The goal the city of Davis has set is to bring its greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. One mechanism by which to meet this goal is to raise environmental standards on new houses. These things include the financing of solar panels, solar and tankless water heaters, energy efficient windows, better wall and roof insulation, more efficient heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, among others.
While Davis has prided itself on being green, Davis has fallen behind others in terms of green technology and innovations. City staff though is concerned that Davis may be moving ahead of the rest of the region on these issues:
“Staff is also sensitive to the economic reality that until more communities adopt similar standards, development in Davis will be constrained or new houses in Davis will be less affordable than others in the Central Valley.”
But is that really accurate? In many ways, as a future Vanguard series will argue, Davis is not leading the way on new innovations to mitigate global warming, rather Davis trails many other communities in policies that will address global warming and reduce the carbon footprint.
In fact, we argue that in an attempt to address the economic reality, Davis is actually putting itself even further behind the ball.
In recognition, the framework phases in GHG reduction standards, sets a threshold project size, provides credit for smart growth measures, and allows for flexibility in how the standards are met. In addition, staff is recommending that existing development impact fees for transportation not be raised at this time to address GHG emissions, but instead be prioritized for projects that result in GHG savings.
Staff believes that this approach strikes a reasonable balance between the urgency of action on global warming and the economic realities associated with producing housing in Davis. Staff notes that from a GHG perspective, even a super efficient house that produces long commute trips is a global warming loser; it does not serve the City’s GHG emission reduction goals to adopt policies that result in commuter trips. Decisions on housing are complex and multifaceted, but if the issue of global warming is isolated from other considerations, reducing vehicle miles traveled is the most pressing priority.
The central problem is not what we will do in the future, but what we have done in the past. It is nice to say that future projects need to meet certain standards. But we once again need to look at the math here. We have already approved projects at Verona, Grande, Chiles, and Willowbank. None of those meet these current standards.
How many more projects are going to come forward in the near future? Right now, only one is on the radar and it far exceeds these standards, that is Wild Horse Ranch. With the current housing market and economy, we are not looking at a lot of new development. Moreover new development was factor in the benefits of the higher standard over the costs likely associated with decreasing agricultural land and increasing traffic and stresses on water and other infrastructure.
The city’s assessment of recently approved projects is rather bleak. It is one thing to talk about standards now, but if council had such a commitment to these standards, why did they not impose them as recently as this spring on current projects?
Here is the city’s summary of approved projects:
Verona – Mace Ranch (Approved Summer 2008):
- Project approvals predated initial draft standards.
- Served as an early test case to understand the implications of the research and development of project level GHG standards.
- No GHG mitigation required or proposed (1st subdivision to meet Green Building Ord.)
Grande (Approved January 2009):
- Project agreements with School District predated final draft standards.
- Project level GHG analysis advanced the understanding and implications of potential mitigation standards.
- Through Development Agreement negotiations, the City accepted a GHG mitigation in-lieu fee payment of $500/unit and a commitment by the School District to create programs/curriculum to improve student and community awareness and develop solutions regarding global warming.
Chiles Ranch (Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Spring 2009):
- Project applications and pre-application public input process predated adoption of recommended final draft standards.
- Sustainability principles incorporated into early project discussions with applicant and public input process.
- Mitigation proposal submitted by applicant to meet proposed 1990 GHG levels includes:
- 35% better than Title 24 (2005 code)
- 0.18 acre community garden (74 sq/ft per household)
- $1,000/unit contribution to a community engagement program (Low Carbon Diet)
Staff note: This proposal is the most well developed local project level GHG analysis and mitigation program reviewed to date. The community garden and low carbon diet measures rely on behavior change and lack certainty in GHG reductions. Therefore, if the recommended standards are adopted by the Council, the GHG savings associated with these two measures can satisfy up to 10% of the total required mitigation for the project. Based on the recommended thresholds and standards, the Chiles Ranch GHG mitigation proposal would meet approximately 95% the project GHG mitigation requirements.
Willowbank Park (Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Spring 2009):
- Project pre-applications predated adoption of recommended final draft standards.
- Sustainability principles incorporated into early project discussions with applicant.
- Preliminary mitigation proposal submitted by applicant focuses on behavioral change in existing households to address community scale issue.
Staff note: The preliminary proposal relies on behavior change (Davis Low Carbon Diet), which lacks certainty in GHG reductions. Therefore, if the recommended standards are adopted by the Council, the GHG savings associated with this measure can satisfy up to 10% of the total required mitigation for the project.
Finally the analysis of the proposed Wildhorse Ranch:
Wildhorse Ranch (Planning Commission hearing scheduled for Spring 2009):
- Project applications predated adoption of recommended final draft standards.
- Project Draft EIR will include analysis of GHG emissions impacts and related mitigation measures. The GHG emissions standards and thresholds adopted by Council will help guide the EIR analysis.
- Sustainability principles incorporated into early project discussions with applicant.
- Sustainability proposal includes reducing residential energy demand by 25% below 2009 Title 24 standards, photovoltaic systems with a total capacity of 460 kW, and exceeding the targets of the City’s Green Building ordinance by 10 points.
The city is moving in the right direction with these proposals, but they are doing it slowly and have fallen behind other communities in their efforts. As we mentioned, the Vanguard will be doing a series on environmental policies around the region that will demonstrate just how far the city of Davis, despite its green reputation and pride in its environmental policies, is actually far from the leader it portrays itself in terms of climate change policies.
While these proposals are a good start, they are not going to effect much in the way of new housing for the foreseeable future, as the city has for the most part approved new developments without said requirements and any efforts to fix these shortcoming after the fact, will lack the kind of leverage the city would have in the approval process. Given the recent approval of these projects, one has to question the council’s commitment to these principles–at least some of the council anyway.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m not sure where you are going w this. We have a huge economic crisis in the nation/world, so at the moment, it is not practical for the gov’t to spend tax dollars on solving the problem of global warming. In fact, I would argue the one thing the federal gov’t could do, they refuse to do – which is enact a reasonable energy policy, which encourages our country to become independent from the importation of foreign oil. I’ve been waiting for this since the 1976 gas lines, and am still waiting.
On top of that, I liken the current world situation of massive pollution in China to the water conservation problem in this country. If residents in the U.S. only use 5% of the water, and farmers use the other 95%, the problem is not really the residents not conserving. Even if the residents cut back to zero, the most we could do is save 5%, a drop in the bucket compared to what farmers could save. The same is true of China. If China and India are the prime culprits of massive pollution, our little conservation programs become a case of diminishing returns. We are spending inordinate amounts of money to resolve a very tiny fraction of the problem.
I think greenies sometimes lose their sense of perspective when it comes to environmental issues. Remember, “global warming” is a growth industry, w people like Al Gore wasting huge amounts of energy and making money off advocating we conserve, conserve, conserve. What hypocrisy!
Three words for you to ponder-actually they’re places but some of you will get it…..San Onofre,Diablo Canyon and Casa Grande(Az) and a number for you too–104. THIRTY years(I think) since the last one was constructed and still no one has died, despite all the scare tactics deployed….
I highly reccomend the Energy Partners Program. It weatherizes low income households, by replacing old appliances with new more efficient appliances.They will insulate the attic for free, put a blanket on the hot water heater, replace old wall unit air conditioners, and patch up holes in the walls, and weatherstrip doors and windows. This is all done for free and funds come from the public purpose programs that we all pay into every month. Funds are running out. This is a free service if you “income qualify” and it’s designed to dramatically decrease energy usage by providing tune ups and replacing old appliances with new appliances.
Call Energy Partners Program at: 1-800-989-9744
They will refer you to Western Insulation it’s a company that is working with PGE to provide these free services. Hurry before the allocated funds run out.
Just more stuff to make Davis unaffordable. A better proposal would be to require that all housing should be up to the same standards as the homes of the Council members. Oh but that would be leading by example!
That’s just inane. Have you become an anti-environmentalist?
Not anti environmental but pro housing. All of these upgrades raise the price of new homes. Once again the people that are for these things should do them to their own homes first before making demands that drive up housing costs in a place where restrictive housing policies have already made housing too expensive. Its funny, people on this blog were just whining about how much their water bills are and how much they might go up but when you compare that to the costs of requiring all these upgrades that you want new homeowners to bear there seems to be a disconnect. So I seem to get the idea that the consistency of the arguments put forward by this blog are that if you already own a home we need to do everything we can to protect your home value and your ability to afford Davis but if you want to buy in you should pay all sorts of costs that those who are already here shouldn’t be forced to pay. What I’m saying is lead by example. If you want others to pay the freight demonstrate it by paying it youself first.
“Its funny, people on this blog were just whining about how much their water bills are and how much they might go up but when you compare that to the costs of requiring all these upgrades that you want new homeowners to bear there seems to be a disconnect. So I seem to get the idea that the consistency of the arguments put forward by this blog”
That might be more interesting if you could site the same person who makes both arguments. However from what I can tell there are different factions on this blog and not one unified voice.
For me personally, there is not bigger issue that we face as a society, a community, a nation, and a planet than climate change.
I’m not convinced that this is going to raise the cost of housing. Do you believe that WHR will have much greater housing prices than the other developments that have not gone the extra mile and a half for environmental and efficiency standards?
I don’t know what the costs are I know there are tax credits from the Obama administration but I don’t know if they work for new construction. What I find infuriating is the idea that our new housing should meet every test to be perfect with the result being that no significant amount of housing has been built in a decade and prices are twice as high in Davis as they are in the surrounding areas. To put it simply when do we say enough is enough and start to try to make housing less expensive in Davis.
I don’t, but I’m just curious as to how you propose we treat global warming without starting at the local level. Surrounding areas in some cases are already ahead of us. Everyone is going to have to make changes in the way we live if we want to survive. Or do you not believe that?
[b]”I’m just curious as to how you propose we treat global warming without starting at the local level.”[/b]
You start at the global level. Doing anything at the local level is equal to spitting in the ocean in an effort to increase sea level.
[i]What needs to be done at the global level?[/i] A stiff carbon-effluent tax.
[i]Would that work?[/i] Yes.
[i]Are there good real-world data to suggest it would work?[/i] Yes.
[i]What is that data?[/i] Look at the steep decline in global carbon effluence ([url]http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb2009043_179533.htm?campaign_id=rss_eu[/url]) following the increase in oil prices in 2008.
Undeniably, high carbon prices pushed the global economy into this recession ([url]http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/04/it_didnt_start_here.html[/url]); so it’s hard to argue that there is not a downside to high oil prices.
[i]Is there an institution through which a global carbon tax can be negotiated?[/i] Yes, the WTO. Any member country which did not conform to the tax requirements or did not enforce its provisions would face trade sanctions sufficient to force compliance.
[i]What about non-WTO member countries?[/i] They could be sanctioned too. However, there are no significant non-WTO economies.
[i]Who would collect the tax?[/i] Each WTO member country would collect and enforce its own tax regime, based on principles designed by the WTO.
[i]What would the money collected be spent on?[/i] That’s up to each country. Logically, it should subsidize replacement fuels and technologies, but it could be used to replace existing taxes.
Why not just start with a $1 gas tax here in the US – after all we are the biggest contributor to the problem. I like the idea of forcing everyone to contribute toward the solution, rather than just dumping the problem on the people who want to build new homes. I agree we need something much bigger than insignificant community actions.
Here’s what would really help “global warming” but I doubt any liberals would be for this plan…
We invade China, right, then we enact the same exact environmental laws that we follow. China is one of the biggest producers of carbon emissions, pollution, etc. in the world. They are NEVER going to voluntarily bring their standards up to ours (and why should they?) so the only way that situation will improve is to force them.
I personally feel that we in the US are doing a really good job on green issues and there is only so much we can tax/regulate ourselves before it kind of becomes pointless and has little return.
[b]”Why not just start with a $1 gas tax here in the US – after all [u]we are the biggest contributor to the problem[/u].”[/b]
China passed us by in CO2 emissions ([url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews[/url]) a couple of years ago.
There may be some good reason to impose a $1 gas tax in the U.S. However, doing so won’t affect [i]global[/i] warming. The problem is global. It needs to be addressed globally.
We pump out 20% more emissions than China – we are more efficent but we still pollute more. We do that with about a third as many people. China no doubt causes significant damage but remember much of that pollution is from factories building stuff for us.
[b]”We pump out 20% more emissions than China – we are more efficent but we still pollute more.”[/b]
Alphonso, that is not true, according to the Guardian. Since 2006, China has “pumped out” more CO2 emissions than the U.S ([url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews[/url]). “China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 (in 2006), compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US.” In measures of other pollutants, such as particulate pollution and water pollution and so on, I suspect China leads the world in those areas, too; and India is probably close behind.
I suspect he means per capita.
Per capita? 20% more? Nope. Per capita U.S. is 5x China, despite having PPP incomes 9x of China.
This is not the time to be having a conversation about emmissions. The country is burning to the ground financially while some people worry about an environmental fad concocted by a has-been politician who wants to sell books, movies and make another failed attempt at a presidential run.
But it HAS TO BE the time to talk about emissions–and frankly not just talk, act. It has to be the time to start planning for this. We have already essentially wasted the last eight years. We are not getting those back. It’s horrible that we have a financial crisis, it’s horrible that the country is at war, but the clock is not going to stop on this and this is not fabricated. We have to deal with this now, it’s already too late to counter some of it, if we wait until there is a good time, we have lost a lot of what makes us prosperous.
Alphonso, that is not true, according to the Guardian. Since 2006, China has “pumped out” more CO2 emissions than the U.S.
Stand corrected – I read a 2008 story citing 2004 data. I agree China has a real problem, but I think we need to fix our issues before telling others what to do.
My company builds massive machines to manufacture solar panels. We sell those machines all over the world except for one place – the US. China is building a huge plant in Xian.
“My company builds massive machines to manufacture solar panels.”
British Petroleum?
no, Applied Materials and sand (silicon) rather than oil
BP is one of the largest solar energy companies in the world ([url]http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9025019&contentId=7046515[/url]). They do a lot of business in China, which I think is now the largest market for solar panels.
Everyone is complaining about what we can do at the global level which is typical of people that don’t want to take personal responsibility. What can we do individually? Right here right now, low income people can get their homes weatherized for free (Energy Partners Program) and dramatically reduce their carbon footprint by doing simple easy things. Changing out to fluorescant lights, changing your shower heads, insulating the attics etc etc etc. If every low income household took advantage of this FREE program, our global impact would be reduced at the local level. That’s how you do it. It always starts with individual self and choices that we make.
Check out the Draft EIR that came out this week on the City website; one of the areas of impact that is “significant and unavoidable” despite mitigations is “Climate Change”….despite the claims of the developers that this project would be “almost zero” carbon emissions, the Draft EIR seems to refute this claim…to the so-called “environmentalists” who are just seem to be drooling over this project, please keep the EIR findings in mind and stop “greenwashing” us, please!!!!! We DON’T NEED this development
“Everyone is complaining about what we can do at the global level which is typical of people that don’t want to take personal responsibility. What can we do individually?”
It is at the global level that there will be any difference made. Locally, as one commenter put it, we are doing nothing more than “spitting into the ocean”. If this country were truly serious about “global warming”, it would enact an energy policy that would make this country oil independent. We would be promoting nuclear energy, alternative fuels, solar, wind, water driven energy technology. But does our federal gov’t even make a stab at such a policy? No – on either side of the aisle. Why? Because both Dems and Repubs are benefitting from the taxes on gasoline…
“Check out the Draft EIR that came out this week on the City website; one of the areas of impact that is “significant and unavoidable” despite mitigations is “Climate Change”….despite the claims of the developers that this project would be “almost zero” carbon emissions, the Draft EIR seems to refute this claim.”
I read the report on the city website and it appears that the WHR developer has met or exceeded every standard set by the City of Davis for GHG mitigation. Your conclusion does not appear to be a fair one.
This is the summary of that GHG report for WHR:
City standard: [b]Design buildings to be energy-efficient. Site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use.[/b]
WHR: [i]As part of compliance with the Green Building Ordinance, the proposed project would include buildings designed to exceed existing Title 24 standards. Roofs would be oriented to ensure solar efficiency.[/i]
City standard: [b]Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings.[/b]
WHR: [i]All buildings would be designed to make use of energy-efficient
lighting technologies.[/i]
City standard: [b]Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.[/b]
WHR: [i]The project would make use of strategically-placed shade trees.[/i]
City standard: [b]Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.[/b]
WHR: [i]All residents would be provided with educational information regarding the energy reduction measures incorporated into the units, and how to further reduce energy use.[/i]
City standard: [b]Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems.[/b]
WHR: [i]All units would include energy-efficient heating/cooling systems and appliances.[/i]
City standard: [b]Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street, and other outdoor lighting.[/b]
WHR: [i]Traffic and street lighting would be installed in compliance with City of Davis standards, and would make use of LEDs to the extent feasible.[/i]
City standard: [b]Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. [/b]
WHR: [i]Exterior lighting would comply with City of Davis standards and hours of operation will be dictated by security and safety requirements.[/i]
City standard: [b]Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. [/b]
WHR: [i]As noted above, all units would include energy-efficient heating/cooling systems. In addition, residents would be educated on the existing State and national incentives regarding solar installation. Units would include efficient hot water delivery (demand-initiated tankless heating/core plumbing systems). Photovoltaic would be included where feasible.[/i]
City standard: [b]Create water-efficient landscapes. [/b]
WHR: [i]All landscaped areas would be designed to reduce their water
requirements, and to take advantage of stormwater runoff. Furthermore,
landscaping would make extensive use of drought tolerant species.[/i]
City standard: [b]Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. [/b]
WHR: [i]Irrigation will be controlled by systems designed to ensure waterefficiency, including within the project’s proposed orchard area.[/i]
City standard: [b]Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.[/b]
WHR: [i]All irrigation systems would be designed to ensure that water is only applied to vegetation.[/i]
City standard: [b]Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. [/b]
WHR: [i]All residents would be subject to any watering restrictions established by the City of Davis.[/i]
City standard: [b]Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.)[/b]
WHR: [i]The proposed project would make extensive use of Low-Impact Development techniques, including vegetated swales and rain gardens. Stormwater would be routed to swales and shallow open space detention areas instead of centralized detention ponds.[/i]
City standard: [b]Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including but not limited to: soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).[/b]
WHR: [i]The proposed project would reuse and recycle construction and
demolition waste in compliance with State law and City ordinance.[/i]
City standard: [b]Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas.[/b]
WHR: [i]Recycling services are provided by Davis Waste Removal. The applicant would work with Davis Waste Removal to ensure that adequate recycling opportunities are provided to future residents.[/i]
City standard: [b]Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.[/b]
WHR: [i]The proposed project includes attached single-family townhomes, and a multi-family housing area that could be developed at a density of 21
units per acre.[/i]
City standard: [b]Incorporate public transit into project design. [/b]
WHR: [i]The project site is located in close proximity to bus stops for two transit systems.[/i]
City standard: [b]Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio.[/b]
WHR: [i]The project would include 8.31 acres of interior open space, agricultural buffers, and greenbelts. In addition, all streets would be lined with shade trees, and the project design includes an orchard area.[/i]
City standard: [b]Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking.[/b]
WHR: [i]The project would include a 10-foot-wide bike path connecting the
existing Wildhorse community and the proposed bike trail on the east
side of the project site.[/i]
City standard: [b]Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.[/b]
WHR: [i]Idling time is limited by State law.[/i]
City standard: [b]Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles.[/b]
WHR: [i]Low and zero-emission vehicles would be used to the extent feasible.[/i]
City standard: [b]Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations).
[/b]WHR: [i]The project does not include any fueling stations. Residential garages would include electrical outlets which could be used for electric vehicle charging.[/i]
City standard: [b]Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments.
[/b]WHR: [i]As noted above, the project would include bicycle facilities.[/i]
City standard: [b]Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
[/b]WHR: [i]The project has been designed to accommodate bicyclists.[/i]
City standard: [b]For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor
bicycle parking.
[/b]WHR: [i]The project does not include commercial uses.[/i]
“Davis approves green policies, but is it too late?” as if little davis was going to make a difference anyway. Exactly how many degrees cooler would planet earth be today if Davis took all of its cars off the road?
is how much more effective we’d be a global level if all cities and local jurisdictions started planning for these kinds of changes a decade ago.
You summarize all the city standards met, but omit the impacts which are significant and unavoidable:
Fire protection services
Climate change
Alteration of exisitng visual character and obstruction of views (from existing homes)
Loss of prime agricultural land
Are any of these important issues for you?
“Wild Horse Ranch is not green”.
I wondered when someone would jump on that climage change issue. Read the whole DEIR. You obviously have not. The climate change section talks about how great the project is in terms of reduction of GHG emissions and surpassing the city’s Green Building Ordinance requirements. The project is praised for its innovative design features and reduction of net operational usage by more than 75% than a home that just meets Title 24 standards. It would exceed the City’s Green Building Ordinance by 10 points.
Then at the very end is that one sentence that makes such a statement. “——-, a single project cannot, on its own, feasibly mitigate impacts associated with the large-scale issue of global climate change; therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change would remain significant.” Huh? That is nuts! This project, any project, is not trying to mitigate the huge impacts associated with global climate change. No project can do that. That’s crazy. The addition of even one house, by this definition, would be a significant impact. What this project is trying to do is to reduce to the greatest extent possible its contributions to global warming GHG emissions. If all future projects were required to do what this one proposes to do, we could begin to have an effect on GHG emissions and climate change. We have to start somewhere.
Loss of prime ag land? This “ranch” may be on prime soils, but they are not farmed, have not been farmed in years, and won’t be farmed. The owner will dedicate prime land elsewhere following our 2:1 mitigation policy. That is land that IS farmed and will be preserved in perpetuity.
Impacts on visual character and obstruction of views will matter to the folks living next to the project, but I doubt this will be a community issue. No one cared when Target proposed putting the huge store right next to an existing residential neighborhood.