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.