The city appears to be having second thoughts about its plan to preserve 390 acres of farmland on the periphery east of Davis, potentially setting the stage for controversy at Tuesday’s City Council meeting between local proponents of slow growth and peripheral development.

The city bought the land in question — which sits east of the city limits along the northern edge of Interstate 80 just east of Mace Boulevard — in 2010. The city’s intent was to preserve the space with the help of the Yolo Land Trust, a local trust that helps landowners place conservation easements on their properties.

The city purchased the $3.8 million parcel with about $1.3 million from Measure O funds — which are generated by the annual $50 parcel tax approved by voters in 2000 that’s dedicated to the acquisition and preservation of open space — and with an internal loan from a roadway impact fee account of about $2.5 million. The Yolo Land Trust, meanwhile, applied for a grant to pay for preservation of the farmland.

The trust received the $1.13 million grant in 2011 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service. But now, with the deadline to accept the grant only several days away, it appears that city staff want to explore other possibilities for the peripheral space, including developing it into an innovation/business park.

On Tuesday, despite a unanimous vote by the city’s Open Space and Habitat Commission to move forward with the grant to permanently preserve the land, staff will recommend to the City Council to decline proceeding with the plan and instead keep its options open.

“There has been discussion over the past couple of years of innovation park opportunities in that area,” said Mike Webb, the city’s new community development and sustainability director. “I’m not suggesting that that set of properties is the right place to do an innovation park, because that might beg the question of leap-frogging other properties (in Davis).

“(And) in large part that land could likely still wind up in agricultural use and open space, but it may be that the city wants to leave open the opportunity.”

Webb said the city’s options for the space would be severely limited if it green-lights the conservation plan, leaving few possibilities for a parcel of land that boasts potential large benefits for the community.

“Declining the grant would retain opportunities to explore options to leverage the property for additional or alternative urban agriculture transition area acquisitions and potential furtherance of local economic development strategies,” Webb said in his staff report to the council.

“Cost savings realized from proximity to (many) infrastructure resources could result in the significant financial benefits well in excess of what would be foregone with the NRCS grant,” Webb added in the report.

Webb also said Monday that if the city did decide to develop this area, it would have to pay back the funds it used to secure the land originally. And, regardless of what becomes of the land, the city still must pay back the internal loan to the roadway impact fee account, with interest.

“Quite frankly, if the land was utilized for anything other than open space, wildlife habitat, recreational park, (etc.), … If the land was used more for developer services, that would not be consistent with Measure O and funds would have to be put back,” he said.

Meanwhile, the council already may have tipped its hand in what it would like to pursue for the space.

In November, based on research conducted by the city’s Innovation Park Task Force, the council adopted a resolution recognizing that east and west sites on the periphery of town are some of the best locations for larger innovation centers.

An innovation center, as described by the task force, is a space where like-minded professionals, start-ups and established companies can move to collaborate and advance their specific industries together.

The city likely wouldn’t have much difficulty finding suitors for the property either.

Anne Brunette, the city’s property management coordinator, said that while the city has not yet fielded any formal offers from developers, the property always has been a hot commodity.

“I have been here for 27 years and there has been verbal interest (from developers) for 27 years,” Brunette said.

Yolo Land Trust Executive Director Michele Clark said Monday that she’s disappointed that city staff has moved in this direction, but she understands the city’s leadership has changed over the past few years and that “these things happen.”

Greg House, a Davis resident who is concerned about the city pulling back on its intention to preserve the land, said in an email to The Enterprise that Clark had “grave misgivings about (the trust’s) reputation and ability to qualify for grants in the future” if the city declined the funding.

But Clark said she’s been assured by USDA officials that even if the plan falls through — a project that received a substantial portion of the funding available in the state for conservation easements — future funding applications will not be affected.

— Reach Tom Sakash at [email protected] or 530-747-8057. Follow him on Twitter at @TomSakash

Comments

comments