A bare quorum of the Davis Planning Commission was on hand on Wednesday evening in Davis, but they agreed to approve the staff report unanimously with a 4-0 vote on all measures except the Final EIR which was inexplicably only received from city staff on Monday. Commissioner Ananya Choudhuri voted against approving the Final EIR due to her not reading it (she probably should have abstained rather than voted no, but that’s largely a moot point).
The actions taken by the Planning Commission on Wednesday were fivefold. First, they certified the Final EIR for the Wildhorse Ranch proposal, including findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring plan in the staff report. Second, they approved the General Plan Amendment Resolution that establishes the land use designations for the Wildhorse Ranch. Third they introduced the ordinance that rezones and establishes the use and development standards for the Wildhorse Ranch site. Fourth, they approved the Affordable Housing Plan. And finally they introduced the ordinance to approve the Development Agreement between the City and the Developer, Parlin Whildhorse Ranch. Again, this item was approved as received as it was not complete at the time of the meeting.
The neighbors certainly have their concerns and some of those can and should be addressed. Phil Wyels, the Chair of WENA spoke at length last night and he was kind enough to provide the Vanguard with his remarks. The next section will consist of his remarks and then the final section will address some of the issues raised last night at the meeting.
Remarks by Phil Wyels Chair of WENA
My goal tonight is to give the Planning Commissioners an understanding of the Neighborhood Association’s perspective about the project, and why the Neighborhood Association is opposed to the project.
We are asking that the Planning Commission not approve the project or any of the related documents tonight. Our letter dated June 12 is part of your agenda package, so I won’t reiterate all of the issues we raised in the letter.
In general, the Neighborhood Association prefers that the horse ranch remain a horse ranch. This would be consistent with the expectations of the community and the City’s General Plan. For those who claim that the horse ranch is a non-productive use, it is true that it has been under utilized. But the reason for that is simple. The owners of the horse ranch are in the business of development, not the business of running a commercially viable horse ranch. Nobody has given an honest effort at making it a commercially viable horse ranch that serves the interest of the community and acts as a reminder of Davis’ rural beginnings. If the horse ranch is lost to development, the residents of Davis will have to leave the city if they want to ride horses.
If, however, the Planning Commission makes the policy decision that Davis needs additional housing on its periphery more than it needs a legitimate horse ranch, the Neighborhood Association would like the Planning Commission to give Parlin Development direction to keep the basic footprint of its proposed project, but to reduce the number of units from 191 to approximately 150, reduce the height of the market-rate townhomes from three stories to two stories, and reconfigure the main entrance street so that it is further away from the backyard fences of the existing homes on the southern portion of Caravaggio. We believe that those changes will improve the quality of life for the new residents of the new development and make it a more sustainable community, avoid placing so many new residents on the periphery of the city and so far from its services, and be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Now that the City has suspended its middle-income affordable housing requirement, Parlin will be able to sell all of the townhomes at market rate, so it should be able to afford to reduce the number of total units.
He would go on to make the following points:
Parlin had several meetings with the neighbors and consulted with City staff, and in the spring of 2006, Parlin produced two similar proposals to develop the horse ranch into 191/192 units. After pressure for higher density from the City Council, Parlin’s proposal increased to 237 units with a mix of two story units and what Parlin called three and a half story units. In January 2008, the City Council directed staff to produce an EIR for up to 259 units. That EIR was never distributed to the public.
At the same meeting, the City Council heard from the neighbors that they were very much opposed to the then-current proposal. The City Council suggested that the neighbors form an official Neighborhood Association, and directed Parlin to enter into more discussions with the neighbors.
We did form the Neighborhood Association, and began a series of meetings with Parlin. Parlin unveiled a new proposal in August 2008. The neighbor’s reaction to the new proposal was less negative than it had been to the previous proposals. Parlin had gone back to its original 191 units, and reduced the maximum building heights from three and a half stories to three stories. But we continued to have concerns about the number of units, the three-story townhomes, and the number of parking spaces, in addition to the belief shared by many of the neighbors that the horse ranch should remain a horse ranch.
I believe that Parlin worked with us in good faith, except that we understood that they were unwilling to budge on the number of units and the height of the buildings. Parlin has recently increased the number of parking spaces, which we appreciate. However, ultimately, it ws the number and height of the units that caused us to formally oppose the project.
Al will speak in detail about the environmental issues that we have raised, but several neighbors asked me to raise two issues tonight. The first is a question about the enforceability of the greenhouse gas reduction component of the project. We applaud the general idea, but it is very conceptual at this point. Since this has become a major selling point of the project, we hope that the Commission will ask staff to explain what happens if the project is ultimately approved and built, but Parlin is unable to achieve the reductions that they project.
The other specific issue that I’ve been asked to raise tonight is the enforceability of the 20’ land dedication to the immediately adjacent neighbors who are willing to pay approximately $2,000 for their share of the transfer costs, as Parlin is currently proposing. As staff has explained, the land dedication has been part of the project for several years. The adjacent homes have very shallow backyards due to the open space benefits provided by the horse ranch, so the land dedication was viewed as an appropriate mitigation for taking away those open space benefits. We were all very surprised when Parlin removed the land dedication from the project last week. Parlin restored it yesterday, but many of the neighbors are naturally left wondering if there is anything to prevent Parlin from changing its mind again. We would appreciate it if the Commission would ask staff to address this issue, too.
Addressing some of the Issues that Arose Last Night
The biggest concerns raised had to do with the density and the size of the project, the third story units, and parking. I will address other points as well.
First, many of the neighbors argued that the size of the project at 191 units creates too high a density that is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. This point was addressed by both the developers and the planning commission. Along with it the issue of the third story buildings was also raised and addressed.
The commission felt that the density as proposed was roughly similar to that of the existing neighborhood. It is true that the density on the developed section of the 25.8 acre land parcel is higher than that of the existing neighborhood, but that is due to the measures take to move the project away from the existing neighborhood and create the urban forest and other mitigation and sustainability measures.
As the developer put it, they could develop a 150 unit project, it would have the traditional 5000 square foot lots and be a traditional sprawl development. That is not what they want to do and they do not believe that is what the city wants. The city wants to move away from large and expensive McMansions that are spread out. The goal is to build more up than out. To use a smaller footprint to accommodate a similar amount of units.
Mr. Wyels repeats the complaint that Parlin has refused to budge from the 191 units. This is as Parlin themselves admitted partially true. They reduced the 259 unit proposal from 2008 down to 191 units, but as they pointed out to reduce to 150 units or less will turn it from the current innovative project back to a more traditional sprawl model.
Along those lines is the need for third story buildings. What the developers have done here is nest those third story buildings in the middle of two story buildings. They are far away from the existing neighborhood and the difference in roofline is only about 8 feet. Moreover, given the urban forest they intend to plant and the eight foot height difference between second and third story units it is unlikely to severely impact sightlines and it is doubtful it will be that noticeable to existing homeowners. The alternative would again be larger units and a much smaller buffer from the existing neighborhood. It is a tradeoff that is to be sure, but seems like a good tradeoff for the neighbors and entire community.
The issue of parking was also raised. First, the complaint was raised that many of the available parking locations are in garages and people often use their garages for storage rather than parking. Second, the neighbors suggested that the narrow streets will not accommodate the kind of parking needs the neighborhood will have. Thus they believe that people will be forced to utilize the existing neighborhood for parking.
Both the developers and commission refuted that point. First, as the developer suggested there will be a professional homeowner’s association that will have enforcement power over that specific issue and will enforce the usage of garages. But leaving that point aside, the practical point is given the layout of the neighborhood, the only access point will require an extensive hike from Caravaggio Drive to the new development–who is going to walk hundreds of feet to their homes? That argument as several on the commission suggested just does not make sense.
The only time you might see the people on Caravaggio Drive impacted might be for special events. I would also suggest there is a remedy if indeed parking does become a problem and that is to have permit parking on Caravaggio. It seems highly unlikely to be necessary, but that would certainly address that specific complaint.
Another issue that Mr. Wyels raised and was echoes by Al Lin, another neighbor, is the enforceability of the GHG reduction component of the project. According to the developer, this will be included in the Measure J vote and thus any changes to the 90% plan would require another Measure J vote to change. This is a key point for many who have come to support this project–the reduction of GHG emission for the residential units by 90%. I understand the concerns about the enforceability of the GHG component to this project, but I believe that this will be addressed with its inclusion in the Measure J vote.
The fire issue was raised as well last night. There have been suggestions that this might trigger or bring us closer to the need for a fourth station. There was also concern raised that this was outside of the five minute response time. Unfortunately it appears the individual who raised these points did not follow the fire consultant report last month from Citygate. If they had, they would have recognized that the consultants recommend a seven minute response time rather than a five minute response time. I will refer people to the article on Citygate, but they can see in the map that this neighborhood will receive adequate fire coverage and no different than the existing residents of Wildhorse.
In addition, the Citygate report made clear that only a substantial development would trigger the need for a fourth fire station and 191 units does not qualify. It is not even clear that development at Covell Village would be sufficient to trigger a fourth station. Given our high standards for building codes and low frequency of fire calls, we simply do not have the calls sufficient to trigger the need for additional personnel. In fact, I have argued as have others that we have too much personnel as it is.
From my own standpoint, I am generally not in favor of paving on agricultural land. There are several aspects of this specific development that allay those concerns. First, it is a relatively small project at 25.8 acres. That is a huge factor. Second, while it is agricultural land, it is certainly not being used to grow crops nor will it. This is a horse ranch used for recreational purposes and it is currently 20% paved and built upon, i.e. roads, buildings (several homes, stables, barns.) My general concern is that we should not pave over productive farmland as it is going to be become increasingly important and every acre we lose, we will not regain. Davis is not an isolated community, it is part of a network of cities and towns throughout the valley and we all must do our part to preserve the agricultural land we have from sprawl development.
Some last night characterized this as more of the same development. Someone went as far as to compare it to Tracy and to suggest this would erode the character of our town. I could not disagree more. This is a small and medium density project that moves us away from the sprawl developments of the past–such as those from Wildhorse itself. It is highly ironic that many of the arguments made against this development apply to the very houses that many of the people inhabit who spoke last night. We need to grow up rather than out. We need to take into account the environment and preserve as much land as possible. This project does much of that while adding a critical 191 units of strongly environmental and highly innovative development.
This is a project that should raise the bar for future development and become the new standard for building homes. We need to move away from the cookie-cutter sprawl of the 80s and 90s and toward a new era where we change the way we build. Cities can no longer continue to expand outward into farmland. Instead, they must consolidate to preserve that land and lower the driving distances to jobs. Certainly a 191 unit cannot accomplish all of this, but it heads us in the right direction.
I understand and recognize there are still disagreements between the neighbors and developers, I believe many of these issues can be addressed and the concerns mitigated.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Based on the Chiles Ranch experience, neighbor input may have some value in the initial size and shaping of a development. However, when it gets to the Planning/City Council phase, it’s hard to believe that citizen input has any value.
Those neighbors opposing infill developments who had also voted against Covell Village brought the situation onto themselves. People like Council member Sue Greenwald argued that Davis should promote infill development rather than expand outside the existing city limits, and that’s exactly what’s happening. Had Covell Village been approved, the pressure to push the infill projects would have been far less severe.
Dear David:
I was one of the “eight” neighbors who spoke last night in opposition, and I was not surprised at the turnout last night to in opposition to the project for the following reasons (at the same time, I was also surprised at the small number of “supporters” who showed up to speak, none of whom lived in Wildhorse, and it appears to be the same “crowd” that are brought to these events, likely by the developer-paid “community relations” guy Bill Ritter):
1. Most neighbors felt last night would be a 4-0 vote and it was; just like the City Council vote will either be 4-1 (or hopefully 3-2, if Ritter hasn’t fully influenced Lamar Heystack yet); so WHAT’S THE POINT if you have eight or eight hundred show up, we all know the pre-determined outcomes; if you measure turnouts at public meetings as a direct measure of support/oppostion for a project, you’re mistaken; people have busy lives, children to put to bed, etc; it was about 830pm or later until anyone (but the developers and their slick consultants, with their PowerPoint slide shows) could even get a word in
2. MOST people in the adjoining Wildhorse/ Slide Hill neighborhoods have not fully seen the extent of the proposed development yet, they may have heard of the project through “word of mouth”, like “Hey, you hear they want to develop the horse ranch” (Let alone I don’t think many have seen the 3-D model images from the development’s counsultants, when viewed in comparison to the 2D images, show the true character of the project: high density housing surrounded a greenbelt); the few people I have showed the images to are astonished at how dense and out of character for the neighborhood this development would be; there are NO comparable three-story apartment towers in our area, not even the Terracina complex; this is what concerns the neighbors the most; you convince Ritter to have Parlin remove the apartment towers or reduce them to single story only, you might have more people support the project; and, if you reduce the number of units and tenants, you will also reduce energy consumption, and that’s a “low-tech” solution to the GHG issue for this project!
2. In these economic times, other neighbors have been asking with almost disbelief, “Why do we need this development at all?” The City Council just approved Chiles Ranch, West Village is in the pipelien, how about Verona and Simmons, and we still have over 200 unsold units in the city (according to one of your previous blogs); and if the answer is yes we still need more housing, then why not look at true “in-fill” sites within Davis limits and support those, such as the Hunt/Wesson property or PGE property, where there is nothing but concrete, barbed wire, industrial remnants on these sites; now, that would be more of a true WOW factor, to have developers take those sites and turn them into viable housing sites that are closer to downtown area and bike paths leading there.
3. The blogs and posts on the Vanguard stating things one way or another (vitriolic as you describe it; and I agree one post titled “Wake Up Neighbors” is quite incendiary, stating the neighbors “pissed in the face” of the developers) are the postings of very FEW indivudals and should in no way imply that they represent a majority of any neighborhood, let alone Wildhorse; quite frankly, most people I have talked have NEVER read the Vanguard, don’t give your self that much credit. I am on the site because I had been alerted that the positions taken by WENA were being challenged on a blog, and am quite troubled that any neighbor who opposes this project is labeled on the blogs as a NIMBY (especially by “Yolo Watcher”, a.k.a Sierra Club Chapter President Pam Nieberg) Well, were any of the Chiles Ranch neighbors ever labeled as NIMBYS? Were the Wildhorse/ North Davis neighbors who opposed Covell Village in 2004 ever labeled NIMBY’s by you or Pam Nieberg?
4. Lastly, the Measure J election (whenever that might be; if it is in November, it will be a truly “fast-tracked” measure) will be the deciding factor. The neighbors, not just in Wildhorse, who vote will decide if they want a high-density project to be built on one of the few exisitng parcels of open space remaining in our city’s boundaries; let the voters decide and the bloggers blog.
[i]From my own standpoint, I am generally not in favor of paving on agricultural land.[/i]
Whenever you and a lot of people in Davis refer to agricultural land, you talk as if building houses on the edge of Davis somehow creates people. This has never made sense to me. If houses in Davis aren’t built — and not very many have been built since anti-growth took over — where do you expect people to live instead that would be better for the environment?
Davis already has the highest population density of any city in the Sacramento area. Higher than Sacramento itself, higher than Woodland, almost twice as high as Vacaville, more than twice as high as Dixon or Fairfield. If people don’t move to the area at all, they’ll probably use up even more land elsewhere in the United States. People are not going to pile into Manhattan just because Davis won’t let them reclaim farmland.
And not just more land, but also more carbon emissions — Davis has an excellent record there too.
I can understand one undercurrent of the discussion, that people want to limit growth in Davis to keep property values high. But I thought that you don’t even own a house in Davis, you rent. If so, I really don’t understand the obsession with undeveloped land, given that any build-out in Davis would use much less of it than most cities would. Again, do you really think of zoning as a form of birth control?
Yep they are all Nimby’s. Although I would agree with you about the 3rd story.
Greg, Welcome to the no on J campaign. Do you need a voter reg card?
I’d like to suggest we stop calling big houses “McMansions.” They are just big houses. Some people like big houses on big lots, others don’t. It isn’t necessary to be derogatory about them.
“…given the urban forest they intend to plant….”
“Urban forest” is just a euphemism for “trees.” Trees are good: I’m certainly all for planting trees, and they do reduce greenhouse gases (until they die and rot, anyway). But I don’t think we need to call landscaping anything more than it is.
[i]Greg, Welcome to the no on J campaign. Do you need a voter reg card?[/i]
I’m not ready to join a campaign on this. It’s a strongly-felt issue and I’m not thrilled about torpedoing people’s property values.
But it does bother me when people green-wash an agenda based on property values. It may seem gratifying to see progressive jargon “work”, but in this case the jargon is exploited for a purpose that’s not really progressive. I wish that people could discuss the matter more honestly.
[i]I’m certainly all for planting trees[/i]
No way, Don, I thought that you were entirely against planting trees. I figured that you planted mine under duress. 🙂
“…They reduced the 259 unit proposal from 2008 down to 191 units, but as they pointed out to reduce to 150 units or less will turn it from the current innovative project back to a more traditional sprawl model….”
OR, is it if they agree with neighbors and reduce the project to 150 units, their revenue stream decreases…to say a developer is not wanting to reduce the number of proposed units out of concern for “sprawl” is a joke!!! Parlin (like any other developer) is “green”, that is green for cash revenues
“I’d like to suggest we stop calling big houses “McMansions.” They are just big houses. Some people like big houses on big lots, others don’t. It isn’t necessary to be derogatory about them.”
Well said. I, for one, am against tenement living, and would prefer sprawl. However, I recognize the need for workforce housing. But here’s my question: How much will these units sell for? It seems to me I heard from Katherine Hess, when challenged on that point by Sue Greenwald, that units will sell for $450K. How is that affordable workforce housing? Correct me if I am wrong on this…
Hi Don:
I also agree with your comments regarding “McMansions”; it is a perjorative term that attacks those who either a.) prefer larger lot homes or b.) can afford such a house, and as such, pay larger property taxes, which help the city’s revenue fund for municipal services (ie. police, fire, sanitation) which helps the whole city; it is in the same insulting fashion as NIMBY’s and tends to be most used in blogs by “Yolo Watcher”
To My View – I believe you are using the terms “affordable housing” and “workforce housing” interchangeably. I believe that each mean something different to different people. Some people take affordable housing to mean low-income housing, which is not always the case. Some use both terms to mean the same thing which is essentially housing that is affordable for people that work as teachers, police officers, city workers, etc. It means different things to different people.
[quote]Greg Kuperberg said . . .
From my own standpoint, I am generally not in favor of paving on agricultural land.
Whenever you and a lot of people in Davis refer to agricultural land, you talk as if building houses on the edge of Davis somehow creates people. This has never made sense to me. If houses in Davis aren’t built — and not very many have been built since anti-growth took over — where do you expect people to live instead that would be better for the environment? [/quote]
Your statement “not very many have been built since anti-growth took over” is incorrect. For the sake of discussion lets define “since anti-growth took over” as being since the initial passage of Measure J. The Bay Area Economics Housing Need data presented to the Housing Element Steering Committee by Staff shows in Table 12 that 14% of the 25,269 housing units in Davis as of 2006 were built since 1999. 3,471 units is not “not very many.” Add another 354 units for the building permits issued in 2006 and 2007 (250 and 104 respectively) and you have more than 3,800 new units added to a base stock of 21,798 units and you have an over 17.5% increase in the 10-year period.
What makes that 17.5% increase more troubling for me is that the vast majority of the new housing has been out of the reach of the Davis workforce . . . either because of design or price or both. We need to begin correcting that imbalance. There is no question that there is a need for more housing in Davis, but that housing needs to meet the needs of the people who currently contribute to Davis’ sustainability and vibrance, not to people who want to move to Davis from another community and then commute to their jobs outside Davis.
I find it disappointing that the Vanguard attempts to discount the testimony of the people that came and testify against the Wildhorse horse farm project, all with very valid concerns and comments.
From what I saw of the meeting last night the meeting the most important part about the testimony last night is that literally ALL of the handful of “supporters” of the project were all personal friends and “affiliates” of politicalI consultant Bill Ritter who is working for the Parlin developers.
[i]Your statement “not very many have been built since anti-growth took over” is incorrect.[/i]
Matt, it’s good that you’re bringing relevant numbers into the discussion. You’re making half of a valid case, and there are things for me to learn from your citation. But you’re not make a complete case.
Yes, compared to a place like Flint, Michigan, Davis has grown a lot since Measure J passed. But that’s not the point. The opening sentence of the Housing Needs Assessment says, “Between 2000 and 2006, Davis population and household growth was lower than that of the Sacramento-Yolo Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA).” That is the right context. We have the best environmental footprint of any city in the Sacramento Metropolitan area; amazingly we have an even better footprint per capita than Sacramento itself. And yet we’ve grown less than the regional average.
This might be cast as a victory for the community, maybe for the Davis lifestyle, and certainly for Davis property values. But it isn’t a victory for the environment.
Moreover, construction since 1999 includes a lot of land that was already slated for new houses before Measure J passed. As we all know, nothing has been approved under Measure J’s terms. And on the scale of your numbers, Wilhorse Ranch is just a token project. Eventually, infill will run its course and the land will run out. The city map suggests that we’re not all that far from the ceiling.
I agree with you about one thing, though. Davis has built a lot of half-million-dollar homes, but a true progressive vision would call for more apartments. Sure, that includes housing for university employees. But you’d have to hate higher education if you didn’t also regret the situation for students.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/GPUpdate/pdfs/HsngElmnt_Drft/Section_03_Housing_Needs_Assessment.pdf[/url]
Very interesting comments by all, ranging from insightful to the absurd. And, if “newbies” don’t yet understand how our city govenment works,let me explain. At commission meetings you can ratchet up your courage to speak for or against an issue, carefully craft comments and expend huge amounts of time & energy to speak as eloquently as possible, in an attempt to convince a commission to agree with you.
In the end though (regardless of any commission advisories), the final decision will be made by the five individuals we elected as our city council. So give your best arguments to the council and, if you conclude that they haven’t represented you fairly, just vote them out of office by supporting different candidates in next year’s election.
I’ve lived here 35 years and have both agreed & disagreed with various individuals over many issues. But, looking back over all those battles, debates & arguments, there is one thing I treasure most about Davis: the fact that so many citizens care enough about our community to take the time and effort to express an opinion.
Thanks to all of you, we’ll get it right – eventually!
“In the end though (regardless of any commission advisories), the final decision will be made by the five individuals we elected as our city council…”
As I have previously stated, we anticipate a 4-1 (or better hope, 3-2) vote for Wildhorse Ranch; so, instead of wasting our valuable evenings better spend with family time on waiting for hours to speak (and only limited to two meager minutes by our pro-developer Mayor, while Parlin and their consultants can go on ad nauseam on how WOW of a project this is), we instead will look forward to the election to get out the vote and educate neighbors on the true high density nature of this project, as for Councilmembers, Saylor and Souza, well, we will relish the opportunity to vote them out of office and their pro-developer paid agendas…
Is the expansion of Wildhorse green?
Get real.
No matter how much passive solar Wildhorse builds, it won’t reduce greenhouse gases if people commute by car.
Affordable?
More development could easily end affordable housing here in Davis. By state law, development demands future availability of water. Too many houses can lead to the construction of a half billion dollar pipeline to the Sacramento River. Wildhorse and the completion of Woodland’s Spring Lake will both put pressure on the County for the pipeline. This pressure will only get worse if California becomes hotter and drier as scientists are predicting.
This is hit-and-run development. Millionaire developers will not be paying for this pipeline; we will. They will walk away with the profits. The service fees to pay for this pipeline will hit minorities, seniors and people of limited income hard.
A good idea?
Since when is it a good idea to build houses in a depression when houses in Spring Lake aren’t even selling.
Stop hit-and-run development. Wildhorse is a Trojan horse. Think about the cost of a pipeline that we will have to pay for.
Second reply to Matt:
In my previous reply, I didn’t think to look up your other numbers for recent building permits. There is an interesting trend there as well:
2005 250 permits
2006 104
2007 43
2008 27
2009 2 (first four months)
One reading of these numbers is that Davis continued with infill through about 2005 — infill in the sense of using up residential zones as they froze in place when Measure J passed — but after that, permits dropped off of a cliff.
There is surely some truth to that interpretation, but the same development report offers another explanation. “The selling of bank-owned foreclosed houses at cut-rate prices in nearby communities (and to a lesser degree in Davis) causes price competition for the new affordable units in Davis developments.” They say that the region is awash in foreclosure, and that turns the affordable housing requirement into a financial penalty that deters developers from building any housing in Davis.
Again, this is great for property values, but it does not help the environment unless you think that zoning is a form of birth control. And this effect of the affordable housing requirement can be called “Bel Air welfare”: First declare that living without a private swimming pool is unacceptable poverty, then declare that the community can only afford to build so many pools.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090602/05 Residential Development Status Report.doc.pdf[/url]
Greg:
One of the points I make is that if you go back to 2005 that’s Measure X. The council majority really put all of their eggs in that basket and so it is only really in the past six to nine months that you have seen now the approval of a number moderate to small infill projects.
Be paying for use of city funded services , like KDRT , while he is operating a for profit. Business
I don’t know where the idea that Parlin Wildhorse horse farm project was affordable, because it is NOT. The price range of the homes is $425,000 to $550,000. Also, the Talbott Solar reps acknowledged that accomplishing the new goal of 90% GHG emission reduction would add more cost, so these housing unit prices are on the low end.
The drop off in building permits is purely a function of the economy and not a consequence of the buildout of parcels with residential entitlements. A case in point is the City of Fairfield. They were averaging about 700 building permits per year until the housing industry tanked. In 2008 they were down over 95% and issued less than 35. This is in a city with thousands of approved but unbuilt dwelling units.
Based on this data, the drop off in Davis building permits is not evidence that we need to immediately approve more residential.
I have no idea how long it will take to work through the backlog, but there is certainly no rush. Fairfield is on tract to maybe do about 80 permits this year, so at least things may be starting to recover.
It is an easy time to lose environmental scrupals. This Wildhorse project seduces some that–if it were larger–would not be seduced. Ignoring the fact that any agricultural land–whether it has horses on it or not–is potentially available for producing crops, advocates see a project that will set a better standard–environmentally–for other future developments; in other words, they settle for less than perfect–perfect being saving the farmland–aparently believing they will lose on this vote and, instead, choose to advocate for it because of certain features; if this passes, they declare victory as people who are against sprawl. Sorry, any expansion of the city limits to accomodate housing is sprawl; it would be more genuine for the advocates to state they are pro-growth in some contexts and that they believe growth is inevitable.
[i]One of the points I make is that if you go back to 2005 that’s Measure X. The council majority really put all of their eggs in that basket and so it is only really in the past six to nine months that you have seen now the approval of a number moderate to small infill projects.[/i]
Maybe these approvals exist, but no, I have not seen them. I gave slightly the wrong information and a bad URL before (for the Residential Development Status Report). The correct number is that Davis issued exactly 2 housing permits in the first 3 months of 2009. How many were there in the next 3 months? How many will there be in the rest of the year?
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/GPUpdate/pdfs/Staff-Report-for-CC-20090602.pdf[/url]
To address the larger picture, yes it may be true that the 2005 city council put all of its eggs in the wrong basket. But this is conflating strategies with priorities. As a matter of strategy, Measure X was obviously a big mistake for whoever wanted it to pass. But as a matter of priorities, the past five years in Davis have been great for property owners, irrelevant to the environment, and a raw deal for students and university staff.
You should consider that in 2000, Elk Grove had a lower population of Davis, while now it has more than twice the population of Davis. You should consider that there are vanpools from Elk Grove to UC Davis, and wherever there are vanpools, there are also other people who drive to work or to class on their own. This is a 30-mile commute on congested freeways. This is the real outcome of slow growth west of Sacramento.
What would you expect people in Elk Grove to think of a statement in Davis like “I am generally not in favor of paving on agricultural land”? Or the argument that saving two miles to the grocery store is a way to fight global warming? Obviously they’ll think that it’s token environmentalism.
And I’m not saying that Elk Grove is a great model of city planning. It’s a famous poster child for the mortgage crisis. But Davis is far in the opposite direction.
[i]The drop off in building permits is purely a function of the economy and not a consequence of the buildout of parcels with residential entitlements.[/i]
The city report said that it was a function of the economy as tied to Davis through the affordable housing requirement. That is not at all the same as being purely a function of the economy.
[i]Based on this data, the drop off in Davis building permits is not evidence that we need to immediately approve more residential.[/i]
Look, we don’t “need” to do anything. We have a lot of choices. If the goal is to keep housing prices in Davis high, then we should approve as few residential permits as legally possible. But that is not a true progressive agenda. A true progressive agenda is one that values higher education for students, and an in-city commute for middle-class university employees. That would mean more apartments in Davis.
[i]they settle for less than perfect–perfect being saving the farmland[/i]
Again, if the goal is real environmentalism, then as Voltaire said, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Congratulations to the Planning Commission, staff, and the project applicant for gaining the approval of this environmentally progressive development and moving it along to the City Council.
[quote]The city report said that it was a function of the economy as tied to Davis through the affordable housing requirement. That is not at all the same as being purely a function of the economy.[/quote]It’s often a mistake to take what the city says at face value. Fairfield doesn’t have the heavy affordable housing burden that we do, and their permits are down 95%. While I personally believe that our affordable housing policy is a huge problem, it is only a fraction of the overall burden put on development projects. So for the city to call out something that doesn’t give them revenue, while ignoring the fact that their own exactions are off the chart, is disingenuous at best. Perhaps they don’t want to acknowledge this because they rely heavily on high exactions from residential development to stay solvent (since we have such a small economic base).
[i]Fairfield doesn’t have the heavy affordable housing burden that we do, and their permits are down 95%.[/i]
Sure, but that’s for a different reason. Fairfield had 3,000 home listings in 2008 when their buildings permits crashed. Davis didn’t. You are right though that the affordable housing rule, even though it has an effect of “Bel Air welfare”, is only one of several factors that deter construction in Davis.
Even without new home construction in Davis, I can start to see some argument that building more houses is not right now the top progressive priority. There are indeed a lot of unsold homes in the region. Again, the real tragedy is apartments. For apartments in Davis, it’s as if the entire real estate boom never happened, and as if UC Davis promised almost nothing to UCOP.
My understanding was that Wildhorse is being built to provide “workforce housing”. If the average price is somewhere between $450K and $550K, that is not affordable workforce housing – it is instead super expensive tenement living. What an awful concept!
UC Davis enrollment in Fall 2008 increased by 2.4% — about 900 students — over the previous year. Even with attrition, that more than eats up the number of units UCD will be adding in 2010 (about 600 beds, near Tercero South).
West Village might provide some student housing by 2011, eventually adding housing for 3000 students at full buildout. UC Davis will probably add more than 3000 students before West Village is completed.
The rental vacancy rate in Davis in winter 2008 was only 0.8%, according to a UC Davis survey. A 5% vacancy rate is considered healthy. Rental rates went up 4.86%.
Of the 31,000 or so students at UCD, about 6400 live in campus-provided housing. That leaves 24 – 25,000 students competing for housing of one kind or another in or near a town of 63,000.
That is why affordable housing policies don’t work. They are overwhelmed by the demand in the lower price range.
City of Davis cannot dictate UC enrollment policies. UC Davis is going to continue to grow. The projects UCD has underway will accommodate the next 5 – 7 years of enrollment growth, but will not provide enough to increase the vacancy rate or decrease rents.
Any growth that does not increase the supply of off-campus housing for young adults, students or otherwise, will result in continued lack of affordable housing for the people who work in local businesses and at UC Davis, including the grown children of Davis residents. Peripheral developments with expensive homes and specialized senior housing projects will barely cause a ripple in the supply of housing for this huge demographic: the 18 – 40 year olds who study and work here.
Davis needs to build more apartments, duplexes, mobile homes, and whatever else these young folks will move into.
Don,
I SO agree with you, except that I think the additional student apts need to get on the UCD core campus. UCD has been “dropping the ball” for decades and they will continue to do so unless the city gets tough. UC loves leaving the student housing problem up to the City of Davis to deal with. UCD has more land than ANY UC campus. SO why are there not not more student apts on campus? Dorms only park the students for one year on campus and then they are kicked out to the dorms to fend for themselves, including find new housing in the city.
The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UCD and the city is clear that UCD agreed to provide 25% of student housing up until 26,000 students. The MOU goes on to state that UCD would provide housing for any students over 26,000. So guess what has happened since? UCD has NEVER fulfilled their own MOU promises and they continue to dump their massive student housing needs on UCD. UC Systemwide has now set benchmarks for more student housing. The goal is top provide 40% of their own student housing. UCD is clearly dragging their heels on building student apts (i.e. not just 1 year dorms to park students for a year and then kick them out) on-campus.
The solution is getting UCD to get off their butt’s and build the housing for over 30,000 UCD students on the UCD core campus. Imagine the amount of freed-up Davis housing we would IF the UCD campus would build their own student apartments on the core campus?
Mike Harrington wrote:[quote]Congratulations to the Planning Commission, staff, and the project applicant for gaining the approval of this environmentally progressive development and moving it along to the City Council.[/quote]While Mike is doing his little victory dance in the end zone …
Congratulations to WENA and the people from Wildhorse that put yourselves in the line-of-fire and spoke out (both online and at the planning commission) in support of what you think is best for your neighbourhood!
The aforementioned celebration (as well as the offensively patronizing “newbies” post up-thread) notwithstanding, this is just the end of the second quarter. The supporters of this project still have to make their case to the city council and then close the deal with the Davis electorate.
Although the council is likely to put the project on the ballot, the outcome of a Measure J vote is still far from certain. There are significant issues related to neighbourhood impacts, density, water, fire, net cost to the taxpayers, etc that will give many voters pause, despite all the green-washing and political advertising that will be brought to bear.
To put the quote highlighted above into a factual context, Mike Harrington owns an office complex and rents to:
1. Parlin Development
2. Ritter & Associates (Bill Ritter is a progressive insider, good buddies with Vanguard publisher David Greenwald, and paid consultant to Parlin Development)
3. Talbott Solar (Talbott is the energy consultant for this application and will presumably play a major role in the solar portion of the development if approved)
Accordingly, Mike has a clear financial conflict-of-interest; which makes the above quote even more unseemly.
[quote]Greg Kuperberg said . . .
Matt, it’s good that you’re bringing relevant numbers into the discussion. You’re making half of a valid case, and there are things for me to learn from your citation. But you’re not make a complete case.
Yes, compared to a place like Flint, Michigan, Davis has grown a lot since Measure J passed. But that’s not the point. The opening sentence of the Housing Needs Assessment says, “Between 2000 and 2006, Davis population and household growth was lower than that of the Sacramento-Yolo Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA).” That is the right context. We have the best environmental footprint of any city in the Sacramento Metropolitan area; amazingly we have an even better footprint per capita than Sacramento itself. And yet we’ve grown less than the regional average. [/quote]
Greg, you are on point with your quotation, but you also stop too soon. To dig deeper into the statement you quoted, look at Table 11 of the report where BAE looks at both population growth and employment growth. Their projection for population growth for Davis and the Yolo-Sacramento CMSA Region are 1.2% and 1.4% respectively, while their projection for employment growth is 1.1% and 2.0% respectively. When you look at that more complete picture Davis is projected for “over growth” while the Region is projected for “under growth” when you look at the population-to-jobs ratio.
Table 11 looks forward, but I don’t believe the recently completed years are going to show much difference.
That more complete picture begs the question, “Is it reasonable to expect a city to grow its population at a rate that is higher than the rate of its employment growth?”
[quote]My View said . . .
My understanding was that Wildhorse is being built to provide “workforce housing”. If the average price is somewhere between $450K and $550K, that is not affordable workforce housing[/quote]
I completely agree. That is a question that needs to be researched. When I get an answer I will post it here.
[i]I SO agree with you, except that I think the additional student apts need to get on the UCD core campus. UCD has been “dropping the ball” for decades and they will continue to do so unless the city gets tough. UC loves leaving the student housing problem up to the City of Davis to deal with. UCD has more land than ANY UC campus.[/i]
There is a tremendous bait and switch in your reasoning, anonymous person. Yes, UC Davis has more land than any other UC campus, but that’s not because of the [b]core[/b] campus. The core campus has very little room left. It certainly does not have room for 20,000 more students. Only an extremist would imply that the university should put 30-floor dorms on the few acres that are left on the core campus. For that matter, the university will need those acres for academic buildings. The current Tercero expansion project, which is only for 600 students, is replacing valuable university parking.
UC Davis has simply not promised most of its new student housing on the core campus, and neither UCOP nor any other sober audience would expect such an unrealistic promise. No, UC Davis promised the state new student housing west of 113, beginning with West Village. In the case of West Village, UC Davis sure did try to meet its promise, but a city anti-growth group sued the university to stop the project.
[i]Is it reasonable to expect a city to grow its population at a rate that is higher than the rate of its employment growth?[/i]
Matt, you’re going a little overboard with the bold italics there. Anyway, the answer is that it is entirely reasonable to want the city to grow faster than employment and student growth, if it is already well behind. Another factor is that like it or not, Davis is part of the Sacramento metropolitan area and it will grow with job creation in Sacramento, not just with its own job creation.
I concede that it is not a top-tier progressive goal for Davis to accommodate more and more Sacramento professionals. University employees and students are a different matter. When city activists react to university housing needs as a threat, when they make wild claims about core campus space that doesn’t exist, and when as a result students and staff stream in from a 30-mile radius, then frankly it’s a disgrace to the concept of higher education.
This post was censored, and now reposted in “sanitized” form. Under the pretence of deleting personal attacks, the Vanguard appears to be attempting to protect the Parlin project and shield their political allies and advisors from any scrutiny of their financial conflicts-of-interests.
Mike Harrington wrote:[quote]Congratulations to the Planning Commission, staff, and the project applicant for gaining the approval of this environmentally progressive development and moving it along to the City Council.[/quote]While the progressive supporters of Parlin Development are doing a little victory dance in the end zone …
Congratulations to WENA and the people from Wildhorse that put yourselves in the line-of-fire and spoke out (both online and at the planning commission) in support of what you think is best for your neighbourhood!
The aforementioned celebration (as well as the offensively patronizing “newbies” post up-thread) notwithstanding, this is just the end of the second quarter. The supporters of this project still have to make their case to the city council and then close the deal with the Davis electorate.
Although the council is likely to put the project on the ballot, the outcome of a Measure J vote is still far from certain. There are significant issues related to neighbourhood impacts, density, water, fire, net cost to the taxpayers, etc that will give many voters pause, despite all the green-washing and political advertising that will be brought to bear.
“UCD has been “dropping the ball” for decades and they will continue to do so unless the city gets tough.”
How exactly should the city “get tough” with UC Davis?
[quote]This post was censored, and now reposted in “sanitized” form. Under the pretence of deleting personal attacks, the Vanguard appears to be attempting to protect the Parlin project and shield their political allies and advisors from any scrutiny of their financial conflicts-of-interests.[/quote]Apparently my last post wasn’t sanitized enough, and the Vanguard unilaterally decided to remove the inconvenient factual information. Simply astonishing! Very troubling conduct for an organization that is presenting itself as a pending not-for-profit organized to “promote public discourse, be an information source, and to represent the “progressive” views of Davis as well as serve as a political forum.” More on this later.
***deleted***
First of all, when you post you agree to a user agreement. Second this is my site. I’m self-appointed because I own this site. Third, when I take something down that means it doesn’t go back up.
Let’s try again … further sanitized so as not to offend the Vanguard censor.
To put the quote highlighted above into a factual context, Mike Harrington owns an office complex and rents to:
1. Parlin Development
2. Ritter & Associates (Bill Ritter is a paid consultant to Parlin Development)
3. Talbott Solar (Talbott is the energy consultant for this application and will presumably play a major role in the solar portion of the development if approved)
We will have to leave it to the reader to decide if these facts constitute a conflict-of-interest, since my conclusion is being suppressed.