“This isn’t the Davis Way,” Carrie Shaw writes in a letter to the editor in the Enterprise. She argues, while what David Morris and ConAgra are doing “isn’t illegal,” that “it certainly is smelly, self-serving and doesn’t uphold Davis community values.”
She writes, “The way I see it, by soliciting a $2 million pledge from ConAgra, Morris (through his Capitol Corridor Ventures ‘nonprofit’) is siphoning off, for his own focused agenda, significant funds that ConAgra should be investing into The Cannery project so that it meets Davis community standards and is an asset to the town overall.”
This probably is not the view that either Mr. Morris or ConAgra want to hear, but the viewpoint is out there, it exists, it is data, and so like it or not it is the view that they are going to have to address as they move forward either with Cannery or Mace 391.
Ms. Shaw continues, “While Morris has admirable intentions with his drive to establish and nurture local technology and business talent, I don’t believe many in this town want Davis to become an ‘agricultural tech giant’ with the sprawl that implies. Morris needs to scale his ambitions to Davis – we are not Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove or Vacaville.”
This view precisely is why we need community discussion. First, Mr. Morris’ view is not one of sprawl, as his proposal specifically involves putting a large amount of land around Mace 391 into a conservation easement. But that part did not come out very clearly during the discussion of the Cannery-CCV deal.
In addition, Mr. Morris probably disagrees that he needs to scale his ambitions to Davis, because, if given the chance, he would likely be able to articulate how his vision does fit Davis.
Our point is that Ms. Shaw’s letter here should be viewed as an opportunity for Mr. Morris to better articulate his vision to the public.
Carrie Shaw expresses clearly the concerns that many Davis residents will have about these proposals.
She goes back to the history: “Ever since Mace Ranch was thrust upon us two decades ago, the Davis community has chosen over and over again to have a strong say in how our town grows and what kind of quality of life we want to have. We have chosen to stay a small, compact, human-scaled and culturally rich city that has significant citizen involvement.”
“There is a legitimate and urgent need to zone land and make sufficient room in Davis for additional industry/technology and to incubate local and UCD-based innovators,” she writes. “But a lot of us wonder why the ConAgra parcel, which is already zoned industrial, is not suitable and why business and industrial development must be along the freeway? We also aren’t keen on the dead-end residential Cannery project as designed.”
These concerns are more directed toward issues that ConAgra and the Cannery developers still need to address to the public. While their focus has been on getting to three members of the council, the concerns expressed by Carrie Shaw reflect some of the concerns of the entire community – that, if the Cannery proposal goes to a vote or even as it advances in the public realm, ConAgra has to address.
Ms. Shaw continues, “And many of us certainly do not look favorably on an 11th-hour end-run attempt by Morris/Capitol Corridor Ventures and his allied civic and business ‘leaders’ to plop a nearly 400-acre industrial park on Leland Ranch – land the city already has purchased as open space through a public process and with our designated open space funds.”
This again demonstrates how the way that Mace 391 was rolled out by city staff harmed the process. There is already a seed of suspicion that any further discussion is going to have to address.
The bottom line here, from our perspective, is that David Morris and ConAgra have an opportunity to change the conversation here. They can run and hide from this criticism, but while Ms. Shaw is but one person, her viewpoint is, in our view, representative of many.
Instead of viewing this as a criticism, they should view it as an opportunity – an opportunity to articulate their vision for the future of Davis and to have a truly public discussion on the merits and drawbacks of current proposals.
In our view, this discussion will happen one way or another. This represents a final opportunity for David Morris and ConAgra to get out in front of the discussion and help frame it in a way that we can move forward.
The bunker mentality, in our view, will only lead to disappointment and loss.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Instead of viewing this as a criticism, they should view it as an opportunity – an opportunity to articulate their vision for the future of Davis and to have a truly public discussion on the merits and drawbacks of current proposals.[/quote]
I think that it is fair and appropriate to view it as both a criticism and an opportunity. Some of the posters here decry what they see as a business unfriendly atmosphere here in Davis. Others see the involvement of the community by citizens whose priorities lie more with quality of life than with expansion as a positive. I think it is important for developers to recognize this difference between Davis and some other communities and be willing to work openly with the community from the beginning with the recognition that projects that do not mesh well with established Davis standards are likely to meet with opposition. This will be especially true if they do not meet basic environmental and safety standards. In the case of the Cannery project, we are being presented with a completed package that requires major compromise in areas of transportation, safety and connectivity, and type of housing need and yet are expected to accept that while not enough money is avaible for all “the goodies” desired, there is money to spend promoting the project as is. I agree with Carrie that this is not “the Davis way”. And I agree with David that there is both opportunity and a lesson here for future potential development.
“The way I see it, by soliciting a $2 million pledge from ConAgra, Morris (through his Capitol Corridor Ventures “nonprofit”) is siphoning off, for his own focused agenda, significant funds that ConAgra should be investing into The Cannery project so that it meets Davis community standards and is an asset to the town overall.”
What would she suggest that Conagra do that they are not already doing? With her stated argument that she doesn’t see why a business park isn’t a go at Cannery and doesn’t understand why a business park needs to be near the freeway i wonder if this woman or those she claims to represent would ever be satisfied. She certainly doesn’t seem to amenable to any change or express what she wants that is possible only what she opposes.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Others see the involvement of the community by citizens whose priorities lie more with quality of life than with expansion as a positive.”[/i]
Are there really that many people who wish for expansion for the sake of expansion? Heck are there any such people?
Now if you define expansion as keeping good employers who are already in Davis in Davis, then okay. I personally don’t see that as expansion, but rather sustaining what we have.
If you define expansion as forcing the companies that come out of UCD’s technology transfer initiative to look outside of Davis for their initial business location (as Digital Technology Labs now on Faraday Avenue and now part of Mori Seiki had to) then okay. I personally don’t see that as expansion, but rather sustaining what we and UCD have.
If you define expansion as forcing the companies that grow and succeed here in Davis after coming out of UCD’s technology transfer initiative to look outside of Davis for their expanded business location (as Bayer/AgraQuest recently had to do) then okay. I personally don’t see that as expansion, but rather sustaining what we and UCD have.
And further, I want that kind of measured, sustained and sustainable economy in order to preserve the quality of life we currently have in Davis. I don’t see expanding budget deficits as being good for quality of life. I don’t see deferred maintenance by our City as being good for quality of life. I don’t see crumbling streets and bike paths as being good for quality of life. I don’t see higher taxes as being good for quality of life.
BTW, while I’m thinking about quality of life, is there any tax that is worse for the quality of life of our lower income citizens than a sales tax? It is regressive and shifts wealth from the poorer people in our society to the richer people in our society. The only worse taxation scheme is the Lottery!
JMHO
What is wrong with Davis becoming an agricultural tech giant? Why isn’t this part of the “Davis way?” Does she have absolutely no clue what is happening at UCD?
If Covell Village was allowed to be simultaneously planned, ConAgra would not dead end. Just saying…..
What proponents of the Mace 391 land swap/business park proposal need to understand is that Carrie Shaw is not from the predictable against-everything crowd. She represents very mainstream Davis thinking on these issues. Her letter illustrates clearly why I believe that a Measure R vote on Mace 391 would almost certainly fail, and by a hefty margin. It would be a colossal waste of the community’s time and would further polarize the Davis electorate. She has summarized the campaign issues in her letter.
Don: That’s precisely why I illustrated this piece. It represents an enormous percentage of the population and it’s well articulated and mostly in the right spirit.
Really Don? I did a Google search of her name and she seems to be a professional in the field of land preservation and ecology with links to at least one of those on the Open Space Commission. While she is representative of a faction it is a faction with an agenda. Linking Cannery, Conagra, David Morris and 391 as if its all one deal and some sort of Cabal shows the extent to which the Open Space Committee is going to try to preserve their agenda.
Yes, those radicals on the Open Space and Habitat Commission. I think, Mr. Toad, that you are far, far from the mainstream on this issue.
Here is a link.
http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130521/10-North-Davis-Riparian-Greenbelt-Presentation.pdf
Can anybody who posts here regularly seriously say that they believe the Mace 391 proposal would pass a Measure R vote? And if so, on what basis?
I didn’t use the word radical. I said agenda and there are two competing agendas in play at 391. Both have support and the attempts to demonize or marginalize those who favor development over preservation shows desperation while cultivating exasperation by those trying to discuss the merits.
Nice link. Keep digging, Mr. Toad. Your hole is getting deeper.
About 70%+ of the Davis electorate supports greenbelts and open space.
Don: Don’t you think we should have the discussion as long as it doesn’t exclusively focus on Mace 391? I think this discussion here has moved things a lot further forward than you may like to think. For instance, six months ago, would you be inclined to at least consider the IPTF recommended sites?
What does greenbelt have to do with it? The point of the link is the personal associations. Did you see them? i was hoping not to name names. Sadly if the open Space Commission was more focused on greenbelts and preservation they would favor Shriners and the land swap over proceeding with the easement at 391. they would preserve more land with access to the people of Davis than creating their own little fiefdom with a yet to be explained community farm controlled by whom?
Ryan Kelly said . . .
[i]”What is wrong with Davis becoming an agricultural tech giant? Why isn’t this part of the “Davis way?” Does she have absolutely no clue what is happening at UCD?”[/i]
Ryan, as much as I want a sustainable local davis economy that synergizes with UCD’s core competencies in Agricultural Technology, the word “giant” is problematic for me as well.
I’m willing to see Yolo County in aggregate achieve “giant” status in agricultural technology, but I believe (as does Don Shor and as does medwoman) that there are certain ag tech businesses that would be better off in West Sacramento or Woodland rather than in Davis.
Specifically, I see Davis ag tech future being more closely aligned with R&D and Woodland’s and West Sac’s ag tech future being more closely aligned with processing and production and exporting.
If we hop into the Way Back Machine and revisit a conversation that Don Shor and I had a few weeks ago, you will see an illustration of what I mean. At 18 billion dollars per year of revenue, combined the two parts of Kraft Foods have annual revenues of $54 billion worldwide. If Kraft approached the City of Davis with a proposal to make use of the substantial rice production of our region and build a rice snacks production plant with hundreds of new jobs here in Davis and substantial increased local demand for rice from local farmers, Davis would quickly say “No,but . . .” and present to Kraft all the compelling reasons that locating the plant somewhere in Yolo County was indeed a superb idea (working of course as part of a regional economic development team comprised of Yolo County, Woodland, West Sac, Davis, and in this case probably the other regional rice farming jurisdictions that would supply a reliable feed stock to the plant.
On the other hand, if Kraft came to Davis and said, we are really excited about UCD’s hiring of Roger Beachy as the new head of the World Food Center, and we are really excited about all the world class food safety research that UCD produces each year, so we want to relocate our 50 employee Food Safety R&D Lab in Davis so our scientists can collaborate with UCD’s scientists. I would seriously hope that Davis would quickly say “Yes!! What can we do to help that happen.”
The one Kraft opportunity is not measured, nor does it leverage any particular UCD core competencies. As a result it isn’t a good fit for Davis. The other Kraft opportunity is absolutely measured, and it strongly leverages UCD core competencies . . . and it is exactly the kind of synergistic opportunity that UCD created theWorld Food Center to attract . . . and it is exactly the kind of synergistic opportunity that UCD hired Roger Beach to obtain.
One company. Two opportunities. One measured and locally synergistic, and to my way of thinking a contributor to sustaining the high quality of life in Davis. The other not measured, and much more regionally synergistic, and to my way of thinking a contributor to the quality of life in Yolo County, but not as much to the local quality of life in Davis. Much better to collaborate regionally on that one and bring it to Woodland or West Sac.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”What proponents of the Mace 391 land swap/business park proposal need to understand is that Carrie Shaw is not from the predictable against-everything crowd. She represents very mainstream Davis thinking on these issues. Her letter illustrates clearly why I believe that a Measure R vote on Mace 391 would almost certainly fail, and by a hefty margin. It would be a colossal waste of the community’s time and would further polarize the Davis electorate. She has summarized the campaign issues in her letter.”[/i]
I don’t disagree with you Don. Any Davis resident/voter whose vision starts with the image “giant” will indeed subscribe to that line of thinking.
Those same people will probably vote against (giant) tax increases as well.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Really Don? I did a Google search of her name and she seems to be a professional in the field of land preservation and ecology with links to at least one of those on the Open Space and Habitat Commission. While she is representative of a faction it is a faction with an agenda. Linking Cannery, Conagra, David Morris and 391 as if its all one deal and some sort of Cabal [b]shows the extent to which the Open Space and Habitat Commission is going to try to preserve their agenda[/b].”[/i]
Toad, I couldn’t disagree with your bolded statement more. I attended the Open Space and Habitat Commission meeting last night and I respect the dedication that the citizen volunteers on that Commission are demonstrating in following the goals that the City Council has given them over the years. The whole is the sum of its parts, and the OSHC ant its members are important and very representative parts of that Davis “whole.”
Feel free to attack the message. You know that I don’t fully agree with the message. But, I strongly believe the messengers are working hard on all our behalfs and attacking those messengers is unwarranted.
Again, JMHO
Developing Mace 391 as a technology park could generate funds that will vastly increase our ability to create open space and agricultural easements elsewhere. I could see this as winning a Measure R vote easily, if that idea is made central. Most of us could care less if that particular plot is kept in agricultural easement, as opposed to much larger amounts of land elsewhere.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Can anybody who posts here regularly seriously say that they believe the Mace 391 proposal would pass a Measure R vote? And if so, on what basis?”[/i]
Yes. I ABSOLUTELY believe that a Mace 391 proposal that results in upwards of 3,000 acres in the davis Urban Fringe being put into permanent conservation easement, two riparian corridors restored for wildlife habitat, upwards of 1,000 acres of Swainson’s hawk Habitat permanently conserved and between 1,000 and 2,000 homes being removed from the FEMA Flood Plain will achieve that.
That is the “grand bargain” that I have put on the table.
[quote]Can anybody who posts here regularly…. [/quote]
Anybody who reads this blog consistently knows that many of the “regular posters” simply like listening to themselves speak. Geees.
“Feel free to attack the message. You know that I don’t fully agree with the message. But, I strongly believe the messengers are working hard on all our behalfs and attacking those messengers is unwarranted. “
My problem is twofold. One is the way members of the Commission and their friends are attacking the people who want to go another way. They are being demigogues. Just look at how Don attacks me as being out of the mainstream even making up numbers to support his position. The second is that they make it seem as if they are non-biased members of the community yet all these people seem to know each other yet don’t share with the community how they are connected. Thank goodness for Linkedin.
“One is the way members of the Commission and their friends are attacking the people who want to go another way.”
you’ve made this claim. i don’t recall reading any such comments. can you elaborate?
[i]What proponents of the Mace 391 land swap/business park proposal need to understand is that Carrie Shaw is not from the predictable against-everything crowd.[/i]
Bull.
All it takes is a person with normal levels of intelligence and an unbiased position to read what she wrote and see clearly that she is firmly in the against everything crowd.
This is the standard PR move for the block everything crowd. Search for a cross-bearer of the no-change crusade that has a shred of credibility with the normal people and try to get their attention that there is logic and rational thought in their political platform.
Anyone that uses the fear of S P R A W L, is immediately identified as belonging to the no-change crusade.
[i]Can anybody who posts here regularly seriously say that they believe the Mace 391 proposal would pass a Measure R vote? And if so, on what basis?[/i]
OMG. I guess this proves we have a tremendous tin ear in this town.
Let’s see… what is different today when compared to June 2010 when the population was still in a tizzy over all the expected hope and change?
And let’s not forget that Measure J was not a landslide. In 2000 it passed 53.6% to 46.3%.
We were heading into a recession in 2000… but it did not really hit until 2001. Who knows what might have happened.
We didn’t have 2500 acres preserved… most of which the average Davis resident cannot even use.
The list goes on and on and on.
One thing is clear… as usual the block everything crusaders are better organized and funded… and they tend to have more time on their hands to exercise their creative writing skills to instill unsubstantiated fear into voters lacking the time and understanding to see through their bullshit.
Time to get out the pen.
Kids, note that the adults are trying to screw your future AGAIN!
Frankly: [quote]And let’s not forget that Measure J was not a landslide. In 2000 it passed 53.6% to 46.3%.
[/quote]
Measure R renewed Measure J in 2010. What was the margin? Passed: 76.7% in favor, 23.3% opposed. You really think there’s been a sea-change in voter attitudes in Davis?
Mr. Toad: [quote] Just look at how Don attacks me as being out of the mainstream even making up numbers to support his position.[/quote]
Measure O passed with 70.4% Yes, 29.5% No.
I think it’s not unreasonable to say that “70%+ of the Davis electorate supports greenbelts and open space.” It’s not a made-up number. On growth issues, there is no question that you are far out of the mainstream in Davis.
Like I said Don… giddy with all the hope and change stuff.
And voters did not realize that they were just funding a piggy bank to INCREASE the subsidy we already pay farmers to lock up land that the residents can never use.
And guess what. I support greenbelts and open space. I voted yes on Measure O.
But then again I’m sure you will make the case that I am not “mainstream”. As I have written before, I think the majority of Davisites are fiscal conservatives. You are going to have a very hard time appealing to their fiscal conservatism with your platform of locking up land that we own into permanent ag easements when our city is drowning in red ink and we have the opportunity to stop the flow so we can adequately fund all our city services and programs.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Don: Don’t you think we should have the discussion as long as it doesn’t exclusively focus on Mace 391? I think this discussion here has moved things a lot further forward than you may like to think. For instance, six months ago, would you be inclined to at least consider the IPTF recommended sites?”[/i]
You raise a very good point David. When you look at the NRCS soils map below, the Ramos/Bruner site more than likely has a higher LESA (Land Evaluation and Site Assessment) system score than Mace 391 has.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/EastInnovationParkSoils_zps276a6c60.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
And the fact that there is every appearance that Ramos/Bruner is in the “475 other acres for development” that Don is referring to in his post below, does indeed represent a very major compromise on his part on the east side of Mace Boulevard
Don Shor said . . .
“We have 475 other acres for development. How many do you need?”
BTW, the answer to the question Don poses really depends on the time horizon you are using for your planning process. The “grand bargain” I have laid out with the intention of putting upwards of 3,000 acres of the Urban Fringe (as defined by Measure O) into permanent conservation easement has [u]a 50 year time horizon[/u].
The principle is to [u]permanently[/u] define what Davis is, and what Davis is not. By doing so, we [u]remove any uncertainty [/u]from the equation.
[quote] your platform of locking up land that we own into permanent ag easements[/quote]
The city owns Mace 391 now, but doesn’t plan to own it in the future. Once the easement is in place, the land will be sold and the funds recycled to other conservation parcels. So there is no “platform of locking up land that we own”; the city is just an intermediary in the process.
Measure O goes out to 2030, and will bring in millions of dollars. We can achieve Matt’s greenbelt proposal, or whatever appropriate land acquisitions the OSH commission and city council actually approve, without developing Mace 391. Matt is the only one linking it to development. There is no need to develop a business park in order to achieve what the voters have already approved with Measure O.
Frankly, even when you’re right on an issue,like this one, your reasoning scares me.
That aside, I fear Carrie probably does represent the mainstream in Davis regarding growth, and they’re agin’ it, failing to realise that they doom the lifestyle they are trying to preserve to extinction, because their kids can’t wait to inherit to have a home of their own and in about 30 years, Davis will become a suburb of strangers. I am encouraged to read on related threads that Frankly is engaging his neighbours and friends on this issue . It will, no doubt, be a mutually enlightening experience.
Biddlin ;>)/
biddlin – my musical brother from another mother… what about my reasoning scares you?
Davis is already has the highest population density of any comparable little city. We already have buckets of the amenities that the no-change crusade is trying to scare us about. We are not at risk of falling off some cliff of good lifestyle. We have earned a fantastic pile of good-life chips that we should be able to leverage without being so damn greedy.
Locking up land into a permanent ag easement serves a very narrow scope of utility for the general population… but at great cost to our most vulnerable residents. And it is being pushed by those with those having next to zero vulnerability… the well-off elites.
These well-off elites are great at making a person feel that they have all of our best interests at heart. But the numbers don’t lie. And the numbers clearly demonstrate that permanent ag easements on a parcel with tremendous value to the city as a business park, or as some other leverage to complete a revenue generating transaction, are to satiate their selfish pursuits at the expense of everyone else.
Ag easements at this point in Davis’s already amassed portfolio of open space with a broken and busted city budget, are just another manifestation of Bernie Madoff-style greed.
So Don, based on Matt’s post above, why do you support developing on better Ramos/Bruner soil? If you are really just about preserving the best farmland, you should be supporting a Mace 391 location instead of the Ramos property?
Something does not compute.
[quote]So Don, based on Matt’s post above, why do you support developing on better Ramos/Bruner soil? If you are really just about preserving the best farmland, you should be supporting a Mace 391 location instead of the Ramos property? [/quote]
I’ve answered that question already. I’m not “really just about preserving the best farmland.” That is more of your reductionism.
I guess Matt believes Sycamore Complex is better than Capay Silty Clay. [url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb_gmap/[/url]
The point of my support for the Ramos/Bruner site is that it is freeway frontage, and that with an easement on Mace 391 it would have little impact on development pressure of adjoining property. Without the easement on Mace 391, I would not support developing Ramos/Bruner. If Mace 391 is developed, it is almost a certainty that Ramos/Bruner would also be proposed for development; i.e., Mace 391 would increase the development pressure on Ramos/Bruner site.
So yes: developing Ramos/Bruner is a compromise when it comes to loss of ag soil, just as Nishi is. Hence my position that my economic development positions are more moderate than yours.
Let me elaborate enophile. Carrie Shaw has worked with the Open Space Committee people although she fails to disclose that or at least David fails to relate that fact. Her letter is an attack on the Cannery and defends the 391 easement. She conflates Cannery, any agreement they have with David Morris and Morris’ proposal for 391 as if its some giant conspiracy. It a good offense is the best defense kind of position. Her letter could be an independent effort but I am personally skeptical.
70% voted for Measure O but every single person I tell about how the money has been used expresses dismay.
“The city owns Mace 391 now, but doesn’t plan to own it in the future. Once the easement is in place, the land will be sold and the funds recycled to other conservation parcels. So there is no “platform of locking up land that we own”; the city is just an intermediary in the process.”
So the policy is buy, lock up, sell, repeat. its a good strategy as far as it goes but the question becomes is it a good strategy for all parcels? Also do the people of Davis understand that their money is being used to subsidize the purchase and disposition of land that the citizens won’t have access to using?
Let me add is there a better way to use the money that does a better job of advancing the goals of the taxpayers and citizens of Davis?
Ok Don. Thanks for that explanation. I guess I have more faith in the people of this community to do the right things for the community as needed, and don’t believe we should be doing things today that purposely lock up and eliminate future options due to a lack of trust or fear of change.
The analogy is to lock people up in a padded building so they don’t go outside and hurt themselves…but then what if that building starts to leak like crazy? You have prevented those inside from being able to fix the leak and so they will just grow miserable, but I guess they will be safe.
Don Shor: “[i]Her letter illustrates clearly why I believe that a Measure R vote on Mace 391 would almost certainly fail, and by a hefty margin. It would be a colossal waste of the community’s time and would further polarize the Davis electorate.[/i]”
Don, how would that be any different for a Measure R vote on Nishi or the Northwest Quadrant? Why would one be a waste of time and polarizing and the others not?
We don’t know how the citizens will vote on these issues, which as far as I understand is why we hold elections. I cannot see how a rational discussion of our economic situation, and all the options we have for dealing with the mess, will ever be ‘a colossal waste of the community’s time.’
[quote]Don, how would that be any different for a Measure R vote on Nishi or the Northwest Quadrant?[/quote]
I don’t think Nishi has any near-neighbor opposition. Northwest Quadrant depends on which specific sites, and to what degree the city and landowners work to make a community consensus.
Don Shor said. . .
[i]”Measure O goes out to 2030, and will bring in millions of dollars. We can achieve Matt’s greenbelt proposal, or whatever appropriate land acquisitions the OSH commission and city council actually approve, without developing Mace 391. Matt is the only one linking it to development. There is no need to develop a business park in order to achieve what the voters have already approved with Measure O.”[/i]
Don, your mathematics when you say that are “fuzzy.” At the Open Space and Habitat Commission meeting last night two interesting pieces of information were shared. 1) the $635,000 per year that Measure O raises each year was confirmed, and the next priority for acquisition was reported on to the OSHC by Mitch Sears . . . the 792 acre Nishikawa Ranch west of Pedrick Road in Solano County just west and north of the Kidwell Interchange of I-80. The 792 acre total area is in four parcels, with 497 acres in the first and 129 in the second and 83 each in the third and fourth parcels.
So Don, it appears that even the first acre of Urban fringe conservation will now have to stand in line behind a 792 acre easement acquisition. How many years of $635,000 will that acquisition take up.
Said another way, why are you not willing to take the 3,000 acre bird in the hand instead of a multi-decade possibility of those same 3,000 acres, if and only if other opportunities like Nishikawa Ranch don’t distract the process.
Why don’t you just get on the OSH commission and present your ideas there, Matt?
Don Shor said . . .
“I guess Matt believes Sycamore Complex is better than Capay Silty Clay.”
Actually Don if you look at the soil types information in the Leland Ranch listing sheet (see [url]http://calagprop.com/files/LELAND-RANCH-PACKAGE.pdf[/url]) you will find that Sycamore Complex has a Storie Index range of 61-76 while Capay Silty Clay has a Storie Index of 50, so yes according to the USDA/NRCS (and the City of Davis) Sycamore Complex is indeed better than Capay Silty Clay . . . and both of them are much better than the Storie Index 29 Willows Clay that dominates the central portion of the Mace 391 lower parcel.
[quote]the next priority for acquisition was reported on to the OSHC by Mitch Sears[/quote]
That is a misrepresentation. Mitch reported on a property that has become available, and the OSHC committed to looking at it. That’s all. Standard Operating Procedure. It can’t be said to be a priority until it’s been evaluated, as I have emphasized on other threads. We don’t just look at parcels on a map and recommend them.
[quote]Carrie Shaw has worked with the Open Space Committee [/quote]
I’m pretty sure I have never met Carrie Shaw. As for the OSHC being involved with the North Channel Greening Project (which I am probably misnaming now, sorry, no time to look up the official name), yes, that falls under our purview and has been presented to our commission a few times. So, it is natural for some members of the commission to take an interest. You’re creating connections where none exist.
Don, if you read my earlier posts in this thread, you would know that I did indeed go to the OSHC meeting last night. I could be wrong, but I believe if you check with any of the Commission members present you will find that they found my contributions constructive, respectful and useful.
Earnest question:
Does it matter that farmland is next to a freeway? Does that make the farmland more or less valuable if all other things are equal?
Good Government wrote:
> Does it matter that farmland is next to a freeway?
Most farmers would rather farm land that is not right next to a freeway (they can get in trouble for getting dirt and dust on the freeway).
> Does that make the farmland more or less valuable if
> all other things are equal?
If you are next to a freeway the land will be more valuable than other land with similar soil primarily due to the fact that down the road you may be able to sell the land at a big premium if for example the county was going to OK a tech park on the site.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”That is a misrepresentation. Mitch reported on a property that has become available, and the OSHC committed to looking at it. That’s all. Standard Operating Procedure. It can’t be said to be a priority until it’s been evaluated, as I have emphasized on other threads. We don’t just look at parcels on a map and recommend them.”[/i]
Roberta, we will have to agree to disagree if you think my statement was a misrepresentation. A discussion of the Nishikawa Ranch was agendized. There were no other acquisitions so agendized other than Leland Ranch, which as we know is a past acquisition. Mitch gave a very solid and informative report. After which the OSHC motioned, seconded and passed a direction to the Acquisitions Subcommittee of the OSHC to [u]quickly[/u] go to the Nishikawa Ranch site and perform an evaluation of the site.
I agree that what OSHC did was/is standard operating procedure. I also believe that it was [u]absolutely appropriate[/u] that what you autorized be done. Y’all were doing the right thing.
All of the above does not change the fact that (to the best of my knowledge based on what I heard last night, and I am prepared to be proven wrong by information that wasn’t shared last night) the Nishikawa Ranch is the only pending/potential acquisition in the OSHC queue. Please correct me if that is factually incorrect.
Don wrote:
> If Mace 391 is developed, it is almost a certainty
> that Ramos/Bruner would also be proposed for development;
> i.e., Mace 391 would increase the development pressure
> on Ramos/Bruner site.
Can anyone the tell me if the “Ramos/Bruner site” is on the map above?
I have been told that Ramos owns the land inside (aka SW of) the Mace curve. Does he also own the land above (aka North of) the curve?
SouthofDavis: here’s a map.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391map.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391map.jpg[/url]
Don Shor: “[i]Northwest Quadrant depends on which specific sites, and to what degree the city and landowners work to make a community consensus.[/i]”
And I ask again Don, how is that any different than the Mace site?
Isn’t having a conversation about all of our options for dealing with our economic situation just exactly that, an effort to build a community consensus? The problem as I see it, is we can’t work to ‘build a community consensus’ as long as one party is contending that the effort is a ‘colossal waste of the community’s time.’
[quote]Don Shor: “Northwest Quadrant depends on which specific sites, and to what degree the city and landowners work to make a community consensus.”
And I ask again Don, how is that any different than the Mace site? [/quote]
If the owners of the land near the hospital want to take lessons for how NOT to go about it, they could look at how this whole Mace 391 land-swap proposal was brought forward.
Matt: both sites are prime farmland, and I’d be surprised if the cropping history is significantly different.
[quote]the Nishikawa Ranch is the only pending/potential acquisition in the OSHC queue.[/quote]
As far as I know, the Nishikawa Ranch is the only property that is available. If you have evidence that other properties are, then you should give that evidence to the OSHC, or the property owners themselves should come forward. I am speaking for myself and not for the commission here.
As was mentioned at the meeting and as I have mentioned here, the City has had to be a bit opportunistic about parcels it acquires through Measure O because such properties do not become available often. If we waited for perfect properties to become available in the right order, we’d be waiting forever.
In any case, “being a priority” implies that we’ve evaluated it. Which again, we haven’t yet done.
Asked to post this:
[img]images/stories/outcomes-graphic.png[/img]
So are they proposing that land currently owned by the City of Davis be used for the ag mitigation for developing Mace 391?
“Carrie Shaw has worked with the Open Space Committee people”
Not for the committee but with people on the committee you can see who with the link I provided. It would not surprise me to discover a stealth letter writing campaign from people who as David suggests are portrayed as ordinary citizens in the mainstream of the Davis community when in reality they are more closely associated with open space issues than the reader might know. A look at the woman’s Linkedin page reveals that she is not just a casual citizen expressing her feelings but that she is much more committed on this issue than some have been led to believe.
That’s what it would appear. But what that means is that there would be no development to the east including on ATK land. It’s almost 3 to 1 mitigation.
Also remember, Dave Morris wouldn’t be developing this, the city would.
The chances of development on ATK land are infinitesimally small. Most of the ‘mitigation’ is on land that the city already owns. So in effect, it isn’t 3:1 in any real sense. What I see there is 391 acres of mitigation for a 421 acre park.
David wrote:
> Carrie Shaw expresses clearly the concerns that
> many Davis residents will have about these proposals.
After Mr. Toad mentioned her LinkedIn page I would re-write Davis’s statement to say:
Carrie Shaw expresses clearly the concerns that the Davis residents who like her have a strong interest in natural resource conservation and protection, Fire Ecology, Threatened and Endangered Species Protection
and Habitat Conservation and Restoration Planning will have about these proposals.
[i]she is not just a casual citizen expressing her feelings but that she is much more committed on this issue than some have been led to believe. [/i]
I am 100% serious about this. Any person that uses the term “sprawl” in their so-called “average Daviste”, or “balanced and objective”, rants in opposition to developing in and around Davis, are obvious crusaders of the no-growth/no-change movement. Or, at the very least, they are part of the group of more extreme and demanding environmentalists that would find reason to dislike about any development.
Making a case that Davis is at risk of sprawl is similar to making a claim that Davis is racist. Neither are anywhere close to being true, yet the crusaders for those two causes continue to look for their puppy in the warm sun of the front yard even as cries for help in the cold and dark basement.
If these people are really motivated by these larger altruistic ideals (to prevent sprawl and to preserve open space and the natural environment for future generations), then Davis is not a good place for them to do their business in. We really don’t need it or want it thank you very much. However, there are a lot of places throughout CA that do need and want your help.
“The chances of development on ATK land are infinitesimally small. “
You are naive beyond all reason if you believe that AKT won’t be able to push through development on their land at some point in the future. There is no organization better at the development game than AKT. Being dismissive of their abilities is never a good idea.
You see three votes on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors for development on Tsakopolous land? Where?
[quote]Any person that uses the term “sprawl” in their so-called “average Daviste”, or “balanced and objective”, rants in opposition to developing in and around Davis, are obvious crusaders of the no-growth/no-change movement. Or, at the very least, they are part of the group of more extreme and demanding environmentalists that would find reason to dislike about any development.
Making a case that Davis is at risk of sprawl is similar to making a claim that Davis is racist. Neither are anywhere close to being true[/quote]
“Urban sprawl” is a common term in urban planning documents. It is even used by regulatory agencies that deal with land use planning. For example, in describing ‘sphere of influence’ in relation to LAFCO, we have this quote:
[quote]In a 1977 opinion, the California Attorney General stated that sphere of influence should “serve like general plans, serve as an essential planning tool to combat urban sprawl and provide well planned efficient urban development patterns, giving appropriate consideration to preserving prime agricultural and other open-space lands”[/quote]
So basically, ‘urban sprawl’ is development that isn’t well planned, efficient, and usually also refers to development that is auto-centric and low-density.
The growth pattern of Davis between 1960 and about 2000 definitely reflected urban sprawl in some respects. When any city in the Valley annexes farmland and builds houses or commercial buildings, without regard to the quality of that land and without doing infill first, it certainly meets the definition of urban sprawl. Sometimes it’s unavoidable because there isn’t sufficient land within the city limits or the SOI already for a purpose that the community has expressed a desire for. But in most cities, sprawl is developer-driven based on the simple fact that ag land is cheaper and easier to develop. It’s not a community consensus. It often results from private deals that exclude public input. That, as Carrie said, isn’t supposed to be “the Davis Way” of doing things.
[quote]Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl is a multifaceted concept centered on the expansion of auto-oriented, low-density development.[/quote]
We are already the most population-dense comparable little city.
Developing on peripheral land is not sprawl.
Smart development is not sprawl.
Developing in, around and among acres of useable open space is not sprawl.
Sprawl is the term used to define a specific type of aggressive suburbanization… strip malls and tact homes spreading out along all the available space.
It has nothing to do with the argument over assessments of farmland quality or parcels that you believe present greater or lesser risk for future development.
You know all this, yet you keep using the word.
It is a word that is exploited in the economic development debate by those that want to block certain or most projects because it evokes a strong emotional response from people.
But it is inappropriate in our situation.
Anybody that uses it is clearly in the anti-development camp.
The way you define it, every bit of development that has ever happened since the dawn of time was sprawl.
Let’s use the words as they are defined please.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt: both sites are prime farmland, and I’d be surprised if the cropping history is significantly different.”[/i]
Don, you know full well that all jurisdictions use the LESA system for comparing parcels, and you also know that land that has a lower LESA score can not be used to mitigate land that has a higher LESA score. UCDA/NRCS created LESA which is based on Soil Class and Storie Index as well as additional factors such as threat of urbanization. Bottom-line you are arguing long and hard to conserve a parcel that has a better Soil Class Mix, a better set of Storie Index scores and almost surely a better LESA score.
I look forward to any cropping history information that you may have for the two parcels.
The facts are the facts.
“You see three votes on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors for development on Tsakopolous land? Where?”
Not today. But we’ll see what tomorrow brings. Right now it might be the last thing on my mind. Still in the early morning rain the times they are a changin.
Don wrote:
> You see three votes on the Yolo County
> Board of Supervisors for development on
> Tsakopolous land? Where?
Angelo is one of the smartest (and most connected) guys I have ever met.
I agree with Toad that:
“There is no organization better at the development game than AKT”
[quote]Let’s use the words as they are defined please.[/quote]
Ok. Next time you should Google it before you fulminate.
[quote]: the spreading of urban developments (as houses and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a city
[/quote]
[quote]: a situation in which large stores, groups of houses, etc., are built in an area around a city that formerly had few people living in it[/quote]
Matt: [quote]I look forward to any cropping history information that you may have for the two parcels.
[/quote]
Tomatoes. Maps of the region don’t distinguish the two sites based on cropping history. For our purposes, they are comparable as to the quality of the land for agriculture. And developing Mace 391 while retaining Ramos/Bruner in agriculture would simply relegate Ramos/Bruner to eventual annexation and development. Which, I notice, is exactly what CCV is proposing. The “threat of urbanization” of Ramos/Bruner will go up exponentially if Mace 391 is urbanized. Or, to use your analysis, the LESA score of Ramos/Bruner will change if Mace 391 is developed.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”As far as I know, the Nishikawa Ranch is the only property that is available. If you have evidence that other properties are, then you should give that evidence to the OSHC, or the property owners themselves should come forward. I am speaking for myself and not for the commission here.
As was mentioned at the meeting and as I have mentioned here, the City has had to be a bit opportunistic about parcels it acquires through Measure O because such properties do not become available often. If we waited for perfect properties to become available in the right order, we’d be waiting forever.
In any case, “being a priority” implies that we’ve evaluated it. Which again, we haven’t yet done.”[/i]
Roberta, I will say again, that I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that the OSHC did last night that wasn’t 100% in alignment with what I would have done if I had been voting on the decision you considered last night. You prioritized the followup actions of the Commission members with respect to Nishikawa Ranch. The reason for those actions “being a priority” were very clearly and well explained by Mitch Sears . . . specifically that timelines are very short due to the actions of organizations outside the OSHC and outside the City of Davis (specifically the Solano Land Trust, the City of Dixon and NRCS).
Once again, you did the right thing. You did it according to “standard operating procedure” and you did it in an open, noticed regular meeting of the Commission at an easily accessible well-known location, the Council Chambers Conference Room.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being opportunistic.
All the above brings me around to my comment to Don Shor, who appears to be willing to pass over the opportunity to potentially place upwards of 3,000 acres of Davis Urban Fringe into permanent conservation easement in calendar year 2014. His argument for that perplexing argument is that it will be easy to use the $635,000 per year of Measure O money to achieve that same goal by 2030. Your comments above appear to be saying that the reality of the acquisitions you have experienced during your tenure on OSHC has been anything but easy, and that Don’s “by 2030” assessment may be very, very hard to accomplish.
For the record, Don’s quote was, [i]”Measure O goes out to 2030, and will bring in millions of dollars. We can achieve Matt’s greenbelt proposal, or whatever appropriate land acquisitions the OSH commission and city council actually approve, without developing Mace 391. Matt is the only one linking it to development. There is no need to develop a business park in order to achieve what the voters have already approved with Measure O.”[/i]
Frankly: [quote]Smart development is not sprawl. [/quote]
I think that’s correct.
Don wrote:
> The growth pattern of Davis between 1960
> and about 2000 definitely reflected urban
> sprawl in some respects.
I don’t think that many will call Village Homes, Willowbank, Ivy Town or and other Davis development from 1960 to 2000 “urban sprawl”…
A city that has grown ~3 miles to the West and ~3 miles to the East over 100 years will probaly not make many lists of “sprawling” cities…
David: [quote]That’s what it would appear. But what that means is that there would be no development to the east including on ATK land. It’s almost 3 to 1 mitigation.
Also remember, Dave Morris wouldn’t be developing this, the city would.[/quote]
Was the use of city-owned land as ag mitigation part of what was proposed to the city council in June? I haven’t looked back at David Morris’es article in the Vanguard, but I don’t recall that was clearly stated there either. I assume CCV is the source of the map you’ve posted. Were those outcomes clearly identified in the June proposal, or is this a new iteration?
[quote]All the above brings me around to my comment to Don Shor, who appears to be willing to pass over the opportunity to potentially place upwards of 3,000 acres of Davis Urban Fringe into permanent conservation easement in calendar year 2014.[/quote]
I am only aware of one person in this region who believes that to be possible.
Let me put the question graphically, in case people are having trouble keeping track of all the parcels in question.
This is what staff presented to the city council on June 11:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391CCVoriginal.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391CCVoriginal.png[/url]
When did that become this?
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391CCVoutcomes-graphic.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391CCVoutcomes-graphic.png[/url]
At what point did Howatt Ranch become part of the mitigation?
Another point about the term “sprawl”. It is used to define a certain style and choice of development that was common in America during our suburbanization. The alternative choice re-invigoration and densification of urban areas. Davis is already dense, and we lack properties and opportunities to make us more dense.
So, in our circumstance it is a choice to develop outside or inside… it is a choice to develop or not develop.
The alternative style is smart economic development.
In any case, it will not be sprawl if we decide to develop a business park on some peripheral land. But it most likely will be world-class, innovative and awesome.
[quote]At what point did Howatt Ranch become part of the mitigation?[/quote]
I was wondering that, too.
The lower map says “5/23/2013” — but who was that presented to back in May? Not the City Council.
Also, the proposed technology park has grown between the first map to the second. Right?
And since Governor Brown and the Teachers Unions raided and killed RDA, those that supported these actions can also thank themselves for making infill development more difficult to impossible… even if we had the space… which we don’t.
September
[quote]Roberta, I will say again, that I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that the OSHC did last night that wasn’t 100% in alignment with what I would have done if I had been voting on the decision you considered last night. [/quote]
I get that. But you are still misrepresenting what happened. We have not prioritized that property over other properties. Period. We said we’d look at it. Maybe we’ll end up recommending it, maybe we won’t. It will depend on the evaluation.
[quote]All the above brings me around to my comment to Don Shor, who appears to be willing to pass over the opportunity to potentially place upwards of 3,000 acres of Davis Urban Fringe into permanent conservation easement in calendar year 2014. [/quote]
And I will say to you, as I have said several times already, that you need to give evidence that the property owners are interested in selling their land at this time. Instead of using your public time to give an apology that I had already said was not necessary to give, you could have presented the evidence then. Truly, I don’t understand why you’d say you really want to do this and then not give the information necessarily to make it happen. Or, if these property owners wanted to sell, why they wouldn’t just approach the city. What exactly is going on here?
There is no “opportunity” unless the owners are willing to sell to the city.
[i]There is no “opportunity” unless the owners are willing to sell to the city[/i]
Everyone is willing to sell anything at the right price.
Same with a business park.
So, then we are back to the same for each opposing use. We have no control to acquire private land other than with price, so what is the best use of the land we do own?
[quote]Everyone is willing to sell anything at the right price. [/quote]
You’re talking about possible sellers. Matt says he has actual sellers that have expressed interest. I’d like to see that if it’s true. (Again, speaking personally, not for the OSHC). Otherwise, I don’t really want to hear about “opportunities” that aren’t genuine opportunities.
Agreed. Me neither. An opportunity and a wish are clearly not the same.
To be clear, the Nishikawa Ranch does look promising, otherwise the OSHC wouldn’t be evaluating it. But again, that doesn’t make the property the commission’s next priority.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”I get that. But you are still misrepresenting what happened. We have not prioritized that property over other properties. Period. We said we’d look at it. Maybe we’ll end up recommending it, maybe we won’t. It will depend on the evaluation.”[/i]
Roberta you are trying to illustrate a differentiation of a term that the legal profession would call “a difference in name only.”
But lets let the facts on the ground speak for themselves. Here are a few questions about those facts.
1) At the end of the OSHC meeting last night, how many potential conservation easement properties was OSHC actively working on?
2) What were the names of those properties?
3) At the beginning of the OSHC meeting last night, how many potential conservation easement properties was OSHC actively working on?
4) What were the names of those properties?
5) If the answers to question 1) and question 3) are two different numbers, what were the OSHC actions that caused those two numbers to change?
I will close this post by noting that you are seeing criticism where there is none, and by noting that you are seeing misrepresentation where there is none. Your answers to the five questions above clearly illustrate those two truisms.
I am not seeing criticism. I simply do not think you should be saying that we did something we didn’t do. The minutes will show that we voted to evaluate the property and to send the working group out to look at it. That’s it.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”And I will say to you, as I have said several times already, that you need to give evidence that the property owners are interested in selling their land at this time. Instead of using your public time to give an apology that I had already said was not necessary to give, you could have presented the evidence then. Truly, I don’t understand why you’d say you really want to do this and then not give the information necessarily to make it happen. Or, if these property owners wanted to sell, why they wouldn’t just approach the city. What exactly is going on here?
There is no “opportunity” unless the owners are willing to sell to the city.”[/i]
Roberta, I can ask you exactly the same question in reverse. You need to give evidence that you and the OSHC are genuinely interested in receiving this information and acting on it. To date I have come to three OSHC meetings and at two of those three (not last night) I have presented information including graphics to the OSHC, and to date I have received exactly zero questions from any and all OSHC members.
So given that robust engagement of the concept presented to OSHC and also presented to Council on multiple occasions and written up at length in articles here in the Vanguard, I can’t help but ask you, [i]”If you were to receive evidence of the eight landowners who have expressed an interest to me in putting their land into a conservation easement, what would you do with that information?”[/i]
millstein said . . .
[i]”You’re talking about possible sellers. Matt says he has actual sellers that have expressed interest. I’d like to see that if it’s true. (Again, speaking personally, not for the OSHC). Otherwise, I don’t really want to hear about “opportunities” that aren’t genuine opportunities.”[/i]
Same question as above, [i]”If you were to receive evidence of the eight landowners who have expressed an interest to me in putting their land into a conservation easement, what would you do with that information?”[/i]
As an aside, one of the eight showed me a letter to the City of Davis that clearly expressed their desire to place their property into an easement, but to date the City has not responded to the land owner’s letter.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”To be clear, the Nishikawa Ranch does look promising, otherwise the OSHC wouldn’t be evaluating it. But again, that doesn’t make the property the commission’s next priority.”[/i]
Roberta, is there any other property on the OHSC’s evaluation list? If there is none, how can you say that the only property on the list . . . Nishikawa Ranch . . . is not the next priority?
Said another way, if Nishikawa Ranch is not currently the next priority for OHSC consideration/action, then what property is?
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”I am not seeing criticism. I simply do not think you should be saying that we did something we didn’t do. The minutes will show that we voted to evaluate the property and to send the working group out to look at it. That’s it.”[/i]
The minutes will also show that after Mitch explained the aggressive time line that Solano Land Trist and the other potential “partners” on this opportunity were imposing, the Commission made getting the members of the Acquisitions Subcommittee out to the site “a priority” . . . so much of a priority that the Commission also voted to add another member to the Acquisitions Subcommittee in order to make more bodies available in order to (amongst other things) accomplish the assessment of the Nishikawa Ranch post haste.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”I am not seeing criticism. I simply do not think you should be saying that we did something we didn’t do. The minutes will show that we voted to evaluate the property and to send the working group out to look at it. That’s it.”[/i]
I hear that “need to know” approach to information dissemination loud and clear.
[i]Can anybody who posts here regularly seriously say that they believe the Mace 391 proposal would pass a Measure R vote? And if so, on what basis? [/i]
It’s very plausible, and here is how it could happen:
City staff has been given a very clear directive to explore the options for creating value with the Mace 391. Assuming they do their job appropriately (of course, it will be the first time they’ve done that with respect to this issue), the CC will see a viable list of potential transactions (most of which will have nothing to do the the David Morris land swap), and which will show definitively that are very valuable (in multiple respects, not just money) potential outcomes for Davis residents. Under that basis, the CC will “hit the pause” button and fully explore the options 1 will be presented to the citizens of Davis to vote on for Measure R (it will very likely not be the David Morris option). Davis voters will likely recognize the same value as did the CC, and will approve a Measure R vote.
Is what’s being proposed even legal? (Developing land bought with Measure O funds). Has that issue been addressed by the city?
Nice: i think its legally very questionable.
Return the Measure O money and the road fund money if Ag easement or business park.
Staff was also directed to research the legality issue. There are many ways the city can/could go about this, so my guess is that there is a legal way it can be done (just as the city figured out how to borrow money from the road fund so that it could purchase the property in the first place). Ostensibly, the issue will be answered at the next council meeting, along with all the options that I described above.
The June proposal:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391CCVproposalJune2013.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391CCVproposalJune2013.png[/url]
So at this point I remain curious about two things. When did the business park expand from 234 acres to 491? When did city-owned Howatt Ranch become part of the ag mitigation 2:1 requirement?
More to the point, who is making these decisions, and what exactly is the proposal that is before the city council with regard to Mace 391, and who is making that proposal?
[quote]Everyone is willing to sell anything at the right price. [/quote]
Excellent argument for the placement of agricultural easements.
Don –
You seem very focused on the past events and Capitol Corridor Ventures. Fortunately, there are much better opportunities for the city. Staff should be exploring them with local business types and open space experts. If staff does their job, we’ll all see there very significant opportunities that exist that will be much better revenue wise and from an open space protection plan.
[quote]Return the Measure O money and the road fund money if Ag easement or business park.[/quote]
I’m asking it this legally an option.
If legal and land is sold, do all profits, (after road fund money is reimbursed) have to stay Measure O funds or do they go back into the general fund?
[quote]the CC will “hit the pause” button and fully explore the options[/quote]
There is no “pause button” for the easement.
[quote]City staff has been given a very clear directive to explore the options for creating value with the Mace 391.[/quote]
Is this an exercise in futility? What are the realistic chances that council is going to forfeit the grant money on a deal that might not be legal, and would require a Measure R vote, to come actually come to fruition.
Would Capital Corridor’s plans be derailed if they lose the 2 million dollar donation? (aka Cannery project tanks). Is this another variable that needs to be considered before council decided on forfeit the grant money?
[quote]Is this an exercise in futility? What are the realistic chances that council is going to forfeit the grant money on a deal that might not be legal, and would require a Measure R vote, to come actually come to fruition. [/quote]
Add the following to the list of uncertainties:
1. How much risk would the city incur if it were to develop a business park on land that it owns? Land development is a high-stakes game, and profit flows toward risk; there’s still no such thing as a free lunch. Is the city sophisticated enough to be able to protect itself from a bad deal? Worst case: owning a failed business park would be a triple-whammy against the budget (sunk costs + lost tax revenue + legal expenses for how many years?).
2. The timeline for developing any business park is going to be denominated in years, not months. The current city council won’t be the one making the decisions on execution of any deal on Mace 391. Do you trust an unknown council to actually use the fabulous profits we’re being promised to implement Matt’s plan of ag land protection?
I keep going back to the bird-in-the-hand concept: we have a million dollars lined up to conserve Mace 391 now and lock in the first real piece of an urban boundary. Everything else is just rainbows and unicorns.
Jim, if the scenario played out as I have outlined, the citizens vote would take place during calendar year 2014, so Brett Lee, Dan Wolk and Lucas would all be on the Council . . . and more than likely Rochelle as well. That leaves Joe’s seat either filled by Robb Davis or Sheila Allen in Council seat number 5. I really don’t see that as an “unknown Council.” The conservation easements would be put into place the same day as the innovation park entitlements are issued, which ideally would be the day after the election.
The structuring of the deal would be such that the immediate profits wouldn’t be any greater than the amount of money needed to purchase the easements. The rest of the value would come in the form of a stream of annual special assessment district levies that would provide a stream of payments revenue that start out small because the number of acres that are housing technology transferred companies from UCD or Davis companies that have had to expand into new space due to the success of their growing businesses. The economic growth will be measured and organic, and the City’s revenue growth will be similarly measured and organic. No big widfalls that future Councils will feel a compelling urge to spend all in one fell swoop.
[quote]The structuring of the deal[/quote]
Where can one find the details? If it was posted somewhere earlier, I didn’t make note of it. I don’t see anything on the techDAVIS website.
Jim, I have described the way I see the deal being structured in a number of my comments in several past threads. Since the planning time horizon on that “grand bargain” is 50 years (more than 50 actually), the structuring would be different than what David Morris is focused on.
I’ll be glad to sit down with you again and step through those details.
Matt Williams wrote:
[quote]So given that robust engagement of the concept presented to OSHC and also presented to Council on multiple occasions and written up at length in articles here in the Vanguard, I can’t help but ask you, “If you were to receive evidence of the eight landowners who have expressed an interest to me in putting their land into a conservation easement, what would you do with that information?”[/quote]
How can I know what I would do with information that I am not in possession of? It would depend on the information. What I truly don’t understand is why all the cloak and dagger. You keep blaming the OSHC for not asking you for more information. Yet you also extoll the virtues of a public forum. Well, here is your public forum. You are on the editorial board, right? If you have actual evidence that there are eight landowners ready and willing to sell to the City, now is the time to speak up and show that evidence. The fact that you haven’t yet presented the information makes me wonder whether there isn’t more to your story than meets the eye.
Matt Williams wrote:
[quote]I hear that “need to know” approach to information dissemination loud and clear.[/quote]
That’s quite insulting. You and I agree on the basic facts of what happened, yes? The OSHC agreed to go look at and evaluate the property, given that it has now become available and the property owner has expressed an interest in selling. For some reason, you have decided to label this decision with the claim that the property has been “prioritized.” That word was never used at the meeting and you have no basis for it. I am hiding no information whatever. I just want the record to be clear. If the OSHC does decide to recommend that the City acquire the property (which it may or may not do — I really can’t say at this point) that will be stated clearly and explicitly.
rmillstein
[i]”How can I know what I would do with information that I am not in possession of? It would depend on the information. What I truly don’t understand is why all the cloak and dagger. You keep blaming the OSHC for not asking you for more information. Yet you also extoll the virtues of a public forum. Well, here is your public forum. You are on the editorial board, right? If you have actual evidence that there are eight landowners ready and willing to sell to the City, now is the time to speak up and show that evidence. The fact that you haven’t yet presented the information makes me wonder whether there isn’t more to your story than meets the eye.”[/i]
it is very clear from your response that you are an incredibly action oriented person. You would receive the same information that Mitch provided the OSHC about Nishikawa Ranch, the name of each parcel owner, the parcel number of each parcel, the size of each parcel, an NRCS soil map of each parcel, the Measure O category or categories that the parcel qualifies under. No less than two of the parcels have “For Sale” signs posted on them. The desire on the part of the owners to sell is very real. Other than the “For Sale sign, the other six parcels are in a similar state. So armed with that information what would you do?
Just so you don’t do your gig on the head of a pin for another round, here are the details of two of the parcels.
Parcel #1 is a parcel of 160 acres abutting the western edge of Davis, with APN 036-450-01. The Parcel Owner is Buckley Real Estate Holdings. The Measure O categories that this parcel qualifies under are (1) Urban Fringe: Open space lands that help define the urban limits of Davis and provide an adequate buffer between urban and rural land uses, and (3) Agriculture: Prime agricultural lands that maintain the long-term viability of agriculture in the Davis Planning Area and (4) Biological and Natural Resources: Important wildlife habitat and lands for sensitive species and other significant natural resources, and (5) Scenic Resources: Lands that provide views of significant landmarks and community. The NRCS Soils Database says the parcel contains:
Ms Myers clay 52.6% (Meyers Clay is Class IIS-5 with a typical Storie Index of 51)
Rg Rincon silty clay loam16.0% (Rincon silty clay loam is Class IIS-3 with a typical Storie index of 75)
Ya Yolo silt loam 31.4% (Yolo silt loam is Class I-1 with a typical Storie Index of 100)
This summer’s crop was sunflowers.
Parcel #2 is a parcel of 234 acres abutting the eastern edge of Davis, with APN 071-130-07. The Parcel Owner currently is JTS Holdings. The Measure O categories that this parcel qualifies under are (1) Urban Fringe: Open space lands that help define the urban limits of Davis and provide an adequate buffer between urban and rural land uses, and (3) Agriculture: Prime agricultural lands that maintain the long-term viability of agriculture in the Davis Planning Area and (4) Biological and Natural Resources: Important wildlife habitat and lands for sensitive species and other significant natural resources, and (5) Scenic Resources: Lands that provide views of significant landmarks and community. The NRCS Soils Database says the parcel contains:
Mf Marvin silty clay loam 0.2% (Marvin silty clay loam is Class IIS-3 with a typical Storie index of 65)
Mp Merritt complex, saline-alkali 9.6% (Merritt complex, saline-alkali is Class IVW-6 with a typical Storie Index of 27-34)
Rb Reiff gravelly loam 2.8% (Reiff gravelly loam is Class IIS-4 with a typical Storie index of 71)
Sp Sycamore silt loam, drained 34.7% (Sycamore silt loam, drained is Class I-1 with a typical Storie index of 90)
St Sycamore silty clay loam, drained 18.1% (Sycamore silty clay loam, drained is Class I-1 with a typical Storie index of 77)
Sv Sycamore complex, drained 12.8% (Sycamore complex, drained is Class IIS-3 with a typical Storie index of 61-76)
Tc Tyndall very fine sandy loam, drained 11.4% (Tyndall very fine sandy loam, drained is Class I-1 with a typical Storie index of 81)
Ya Yolo silt loam 10.5% (Yolo silt loam is Class I-1 with a typical Storie Index of 100)
So, you now have evidence of two of the eight landowners who have expressed an interest to me in putting their land into a conservation easement, what would you do with that information?”
There is no cloak and dagger. I’m simply waiting for some evidence that you are engaged with the 3,000 acres into Conservation Easement initiative. I suspect I never will see any evidence of that kind of out-of-the-box thinking. I hope you surprise me.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]That’s quite insulting. You and I agree on the basic facts of what happened, yes? The OSHC agreed to go look at and evaluate the property, given that it has now become available and the property owner has expressed an interest in selling. For some reason, you have decided to label this decision with the claim that the property has been “prioritized.” That word was never used at the meeting and you have no basis for it. I am hiding no information whatever. I just want the record to be clear. If the OSHC does decide to recommend that the City acquire the property (which it may or may not do — I really can’t say at this point) that will be stated clearly and explicitly.[/i]
I’m sorry that you found that statement insulting. Your words were pretty clear, [i]”I simply do not think you should be saying that we did something we didn’t do.”[/i] Nothing I said is inconsistent with the facts. The Commission agreed to look at and evaluate the property. Mitch asked you to make that action of looking at and evaluating the property a priority because of the timeline that Solano Land Trust was imposing. The Commission discussed the impediments to such a prioritization (Rachel’s availability and Sean’s resignation from the Commission), and then took formal steps (including a motion that was seconded and passed unanimously to add a third member to the Acquisitions Subcommittee, in order to achieve the prioritization of action that Mitch had very politely and reasonably requested.
I really don’t see how you don’t see that chain of events as a prioritization of action by the Commission. It wasn’t even an informal prioritization, it was formalized in the form of a vote.
Again, I am sorry that you feel insulted by my recitation of the facts. You and I appear to have two very different definitions of what “prioritization” means. For me, if I have a list of five To-Do items in ranked order, #1 is prioritized over #2, which s prioritized over #3, which is prioritized over #4, which is prioritized over #5, which is prioritized over all the other possible items that are not on the list.
With all the above said, the reality of the prioritization of Nishikawa Ranch is easy to dispense with by asking one question, which should be easy for you to answer. Specifically, [i]”Is there any property currently higher on the OSHC’s easement consideration list than Nishikawa Ranch?”[/i]
Matt, ok, so now it’s two properties, not eight, for which you claim that there are willing and interested sellers. Would that information come to my commission through the usual channels and in the proper way, I would say that we ought to have the appropriate working group look it and evaluate it. You’ll excuse me for preferring the formal and public process to your analysis. The other six properties are not relevant, in my view, unless and until they actually have property owners who are willing and interested in selling.
As for prioritization, yes, prioritization is relative; one prioritizes A over B. However, only one piece of property, as far as I know, has come forward to the city through the property channels and expressed an interest in selling. Thus, Nishikawa has not been prioritized over other properties; it’s the only property that is in play at all. If other properties were to come into play, [i]then[/i] I imagine that the OSHC would be forced to prioritize. Again, all we have committed to now is to look at Nishikawa. I am not quibbling here. You are misrepresenting.
No Roberta there are not two properties, as of the most recent count there are 16 separate parcels owned by 10 different owners. You stated in your prior post, “How can I know what I would do with information that I am not in possession of.”
The two examples I have provided have given you every bit as much information as Mitch gave the OSHC on Monday night about Nishikawa Ranch. So, you now have the information in your possession on two of the 16 separate properties. So it is time to stop this ridiculous dance you are performing and [u]demonstrate what you would do with the data[/u]. Prima facia both the parcels I have described 100% fit the profile of a qualifying parcel under Measure O. There is nothing that prevents you from explaining what should be done next.
You act like the OSHC has the exclusive franchise as the only people in Davis who can evaluate how to achieve the “greatest good” in the interests of the community. Each year across the United States, infinitely more acres of land are put into conservation through private “channels” than through public “channels.” Are you arguing that Davis is different than everybody else?
The process you are outlining is a classic bureaucrats wet dream. Evaluate each parcel one at a time and ignore the reality that the synergies between the seventy-two parcels in the whole picture (yes, that’s right 72) make looking at the whole picture an infinitely greater possible benefit for the community than plodding through the 72 one-by-one. I’m challenging you to avoid thinking like Archie Bunker and think like Richard Branson.
Escape your bureaucratic shackles and fly.
Metaphorically, you have a beautiful pinto horse outside the confines of a corral. The pinto has a beautiful tooled saddle and is gazing longingly at the rolling hills that stretch as far as the eye can see in all directions. Instead of throwing your leg up and over the pinto’s back, sitting high in the saddle and heading off together into those rolling hills, you are nudging the pinto back toward the corral gate with the intention of closing it as soon as the horse passes through it.
For the life of me, I don’t know why you don’t want to ride.
rmillstein
As for prioritization, yes, prioritization is relative; one prioritizes A over B. However, only one piece of property, as far as I know, has come forward to the city through the property channels and expressed an interest in selling. Thus, Nishikawa has not been prioritized over other properties; it’s the only property that is in play at all. If other properties were to come into play, then I imagine that the OSHC would be forced to prioritize. Again, all we have committed to now is to look at Nishikawa. I am not quibbling here. You are misrepresenting.
What am I misrepresenting. Did you or did you not prioritize the actions of the Acquisitions Subcommittee on Monday night? [u]Actions[/u] Roberta . . . [u]Actions[/u].
You also need to expand your “as far as I know” horizons. I have personally seen a formal written communication from the representative of a property owner in the Urban Fringe to the City’s “property channels” expressing a formal interest in selling the City a conservation easement.
You can use all the flowery language you want, Matt, but in fact, you still haven’t shown me what I have asked for, which is that there are willing and interested owners of these properties. Without that, it’s all a pipe dream. You’ve shown me that there are desirable properties out there. Well, that’s not exactly a news flash. The City has known that there were many desirable properties all along. But they haven’t been available. You claim that they now are. But you’ve given no evidence.
I’m going to drop the “priority” discussion because it has descended into pointlessness (or more likely, reached it a long time ago). If you are going to insist on misrepresenting what happened, there is nothing I can do about it, since (as I have been learning from you and others such as Mr. Toad with his baseless accusations) almost anything goes here in the comment section of the Vanguard.
The only way you are going to find that out Roberta ia to talk to them yourself. Be my guest. Do the same homework I did. It is easy. Just drive out Russell and read the sign. Then pick up the phone and call the number listed on the sign. That isn’t much in the way of heavy lifting.
The other alternative is to ask Mitch whether he has any written offers that he hasn’t shared with the Commission. Why he hasn’t chosen to share that written communication with the Commission is beyond me. Do you have any thoughts on that subject?
I stand behind my comments. I post with my own name. The minutes of the OSHC will show that Mitch asked the Commission to prioritize their activity and the Commission added a third person to the Subcommittee and created an accelerated plan of action. If the minutes do not reflect that, then they are an inadequate and insufficient record of the Commissions official actions. All motions and votes are supposed to be reflected in an official body’s official minutes.
I’m not going to start cold calling property owners, and I am not going to listen to more evidence-free accusations and speculations. Good day.
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”You can use all the flowery language you want, Matt, but in fact, you still haven’t shown me what I have asked for, which is that there are willing and interested owners of these properties. Without that, it’s all a pipe dream. You’ve shown me that there are desirable properties out there. Well, that’s not exactly a news flash. The City has known that there were many desirable properties all along. But they haven’t been available. You claim that they now are. But you’ve given no evidence.” [/i]
When you say sweet nothings like that Roberta, you sound like a modern-day Urban VIII.