 2030 would be approximately $19,000,000 minus the $4,566,000 already expended, leaving a balance available of $14,430,000 for the greenbelt project Matt has proposed – without any funds from economic development projects. Presumably that $14 million+ could also be leveraged with grants to gain more funds, as has been done already.
How much do you expect it would cost to obtain easements on the sites on the proposed greenbelt map?
Would current and projected Measure O funds be sufficient to achieve those goals?
Matt, how many of those easements involved NRCS grants?
You ask, “So the question that I have about how NRCS looks at “closing efficiency” is, is it a what have you done for me lately approach or a what have you done over time approach?”
I don’t know the answer to that question either (assuming that some percentage of the easements you mention involved NRCS grants, which is presumably the efficiency they are looking at, not easements in general). But this would be a pretty big whopper of inefficiency, given that we have delayed, delayed, delayed, promised we were going ahead, and then (some propose) only to say that we aren’t. Perhaps they might see this as a new way that Davis does business and be skittish with trusting us in the future.
(Note how “hurt feelings” have no revelance to this discussion whatever).
Recap:
Spent to date from Measure O funds: $4,566,000
Grants and other funding: $12,000,000
Acres protected: 2513
Matt’s proposal: protect an additional 3000 acres.
Available for purchase of easements from Measure O thru 2030: $14,430,000
Additional funds available from grants: $12 – 30,000,000?
It’s hard for me to see why there should be any linkage between the greenbelt proposal and economic development proposals. Measure O, combined with grant funding, would seem sufficient to purchase easements on the land surrounding the city if it is done in a carefully planned, orderly manner between now and 2030. Assess the sites, determine owner interest, establish a priority list, and begin assembling the Davis greenbelt using existing funds.
yeahmyam said . . .
[i]”[b]As this debate continues it becomes less clear, not more[/b]. Wasn’t the initial purchase clearly for open space and agriculture preservation 2-3 years ago? As part of that process the City applied for and received a grant to fulfill this goal. As much time passed, and perhaps priorities of some changed due to budget,economic, speculative, or political purposes it occured to some that this would be better leveraged. Thus a last minute proposal was put forth that forced staff to rush to Council since the grant money was expiring. This changed the intent of the original purchase and upset the open space contingency who worked hard over the previous 2 years to make this a reality? This is not a debate on whether to build business park east of Mace. There appears to be 185 acres for that purpose. This is a now a debate on whether to have potentially a 185 acre business park plus an additional 391 acres for the future = 576 acres of business park. I think the 576 acre business park was what was rushed before Council, certainly not the conservation grant that was 2 years in the making. For strictly business purposes the 576 acres certainly makes a compelling case, but at the expense of the open space process. I guess the point is, the rush job was the business contingent, not the grant. So why all the finger pointing?”[/i]
I agree with your bolded first sentence 100% yeahmyam. 100%. In all the unclarity one thing has become very clear though . . . any statement that either the application for the easement grant was thoroughly vetted is a hard one to argue. Out of 65,000 citizens I doubt you could find many more than 100 who knew anything about the easement and/or its implications. Not many more than that had any sense of what the potential was for transforming that single purchase into substantially accomplishing the Measure O goal of the permanent protection of Davis’ Urban Fringe.
Here are some clarity questions that I find myself asking:
1) Was the easement ever agendized and/or discussed by the Finance and Budget Commission?
2) Was the easement ever agendized and/or discussed by the Innovation Task Force?
3) Was the Measure O achievement potential associated with the easement ever agendized and/or discussed by the Open Space and Habitat Commission?
4) Was the Measure O achievement potential associated with the easement ever agendized and/or discussed by City Council?
5) Does anyone in the Community have any understanding of what the Community Farm concept is?
6) At last night’s Open Space and Habitat Commission, Greg House (one of the chief architects of the Community Farm concept for the Mace 391 property (and for the community as a whole) asked the question of his fellow Commission members and of Mitch Sears, “How are we going to fund the Community Farm?”
7) How do the Community Farm at Mace 391 and the Community Farm proposed for the Cannery relate to one another?
There are lots more such questions, but those are a good starter set of “less clear” questions. There is plenty of events over the past three years that have resulted in our current situation of being “at the expense of the open space process” but the insularity of the open space process itself is at least partly to blame for the very fact.
Davis Progressive said . . .
[i]”As this debate continues it becomes less clear, not more.”
I second that point. i’d like Kemble to explain exactly why he thinks Williams took a shot at him and Williams to explain what he meant by the initial post.
Then i want to understand why this all matters? It’s clear that we the public did not know what was going down until the end and by that time the issue of time deadlines were thrust in our face.”[/i]
DP, my post above clearly thirds your seconding. I think the three posts that I posted when I got home last night fully and completely explained what I meant by my initial post.
It all matters because two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that the community-wide implications of the easement weren’t fully considered or heterogeneously vetted can be addressed in the period between now and March 31, 2014. Such vetting does not have to affect the steps that staff is currently proceeding with with respect to the Easement closing deadline of March 31, 2014. They can proceed on parallel paths. If the vetting doesn’t provide any clarity or answers or opportunities to achieve more of our Measure O goals than the Easement does, then Staff will execute the final documents in March. If we find that there is additional clarity that allows us to achieve a higher plateau of Measure O goal achievement, then we would be fools not to achieve more rather than less . . . especially if that means we have reality rather than dreams.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Recap:
Spent to date from Measure O funds: $4,566,000
Grants and other funding: $12,000,000
Acres protected: 2513
Matt’s proposal: protect an additional 3000 acres.
Available for purchase of easements from Measure O thru 2030: $14,430,000
Additional funds available from grants: $12 – 30,000,000?
It’s hard for me to see why there should be any linkage between the greenbelt proposal and economic development proposals. Measure O, combined with grant funding, would seem sufficient to purchase easements on the land surrounding the city if it is done in a carefully planned, orderly manner between now and 2030. Assess the sites, determine owner interest, establish a priority list, and begin assembling the Davis greenbelt using existing funds.”[/i]
Don, that indeed is one of the scenarios that will be prominent in a multi-variant scenario analysis.
I will caution you that history tells us that there is a reason why the Measure O funds expended since 2000 have not protected a single acre of Urban Fringe. Those acres are substantially more expensive to acquire on a per acre basis.
davisite4 said . . .
“Matt, how many of those easements involved NRCS grants?
You ask, “So the question that I have about how NRCS looks at “closing efficiency” is, is it a what have you done for me lately approach or a what have you done over time approach?”
I don’t know the answer to that question either (assuming that some percentage of the easements you mention involved NRCS grants, which is presumably the efficiency they are looking at, not easements in general). But this would be a pretty big whopper of inefficiency, given that we have delayed, delayed, delayed, promised we were going ahead, and then (some propose) only to say that we aren’t. Perhaps they might see this as a new way that Davis does business and be skittish with trusting us in the future.
(Note how “hurt feelings” have no revelance to this discussion whatever).”
I’m like you davisite4, guessing. Frankly appears to be the most knowledgeable of any of us about grant processes, so I will defer to wiser minds.
I hear you when you refer to this as a whopper of inefficiency, but here too we don’t know the criteria. Is an “inefficiency event” like a pregnancy? Is it like a win or a loss as the result of a single NFL or MLB or Premier League game? Said another way is it an objective check mark in a box or a College Entrance essay? Here too I’m in the dark and as a result we no doubt have questions 8) and 9) to add to my seven “clarity” questions above.
You know I can’t help but wonder where Mike Harrington is when we need him to yell, [i]”Put it on the ballot!!!!!!!!!!”[/i] 8>)
Our Measure O money makes us a very attractive candidate to any NRCS grant. How many communities have a war chest like our to buy up a farm moat around our little hamlet?
I think the decisions are made in Washington (need to confirm that once the shutdown is over).
Any hurt feelings that somehow managed to make the 3000 mile trip would be de minimis decision criteria given everything else we bring to the table.
One thing to check is how much demand there is for NRCF funds. I know for some other USDA programs the struggle is to move the money. Look around, it is difficult to find many communities affluent enough to pay to lock up peripheral land that could otherwise be used to attract some jobs and tax revenue. My guess is that Davis is not competing with a great big pool of candidates for severely limited funds, but I might be wrong.
It seems measure O has accomplished its goals. How about some tax relief then.
[quote]Don, that indeed is one of the scenarios that will be prominent in a multi-variant scenario analysis. [/quote]
How many scenarios do you plan to analyze? And when I say you, I mean you, since I think staff is rather over-burdened already.
[quote]It seems measure O has accomplished its goals.[/quote]
Nowhere near. We need to build an urban limit line.
[i]Nowhere near. We need to build an urban limit line.[/i]
No we don’t. We need to make sure the city is economically healthy now and going forward. We need to keep everything in balance to the the extent possible. The concept of urban line limits is a destructive. It is a made up fantasy goal of those that use the sprawl fear tactic either not knowing what it means or disingenuously exploiting it for selfish reasons.
Guess what? For ever community on the planet, it started with one property and then expanded outward.
At what point does it be defined as sprawl? Based on the loose definition carelessly thrown around every bit off growth after that first property should be labeled sprawl.
Who gets to set this mystical urban line limit?
[quote]The concept of urban line limits is a destructive. It is a made up fantasy goal of those that use the sprawl fear tactic either not knowing what it means or disingenuously exploiting it for selfish reasons.
Guess what? For ever community on the planet, it started with one property and then expanded outward.
At what point does it be defined as sprawl? Based on the loose definition carelessly thrown around every bit off growth after that first property should be labeled sprawl.
Who gets to set this mystical urban line limit?[/quote]
Ask the civic leaders in Woodland. They have one. Along with dozens, probably hundreds, of other communities. It’s a standard growth management tool. My guess — and I know I’m going out on a limb here — is that the citizens, through their elected leaders, get to set it.
Matt’s list of conserved lands is interesting. I’m guessing that Measure O tax payers would be interested to learn that approximately 925 acres of the 2500 listed is actually in Solano County, half way to Dixon. Also, the list includes the Mace 391 which hasn’t closed. So, it isn’t 2500 acres around Davis, its actually more like 1100 acres within a few miles of Davis.
I think Measure O should be on the ballot. Given all the demands from school taxes and water/sewer measures, I think there may be many in the community who might well decide that zoning code, together with Measure R/J, provides all the control we need over development. Measure O taxes may be better spent in other ways.
I think Don is right that other cities have urban limit lines. However, I am unaware of a city establishing an urban limit line with permanent conservation easements. Most communities are wise enough to know that never is a very long time indeed, and that community desires and needs change over time.
1999 list of cities with urban limit lines: [url]http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/bol/1999/survey_3.html[/url]
I don’t feel like looking them up one by one to see if Adam Smith is correct.
My recollection is that some of the Solano County property was related to concerns about property near the Kidwell overpass.
urban limit lines. Ok. Apparently I have them confused with the equivalent of a 16 foot high concrete wall topped with broken glass and razor wire. So what is an urban line limit if not a boundary of land conservation easements? I can certainly accept an incremental planning boundary. Sounds like that is what we are talking about. Basically a line that we draw to say we will not cross over it until we have a good reason to cross over it.
“Nowhere near. We need to build an urban limit line.”
Do you pay measure O taxes or are you talking about other peoples money?
[quote]Do you pay measure O taxes or are you talking about other peoples money?[/quote]
It’s a property tax, so of course I pay it.