Today we see an interesting article in the Davis Enterprise, which analyzes the growth issue. You remember the growth issue–the issue that used to be the most important issue facing the city of Davis. That was in the days before the bottom fell out of the housing market and the economy collapsed forcing the city to finally reckon with the issue of the budget and city salaries. Or at least those of us observing the city to try to force them to reckon with it even as they appear to be unusually stubborn.
The most important thing that we learn from the Enterprise article probably has little to do with its primary intent. It shows us the widening gap now between the thinking of Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and now even city staff. Already we have seen Mr. Saylor has moved far afield from the of his colleagues on the council. He was the only one to support without qualification the mixed-use project at Cannery Park. He was the only one to express lament at the exit of Cannery. And he was the only one to push for immediately doing a new and/ or updated General Plan.
The article begins by mentioning Lewis Planned Communities and their withdrawal of the application to change the zoning at Cannery Park that would have enabled them to build 610 residential units to go along with 20 acres of business park.
For the Mayor Pro Tem this was catastrophic:
“It was simply the last straw. In the face of seemingly endless analysis, delay, lack of concern for the costs, and an absence of any clear planning direction, the Lewis group decided to withdraw their application. I am deeply disappointed that the Council created an impassible set of hurdles for reasonable consideration of this proposal.”
However for the Community Development Director, it merely represents one project among many.
“Lewis wasn’t the only application in process.”
She went on to list out Simmons, Wild Horse, Grande, New Harmony, Willowbank, and she actually forgot Verona. As we calculated a few weeks back, there are roughly 200 housing units that are on the market and have been so for quite some time and remain unsold, there are additionally 200 units that have been approved at Grande, Verona, and Simmons.
West Village is supposed to break ground. And then you have a prospective project at Wild Horse.
It does not seem we are lacking for housing options right now.
As Hess says:
“That, depending on who you talk to, may be so much that it’s too much.”
Look no further than the housing market which has made it so difficult to build and sell housing that the owners of some of the properties that have already been approved to develop are looking to sell rather than build.
And yet Mr. Saylor continues with his “grow, grow, grow” mantra that he pushed last year as he ran for council and finished with the highest vote total. The world has changed drastically since that point and it appears the rest of the council and city’s planning staff have gotten that memo.
Remember this is essentially the same staff that pushed through Covell Village in 2005. Now we see them working to almost apply the brakes in some cases. It was City Manager Bill Emlen who stepped in with a compromise on Cannery that pushed for an equal weight EIR.
As Hess put it:
“The council doesn’t make the units appear. We can’t make people build.”
sThe question facing the city council in May will be whether the city of Davis is meeting its growth needs. The council majority has argued that the city of Davis has to grow at one percent to meet its internal needs. Critics have suggested a more focused approach that looks more towards the university with regards to student and faculty housing. They argue that the university is better positioned to offer student housing at a lower rate. They have land and available space.
UC Davis has the lowest share of on-campus housing of any UC according to one survey. If UC Davis could meet more of its share it would potentially free up single family homes in Davis and open the market without adding a large amount of growth on the periphery that would eat up farmland.
That was the counter-argument from last year. What has changed this year is the collapse of the housing and credit markets which means nearly a development-sized amount of housing units are actually on the market and unsold.
The real question is what the market will looking like post-economic collapse. Will the housing bubble resume? Will the demand for new housing increase? Or does this mark the beginning of a new and different era?
To some given these uncertainties it makes sense to wait and see with regards to pushing for new development in a city that even the city manager describes as fairly mature and built out. We do not have a lot of undeveloped parcels within the city limits. We do not have a general consensus on the parcels to be built out outside of the city limits.
So when Bob Wolcott cited the two percent per-year growth rate of the 1990s, he failed to put it within the context of the availability of open parcels. Now any additional growth almost is going to have to intrude onto farm land. The residents of Davis have a decision to make in the next decade and it’s whether they see Davis as the city it is at 65,000 people or whether they believe this is going to be 100,000 person city or more.
People like Don Saylor are pushing for us to develop that vision now.
“I am … disappointed that the council recently voted to not proceed with any public planning process to update the 1987-2010 General Plan to craft a shared vision for a truly sustainable local environment and economy. Without such a vision, we are prey to endless debate with no rational resolution, regardless of what any individual member of the council might have to say about jobs, housing, economic development or environmental sustainability.”
But Katherine Hess has a very different take on the issue suggesting that the existing General Plan is far from useless and continues to offer good policy direction and guidance.
“It’s not as if the General Plan falls off the face of the Earth in 2010.”
The budget became a good foil on this issue, but it is probably not the central problem. The central problem is that we are currently in the worst economic downturn in recent history. How can you effectively plan for the future in 2030 or 2050 when we don’t even know what 2011 is going to look like?
For me, we will have plenty of time to debate and disagree over what Davis should look like after we have dealt with the more pressing issues of the budget and have taken care of the longer term issue of fiscal stability and sustainability.
It appears most of the city has gotten this memo. However, one person is operating as though it were still 2005 and unfortunately that person will be Mayor in 2010.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Intrude into farmland.” Oh the horror! Of course researchers at UC Davis have contributed more to food productive capacity and nutrition than all of Yolo county could ever produce. Dry land rice and Fe rich wheat alone mitigate any loss in production from development on farmland.
The real question is what should the ratio between the cost of housing in Davis and the surrounding communities be? Currently that ratio is around 2:1 and has been increasing for many years. This has happened because of no growth policies. As Davis has restricted growth it has driven up prices to the point where only the rich and their children can afford to buy here so it appears that Saylor is the only one trying to address the social inequity created by nimby policies in your liberal bastion.
is whether that cost differential is due to available housing or other factors. But you never like to address that point, you just like to hit over and over again on your favorite topic…
When is Saylor up for re-election?; we need to start the process of getting him not re-elected; he will certainly have the developers’ dollars in his coffers, but the rest of the city has to see beyond this guy’s shallow political ambitions and his money-grabbing from developers; he has a Facebook account which he encourages Davis residents to sign up for; I suggest we tell him there how he really think about his pro-developer agenda for the future!
“Currently that ratio is around 2:1 and has been increasing for many years.”
Actually, it has been consistent for many years regardless of the growth policies of Davis and the surrounding communities: about a 10 – 20% price difference for Davis homes. Only very recently, in the current severe downturn, has the price difference changed dramatically, and that is because prices in the surrounding communities hsve plummeted while those in Davis have simply declined somewhat. There are far more homes on the market in Woodland and Dixon, most probably at prices far below what the owners paid for them, and there are far more foreclosed homes in those communities.
What are the other factors? I’ll bet on supply you want to place it on demand or something else please engage in the debate. I am more then willing to read what those other factors are. For me it is also the schools if my wife didn’t want the kids to go to Davis schools we would be out of here in a second. Still, I believe the ratio of prices is an important and valid question that we should be considering.
[b]”If UC Davis could meet more of its share it would potentially free up single family homes in Davis and open the market without adding a large amount of growth on the periphery that would eat up [u]farmland[/u].”[/b]
UCD [i]is[/i] adding housing… on farmland. Of course, UCD and the City of Davis were built on farmland.
[b]Now any additional growth almost is going to have to intrude onto [u]farmland[/u].”[/b]
If we need to add housing in Davis, but don’t permit building due to a no-growth philosophy and a farmland preservation ethic, we might perversely cause the paving over of more farmland elsewhere than the farms we save on our edge.
I’m not suggesting that is what’s happening currently. Given weak demand, our supply (of single family homes) is sufficient and we have, as David says in his piece, a number of approved units not yet built.
In place of keeping all Davis area farms as farms, I think our approach to new housing should first consider these 5 broad questions:
1. Are the costs (in the broadest sense) of the development borne by the developer or by the City?
2. Does the development add to or detract from the quality of life in Davis?
3. Is our infrastructure sufficient to absorb the growth?
4. How will the additional housing (or lack of housing) affect rents and home prices in the rest of Davis?
5. Will the location of the development cause future problems due to that location?
With greater density, less required parking, multi-story buildings and developing housing on already urbanized land, we can limit the intrusion of Davis onto extant farms. But if we have a no-growth policy in the face of growing demand for housing, the end result will be farms near other cities in our region being paved over and those residents driving back and forth to Davis.
But supply is not the only variable (distinct between Davis and other cities). We have a desirable community–low crime, affluent, well educated, good schools. That drives demand. Moveover as Shor suggests, the differential seems constant regardless of the variances of supply from year to year. Put it altogether and the picture looks at least considerably more complex than you suggest.
Rifkin: I think you make good points here. But central to it is some sort of notion of internal demand. After all if people are having to drive from out of Davis to Davis at an increasing rate, it means we are not addressing that internal demand. So the first step is trying to figure out what that demand is and how best to address it.
Actually the ratio has been expanding as this blog showed in a study published last year, although the blog misinterpreted the analysis. While prices are coming down more slowly in Davis because of fewer foreclosures they went up more quickly because Davis didn’t build into the bubble rstricting supply. The historical 10-20 percent premium expanded to 40 percent after Wildhorse, the last major expansion, was built out. It is now around 80-100 percent. As such it should be no surprise that there is development pressure even though the rest of the real estate market is in the tank.
There may be other reasons folks are living elsewhere and working here. Believe it or not, some people may actually like another community better than Davis and choose to live there and work here. Or maybe they already had a home elsewhere and got a job here, and prefer to remain settled where they are for any of a number of reasons. Determining internal “demand” is not easy. You cannot just assume that everyone who lives elsewhere but works here wants to be able to buy a house here. And, once again, it has been shown over and over again that simply building more homes does not necessarily drive housing prices down in Davis. We buid very rapidly in the 90s and housing prices continued to increase.
We have, through careful planning and participation of many dedicated citizens, maintained a very desirable, livable and unique community. I would hate to see us become a “any town USA” just because of the greed of a few.
Doesn’t look like the ratio is increasing:
[img]http://bp0.blogger.com/_9pR-0mkLeic/SCgzHhZYoCI/AAAAAAAADDY/kYmuZnWH_E8/s1600-h/Raw+Housing+Numbers.jpg[/img]
Apparently the image feature doesn’t work. Here’s the link: click ([url]http://bp0.blogger.com/_9pR-0mkLeic/SCgzHhZYoCI/AAAAAAAADDY/kYmuZnWH_E8/s1600-h/Raw+Housing+Numbers.jpg[/url])
Thanks for reposting the info In 95 the ratio was 1.2:1 then works its way up to the 1.4:1 topping out around 1.6:1. Its hard to know if the 1.2:1 value is an outlier or the end of a period of lower ratios. Recently Don Shor posted numbers showing the current ratio is around 1.8:1. I would argue the trend is toward greater disparity over time.
[i]”Actually, it has been consistent for many years regardless of the growth policies of Davis and the surrounding communities: about a 10 – 20% price difference for Davis homes.”[/i]
In that graphic, it appears we are in a normal period, with a 50% premium. That one outlier year likely reflects the large influx of homes in Mace Ranch that had just gone on the market when real estate in general in California was in a slump. Also, if there were a substantial number of starter homes available that year — I don’t know if there were — then that might add to a lower median.
FWIW, I think it makes more sense to look at a median price over a 3-year rolling average, because there just aren’t that many home sales in a single year. Nevertheless, the trend at 150:100 looks rather stable.
I have never compared Davis to Sacramento County, as is shown in that graphic. I have always been comparing it (informally since the mid-1970’s) to Woodland and Dixon. I have no idea what it included in “Sacramento County” — it could include Elverta and Rio Linda for all I know, so there could be a significant disparity.
I consider Woodland and Dixon to be more comparable, and that they are within the same general real estate market; that is, that many people live in one of those communities and work in one of the others.
Quite the contrary, Hess does not sound “slow growth” at all but is setting the stage for reintroducing Covell Village and she eludes to in later in the article. Remember Hess worked hard to railroad Covell Village’s 400 acre proposal through in one year as opposed to creating endless obstacles for the Cannery Park proposal over the past four years which the community had input into designing it and it had much support. The No on Measure X campaign included in all of its literature that it made far more sense to place housing on the Hunt Wesson site rather than Covell Village. Hess goes on to mention in the Enterprise article that we will need to see if we are meeting our “growth needs” and if so do we go into our yellow sites. Well that leaves the Covell Village site if the Hunt Wesson site is not redeveloped into a mixed use.
As far as the General Plan update issue, that was a non-issue for the most part since the city simply does not have the money to pursue updating it right now and they have simply postponed it for now. As far as the 69 apartments approved and the 70 additional units mentioned, the Council wants and average of 325 units per year (which I think is too much) this would not even cover one years growth expectation for them. As far as the number of units on the market, the cost most of these units are priced way out of range for most working class people is the reason why they are available. The Enterprise article today in no way eludes to any slow growth intentions of the city. Quite the contrary it clarifies a departure from a citizen-based planning process.
Housing in University towns is usually considerably more expensive than housing in towns without Universities. Housing in towns with very good school systems is also always more expensive. Put the two together, add a great downtown, parks, greenbelts and vibrant civic culture, and you can see that the higher cost of housing pretty inevitable.
“….And then you have a prospective project at Wild Horse”;
Wait a minute, we haven’t even seen the final EIR yet on this proposed development, much less the vote as a Measure J issue has not been announced yet…It seems to me as if some in the Vanguard (and maybe Catherine Hess also) think this Wildhorse Ranch project has already passed for development, which it clearly hasn’t; don’t go calling Saylor the only pro-development shill around this town, especially if there are others who are buying into pro-Parlin Development Co. influence (via their “community organizers”) also….I wholeheartedly agree that Saylor is a pro-developer whore, but why doesn’t Catherine Hess and the Vanguard both come out on their stances on Wildhorse Ranch project?
anon,
yes but what should the differential be before you have made the town too elite?
I suggested no such thing. Only pointed out there were a number of projects approved and some other pending ones. I don’t have a position on Wild Horse right now.
“yes but what should the differential be before you have made the town too elite?”
LOL — you mean, what would Davis be without the university? Woodland.
No I mean should housing cost as much as Woodland, twice as much or somewhere in between? The policies that have kept Davis from building adequate housing have driven up prices to ridiculous levels. You could build lots of housing without getting rid of the university. This would drive down prices and Davis would not turn into Woodland because the university would still be here and because our downtown is a grid while Woodland has a strip.
If we build lots of housing–will cost go down? Not necessarily. Costs will only go down if you reduce the standard of living in Davis.
And to what end would we build lots of housing–so lots of people can move here? Other than meeting the internal needs of Davis, why do we want a lot of people to move here? Some people moved here not just because of the university but because it’s a small town, a good place to raise kids, etc. If we just build lots of housing we threaten that. What’s the overarching reason to need to do that? And where is the demand coming from right now during the heart of the housing bust?
You’re still talking like it’s 2005. It isn’t. It’s quite possible that once things settle out housing costs will be much more affordable and stay that way. You don’t know. You are still planning like it’s four years ago and we are in the midst of a possible paradigm shift. Why now?
Comparing median housing sale prices is pretty much a fool’s errand. The statistic we should be using is average sales price per square foot. That controls for variations in the physical sizes of the actual houses sold.
Why is this important? Simple. Housing prices won’t come down a penny if all the houses that are built are large. When Willowbank 10 was being discussed by City Council, when asked how much more affordable the houses would be if they were reduced approximately 500 square feet, the developer told the Council, “I don’t know. I don’t build houses that size, and I never will.”
That preference for buliding houses that have higher profit margins is a factor that no on nimbys appears to be ignoring when s/he talks about Davis housing prices.
Why not now? Davis needs student housing, faculty housing, non-faculty staff housing,senior housing, and workforce housing. Restrictive housing policies have driven property values to affordability levels that are so low that only people with family money or huge incomes can afford to buy here. By adding supply we will cause prices to drop to levels that are reasonable, diversifying the population and make Davis a richer community. You ask why do we want people to move here? So that we can educate them for the benefit of the entire state of California or have you forgotten why UC Davis is here.
There’s no market right now. And we don’t know what the market is going to look like in the foreseeable future.
As I have asked before–how much housing do we need and for whom? And will the current stock that has already been approved including West Village cover what we need?
no on nimby’s, why should the City of Davis provide student housing. The UC Office of the President has set a goal of housing 40% of the UC students on campus each year. UC Davis agreed to that goal, and further said they would accomplish it by the 2011 Academic Year. Unfortunately, the reality is that UCD is only at 23% currently, and won’t get anywhere near 30%, much less 40% byr 2011. UCD needs to fulfill its commitment to the UC Office of the President and take 5,000 student renters out of the City of Davis housing market by housing them on campus.
Now regarding faculty housing and non-faculty staff housing, lets drill down into that demand a bit. What evidence do you have that current UCD employees would abandon their existing homes outside Davis and move to Davis. Your demand is theoretical. When that theoretical demand is put to the “write a downpayment check” reality test, you will find that only a very small portion of your theoretical demand is ready to back up words with action.
Senior housing and workforce housing are different. However, both of them need to be understood better. Many seniors who talk about moving out of their homes don’t end up doing it when push comes to shove . . . or they move to the city/town where one of their children live. We need to get beyond anecdotes and truly study Davis’ senior housing needs so that the senior housing we do provide isn’t only for the well to do.
With respect to workforce housing, if UCD did its part regarding student housing, the 5000 students who wouldn’t be renting anymore would free up lots of workforce housing, as well as drive down the high rental rates we currently have in Davis.
I can’t believe that the Vanguard is actually trying to say that Community Development Director Catherine Hess is a slow growther and in the same article suggesting paving over the Wildhorse horse farm (ag land) and instead of supporting redevelopment of the old cannery. Why the double standard? Hess sabotaged Cannery Park from the beginning to bring on Covell Village. The real story is in the Enterprise today is that the city staff clearly want to bring on Covell Village. Hess points out that the city will be determining if we will dip deeper into the “yellow catagory sites” where Covell Village and the Wildhorse farm sites are listed. It’s not hard to see where that is heading.
Come on Vanguard. Don’t tell us that you guys are getting chummy with staff now to push the development of the Wildhorse horse farm forward now after you bashed Cannery Park! This kind of stuff will just bring on Covell Village as well! Just because Bill Ritter who ran Cecelia Escamillia Greenwald’s City Council campaign (the Vanguard’s editors wife) is now working for the developer trying to pave over the Wildhorse farm, it is no excuse for special favors. No double standards Vanguard.
[b]”….I wholeheartedly agree that Saylor is a pro-developer whore”[/b]
Come on, Hypocrisy!!. It’s fine to disagree with someone. But don’t be a foul-mouthed name-calling a**h**e.
[b]”why should the City of Davis provide student housing?”[/b]
Whether students live in them or not, the greater the supply of apartments for rent in Davis results in lower rents for all lower-income Davis residents. It may not be the “responsibility” of the city to house the students, but it’s in the best interest of all Davis renters to have a liberal supply of apartments. The fact that we have a vacancy rate under 1% (and have had this for a long time) harms renters and benefits (presumably wealthy) landlords.
“I can’t believe that the Vanguard is actually trying to say that Community Development Director Catherine Hess is a slow growther”
Can you please show me where I said that? In fact I said just the opposite:
“Ms. Hess is not exactly what one would call a slow growth advocate, but compared to Mr. Saylor, she seems like one.”
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I don’t think it is appropriate to call Don Saylor a “pro development whore.” His views on Covell and the Cannery are not the same as mine, but he truly believes in his stances on the CC and represents a large group of Davis voters. He received the most votes in the last CC election and will soon be Mayor. He contributes huge amounts of his personal time to city business, and I commend him for that. So, lay off the name-calling. Run for office yourself if you think you can do a better job.
I am not sure that UCD will take the lead in providing affordable student housing. But I am even more doubtful that Cannery Park or the Covell Village areas will have proposals for medium to high density housing. This is only compounded on the 1% vacancy rate that Rich brought up. I have friends going to UCD who have their rents jump 5 to 10% every year including this one.
I want to see more initiative on the council as a whole to promote affordable high density.
Finally, West Village, does anyone know when they about to breakground? I have been hearing about it for the full 3 years I have been going to UCD and bike by it everyday and havent seen squat being done.
Don, while I agree with you that UCD will probably drag its feet in providing its housing commitment to the UC Office of the President, it is incumbent on both the citizens of Davis and the Council to [u]not[/u] simply let UCD off the hook.
Further, I agree with you that for a myriad of factors, neither Cannery nor Covell Village will have any meaningful supply of the kind of affordable houses that no on nimby’s is looking for.
Affordable housing will not come to Davis without a coordinated effort that includes both the University and the City (and possibly even the County).
By the way, the link to the November 2002 UC Housing in the 21st Century study is [url]http://www.ucop.edu/busops/htfreport.pdf[/url]
My ancestors lived in affordable high density housing, we called it the ghetto. I guess that is how the nimby’s who have houses want others to live as they worship at the alter of ag land preservation.
Maybe I missed the part where y’all discussed the jobs/housing balance, which is totally out of all rational proportion here. Gotta ask yourselves what the higher long-term value to the City is between, say, Shilling Robotics and the (maybe) 50 houses that would have fit on that lot. Just because a very large, very powerful developer group lost an election, and a second well-known development company lacked the imagination and salesmanship to fill the Cannery Property per current zoning, doesn’t mean this is a community of ‘nimby’s’.
If you want a different result from the Planning Department, change the rules and regulations they operate under. And if you want ‘affordable housing’ – however that is defined – you should be looking to reduce the costs of land and fees.
No double standards:
No where in his article does Mr. Greenwald say he believes Ms. Hess is a slow-growther. In fact, he states the opposite. You need to let go of the Lewis Homes proposal. It is gone. And good ridence. It was not an innovative development. It was the same old, same old. Furthermore, Mr. Greenwald does not and has not advocated for the Wild Horse Ranch proposal. It at least is innovative with all the solar and other good design. Why are you ranting on about paving over the Wild Horse Ranch “farmland”? Where were you on Wild Horse itself? All of the land on which that development now lies was farmland. Did you oppose the Wild Horse development because it was farm land? Or are you using a double standard yourself? The Hunt Wesson site was also at one time farmland. It is not being farmed and has not for decades, but then neither is the Wild Horse Ranch site being farmed. It is a horse ranch and is covered with weeds.
If we do not do smaller, infill projects like this one, we are opening the gates to Covell Village II.
Sounds like you are in support of paving over the Wildhorse horse ranch. Not sure what you mean by innovative. I looked on line and it is a crammed in same old, same old, with some solar panels for window dressing. It is a terrible design and I am sure that the neighbors don’t want it either.
As far as the farmland argument, if you live in Davis you are living on farmland as well so that argument really does not hold water. Regarding the Hess comments you made, I just reread the Vanguard article and it sure is loaded with praise for a staff member who is known to be a pro-growther. I also agree with other comments made that the Sunday Enterprise article reeks of bringing on development of Covell Village II and the Wildhorse horse farm site which makes so sense when there is an abandoned cannery site to put housing on.
To “other reasons”:
What makes you say that the WIldhorse Ranch project is “innovative” development; just because you slap solar panels on a mass development, it is suddenly green? Give me a break, you are getting “greenwashed” by the developers and their paid community mouthpieces; I suggest you look at the 3-D computer model images of the project; Parlin Development said they are available for any who is requesting it…192 units, to include large three-story apartment buildings; the aerial view shows how “dense” this project really is, not to mention there are no visible parking spaces for the estimated 500+ new cars; and suddenly we all have to say that this is a really green and “innovative” plan; call it what is really is, DEVELOPMENT on a DENSE scale!!!
I have seen the three-dimensional computer model images of the project.That is one reason for my support of the project. It is very innovative. It is not a mass development, unless you also want to call the Lewis Homes proposal a mass development–and actually with 610 homes vs 191, Lewis does seem even more worthy of the term. They are not just slapping on “some” solar panels. The WH Ranch development is to be 100% solar. Relatively high density where the housing is, but with lots of open space outside that. Look as the big buffer between the homes and existing homes in Wild Horse. There will be some three story buildings, but so were there in the Lewis Plan. So what? The homes are in the 1400 to 2000 range. Many smaller homes that are affordable to the work force. (Getting smaller is the only way homes are going to be affordable as work-force housing.) And it is dense–have you ever looked at Village Homes? Dense development of homes with lots of common open space–and that was considered way ahead of its time. I also recommend that you look on the Lewis Homes website and look at the visuals for that development.
Compare: Lewis Homes proposal: 610 homes on 47 acres dedicated to housing = 13 homes per acre. Dense? Yes. Wild Horse Ranch proposal: 191 homes on 13 acres = 14 homes per acre. Dense? Yes. But where is the difference? Why do you oppose the Wild Horse Ranch development as too dense, but supported the Lewis Homes proposal without mentioning that it is the same density?
I did not bring up the issue of farm land. “No double standards” did. I am well aware that we are all living on what was once farmland. But to oppose the Wild Horse Ranch proposal because it is “farmland” is hypocrisy if the same person or persons supported the Wild Horse development itself. And, as I pointed out, neither the Lewis property or the WH Ranch property is being farmed.
Why do you keep harping about the “abandoned cannery site” as a site for housing? It is not zoned for that, and now that Lewis Homes has pulled out, it will probably never be a “housing site”. I was not supporting the Wild Horse Ranch site when Lewis Homes was still being considered, but I did not support the Lewis Homes proposal as it was just the same old thing. No “wow” factor. Since Lewis is gone, I am considering the WH Ranch site as a pretty good place for housing. As I said before, if we do not do some of these smaller, infill sites, we are going to get CV II. Those guys are just champing at the bit.
RE the Vanguard and Enterprise articles: if you are sufficiently paranoid, I suppose you could read in “praise” of Katherine on the Vanguard and the ghost of CV lurking in the shadows in the Enterprise article. However, I read both and am really puzzled as to how.
“My ancestors lived in affordable high density housing, we called it the ghetto. I guess that is how the nimby’s who have houses want others to live as they worship at the alter of ag land preservation.”
no on nimby’s, I’m assuming your quote above was directed at me. If not, here’s my answer anyway. I could be wrong, but your cries for lower priced housing make the argument that many of the people who work in Davis would like to live in Davis, but cannot afford neither 1) the price of the homes that are currently being resold nor 2) the price of the new homes that builders are building. You argue that increasing the supply of available homes will impact issue 1), but even more you argue that the new homes that builders are building need to be priced affordably. How do you propose to accomplish that?
The purchase price of any ag land new houses are built on has two components A) the farming value per acre, which currently is approximately $4,000 per acre, and B) the developer speculation value per acre. The farming value per acre is significantly less than 10% of the developer speculation value per acre.
The altar of ag preservation Since the developers already own the land you are looking to see houses on, the land price won’t be coming down. Therefore, the only way to bring down the unit cost of the houses is to either a) make them smaller, or b) make theme denser, or c) both smaller and denser.
Do you see any alternative?
Stop the “Greenwashing”!!!! said . . .
“. . . call it what is really is, DEVELOPMENT on a DENSE scale!!!”
Is that bad?
Everyone has their own concept of what is attractive. The design of the Wildhorse horse farm proposal is in no way attractive nor do I see any WOW factor. The denser the project gets the tougher it is to have more solar since you start losing roof space. I can not say that I have heard any confirmation of a third story in the descriptions of the Cannery Park proposal but it at least had more space to work with for open space etc. I also remember that it was a LEED project (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.) So let’s just say that we all have our opinions on design but the main issue to me is that I do not see the logic of paving over a horse farm (which is an ag use even though it is not farmed) when an abandoned cannery site is available for housing.
Hey Matt:
“…call it what is really is, DEVELOPMENT on a DENSE scale!!!”
Is that bad?”
No, is not bad at all, especially if you want our community to start looking more and more like Natomas, Elk Grove, El Dorado Hills….
Those communities have build themselves up using tract housing and sprawl developments. This is the EXACT opposite from what little I’ve seen.
Stop the “Greenwashing”!!!! said . . .
“No, is not bad at all, especially if you want our community to start looking more and more like Natomas, Elk Grove, El Dorado Hills….”
Greenwashing, I’m glad we see eye to eye. 8>)
The only thing I might change is your choice of examples. I probably would have chosen Santa Barbara and Carmel as examples rather than Natomas, Elk Grove, and El Dorado Hills.
Wow! How many times does it have to be said: The abandoned cannery site is NOT available for housing. It is zoned for commercial/light industrial. The city is unlikely to change that designation without a really, really great proposal. The Lewis proposal was not that, and it is GONE. So, if we want to avoid large, peripheral developments like the CV development, we need to do some of these smaller, smarter developments.
The WH Ranch proposal uses orientation to make the best use of sun light so that the solar is efficient, so densifying does not necessarily cause loss of appropriate roof space. Calling a development a LEED development without any details, as was the case with Lewis HOmes, is a common ploy. There are many levels of LEED certification. Several of the requirements for LEED certification are already part of Davis requirements for ALL development here. 100% solar is, unfortunately, not one of them, but this project is going to attempt to provide that, if it can go forward. It is a very forward thinking proposal, and it is the way we are going to have to begin growing if we want to stop destroying our farmland. It is no joke, as “no on nimbie” tries to make it. If we continue to sprawl over our farmland, as we have in the past, and in conjuntion with climate change, which no one can argue is not going to have drastic effects, we are going to end up a third world country depending on our food from China.
I agree with Matt Williams totally. His arguments are very reasoned. I too ask, “What is wrong with density?” And I would also argue strongly that Elk Grove, Natomas and El Dorado Hills are classic bad planning spraawl communities that we need to get away from. The WH Ranch proposal is nothing like them.
“My ancestors lived in affordable high density housing, we called it the ghetto. I guess that is how the nimby’s who have houses want others to live as they worship at the alter of ag land preservation.”
I think no on nimby’s/strong> has a legitimate beef here, and I think it is not incommensurate with the desire to preserve agricultural land. Solar power it all you want, LEED-certify these projects from here to Tuesday, it makes no real difference if the size of homes does not come down.
I don’t think we can truly have green housing unless it is higher-density housing (but not the type of housing implied by ‘ghetto’). Like someone mentioned upthread, the size of these homes are part of the cost problem. If people in this community truly “walk the walk” that is being “talked” here, pressure needs to be put on developers to stop making exclusively these McMansions of 3,000 square feet and more.
We are not entitled to pave over agricultural land just so everyone who considers themselves “affluent” feel it is their God-given right to live in a 3,000 energy-guzzling, resource-guzzling home.
We need infill projects, and we need higher-density models.
Other than being dense and having solar panels what else is so “forward planning” about paving over the Wildhorse horse farm? Another factor is having some regard for the neighbors who do not want it. Sorry but the old cannery site at least has urban zoning and would also protect ag land. By contrast, the Wildhorse zoning is “ag” so using it for housing is not protecting ag in that case.
It is set up to make use of prevailing wind patterns and passive winter heating and also designed to stay cool in the summer by avoiding direct sunlight and taking advantage of the delta breeze to reduce air conditioning use, energy efficient design, it’s supposed to be designed to conserve and preserve water, it will have electric vehicle outlets, it reaches carbon and energy neutrality. It’s quite innovative on quite a few levels. Probably at least the equivalent of Village Homes in its day.
“Another factor is having some regard for the neighbors who do not want it.”
As I understand it, the developers have worked extensively with the neighborhood association and brought them from near unanimous disapproval when the project came before council last winter to now perhaps majority approval. It is false to assert that the neighbors do not want it.
“the aerial view shows how “dense” this project really is, not to mention there are no visible parking spaces for the estimated 500+ new cars; and suddenly we all have to say that this is a really green and “innovative” plan; call it what is really is, DEVELOPMENT on a DENSE scale!!!”
Amen!!!
Re: Other Reasons said . . .
Other than being dense and having solar panels what else is so “forward planning” about paving over the Wildhorse horse farm? Another factor is having some regard for the neighbors who do not want it. Sorry but the old cannery site at least has urban zoning and would also protect ag land. By contrast, the Wildhorse zoning is “ag” so using it for housing is not protecting ag in that case.
Other Reasons, help me understand how the horse ranch is ag. Are any crops produced on it? Is there any agricultural service being provided on it? In simple terms, if the neighbors want that land to continue to be ag land, then they need to step up with their actions and their pocketbooks to make what is currently fallow land into productive land.
One of the debates back when the Stem Cell Research Center was proposed for the land to the south and west of the Yolo Fruit Stand, was whether the only land that should be protected was “prime farmland.” At that time I (rather naively) thought soil class and type was the best way to determine whether soil is good or not so good. The reality I learned is that having a prime soils score is one thing, but being actively in production is another thing all together. If a property is actively contributing to the County’s ag economy, it is a whole lot easier to “protect” that land.
“As I understand it, the developers have worked extensively with the neighborhood association and brought them from near unanimous disapproval when the project came before council last winter to now perhaps majority approval. It is false to assert that the neighbors do not want it.”
Read the community surveys which were replied to by the neighbors; 50% clearly opposed the project with an additional 50% wanting major modifications (less units, get rid of the three story apt complexes, etc). I think you are quite presumptuous in your assertions regarding a “majority approval” and believe that you are either a “mouthpiece” sponspored by the developers or are associated with them in one way or another!
In fact, I would like to know:
Are you a.) Willis Ritter
or b.) a supporter of him????
If other development proposals in Davis were like Wildhorse we would not have as much problem. It seems like it’s a small group of people that do not want the development.
I think there are a lot of issues that have been addressed by the Wildhorse development and it does have a wow factor. This development raises the bar for future developers to include solar. If people don’t see that as a wow factor then they are in denial. Also the fact that the housing is more dense, but not too dense makes it very appealing.
The old cannery site needs to be used to bring in businesses and not more housing. I think the real issue that has not been discussed is that perhaps the city of Davis does not have a good team of people who are trying to bring in businesses to Davis. Are they experienced? Do they know what they are doing?
Someone mentioned that they don’t want our community to look like Natomas and Elk Grove (both of which don’t have an attractive and vibrant downtown core). If you don’t want Davis to look like these communities then don’t vote for stores or council members who are bringing in big box stores like Target to be placed in Davis. There will be other big stores in that area nearby. Once the flood gate is opened the other stores will follow. When you have the majority of the city council – 3 out of 5 – Asmundson, Saylor and Souza advocating and supporting Target that is what you’re going to get Natomas, Elk Grove, etc. in Davis.
The Wildhorse development is a good choice.
“It seems like it’s a small group of people that do not want the development.”
Where do you these facts? Have you surveyed neighborhoods, or are you relying on the feedback from developer-paid community operatives (i.e. Willis Ritter)?
“This development raises the bar for future developers to include solar. If people don’t see that as a wow factor then they are in denial. Also the fact that the housing is more dense, but not too dense makes it very appealing”
Another naive fool who is “wowed” by solar panels;
you take open horse farm/ag land, raze and concrete it, add multiple three story apartment buildings along with over 500 parking spaces (most of which will fuel burning and not EV), and suddenly we have the “most innovative” environmental project Davis has ever seen, give me a break!!!!
Wake up and smell the bulldozers, you are being “green washed”
Oh by the way, isn’t likely that Saylor, Souza, and Admundson will also support Wildhorse Ranch; so they’re okay to support that, but not if they support retail stores????
“Have you surveyed neighborhoods, or are you relying on the feedback from developer-paid community operatives (i.e. Willis Ritter)?”
This is obviously written by someone who is a player in this community and knows nothing about Mr. Ritter. No one calls him Willis. He’s known to the entire community as Bill. That tells me that you really don’t know anything about Bill Ritter and who he is. If you did, you would probably have a very different view.
Bill Ritter has been one of the leading progressives in this community for the last decade. He was among the leaders in the fight against covell village. Many of us trust that Bill Ritter will bring forth a project that is in keeping with the principles of the progressive community–environmentally sustainable, smart growth, etc.
Bill Ritter is hardly a developer-paid community operative, but then you don’t know him.
“Oh by the way, isn’t likely that Saylor, Souza, and Admundson will also support Wildhorse Ranch; so they’re okay to support that, but not if they support retail stores????”
Is that some new language, because in English it makes no sense.
From an earlier post: “…Just because Bill Ritter who ran Cecelia Escamillia Greenwald’s City Council campaign (the Vanguard’s editors wife) is now working for the developer trying to pave over the Wildhorse farm…”
Is this Cecelia? If so, better luck next time on a council run, especially now that you are in the pockets of Parlin Development, maybe you’ll need a better manager than Bill Ritter….
I can answer that, it wasn’t Cecilia and Bill Ritter has not posted in this thread either. I’m sorry but why is Cecilia being brought into this? (And why can’t you spell her name correctly?) What does she have to do with this? Can we stop making baseless accusations here?
Regarding the surveys done for the Horse Ranch proposal:
45% opposed any development there.
45% had some concerns with the current development
6% supported
and 6% had no opinion
This survey went to 240 homes with 110 responding. It is a very small opposition if you want to call it that. RE those 45% with some concerns, that is why the development team is meeting with them: to work on those concerns.
Another way to look at this is what if Parlin just gets sick of the whole nimby thing and sells to Richmond American homes. Do you think they are going to negotiate with the neighbors?
Hey Horse Ranch Surveys:
“..the development team is meeting with them; to work on those concerns”…the consensus of the neighbors wanted Parlin to cut the project down to 150 and they said no, wouldn’t cover their greedy expectations…how is that “working” with the neighborhood…and stop it with the Nimby…if you oppose sprawl, congestion, and want to keep Davis’ open spaces open, that is not Nimby, no matter where in town you live, that is just anti-development you nit wit (that’s my “N” word for you)!!!
Ritter being paid by the Wildhorse developer and worked on the “Yes On D” which was the developers gravel pit initiative. He worked against the progressives who ran the “Yes on C” citizen based initiative. Because of all the money that the developers had to pour into their “Yes on D” campaign the progressives were defeated. He worked against the progressive candidate who ran fro County Assessor as well. He has worked for Mariko Yamada who is certainly not though of as being a progressive. He is now working with Maynard Skinner who is not a progressive either, so please, let’s not try to “greenwash” Ritter too.
“Another way to look at this is what if Parlin just gets sick of the whole nimby thing and sells to Richmond American homes. Do you think they are going to negotiate with the neighbors?”…We’ll just vote them the hell out of town like we’re going to the greedy Parlin people…that’s why we have Measure J…God bless the People’s Republic of Davis!
“N word”:
I do oppose sprawl, and have fought just about every sprawl development in Davis, including Wild Horse. I do not want to continue to sprawl out onto farm land (land that is actually being farmed and producing crops), so I will support smaller, infill developments, especially if they include sustainability features like those being proposed for the WH Ranch site. All you guys keep fighting this one and you open the doors to CV II. Johnnie must be tickled pink watching us argue over 190 units on 26 acres.
“Ritter is not a progressive”:
I don’t know where you got the idea that Bill worked on Measure D, because he did not. I worked on C, as I am sure you did, and Bill was not our opposition. As to working for Mariko, he did support her as did many of the progressives at first. She was thought of by most of us as progressive until she back-stabbed us with the Angelo proposal for developing next to the wild life refuge. At that point, Ritter left as her campaign manager and she lost most of her progressive support.
As to the label “progressive”: I get kind of tired of labels. Progressive is as progressive does. One so-called progressive who appears to be pointing fingers at Bill Ritter for supporting the WH Ranch development was not so progressive at one time. This person was a major proponent and advocate for the Wild Horse development itself–not exactly cutting edge or sustainable, but more of the same old sprawl–certainly not a “progressive” position. I am probably stepping on toes here, as some of you opposing the Ranch proposal live in Wild Horse, but the facts are the facts. Wild Horse was sprawl.
More hypocrisy.
Try asking Ritter if he worked on Measure D. In fact he got the Measure D campaign started. What about Ritter working against the slow growth County Assessor? Also what about him working with Maynard Skinner. Hardly slow growth company since Maynard headed up the “Yes on Covell Village” citizens group.
As far as sprawl. I am sure that one can argue that most Davis neighborhoods are sprawl considering the densities you are rooting for. Just out of curiosity what is the density of the neighborhood where you live?
If you are such the “environmentalist” you claim to be, what about the burrowing owls that are scattered around the horse property; is Parlin going to build them little innovative huts with solar panels? What about this notion that Parlin is laying claim to “almost zero carbon emissions” from the project, and the EV hookups; are they going to buy all 192 tenants electric cars…What a “wow” factor that will be!!!
I would kindly suggest to some of the posters here, you are not really helping your cause with your inside-baseball and personal attacks. I don’t know who Bill Ritter is and I don’t really care. You come across as very protective of your property values but little else. I’m normally inclined to oppose new development, but you’re turning me off rather than making me sympathize with your position. I suggest you guys cool it.
Also try to lay claim that this project has broad neighborhood support as I believe you previously blogged (as “As I understand it”…the developers have worked extensively with the neighborhood association and brought them from near unanimous disapproval when the project came before council last winter to now perhaps majority approval. It is false to assert that the neighbors do not want it”)
If you and the Parlin-paid mouthpieces want to promote that falsehood for the campaign, the truth will be exposed who really supports this project…
You have such animosity for Parlin. I’ve heard of them. Can you please tell me what other horrible projects they have built in Davis?
Should read: “I’ve never heard of them”
I live near the development and I support it. I wish the people commenting on this issue could just give their opinion without all of the attacks. When someone gets into attacking it makes me believe that they only attack due to a lack of argument. Please be civil.
I happen to live near the development and I support it. I have a friend that isn’t sure, but we have discussions about it.
Like some previous posters what appeals to me are the solar homes. It should be the standard in Davis not an after thought.
Vanguard thank you for this article today.
I just posted above and I said “thank you for this article today” but I’m catching up due to being out of town. I know you wrote the article Sunday.
Thanks Vanguard.
One further note regarding the attacks. If you are going to personally attack someone, please have the courage to use your real name. Without that basic courtesy you are simply a coward.
Hey, “re: No Nimby 4;54 yesterday:
Bill Ritter did not work on the Measure D campaign, period. I know Bill very well, and know he did not. I know who all the folks were who were involved in the Measure D campaign from the beginning. Bill is not one of them. I worked on the measure C campaign. Did you? Your information is faulty. For some reason, you seem to want very badly to harm Bill’s reputation. You should stick with the issues and leave personalities out of it. If you oppose the WH Ranch proposal for personal issues, you should own up to that.
What slow growth Assessor? I am not aware of any “slow growth” assessors. Maynard Skinner also did not head up the CV campaign. He was the treasurer, but had told them that that development as presented wouldn’t fly. He felt that folks might have supported a smaller project, as did many of us who opposed the project from the beginning.
I did not post earlier as “As I understand it–“. That was someone else who does not agree with you.
“You have such animosity for Parlin. I’ve heard of them. Can you please tell me what other horrible projects they have built in Davis?”
Hi Susan and Solar:
I don’t agree with personal attacks either nor do I have “animosity” for Parlin.
But please look at the issue…Parlin is another development company that is wanting to develop open space in our town purely for their own economic interests (as all developers do, including John Witcomb wanted from the Covell Village project); the problem that irks me is that bloggers are coming on this site and painting Parlin as a “different” group of developers (ie. more environmentally sensitive, innovative, wanting to “work” with the local neighbors, etc) As a blatant example of how they are no different:
The adjoing neighbors to the proposed project filled out surverys regrading the project which were tabulated and sent to the City; the comment section was replete with concerns regarding the scope and density, including the cluster of multi-three story apartment buildings, lack of adequate parking for the proposed 500+ new vehicles, which could lead to spill over street parking in adjoining neighborhoods, etc. The consensus decision of the neighborhood group was to propose to Parlin to downsize the project to 150 units; they met with Parlin and were rejected, and were then threatened by Parlin that they would spend 300K in the Measure J campaign for advertising…does any of this sound like a “different” kind of development company? Think about it and (despite nice solar technology), do we really need this project or these developers now????
How is Parlin any different than Lewis Homes, wanting to develop open space in our town purely for their own economic interests?
This is a blog site, so naturally bloggers, just like yourself, are commenting on the site.
Yes, Parlin is more environmentally sensitive. If you studied the project with an open mind, you would see that.
If Parlin is going to be able to provide the various sustainability provisions in the development, he is going to have to have a certain number of units. If the neighbors want to give up the great buffer between them and the project, then the 191 units can go on the entire 26 acres, reducing the density to 6 or 7 units per acre. There also was no consensus of neighbors to reduce to 150 units. Only 4 or so members of the neighborhood association met with Parlin when that came up. Parlin said that they could reduce the units, but then it would have to be larger housing on the entire 26 acres, and the neighbors said “no.”
Yes. If we are to stave off really bad developments like Covell Village II, we do need this type of development and more of them. This is the type of innovative infill we should be considering.
To: “Oh horrors, bloggers!”
Somebody just clued me in this whole Wildhorse Ranch blog and then I read the garbage like you post that if we don’t support this project, then “bad developments like Covell Village II” will come back, what planet are you from??? If we allow Wildhorse Ranch, then other developers will see the snow job they did to Davis residents with all this “environmentally sensitive crap and then use that to promote other large scaled projects in the future…What a bunch of horse sh*t!!! (pardon the pun)
Pardon the double pun. You say that “If we allow Wildhorse Ranch, then other developers will see the snow job they did to Davis residents with all this “environmentally sensitive crap and then use that to promote other large scaled projects in the future…What a bunch of horse sh*t!!! (pardon the pun).”
Take off your cynical hat and be objective. If that is possible. With all due respect, but from your tone does not appear to be.
We would much rather have:
1) Environmentally sensitive development(crap as you call it, but we don’t). The only “crap” is what you spew instead of having intelligent discussion.
2) Developments such as this that pave the way for developments unlike Lewis Planned Communities (Cannery Park Davis) that used up valuable land for High Tech or Business Park
3) Plans such as this that show the ALTERNATIVE to Covell Village II.
Look, Covell Village II, III, IV is in the making. They will continue to come back with it until they get their way or some type of development.
60/40 was loud and clear. The voters spoke up. However, Until CV partners (or whatever name they are going by these days) meet with the community, sincerely, and stop fabricating groups that need housing (super senior housing centers, young family housing centers, etc.) they are going to continue to upset the community.
We need to have environmentally friendly housing that raises the bar and shows them how to do things the RIGHT WAY.
I would add that as long as the voters of Davis are presented with alternatives to CV II that make CV II look poor by comparison, CV II will be farther from being approved rather than closer.
There is no question that approvals of sdditional residential building permits in Davis is a scarce resource. In capitalism, the more competition there is for a scarce resource, the better the deal the holder of the scarce resource will get. I want to see the City of Davis in a position to extract the maximum possible quality of life benefit/value from any development we approve. I completely concur with what was said above, if we are to have additonal housing, “We need to have environmentally friendly housing that raises the bar and shows them how to do things the RIGHT WAY.”
I ask the question of you pro-WH ranch bloggers: “Is Parlin the best we have as a development company” (you sure make it seem that way, especially in the light of comparison to Lewis Homes, CV, etc) YET they rejected the neighbors’ proposal to downsize the project to 150 units; so, that makes them no different than the others (greed), they want it all and they should (and will) be rejected by the voters….beware of the locusts, you “environmentalists”, you let them take over,others will follow and swarm all over the remaining open spaces in town with their “we’re pro-environment” and “we’re different from the others” arguments that have seemed to snarl you by Parlin…
Thank you for this article David.
It’s a funny day in Davis when Katherine Hess is seen as more of a “slow growth advocate” than Don Saylor who never was.
It’s good that some proposals are coming before the city that are smaller and more dense. We don’t need more Mcmansions and sprawl.
“We need to have environmentally friendly housing that raises the bar and shows them how to do things the RIGHT WAY.”
If “environmentally friendly” means–as it must mean–smaller houses. No matter how many solar panels you put on a 3,000 square foot McMansion, it will not be “environmentally friendly.”
We need higher density, and smaller housing. I agree with Slow Growth: “We don’t need more Mcmansions and sprawl.”
Paving over a horse farm does not sound “environmentally friendly”. The developers are clearly using the solar panels as nothing more than window-dressing to desperately try to “greenwash” the project. Please let’s not try to fool anyone about the Wildhorse proposal. I looked at the info on line and it is awful! Give us a break, the paving over of the Wildhorse horse farm proposal would simply be terrible!
Is Parlin the best we have then? said . . .
I ask the question of you pro-WH ranch bloggers: “Is Parlin the best we have as a development company” (you sure make it seem that way, especially in the light of comparison to Lewis Homes, CV, etc) YET they rejected the neighbors’ proposal to downsize the project to 150 units; so, that makes them no different than the others (greed), they want it all and they should (and will) be rejected by the voters….beware of the locusts, you “environmentalists”, you let them take over,others will follow and swarm all over the remaining open spaces in town with their “we’re pro-environment” and “we’re different from the others” arguments that have seemed to snarl you by Parlin…
To start with I’m not a pro-Parlin or anti-Parlin blogger. But I can’t help but wonder why the neighbors’ proposal should be deemed as “right” on its face value. Why were they asking for such a downsize? Was it to improve Davis’ inventory of affordable homes? Was it to improve Davis’ inventory of workforce housing? Just exactly how would such a downsizing improve housing in Davis? Hopefully, one of those neighbors will come forward and share the rationale for their downsizing request.
Paving over Wildhorse horse farm ag land is not “environmentally friendly” said . . .
Paving over a horse farm does not sound “environmentally friendly”. I looked at the info on line and it is awful! Give us a break, the paving over of the Wildhorse horse farm proposal would simply be terrible!
Please explain to me how the Wildhorse horse farm is actually a horse farm in anything but name only. While you are at it can you tell me when was the last time the horse farm land contributed anything to the Yolo County ag economy?
I don’t understand where this “McMansion” argument is coming to play…Do you think developers in this economy are willing to build these homes and I don’t see a rush to buy them, here or elsewhere…as for the environmental arguments, how are one-family large homes (with three-four cars tops) more “sprawling” and environmentally damaging than high density projects (like proposed WH Ranch) where there an estimated 500+ new parking places projected, and even with the whole electric-vehicle and “low emissions” sales pitches, you are still looking at substantial increase of vehicles to that project…
and lastly to Matt Williams, who writes: “Was it to improve Davis’ inventory of affordable homes? Was it to improve Davis’ inventory of workforce housing? Just exactly how would such a downsizing improve housing in Davis?” I refer you to a previous editorial by David Greenwald a couple of weeks back, stating that now is not the time for new development as there are currently over 200 existing vacanies in housing projects in the City…why not work on filling these before we go and approve even more projects…I look forward to your reply on that matter.
“Paving over”
What info on line did you look at? You must have gotten on the wrong website. The designs for the Parlin development are a picture of what future development, if we want any, in Davis should look like. Most of us live in post-war sprawl communities. But we cannot continue to grow that way if we hope to save our valuable, productive farm land and to remain independent in provision of resources to sustain us. The solar is not a desperate attempt at greenwashing. The solar is part of a sincere effort to provide an energy efficient, sustainable development and has been part of the proposal from the start.
This thread is degenerating into name-calling and just plain nastiness. Let’s stick to the issues. Name-calling backfires. You lose all your credibility when you have to resort to meanness to make your point.
To “To Slow Growth”
One family, large homes are not built in isolation. They themselves cover large plots of land and they are built in large developments that cover many acres, require many parking spaces and add hundreds of cars. This is classic sprawl. 191 units, whether built in high density or over more acres will require the same number of parking spaces (or actually maybe more for the lower density, large homes). High density, however, results in paving over LESS land, thereby leaving MORE OPEN SPACE.
Re not needing more units now. The project proponent does not propose to begin building homes at this site until 2012 or so, so there will be no new housing there now. This is all stated in the design plans for the project.
I don’t understand you reasoning:
Take the Wildhorse Ranch proposed site, and let’s say hypothetically, the decision was to build large single home sites instead a conglomeration of apartment towers, town homes, and homes…effectively reducing the number of water-using, energy-using, car-driving residents by a factors of 10-50 less fold, how does that equate to “more sprawl”…please explain, if you are able OR is your argument for this high-density proposal based on other influence????
Slow Growth said . . .
to Matt Williams, who writes: “Was it to improve Davis’ inventory of affordable homes? Was it to improve Davis’ inventory of workforce housing? Just exactly how would such a downsizing improve housing in Davis?” I refer you to a previous editorial by David Greenwald a couple of weeks back, stating that now is not the time for new development as there are currently over 200 existing vacanies in housing projects in the City…why not work on filling these before we go and approve even more projects…I look forward to your reply on that matter.
Very reasonable question. My answer to you is simple. The point I am making is independent of time. David’s point has to do with when new development happens. My point has to do with what kind of housing gets built.
I agree with David on the current sales inventory. Even more I think that sales inventory illuminates the fact that while there is a good supply of detached, single-family homes, there is also not a good supply of affordable workforce housing. The neighbors suggestion to downsize the horse ranch project would mean that more of the kinds of housing we currently have sales inventory of would be built, and nothing would have been done to address the affordable workforce housing supply. Bottom-line, the building history of the past 10 years has been highly skewed towards expensive-to-build houses on individual lots. When we add housing to Davis in the coming years, we need to think less about high cost (and therefore high profit for the builders) housing and more about lower cost housing that has a reduced carbon footprint in part because of its density of living.
Regarding your cars argument, Yolo Watcher said what I would say. Regardless of where the person lives they are going to drive to work. So having workforce housing for people who currently work in Davis but live elsewhere doesn’t add vehicle miles, it actually reduces them (in most cases).
“So having workforce housing for people who currently work in Davis but live elsewhere doesn’t add vehicle miles, it actually reduces them (in most cases)”…Given this argument, a.) Is there any suggestion that the people who would buy/rent in Wildhorse Ranch actually work in the city limits? b) why build on the periphery of the city (rather closer to campus) and have them commute all the way down to UC Davis/downtown along already busy Covell Blvd? c.) The question of how larger plot single family homes in comparison to multi-resident apartment towers/town homes will lead to more “sprawl” and traffic congestion has not been adequately answered by either you or Yolo Watcher….
To “I don’t understand your reasoning.”
If we are to provide housing in Davis, and that is another question, but if we are, it is best to provide the housing in a dense manner rather than in the old sprawl model. The simple fact is that we are paving over our ag land at an alarming rate. No one can argue with that. To save land and yet provide housing in an efficient manner means we have to begin building denser developments–more housing on less land.
You state you want to build big homes spread out on more land and reduce the residents by 10 or 50 fold(!) I hope you mistated that. You actually want the developer to put only 4 to 20 homes on the 25 acres? That is definitely sprawl. Face it. Our population is only increasing. We will eventually have to house some people, whether we want to or not. It is much better to house them in denser, sustainable communities than on lower density developments sprawling out onto farmland.
The developer is also trying to provide what we all screamed we needed during the CV campaign–work force housing or housing affordable to people like me–staff at the U., teachers, nurses, public safety worker, etc. To make housing more affordable, it needs to be smaller and on less land.
I have no interest in this development other than my interest in what the proponent is trying to do. This development can be a model for the future of development here. If we are to continue to provide the housing we need to provide, we need to do it in a compact, sustainable manner. That way we save our farmland and the environment.
What is your motivation for arguing for low-density sprawl on this parcel, thereby increasing the likelihood of the need for more housing in the near future on farmland? You honestly do not see that if we put only a handful of McMansions on this property that we will have to build more housing some where else in the future and that that will most likely have to be on farmland? Do you support low-density sprawl in general? Did you support Covell Village? Do you support Covell Village II? Is part of your motivation for low density here to accommodate CV II? Because that is what you are doing by continuing to argue for low density.
You need to look up the definition of sprawl to start with. Then look up “Smart Growth Principles”. The Sierra Club website can help you, but you can google the terms too. Educate your self on what growth of the future has to be if we are to survive.
To: Matt Williams said . . .
“So having workforce housing for people who currently work in Davis but live elsewhere doesn’t add vehicle miles, it actually reduces them (in most cases)”…Given this argument, a.) Is there any suggestion that the people who would buy/rent in Wildhorse Ranch actually work in the city limits?
My simple answer to that question is, “We shouldn’t approve the
added housing unless it is going to meet internal demand.” Davis
has sufficient internal demand needs that it needs to address
without catering to external demand. Within the limits of the law,
we should only approve additional housing that is clearly identified
as addressing internal supply/demand shortfalls.
b) why build on the periphery of the city (rather closer to campus) and have them commute all the way down to UC Davis/downtown along already busy Covell Blvd?
I guess the answer to that question is simple, the developer has
responsibly recognized the need for affordable/workforce housing and
designed the project so that each unit has a lower projected sales
price than the vast majority of houses that have been built in the
past 10 years. I haven’t seen any other developers doing that.
You need look no further than Grande to see that Davis’ talk doesn’t
translate into workforce housing oriented walk.
c.) The question of how larger plot single family homes in comparison to multi-resident apartment towers/town homes will lead to more “sprawl” and traffic congestion has not been adequately answered by either you or Yolo Watcher….
Okay, lets see if this answer is direct enough for you. Lets assume
that there are 5,000 current Davis and UC Davis workers who don’t
currently live in Davis, but want to live in Davis so badly that they
are willing (and able) to write a deposit check for a new home. If
every one of those 5,000 workers bought a new home at a larger plot
density of 5 units per acre, then the sprawl would cover 1,000
acres. If the lot size goes to 6 units per acre then only 833 acres
would be needed. The horse ranch proposal is 192 units on 26 acres.
If all 5,000 workers were accomodated at that density then only 670.
I don’t know about you but I would call 670 acres of sprawl less
sprawl than 1,000 acres of sprawl.
“The horse ranch proposal is 192 units on 26 acres.
If all 5,000 workers were accomodated at that density then only 670.
I don’t know about you but I would call 670 acres of sprawl less
sprawl than 1,000 acres of sprawl.”
You are putting quite a bit of assumptions into your argument that only people who work and therefore commute within Davis will buy into this property, and meet these “internal demands” you talk about it; what happens if this “internal demand” is not met (as currently evidenced by the over 200 housing units not filled within city limits)…I’m not quite sure how you (or anyone else) has such confidence to make that argument???
“Matt Williams, resident of El Macero, said he believes that flood risk costs need to be considered before development in flood zones. He believes the costs impact all residents,as insurance rates are a “hidden tax”.
Found this interesting historical information from a Yolo County Planning Commission in Dec 2006. Have your views changed now? The EIR report has not yet been submitted for Wildhorse Ranch, including the potential flood risks and you seem to have already given this project your full support????
To “To Matt Williams” 1 pm
Matt is not referring to the WH Ranch proposal in this answer. He is answering a specific question quoted below asked by someone, perhaps you, previously. He is answering this question:
“The question of how larger plot single family homes in comparison to multi-resident apartment towers/town homes will lead to more “sprawl” and traffic congestion has not been adequately answered by either you or Yolo Watcher….”
To the person with the flood zone information. If Wild Horse was in a flood zone, then, according to you, it should not have been built. Did you support Wild Horse? If so, how can you question development of this part of Wild Horse based on potential for being in a flood zone? In fact, the current flood maps do not show this area to be a flood zone. If new maps show it to be, that will be part of the EIR process and can be addressed there. If there were a potential for flooding, then that would be addressed with engineering and design controls.
Matt’s comment was made at a county meeting and may have referred to flooding in other parts of Yolo County. There are definitely other areas in Yolo County where flooding is a much more serious issue, and the cost of building there should be considered. Don’t take things out of context.
Also, Matt does not say anywhere that he gives this project his full support. Why not stick with the issue rather than attacking the individual who does not agree with you? You lose all credibility when you turn to personal attacks. And if you are going to resort to personal attacks, you should have the courage to identify yourself.
I think most people don’t know much about this project and have not made up their mind. It seems to me that each person that has expressed anything but a negative view has been Mau-Mau’d by two or three people.
My view is that I oppose most growth but would like to see an innovative project that can bring back the innovation of Village Homes.
It’s hard for me to characterize 191 units as sprawl.
It’s hard for me to understand why people would favor Cannery but oppose WHR.
Those who live in Wild Horse, how do you think most people are getting to work from Cannery? Oh yeah, they are driving by your home!
Density is like this big scary word. I don’t get it. What matters for you is not density, it is occupants. Higher density for the same number of units means less occupants. That means less traffic.
Again why do you favor 600 over 191? I don’t that.
There is a lot I want to know more about though.
How big are these units? If these are more mcmansions, forget it. I want smaller and more affordable units.
I’m also not sure now is the right time, but on the other hand, I think the opportunity to change the way we develop is worth a chance. We need to stop building places like Wild Horse and Mace Ranch and start building places like Village Homes. We need to make Davis, Davis again. That doesn’t mean no growth. That means no crappy growth that looks like it could be right out of Natomas or Elk Grove and this property doesn’t look like that.
But to be clear, I’m not supporting this project, but I have a favorable view that I might at some point do so. If you want to talk me out of it, you need to focus less on personalities, less on attacking other people’s views, and more on making sound arguments.
The units vary from 1200 to 2000 square feet. They are smaller units, meant to be affordable to middle income range. It is a mix of single family detached, town homes, condos and apartments.
The proponent does not plan to build now. He is aware of the market. He does not intend to begin building for two to three years.
Yolo Watcher,
Please let Matt Williams answer for himself. It is becoming a bit obvious that you are collaborating when you answer for him over and over again.
“The proponent does not plan to build now. He is aware of the market. He does not intend to begin building for two to three years.”
Then WHY are even talking about this project now? Why don’t the developers just wait another two to three years to push this to a Measure J, why now???
Cynically, I think they are telling us that, but want it approved now, so they can they be the next approved development “on the block” and not wait until other proposals (potentially better) come out???? The way you have been rah rah this project, I don’t think there ever could be as a great of a project than this….
To: Matt Williams said . . .
You are putting quite a bit of assumptions into your argument that only people who work and therefore commute within Davis will buy into this property, and meet these “internal demands” you talk about it; what happens if this “internal demand” is not met (as currently evidenced by the over 200 housing units not filled within city limits)…I’m not quite sure how you (or anyone else) has such confidence to make that argument???
The answer to that question is simple.
The first part is procedural. Simply don’t issue building permits unless the developer comes forward with signed contracts (with approprialte down payments) for the number of units the developer is requesting permits for. That way there won’t be a gap between supply and demand. Demonstrated demand will drive any changes in supply.
The second part is logical. Why would a person having a nursing job, or police job or fireman’s job or Starbucks barrista job outside Davis want to stretch their personal finances to buy a workforce home in Davis and then turn around and commute to their job in Sacramento or Woodland or Elk Grove? The logical answer to that question is “they wouldn’t.” Yes, Davis schools are better, and yes the quality of life in Davis is better, but for a person earning a workforce wage, who is looking for assistance to afford a house, the aggravation and personal overhead of living far from their job will be a significant deterrant.
Similarly, the couple who works outside Davis and makes enough money to find that aggravation and personal overhead not a problem will more than likely be looking for more home than will be offered in Davis’ “affordable” workforce housing.
“The first part is procedural. Simply don’t issue building permits unless the developer comes forward with signed contracts (with approprialte down payments) for the number of units the developer is requesting permits for. That way there won’t be a gap between supply and demand. Demonstrated demand will drive any changes in supply.”
Matt, if I see that happen, then I might support the project, but that is a big IF (in these times; we don’t even know what the asking prices will be) but first we must see passage in a Measure J election….
To: Matt Williams said . . .
“Matt Williams, resident of El Macero, said he believes that flood risk costs need to be considered before development in flood zones. He believes the costs impact all residents,as insurance rates are a “hidden tax”.
Found this interesting historical information from a Yolo County Planning Commission in Dec 2006. Have your views changed now? The EIR report has not yet been submitted for Wildhorse Ranch, including the potential flood risks and you seem to have already given this project your full support????
No I haven’t given this specific project my full support. What I have given support to are the principals that this project has incorporated into its design. Over and over and over and over the Housing Element Steering Committee supported the principle that new residential units in Davis needed to be denser than the densities that have historically been used in Davis. Over and over and over and over people in this blog and throughout Davis have clammored for more affordable workforce housing. Over and over and over and over we have as a community said (often led by Councilman Steve Souza) that housing needs to be built with a reduced carbon footprint.
The fact that this particular project APPEARS to have incorporated all of these principles doesn’t make it perfect by any stretch of the imagination; however, it does tell me that the developer is indeed listening to what the Davis community is asking for.
Now, with respect to my 12/06 comment, 1) that was one of the first public comments I ever made on the subject of land use. I’ve learned a whole lot since then. What I know now is that there are at least three different kinds of flooding. My statement applies lock-stock-and-barrel to the kind of flooding Natomas or Clarksburg faces. My statement is either naive or misinformed with respect to the kind of shallow sheet flooding (less than 1 foot in depth in a 100-year event) that happens for many parcels in the Davis vicinity. In simple terms, shallow sheet flooding can be “engineered away” by simply bringing in enough fill to raise the elevation of the home pads to a level that is at least 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) as determined by FEMA.
The problem with “engineering away” the flooding problem on a particular parcel is that more often than not the engineered solution doesn’t eliminate the water flow, and in poorly designed plans simply passes the flooding problem on to the parcels that are “down-stream.” We need to engineer solutions to specific flooding with more comprehensive solutions that change the flood plain for not only the specific parcel, but for all the adjacent parcels as well. For example, the flooding that is projected to occur in much of north-central Davis, as well as the Covell Boulevard area near the hospital is shallow sheet flooding that comes from Willow Slough and Dry Slough. Currently, Willow Slough and Dry Slough runoff is picked up by the Covell Toe Drain, which eventually empties into Channel A. In a 100-year event that means that Channel A is pretty much filled to capacity long before it reaches north-central Davis, and the runoff from north-central Davis then creates sheet flooding. What we need to do is engineer a solution where the Willow Slough and Dry Slough runoffs are diverted to the south long before they reach the Covell Toe Drain. The southward diversion of these waters would empty into the South Putah Creek Bypass. As a result, the Covell Toe Drain and Channel A would have sufficient capacity to significantly mitigate (if not eliminate) any north-central Davis flooding.
Hope that answers your questions.
flood water
RE: Yolo Watcher said . . .
Yolo Watcher,
Please let Matt Williams answer for himself. It is becoming a bit obvious that you are collaborating when you answer for him over and over again.
I have no idea who Yolo Watcher is. I post using my real name because I take the time to consider my answers and am more than willing to take the “heat” they may create. I would encourage everyone to follow that example.
With that said, Yolo Watcher did a good job of understanding the points I made in my posts.
To: Yolo Watcher said . . .
Then WHY are even talking about this project now? Why don’t the developers just wait another two to three years to push this to a Measure J, why now???
Cynically, I think they are telling us that, but want it approved now, so they can they be the next approved development “on the block” and not wait until other proposals (potentially better) come out???? The way you have been rah rah this project, I don’t think there ever could be as a great of a project than this….
The answer to that question takes only one word . . . PLANNING. The typical timeline of the planning cycle in Davis is 3-4 years, if not even more. They are simply being proactive rather than reactive. If they started the process in 2012 then they wouldn’t have the needed entitlements until 2015 or later.
Similarly, it is incumbent on the citizens of Davis to structure any entitlements that are given in such a way that there is a “faucet” that controls when any building permits are issued against those entitlements. Put another way, the property could go through all the steps to change the zoning from ag to residential, but with a legal commitment from the developer that not a single improvement will be undertaken on the property prior to 20??. The ?? could be 15. It could be 30. It could be 50. That would depend on how good a job of PLANNING we have done in Davis to better understand what our REAL internal demand is for housing in the various demographic sectors of our city’s population.
For the benefit of the three or four folks who are still following this conversation:
I am not collaborating with Matt Williams or anyone else for that matter. We just happen to have similar opinions on this issue. I do know Matt, have worked with him on other issues, and generally tend to agree with him. If I answered “for” him, I apologize for the presumption. I did address some accusations hurled at him because I was not sure he was still following this particular blog, and thought some of the points brought up about him warranted a response.
It gets my dander up whenever I see unwarranted accusations and attacks on anyone. Stick to the issue. If you don’t have any good reasons for your position other than prejudice, then don’t make any comments at all.
Actually I was at my brother’s wedding in Tucson, Arizona, so my logging on to the Vanguard was sporadic. As much interest as I have in land issues here in Yolo County, they clearly took a back seat to family this weekend.
FWIW, I didn’t feel personally attacked. Questions are always welcome. They challenge me to be a more informed person with better opinions. Keep the cards and letters coming. 8>)