Last week at the city council meeting, about one dozen leaders of the Davis business and tech community came forward to ask the Davis City Council to reconsider the 3-2 vote on June 11, 2013, where the Davis City Council approved the resale of the Leland Ranch with a conservation easement (previously referred to as the Mace Curve property).
Following the meeting on October 1, the Davis City Council stopped short of calling for a reconsideration of the June 11 vote and, instead, requested a clarification on deadlines associated with the decision.
According to the staff, since 2004, the city of Davis has partnered with the NRCS and the Yolo and Solano Land Trusts on nine farmland conservation grants. The current proposed $1.125 million grant for the Mace Curve/Leland Ranch is the second largest NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) grant to date for a city of Davis easement project.
The NRCS grant was awarded to the Yolo Land Trust on April 18, 2011, with signature of the grant contract on July 29, 2011. The grant contract included a deadline to close the easement transaction by March 31, 2013.
The staff report contains a timeline of “key milestones” on the decision making process.
- July 20, 2010 and Sept 1, 2010 – City Council closed sessions – Purchase option.
- Oct 5, 2010 – Open Space and Habitat Commission report/recommendation. Staff report attached.
- Nov 9, 2010 – City Council closed session – Purchase option.
- Nov 16, 2010 – City Council approves purchase option reso.
- Feb/March, 2011 – Yolo Land Trust and City partner to submit NRCS grant application.
- April 18, 2011 – NRCS Grant Award Letter – Grant awarded to Yolo Land Trust. Grant award includes deadline to close easement transaction by 3/31/2013.
- July 5, 2011 – City Council approves fee title purchase – presentation and reso.
- July 29, 2011 – NRCS Cooperative Agreement signed (grant contract w/Yolo Land Trust).
Staff writes, “Activity associated with the resale of Mace Curve/Leland Ranch slows in second half of 2011 and first half of 2012 to focus staff resources on resale of the Staib 72 property and easement acquisitions on the Eoff Ranch.”
- March 20, 2013 – NRCS and Yolo Land Trust grant City request for short extension of the March 31, 2013 easement closing deadline to explore its options regarding the property. Deadline extended to May 31, 2013. NRCS letter attached.
- May 28, 2013 – NRCS and Yolo Land Trust grant second City request for an extension to
- June 15, 2013. NRCS letter attached.
- June 3, 2013 – Open Space and Habitat Commission votes unanimously to re-affirm their October 2010 recommendation and that the City proceed with the NRCS Grant.
- June 11, 2013 – City Council approves resale of the property with a permanent conservation easement and creation of a parcel that facilitates the establishment of a future community farm on twenty-seven acres.
- June 14, 2013 – NRCS grants Yolo Land Trust extension to close the easement transaction to March 31, 2014 (one year from the original expiration date of March 31, 2013).
- October 7, 2013 – Open Space and Habitat Commission votes unanimously to reaffirm its support of the Council’s June 11, 2013 decision to place a permanent conservation easement on the property and establishment of a community farm on twenty-seven acres, and that the Commission advises the Council first to use the Commission to evaluate any open space alternatives that may arise in connection with this property.
On May 24, Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton wrote a letter to Carlos Suarez, State Conservationist at USDA asking for a 15-day extension to June 15, 2013 that would “allow the City of Davis, current owner of the 391 acres at the northeast intersection of Mace Boulevard and Interstate 80 (and commonly referred to as the Mace Curve 391 or Arkansas property), to fully assess all options towards the efforts of greatest protection and most cost effective conservation of viable agricultural lands.”
Mr. Pinkerton noted, “The City Council and City leadership have been exploring several options that might provide for even greater protections by increasing the distribution of a conservation easement buffer in the northeast corner of the City. If successful, this buffer would help to ensure that development will be geographically limited on that boundary with the City.”
Meanwhile, a few days after the council vote to reaffirm the conservation easement, NRCS wrote a letter to Michele Clark of the Yolo Land Trust, noting that they had “previously approved a final extension of this deadline for the purpose of allowing the City of Davis, your partner in this project, to confirm it is committed to continuing with the project.”
“We are very pleased to hear that the Davis City Council voted on June 11, 2013, to continue its support of the conservation easement project on the Mace Curve property,” Mr. Suarez wrote. “Therefore, your request for an extension of the easement closing deadline to March 31, 2014, is approved. Given that the cooperative agreement originally provided at least eighteen months to close this easement, we expect you to work diligently to close by the new deadline.”
Does that give the city time that they did not have in June to look into additional options? As Rob White, the city’s Chief Innovation Officer, noted this week, any effort to reconsider Mace 391’s conservation easement could come at a cost.
“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.
Back in June, combined with concerns about the lack of transparency and the risks of turning down a grant, the city council voted 3-2 to say no, and move forward on the grant proposal.
However, between then and now, the city lost a critical asset when homegrown start-up AgraQuest, purchased by Bayer last year, decided to move from Davis to West Sacramento, citing the lack of business park space for expansion.
At the October 1 meeting, the tech and business community, many of whom never come to council meetings, spoke out.
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.”
The item is agendized for informational purposes only, and the question is whether there are three members of the Davis City Council willing to go further and have a full discussion on the merits of a business park versus a conservation easement on the Mace Property – as well as having a broader discussion as to where, how and when to put a business park in hopes of keeping Schilling Robotics and the next AgraQuest in Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]the question is whether there are three members of the Davis City Council willing to go further and have a full discussion on the merits of a business park[/quote]
Here’s your answer, a slam dunk [b]YES[/b]
I can only count two for sure at this point
I said it before and I’ll say it again its a no brainer. Of course in Davis that means nothing.
It is a no brainer that is confounded by politics, distrust, and personal agendas.
This council is very pro-development, I’ll bet that most voters didn’t realise that when they voted for them. The last time Mace Curb came up they had to vote it down because of the sleazy process and how the council would look if they voted for it and you still only had three go along. The only time you’re going to see no votes out of this council when it comes to development is when the no votes know that it’s going to pass anyway.
David, there are 3 critical events missing from the timeline. There were 2 closed session CC meetings this year and the series of staff meetings with various federal officials in Washington.
-Michael Bisch
I pulled the info from the staff report. So get me dates and I can add them.
Mr.Toad
[quote]I said it before and I’ll say it again its a no brainer.[/quote]
What this expression “no brainer” usually means is that the speaker believes that everyone must agree with their position because there is not other way but my way. This of course completely ignores that there are any other values, or nuances, or perspectives other than those of the speaker. I would say that it is the height of arrogance to say that any position taken is a “no brainer”. Are you really so sure of the correctness of your position that you cannot concede that no one else could possibly have a valid reason for seeing the issue differently ?
“This council is very pro-development, I’ll bet that most voters didn’t realise that when they voted for them.”
It was a 3-2 vote in June, right now there seems only one person who might change their mind, but I don’t know where that person stands at this point.
BTW, in what sense is this council very pro-development? The last council approved multiple projects including two measure J votes. This one has not approved any developments to date other than one or two infill projects.
David
I think that you left out one confounding factor. Some folks seem to consider “full discussion” as synonymous with acceptance of their point of view.
True
I’ll just reiterate that when I state support for discussion – I mean discussion. I’m not necessarily in favor of abandoning the conservation easement to the east.
…
David “BTW, in what sense is this council very pro-development? The last council approved multiple projects including two measure J votes. This one has not approved any developments to date other than one or two infill projects.”
until Cannery, agree?
[quote]It was a 3-2 vote in June, right now there seems only one person who might change their mind, but I don’t know where that person stands at this point. [/quote]
That was a 3-2 vote because of the sleazy process, this time at least one more will come around.
SODA, do you not consider Cannery to be infill?
[quote]BTW, in what sense is this council very pro-development? The last council approved multiple projects including two measure J votes. This one has not approved any developments to date other than one or two infill projects. [/quote]
What developments or projects have they turned down? The Cannery is a lock and they recently voted for the infill project near Central Park against the wishes of the neighbors.
I’m playing catch up, where was the push for the business park in 2010?
SODA: My count on Cannery is that there are not three votes currently. That could change.
Growth: When I asked the three no votes following the Dave Morris piece, I got three no way Jose’s and a maybe if the city runs the process.
Growth: I guess it’s all a bit subjective, but given that it’s been four years and no significant projects, the majority on council have said no peripheral residential, I would not characterize this council as “very” pro-development.
Once again David, what peripheral residential has come before them? What projects have they turned down?
The non-event is difficult to discuss, but the clearest example would be Covell which at one point was going to file an application, but decided not to.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I think that you left out one confounding factor. Some folks seem to consider “full discussion” as synonymous with acceptance of their point of view.”[/i]
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I’ll just reiterate that when I state support for discussion – I mean discussion. I’m not necessarily in favor of abandoning the conservation easement to the east.”[/i]
medwoman, although I am sure that some people would say I qualify for your statement, I think David has nailed it. There is no predetermined outcome from following two parallel paths of action between now and March 31, 2014 (the date the NRCS grant mandates completion of the easement transaction. If a parallel path is pursued that as thoroughly as possible vets the alternatives, and that parallel path doesn’t show the alternative has merit, then in March the final steps of the easement transaction would be completed. That isn’t a point of view it is a process.
So to be crystal clear, here is my position on the ideas I have laid out over the past week.
[i]Matt Williams (as an unaffiliated individual) is 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, and I will not support any proposal that prioritizes housing ahead of jobs creation and innovation retention.[/i]
To put that statement into a visual perspective, the Potential Incremental Easement lands shown in purple in the graphic below would be where I would expect that “considerable amount of agricultural land be protected from future development” to come from. Making as much as possible of that purple land protected is the ideal.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/ConservationBoundary-1_zps89f90176.jpg[/IMG]
Matt: I am no expert on defn of infill. Yes I would tend to agree it is; I was only referring to David’s comment on this CC not being pro development and only approving one or two infill projects. I am surprised he thinks Cannery might not fly; I thought it would be a lock (and am not happy about that!).
This is in response to a couple of posts on yesterday’s thread.
Toad, there are 3 things going on here that have become conflated in David’s reporting and in the various postings this week. 1) Development of a Mace Curve business park. 2) Reversal of the Mace 391 conservation easement. 3) A land swap involving Mace 391 and the Shriner’s property. It is not clear exactly what each of those “heavy hitters” were supporting when they spoke at public comment. The same is true of the two Chamber spokespersons.
Matt, your point about what Davis Downtown knew or should have known is a stretch. It is unlikely that you will ever find this matter on the DD agenda. There are only so many projects and policies that an individual or organization can track. That’s why we no longer participate in DSIDE for example.
-Michael Bisch
Michael, you may feel that my point is a stretch, but let me reiterate my point in the form of a question, [i]”What is your best guess as to the percentage of Davis Downtown members who knew about the Easement on June 1, 2013?” [/i]
As I said in the prior thread, I don’t believe that more than 5% of the Davis Downtown members knew anything about it. That is an indicator of how unthorough the vetting of the Easement (and its potential impact on Davis’ economic future) was.
In the immortal words uttered many times in Cool Hand Luke, [i]”What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” [/i]
Mr.Toad wrote:
> I said it before and I’ll say it again its a no brainer.
Then medwoman wrote:
> What this expression “no brainer” usually means is that
> the speaker believes that everyone must agree with their
> position because there is not other way but my way. This
> of course completely ignores that there are any other
> values, or nuances, or perspectives other than those of
> the speaker. I would say that it is the height of arrogance
> to say that any position taken is a “no brainer”.
I don’t have as much medical training as medwoman, but as an EMT who knows CPR if I saw two kids in trouble, one blue with a piece of meat stuck in his windpipe and another crying with a broken thumb I would say helping the kid who is about to pass out is a “no brainer”.
I wonder if medwoman ever recommends to anyone that it is a good idea to get their kids vaccinated since according to her it would be the “height of arrogance” to disagree with anyone (like the great medical expert and Playboy model Jenny McCarthy) who thinks vaccines cause autism.
Matt, you miss my point entirely. Why would any members know about it? How many members knew anything about the Downtown Parking Task Force the entire time it was meeting? How many knew about the D Street Concert and street closure last weekend? How many know about the Gateway improvement project? Most DD members, just like most of our citizens, are not at all engaged.
By the way, I’m guessing the answer to your question is less than 20 DD members knew about 1) the Mace 391 conservation easement, 2) the Morris land swap proposal, or 3) any kind of Mace Curve business park development. The only reason any DD members knew something about 1 or more of these 3 elements is due to overlap between DD membership, Chamber membership, and Morris inner circle.
-Michael Bisch
“I pulled the info from the staff report. So get me dates and I can add them.”
David, I don’t know when the closed CC sessions happened this year. I’m going off comments made by Brett Lee at the June 11th CC meeting where he made his exasperation clear that critical info was withheld from him in those closed sessions. Multiple speakers at the June 11th meetings also stated that a number of meetings occurred with federal officials at the April Cap-to-Cap trip regarding the NCRS grant and conservation easement. I wasn’t paying any attention to the Cap-to-Cap trip, but vaguely recall the VG receiving daily reports from Swanson and White, no?
-Michael Bisch
Matt
[quote]medwoman, although I am sure that some people would say I qualify for your statement, I think David has nailed it[/quote]
You were certainly not on the short list of posters that I had in mind when I wrote that…..although there may be something to be said about the acccuracy of “self identifiers” ; )
SouthofDavis
[quote]I don’t have as much medical training as medwoman, but as an EMT who knows CPR if I saw two kids in trouble, one blue with a piece of meat stuck in his windpipe and another crying with a broken thumb I would say helping the kid who is about to pass out is a “no brainer”.[/quote]
And although I do not have your degree of first responder training, I am sure that there are some circumstances that do meet the “no brainer” criteria. I am equally sure that no issue that is, or perhaps ever has been before the current CC, meets this degree of certainty. Would you disagree ?
[quote]I wonder if medwoman ever recommends to anyone that it is a good idea to get their kids vaccinated since according to her it would be the “height of arrogance” to disagree with anyone (like the great medical expert and Playboy model Jenny McCarthy) who thinks vaccines cause autism.[/quote]
I will respect the concern of any parent, from any source, regardless of how baseless I believe it to be. What I will do is read their source material, consider it in light of other information available to me and then provide them with my best advice about what is best for their health and that of their child. At no point in time will I ever tell them, “This is a no brainer” regardless of how clear I may perceive the evidence to be.
Matt
[quote]SODA, do you not consider Cannery to be infill?[/quote]
I know that you were addressing this to SODA, but I am going to put in my two cents.
I do not believe that the critical question is whether or not the Cannery is infill.
I believe that the critical question is, is this the best project that the city could consider for this piece of land ?
My answer to that is a resounding no for reasons I have posted previously but will summarize again.
1) Safety in terms of entrance and exits in case of emergency evacuation.
2) Lack of connectivity / walkability at a time when the city claims to be interested in reduction of emissions
3) The tactic of promoting this as an “innovative” project when in fact there are virtually no truly “innovative”
features. All of the points that the project leaders have put forth have existed in Davis for many years.
This is an aggregation of good practices, not innovation.
4) The reliance of this community as designed on the private automobile as the primary means of connection
with the remainder of the community. ( OK, I guess that was merely a reiteration of point 2). So can you tell
how important this issue is to me ?
Recent VG articles and postings suggested there was still time to hit the pause button between now and March 2014. The staff report indicates the relevant deadline is a lot sooner than March. The staff timeline states Mace 391 will be in escrow no later than December 10, 2013. Backing out of a purchase escrow will create yet more costs to be incurred by the city in addition to forgoing the $1.125 million NCRS grant.
-Michael Bisch
Good Morning. Though technically a non-working day for City Hall staff (every other Friday), I made an agreement with David Greenwald some time ago to monitor topics I had expertise in as much as possible to help with the discussion.
The interest and discussion on the property commonly referred to as the Mace Curve 391/Leland Ranch/Bank of Arkansas property continues, but it seems to have progressed to a very negative tone. I personally think it is unhealthy for our community to continue to look for who did what wrong to whom and when, and that we need to start moving away from blaming people for a situation that appears to be much more about circumstance and less about agendas.
Do people in Davis have agendas? I am sure some do. Do they always lead to a “skeleton in the closet” as has been suggested by some? I am doubtful that most do (and I am constantly told of conspiracies, theories and questionable relationships).
What I do question is why when a concern has been raised and gets answered legitimately, why to look for an issue or make accusation? What is the motivation and to what ends? Sometimes it is likely to create a diversion from their own questionable actions, which is a fundamental for success in the art of prestidigitation. Other times, it’s likely to be hurt feelings about some perceived previous wrong or just outright frustration with their own station in life. Whatever the issue, I do question those that continually attack a concern that has been asked and answered.
And what does this really get us? What does all of the whispering and rumors lead to? We have several periods in American history that didn’t turn out well from this kind of community rumor-mongering. Do we really want to expend our energy on this?
I am not suggesting that issues don’t get further analysis… I am suggesting that the questions get asked and if answered and vetted and no ‘smoking gun’ is found, we let them go. The community also has mechanisms in place to ask the questions that lead to transparency and full disclosure. The media is a great resource and they are hungry to break news that leads to openness. That is their function and there are plenty of examples of its usefulness in history. And they mostly do this without innuendo and unsubstantiated facts… without rumor and conjecture.
As of late, I am sure David has been overwhelmed with suggestions on who and what to look in to. And I can assure you, he does a fairly good job of vetting. As the recipient of several of his very pointed grilling exercises, he asks the hard questions without prejudice. Those being questioned may not like the outcomes, but transparency is something this community prides itself on and none of the community leaders should be afraid to answer the questions if they are doing everything within their normal operating procedures. As the saying goes, “if you don’t like the heat…”
So, I for one welcome the media in to my efforts and ask David and others to shine a bright light on my activities. Shoot, I even do some of the job for him (and the community) by writing about what we are doing each week on the Vanguard blog. It is my full intention to let anyone who wants to know what I am up to, why I am doing it, and what am I trying to achieve. And if that is not enough, go read my job description, it’s pretty comprehensive and straightforward. And Council approved. http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130305/05B Technology Economic Development.pdf
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, you miss my point entirely. Why would any members know about it?”[/i]
Michael, I don’t miss your point at all, but I think your point is a totally ineffective measurement of how successful the “full vetting” of the easement process has been over the past 30 months. The simple answer to your question of “Why would any members know about it?” is that if there was any reasonable attempt to determine what the “greater good” for the whole Davis community then the vetting process would have escaped its siloed, narrowly-communicated history.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”How many members knew anything about the Downtown Parking Task Force the entire time it was meeting?[/i]
I would be absolutely amazed if anything less than 100% of the Davis Downtown members knew that Davis has a parking issue and that that issue was being actively discussed. Can you point to a single Davis Downtown member who doesn’t know about parking?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”How many knew about the D Street Concert and street closure last weekend? How many know about the Gateway improvement project? Most DD members, just like most of our citizens, are not at all engaged.”[/i]
The D Street Concert was a moment in time. The impact of the easement on the long-term economic trajectory of Davis is forever. Apples and oranges.
I would certainly expect that the impact of the Gateway improvement project is being thoroughly vetted. It has the potential to be a [i]”Pardon our dust. Temporary inconvenience for permanent improvement” [/i]project that truly does contribute to the “greater good” of Davis.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”By the way, I’m guessing the answer to your question is less than 20 DD members knew about 1) the Mace 391 conservation easement, 2) the Morris land swap proposal, or 3) any kind of Mace Curve business park development. The only reason any DD members knew something about 1 or more of these 3 elements is due to overlap between DD membership and Chamber members […]”[/i]
Thank you for making my point for me.
-Michael Bisch
mrobtwhite said . . .
[i]”Good Morning. Though technically a non-working day for City Hall staff (every other Friday), I made an agreement with David Greenwald some time ago to monitor topics I had expertise in as much as possible to help with the discussion.
The interest and discussion on the property commonly referred to as the Mace Curve 391/Leland Ranch/Bank of Arkansas property continues, but it seems to have progressed to a very negative tone. I personally think it is unhealthy for our community to continue to look for who did what wrong to whom and when, and that we need to start moving away from blaming people for a situation that appears to be much more about circumstance and less about agendas.”[/i]
Very well said Rob. Very well said indeed.
Rob
[quote]It is my full intention to let anyone who wants to know what I am up to, why I am doing it, and what am I trying to achieve.[/quote]
Good for you. I cannot imagine any clearer more concise way to convey this principle which I would like to see self applied to every one who posts here.
Tia Will
( aka medwoman)
To specifically address Michael Bisch’s comment about DC-related meetings with agencies concerning the Mace 391:
As far as I am aware, I am the only City official that met with a federal agency (singular, not plural) and that was with James Gore, previous Assistant Chief of NRCS. This shouldn’t be news, as the email he sent to me as a follow-up was used as part of the June 11th packet. He is a very good friend with Carlos Suarez, the CA State Conservationist at the NRCS-USDA in Davis as well as Glenda Humiston, the CA Rural Development Director. At my request, Glenda made the introduction.
The reason for the requested meeting was that the City staff were searching to provide a potential for win-win options for the City Council if they were interested in considering a swapping of properties while still maintaining the $1.125 million grant. It was an exercise in possibilities, not absolutes. I will always strive to give the Council and City Manager a menu of options and let them determine the best outcomes based on balancing of priorities.
Locally, Davis-based NRCS staff had already indicated in March 2013 that the authority for a swap was out of their control as the provisions of the grant had a 12-month window for such exploration, which had passed in early 2012. However, the NRCS did provide a 2-month extension for decision making on the grant (dated March 20, 2013).
Let’s recognize what that date means: The NRCS, City and Yolo Land Trust had all met and conferred and the NRCS saw enough merit in the City’s desire to explore all options to leave the City the maximum flexibility in land use decisions that it granted an extension. This decision pre-dates my employment with the City, which means I wasn’t hired as part of a grand conspiracy (as some keep suggesting). I wasn’t part of the meeting and I can’t report what happened, because I wasn’t there and I don’t know.
In early April, City staff discussed internally and with our local Congressman what options at a Washington DC level may exist. It was determined to go right to the source to get an answer. That is when it was decided that I should meet with Mr. Gore during the April DC trip.
During the meeting, I described to Mr. Gore that the City might want to keep open its options on parts of the Mace 391 and were interested in whether a swap of lands was still possible, administratively or legislatively. I floated several concepts to Mr. Gore, including the potentials for swapping nearby properties (if the land owners were willing) like the Shriner’s parcel, the Mariani parcel, or maybe even parts of Howatt (which the City owns). I was specifically asking regarding increasing land availability for a tech park, but I believe this concept was being discussed internally by staff for several months prior to my arrival. Again, the point wasn’t to determine a policy outcome, but to explore ALL options for the Council.
The question was also asked of Mr. Gore what would be the damage to the reputations of the City or Yolo Land Trust, or the ability to get grants in the future. His statement is now part of the record from June 11th, but to reiterate his opinion was that it was not a concern. Yes, that is his opinion, but it was relevant considering his position and relationship to local USDA officials.
Hopefully, this answers Michael’s question. I have begun to wonder about the motivation for continuing to ask these questions or to attempt to implicate me (and Rochelle Swanson) in some conspiracy or wrong-doing, both here on the blog and in conversation with business leaders in Davis. I have privately asked him in writing to stop making insinuation and innuendo without facts or evidence and damaging the reputations of City officials, but it persists. So, now I am asking publically.
These activities don’t lead to a higher level of trust or build good relationships. If there are questions, I am willing to answer them, fully and openly. I always have, and continue to do so. I will not intentionally do damage to others reputations or relationships by posting unsubstantiated opinion as fact and I ask only the same in return.
So, if I may be so bold as to ask, let’s all get busy and focus on ways to increase community dialogue and interaction in honest and open actions. We have a lot of opportunity and bright people and we can solve our own issues if we want to. It just takes focus and meaningful dialogue.
Thanks Tia!
[quote]I was specifically asking regarding increasing land availability for a tech park, but I believe this concept was being discussed internally by staff for several months prior to my arrival. Again, the point wasn’t to determine a policy outcome, but to explore ALL options for the Council. [/quote]
Were these discussions brought to the attention of the OSH commission? To the attention of city council members?
Since you’re willing to share from our email exchange, Rob, here’s my denial for the record:
“I’m insinuating that you’re a part of a conspiracy? It’s laughable.”
Following my denial in private, you stated you were going to arrange a meeting to clear the air. I haven’t heard from you since.
What I have been stating repeatedly, is the claim by some that they were blindsided by what happened June 11th is also laughable. Many of these individuals knew many months, and in some cases years, about either the land swap, the conservation easement, or both. You have acknowledged as much.
“Hopefully, this answers Michael’s question.”
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between a question and a statement. I asked no questions here. I’ve posted a number of statement. For instance, there are 3 milestones missing from the staff report timeline (meeting in Washington with federal official(s) and the 2 closed session CC meetings). There is no insinuation here. Those are statements of fact, so I don’t know whay you’re going on and on about questions.
As for conversations I’ve had with business leaders, you don’t know whether your understanding of those conversations is accurate since you and I have never discussed the matter other than my statement in an email to you that your understanding is incorrect.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]July 29, 2011 – NRCS Cooperative Agreement signed (grant contract w/Yolo Land Trust).
Staff writes, “Activity associated with the resale of Mace Curve/Leland Ranch slows in second half of 2011 and first half of 2012 to focus staff resources on resale of the Staib 72 property and easement acquisitions on the Eoff Ranch.”
March 20, 2013 – NRCS and Yolo Land Trust grant City request for short extension of the March 31, 2013 easement closing deadline to explore its options regarding the property. Deadline extended to May 31, 2013. NRCS letter attached.[/quote]
At what juncture, and based on what directive from the city council, did staff make the decision between July 29 2011 and March 20 2013 the easement should be reconsidered?
OK, more Michael Bisch statements (not questions). One of the CC closed sessions appears to have been February 5th. I’m not finding a second CC closed session pertaining to Mace 391. However, there were a number of closed sessions pertaining to Howatt Ranch. Clearly, things were happening long before June 11 (conclusion, not a question for anyone keeping track).
-Michael Bisch
David: [quote]The item is agendized for informational purposes only, and the question is whether there are three members of the Davis City Council willing to go further and have a full discussion on the merits of a business park versus a conservation easement on the Mace Property – as well as having a broader discussion as to where, how and when to put a business park in hopes of keeping Schilling Robotics and the next AgraQuest in Davis.[/quote]
I urge the council to separate these items.
— Proceed with the conservation easement
— Direct the re-constituted Innovation Park Task Force and staff to lead a broader discussion as to siting and development of properties for business parks. They can focus on council actions that could remove obstacles to site development: zoning issues, drainage concerns, etc.
It is not necessary to build one big park. There are smaller sites that can be developed. And there is another site available for a larger business park.
Matt’s greenbelt and urban limit proposal should be separated entirely from this discussion. It is really a proposal as to how to use Measure O funds going forward. It is not necessary to vet his proposal or work on the details in the context of a business park. There should be no direct connection between the funding of the greenbelt and economic development plans. I urge that his proposal be developed in more detail and presented to the council and appropriate commissions in the usual manner, with public hearings and discussion.
Michael Bisch said . . .
[i]”What I have been stating repeatedly, is [b]the claim by some that they were blindsided by what happened June 11th is also laughable[/b]. Many of these individuals knew many months, and in some cases years, about either the land swap, the conservation easement, or both. You have acknowledged as much.”[/i]
Michael, to the best of my knowledge I am the one person who has referred to “blindsiding.” So to the best of my knowledge “some” = “one person.” For the record, until David’s first story on Monday, June 10, 2013, I had no knowledge of the Easement, despite the fact that I pay a lot of close attention to what goes on regarding land use issues in both the City and the County. Further, until David’s second story on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, I had no knowledge of the possible land swap. So yes, I was blindsided.
The point I made in my original use of the word “blindsided” was that I was not alone. The Davis business community is literally hundreds of businesses wife and thousands of individuals deep . . . and as you pointed out in your post above only about 20 of those businesses/individuals knew about the easement at all, much less about how the easement would affect their businesses in both the short-term and/or the long-term. So, I stand by my original statement letter-for-letter, word-for-word . . .
[i]”What we saw in June was a Davis business community that was totally blindsided by how the placement of this Easement would affect the Eastern Innovation Park.[/i]
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”One of the CC closed sessions appears to have been February 5th. I’m not finding a second CC closed session pertaining to Mace 391. However, there were a number of closed sessions pertaining to Howatt Ranch. Clearly, things were happening long before June 11.”[/i]
Michael, were any of those things a “public vetting” of the easement and its affect on the eastern innovation park identified by the Innovation Park Task Force?
Don – I don’t have the answer as to when and who directed staff to look at options as this was an activity in place prior to my arrival. I can’t really assume much here, as it would be a stab in the dark. But in land development discussions, the Council, the City Manager and the City Attorney may look at transactions without officially making any decisions during closed sessions.
Let me be very clear, I have no way of knowing if that happened as I was not there and closed sessions are meant to only discuss options in this case. Any actual action would need to be vetted in an open process, including a decision at City Council. There is nothing suspect here. This is normal municipal process when it comes to development.
I guess my thought on this is it also is all a very moot point. The Council has made a decision, staff are executing on that direction, and the staff report for the Oct 15th is an informational item of how we got to an easement, what are we doing now, and what will happen as it is processed for grant closing. This rehashing, though possibly informative to future process, really doesn’t serve much other process.
I guess if we dig enough we might find who did what, when, and to whom, but does that change were we are now? What we DO know is that the community wants to have a further dialogue about where a business park (if any) might go, why and what will be the trade offs. We are about to get busy doing that, and staff are working diligently behind the scenes to bring that effort together.
Personally (though I really don’t get an opinion, let’s be honest), I am more concerned about finding a best fit solution that will make the majority of our community satisfied and that we have done our level best looking for the best solutions possible.
[quote]David, I don’t know when the closed CC sessions happened this year. I’m going off comments made by Brett Lee at the June 11th CC meeting where he made his exasperation clear that critical info was withheld from him in those closed sessions. Multiple speakers at the June 11th meetings also stated that a number of meetings occurred with federal officials at the April Cap-to-Cap trip regarding the NCRS grant and conservation easement. I wasn’t paying any attention to the Cap-to-Cap trip, but vaguely recall the VG receiving daily reports from Swanson and White, no?
-Michael Bisch [/quote]
Michael, I believe this is a statement, followed by a question. One of several questions over the past few days that cast a pallor on work I am doing. I am obviously frustrated that I have become one of the objects of your discontent. Especially since I don’t really know you and have met you only a few times. As my mom taught me, “criticize the issue, not the person.”
It will be good to sit down and dialogue. A meeting request is being processed inside city hall, but this issue is definitely not a priority over the many things that the City Manager and staff are trying to work through as directed by Council. Thanks for your patience, I am sure we will find time to meet in the next week or so.
Another generic business park question: we hear repeatedly about the many businesses that want to locate or expand here, but will they actually choose Davis once they compare costs against those of other nearby cities? I’m just wondering if the combination of land prices, development fees and taxes makes it difficult for Davis to compete with the likes of West Sac.
Another statement, I just now finished reviewing the April 30, 2013 twenty-page staff report (not counting the photo pages) to the CC regarding the Cap-to-Cap trip. I may have missed it due to the incredible level of detail in the report, but nowhere did I see any mention of a meeting to discuss “swapping of properties while still maintaining the $1.125 million grant.”
“As far as I am aware, I am the only City official that met with a federal agency (singular, not plural) and that was with James Gore, previous Assistant Chief of NRCS. This shouldn’t be news, as the email he sent to me as a follow-up was used as part of the June 11th packet.” –Rob White today
True, it’s not news today, but it was certainly news June 11th. June 11th was the first time the public had ANY INKLING of what was going on, a day on which the CC was going to make a pretty significant, far reaching decision. All the while, a number of public and private individuals had known for some time that this land swap negotiation was going on. And some of these individuals are now being hypocritical in stating they were “blindsided”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The “pause button” could have been hit anywhere along the timeline.
Nowhere am I insinuating there was a grand conspiracy. I am, however, flat out stating that zero effort was being made to inform the public. And nowhere am I stating who was responsible for the zero effort, but someone clearly was responsible.
-Michael Bisch
Update: The item is off the 10/15 agenda, and will be moved to the 10/22 agenda.
“And some of these individuals are now being hypocritical in stating they were “blindsided”. Nothing could be further from the truth. “
Who?
“I urge the council to separate these items.
— Proceed with the conservation easement “
I urge the Council to serve the interests of the voters who elected them.
Red flags should fly when peripheral/boundary issues come up within the City of Davis. As I have posted before, Davis is a proud ICLEI City. As a result, we citizens should be aware of how ICLEI intends to handle regional boundary issues within nearby areas.
In the nearby Bay-Area, for example, ICLEI has developed the One Bay Area Plan. This Plan has two components; PDAs (Priority Development Areas) and PCAs (Priority Conservation Areas). The PDAs are the areas within the existing Urban Growth Boundaries where ICLEI proposes to locate intensive (Stack and Pack) housing. All remaining areas (PCAs) will be targeted for conservation.
The PCAs will be the first areas to be targeted, with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) working with the SCC (State Coastal Conservancy) to dole out millions of Tax Payer Transportation Funds to unelected unaccountable groups. Private property owners within the PCAs will be targeted by these agencies with the objective of having them sign conservation easements. The easement holders will then be in control of the land instead of the land owner. The beneficiary of the carbon credit windfall will then be in the hands of the easement holder (often a land trust) rather than the land owner.
These easements will then have completely different management plans depending on who holds the easement. The end goal of this ICLEI effort is to ultimately form the California Essential Habitat Corridor System, which will create a wildlife corridor system throughout California.
Do we want this happening around Davis?
ICLEI was originally known as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, and is a private, non-profit foundation dedicated to helping local elected officials (mayors, city councilmembers, etc.) implement regional and international planning. Because of unfavorable local reaction to a variety of ICLE’s “Sustainable Development” and “Innovative Development” proposals to regulate the environment, ICLEI has had to rebrand itself as “Local Governments for Sustainability”.
A favorite theme of ICLEI is to recommend that the community hire a full time “sustainability manager,” to implement their policies. Sound familiar?
To know more about ICLEI, please see http://www.iclei.org/
I believe Rob White is correct, so let’s find the best solution for our community and this area of land!! We CAN have open space protection and economic development at the same time. There are both agricultural and Swainson Hawk mitigations for any development on ag land.
“Total mitigation for a development project shall not be less than a ratio of two acres of protected agricultural land for each acre converted from agricultural land to nonagricultural land. Location based factors (credits) for remainder mitigation contained in Section 40A.03.035 may result in ratios greater than 2:1.” Davis Municipal Code
“The Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Plan allows projects that are less than 40 acres to pay a fee, which is currently $8,660, at a 1:1 ratio. The interim program currently requires project that are 40 acres or more to acquire conservation easements at a 1:1 ratio.” Yolo Habitat JPA
I’d like to put forward a new framework for discussion: the idea of having a business and tech park containing innovative agriculture on the Mace 391.
An agricultural easement does NOT equal loss of economic viability!
Listed below are the definitions of agriculture uses from Davis Municipal Code 40A (http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=40a&showAll=1&frames=on ) and a number of links, which I hope will start a productive community dialogue on high-tech innovative agriculture:
“Agricultural operations”
Any agricultural activity, operation, or facility including, but not limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, irrigation, frost protection, cultivation, growing, harvesting, and processing of any commercial agricultural commodity, including timber, viticulture, apiculture or horticulture, the raising of livestock, fur-bearing animals, fish or poultry, agricultural spoils areas, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with such operations, including the legal application of pesticides and fertilizers, use of farm equipment, storage or preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market.
“Agricultural processing facilities or operations”
Agricultural processing activity, operation, facility, or appurtenances thereof includes, but is not limited to, the canning or freezing of agricultural products, the processing of dairy products, the production and bottling of beer and wine, the processing of meat and egg products, the drying of fruits and grains, the packing and cooling of fruits and vegetables, and the storage or warehousing of any agricultural products, and includes processing for wholesale or retail markets of agricultural products.
Innovative Commercial Aquaponics Farm
http://seedstock.com/2012/03/27/innovative-hawaii-based-commercial-aquaponics-farm-emerges-from-economic-downturn-to-profit-and-empower-others/
Aquaculture
http://aqua.ucdavis.edu
Singapore’s Vertical Farm
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/08/singapores-vertical-farms.html
The Plant
http://www.plantchicago.com
Vertical Farms
http://inhabitat.com/tag/vertical-farm/
The California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN),
http://calclimateag.org/renewable-energy-equity-act-sb-489/
[quote]An agricultural easement does NOT equal loss of economic viability! [/quote]
What a simple concept. Thank you for this, Stephen.
Stephen Souza: “[i]An agricultural easement does NOT equal loss of economic viability![/i]”
Don Shor: “[i]What a simple concept. Thank you for this, Stephen.[/i]”
Agreed, however I do not believe that many of the ‘agricultural operations’ listed above would be allowed under an agricultural easement. I don’t even think you can build commercial greenhouses on land with an Ag easement.
Mark: this is the closest I could find to a description of the restriction on greenhouses (as impervious surfaces) in an ag easement: [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/1491.22[/url]
[quote](i) Impervious surfaces will not exceed 2 percent of the FRPP easement area, excluding NRCS-approved conservation practices. The State Conservationist may waive the 2 percent impervious surface limitation on a parcel-by-parcel basis, provided that no more than 10 percent of the easement area is covered by impervious surfaces. Before waiving the 2 percent limitation, the State Conservationist must consider, at a minimum, population density, the ratio of open prime other important farmland versus impervious surfaces on the easement area, the impact to water quality concerns in the area, the type of agricultural operation, and parcel size. Eligible entities may submit an impervious surface limitation waiver process to the State Conservationist for review and consideration. The eligible entities must apply approved impervious surface limitation waiver processes on a parcel-by-parcel basis. State Conservationists will not approve blanket waivers of the impervious surface limitation for all parcels administered by the eligible entity without regard for the characteristics of individual parcels. All FRPP easements must include language limiting the amount of impervious surfaces within the easement area.[/quote]
Don, from the same document…
[i](c) The eligible entity may use its own terms and conditions in the conservation easement deed, but the conservation easement deed must be reviewed and approved by National Headquarters in advance of use. [/i]
The more pertinent question may well be what will the Yolo Land Trust allow, since they are the ones who will be controlling the easement.
Bummer! It looks like the earliest the “Transparency Raises All Ships” thing will happen is the 22nd. What the heck is that all about? I thought time was of the essence. Critical deadlines, the community is in peril, and so on.
-Michael Bisch
The Vanguard Editorial Board has sent Steve Souza the following invitation to write a series of articles here in the Vanguard on the concepts he has laid out in his very interesting comment above. I llok forward to hearing back from him shortly. Here is the e-mail we sent to Steve, with copies to Michele Clark and Mitch Sears.
[quote]Steve, when we talked at Davis Beer Shoppe last Friday you shared with me your passion about the ideas that you then again shared in your comment on the Vanguard yesterday. I felt last Friday and I feel now that your ideas need much broader exposure here in Davis, both at the conceptual level and at the practical implementation level. Would you consider writing an article, or even better a series of articles about how you think these ideas could benefit the Davis community and the Davis economy? One of the articles in the series could conceivably be co-written with Michele Clark and/or Mitch Sears from the perspective of how some or all of these ideas would fit within the constraints of a Yolo Land Trust easement on the Mace 391 property.
Anything you submit will be published as-is by the Vanguard.
Thank you for your consideration of this request
[/quote]
Yes, I would be glad to elaborate more through an article or series of articles. For now here is the link to The Technology Farm: http://www.thetechnologyfarm.com
I’m a sucker for anything connected to either Cornell or Ithaca. Thanks for that link Steve.
I look forward to seeing your articles here.