Developer Says It’s November or Bust
To say that council is skeptical that the developers of the Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) can come up with a viable proposal, in time to get a ballot measure on for November that can actually win, is a vast understatement. But with Dan Ramos telling the council that it has to be November or there will be no proposal, the council reluctantly, after midnight, gave him one week to make his case.
Next week, the city would have to finalize a proposal to send to the Planning Commission, the Finance and Budget Commission would hear the proposal on July 11, and the council would have to make its final decision on July 12 (July 19 at the absolute latest) in time to have the County Board of Supervisors act on July 26 to put the matter on the November ballot.
Councilmember Brett Lee was a microcosm of the council as it moved late in the evening to figure out the best approach. He went from stating that he is willing to wait and see in two weeks “what is baked” and “willing to keep an open mind,” he warned, “We would not be doing anyone any favors by just putting something on the ballot that’s just going to go down in flames.”
A few minutes later, after walking through the process, he moved to kill the process, arguing “the time frame is too compressed,” but finally he was willing to withdraw his substitute-substitute motion and allowed Dan Ramos and his team one more week to make their case for November.
Robb Davis, meanwhile, in general a strong supporter of the project and economic development, nevertheless worried about pushing this project through before it could pass a vote.
“I am not happy to be in this position,” he said. He noted that there are two different voices in the community. “They are apocalyptic on both sides.”
“Measure R is about a process, whether we like it or not,” the mayor pro tem explained. “We get to propose and the community has to make a decision… That’s how I understood Measure R,” he said. “We vet projects, we. We negotiate projects.”
“If I vote to send it there, then what I’m saying is… I believe it has merit for the city. It’s not perfect…” he said, arguing right now, “I sort of feel like I’m being a pass-through mechanism – don’t conceptualize Measure R that way. “
He said he thinks this will fail if this is the process. “This compressed timeline doesn’t allow for (the process),” he said.
Rochelle Swanson felt that allowing these opportunities to die would tear this community apart, as companies that move here lose faith in Davis. She said she hopes that “we can at least move it forward and have the conversation. I’m not comfortable with the basic diagram that’s there. They obviously have to do more.”
Like Robb Davis, she hoped that moving it to spring was possible. She noted, “Please don’t kill it – give it a chance.”
But Robb Davis argued that “what’s most important is bringing forward a project that can pass.”
“It’s going to be difficult to nail down the level of difficulty that makes it possible to pass it on the ballot,” he said. “I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say this doesn’t have a prayer with the voters.”
He would add, “I have an optimism about this project. I have a belief that it can pass. But I know what it takes to pass…” Again, the mayor pro tem was arguing that this isn’t a project that can pass.
Robb Davis put forward a motion to exclude things that he believed would kill the project.
One of these was the urban reserve designation. This was finally fleshed out by the city. According to them, “The intent of the Urban Reserve designation in the General Plan is ‘to identify land for potential urban development after full development of the lands designated for urban uses on the General Plan Map or after the next revision of the Davis General Plan. Designation of land as urban reserve in no way assumes the right or entitlement on the part of the owner to develop the land in the future.”
It was explained by Harriet Steiner, the city attorney, that this status in no way would assume that this land would get priority over other lands.
However, Robb Davis sees that the issue of the urban reserve did not gain the developers anything, as it would need another vote anyway to build on the land – he told them basically in a motion, and then orally, that they need to remove this request.
Second, he argued there could be no mitigation on city land.
Third, he argued that they need to preserve the ratio of land uses as currently proposed. Right now, the proposal is 102 acres for office, research and development, and manufacturing uses – which consists of 1.7 million square feet of innovation space.
That is 900,000 square feet of R&D, 630,000 square feet of manufacturing and research; 150,000 square feet for a hotel and 20,000 for retail. Robb Davis argued that ratio needs to remain in place.
Finally, he argued there needs to be a fully formed sustainability plan.
While Robb Davis, Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs all argued for the possibility that this process goes to a special election in the spring of 2017, Dan Ramos said it is November or nothing. He requested they get a week to come back with an option that could go. He explained, “November is crucial for us, March doesn’t work.”
Earlier, he had argued that the key was the full participation of the November electorate.
Robb Davis was reluctant to agree. He argued that this is bad process and that he wants to send the voters something they’ll pass. He said, “My desire is to get a project that can pass a vote.”
However, Dan Wolk – in one of his final meetings on the council – pointed out that the council had taken a lot of time with Measure A. They had a stellar process with Measure A, but that Measure A had failed.
He said, “Growth is always going to be a divisive issue. Measure A showed that.” He argued that “there is no way to avoid that divisiveness with MRIC even if the process goes on for month and months – we can’t eliminate the divisiveness.” He felt we had enough here to explore that it was worth it to have it come back for July 12.
With that, the council at 12:30 am agreed to have the process come back to the council subcommittee next week. But there was not great hope that this process could be successful.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Where’s the mitigation land?
Where have I heard that before? Oh, that’s right, me.
At least they heard you
If it doesn’t gain them anything (which I and now City attorney have said) why insist on removing the designation from the proposal?
Optics. To the general public, changing the designation from ag to urban reserve looks like a step toward development. You can publish as many articles as you want to the contrary, but many (most?) voters are going to interpret the proposed change as a negative.
Ok, I’ll grant you that many (most?) voters are ill-informed and/ or stupid. You make a good point… ‘optics’ trump facts and judgement (pun intended).
Hence, the importance of Measure R/J… gotta’ support those ‘optics’… even if the optics are myoptic…
What Jim Frame said. It’s useless and just fodder for the no growthers.
Who’s giving advice to the developers? As soon as I first read the proposal I knew that would be a sticking point. How did they not see that? Why put it in the proposal if it doesn’t gain them anything?
Was the issue of ‘urban reserve’ raised when Sutter Davis annexed its campus? Did y’all speak up then?
Good point. A hospital is a service business that even old fools can support.
Didn’t need to. Sutter Davis happened in, what, 1993? Measure J in 2000?
pierce, I strongly believe that Measure A lost because of optics . . . optics that the opponents of the project used as weapons. So for me the question isn’t how natively informed the voters are, but rather how will the respective “sides” of the inevitable campaign “add” to the native information that the voters start the election period with.
With that said, you are arguing your point from the perspective of “what harm does the urban reserve designation do?” What BP and Jim and I keep asking, and as yet all we have heard is crickets, is “what good does the conversion to the urban reserve designation accomplish?”
Absent an answer to that second question, most people will find themselves asking, “If this change has no useful purpose, and they are working very hard to ram it down our throats, what is going on that is being hidden under the covers?”
If urban reserve doesn’t gain them anything, why include it in the project?
Or the reverse question
Since the developer is the one bringing the project, the better question is why include it? It is the developer that needs to answer that question.
I don’t get the nix on mitigating with city-owned land. Howatt Ranch is a capital albatross around the city’s neck. If we can sell the land to MRIC at orchard prices, we bail out of an acquisition that addressed nothing except a court order, and gain permanent protection on the property at the same time.
I’m pretty sure the Caesars saw Hadrian’s Wall as “permanent”… guess they messed up on not making the zoning, and non-development agreement “etched in stone” with no modifications for 10 centuries.
Robert Frost wrote about the ‘mending wall’…
I concur with Jim. I too don’t see the nix. If all 773 acres of Howatt Ranch is put into a conservation easement, and Ramos brings forward a buyer for those 773 acres @ $15,000 an acre then the City realizes an $11 million capital gain and the whole transaction probably costs Ramos something like $50,000. The rest of Ramos’ ag mitigation budget can come from the mitigation of additional acres over and above Howatt. There is substantial potential “win-win” that I, like Jim, believe is worth exploring.
The problem with this idea is that the City doesn’t need MRIC to put a conservation easement on Howatt Ranch and sell the property, so there is nothing gained by allowing MRIC to leverage this City asset. Robb Davis made the right call re: disallowing city-owned land for mitigation.
In addition, the OSHC rejected Howatt Ranch because it doesn’t comply with the requirements of the ag mitigation ordinance.
Would agree, if the Open Space fund reimbursed the Drainage/Sewer funds that purchased the land… otherwise, it is an asset that has value… to the funds that purchased it…
Understood CalAg, but the facts on the ground are that the City doesn’t have either the resources or the expertise in-house to get it done. So if left to staff to do it will continue to be an under performing and under protected conservation asset. Ramos has the resources and the expertise and the incentive to achieve the outcome that not only maximizes the number of conserved agricultural acres, but also creates capital funding (ideally in the Fund 135 balance) that can be used for future Open Space acquisitions.
Note, I do not believe that Ramos should be able to satisfy all of their mitigation requirements with Howatt. Rather it would be a package of Howatt plus other mitigation acreage close to the City Limits. Ramos has a mitigation budget (in dollars). They should not be able to complete this deal without spending that whole budget.
JMHO
Matt, if the city doesn’t have the staff, it would be cheaper and cleaner to hire a consultant to take care of it.
There is a lot to be gained by allowing MRIC to do that – millions of dollars for a the city in the sale of the property while keeping the property in an easement. I don’t understand some of these objections I’ve been reading lately.
“the City doesn’t have either the resources or the expertise in-house to get it done” @ Matt Williams
That statement doesn’t square with the facts. The most obvious case in point is Mace 391.
While I don’t know for sure, my guess is that Howatt Ranch is being held outside a conservation easement because it was identified years ago as a possible site for the proposed sports complex. I personally don’t see Howatt as either an underperforming asset or underprotected land.
If the City Council were to chose to ignore the OSHC recommendation, they would have a fiduciary responsibility sell Howatt at an honest market price with complete disregard to Ramos’ mitigation budget.
Fred said . . . “if the city doesn’t have the staff, it would be cheaper and cleaner to hire a consultant to take care of it.”
A consultant would be much more expensive, unless the consultant was willing to get the job done on a fixed fee basis. The reason is simple . . . time is money. The consultant would want to extend the time frame as much as possible. That is one of the basic tenets of the Consultants’ Full Employment Act. On the other hand, for MRIC time is also money, but in the reverse sense. They know that the sooner they get the process completed, the closer they are to getting their project over the finish line.
Further, the real estate transaction fees are likely to be as much as the same 6% we all pay when we sell our homes. MRIC will more than likely be willing to settle for real estate transaction fees that are half of that (or less).
CalAg said . . . “That statement doesn’t square with the facts. The most obvious case in point is Mace 391.”
Here is a simple question for you CalAg, how long did it take staff to bring Mace 391 to closure? Also, how “clean” was that transaction when it happened?
I rest my case.
CalAg said . . . If the City Council were to chose to ignore the OSHC recommendation, they would have a fiduciary responsibility sell Howatt at an honest market price with complete disregard to Ramos’ mitigation budget.
I completely agree CalAg, which was why I used the $15,000 per acre sale price. As best as I can tell that is a reasonable approximation of the “honest market price.” Given that Ramos won’t be the buyer, but only bringing a willing buyer to the table, Ramos will be indifferent to what the eventual sale price of the “eased” acres is.
I’ll quote from the OSHC report here, because I don’t think all of the relevant considerations are being taken into account:
Roberta, regarding the OSHC’s recommendation:
(A) There is no property that is physically adjacent to the MRIC site, other than the “inside the Mace Curve” parcel, which represents only 47 of the required 400 mitigation acres. As a result there are no acres other than those 47 that meet the criteria the OSHC cited.
(B) Realizing $11 million of income while at the same time seeing 747 acres of productive (largely prime) farmland permanently placed in a conservation easement held by the Yolo Land Trust is the epitome of extraordinary community benefits.
(C) It actually meets the “development threat” criteria of the Ag Mitigation Ordinance (copy quoted below) because the growth pressure on Howatt Ranch is equal to or greater than the adjacent parcel … Mace 391.
(D) Based on my knowledge of the Yolo County Soils Map (courtesy of Yolo County Planning Commissioner Leroy Bertolero) I am confident that the soils are comparable. The LESA scoring system can/will provide a definitive answer to that OSHC unknown.
I share the above as input to an informed decision, not as argument for a specific outcome.
Here’s an idea, regarding mitigation:
The developer apparently doesn’t need the Northern half of the site for commercial development. (There’s otherwise nothing preventing him from pursuing the original commercial proposal – which includes the Northern half.)
Therefore, I’d suggest including the Northern half as part of the mitigation lands.
Oh wait – I forgot that he’ll likely pursue housing on that site in the future, regardless of whether or not it’s in an “urban reserve”.
Never mind!
Unless I’m mistaken, Ramos said last night that their intent was to come back with a housing application for the proposed urban reserve after the November election if MRIC is approved by the voters.
At least twice during his initial presentation he referred to workforce housing.
hpierce said . . . “otherwise, it is an asset that has value… to the funds that purchased it…”
pierce, while acknowledging the fact that the original purchasing funds need to be repaid out of any proceeds, what value does the land have in the City’s currently upgraded/reconfigured drainage/sewer system?
None… it’s value is to be sold to the highest bidder, for the City to be made whole.
It will have a floodplain easement/disclosure tho’…
This thing is dead, but they’re going to use up a lot of staff time in the meantime.
Davis is a model to prove that well-educated liberal progressives at too great a concentration cannot effectively govern themselves.
Frankly, setting aside your premise for a moment. The failure of this governance process rests squarely on the shoulders of the MRIC development team. They are the ones who put their project on pause. They are the ones who didn’t even have one representative at the FBC meeting where the findings of the economic analysis were presented by EPS. They are the ones who didn’t provide EPS with any comparable developments from elsewhere in the US that are realizing $20 per square foot sales prices rather than the $9-$13 sales prices that EPS ended up using in its economic analysis.
There are other “dirty fingerprints” other than theirs, but theirs are the most obvious and visible ones.
Congress is a model that conservatives at too great a concentration cannot effectively govern.
Congress is a model that conservative or liberal ideologues at too great a concentration cannot effectively govern
I am glad to hear that most of the members of the City Council are concerned about the process. I can understand how at 12:30 AM the easiest thing to do can be to give this another week. However, I will reiterate what I have said here before. There were several commissions, including the Open Space and Habitat Commission and the Natural Resources Commission, whose work on the previous proposal had not yet been considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. There isn’t sufficient time for that work to be redone for the new proposal, and then to be considered by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. Thus, this new timeline would essentially cut those commissions out of the process. I don’t know if this is deliberate or accidental – I don’t know why it took Ramco two months after “pausing” to come up with the idea of a smaller project (an idea that was part of the EIR) – but the effect is the same. I urge the City Council not to put this on the ballot for November, and instead to take the time to have the project be properly vetted and specified. Ramco says now that spring isn’t a possibility, but that land is still there, and I’d be very surprised if it really was the case that this was “now or never.”
Alan Pryor referenced the reports of these commissions in his public comment. Are the minutes or reports of those meetings available?
The report of the Open Space and Habitat Commission is here:
OSH report
The concerns that the OSHC raised about the old proposal may no longer be relevant – or they may still be relevant. There may be new “pluses” to this proposal, or new “minuses.” But no time is available for the Commission to determine that.
Sorry, but I have to run off and don’t have time to try to fish out the NRC minutes.
Roberta
Thanks for posting the OSHC report. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the larger project. One thing that those who support the project might want to consider is that some of these considerations might even be lessened by a smaller foot print and thus more palatable to those of us who put a very strong priority on open land and habitat. However, we would not know that and thus would not have time to make a more favorable assessment of the project. It was this time to fully weigh the pros and cons of Nishi that ultimately turned me into a proponent.
I guarantee that I would be more likely to support a project given enough time to consider all aspects than I would be if I feel my back is being pressed to the wall which was very much the feeling I got from the Ramos display of intransigence in the name of greater voter participation last night.
Tia, yes, exactly, that is part of what I was trying to suggest. But the devil is in the details, and a) we have no details, and b) even if we did, we have insufficient time to study them, report on them, and have our report considered.
It’s also worth remembering (I think people forget this sometimes) that the commissions are looking at projects from their particular purview, not the value of the projects as a whole. It is then up to the City Council and citizens to weigh all the different considerations in coming to a decision about what to do.
Here is a LINK to the draft minutes of the March 28th NRC meeting where they considered MRIC. The relevant text of those minutes is:
7 . Mace Ranch Innovation Center – Project Review.
Heidi Tschudin, City contract project manager for the MRCI project reviewed previous presentations to the Commission and outlined the project review process and the process used to gather input from City Commissions. The project proponents presented on background and specific project design/elements related to the draft sustainability framework submitted to the City in late January. Member of the public, Alan Hirsch, provided written comments included as Attachment 3.
Following discussion, individual Commissioners provided input on the following three questions posed by the City Council:
— Question #1 — What recommendations do you have related to project design and proposed features?
— Question #2 (NRC only) – What recommendations do you have related to the proposed framework for sustainability and key commitments/aspects of sustainability relevant to this project?
— Question #3 — Do you feel the project is generally consistent with, or would generally achieve, City objectives and guiding principles relevant to the mission of the commission? Why or why not?
Commissioner responses, grouped by category are included in these minutes by reference and as Attachment 1. Commissioner Westhoff, unable to attend the meeting, submitted written comments that were read into the record and are included as Attachment 2 . A written GHG mitigation proposal, submitted by Commissioner Johnston and read into the record was accepted by the full Commission and is included as Attachment 3 .
Following individual Commissioner comments and discussion, on a motion by Pryor, Seconded by Braly, the Commission recommended forwarding the following to the City Council:
The Commission finds that the project, as currently proposed, does not meet the City’s sustainability standards with respect to GHG emissions and moves the City further from its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan goals.
Passed unanimously (7-0; Westhoff absent).
When you get kicked in the teeth you get to make a choice whether to get up and fight harder and smarter, or slink away with your tail between your legs. The CC acted like a bunch of whipped puppies that have ceded the fight to the no crowd. I predict two years of inaction and a further deterioration of the City and quality of life. Don’t worry, though, we will all get to pay extra to enjoy the show.
“Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends…”
Garbage. The city council acted with incredible diligence and thoughtfulness and gave the developer more opportunity than he probably deserved to come back with a real proposal. What the developer presented to the city last night was D+ homework and then council member Swanson begged to let the developer have a do over to fix it. Generous, and not unreasonable except that the developer is bullying the city into a greatly compressed timeline that necessitates everyone at the city pretend as if there were a real proposal for the staff to work on and the planning commission to consider. As of this morning, there is no actual proposal for MIRC to even discuss.
In fairness, I think what the developer brought to the city was a sketch. The next step for the developer was to find out if it was worth their money and time to develop that sketch. At this point, I’d say that’s still a big question.
Pugilist, I would agree that a “sketch” might have been OK if the developer were not pushing such a onerous accelerated timeline. Given the timeline the Developer needed to show up with more. 15 bullet points, a crude map, and less than 4 minutes of vacuous presentation. The City Council is very generous to give the developer a second at bat next week.
I don’t think the council was being “generous” I think they were being sincere – they want a workable project, they are concerned that this will not be one, but willing to at least allow the developer to try. I think that’s much more sincere than people who would vote against the project under any circumstances coming forward to complain about process. There is no process that will get Harrington to vote yes on this.
Watching the council proceedings last night, I think there are two votes that are almost certainly against the project going to the November ballot, and one vote that will support it no matter what.
I agree that the Council was being sincere. They were also being generous. Clearly they want to give this developer every chance. I am not sure who you are talking about that would vote against this project under any circumstance. Harrington wasn’t there.
I mean that of the five council members, it’s pretty clear where three of them stand already.
I think they want to give this project every chance.
Don, I count similarly. It seemed like there were likely 3 votes to not consider this on the developers accelerated timeline, 1 vote to do anything the developer asked, and 1 vote to “please can I go home now and leave this a possibility for Will?” Robb put his cards on the table face up by listing exactly what he needs to see to support the project. We will just have to wait and see if Ramos can muster a proper proposal and not rely on bullying tactics.
“council member Swanson begged to let the developer have a do over to fix it.”
Council member Swanson did more than beg to let the developer have a do over, she begged other pro MRIC members of the community to “help them”. I found this completely unprecedented at least in my council watching time which is not nearly as long as some here. She pleaded with proponents of the project who were in the audience to volunteer their time and expertise in order to help the developers draft an acceptable project being that despite years of having the opportunity to do so, they had not succeeded. Talk about picking winners and losers. Nishi was a very narrow loss on in my opinion a much better project. But here we had a council member begging other developers in the community to bail out MRIC.
I watched the proceedings, and was disturbed by council member Swanson’s statements and tone, regarding MRIC. I was also concerned about her statements and actions regarding Sterling.
It’s not the first time that I’ve found her statements to be one-sided (to put it politely). It seems that she is encouraging conflict, with those who have opposing views.
It seems that Robb Davis has similar views, but states those views in a more respectful manner.
I don’t see how this gets done and passed in November. The rush to the ballot will be used to kill it at the ballot box. I understand the desire of the developers to have it on the November ballot as they see that as the best chance for passage but the project needs too much work.
Its sad. The election calendar is now the paramount consideration in the planning process. Nishi and MRIC were teed up by the council for June and November ballots. The opposition to Nishi claimed it wasn’t ready and the voters bought the argument. When the opposition to Nishi asked why June and not November? Nobody spoke up and said because of MRIC.
So what was supposed to improve the planning process, the inclusion of a public vote through Measure R, now has become the biggest impediment to good planning.
In the 16 years since Measure J passed no land has been annexed into the city. There have been 3 proposals and not one of them was good enough for a majority of Davis voters. The City Council spent a lot of time and money bringing Nishi forward as did the developers. Both the city and the developers worked in good faith to bring the best proposal they could come up with considering the obstacles to development of the Nishi parcel. If Nishi couldn’t pass I don’t see how any proposal will ever pass.
But it is worse than just the three proposals that were voted down. In the last several years there have been five proposals that have not gone forward to date, 391, AKT property, the land by the hospital, Nishi and the last one, Mace Ranch Innovation Center, is hanging by a thread and I would not be surprised if they pull the plug in the next day or two. Even if the owners of MRIC go forward I’m doubtful that it could win at the polls this November. So if the owners are really in a now or never situation and don’t take another two or four years to get it right I see MRIC as being the fifth proposal to be lost under Measure R and the seventh since Measure J passed.
But if all this isn’t enough to convince you that Measure R is unworkable there is one more piece of evidence to consider. The proposal to build near the hospital was moved to the south end of Woodland where they don’t have the kind of ballot box planning that Measure R requires in Davis. If seven development proposals under Measures J/R fail but one of the development teams builds a similar proposal in a neighboring jurisdiction in a timely manner with great loss to the financial well being of the City of Davis I wonder if that will be enough to get the people of Davis to recognize that the system we have now is unworkable. It is a process that does’t allow us to develop our intellectual capital, adequately house our citizens or provide for a fiscally sound city government that can provide and maintain our parks, roads and public safety. Our planning system is broken. Only the removal or sunset of Measure R can fix the City of Davis.
Measure J/R is not only workable, after the Measure A vote we know exactly what it takes to get a project passed no matter if it passes or fails now. Although Measure A had merits, it also had significant problems as has been discussed on here ad nauseum. All of the puffery on here about how awful Measure J/R are flies in the face of what Davis voters have shown in elections again and again.