In a letter dated July 1, 2009, the city received a sustainability proposal from the Wildhorse Ranch developer and the project’s energy conservation consultants that will put the city of Davis back on the map in terms of environmental sustainability and innovative developments. The proposed Wildhorse Ranch development would achieve a 90% reduction in green house gas (GHG) emissions. A typical single family home will create around 5.5 metrics tons per year of GHG emissions. This proposal would reduce that number by 4.95 metric tons per residence to .55 metric tons per residence.
In April, the Davis City Council passed a resolution recommending GHG reduction thresholds and standards for new residential housing projects. It set as its initial goal a 2.4 metric ton reduction per residence, or a 44% reduction of GHG emission for new homes. This project more than doubles the city’s goals.
The Planning Commission is set to listen to the revised plan for the first time. In January 2008, the city council heard the original plan that was opposed by many neighbors and failed to impress much of the council. It was at this meeting, that councilmember Stephen Souza stated that this project did not meet the “Wow” factor in terms of innovation and environmental sustainability. The developer then threw out that project, hired a completely new staff, (including architects and designer) and working extensively with the neighbors redesigned the project.
As it currently stands, the project seeks to develop approximately 25.8 acres of land that have served as a horse ranch. The proposal calls for 191 dwelling units including 73 detached single-family units, 78 two and three-story attached single-family townhomes, and 40 apartments which include 38 affordable rental units.
Wildhorse Ranch is a Measure J vote as it requires a zoning change from agricultural to an urban use. Right now it is scheduled to be placed on the November ballot, per Measure J, where the citizens will decide on its worthiness.
Details of the Plan
It goes on to say that the developer, “Parlin Wildhorse, LLC is committed to maintaining the 90% overall reduction [of GHG emissions and energy usage].”
They use a three pronged approach to GHG emissions.
First, they will employ passive solar design which will reduce energy demand. One of the key aspects of this is the layout of the residences in an orientation that will minimize solar gain through east and west facades. They will also work to maximize the output of the photovoltaic installations.
In terms of walls, floors and roofs. They will utilize materials that will maximize the ability to hold energy from the sun and maximize insulation capacity. They do not believe they will need to use elaborate walls systems because the rest of the design is sound and these would be an additional expense. Their system will use overhangs and awnings to minimize solar gain through the windows as necessary to prevent summertime overheating. There will also be a passive ventilation system using the windows as well as an active system with circulation fans.
Second, they will design the building systems and equipment so as to reduce the overall energy use. According to Talbott, “In Davis, residential use by the heating and cooling system makes up about 50% of the entire energy use of the average homeowner.” To reduce this amount, the project will utilize passive thermal design combined with a high efficiency HVAC system or radiant heating and cooling to reduce heating and cooling use well under 2005 standards.
They intend to supplement this system with a low energy nighttime air circulation system.
They will also utilize equipment that is energy efficient for hot water, lighting, appliances, and they will monitor and meter the systems to verify their efficiency.
And finally, they will use a photovoltaic system and on site forestation to mitigate the resulting GHG emissions. Most of the remaining residential energy use will be mitigated through a photovoltaic system sized to produce an average of 2.4 kW per unit.
There will also be an orchard or urban forest that will contribute up to 10% of the GHG reduction plan through site wide temperature reduction, carbon capture, and sequestration.
The developers had hoped to actually gain more energy and GHG savings through an off-site photovoltaic farm that would have produced a surplus of energy that could have been sold back to the grid. However, that proved to be cost-prohibitive.
Additionally, the Wildhorse Ranch developer has pursued advocating for public policy changes to help new home builders increase energy conservation and the reduction of GHG. Current legislation AB 811 provides financing opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency installations. This provides cities and counties with financing for retrofitting existing homes and commercial buildings to improve their energy efficiency. The project developer wrote a letter to Senator Lois Wolk asking her to consider
“authoring new legislation that would either amend AB 811 to provide the same financial mechanism for use by new home builders and developers or to possibly create a companion law to do the same.”
They write:
“Finding new ways to be able to financially assist incorporating into every future home or building built in California the best designs and energy conservation technologies possible would go a long way to reducing our Green House Gas emissions, well below today’s standards and efforts. It only makes sense to do this at the front end of construction and not as a retrofit project.”
Neighborhood Opposition
While they seemed to make progress with the neighbors, on June 12, 2009, Phil Wyels, head of the Wildhorse East Neighborhood Association (WENA) informed Ike Njoku in the city’s Community Development Department of WENA’s opposition to the project.
“In summary, the Neighborhood Association’s members believe that the current proposal for 191 residential units, including a substantial number of three-story townhomes and apartments, is simply not compatible with the existing Wildhorse neighborhood. Many of the Neighborhood Association members are opposed to any development of the horse ranch, while others would accept an appropriately scaled down proposal.”
In the letter Mr. Wyels acknowledges that the meetings were fairly productive “in terms of understanding Parlin’s perspectives and communicating the residents’ concerns regarding Parlin’s August 2008 site plan. In fact, Parlin and the Neighborhood Association were able to arrive at conceptual agreement on several issues…”
However one of the big sticking points was the size of the project, 191 units.
“At the outset of the meetings, however, Parlin made it clear that the number of units (191) in its August 2008 site plan was not negotiable. The number and height of the units has continued to be the largest area of disagreement between Parlin and the Neighborhood Association.”
His letter continues with him stating that most of the respondents in a survey sent to WENA members and residents of eastern portion of Wildhorse, believe that “191 units are too many units for this site.”
However, Mr. Wyels seems to forget that in fact 191 units was a compromise number. The project that was introduced on January 29, 2009 was comprised of 259 units. Wildhorse Ranch was reduced by 68 units (27%) from 259 to 191. Moreover, while the neighbors are complaining about three story units, the original plan included four story units. These were all eliminated and the remaining three story units were surrounded by two story units to reduce impact. These changes were made at the behest of the neighbors and resulted from talks between the developer and the neighbors. This is completely ignored in the letter by Mr. Wyels to the city.
Mr. Wyels requests that the terms that were reached in agreement be left in place despite WENA’s opposition to the project.
“Despite the residents’ opposition to the project, the Neighborhood Association and Parlin Development were able to reach conceptual agreement on several project components that should become conditions of the project, if the City ultimately approves the project. The conditions… are designed to make the project more livable for its eventual residents and to reduce impacts to the existing neighbors. All of these conditions should be part of the development agreement, and some of them also need more permanent protections as specified.”
These agreements include parking, open space preservation, recreational facilities, orchard, and land dedication. Most of the agreements remain except for the last one.
Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday
In November of 2005, Covell Village would become the first test of Measure J. The Covell Village ballot measure known as Measure X was purported to be an environmentally innovative site but the voters rejected it as an overly large project that failed to deal with many potential detrimental impacts. That was a much larger project of nearly 2000 units. This one is one-tenth the size. It has environmental features that would make it among the most innovative not just in this city, but anywhere. To our knowledge, no project has achieved 90% reduction of GHG’s. In that way, it puts the wow into the wow factor. The question will remain however as to whether neighborhood opposition will resonate strongly enough to put a damper on this project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yes looks like it to me
There is nothing WOW-able about paving over a horse farm that we already voted on to be a horse farm (which is ag land), not a shoe-horned in residential development. What about all the arguments that the Vanguard just got done making about saving ag land?
Is decreasing green house gases the only criteria by which we judge a proposed housing development? I don’t think so. That is one of only many factors in my mind. I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about this project. However, what I have not heard is what its fiscal impacts will be to the city – a critical issue.
Will it cost the city money to build this development? If yes, then the developer needs to address that problem. In the past, we have allowed developers to build projects, and not absorb the costs to the city associated with it – the taxpayers have been expected to pick up the tab. That is not a practical solution in these tough economic times. Let the developer pay their fair share of these costs in mitigation. After all, it is the developer making the profit. So let the developer make less profit.
We need a new paradigm when it comes to housing development. One of the key criteria should be that there is an assessment of what cost to the city will result from a proposed project. Then those costs need to be placed at the developers door, not the taxpayers doorstep. The taxpayers’ collective pockets are tapped out right now.
I was under the impression that the “People’s Vanguard” was a forum for discussion with a somewhat progressive bias, but it appears that I was mistaken. This article makes it very clear that the Vanguard has clearly taken a pro-Parlin pro-development stand and has distorted the facts, as well as conducted a personal attack on Phil Wyels, who is one of the most honest people I know.
First: as anyone knows, a consultant paid by a developer has a clear incentive to say what the developer wants. We need to see the full report and have an honest critique of it, and not just accept it at face value. if the Vanguard wants to do the public a service, please post the entire report so that we can all look at it. I find it hard to believe that adding several hundred cars will reduce greenhouse gases. Is everyone in this development going to drive a Prius? What assumptions were made about commuting and gas mileage? The devil is in the details. It is also clear that given this location folks will have to drive everywhere (unless the City plans commercial development nearby which they have not told us about). How can that be environmnetally friendly? If this project was built as true infill closer to downtown it would obviously be more environmentally friendly.
Second: The statement that Parlin said the 191 units was not negotiable is simply dishonest and I find it very disturbing that a blog calling itself the “People’s Vanguard” woould simply quote the developer and/or its conulstants and not even have the decency to ask anyone from the Wildhorse East Neighborhood Association (WENA). WENA was told that “everything was on the table” a number of times and as recently as a few weeks ago. Even a junior high school reporter knows that one needs to check out statements such as this and get both sides of the story.
Overall this is a disturbing development and I urge Davis citizens to keep and open mind and not just trust whatever Parlin and its consultamts tell us.
[quote]Wow…as in what a disaster said . . .
There is nothing WOW-able about paving over a horse farm that we already voted on to be a horse farm (which is ag land), not a shoe-horned in residential development. What about all the arguments that the Vanguard just got done making about saving ag land? [/quote]
Setting aside the emotional aspects of this issue, can someone please answer for me what contribution the horse farm made to the Yolo County agricultural economy over the past five years? How many “horse days” of boarding did it generate in that same period? How many riding lessons did Davis residents (or Yolo County residents) receive at the horse ranch a year over that same period?
My View, the one aspect missing in your thoughtful post is the City’s need for workforce housing. Because of the relatively moderate income of a large proportion of the people who make up the Davis workforce, it is quite possible that the costs to the city for each workforce residential unit will exceed the revenues it generates fior the city. How do you think the need for workforce housing should be factored into your proposed calculations.
“My View, the one aspect missing in your thoughtful post is the City’s need for workforce housing. Because of the relatively moderate income of a large proportion of the people who make up the Davis workforce, it is quite possible that the costs to the city for each workforce residential unit will exceed the revenues it generates fior the city. How do you think the need for workforce housing should be factored into your proposed calculations.”
Good question Matt. But don’t you think that oftentimes the city has ended up in the red, bc it refuses to make the developer more responsible for mitigation costs of a project? I suspect in the past, developers have pretty much struck their own favorable deals, bc they contribute heavily to the campaigns of certain City Council members (= City Council majority). It is high time the City Council turned that around on developers, and made it clear developers must now pick up more of the tab for costs to the city, if they want to build in Davis. To me, that would be the WOW factor I am looking for!
Now, does that mean we get no workforce housing? Are you telling me that any proposal for workforce housing will be a net loss to developers, no matter how well planned? I honestly don’t believe that – I think that is nothing more than propaganda put out by developers. Let them get more innovative, and come up with a better solution. Better yet, let them also see if they can’t incorporate some business into every project, to bring in some tax revenue. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
I think too often we look at only one aspect of development – such as focusing exclusively on green house gas emissions ad nauseum. But one needs to look at the impacts of the project as a whole. It must address all the impacts, especilly fiscal impacts, particularly in this rotten economy.
If revenue is the issue then you could argue that all ag land should be developed into urban development since it would generate more revenue. But then we would pave away our food production too. We need to support all types of agriculture including livestock businesses.
I have seen this argument from you before Matt and the problem is clearly that these developers have run the farm into the ground to try to make their case that they should be allowed to it over. The revenue pitch you keep trying to make just does not resonate. Don’t pave it and the developers should sell the land to people will bring the farm back to how it used to be, a beautiful horse farm.
My View,
I personally think that the whole development fees issue needs to be looked at from top to bottom. A substantial proportion of the fees charged to developers are units-based. That means there is a significant disincentive for developers to build affordable housing (workforce or otherwise). The report that Paul Navasio gave to the HESC regarding the “breakeven” for the City at a sale price of between $400k and $450k can be refined to reflect number of residents projections based on how many bedrooms a new residence has. Revenues would be constant based on assessed value, but costs would vary substantially based on the projected number of residents.
Bottom-line, with a better tailored development fee structure we could accomplish the fiscal responsibility you advocate and not have built-in disincentives for workforce housing units.
[quote]If revenue is the issue then you could argue that all ag land should be developed into urban development since it would generate more revenue. But then we would pave away our food production too. We need to support all types of agriculture including livestock businesses.[/quote]
As noted in one of my prior responses, City Finance Director made a presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee that unless the sale price of the homes is between $400k and $450k each, housing generates negative revenue. Therefore, productive farmland generating positive revenues wins your “generate more revenue” test unless the development is for McMansions.
[quote]I have seen this argument from you before Matt and the problem is clearly that these developers have run the farm into the ground to try to make their case that they should be allowed to it over. The revenue pitch you keep trying to make just does not resonate. Don’t pave it and the developers should sell the land to people will bring the farm back to how it used to be, a beautiful horse farm.
[/quote]
That is exactly why I chose a five-year period. Feel free to extend the period to 10 years, even to 20 years, or even cherry pick selected years. My [u]question[/u] is (I’m not arguing for or against) essentially, can we safely say that this farm land is productive?
With regard to “people who will bring the farm back to how it used to be, a beautiful horse farm,” are there any people ready to do that? I personally would love to see that happen. While I’m not a rider myself, I grew up appreciating the superb horses my uncle rode. My wife and I made regular pilgrimages to the Will Rogers Coliseum to see the Cutting Horses do their thing. However, the realist in me wonders whether the facility just off 113 north of Davis hasn’t already addressed the demand for horse farm services in and around Davis.
I don’t get the claims here by those seeking to protect a small 25 acre plot that is non-productive farm land. Hey I understand folks don’t want a new housing project and they like the horse farm, but this is an opportunity.
The future of development has to be density and it has to be environmentally sustainable or we will not survive. Davis can become the leader again. No one is doing 90% sustainable right now. This far surpasses San Francisco’s standards which are the most stringent in the nation. This is a great project. The neighbors are going to lose their sitelines, but they are going to have a huge buffer and they would have had twenty additional feet added to their own properties had they reached agreement.
This is a very ambitious and progressive project, we all need to get behind it.
[quote]Looks like blog boy is on the payroll
Yes looks like it to me[/quote]
Would you prefer David not to have reported this story? Do you believe it isn’t news? Does the story encourage more citizen participation in the decision process? Are the citizens who wouldn’t have participated now better informed in their participation?
BTW, who is blog boy?
I believe Rich Rifkin identified that poster as Bobby Weist, the union boss for the Davis Firefighters Union. I think Bobby is just assuming that since he’s amoral and corrupt, everyone else must be as well.
Sad. The Vanguard seemed to be a fresh voice of independence. Now it seems to just be a vehicle for one developer to slam another–Covell Village, bad; Horse City, good. I’m not anti-growth per se, but I will not vote for ANY development until the infastructure issues of water, sewage, parking downtown, etc. are addressed. More and more housing without the requisite infrastructure serves only the interest of the developer de jour.
Did you want the Vanguard to be independence or oppose every project regardless of merits?
Thank you Matt. What contributions did the horse farm make:
1) Manure sales
2) Fruits and veggies (growing)
3) another reason for Bobbie the big union boss to attack David
This is not ag land. It has not been farmed in decades. It produces nothing for our community. And we did not vote on it to be a horse farm. We voted on whether or not Wildhorse should be developed. This property was never meant to remain as it is. Selling the property to someone else is not going to solve the problem. No one is going to convert this to ag land and actually farm it. If they tried, the neighbors would complain about the dust and the noise. If they tried to actually run it as a full blown horse ranch, the neighbors would complain about the dirt, the manure and the flies.
In fact, when the current owner purchased this property, it was already in a dismally run-down condition. The new owner immediately addressed the neighbors complaints about dust, weeds, smell of manure, flies and noise, even though he was not responsible for the condition. He spent thousands of dollars to return the ranch into good condition. When negotiations were under way in 2006 regarding a proposed housing development on the property, the neighbors actually professed a preference for housing there rather than the continued operation of a horse ranch, due to the previous condition of the site.
The current proposal is a result of compromise on the part of the project proponent to meet the concerns of the neighbors. The number of units were reduced, the building height were reduced, half the site is now a tree-filled buffer between the existing homes and the proposed new development. The project is more dense partly due to this concession to the neighbors.
We have to face the fact that if we are to be able to continue to feed ourselves and to retain our quality of life, we are going to have to grow more densely. We cannot continue to sprawl out, paving over all our valuable, productive farmland. We have to grow up and not out.
This project has many wow factors. It clusters the houses on the eastern side, away from the neighbors, with several acres of open space on site. It reduces the impacts of the three story units by surrounding them with the two story units to give a stepped-up appearance rather than sheer walls. It incorporates an urban forest both for its aesthetic impacts and to sequester GHGs. It uses passive solar design to reduce energy demand; it uses photovoltaics to mitigate for GHG emissions; it reduces energy use and GHG emissions to at least 50% below the 2005 Title 24 standards; it proposes to reduce total GHG project emissions by an overall 90%; it greatly exceeds the city’s Green Building ordinance targets. Until now, developers have all argued against having to use 100% photovoltaics in their projects, claiming that it is too costly. This developer is showing us that it can be done. This project should serve as a model for all future development in Davis.
Parlin Development is to be commended for reducing the GHG emissions by 90%, or more than twice what the City was recommending for other new residential projects.
When I was on the CC, I used to have to beg and plead to get 3 votes to require significant new projects to reduce only 10% from 2000 Title 24 standards, which were far worse than the 2005 stds that serve as the current bench mark. The applicants would complain and gripe to staff about the cost, and often I could not muster a 3rd vote to require even a 10% reduction. During that time, Talbot Solar (Dean Newberry, raised here, UCD grad in environmental science) told me that the applicants could easily reduce GHG by 50%, and if memory serves me, the electric energy task force members thought that Dean was in the ballpark.
However, this was all pre- Al Gore Noble, UN Climate Report, etc. So I had little political traction with 3 votes on the CC.
Now, of course, the tide has turned.
And the 90% GHG reduction from Parlin puts this project, and the City, on the planning map for this state, and possibly the country as well.
Does anyone know of a similar reduction requirement by any jurisdiction, or any sizeable residential development?
My 2003 office building pretty much blows the Title 24 reduction doors off any other commercial building that I know of. Talbot Solar designed and built the hydronic heating and cooling systems, and the rooftop PV systems. Dean worked with Scott Neeley Architects on the building envelope technical features. My electric bills are a small fraction of comparable size buildings, and I like not having to fund PG&E to the max.
On a note about some local history, local notable Marshall Hunt and friends wrote the 1976 Davis Energy Code, which became Title 24, binding on all buildings statewide. Way to go, Marshall!
The Parlin 90% GHG reduction is going to have far-reaching implications that benefit us all, similar to the 1976 Davis Energy Code.
One more thing: I heard last week that after encouragement by our open space coordinator, Mitch Sears, that Parlin voluntarily has also bought an extra 15 acres of wildlife habitat to dedicate to the City, over and above the now-standard 2-to-1 acreage mitigation. The extra habitat is in a really good place for the animals.
I wish someone would post more about the extra habitat.
My View: [quote]But don’t you think that oftentimes the city has ended up in the red, bc it refuses to make the developer more responsible for mitigation costs of a project? [/quote] Mitigation fees are one-time short-term revenues to the city. Even if they are too low, and maybe they are in Davis, that does not explain why residential development projects (almost always) are deemed to be a net negative for the City of Davis.
My sense is that there are two reasons for this: 1. Because we have such a huge (25%) low-income housing requirement (which is actually down from the 50% that would have been in place with Covell Village), new housing developments don’t generate sufficient property tax revenues for the city. (Single-family market rate housing does, however.); and 2. Because we have for the last decade greatly increased the salaries, benefits and pensions we pay all city employees, it just simply costs us much more than we can afford to hire new employees who are needed to service a larger population.
The answer, then, is to reverse these two policies. Instead of requiring developers to build out 25% low income housing, we could impose some kind of low-income housing nitigation fee on new developments. A developer could then build all market-rate housing*, which is not a fiscal negative for Davis, and the city could distribute the low-income mitigation money to poor residents to augment their rents. As far as overcompensating city employees in the long term, that needs to happen in the new employee contracts. We simply cannot go on paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to hundreds of employees and retirees for the City of Davis.
*Market-rate housing does not have to all be large single-family homes. We could zone for more townhomes and apartment complexes. And if lot sizes in new developments are modest, then the homes on them will be affordable to a wider segment, than if they are large lots.
[quote]I believe Rich Rifkin identified that poster as Bobby Weist, the union boss for the Davis Firefighters Union. I think Bobby is just assuming that since he’s amoral and corrupt, everyone else must be as well.[/quote]I did not identify anyone as Bobby Weist. I’m not sure who the “blog boy” person is. I wish everyone would just use his or her real name and thus have to stand behind his or her opinions, right or wrong.
Wow David:
You fail to mention that the EIR for the project lists “climate change” as significant and unmitigateable consequence of this proposed development, so are you now saying that this a non climate change or neutral project? Also, “concerned neighbor” makes a good point regarding all the new cars that will be added to the 191 units, are they to be accounted at all for their impact;
Lastly David, you spoke up at the Tues 6/30 meeting against the Chiles Ranch development and support of the local neighbor’s struggles with the developers over the project size, but here you castigate WENA for doing the same thing with Parlin; why the difference, is that the project’s paid community consultant may also be running your wife’s next attempt for City Council…mmmm, makes one wonder????
Davis Vanguard, a site paid for by Parlin Development Co.!!!
I’m not sure yet my own views on this particular project. I did have a short conversation last year with the developer, and he struck me as a very decent guy who wanted to have a quality project that fits in with Davis. As it is described, it seems to me to be a very good plan with a lot of positive attributes. However, my ultimate view will be formed by answers to these questions:
1. What are the long-run fiscal repercussions to the city? (I hope the council will reform its policies which make residential developments harmful to the city budget.) Because WHR is relatively small, my guess is that its fiscal effects will be small, but negative;
2. Is the harm to the existing Wildhorse neighbors unreasonably bad? By that I mean, will the new development cause their home values to seriously deteriorate? I don’t think we should approve projects which destroy the quality of life for existing residents. However, I don’t think we should let NIMBY’s dictate city policies. If they would object to any development, then I’m less inclined to be persuaded by their objections. If their objections are largely based on this projects’ density — which very well may be a sound objection — then the city of Davis is going to have to change its policy with regard to residential density. It’s unfair to the developer to force him to build on very small lots and then tell him his project is unacceptable because it is too dense;
3. What will the impacts be on the nearby infrastructure and the infrastructure of the city as a whole? Same questions with regard to the environment (air pollution, etc); and
4. Does the project meet the housing needs (such as apartments) of Davis? I don’t doubt that over the next decade we will need more single family housing, here. However, I doubt we need any now. And given the handful of already approved infill projects, I wonder if it makes sense to add more single family homes to our supply? If it doesn’t, I could still vote for the project under the assumption that this developer and others won’t build homes if they are money losers. They’ll wait until the market picks up.
Beside the fact that WHR is itself fairly small, a thing which makes this project more acceptable in general is that the property is itself in the city limits and surrounded by development on three sides. Although it long has been a weed field, I mean a horse field, it is the kind of property which makes sense to develop, as opposed to land which is on our periphery and surrounded by other farms.
“You fail to mention that the EIR for the project lists “climate change” as significant and unmitigateable consequence of this proposed development, so are you now saying that this a non climate change or neutral project?”
The EIR to my knowledge was done prior to them achieving 90% mitigation of GHGs. At that time, I think it was 60%. It’s not at 100%, so it’s obviously carbon neutral, but it’s pretty darn close. Are you really going to quibble at this point about the last 10% which they would apparently like to mitigate for, but haven’t figured out how.
Sorry Yolo Watcher, but don’t think for a minute that progressives are going to vote to pave this ag land over if it is put on the ballot for a Measure J vote. And by the way, the Wildhorse horse farm IS ag land, and although that may be inconvenient for your position. I find it amazing that you preach for saving ag land one minute (under various posting names such as “save ag land” and “protect ag land”) and now on this particular site you seem to have some stake in getting it developed.
There is nothing “green” about paving over ag land and the horse farm is ag land being used for an ag use.
To WOW:
The EIR actually states, “Although the proposed project would implement several design standards to reduce energy use well below 2009 Title 24 Standards, as well as ensure overall consistency with the latest GHG reduction measures identified by the California Attorney General, a single project cannot, on its own, feasibly mitigate impacts associated with the large-scale issue of global climate change; therefore the impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change would remain significant.” This makes no sense. How can anyone expect a single project of any kind to mitigate impacts of global climate change.
I think what the EIR consultant was trying to say is that since it is not completely carbon neutral, it still contributes some GHG toward global warming. BUT it reduces those emissions by 90% from what a “normal” development emits. Are you implying that we shouldn’t even try to reduce our GHG emissions? Because if not, then you should not be castigating David for bringing the issue of GHG reduction to light.
The issue of the Chiles neighbors is very different than here. The issue with the Chiles proposal is that the neighbors met for two years in good faith with the developer and signed onto a Letter of Areement on the project. Now the developers are reneging on that agreement and adding extra units to the project. That did not happen here. The developer here reduced the number of units from 259 to 191 to meet concerns of the neighbors and that number remains.
[quote]. . . the horse farm is ag land being used for an ag use.[/quote]
Is there any [u]evidence[/u] to support this statement, or is there only anecdotal commentary?
My thoughts on this proposal are very similar to Rich Rifkin’s. However, since I am a strong advocate for protecting productive ag land, if I were provided with something concrete (no pun intended) that will connect with my ag preservation instincts, I’m open to hearing it. With that said, thus far there have only been anecdotes.
First, let’s not confuse us with using other people’s monikers, it’s hard enough when we aren’t using our real names (myself guilty as charged).
“There is nothing “green” about paving over ag land and the horse farm is ag land being used for an ag use.”
I think that’s the point in question. Is there nothing green about building an environmentally sustainable project on a small portion of farm land that is not being used to grow crops right? I just don’t buy that.
To “Sorry Yolo Watcher”:
I think you may be surprised at progressive support for the Wildhorse Ranch proposal. I am a long-time progressive and support it. So do many, many of my progressive friends. I, and they, recognize that this is not productive farmland, has not been for decades, and will not be again. However, many progressives do see the plus in building a really environmentally sustainable project, that can help point the way for other future projects and put Davis back on the “green” map, on a small piece of land that is not being used for crops or any thing else that benefits the community.
Three story townhouses sound awful to me. I guess they are good for the young who don’t want to pay gym fees. I was in one in Virginia it was wide enough for two cars in the garage and deep enough for two more if you were filling the downstairs with cars. Most of the space was filled with stairs. I thought it was an awful way to live but it certainly is dense. It also will leave other areas available for senior housing that is one story.
We are once again seeing complaints from the neighbors about density just as we did on Chiles Ranch. Is this the pattern we can expect that people want density in new housing except when it is near where they live. I would prefer larger lots and a great deal of peripheral growth with large greenbelts, parks and access to public transit. There is lots of room to grow on if only there wasn’t this worship of ag land. Economically, housing beats ag land everytime, hence the need for the Williamson Act.
On taxes people are complainig about if the project pays for itself as if people who live in houses that have huge tax savings through prop 13 pay for themselves.
On whether or not we need the housing as long as property values in Davis are twice what they are in Woodland, West Sac and Dixon it is eveident that Davis needs more housing. As long as University workers and students can afford the transportation costs from the savings generated through reduced rents and mortgages by living in nearby communitites the carbon footprint of all new housing in Davis will reduce global warming.
On whether new housing is environmentally friendly enough I wonder if those demanding it are stepping up on their own homes and real estate investments making them as green as they insist others to be.
Dear Wow:
I’ve been expecting your questions toward me, so I want to address them.
I am not and was not opposed to development at Chiles Ranch. In fact, talking with a number of the Sunrise Neighborhood Association members and other neighbors close to the project, neither are they. My concern there was that they the neighborhood association had reached a signed agreement with the developers to support the project and the city pressured the developers to back out of it. From a procedural standpoint that is my chief concern.
I also have specific concerns about the Chiles Ranch project. The Chiles Ranch developers agreed to a buffer of around 50 feet. The Wildhorse Ranch developers agreed to between 100 feet to over a 400 foot buffer with an average of 180 feet from the existing property owners to the proposed development’s structures. The Chiles Ranch neighbors would have been happy with 100 frankly, but agreed to 50, even then the city encroached upon it another 7%.
Moreover, I don’t think the Chiles Ranch project is exceedingly innovative environmentally. Yes, they have surpassed the very modest goals of the city in terms of Title 24, but pale in comparison to wild horse.
There was also the agreement between the Chiles Ranch developer and the neighbors on the number of units that was violated when the city and/ or developers tried to lop on granny flats after the signed agreement.
Under those conditions, I cannot accept the current proposal at Chiles.
It doesn’t do enough environmentally and they violated their agreement with the neighbors.
When Bill Ritter, a long time friend of my wife and a friend of myself agreed to take on the Wildhorse Ranch project, I told him that I badly wanted a project that I could support. I am not anti-growth or development, but I think we have gone about development the wrong way. We have built many neighborhoods that are simply tract housing and could be thrown down anywhere, they are too large, not nearly dense enough, and in short unsustainable.
He and the WHR developer got the project to 60% GHG reduction, but I wanted to see them get better than San Francisco standards. It is only now when they have reached 90% that I have become favorable toward the project.
From my vantage point WHR did a good faith effort to meet the needs of the neighbors. I don’t believe they could do this project at below 191 units and have it be the project that it is, the neighbors got them to drop it from 259 to 191, a reduction of 68 units. That seems like a decent compromise since I’ve heard the number 150 thrown out. They got rid of the fourth stories, but kept some third stories, surrounding them with second story units. From the purposes of site line given the trees and second stories that will be there anyway, it seems unlikely the adjacent neighbors will even notice the third stories set back at the closest more than 138 feet from the existing property line.
I think it’s a good project and it’s the type of innovative design that I want to encourage. They are not paving over currently utilized farmland. And they are only taking 25.8 acres of property that is surrounded by three sides by urban usage. Seems ideal to me and I am glad that I held out to this point.
Does my support have anything to do with Bill Ritter being one of the consultants? Yes it does. Bill was able to design a project that met many of my needs and our community’s needs that other consultants have either not asked for or not obtained. (1) environmental innovation; (2) density; (3) minimal impact on farmland; (4) relatively small 25 acres, 191 units.
I would encourage the neighbors to continue to work with Bill and the entire staff. I think there can still be things that may be improved upon.
For the record, Bill did not run Cecilia’s campaign last time. He was a strong supporter and helped a lot on her campaign. I do not know when or if Cecilia will run again in the future. My friendship with Bill in any case, extends well beyond his relationship to my wife’s theoretical next campaign.
This is a nice little project to put J through its paces in the modern era of climate change, much tougher EIR standards, tough economic times. If the community uncovers any procedural problems with J, this project will show them long before the June 2010 vote to renew J.
The extraordinary 90% GHG reduction from the tough 2005 Title 24 standards, plus the 15 extra acres for wildlife habitat that Parlin bought voluntarily, should go a long way to helping the Davis progressive community support this project.
I am a long time progressives too and all the progressives that I know are opposed to this project so clearly you do not represent the progressive community.
To “Does not represent progressives::
My goodness! Calm down! Take some deep breaths!
Please! I have never claimed to represent the progressive community. I am simply stating my own position, that I am a long-time progressive and do support the WHR project. And I have spoken to a large number of my friends who are also progressives and who also support the project.
It is very nice that you are a long-time progressive too and that you know a lot of “progressives” who don’t support the project. This will make for a very interesting campaign. I look forward to it.
[quote]I am a long time progressives too and all the progressives that I know are opposed to this project so clearly you do not represent the progressive community.[/quote]Why are you unwilling to use your name? I don’t doubt you are honest in your views. But if you then say many other folks are in your camp, it lacks credibility when you won’t say who you are.
To those of you out there in cyberspace that take any of this at face value — beware. The Vanguard is enmeshed with a cabal of neo-progressive insiders that has been partially co-opted by Parlin Development.
Yolo Watcher (unintentionally) summed it up best …
“I think you may be surprised at progressive support for the Wildhorse Ranch proposal.”
I sure am. Let’s start with what’s clearly visible …
Mike Harrington (former CC member and progressive thought leader) –
Landlord to Parlin Development
Landlord to Talbott Solar (energy consultant for the Parlin project)
Landlord to Bill Ritter
Bill Ritter (long time progressive activist and close friend of the Greenwalds) –
Paid consultant to Parlin Development
Here we have two prominent progressives that support this particular project taking cash directly from the developers.
The real question, or course, is what’s going on that we can’t see? Are there other financial conflicts of interest? What are the hidden connections between the Vanguard and the people that post anonymously? To what extent is the progressive support for this project based on alliances rather than the merits of the project?
“Yolo Watcher” said:
[quote]I am a long-time progressive and support it. So do many, many of my progressive friends.[/quote]
Rich Rifkin said:
[quote]Why are you unwilling to use your name? I don’t doubt you are honest in your views. But if you then say many other folks are in your camp, it lacks credibility when you won’t say who you are.[/quote]
Perhaps “Yolo Watcher” might also consider disclosing their relationship(s), if any, with the Vanguard, Ritter, Harrington, and/or Parlin Development.
Perhaps you can start with yourself if you are asking people to disclose themselves.
I am more than willing toget this ball rolling. I admire and respect David for creating the Vanguard, but have [u]absolutely[/u] no relationships to either David or Cecilia Greenwald. I barely know Bill Ritter, much less have had any relationships with him at any time. Mike Harrington and I went to Housing Element Steering Committee meetings every two weeks for over a year, he as an HESC member and I as a meeting observer. Other than those mutual presences in the same room, Mike and I have never had any relationship. I’ve spoken with Parlin Development’s owner maybe a dozen times. Everything I have seen and heard tells me that he is an honorable and honest person trying to make money while making the communities he is a part of better places. With that said, I have never had any relationship to Parlin Development or any of its individual principals and/or employees.
With all that said, I am still waiting for someone to provide any evidence of the agricultural productivity or productivity potential of the horse ranch property.
To all you bloggers who characterize this opposition to this project is solely from WENA neighbors (who you so derogatoraly label as NIMBY), beware; there are as many of us in other parts of Wildhorse (away from Carvaggio and adjacent streets) who are equally in opposition to this high density project for various concerns, not to mention the ones that have already been spelled out in the EIR-including the potential for stretching already thin city fire department responses, change of visual scenery to our existing developments, which is lined with “open space” (I don’t care if it’s horses or weeds or later alfalfa, it’s OPEN SPACE (how many of you would like the scale of these three-story apartment towers and density to go up in your neighborhoods, not many for sure; certainly not you Matt Williams in El Macero nor you “Yolo Watcher” in Slide Hill!) the article today by David Greenwald (fueled by his friendship with Bill Ritter’s incompetence) has served as a “lightning rod” to stir up the opposition among all of Wildhorse, and soon to be other adjacent neighbors, and as “Yolo Watcher” said: “This will make for a very interesting campaign. [we]look forward to it!”
Waking . . .
Before you call someone out as you have done above, do your homework. Perhaps a good place to start would be to listen to recent Planning Commission meetings on the City website.
Before you call out other people, perhaps you should have the courage to use your own name.
With that said, the points you make have merit. The horse ranch may not be productive ag land, but it certainly is open space.
So, correct me if I am wrong, in your mind the choice is between open space and housing for the Davis workforce. Is that correct?
If it is correct, what is your plan for addressing housing for Davis’ workforce? My dad always said that pointing out a problem was a whole less valuable to the community than pointing out a problem as well as possible solutions to that problem.
I’m trying not to laugh at the irony of residents of Wildhorse complaining about housing going in next to them. How in the world can a resident of Wildhorse possibly think that THEIR development didn’t stretch the fire department, add to parking problems downtown, or ruin the scenery? There were a lot of people who were just as upset when Wildhorse was built.
Because you are listening to people who are either fools or are feeding you lies. A year and a half ago you had a project that was not innovative at all, it was at 259 units, it had a host of other units, it had four story buildings, but you know what the council majority wouldn’t kill it. They probably have reluctantly put through a modified version of it and you’d be stuck with a crappy project and you know what at 25 acres and even 259, there is no way in the world you would have defeated a Measure J vote.
Now look what you got–far better project, better mitigation, better buffer, fewer units, no four story buildings. Instead of being happy that the developer worked with you for a year and a half, you are pissing in his face talking about a war that no one will fight, no one will care about, and even the slow growth community is at best split on.
You have NO CHANCE of winning this. None.
You want to fight this? That’s not going to gain you anything. Go negotiate. You’ve lost this fight. If you split the progressive community, you’ll lose the fight and the war. You think Wild Horse is bad, imagine what happens when they develop North East Mace. You think the Signature and Shriner’s properties aren’t next? Put the pro-development forces firmly in charge they are. Cut your loses, at least you have a cool project going in and save your energy for the real fight. Eileen Samitz can’t save you, she almost single-handed handed victory to Covell Village, fortunately the progressives launched a coup and put real leadership into place.
“..what is your plan for addressing housing for Davis’ workforce?”
Well, why don’t we refer to a previous blog by the Vanguard’s esteemed editor [dated April 12, 2009]:
“…She [Katherine Hess] 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”; not to mention the now recently approved 129 units at Chiles Ranch by the City Council…
[quote]Perhaps you can start with yourself if you are asking people to disclose themselves.
[/quote]No thanks. After you.
Please share the names of the Vanguard trolls with your unsuspecting readership.
I have no ability to tell you. However, I would suggest you probably do not have standing to complain.
I’d further suggest to you that most of the people on here were not “trolls” they had a point to make, they did so under the rules afforded to them on this site. Trolls generally have no point to make other than to disrupt and disturb. Few fit that definition in this thread. I suggest you stick to your points of argument and worry about conducting yourself in a courteous and civil manner.
[quote]Well, why don’t we refer to a previous blog by the Vanguard’s esteemed editor [dated April 12, 2009]:
“…She [Katherine Hess] 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”; not to mention the now recently approved 129 units at Chiles Ranch by the City Council…[/quote]
The proportion of the 200 housing units currently on the market that have prices in the affordability range needed for workforce housing is miniscule. How many does Grande have? New Harmony is definitely in the affordable category, but it is 0% owner-occupied . . . and has a pre-existing waiting list that far exceeds the number of planned units. Simmons/Chiles is a step in the right direction. Verona is on indefinite hold. Willowbank Park will have a grand total of 6 affordable units.
Bottom-line what you have presented isn’t a plan, it is a piecemeal patchwork quilt.
For all your comments for others to “expose” their true identities, I think it is quite pathetic (and even desperate)that you post to your own blog under pseudonyms, is this your way of showing your buddy Bill Ritter how much “support” you have stirred up for him and Parlin; on 6/30 you stated at City Council that Chiles Ranch was the “same old crappy housing” that Davis is used to, and now as “Wake up neighbors”, you’re posting “you’d be stuck with a crappy project”, ironic, I don’t think so….
This is a great project and I hope it gets passed. We my neighbors and I) appreciate the work that Parlin Development has done to make this project an innovative developments and take into account energy conservation.
This is a much better project than Cannery Park and Covell Village. This project will definitely put the city of Davis on the map. We are glad to finally be able to support a good project in Davis.
Is your real name David Greenwald by chance?
Why all the character assassination?
Can’t we just stick to the merits and demerits of the proposed project?
I have to question anybody who cannot speak to why they support or oppose a project and instead resort to name calling instead of intelligent discussion.
I appreciate the work that Parlin has done and I appreciate the work that David does with the blog. If there are those who do not appreciate it and can’t respect differing opinions then there is a simple solution: don’t read the blog and don’t post.
Do you ever post anonymously?
Does the Vanguard have a Board of any kind?
If so, do these individuals post anonymously?
Whether it is your intention or not, the Vanguard has a huge amount of control over the progressive debate and your readers have a right to know to what extent that debate is being shaped secretly by Vanguard affiliates (I’ll concede your point re: the definition of “troll”).
Regarding my standing to complain, I’m quite certain that I have more standing than you … but we’ll never know, will we?
Matt, from what I have read in the Davis Enterprise you have effectively fought off ANY growth to your El Macero neighborhood which is outside of Davis city limits. This was primarily thanks to your support of (then) Supervisor Mariko Yamata who ran successfully for Assembly who opposed the County General Plan developing the ag land adjacent to your El Macero neighborhood. I congratulate you also for recently warding off any potential additional flood insurance fees for your El Macero (Yolo County) neighborhood.
However, my concern is how can you advocate so strongly to impose much higher densities in other neighborhoods in Davis when your Yolo County neighborhood is only 3 units per acre? Frankly, I would be rather embarrassed to try to advocate for significantly higher density housing in a different Davis neighborhood, when I just recently successfully warded off any residential in my own El Macero (Yolo County) neighborhood which is less than 3 units per acre.
[quote]fortunately the progressives launched a coup and put real leadership into place[/quote]
Can you please tell me who the leadership of the progressives is? This is a serious question.
I find it funny that people think they know who people are when they write using nom de plumes. You people don’t know who is posting any better than you know who Thomas Pynchon, B.Travers or J.D. Salinger are. I post under various names only to protect my family not to protect myself. Some of you don’t live with spouses or children who don’t want you using your name but you should respect that people want to be anonymous. Maybe it does make your post have less weight if you don’t sign it but if you make a cogent argument that shouldn’t really matter. Having said all this I have no financial connection to any developer but would like to buy a house if a decent one ever becomes available at an affordable price. I just thank god for my landlord who doesn’t gouge me on the rent and keeps Davis affordable for people like me who have refused to bury their family under a ridiculous mortgage because Davis is so overpriced due to lack of growth. Go to Foreclousureradar.com and look at all the forclosures in Davis. Its true that there are not as many as in Woodland or Dixon but there are about 60 right now in 95616 and 95618. I remember someone responding to an earlier post I made months ago about how I should have no expectation that housing I could afford should be built. I fall in a weird place, I make too much money to afford affordable housing but not enough to be able to afford decent housing in Davis. We could go to Dixon or Woodland and afford something nice easily but we have lived here for a long time, my wife having a professional degree from UCD, and would like to stay and want excellent schools for the kids so we stay in rented space and wait for all of you to get over your sense of entitlement demanding things such as open space on property you don’t own. You want open space go buy it.
As for Matt Williams, please see my previous post about my vision for large lots, parks and greenbelts like you would find in El Macero instead of three story green ghetto style densificated tenements. Both Matt and I are correct when we ask the people who want densification and the people who don’t want densification in the neighborhood they live in to come to terms with the reality of the conflict. Still I would go further and argue that measure J should be abolished and Davis should Double its size by building out all frontier properties with a flood of supply on large lots that will reduce the prices of homes so that they are affordable for working people and students. Of course people who own and may already be underwater on their mortgages have an interest in restricting supply and keeping prices unaffordable through exclusionary land use policies just don’t condemn me for wanting what is in my own interest or a developers. When you cut through much of the argument its all about self interest on some level so let’s stop with all the name calling and vitriol and just accept everyones view as valid for their own purposes.
To paranoid poster posting as “To: David the reporter,”
Good night. Don’t you have to wake up early for work? If you have so much standing why are you wasting your time on this blog?
To sarcastic poster posting as “Late night blog reader”.
Thanks for making my point about trolls. Any affiliation with the Vanguard you’d like to disclose?
Paranoid poster calling me David the reporter,
Yes, I do have an affiliation with the Vanguard. I read the Vanguard to get my information about issues in Davis. I also read the Vanguard to get a late night laugh when Letterman is not on and when paranoid posters can’t debate an issue and instead attack as some others have previously stated.
Do you have any sour grapes you would like to disclose?
I happen to like this project from what I have seen and I look forward to learning more about it. Someone asked “Isn’t it past your bed time?”
[quote]Matt, from what I have read in the Davis Enterprise you have effectively fought off ANY growth to your El Macero neighborhood which is outside of Davis city limits. This was primarily thanks to your support of (then) Supervisor Mariko Yamata who ran successfully for Assembly who opposed the County General Plan developing the ag land adjacent to your El Macero neighborhood. I congratulate you also for recently warding off any potential additional flood insurance fees for your El Macero (Yolo County) neighborhood.[/quote]
The answer to that question is easy. When the back room negotiations that were going on between the developers and a small group of people, we did two things. 1) we listened to what the Yolo County Planning Commission had to say about the land around El Macero {specifically that it 1) was scientifically scored as “prime” and 2) had “productively” produced commercial crops for well over a decade. We didn’t make the decision, the Planning Commission did. We didn’t even know they were about to make that decision. Once the decision was made we actively supported both the decision itself, as well as the wisdom of the decision. Mariko wasn’t involved in the Planning Commission decision at all. Her first involvement was when Planning Department Staff brought the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Supervisors. If anything, Mariko leaned toward the theoretical Senior Services marketing message that the developer carried to her in the early stages of the discussions. So if you are going to criticize us for anything feel free to criticize us for supporting the existing governmental processes.
[quote]However, my concern is how can you advocate so strongly to impose much higher densities in other neighborhoods in Davis when your Yolo County neighborhood is only 3 units per acre? Frankly, I would be rather embarrassed to try to advocate for significantly higher density housing in a different Davis neighborhood, when I just recently successfully warded off any residential in my own El Macero (Yolo County) neighborhood which is less than 3 units per acre.[/quote]
I’ve addressed this issue before. My wife and I arrived in town in July 1998 looking for rentals. We walked into the local real estate offices. Were they helpful? Marginally . . . They had virtually nothing to show and even less interest in showing it to us. They pointed us to some of the rental agencies. When we arrived there after pushing through the gaggles of students hanging around the front entrances, we were told more than once, “You don’t want to rent from us. Our units are full of students. You would be out of place old man and old woman. Please take your Cocker Spaniel and try somewhere else.
So we went back to Tennessee and decided on a price range we could afford to purchase, as well a minimum set of requirements for our Cocker Spaniel (fenced yard, etc). The house we bought was close to 20 years old . . . young by El Macero standards. There wasn’t a whole lot to choose from in the price range we could afford. So if you want me to be embarrassed about a lot size decison that was made close to 40 years ago, when I was still an undergraduate in college, then be my guest. Gasoline was less than 25 cents a gallon then as well. Should I be embarassed about that as well?
Other than asking me to be be embarassed about supporting Yolo County’s support of its agricultural economy, or being embarassed about advocating at the Davis Planning Commission last Wednesday for more density at Willowbank Park, which abuts El Macero, what exactly would you like me to do to make my walk consistent with my talk?
You misread my post. The “To: David the reporter” was the name I was posting under (and not actually addressed to you). That part was the “To sarcastic poster posting as “Late night blog reader”.” sentence. Your writing skills make it fairly obvious that you are not David Greenwald. Good night.
This is all very interesting but the truth of the matter is that there is nothing in this project that is needed. Why are we considering a measure J vote (we know it works) when we have plenty of opportunities to build without a vote? The Cannery site is a perfect example. If it hadn’t been derailed at the last moment for no real reason, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It might be interesting to see if it makes a miraculous recovery after this project runs its course. There are also other projects in the mill that will provide additional housing and don’t require the loss of the ranch. The initial “report” smacks of a developer’s sales pitch rather than a true report.
The big issue is “why are we letting this developer bully this project through?” The City had good vision by setting the horse ranch aside when the Wildhorse development was approved. The problem is that there was nothing specified to encourage owners of the property to invest in the horse ranch itself so each owner has believed that they can buy low, propose a housing development with some current buzz words and make a killing instead of actually trying to do the right thing and provide a truly progressive horse ranch.
I think we all know at some point the whole Covell/Mace curve will be developed and it would make perfect sense to send a message to all developers that residential development will not be considered until a plan for the land to the east is approved. This will assure that there is consistency in the area. Does it really make sense to construct 3-story apartments and condos on outskirts of town in an area where similar structures do not exist?
[quote]Tenements said . . .
Still I would go further and argue that measure J should be abolished and Davis should Double its size by building out all frontier properties with a flood of supply on large lots that will reduce the prices of homes so that they are affordable for working people and students. Of course people who own and may already be underwater on their mortgages have an interest in restricting supply and keeping prices unaffordable through exclusionary land use policies just don’t condemn me for wanting what is in my own interest or a developers. When you cut through much of the argument its all about self interest on some level so let’s stop with all the name calling and vitriol and just accept everyones view as valid for their own purposes.[/quote]
Three months ago I went to my brother’s wedding in Tucson. I first visited Tucson 40 years ago. At that time it was a University town very much like Davis is now . . . with a population history over the previous decade that is very much like what you describe. Anyone who visited Tucson then knows unequivocally that the Tucson of today has lost close to 100% of the character and characteristics that it had then. It nothing like a University town any longer. Is that a fate that Davis must repeat? You appear to believe it is? Why? Or said another way, what is the “greater good” that is going to be achieved by “Doubling its size by building out all frontier properties with a flood of supply on large lots that will reduce the prices of homes so that they are affordable for working people and students.
You don’t have to go any further than Roseville to see the effect of what you propose. Do you find the quality of life in Roseville appealing? What you propose for Davis would be worse, because the builders/developers wouldn’t build the affordable homes you want them to build. Left to their own devices they are going to build big houses on thos big lots, and because so many UCD alumni enjoyed their days in Davis so much the external demand for McMansions in Davis will result in more than enough people who will move from Sacramento and other locations to Davis, and then commute to their jobs in Sacramento and other locations. Bottom-line, good people like you who contribute to Davis every day will be still renting and Davis will be very much like Tucson is today . . . interesting, but no longer a University town.
I’m going to say this once, and I hope people read it. I have not deleted a single post on here in a very long time and that was spam. I don’t want to start now. Quit trying to out people or get people to out themselves–especially when you yourself refuse to post under your real name. The next post that does that will be deleted the next time I am on here.
For those who oppose the project, explain why. Argue your points. For those who support the project, do the same. Have a discussion here. That’s what this blog is about and hopefully we will learn something from each other in the process.
I like this project and I support it. It’s amazing that people claim to support innovative and good for the environment but if their pet project does not get selected then they do not want innovative.
The Cannery site was not a good example of innovative. It was the same ol’ same ol’ tract housing. The congestion that it would have caused was mind boggling. I find it hard to believe that someone can support that monstrosity of a project and not support this project that is a smaller scale project. The way I see it is to support Cannery is to support Covell Village. One will lead to another.
I hope that Cannery does not come back. It would be a waste of time, money, effort.
It’s time that this community start thinking innovative once again instead of just giving lip service. Let’s support this project and let it be the standard for future projects.
Thank you for staying on top of this issue David. From the nasty comments from some posters I’m sure it’s not easy, but we appreciate your efforts and the time you spend keeping us informed.
Thousands of people a year come to my office complex for meetings. They walk right up my brick driveway. Past my business listing. The one that Eileen took a photo of after she worked in my conference room with her board members until after midnight. I have some really great tenants. I proudly put their names out front, on the street sign. Including Eileen’s organization.
The 90% reduction in GHG makes this project really unique. Stick to the issues.
To “Alternative”:
The city did not set aside the land where the horse ranch is. There is no easement on that property and no restrictions on its use. Please feel free to verify this with the city. The local proponents of the project wanted that land to be set aside in perpetuity to make up, somehow, for the development of the much larger piece of farmland that was paved over for the Wildhorse development. There was never any requirement that this land remain a horse ranch.
This developer is not “bullying” this project through. I have met the developer on two or three occasions and find him to be a very nice, honest and honorable man. He is truly interested in giving our community a really innovative, environmentally sound and sustainable project. I support the project on its merits, not for any other reasons. If this were a Covell Village or a Lewis Homes, I would not be supporting it.
Many of the opponents of this project have presented no real reasons to oppose it, but instead have resorted to bully tactics, verbal attacks and name calling. Please stick to the issue.
But Matt you miss my point about doubling the size of Davis.
First, many people who work or study at the university already live outside Davis so they would have a smaller commute if thy lived in town. Making Davis twice as large would not mean giving up its college town. More people associated with the university would be able to live here. Yes it would change things but change is the only constant.
Second, by making a lot of land available for housing a lot of different things would get built. The assumption that only McMansions would be built supposes that there would never be a saturation point reached. This is as false an argument as those who said supply and demand won’t apply to Davis during the bubble years because of what has gone on regionally. Overbuilding in Woodland, West Sac and Dixon has destroyed those housing markets and overbuilding in Davis would eventually do the same so finding a place in betweeen these extremes where builders could build homes that people could afford while the developers make a profit would eventually be found. At that point the builders would stop building and we could all live happily ever after. Its called supply and demand and it is a tried and true method of economics.
Third, I’m suggesting that we completely throw out the prevailing dogma and start over. This would include getting rid of measure J and holding the city council accountable for their decisions. A responsible council would provide for a variety of projects that met the needs of the community by making sure that the developments had access to mass transit, open space, shopping, parks and of course good schools.
Fourth, Forty years ago there were only 3-4 billion people on earth today there are almost 7 billion. If you want to try to hold the line on growth to 1969 levels you are romanticizing the impossible. I can show you pictures of Las Vegas or Phoenix I found from a 1951 trip my father took and if you looked at those cities in 1969 you would have found the growth shocking and today even more shocking. Same thing for Davis or Roseville. The world is fuller but the great wall of Measure J is not the answer. It causes prices to inflate as it restricts supply. It also causes developments to be too dense as we can see from the complaints about how people don’t want dense housing near them not to mention live in them. Densification is great in theory just as big giant HUD housing projects seemed good but resulted in horrible outcomes.
Finally and respectfully, Matt you live in a kind of home but advocate another kind of home for others. It is certainly your right to do so but it does lack the element of leadership by example. While many feel that not using my name demeans my post I would suggest that your lack of leadership by example does provide a deleterious inconsistancy to your arguments.
Hi Matt,
Regarding your questions about the agricultural soils, here is a link:
[url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/ka-map/htdocs/?map=casoil&cps=-2087406.8561336312,116482.2204329343,12000&layers=__base__[/url]
Look for the word “loam” in the description. I’ll leave it to soil scientists to explain the differences, but where the soil isn’t a loam it is less suitable for ag uses. The site of the horse farm was a tomato field in the 1980’s, so it is good ag land.
Here is the main page: [url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/node/27[/url]
Folks can scroll around to see the soil types on the erstwhile Covell Village site, or what your own houses are built on.
“Anyone who visited Tucson then knows unequivocally that the Tucson of today has lost close to 100% of the character and characteristics that it had then.”
Perhaps some prefer to live in a house w some land, than in tenement living – the “character” of the town be damned. I’m not sure what “character” means anyway. Every community has its own individual “character” that is unique to it. I am not convinced Davis would suffer a “character” downgrade just bc it spreads out a little instead of densifies. Frankly, I don’t blame the neighbors for not wanting “densification” right next to them. “Densification” is just a fancy term for tenement living.
Which does bring us to the problem of workforce housing. Sounds like we do need to have some workforce condos somewhere in this town, but I’m not convinced they have to be squeezed into a miniscule space. I come from a big city originally, and have no problem with “urban sprawl” as everyone else likes to call it. The idea is to have a core business area downtown, and everyone lives in the suburbs. It is a very nice, livable model, where everyone is given a certain amount of space from their neighbors. If the downtown core area is big enough, public transportation can be developed to cut down on traffic.
Having said that, there was a plan, some years ago, provided by some committee or other formed in Davis. It suggested that the downtown core area be blocked off to traffic, and shuttles bring people in from outlying parking lots. I thought that was a rather clever idea. But it never went anywhere. Not sure why.
I just have a philosophical abhorrence to going the tenement route. And if you want to call me names, feel free. It will not change how I feel. I think the whole “green house gas emissions” thing is way overblown, as is “covering over ag land”. It is a balancing act, where some compromise needs to be struck. Just exactly where is the question. And I think it is perfectly OK to agree to disagree on where to strike the compromise.
“Finally and respectfully, Matt you live in a kind of home but advocate another kind of home for others. It is certainly your right to do so but it does lack the element of leadership by example. While many feel that not using my name demeans my post I would suggest that your lack of leadership by example does provide a deleterious inconsistancy to your arguments.”
Where Matt lives or does not live is irrelevant. He is entitled to his opinion, even if you don’t agree w it. Just stick to the issues. Much of what you say I agree with, by the way.
How can people advocate for saving the land out of one side of their mouths (or keyboard) and advocate for no densification out of the other side of their mouths(or keyboard)?
I am a resident in Wildhorse. Its all fine that these proposed homes will have solar and trees, etc., but the added trash, traffic and congestion do not produce an environmental “benefit”. I understand the developers want try again and again to make money on their investment, but we neighbors have to live with the consequences.
Talk about the “WOW” factor…so apparently Mike Harrington rents offices in his downtown building to the Parlin developers, Parlin’s “political consultant” Bill Ritter, and Talbott Solar (who would do the solar for Parlin). Not hard to understand why Harrington is rooting for the Wildhorse horse farm project project since he is getting a steady cash flow as their landlord! Isn’t it a bit ironic that Harrington who has been accusatory of others in the past, as it turns out, it is he who is taking money from the developers? I am glad to see that Mike is quite proud of having these tenants.
Also, recall that Harrington’s office tenant Talbott Solar also strongly supported Covell Village. Apparently Talbott Solar has now helped Parlin to manufacture the 90% “green” factor for their development that Talbott would then install and make mega-bucks on. Oh my gosh! Looks like they have created a “pseudo-progressive” mob, all of whom (coincidently) are rooting for the Parlin Wildhorse horse farm to be developed. How “green” ($$$) can you get?
Three story condos on the edge of town. Talk about growth inducing!!! Who’s brilliant idea was that?
Innovative green design that is going to put Davis back on the map, including … wait for it … wait for it … “on-site forestation”!!! That’s apparently planting trees in progressive-speak. I’m hoping this will get us more publicity than the toad tunnel (that was only endangered local frogs, not global warming).
We’ve really entered the twilight zone. Progressives taking money from developers, a high rise urban limit line, and old-fashioned tree planting is now the latest in green technology.
Wow.
I don’t live anywhere near this development and don’t have any ties to it. As it is described I will vote against it, as will the vast majority of disinterested Davis residents. Why should we care if it is relatively energy efficient. The question we ask is whether we are better off with it here or not here. I don’t see any benefit to me or to the city, so I will vote against it.
Now if they donated significant new recreational facilities or made an ongoing financial contribution to the city, I might reconsider. But I see nothing like that. I just see additional costs.
What am I missing?
Talk about the “WOW” factor…so apparently Mike Harrington rents offices to the Parlin developers, Parlin’s “political consultant” Bill Ritter, and Talbott Solar (who would do the solar for Parlin). Not hard to understand why Harrington is rooting for the Wildhorse horse farm project since he is getting a steady cash flow as their landlord! Isn’t it a bit ironic that Harrington who has been accusatory of others in the past, and as it turns out, it is HE who is taking money from the developers. I am glad to see Mike is proud of these tenants.
Also, recall that Harrington’s office tenant Talbott Solar also strongly supported Covell Village. Apparently Talbott Solar has now helped Parlin to manufacture the 90% “green” factor for their development that Talbott would install and make mega-bucks on. Oh my gosh! Looks like they have created a “pseudo-progressive” mob all of whom (coincidently) are rooting for the Parlin Wildhorse horse farm to be developed. How “green” ($$$) can you get?
I prefer the term “neoprogressive” from earlier in the thread. The analogy to the neoconservative movement is appropriate … they took control of the Republican Party under Bush Jr. and marginalized the party to the brink of irrelevance.
““on-site forestation””
I notice you chose to use as your foil forestation which accounts for five percent of the GHG reductions as opposed to the majority of the 90% of reductions which come from solar, energy efficient and passive features. Perhaps you have an argument to be made against those.
“…old-fashioned tree planting is now the latest in green technology.”
Cool!
You build multi high-density three story apartment towers and there will be an increased demand for fire dept/911 services (as reported in the EIR unmitigateable items); isn’t Davis FD (as most city depts are) financially strapped? Who is going to pick up the tab for this extra demand for services, you know how, us city taxpayers again! why doesn’t Parlin donate money to build an additional fire house for Wildhorse/East Davis, now that would be a real WOW factor! Take your solar panels and shove them! What the real “progressive” citizens in this town care about are slow-growth, and civic responsibility, and we can’t be fooled by this “greenwashing” bells and whistles!
If you read the Vanguard regularly you would know that the Davis Fire Department has one of the smallest call volumes around and calls per 1000. The consultant report that came out in June suggested that barring any huge and unforeseen growth, i.e. larger than 191 additional units, there would be no need for a fourth fire station in the foreseeable future. I suggest you read a bit more closely before you make these assertions.
To Greg
[quote]According to a letter from Talbott Solar and Radiant Homes, the energy consultants on this project, “the mitigation program… will reduce energy use and GHG emissions additional amounts through the use of photovoltaics and on site forestation.”
[/quote]I would never stoop so low as to use “on-site forestation” as a foil. In fact, I have personally planted many trees. If I had been interested in a foil, I probably would have focused on the passive ventilation (north facing windows).
Sorry, I said 5%, it’s actually 10%. Why didn’t you just pull this quote:
[quote]There will also be an orchard or urban forest that will contribute up to 10% of the GHG reduction plan through site wide temperature reduction, carbon capture, and sequestration.[/quote]
So most of the reduction is through other means other than forestation.
My previous post looks like a complete non sequitur because the post I was responding to (which used the term pseudo-progressive) has been purged. Not cool.
So now, let’s slam the Davis FD on how “undercalled” of a Dept they are; I have good friends who work on the Davis FD, and I resent your comments; not only now has the Vanguard slammed the good hard-working neighbors of WENA, now we should also take a swipe at the FD, for whose interest???… Parlin Development? You people have lost your collective “progressive” minds!!!
Hold on, how is stating a fact, that the DFD has a low call volume, taking a swipe at them. Take a look at the Citygate report on whether or not the city needs a fourth firestation, or were they slamming them too?
You sound like you are angry and just trying to fling mud in whatever direction you can without looking at facts here. Calm down. You are not helping your cause.
Hold on, how is stating a fact, that the DFD has a low call volume, taking a swipe at them. Take a look at the Citygate report on whether or not the city needs a fourth firestation, or were they slamming them too?
You sound like you are angry and just trying to fling mud in whatever direction you can without looking at facts here. Calm down. You are not helping your cause.
Look I have no dog in this fight, I was simply correcting your statement which was inaccurate with regards to the fire issue–see the city report if you do not wish to believe me.
Talk about the “WOW” factor…so apparently Mike Harrington rents office space to the Parlin developers, Parlin’s “political consultant” Bill Ritter, and Talbott Solar (who would do the solar for Parlin). Not hard to understand why Harrington is rooting for the Wildhorse horse farm project project since he is getting a steady cash flow as their landlord! Isn’t it a bit ironic that Harrington who has been accusatory of
others in the past, as it turns out, it is he who is taking money from the developers. I am glad to see Mike is proud of these tenants
Also, recall that Harrington’s office tenant Talbott Solar also strongly supported Covell Village. Apparently Talbott Solar has now helped Parlin to manufacture the 90% “green” factor for their development that Talbott would install and make mega-bucks on. Oh my gosh! Looks like they have created a “pseudo-progressive” mob all of whom (coincidently) are rooting for the Parlin Wildhorse horse farm to be developed. How”green” ($$$) can you get?
Beware of Psuedo progressives–if you post that post again, I will ban you. If you have any questions send me an email at info (at) davisvanguard (dot) org .
Vanguard,
Please stop deleting my post. And, please stop trying to censor the dialog about this issue. There is no reason why my posting can not be on the blog. What are you afraid of?
I told you if you wanted to discuss it to email me. To make it brief, there will be no more personal attacks against individuals on this topic. Any further ones will be deleted as soon as I view them. If you want to make your points, you can do so by arguing the merits or weakness of the project or how it will impact you. Please see the user agreement that you agree to when you post. It is the “terms of usage” link right above preview and add comment.
To Greg,[quote]up to 10% of the GHG reduction plan through site wide temperature reduction, carbon capture, and sequestration[/quote]So, if I’m reading this correctly, some of the GHG reduction plan involves “site wide temperature reduction” (i.e. shade). Well why didn’t you bring this up before? Maybe I should rethink my skepticism.
C’mon man. Just because the consultants make a 90% claim, that doesn’t make it real. We have to actually see their proposal (which I can’t find on the city web site) and independent experts need to weigh in on the credibility of the claims. Then we need to take a hard look at how they intent to execute the plan, and whether or not the city can/will enforce implementation after they have their entitlements. If they can really get to 90%, then fantastic. But I personally want more to go on than consultants and the Vanguard. We know the consultants are conflicted, and the Vanguard is still an open question.
Plus “inkblot” has a very astute point. Let’s stipulate that the 90% claim is true. So what? That might float your boat, but the silent majority – maybe not so much.
[quote]Plus “inkblot” has a very astute point. Let’s stipulate that the 90% claim is true. So what? That might float your boat, but the silent majority – maybe not so much.[/quote]
I agree. That’s why we have measure J. The people will decide as they should if this project is worthy.
My understanding is that the 90% will be locked into the developer’s agreement. If it is not, I will not vote for the project when it comes before. I suggest others do the same. If the 90% does come before, I will support this project.
Fair enough?
Vanguard,
I have tried to post the concerns bout this project including the fact that the Talbott Solar company which not an objective “accessor” of the solar benefits. Since they clearly will be providing the panels and the installation and they will profit greatly if this Wildhorse Horse Farm project goes forward. Since Talbott strongly supported Covell Village this situation is no different.
With all due respect you went much further than that previously. Thank you for omitting the personal attacks included in previous posts.
I have now gone through the entire thread, I have allowed the attacks on myself and the developers to stand, but omitted all attacks against others. In the future, I will delete personal attacks from this thread, again see the user agreement that you agree to when you post.
[quote]Finally and respectfully, Matt you live in a kind of home but advocate another kind of home for others. It is certainly your right to do so but it does lack the element of leadership by example. While many feel that not using my name demeans my post I would suggest that your lack of leadership by example does provide a deleterious inconsistancy to your arguments.[/quote]
No inconsistency at all. I am one resident out of 65,000. Well planned cities and towns have residential units in a variety of shapes and sizes, hopefully matched to the internal demand for housing generated from within the city. If you look at the housing mix that has been built over the past 15-20 years in Davis you will find that it reflects extremely skewed planning, with a very poor mismatch of supply types to demand types. The Davis workforce has been to all intents and purposes ignored by the people who have built houses and the people who have approved the housing. Rental vacancies have continually been at a very unhealthy level below 1%. Single family houses like the one I live in were the norm of what was built rather than a portion of what was built. When asked by Sue Greenwald in the hearings on Willowbank 9 what the price reduction (affordability increase) would be if the houses were built at 1800 square feet instead of over 2000, the developer replied “I don’t know. I won’t ever build a home that small.”
Bottom-line, the free market as a housing model in Davis has failed the Davis workforce. Whether I personally am part of the specific “workforce housing” market segment is irrelevant. The reality is that if more homes like those you describe were built they wouldn’t be bought by components of Davis’ internal demand for housing, they would be bought by demand external to Davis.
If you think a City Council will succeed in managing the kind of free market you describe you are dreaming. If you think the electorate can successfully hold the Council accountable for controlling that free market you are halucinating.
Finally, your implied characterization of all high rise living spaces as tenements is hyperbole at its best perhaps you may want to open your eyes next time you are in the vast majority of San Francisco or Manhattan or DC or Vancouver or Chicago. Density and Quality of Life do not have to be inversely related.
[quote]Hi Matt,
Regarding your questions about the agricultural soils, here is a link:
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucd…s=__base__
Look for the word “loam” in the description. I’ll leave it to soil scientists to explain the differences, but where the soil isn’t a loam it is less suitable for ag uses. The site of the horse farm was a tomato field in the 1980’s, so it is good ag land.
Here is the main page: http://casoilresource.lawr.ucd…al/node/27
Folks can scroll around to see the soil types on the erstwhile Covell Village site, or what your own houses are built on.[/quote]
Thank you for that link Don. The paper maps I have are virtually identical.
The horse ranch’s tomato farm history illuminates the point that the farmers on the Yolo County Planning Commission made when they talked about how to strengthen and protect the County’s agricultural business base. I’m pretty sure the the acres of the horse ranch were part of much larger tomato fields when they were such. Subdividing parcels, erecting fences, planting tree lines, and building adjacent houses doesn’t do anything to change the “primeness” of a specific parcel of soil, but it can partially or virtually totally eliminate the “productivenesss” of that parcel. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would be surprised if the horse farm in its current 25 acre state has ever produced a crop of tomatoes. I’m ready to be proven wrong on that, but I will be surprised if I am.
To Greg,
Fair enough.
But you should recognize that development agreements can be amended without a Measure J vote. Such amendments have happened many times in the past. What you should watch for is overly optimistic projections that they can’t realistically deliver on.
I personally can’t get past the density and the crazy idea of three stories on the outskirts of town.
My take is that the developer paid too much for the land, and now their progressive allies, landlords, and consultants are bending over backwards to help them get a sufficient number of units to make their economics work. The city is more than happy to move the project forward because they get short term positive cash flow (knowing full well that in the long run the project, if approved, will be subsidized by the taxpayers).
I don’t know about you, but I have my own cash flow issues and don’t want to help subsidize another residential development.
“If you look at the housing mix that has been built over the last 15-20 years”
Very little housing has been built in the last 10 years and almost none since Wall St. caved in. Are you saying that we will never again see houses of less than 2000 sq ft built in Davis because of one remark. Its an illustrative anecdote at best. Builders will build what is profitable and republics are as good as their electorates demand. Measure J allows people to be lazy about who gets elected.
I also found the comment by the poster who said “what’s in it for me or the city” to be honest and reflective of the deep psychology of the so called progressives. As my neighbor said in response to my rant about how the progressives aren’t progressive because they are against everything. When asked, what are the progressives for? He replied “Property values.”
Now as progressives become proponents of development we find consistancy in this argument while the coalition that defeated X splits between those protecting their own property values and others wishing to profit from the value added to others property values.
I initially have a favorable reaction to this project. It has most of what the community has asked for in a housing development. The neighbors have been complaining for years about the ag and business uses on this site. I think they may well end up liking this neighborhood much better than what is there now.
As an aside, the hate and venom that are exhibited in some of these blog posts are a turn off. I believe that these reflect animosity between people and not really a reaction to this project. In the past, when a project was not well received, the “progressives” that opposed it had no problem identifying themselves and stating what was wrong with it.
Who cares if conservatives, progressives, or NIMBYS like the project or not. It is a good project that has a lot of features we have been asking for.
The negative comments on the blog happen to be personality issues between a few people started by a particular person. They know who they are. For those who cannot get past the idea of a few three story homes on the outskirts of town the answer is simple. Do not purchase a three story home on the outskirt of town.
Let us not let their negativity steer us away from good sustainable housing. The wow factor is great and will put Davis on the map!
[quote] I’m going to say this once, and I hope people read it. I have not deleted a single post on here in a very long time and that was spam. I don’t want to start now. Quit trying to out people or get people to out themselves–especially when you yourself refuse to post under your real name. The next post that does that will be deleted the next time I am on here.[/quote][quote]… there will be no more personal attacks against individuals on this topic. Any further ones will be deleted as soon as I view them.[/quote]Disclaimer: This post is NOT trying to “out” anyone or get anyone to “out” themselves. I have no problem with individuals that post anonymously (especially since personally vilifying your opponents is part of the progressive playbook). Furthermore, this post makes NO personal attacks. All references to specific individuals that are know or potential affiliates of the Vanguard have been deleted to insure that the post is not censured based on this pretext.
At issue is the fact that the Vanguard has become an advocate for the Parlin Development project (which is fine), while at the same time the readers of this blog are being kept in the dark about the extent to which affiliates of the Vanguard are anonymously shaping the debate (which is not fine). This argument has obviously touched a nerve (hence the threats highlighted above).
Here’s what has been pieced together so far. The Vanguard apparently has a Board of some sort. Some member(s) of this Board post anonymously (and, in at least one case, under multiple names). At least one member of this Board posts under their real name. To what extent the anonymous postings create an illusion of consensus and/or helps build momentum for the Vanguard’s position is difficult to assess given the current lack of transparency.
Other relevant questions include:
1. What is the purpose of the Board?
2. Does the Board meet to discuss issues and/or positions?
3. Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Parlin Development (including Parlin Wildhorse)? Talbott Solar? Radiant Homes? Individuals or organizations acting on behalf of these parties?
4. Is the Vanguard organized as a not-for profit or a for-profit enterprise?
The Vanguard is clearly attempting to position itself to both frame and control the progressive debate. Since the Vanguard does not simply “report”, but rather engages directly in both advocacy and opposition, it is completely reasonable to ask for transparency.
If Vanguard affiliates want to post anonymously under half a dozen names per thread, then that’s their prerogative. It then falls to the reader to decide to what extent the debate is real or manufactured.
Attacking and/or censoring the messenger will not make these questions about Vanguard transparency go away.
To Matt Williams (aka Horse and Tomato farming expert):
Every so often you emit a little pearl: “Density and Quality of life do not have to be inversely related.” Couldn’t agree more…with a caveat – if it’s intelligently designed and appropriate to the location. As longtime DC residents my family and I observed a resurgence in the city and its close-in suburbs due mostly to well-designed mixed use infill development. Well-designed referring not only to the buildings constructed but also to their location near mass transit, shopping, universities, and other pedestrian or bike-accessed amenities. And we’re not talking high-rise development either (because of DC height restrictions). I’m new to the Davis land use planning free-for-all, so don’t know exactly why this site is considered such a dog, but the PG&E yard downtown is exactly the sort of site that we watched get developed with great success in DC and NoVA.
Despite your “walking the walk” with pushing greater density in the Willowbank Park proposal, that project hasn’t even begun to arrive at an intelligent or compelling design to justify its incompatibility with the surrounding area.
PS – I’m a horsewoman and horses and burrowing owls quite commonly coexist. They’re everywhere where I board my horse, so it’s quite possible they’re on the Wildhorse site, FWIW.
To: The Vanguard’s transparency “problem”,
Why don’t you start your own blog? Why don’t you start your own paper? Why can’t you engage in intelligent discussion? Why do you keep logging on to this blog that many of us rational people appreciate? You are wasting your time and our time with your rants. You sound like a grumpy person who does not get their way and has to go negative.
We have been reading the Vanguard for some time and appreciate the work that David does. He does not censor people or discussion. It is only when childlike behavior occurs on the blog where people are attacking each other instead of discussing issues that he has to step in and remind people to focus on issues not personalities.
I don’t see the Vanguard as an advocate for Parlin Development. Just like an Editorial Piece in a newspaper David will report and also offer opinion. We see it in newspapers and blogs all of the time.
It would not surprise me if the negative comments are from other lazy developers who do not want to provide us with good projects in the future, or if it is coming from cheerleaders for other developers who had projects that did not get approved.
By the way we are happy to hear that business is being kept in Davis. We should support local businesses when possible. If this project is approved then Talbott Solar company supplying the solar panels is good for local business. If there are other companies that are used then that is good too. Not only does it support local business but it cuts down on bringing building materials from out of town. Do you get it? Less gas used?
My neighbors and I appreciate Parlin Development for bringing the WOW factor as people have asked of developers and up until now have not received any WOW projects. The proposed Wildhorse Ranch development will achieve a 90% reduction in green house gas emissions. To us that is a big WOW!
[quote]Why don’t you start your own blog? Why don’t you start your own paper? Why can’t you engage in intelligent discussion? Why do you keep logging on to this blog that many of us rational people appreciate? You are wasting your time and our time with your rants. You sound like a grumpy person who does not get their way and has to go negative.[/quote]
David,
Does this meet your bar of personal attack, or are we allowed to flame each other as long as it’s anonymous? If so, I will be happy yo respond to this individual in kind.
BTW I don’t think the poster is from Wildhorse. An example of the manufactured debate??? I guess your readers will have to decide.
No it doesn’t. The posts I pulled mentioned specific people by name and made accusations towards them. I tried to pull out all posts that made such references to private citizens. You will notice I left up attacks on me.
Could you please disclose the names of the individuals on your Board? I’m not attempting to “out” your posters. Just better understand what the Vanguard is. Public disclosure should not be a problem unless individual Board members want to keep their association secret (which of course would raise additional questions).
Could you please disclose if Bill Ritter or Mike Harrington have ever been affiliated with the Vanguard? This is not a personal attack. Just a matter of fact that speaks to the issue of conflict-of-interest.
My goodness! Calm down! Take some deep breaths!
And don’t forget your meds.
I’m not going to continue to respond to questions from an anonymous individual. If you have any further questions please call me at 530.400.2512
But that would defeat the whole purpose of public disclosure.
Why the secrecy? It would be better coming directly from you, rather than trickling out on the blog.
I am on the board of the Vanguard. I have never discussed this project with anyone, don’t know the owners or developers by name (though we may have met). I do know practically everyone else in town that’s been mentioned here and elsewhere on growth issues, but have barely discussed this project with any of them. For that matter, I don’t even really have an opinion about it yet.
I always post under my own name.
There’s no secrecy here. But I think it’s hypocritical of you to fail to identify yourself when you are demanding full disclosure from me. You call me up, I’ll give you the full list and you can post it yourself. I’m simply not going to respond to an anonymous demand for information. So you can decide if you want the information.
It is truly amusing to see that when the detractors of the WHR proposal saw a number of posts in support of it, they immediately jumped on the old “conspiracy theory” band wagon. Is it so hard to accept that some think this actually IS a good project? Is it so hard to believe, just because some Wild Horse residents oppose the project, that others might actually support it? Do all the supporters of this proposal have to be Vanguard affiliates?
I think you will find that many in Davis, independent of the Vanguard or the developer or his consultants, do support this project ON ITS MERITS! What a concept!
[quote]I’m not going to continue to respond to questions from an anonymous individual.[/quote]And one more point of fact …
You haven’t answered ANY of my questions, except for the one regarding anonymous flaming.
Why the secrecy?
Anyone else who has any questions for me, can call me as well. I am not going to deal with anonymous posters, period.
No matter how green this project, what about the blue…show me the water? There will have to be a well. OR, will the water supply for this site, and others, going to be solved with the hugely expensive 1/2 billion $$$$$ pipeline from the Sacramento River the public will pay for.
According to state law, developers have to show they have 20 years of water for their project, but the city authorizes the hook-up, which means, in effect, the city, in the end, IS guaranteeing the water. This project should not be approved, until city water issues are well understood by the Planning Commission, the City Council and the public. The last discussion of water issues at the City Council was muddy at best. Does a yes vote on this project, begin to lock us into the enormously costly pipeline? Do those advocating for this project, really understand the water issues or are they papering them over, in favor of the other “green” features? What about the “blue” problems? Does approval of this project pave the way for the rest of the horse ranch and properties to the east of Covell and along I-80 to the causeway to be developed?
Is this the beginning of the pressure to make sure the pipeline is approved and built at enormous cost to the public?
The posting above from Nancy is from Nancy Price. For some reason, my full name is not being added to the post.
For me, the 90% GHG reduction from the city standard is what is important. The reduction has to be clearly spelled out in the development documents, black and white, locked in. I know that Talbot Solar will do a great job on this project. (The personal attacks on Dean newberry by one or two of you are offensive.) I trust Dean.
[quote]
tenements said . . .
Very little housing has been built in the last 10 years and almost none since Wall St. caved in. Are you saying that we will never again see houses of less than 2000 sq ft built in Davis because of one remark. Its an illustrative anecdote at best. Builders will build what is profitable and republics are as good as their electorates demand. Measure J allows people to be lazy about who gets elected. [/quote]
Your initial statement is incorrect. 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 “very little housing.” 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.
Yes I am saying that there will be virtually no housing built in Davis under 1800 square feet if the market is allowed to seek its own level. My reason for that is simple . . . there is virtually unlimited external demand for upscale housing in Davis because of 1) the huge network of UCD allumni who would be glad to raise their kids in Davis and continue to work in their current outside Davis. With virtually unlimited external demand, what reason would developers have to build a small house with a small profit margin?
You may be right that Measure J may let individual citizens get lay about who gets elected, but that isw inconsequential when compared to the way Measure J clearly keeps the candidates on their toes.
Let’s add red to the color mix here; that is what the City will be in after having to pay out additional fire services to cover the development with time…GREEN (washed) BLUE, RED…Great Project!!!!
Again, if you read the report by Citygate (which you haven’t) you would know that your claim is completely untrue.
“Then for the foreseeable future there is no need to build an additional station in Northern Davis until there is significant growth in that area.”
Please stop passing falsehoods.
Matt,
I will take your word for it and say there hasn’t been much housing built in Davis in the last 5 years although I would be interested in seeing the table if you have a link so that I could examine the types of housing that has been built. Right now there are around 100 homes for sale on MLS listings near or above 2000 Sq. Ft. in Davis yet very few are selling. This doesn’t include shadow inventory that is being held off the market or rented in hopes of a better real estate market, even though the trend is down, plus 60 homes of various sizes somewhere in the foreclosure process in 95616 and 95618. So how come there is all this supply but few takers? Supply is limited but so is demand by something called price. If you increase supply when demand is weak you get a reduction in price. We will have an early test of this. My guess is that by the time there is a measure J vote on incorporating something into Davis prices will be even lower. We will see who is right in short order. My view is that you are seeing things through the lens of hindsight but it will be a different economy in the future.
All that being said what is so bad about building homes for people who have a connection to the town and would want to raise a family here? Let’s see, they are well educated, employed and concerned about the education of their kids. As my mother would say, “Katie bar the door.” As local know it alls would say shouldn’t they be considered internal demand.
if you build more rental housing that is not 2000sq.ft. that will ease up the rental market for homes that were intended for families. If you build senior housing that will free up housing for families from empty nesters downsizing. There is already demand for these market segments so I’m sorry Matt I beg to differ with you on what will get built if we open the floodgates.
tenements, there are two challenges associated with bumping external demand to the head of the housing line. The first comes in the form of a question, “What is it that the people who work in Davis (and contribute to our city’s sustainability and vibrance) have done that you want to penalize them while rewarding another demographic group?” It isn’t that there is anything wrong with the people in the external demand group, it is that addressing their desires should come after we address the needs of an internal demand group that has constantly been shoved behind the door year after year after year after year. Think Loving vs. Virginia. The time has come to do the right thing.
Tenements, I forgot to add the second challenge. Those people are going to drive out of Davis every morning to their jobs and drive back into Davis every evening. Does that add anything good to Davis?
[quote]
Tallulah said . . .
To Matt Williams (aka Horse and Tomato farming expert):
Every so often you emit a little pearl: “Density and Quality of life do not have to be inversely related.” Couldn’t agree more…with a caveat – if it’s intelligently designed and appropriate to the location. As longtime DC residents my family and I observed a resurgence in the city and its close-in suburbs due mostly to well-designed mixed use infill development. Well-designed referring not only to the buildings constructed but also to their location near mass transit, shopping, universities, and other pedestrian or bike-accessed amenities. And we’re not talking high-rise development either (because of DC height restrictions). I’m new to the Davis land use planning free-for-all, so don’t know exactly why this site is considered such a dog, but the PG&E yard downtown is exactly the sort of site that we watched get developed with great success in DC and NoVA.
Despite your “walking the walk” with pushing greater density in the Willowbank Park proposal, that project hasn’t even begun to arrive at an intelligent or compelling design to justify its incompatibility with the surrounding area.
PS – I’m a horsewoman and horses and burrowing owls quite commonly coexist. They’re everywhere where I board my horse, so it’s quite possible they’re on the Wildhorse site, FWIW.[/quote]
Thank you for your comments Tallulah. I am far from a Horse and Tomato farming expert. I have simply asked what I think are pertinent questions that I personally would want answers to if I were to be an informed/objective voter. My horse orientation is in part from the fact that my uncle rode steeplechase in the Maryland Hunt Cup each year for multiple decades. You being from DC can appreciate that perspective. A ground squirrel burrow and a horse in full flight over a hurdle whether steeplechase or 3-Day Eventing is a pairing that makes me uncomfortable. With that said, it is very clear in the EIR that there are lots of ground squirrel burrows on the site, and even at least one such burrow has been occupied by burrowing owls. So I stand corrected.
With that said, do you board your horse at the horse ranch? Do you know anyone who has? The reason I ask is that no one so far has answered my question about how active the horse ranch is as an ag business.
Regarding your comment about Willowbank Park, the very heated Planning Commission meeting two weeks ago would appear to indicate that the immediate neighbors in Willowbank 9 and San Marino completely disagree with you. I mention this because I firmly believe that better planning does come as a result of early communication and frequent communication. I have said this before and I say it again here. Within El Macero we have a 4.2 acre parcel known as El Macero Oaks. There are 37 units on those 4.2 acres. If the Oaks were used as a model for the Willowbank Park 4.8 acre parcel the number of units would far exceed the 29 units currently being proposed by the developer. That would be a high quality of life plan like the ones you are familiar with from DC.
As I understand it, there is sufficient water existing in the city that this will not trigger the need for more water. On the other hand, if we were to build housing on Cannery, that would trigger the need for more water. It would not trigger the however for another fire station. We would need a Covell Village sized development and probably even more to trigger the need for a fourth fire station.
[quote]There’s no secrecy here. But I think it’s hypocritical of you to fail to identify yourself when you are demanding full disclosure from me. You call me up, I’ll give you the full list and you can post it yourself. I’m simply not going to respond to an anonymous demand for information. So you can decide if you want the information.[/quote]A phone call? No thanks. I don’t want to deal with all the personal attacks and character assassination that would inevitably come from such a conversation. If you want to call me a hypocrite, be my guest.
Of course, what is really hypocritical is trying to pass the Vanguard off as something it’s not. You have a Board member (and you know who it is) that habitually posts under multiple names (often within a single thread). This conduct inevitably raises a series of perfectly reasonable questions:
(1) Is there anyone else affiliated with the Vanguard that is doing this?
(2) Is the intent of this activity to manipulate the debate?
(3) Is the core of the debate just a manufactured (and therefore misleading) dialog between a small group of people (including your Board member(s))?
(4) What exactly is “The Vanguard” anyway? Who’s involved? And why?
(5) Does the Vanguard have a political agenda? If so, what is it?
(6) And what about conflicts-of-interest?
I’m not demanding full disclosure from you — I’m merely suggesting that if you want to try and position the Vanguard at the nexus of the progressive debate (which seems to be your goal), then you have a responsibility to publically disclose who’s involved and maintain some level of transparency and candor.
So how about it?
Just what is the problem-
Creating foment without purpose-
very annoying
but so much fun-
Terribly off topic
conspiracies run-
manufactured debate to distract all of them-
I think the real gist of the argument here is:
1) Do we want densification, and to what degree?
2) Is development on a horse farm covering over ag land?
IMHO, the answer to 1 is too much densification becomes tenement living; and the answer to 2 is a broken down horse farm does not equate to ag land. Folks can agree to disagree on either of these issues. However, one thing is clear. This is not a huge project that will cost citizens tons of money, as a Covell Village IV would. So the level of vitriol in the comment section seems unwarranted and counterproductive.
Matt, I really don’t understand a bunch of things:
What does Loving vs Virginia have to do with this? Honestly I don’t see its relevance.
Much of the workforce of Davis already lives in Woodland just as much of the workforce of Woodland already lives in Davis.
Living patterns are much more dynamic than you seem to appreciate. Internal, external these are hard things to define. I say let people live where they want and let’s stop being so damn exclusive. When housing prices in Davis are more than twice the price per square foot of the surrounding communities any intervention that perpetuates that inequality should be seen as shameful as the state of Virginia was by arresting the Lovings for inter-racial marriage.
[quote]Matt,
I will take your word for it and say there hasn’t been much housing built in Davis in the last 5 years although I would be interested in seeing the table if you have a link so that I could examine the types of housing that has been built.[/quote]
t, here is the link. [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/GPUpdate/pdfs/20071011/Davis_Housing_Needs_Final_10-3-2007.pdf[/url] As I said Table 12 has the numbers I quoted. There is 1) lots of additional information in both the text and the other tables, and 2) nothing that gives insight into the square footage of the units built.
[quote]Right now there are around 100 homes for sale on MLS listings near or above 2000 Sq. Ft. in Davis yet very few are selling. This doesn’t include shadow inventory that is being held off the market or rented in hopes of a better real estate market, even though the trend is down, plus 60 homes of various sizes somewhere in the foreclosure process in 95616 and 95618. So how come there is all this supply but few takers?[/quote]
The answer to that is simple. 1) the non-availability of mortgage money, 2) the fact that the person would have to sell their existing home in the current down market, and 3) very little is sellng in any price bracket.
We are looking at a window in time. What its duration will be is uncertain. Therefore you are right, historical patterns probably don’t apply to the current situation. However, I think you are wrong to assume that 1) the present patterns will apply to the post-Recession market when we reach that market, and 2) the historical patterns won’t apply to the post-Recession market.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
[quote]Matt, I really don’t understand a bunch of things:
What does Loving vs Virginia have to do with this? Honestly I don’t see its relevance.[/quote]
Very simple. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Putting external UCD alums ahead of current Davis workers is wrong. It is time for Davis to stop slapping its workers in the face, just as it was time vor Virginia to stop slapping its African-American citizens in the face.
http://www.ml-implode.com
Matt, I’m not really good with this link stuff but if you go to this site and look under blogs & commentary on the left hand side you will see an article called
State of the Real Estate Market July 2009: Plenty More Downside
I think you will find this article informative and relevant. I’ll go with their analysis they say it better than I can.
tenements, what is your point? I said in my post “We are looking at a window in time. What its duration will be is uncertain. Therefore you are right, historical patterns probably don’t apply to the current situation. However, I think you are wrong to assume that 1) the present patterns will apply to the post-Recession market when we reach that market, and 2) the historical patterns won’t apply to the post-Recession market.” The article you liknked to only describes the current Recession market. It says nothing that I could see about the post-Recession market.
First, I really think people should post under their own names. The battle in here has been pretty shabby especially when people hide behind various pseudonyms.
Second, David, thanks for accurate reporting on Chiles Ranch. We are really sick of being portrayed as the greedy selfish, anti-development neighbors. We DID agree to the development even it’s not a particularly imaginative one. Our BIG complaint is having Planning/Council change the design at the very last minute. The formal agreement we arrived at with the developers was completely ignored.
Third, I think it’s ridiculous that no senior housing has been included in Chiles. I don’t know about Wildhorse. Multi story units are a unpopular choice. We’ve been told over and over that Covell “Village” is crucially important because it will provide much needed housing options for older citizens. Planning however hasn’t included it in current development proposals.
Fourth, I think the City Council/Planning has lost sight of what a great place Davis has been. The small town feel is disappearing. Like so many other cities, the vision is build, build, build. Look around the Sacramento area and see what fast growth has produced. Of course, pushing developments thru does produce contributions to election campaigns.
Last let’s try appreciating the Vanguard. Easy to point fingers but it’s a lot harder to write the many articles. We also have the complete luxury of being able to respond and comment. Consider the other source of information in this town (the newspaper). Any publication has to find sources of revenue and the Enterprise certainly does that. It’s ridiculous to expect David to provide the Vanguard for free.
[quote]Anyone else who has any questions for me, can call me as well. I am not going to deal with anonymous posters, period.
[/quote]
I personally do not think anything will be accomplished if I call you to ask these questions, so as a non-anonymous poster I have aggregated all the questions that have been asked into the following. Hopefully when you answer these 18 questions the debate can get back to the issues.
To David Greenwald from Matt Williams
(1) What exactly is “The Vanguard” anyway?
(2) Is the Vanguard organized as a not-for profit or a for-profit enterprise?
(3) Does the Vanguard have a Board?
(4) If it does, could you please disclose the names of the individuals on the Board?
(5) What is the purpose of the Board?
(6) Does the Board meet to discuss issues and/or positions?
(7) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Parlin Development (including Parlin Wildhorse)?
(8) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Talbott Solar?
(9) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Radiant Homes?
(10) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from individuals or organizations acting on behalf of the parties in questions (7), (8) and (9)?
(11) Could you please disclose if Bill Ritter or Mike Harrington have ever been affiliated with the Vanguard?
(12) To the best of your knowledge is any debate being “manufactured” by the same poster posting under different pseudonyms?
(13) If so, is the intent of this activity to manipulate the debate?
(14) Is there anyone affiliated with the Vanguard that is “manufacturing” debate?
(15) Is the core of the debate just a manufactured (and therefore misleading) dialog between a small group of people (including your Board member(s))?
(16) Beyond the Board question above, who is involved in the Vanguard? And why?
(17) Does the Vanguard have a political agenda? If so, what is it?
(18) Does the Vanuguard have any conflicts-of-interest with respect to any topics it covers?
1. The Vanguard is an independent news source in Davis that I founded in 2006.
2. The Vanguard has filed for non-profit status. I will also note that to this date, all proceeds from the Vanguard have gone back to the Vanguard. I have not derived a single cent of profit from the Vanguard to date.
3. The Vanguard has a board of directors. They are not involved at all in terms of the day-to-day operations of this site, they have no control whatsoever over content. The views expressed by the Vanguard are those expressed by the author of the given piece and do not necessarily reflect those of The People’s Vanguard of Davis, inc or its board of directors.
4. The board currently consists of Don Shor, Pat Lenzi, Pam Nieberg, Bob Schelen, Ram Sah, Don Gibson, and Ayla Kapahi who is our treasurer.
5. The basic purpose of the board is to provide for the legal requirements as a not for profit organization. I should point out that until the paperwork is approved, the board is unofficial.
6. The board does not discuss issues or positions.
7. The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 for an ad for Sense Magazine.
8. The Vanguard has not received donations or advertising from Talbott Solar.
9. The Vanguard has not received donations or advertising from Radiant Homes.
10. The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 for an ad for Sense Magazine.
11. Bill Ritter is not officially affiliated with the Vanguard but does provide me with occasional advise as do a number of other people who are not affiliated with the Vanguard, yourself included. The same goes with Mike Harrington.
12. I don’t know what it means to manufacture debate. There are people on both sides of the issue posting anonymously. Given the number of people who turned out for the meeting last night, I would guess that it is a fairly small number on both sides.
13. I don’t know what it means to manipulate the debate. My only real concern is that people stick to the issues and do not bring in other private citizens or make potentially libelous attacks that could present the Vanguard with liability.
14. Not to my knowledge and certainly not at the behest of the Vanguard.
15. I think as I said above, the debate is between a small number of people. I don’t know the identities of most of them. I also try to respect the privacy of those who choose to post anonymously. It has always been my intent to provide this as a place for people to come and debate without fear of outside retribution. That is why I have guarded steadfastly in the face of criticism the right for people to post anonymously. There are times when people abuse this right.
16. 90 to 95 percent of the work done by the Vanguard is done by myself. However, recently we have recruited some interns that will be introduced to the public at some point at the appropriate time. Most of the rest of the involvement is done unofficially through either guest submissions or comments on the Vanguard.
17. The Vanguard’s political agenda is to promote public discourse, be an information source, and to represent the “progressive” views of Davis as well as serve as a political forum.
18. Not to my knowledge.
Slide six Matt, the McMansion boom seemed like a good idea at the time. Additionally, if you think real estate is going to return to normal as in the boom years your time frame will be off by about a million years.
I am going to disagree w/ the small amount of interest comment. Chiles was a long hard fought battle. Besides the public turnout at Planning and City Council, there were also many meetings and discussions. Net outcome? The project was approved. For many (including myself), it’s hard to get excited about another discussing another potential development. Let’s remember that Katherine Hess directly said that citizen input is not considered in designing developments.
Let’s also remember that this is the Wednesday after the 4th of July. People do take vacations. Farmer’s Market last night had a live band and large turnout.
To “Hi Nancy”:
What additional fire services? The same ones required for Lewis Homes if it is built?
[quote]Slide six Matt, the McMansion boom seemed like a good idea at the time. Additionally, if you think real estate is going to return to normal as in the boom years your time frame will be off by about a million years.
[/quote]
tenements, in the Davis marketplace anything over 2300 square feet on a single family lot is our equivalent of a McMansion.
hmmmm, this is all very interesting. we’ll just leave it at that.
Katherine Hess and the rest at the city offices are the ones who are taking bribes. Yolo County is filled with greedy corrupt individuals and California sucks assssss. it’s a breeding ground for corruption