Council To Receive Update on Mace Curve Property

Morris-1

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

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

66 comments

  1. [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]

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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 ?

  5. “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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.


  9. 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?

  10. [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.

  11. [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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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]

  16. 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!).

  17. 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

  18. 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]

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. “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

  22. 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” ; )

  23. 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.

  24. 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 ?

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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.

  29. 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)

  30. 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.