Staff Gets an Earful on the Breakdown of Transparency Back in June – The agenda item may have said informational, but the decision that the council would make on Tuesday night was critical to the future of the possibility of a business park at Mace 391, or at least the discussion of its possibility.
The council would open that door by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Joe Krovoza vehemently dissenting, on a motion made by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson. Her motion moved to direct staff to bring back on November 12 an item “with a full range of options for the Mace 391/Leland Ranch properties.”
Councilmember Brett Lee would ask for two friendly amendments, including the staff to investigate the legality of using this property, partially obtained through Measure O funding, for other purposes, as well as to explain why a 200-acre property is not of sufficient size and why we need nearly 400 acres for the business park.
While the vote opens the door to further discussion on this item, it does not suggest smooth sailing. In many ways, the dynamics of the council split, from the original 3-2 vote in June, remain.
Councilmember Lee, who might be considered the swing vote on this issue, noted that we need to have a full discussion here and suggested that Michele Clark of the Yolo Land Trust needed to be at the table during that discussion, rather than limited to three minutes.
“I want an open and honest discussion about the best use of this property for the community of Davis. I’d like to see a wide variety of options presented to us, understanding that whatever we choose, sadly we’ve, at this decision point – either decision is not going to be ideal,” he lamented. “If we would have had this discussion a year ago it could have been the ‘win-win’ but at this stage it’s going to be a ‘win-lose.’ “
“I would want that open and transparent discussion,” he said. “The key here is transparent, I am extremely disappointed in the way this information trickled to us as council people. I do not believe that staff upheld the high standards that we expect of them. I’m not very pleased with the closed session information we received at the time and I’m not pleased with what was presented to us in June.”
Lucas Frerichs supported having the discussion, but made it clear, “I voted to proceed with the conservation easement. I don’t regret that vote. I support it. I think the way the process played out in June was not an open honest dialogue.”
“On June 11 one of my primary issues had to do with process,” he said. “The prospect of a land swap was not vetted in the community at all. I’m not frankly sure that that’s the right direction for us to go.”
“I’m supportive of Rochelle’s (Swanson) motion this evening because I do think we need more discussion about a range of options out there,” he added. He said that he has stated his support for maintaining the conservation easement and he doesn’t think he’s moving off this position.
Roberta Millstein of the Open Space and Habitat Commission read the official position that the commission took, noting that the commission is aware of discussions about reopening the discussion of Mace 391/Leland Ranch and “the commission reaffirms” their original decision. They asked council that if they choose to reconsider the decision, to use the commission to evaluate any open space alternatives that arise in connection with the property.
Greg House of the commission said, “The use of Measure O funds for anything other than open space purposes is not permitted in the Davis municipal code and is quite likely illegal.”
Mr. House read from the city municipal code and argued, “There is no mention of industrial uses for business parks, no mention of using these funds to buy property and later changing your mind about its use in open space if a new idea comes along. No mention about borrowing from the fund for any purpose.”
He noted that the property on Mace was purchased with $1.35 million from the Measure O fund money. He argued, that “could not be used for anything other than open space purposes.”
“Your hands are now tied,” he warned. “So please, councilmembers, beware of getting involved in legal disputes over the use of this special fund.” He added that while he’s not a lawyer, he works as an expert witness and has testified many times in court. “I know how expensive and debilitating lawsuits can be, so be careful.”
Michele Clark of the Yolo Land Trust (YLT) noted that they are the sole grantee of the grant agreement with NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). She noted, “The Yolo Land Trust has had a very long history of not getting involved in land use matters. We’re proud of that history and we’re not changing that here.”
She said her sole focus is on “the fact that we have signed a grant agreement with NRCS for over $1 million for the use of those funds for the purpose of a conservation easement.”
She added, “You cannot dismiss the potential impact on the Yolo Land Trust and frankly on the City of Davis if the council were to change their decision and those funds would have to be returned. It’s a highly competitive process to apply for those funds.”
In 2011, this was 34% of the total allocation for the state of California.
“It would be particularly distressing to me, to the Land Trust, if the council were to change direction and we had to turn back those funds. They cannot be used for another site. They would be returned to Washington, DC. And that potentially has an impact on the Land Trust,” she warned.
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk expressed some concern here. In his comments he said he wanted to make sure that there was an exploration into what Michele Clark was talking about. “Any harm that might come to the Yolo Land Trust, which I think is really critical,” he said. “If there’s any kind of long term harm that’s going to come to the Yolo Land Trust should the city end up exploring or going with some of these other options.”
He said, if that’s the case, “I’m going to at the end of the day have a very hard time exploring some of those options.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza was the lone dissenter for even discussing the possibility of re-opening this process.
“I will not support he motion on the floor,” he said. “I am completely puzzled. For the three years I have served on this council, we’ve been considering straight up in public forums the option of a wonderful open space easement that we’ve been using our open space funds to acquire.”
“We concurrently embarked upon the Innovation Park Task Force study to look for lands around the city that we can open up for economic development,” he noted. “We constructed a process with city council members, planning commission members, and business and economic and economic development commission members to serve on that (task force).”
“Many of you in this audience attended those meetings,” he said. “You participated in those meetings. That process resulted in the identification of by my estimation of approximately 450 acres around Davis, California, that can be opened up for economic development and business park. And for that entire process, this land use easement was considered to be surrounding one of the major parcels of that recommendation.”
“That’s one reason why we recommended the 200 acres outside the Mace Curve because it had this wonderful land conservation potential around it,” he added.
However, at least for the discussion phase, the mayor was outvoted 4-1. Rochelle Swanson, just before the vote, noted that she disagreed with the idea this was a win-lose for the community.
She said, “The difference is that Shriner’s is on the table. I have been here for over 20 years, I would love to see a true ag buffer around our community. I don’t see an option where we don’t talk about conservation land.”
“That’s what made any of these decisions compelling,” she said. The key, she said, was truly putting an ag buffer onto the east side of town to protect the remaining ag land. “That’s what made this compelling.”
“When we build an innovation park, it’s not build it they will come,” she said. “It’s if they don’t build it, they leave.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”When we build an innovation park, it’s not build it they will come,” she said. “It’s if they don’t build it, they leave.
[/quote]
This makes it sound as though once a given company leaves, nothing new will take its place. I think the more proactive question is what size of company do we feel that Davis needs to be able to support ?
Are we going to accept that there are doubtless some size limitations and define what we are targeting, such as relatively small start ups being generated on an ongoing basis by UCD which will move on when they exceed the capacity of Davis. Or are we going to go with a “bigger and more” equals better philosophy. I would favor a balanced approach that takes into account both opportunity and reasonable expectation of limitations.
“nothing new will take its place.”
I think it’s akin to cutting down a large number of mature trees and then replanting new trees. Yes, you are replacing the loss, but it will still be a lose for years before they grow to maturity. Companies work the same say. So yes, we can replace Bayer/ Agraquest with a start up that can mature, but we are losing the mature company and the expected growth that precipitated that move.
[quote]He noted that the property on Mace was purchased with $1.35 million from the Measure O fund, money, he argued “could not be used for anything other than open space purposes.”[/quote]
Is this wishful thinking? Or does this claim have real legitimacy?
[quote]”Your hands are now tied,” he warned. “So please councilmembers beware of getting involved in legal disputes over the use of this special fund.” He added that while he’s not a lawyer, he works as an expert witness and has testified many times in court. “I know how expensive and debilitating lawsuits can be, so be careful.”[/quote]
I’m assuming this is a threat not just a warning…
“Is this wishful thinking? Or does this claim have real legitimacy?”
Council asked for legal analysis. I’m a bit skeptical, otherwise all the council would have to do is purchase properties with Measure O funds and they would have to use them for open space, no need for an easement.
Just another chapter in our PROdevlopment council.
[quote]I think it’s akin to cutting down a large number of mature trees and then replanting new trees. Yes, you are replacing the loss, but it will still be a lose for years before they grow to maturity. Companies work the same say. So yes, we can replace Bayer/ Agraquest with a start up that can mature, but we are losing the mature company and the expected growth that precipitated that move.[/quote]
I see your point. And I see the limitations of the analogy. Trees, unlike companies cannot chose to get up and move. While it is true that constant turn over would mean that we would be losing “mature companies” however, there is no guarantee that these companies will chose to stay with us even in the presence of a larger space. What happens if they outstrip the new enlarged space, or their owners perceive another location as more favorable for any of a number of reasons both foreseeable and not foreseeable. What happens if the larger business goes out of business ? I think the only thing that we can rely on with regard to the university as incubator is that the university is not going to pull up roots and move away from Davis. The university and agriculture provided the basis for this community. With this statement, I am not looking backwards, as some have claimed. What I am saying is that we need to be very careful in establishing our priorities. Some would say that for a long time, this community has not been business ( financially ) friendly or responsible.
My argument is for a careful balancing of all interests, not an exploitation of the city’s current finances to push a rapid growth agenda ( either economic or demographic) but rather a very deliberate process that considers everyone’s values. I would argue against platitudes from either side such as growth will necessarily make Davis
“even better” than it is now as some have said, without defining the parameters of their desired growth, or those which are sometimes heard from my side that smaller is necessarily more desirable.
I believe that size, planning and vision matter and that everyone’s concerns need to be addressed thoughtfully without denigration or making the assumption that one’s own preference is what is in everyone’s best interest.
David, your paragraph describing my comments reads ambiguously to me. The Open Space and Habitat Commission re-affirmed its support of the Council’s June decision to go forward with the grant and the easement on Leland Ranch, not its support for reconsideration of that decision.
We do hope that if there is a reconsideration, that the Council allows the Open Space and Habitat Commission to perform the same kind of analysis on potential properties that it performed on Leland Ranch. All acres are not equal.
Apologies Roberta, that was sloppiness on my part due to lack of sleep. We’ll tighten it up.
“I think the more proactive question is what size of company do we feel that Davis needs to be able to support ? “
You have this backwards. The question should be what size companies do we need to support the city.
The statements by Michelle Clark and Mayor Krovoza reflect my views and seriously undermine many of the assertions that have been made by others on this blog over the past few weeks.
Bottom line from this vote: staff will report on the “options.” I don’t see 3 votes to overturn the easement decision here, based on what I’m reading in David’s report. So maybe it’s time for all the business leaders who have been arguing so vigorously for Mace 391 to turn their attention to development of other sites.
If the council were to overturn their initial ruling then it sounds like a given that the lawsuits would fly.
“If the council were to overturn their initial ruling then it sounds like a given that the lawsuits would fly.”
Based on the opinion of a non-lawyer? I need a little more than that. As I noted above, and I’m not a lawyer, but if Measure O funding is all that was needed here, why go to the next step of an easement?
The city is to use measure O funds for the aquisition of open space. The city purchased the Mace 391 property using measure O funds. If later things change – the city budget is awash in red ink, there is a tremendous demand and need for business development, the Mace 391 property become much more valuable as a business park – the city can sell the previously acquired Mace 391 property to return the Measure O funds and then use those funds to aquire new open space in other areas that are not in demand for business development.
This then becomes a win-win-win.
Those demanding that we prevent the consideration of a business park on the Mace 391 property are guilty of certain bias that values one win at the expense of other losses. That is unacceptable. Frankly I think the Mayor is making a mistake and ignoring his fiduciary duty. That duty should come before his duty to preseve open space.
Related to this point, if you consider Davis similar to a single big residential property owner in our region and city, our insistance that we block and prevent economic development to preserve open space is akin to that single property owner demanding his house in the middle of a vast expanse of many acres of yard stays protected even as other residents cannot find work and cannot find affordable housing. Thinking about how you would feel about that situation you can start to understand how other non-Davis residents feel about Davis’s myopic policy of creating a farmland moat around the city.
Open space is a luxury. If we want it, we have to first get our fiscal house in order. Those demanding the continued preservation of open space need to particiapte in solving our fiscal problems. Otherwise, in my opinion, the lack credibillity to have their arguments considered. You don’t get to enjoy luxuries before you pay the bills. Figure out how to pay the bills and then we can open up the discussion about open space.
Is “Mace 391” the “exact” same parcel as “Leyland Ranch”?
I tried to answer my own question with a Google Search and it looks like the city of Davis is trying to sell the “Leyland Ranch” property for $3.6mm/$10K/acre:
[url]http://www.landandfarm.com/property/LELAND_RANCH-1069896/[/url]
Any idea how the city picks a broker to market multi-million dollar property? Do they look for the person with the most experience, allow any broker to put in a proposal (or like most cities) give the deal to the broker that made the most campaign contributions?
Frankly wrote:
> Frankly I think the Mayor is making a mistake
> and ignoring his fiduciary duty. That duty should
> come before his duty to preserve open space.
When you are running for higher office you need to make sure that you keep donors that want more open space happy…
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”David, your paragraph describing my comments reads ambiguously to me. The Open Space and Habitat Commission re-affirmed its support of the Council’s June decision to go forward with the grant and the easement on Leland Ranch, not its support for reconsideration of that decision.
We do hope that if there is a reconsideration, that the Council allows the Open Space and Habitat Commission to perform the same kind of analysis on potential properties that it performed on Leland Ranch. [b]All acres are not equal.[/b]”[/i]
Roberta makes some very good points, and I wholeheartedly concur that the Open Space and Habitat Commission should be active core participants in the analysis process when and if it does go forward. No group of people know Measure O any better than the members of OSHC. Any decision needs to be a balanced consideration of all the factors. To see the pendulum swing too far in any direction will almost surely produce a suboptimal result. The reason the Vanguard reached out to OSHC to ask them to share that knowledge and perspective here in this community dialogue is that we can all benefit from the OSHC’s accumulated knowledge.
In order to begin the process of addressing the very important issue Roberta raises in her second paragraph, last night after the Item was completed by Council I sent the following request to City Staff [quote]as follow-up to a meeting I had on Friday, I am reaching out to you to ask you to produce a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system report for each of the three Leland Ranch parcels, as well as each of the parcels that are identified as Potential Incremental Easements in the most recent Urban Fringe / Conservation Boundary graphic.[/quote]The LESA system was created by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to standardize a method for assessing the the capabilities of that site for agricultural use. When LESA is applied, a value for land evaluation is combined with a value for site assessment to determine the total value of a specific site for agriculture. The higher the total value of a site, the higher the capabilities of that site for agricultural use.
The LESA system can help units of government meet the following two overall objectives:
Facilitate identification and protection of important agricultural land.
Assist in implementing farmland protection policies
[url]http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/?cid=stelprdb1043786[/url]
With LESA score reports for every single parcel being discussed we will have objective information that allows us to address Roberta’s point that all acres are not equal.
Open Space Protection Special Fund Report
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20130603/05b-Draft-Measure-O-Report-2013-05-24.pdf[/url]
[quote]…if Measure O funding is all that was needed here, why go to the next step of an easement? [/quote]
The answer is….”FOR THE MONEY”
[quote]Those demanding the continued preservation of open space need to particiapte in solving our fiscal problems. Otherwise, in my opinion, the lack credibillity to have their arguments considered.[/quote]
Among the various proposals I’ve made or agreed with over the past couple of years on the Vanguard:
Moderate economic expansion, focusing on the poorer soils northwest of town.
Short-term increase in the sales tax.
Identification of obstacles to economic development on infill properties.
Develop Nishi.
Relaxed zoning adjacent to downtown.
[quote]Figure out how to pay the bills and then we can open up the discussion about open space.[/quote]
Measure O is for open space (and ag land preservation). We don’t need to “open up the discussion.” Open space, being mostly farmland, is not a “luxury” unless food and farming are luxuries. Measure O exists to preserve ag land, and is being used very appropriately to preserve Mace 391. There is other land available for economic development. The Innovation Task Force can help move the development of other sites forward.
“I don’t see 3 votes to overturn the easement decision here, based on what I’m reading in David’s report.”
Perhaps you are blinded by your biases. Last night there were four votes to reconsider. You can pick up one vote and still have the council vote against the grant.
[quote]Last night there were four votes to reconsider. [/quote]
No, there were four votes to get a staff report.
Yeah I agree with Don. Lucas and Joe are clearly against rescinding the grant. Brett is in the middle at best and even Dan could go against such a move if it would hurt Yolo Land Trust.
To me this isn’t just about Mace 391, it’s about finding a good location for a business park.
“Open space, being mostly farmland, is not a “luxury” unless food and farming are luxuries”
They are commodities and you are over valuing these commodities in your personal cost benefit analysis. Although Davis is in an farming region Davis itself is not a farm town, it is a university town. As such preserving ag land at the expense of other needs of the community, space for technological innovation and space for the densely constructed community to recreate are two of those needs.
The 391 and Shriner land swap addresses two of the needs of this community. Protection of the farm commodity economy should be a lower priority in light of all the land that has already been preserved and the additional land that will be preserved in the future.