At the January 29, 2008 City Council meeting, the council took up the issue of Wildhorse Ranch (WHR). At that time, the consensus was that the WHR proposal they were looking at was just another housing development, and it lacked a “wow factor.” That in fact was the night that the “wow factor” phrase was coined. At that time WHR was a 259 unit development with three and four story buildings, streets and homes abutting right against the existing Wildhorse neighbors’ backyards.
The leading voice in that night’s consensus was Councilmember Stephen Souza, who dismissed the project as just not having a “wow factor.” During the 2008 campaign in an article in the California Aggie, Councilmember Souza made “wow factor” a part of his core reelection message. In that article he outlined his four components of “wow,” saying:
- Housing must have a wow-factor,
- Be energy efficient,
- Be aesthetically pleasing,
- Be affordable, and
- Be places that people are proud to call home.
The developer heard the message loud and clear that night, and since that time has completely redesigned Wildhorse Ranch, all with the goal of increasing the project’s “wow factor”.
- The project was scaled down from 259 units to 191 units.
- Gone are the four story buildings.
- Three story units were reduced and surrounded by two story units.
- The buffer of open space between the adjacent neighbors and the new homes has been increased greatly including an aesthetically designed orchard. Overall 37% of the project’s 25.8 acres is dedicated to open space.
- Residents of the proposed residential units will save $100 to $300 each month on utility bills because the project will be built to a 90% GHG reduction standard that exceeds the City’s standards by 100%.
- 100% of the units will get their electrical power from on site solar photovoltaics with each unit averaging a 2.4 kW solar system.
- All the units are passive energy efficient designed to exceed the 2005 California Title 24 Energy Standards for new homes by 50%.
- All the affordable rental units will achieve the City’s goal of 100% accessibility, becoming fully livable for wheel chair bound or mobility challenged individuals.
- Visitability for some of the single family homes and a variety of other features ranging from an urban orchard to water conservation methods using drought tolerant native California plants . The project has been completely re-vamped.
With all of the above major strides toward delivering Councilmember Souza’s four components of “wow,” it seems ironic that Councilmember Souza continues to hold out against the project. It is strange that the initiator of the phrase, “wow factor,” a man who has:
- Campaigned and pressed for higher standards for GHG reduction,
- Trumpeted the 30% improvement over Title 24 of Chiles Ranch, and
- Championed a photovoltaic plant to generate off-sight electricity for the City of Davis,
would not be jumping for joy at a project that has far exceeded any project in the country let alone Davis in terms of energy efficiency and GHG reduction. And yet, he voted against moving it forward to the voters. What gives?
If you believe some of the push back, you might be led to a conclusion that Souza’s words sound like he will ultimately support the project, but in the short run he is opposing it because of what he perceives to be an unfair public process.
“We’re rushing this, if we’re going to put this on the ballot, I think we have to do due diligence and not ignore process” . . . “I just don’t see the rush. I would rather that there be unanimity in this, and I’m not ready to give it unanimity, even though it’s close for me.” . . . ” I’m telling you its close, but there are certain things that I’m not comfortable with right now.”
If you listen to that you would think he might support the project with a slower process and more deliberation. That is until you listen carefully to his objections to the project. The specifics he cited at last Tuesday’s Council meeting were:
- Problems with the placement of the affordable housing units at the front of the site. He suggested instead placing them in the middle of the project or in the north east corner of the development.
- Complaints about high density at the edge of town.
- Arguments that vehicle miles driven would reduce the amount of greenhouse gas mitigation.
In short he argued for fewer units and removing the third story buildings. He stated the “wow factor” is not just about efficiency but about appearance. “At this point in time what you see as you approach from the east is a parking lot.” None of his specifics are minor issues that will be resolved with a greater amount of time. In fact, most of them have the potential to kill the project.
The idea that Souza basically supports this project except for his objections to process is further eroded by information that the Vanguard has recently received. All along Councilmember Souza had given the WHR developers indications that they were on the right track; however, two weeks before the vote when the developers wished to sit down and walk through the project, solicit his comments and consider any minor alterations, Councilmember Souza reportedly refused to meet with them. Two weeks had nearly passed when suddenly he began outlining for the first time major, serious criticisms he had of the project. After a year of praising the revamped project to the developers Councilmember Souza was suddenly reversing course and demanding a complete revamp of the project.
Again, without a face-to-face meeting, a few days prior to the project Souza presented by phone to the WHR team with stipulations as to what it would take to win his vote. Those stipulations included drastically scaling down the size of the project, reducing the orchard buffer area, eliminating the third story of buildings, and moving the location of the affordable apartment units.
Many of these alterations actually went against the negotiations with the neighbors and most would have destroyed the character and nature of the sustainability portion of the project. In order to reduce the number of units, the developers would have had to have increased the size of the units and eliminated several of the sustainable features. In my opinion, these are far from the concerns of a person who is either close to or about to support this project. I’m even inclined to believe that these are far from the concerns of a person whose primary concern is the fairness of the process.
Why would a councilmember who has questions about a project and wants the developer to address the concerns, be unwilling to meet with the very people who logically would be able to address those concerns? At the very least, the developer might have been able to explain the rationale for the current design.
The bottom line here is that this is the first development that Councilmember Souza has opposed in his five years on the City Council. He has done this by running opposite to his stated views on development, as well as his very vocal track record of pushing for sustainability and GHG reductions. Is he protecting the neighbors?
Some of the project’s opponents suggest that the neighbors were blindsided by this process. But if you listen to and read the words of Phil Wyels that position isn’t supported by the public record. Phil Wyels is the head of the Wildhorse East Neighborhood Association, and he and his association worked extensively with the developers for well over a year. They ultimately reached what they believed was an impasse over the number of units, the third story buildings and the height of the project.
At the July 8 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Wyels stated:
“I believe that Parlin worked with us in good faith, except that we understood that they were unwilling to budge on the number of units and the height of the buildings. Parlin has recently increased the number of parking spaces, which we appreciate. However, ultimately, it was the number and height of the units that caused us to formally oppose the project.”
Likewise last week at the July 28 City Council meeting Mr. Wyels had similar statements:
“Frankly many of us consider this to be a great new design, particularly the orchards, the land dedication, the solar components, and the greenhouse gas reductions commitments, but they continue to have concerns with the sheer number units, the third story town homes, the number of parking spaces, in addition to the belief that many share that the horse ranch should just remain a horse ranch.”
He continued:
“I believe that Parlin negotiated with us in good faith except that we understood that they were unwilling to keep the basic footprint but reduce the number of units and the height of the building.”
This is not to dismiss completely the concerns of process here. It was appalling that city staff pushed this discussion to the last possible date when the developers had requested a June hearing. It is equally inexplicable that the Council would have heard another time consuming item before beginning discussion on this project three hours late (after 10 pm). Those are concerns that need to be addressed in the future, neither of which were under the control of the applicant.
However we are still left to ponder the true reasons that Councilmember Stephen Souza would be opposed to this project. Just two weeks before this project was heard, Council approved the Chiles Ranch project that basically went back on an agreement between the developers and the neighbors. The project had far smaller buffers and was far less energy efficient and yet, Mr. Souza had no problem stating it had the “wow factor” and pushing it through on a 3-2 vote. Why not this one? As Yul Brynner said in The King and I, “It’s a puzzlement.”
Could it be mid-life crisis power-tripping?
Could it be that there was no need to rush it and we might as well try to get the second Measure J project as close to perfect as we could before we citizens vote.
Could it be he lives somewhat nearby?
Why are you continuing to report on this story. I am beginning to believe you are biased from your friendships. No one has addressed Sue’s concern of too many houses approved to be built in this poor economy.
Also what did you think of Dunning’s comments on Ruth’s gavel, asking developer when THEY wanted the J vote?
“Could it be that there was no need to rush it”
The problem is that he has never cared about such things before.
“Why are you continuing to report on this story. “
Perhaps because it’s been in the news all week?
“No one has addressed Sue’s concern of too many houses approved to be built in this poor economy.”
You just did. I take it you agree?
“I am beginning to believe you are biased from your friendships.”
Why can’t he just be supportive of the project on its merits?
Being a neighbor of Mr. Souza I can tell you that he fought for affordable housing (Moore Village) just around the corner from his house. This was done with me and some of his other neighbors objections to the project then. I can say now he was right and my new neighbors at Moore Village are great. Friends with me and my children. This is how we should do affordable housing, only put it in first.
If it has the wow, it must be voted in now?
The project: 1) was not reviewed by the Finance and Budget Commission 2) was discussed superficially by council bewteen the hours of midnight and 2 a.m. 3) left the neighbors 12 days to write an opposing ballot statement (unheard of)
4)is not needed at this time because of the 2,000 units in the pipeline already.
Souza was more than correct to vote no.
Could it be that city council should not have:
a) interjected a celebration of Larry Vanderhoef causing at least an hour delay in the council meeting – this should have been a special celebration off site
b) the Habitat for Humanity discussion could have happened later or at another special meeting
c) the Wildhorse project that was scheduled for 7PM approximately should have happened at 7PM instead of after midnight
I haven’t hear much discussion about this. Instead I hear people talking about rushing it through when in fact it was not rushed through the council delayed it. They have been talking about this project for a long time. It’s only after reading the Vanguard that we get more facts about the time line and how this issue played out at the council meeting. Thank you for reporting on this David.
Pam, I am sure you are aware that Sue was against the project for weeks before the vote, on the sole basis that adding 191 units on top of at least 1500 pre-approved ones (including UCD) was too much at this time. Snce she was against it, voting no, everyone knew it, she chose not to engage herself. The “oh my gosh, it’s kinda late and poor me, I cannot read all this stuff at the last minute” Councilmember comments just dont hold up. It’s just political cover. (I am a supporter of Sue’s, but just pointing out the truth.)
Further, the only two substantive changes between the council packet and the material on the dias at the hearing was the change in public financing for the affordables, and Don pointed out that the details could be worked on via the Devceloper Agreement, which was held back til early September. The second change was Parlin removed the “wiggle room” language for the 90% reduction, and Don nailed it even further by adding the “must be onsite” mitigation language for the 90% GHG reduction.
Sue and Steve played to the cameras on the “poor us, it’s kinda late and we need to go to bed.” Eileen was sitting in the back, passing them notes and urging them to delay (meaning give her more time to kill the project).
I agree that the project should have been on the July 21st agenda, so changes could be made if needed and voted on July 28, but dont blame the applicant. They had nothing to do with the date of the meeting, and they are not the ones who placed this item on the midnight agenda due to cramming too many non-essential items ahead of it. he CC often votes late at night on big items, and this one was little different.
Steve, you have no idea how much you damaged yourself on this project. It makes you look like basically a mean, spiteful, and disorganized member of the CC.
Some of us were starting to see a little ray of hope that you might be able to take a leadership role in environmental matters. How stupid were we?
Should have known that your bitterness from the Covell Village knock-down would stay in your heart, waiting for the moment when you could try to get your revenge. As I saw the progressive support for this project grow, it was plain to me that it could likely result in you flipping, out of spite. And it happened.
To their credit, Ruth and Don saw the merits of this project and pushed it through to the ballot, but you sit up there with your nasty little grudge held close to your heart, and vote for project after project that have little redeming value to environmental issues, then you meet this one and try to kill it?
As Dunning says, let the voters decide.
Yet here you are, self-proclaimed Mr. WOW Man, former Mr. Peace Activist, the Darling Boy of the Parks and Rec Commission, doing everything you can, including political extortion the day before the CC vote, to deprive the voters of taking a look at it?
What a sad situation you placed yourself into, Mr. Faux WOW Man.
It is also a puzzlement why dpd is such a cheerleader for this project? Can he just support it on the merits? Sure. Except that he has opposed every other project that’s been conceived. The unabashed support for this one seems suspicious, or at least odd.
David Greenwald is clearly a card carrying member of the Parlin Development political and marketing team. What is being passed off here as “investigative reporting,” is just David laundering Parlin talking points.
The pattern is becoming tedious. David Greenwald posts an “article” framing the debate around talking points highly favorable to Parlin and knocks down a series of straw men to prove these points. An anonymous series of posters (my “Thoughts” are maybe they’re all named Bill?) are present and ready for duty in the morning to try and deflect, discount, and discourage the emergence of any adverse threads. The more visible members of “the team” (landlords, board members, etc.) then come on later in the morning (except maybe today, because they’ve been called on it) with long posts in support of David Greenwald and his “position.”
(1) Cast doubt on Souza’s vote by calling into question his motives, behavior, etc.
(2) Marginalize Sue Greenwald by ignoring her, and all of her issues, at all times
(3) Avoid any discussion of process and what happened in the dead of night on Tuesday
(4) Protect the actions of their council asset (Lamar Heystek) from public scrutiny
“Except that he has opposed every other project that’s been conceived.”
So then the logical question is what makes this project different from all other projects. Some of the conspiratorial minded have suggested that it is his relationship with Parlin rather than his long stated goal of sustainability and asking for a project that he could support.
Can we please stick to the issues. If you oppose the project, argue against it. Stop turning David into the issue. Regardless of whether he has a relationship with Parlin, if you can’t refute his points, you can’t win.
And don’t forget the “anonymous” posters savaging Steve Souza for the rest of the day.
Just a little dose of intimidation to try and keep him in line for the next 3 months.
Memo to Steve – Thanks for your stand on process. Please hold their feet to the fire on the Development Agreement.
I spent a long time thinking about this story. In a way, I knew it would open me to criticism that I am strictly a pawn of the developers. On the other hand, I also think it is curious that Souza who has supported all other projects and frankly has tolerated processes far worse than this to do so. Why not this one? I also believed it was a bit disingenuous to imply that Souza was leaning toward supporting the project, at least based on what I had heard from many people who had spoken to him prior to the vote. Everyone is perplexed and I don’t have a good answer. I think there was important information to share with the community on this which is why I wrote the story and you can make up your own mind as to what you think about Souza’s motivations and the issue itself.
And Neoprogressive you will not get personal or you will not post on this blog.
To “To NP” (AKA Bill the consultant???)
I’m not trying to “win,” are you? Does it make you uncomfortable when the David’s framing of the debate starts to get out of control?
DPD: Given the nasty level of comments by anonymous posters, I think you should seriously re-consider your policy, and require posting by name.
Then use logic and reason to refute the points rather than personal attacks and unprovable innuendo. I don’t see any reason to make this personal. You and he disagree on the merits of the project. Argue your points of law and agree to disagree.
Anonymous Posters: I’m not going to allow a few bad apples destroy my policy or this blog. As far as I can tell it is a small number of people being nasty and malicious on here and most people have honest disagreements on policy issues. There are other ways to deal with the problem.
David:
Did you call Steve to ask him if it was true that he declined a meeting with the developer? If he did decline such a meeting (which is not an established fact), did you ask him why? Did he decline to take your phone call?
[quote]Pam Gunnell said . . .
If it has the wow, it must be voted in now?
The project: 1) was not reviewed by the Finance and Budget Commission 2) was discussed superficially by council bewteen the hours of midnight and 2 a.m. 3) left the neighbors 12 days to write an opposing ballot statement (unheard of)
4)is not needed at this time because of the 2,000 units in the pipeline already.
Souza was more than correct to vote no.[/quote]
Pam I really respect your opinion, and have a few questions.
1) The one thing that Finance and Budget Commission review would have avoided was the Staff Report saying that the project was a $1 million plus deficit for the City over 15 years, rather than the actual over $4 million gain for the City. But other than that, how would you have expected F&B Commission review to have impacted the process?
2) Isn’t the poor scheduling of this item an issue that should have been dealt with up front?
3) This is a significant concern. It actually handicaps both the for and against camps equally, but more importantly it may mean that the voters won’t get the information they need to vote in a fully informed manner.
4) My take on your final point is that some of the projects that have already been approved are markedly inferior to WHR. I would like to see those approved units recast to A) meet the same 90% GHG threshold that WHR is committed to, B)reduce the average per unit price for the smaller units by $100,000, and c) increase the level of accessibility. Building permits have not been issued for any of these approved units as yet, and probably won’t be until the housing market improves. Both Grande and Simmons are swimming upstream in this housing market.
I’m supportive of this project becuase of the sustainability issues, but I also agree with Sue and Pam G.’s concerns about the number of already approved units. I would love for you guys to pound that message home along with Souza throughout the campaign. I would love to see that really become an issue, have this measure pass, and have future developments cut off by the conversation and the 90% threshold. That would be my ideal world, so please keep it up.
[i]As far as I can tell it is a small number of people being nasty and malicious on here and most people have honest disagreements on policy issues.[/i]
Sure, if you only count the people who are being nasty to you, it’s not all that many. Consider the first comment on this post, “Could it be mid-life crisis power-tripping?” There is no way to call that an honest policy disagreement. It’s just an insult, and it’s no better than anything that “Neoprogressive watcher” has said. It’s also particularly unfortunate because the city council already gets rather too much heckling.
I don’t see that the status quo in which most comments are anonymous really helps anything. Inevitably they will get more and more obnoxious until you ban some of them, and then it’s basically impossible to be even-handed. I can see that some comments should be anonymous, but why most of them?
(And by the way, I have nothing against this Wildhorse Ranch proposal.)
I’ve got to run, but I would just like to add that, in addition to my underlying objection based on the fact that we already have 2,000 unbuilt units approved (between the city and the University’s West Village — 500 units in the city alone), is the process.
By ramming this through with no public discussion in order TO PLACE IT ON A BALLOT ON WHICH It IS THE ONLY ITEM — ASSURING A LOW TURNOUT ELECTION by assuring that the election can be bought by the developers with an expensive get out the vote drive, targeting all supporters in advance and getting them and only them to the polls — the spirit of Measure J has been totally undermined.
There is no such thing as a fair vote in a very low turnout election. Money plays an even larger roll.
Whoops! Make that “money plays a much larger role”.
@ Faux WOW Man – your vindictive and petty name calling is shameful. You sound like a jealous teenager and any reasonable statements in your rant collapse under the weight of your ridiculous behavior.
Go sit in the corner until you can form a logically sound argument.
DG: [quote]It was appalling that city staff pushed this discussion to the last possible date when the developers had requested a June hearing.[/quote]I don’t disagree that hearing this item on July 28, given the county’s election schedule, was a mistake. It made what had been a long process feel like a terrible rush job at a very late hour at the end.
However, I don’t understand what Parlin Development was thinking in this regard. Why would Parlin have wanted a vote this November? Staff obviously does not care when the vote would take place if the council approved the proposal. Staff was trying to accommodate the requests of Parlin to get a vote in this year.
There are very good reasons why Parlin should have prefered a delay: 1) They are going to have to pay 6 times as much — $240,000 vs $40,000 — as they would have paid waiting until the next scheduled primary; 2) The housing market really stinks, right now. Starting this a bit later will only help in terms of having more buyers in position to purchase a WHR house; 3) as Sue Greenwald has stated numerous times, a lot of other projects are already in the works — so if Parlin waited a bit longer, they could get a better sense for how much demand there is in Davis for the given supply; and 4) Parlin’s current plan is to break ground in 2012. Even if they think that makes sense, they could do that following a June, 2010 vote.
As I’ve written, I think the positives of WHR outweigh the negatives. But I don’t think Stephen Souza was wrong in the least to object in the end to the decision to say yes on July 28. It could have waited a while longer to no one’s great loss.
Rich: right on with your DE article. I love your work.
About why November? Because if this project goes into next year, it will get all balled up with the Measure J renewal, CC race, County Sup race, and Sales Tax Renewal. What a disaster!!!
November ’09 is it, or wait another year. And by then, the community will be full engaged with the newest Covell Village land application, and there is no way any other developer wants his/her project to get balled up with that complex issue!
I wish staff had gotten the packet together for July 21. The applicant had been asking all of this year that it be set at least two meetings ahead of the August meeting, to no avail. Masud and Ritter did their best.
As they say, “_ happens,” and you just have to role with what you have. They have 3 CC votes, and they are going to win the J vote.
ps, Rich: Steve and Sue both know all about the above discussion on the timing, so the delay was a known killer. CV will take another 2 years to play out, so Parlin Wildhorse would have been stuck out in limboland for years and years, if not for Nov 09 vote.
What is soooo weird, sort of like Twilight Zone, is that they both know that the 90% GHG reduction is going to put this project on the planning map of California and other jurisdictions. So far as is known, this is the first and only 90% reduction project in the state, built in the real world of subdivision development.
I was reading an article on the NYTimes web site yesterday about how glaciers are melting faster and faster, and the opposition of Steve and Sue to this developer putting about $2 million of his money into the extra 90% reduction (to go from 60 to 90% GHG reduction) feels … like madness.
So far as I can tell, 95% of the Davis progressive leadership is behind this project, Don and Ruth are supporters, Lamar is hugely behind it (especially the 100% accessability standard, another first), and so what is there not to like about this project???
The County Sup race is going to be interesting. Sue wants to run? her opposition to this project feels like a direct attack on all of the environmental programs that so many of us have fought for.
She will have a committee all right, a committe of one, because the rest of her supporters are going to be taking a pass, or endorsing Don Saylor, or at least quietly voting for him. He is going to run on the greenest project that Davis has seen in over 30 years, since Village Homes, and Sue is sitting on the dais in the forums, having to explain away her horrible vote on a mere technicality (“poor me, I could not get my homework done, it’s too late, I have to go to bed now” !!) ?????
Congratulations, Don, on winning the supervisor’s race.
Matt, I too respect your blog inputs.
In my experience I have been repeatedly informed by staff that housing does not pay for itself and always costs the city $$$$, especially affordable housing. So I am surprised and I am writing based on past experience.
From what I can assess, the $4M profit you say the city would realize is mostly one time money. The year in year out servicing of any housing development (except maybe mansions) is a fiscal negative especially because of Prop 13 from what I know.
The Finance and Budget Commission would have analyzed 1)the long range impacts and 2) whether or not the 10% increase in units over the 2,000 units already to come would have triggered the need for a 4th fire station. If so, then there is no way the Wildhorse development could be a fiscal positive for the city.
In my opinion, until Californians deal with Prop. 13 cities are doomed. It is just a big Ponzi scheme and the only way to keep it going is to build.
Pam, when I first read through the WHR Staff Report Fiscal Analysis, I had some questions, which I forwarded to Mike Webb. Those questions centered around two inconsistencies between the language on pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report and the numbers included in the Attachment 11 spreadsheet. As I said to Mike, those inconsistencies were (and still are) not insignificant , and if they are included in the spreadsheet the project appears to go from accumulating the $1,012,692 deficit for the General Fund shown in Attachment 11, to a $4,095,852 gain.
The first of the two items contained the 151 $5,000 payments that Parlin is going to make in order to bring the WHR parcel’s 11.8% tax retention rate up to the 17.5% citywide average. I saw that $5,000 per Market Rate Unit as a supplemental Revenue Stream equivalent to Property Tax, and therefore it should be included in the Fiscal Analysis.
The second of the two items is the $3 million expenditure savings the City will realize by not having to pay the Land Dedication Site Subsidy associated with the 38 Affordable Units. I can understand why the City segregated the land dedication subsidy, but I think Attachment 11 should show it in one form or another because it is a voluntary business decision by the developer that results in a savings of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit for the 38 affordables is a “windfall” for the City.
Mike got back to me and said, “Dear Matt, your read of the numbers is not incorrect. The key issue, and reason for the difference in numbers, is that […] the fiscal analysis deals only with recurring and ongoing revenues and expenditures and does not take these one time fees into account.
I understand the City’s accounting approach; however, the accelerated timing of these supplemental revenue streams actually benefits the City more than if they were spread out equally over the 15 year analysis period.
Leaving no stone unturned I reviewed my spreadsheet with Paul navasio during the Council deliberations and he concurred with my position that these are indeed supplemental revenue streams for the City that aren’t ordinarily seen in development proposals. Bottom-line, the developer has more than made the City whole financially.
Pam: [i]”From what I can assess, the $4M profit you say the city would realize is mostly one time money.”[/i]
It’s not just one-time money. WHR includes a new CFD (community facilities district), which will pay every year an added amount to cover city services.
[i]”The year in year out servicing of any housing development (except maybe mansions) is a fiscal negative especially because of Prop 13 from what I know.”[/i]
My understanding is that the only real money losers in Davis are low-income housing set asides. There is a very small presumed loss from market-rate multifamily housing, largely from the presumption that apartment complexes demand greater police services. That is not always true in Davis, but sometimes is.
I think your inclusion of Prop 13 in this math is perhaps incorrect. Granted, if older, expensive homes had to pay higher property taxes, then in a general sense, cities would have more revenues from residential properties. However, with the exception of some lower-end SFH’s converted to rental properties, older houses (in Davis) don’t demand very much in city services. As such, their paying less in property taxes than their actual values suggest does not drive any deficit in city finances.
The two big factors which make new residential developments fiscal losers have nothing to do with Prop 13:
1) Low-income housing and not-for-profit housing. Not only do these properties pay little (or no) property tax — for example, the URC pays no property taxes! — they often, if not always, demand much more than typical single family homes in police or fire or ambulance services; and
2) City salaries and benefits. Because our city council has failed for the last 20 years to tie the amount it compensates its employees to the rate of increase in its revenues per capita, excess employee compensation (esp. for police and fire) is a principal reason why we cannot afford city services for new residential developments with the amounts they are paying in property taxes.
[i]”The Finance and Budget Commission would have analyzed 1)the long range impacts and 2) whether or not the 10% increase in units over the 2,000 units already to come would have triggered the need for a 4th fire station. If so, then there is no way the Wildhorse development could be a fiscal positive for the city.”[/i]
David Greenwald discussed this quite well on The Vanguard. He convincingly brought up evidence that the new developments in the City of Davis should require no extra fire personnel or stations. Moreover, you point to 2,000 new units. You do know that 75% of those will be on the UC Davis campus, not in the City of Davis?
[i]”In my opinion, until Californians deal with Prop. 13 cities are doomed. It is just a big Ponzi scheme and the only way to keep it going is to build.”[/i]
That makes no sense. Californians, in terms of percentage of income, pay among the highest amounts of all states in property taxes. On top of that, we are No. 1 in income taxes and No. 1 in sales taxes. The Ponzi Scheme has nothing to do with a lack of revenues from Prop 13. The long-term Ponzi problem in California is due to a massive inflation in public employee compensation (including benefits and pension) over the last 15-20 years much, much higher than the historical rate of revenue growth per capita. If you want to lay blame, lay it on all the politicians who have financed their campaigns from groups like AFSCME, fire unions, the CHP and so on, and then turned around and rewarded them unsustainable increases in pay. Additionally, the total roster of public employees at all levels grew over the last 20 years (1989-2008) at more than double the rate private employment has grown in our state. That too is unsustainable and has nothing to do with a dearth of revenues from Prop 13.
Perhaps Souza is in the pocket of Whitcomb, who does not want to see WHR succeed, bc it will be that much harder to push through Covell Village Redux?
That said, I will vote against WHR. It does not provide affordable workforce housing, is too dense, and we already have enough housing in the works.
Another Way, what is the level of density that puts a project over the “too dense” threshold?
I live in El Macero where the gross density is in the vicinity of 4 lots per acre. Right in the middle of El Macero is a condominium/townhouse complex, El Macero Oaks, with 37 units on 3.32 gross acres. That is 11 units per acre and probably something like 16 units per net acre. I believe that is just as dense as the townhomes in WHR . . . maybe denser.
The townhouses are very nicely designed and there isn’t a person in El Macero who believes that townhouses that dense reduces either the quality of life or homevalues for the residents of El Macero’s single family homes.
So what are the criteria that form the definition of “too dense”?
BTW, I strongly believe that the 4.48 acres of Willowbank Park should not have a single detached residential unit. Using El Macero Oaks as a template, those 4.48 acres could be just as tastefully done completely as affordable townhouses.
Rich and Pam, I didn’t even include CFD (community facilities district) revenue stream into my spreadsheet, because that didn’t surface until later in the evening. Adding those revenues will push the positive contribution closer to $5 million over the 15-year analysis period.
[quote]I knew it would open me to criticism that I am strictly a pawn of the developers.[/quote]With all due respect, I don’t think the concern is that you are a “pawn” of the developers. Given the interactions between Ritter & Associates, The Vanguard, and Parlin Development, the concern is that you are partnered with the developers.
Where is the line of demarcation between:
1) supporting the positive technological and aesthetic and fiscal achievements of the project, as well as the new minimum standard it will set for future residential housing in Davis, and
2) being personally supportive of the development team?
Can a person be excited about 1) and indifferent to 2)?
Yes, of course.
But to be intellectually rigorous, you should also:
1) acknowledge and weigh the negatives against the positives you listed
2) assess the veracity of the claims (we are dealing with “promises” from developers after all)
3) decide to turn a blind eye to the potential consequences of not challenging the “unholy alliance” between Davis’ “progressive media outlet” and well-capitalized development interests
Hi all.
First it is indeed an unusual development that would actually earn money for the city.
Secondly, I was not arguing that a 4th fire station WAS needed, I was answering Matt’s question about what the F&B commision would have discussed IF they reviewed the Wildhorse application.
Regarding Prop 13 and its role in California’s fiscal problems, please refer to the extensive writing of Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on this very subject.
Rich you said “Californians, in terms of percentage of income, pay among the highest amounts of all states in property taxes. On top of that, we are No. 1 in income taxes and No. 1 in sales taxes.”
Precisely!! Prop 13 forced California to rely more heavily on income and sales taxes than other states. BUT income taxes fall in a recession! And there is the rub.
Prop 13 has established an system of inequity that penalizes the recent home buyer and forces cities to sell their souls to the highest bidder (auto malls, big boxes, etc.)to bring in revenue. Why should a
long time home owner in College Park pay sigificantly less property tax than a new home owner in Wildhorse. The Wildhorse homeowner is definitely subsidizing the College Park owner in terms of city services and schools. The College Park owner can also pass down their home to their children with no reassessment. Why should Wildhorse or any new home pay a CFD on top of their normal property tax? It is a horrible system.
Maybe we can agree to revamp Prop 13 and cut city employee compensation?
Very true.
So what are the negatives you believe should be acknowledged that haven’t been acknowledged, or haven’t been adequately acknowledged?
Is there something about Talbott’s credentials that brings under question their ability to reach the professed goal?
In an ideal world, and we all know there is no such thing as an ideal world, but if there were, how would you transform the “promises” into something you could have confidence in?
Why is tha alliance “unholy”? What is the currency of this unholiness?
California voters were fully aware that they were establishing a system of inequality when they passed Prop 13. That was debated at the time, and millions of Californians benefit from the inequality. Moreover, Prop 13 resolved one major crisis in California: longtime homeowners being priced out of their homes by the rapid escalation of property values. It created a whole raft of other problems, but there was definitely a crisis at the time which would only have gotten worse had not property tax assessments been limited.
I believe the chances of voters making any substantive changes to Prop 13 are nil. Voters have declined most opportunities to make major changes in California’s governance system, essentially telling the legislators to just do their jobs instead. Any restructuring of how taxes are distributed, how employees are compensated, or how the budget process is conducted cannot be linked to changing Prop 13 if you want to have any hope of success.
This project has had less public discussion than any significant project that has come before us.
Matt Williams: According to staff, this project will run an operations and maintenance deficit even with the CFD’s. If the parcel or parks tax is not renewed, the deficit will be much larger.
Sue: Your confidence in staff to get it right versus Matt Williams’ ability to get it right?
Measure J and the ballot deadline drove the council to put it on the ballot that night. Steve wanted more discussion. Why all the mystery? Its pretty simple. People complain about the process but measure J drives the process. Get rid of measure J and get better planning.
Measure J is the process. People get to decide whether the project is good or bad. The process doesn’t change that. If people don’t like the project, they vote no. That’s the process right there.
Matt: You said “The second of the two items is the $3 million expenditure savings the City will realize by not having to pay the Land Dedication Site Subsidy associated with the 38 Affordable Units.”
Are you counting the $3M the city does not have to pay as part of the $5M you say the project will bring in? If the city does not approve the project there would still be the same $3M savings it seems (?).
Don, not wanting to beat a dead horse (no pun intended!) but because Prop 13 does not allow property taxes to keep up with inflation and income tax revenue falls in recessions, it was only a matter of time before California went belly up. It needs to be dealt with if we are going to solve California’s budget woes.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Matt Williams: According to staff, this project will run an operations and maintenance deficit even with the CFD’s. If the parcel or parks tax is not renewed, the deficit will be much larger.[/quote]
Sue, when was the last time you talked to Mike Webb or Paul Navasio about the project cash flows? Did you even look at the spreadsheet I presented at the Council meeting?
I will be glad to sit down with you and review the numbers. I will bet you that 1) my numbers accurately reflect the project cash flows, and 2) that both Webb and Navasio agree with the premises of my analysis.
You pick the time and place.
[quote]Pam Gunnell said . . .
Are you counting the $3M the city does not have to pay as part of the $5M you say the project will bring in? If the city does not approve the project there would still be the same $3M savings it seems (?). [/quote]
Your statement is absolutely true Pam.
As was the case in every Paul Harvey broadcast we are now at the point where Paul says, “. . . and now here’s the rest of the story.”
There are two different assets at play in this situation. 1) the $3 million described by Staff on page 5 of the Staff Report, and 2) 38 afforadble residential units. There are also three scenario choices.
First, the voters can go to the polls and not approve the project. If that happens, then the City will A) not spend the $3 million and B) not have the 38 affordable units providing hearth and home for low income residents.
Second, the voters can go to the polls and approve the project. If that happens, then the City will A) not spend the $3 million and B) have the 38 affordable units providing hearth and home for low income residents.
Third, as pointed out by Mike Webb in the Staff Report, the developer of the affordable units could follow the standard historical practice in Davis, and if the project were approved then the City would A) spend the $3 million, and B) have the 38 affordable units providing hearth and home for low income residents.
So, switching from Paul Harvey to Monte Hall, which of those three options yields the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Door #1? Door #2? Door #3?
“This is not to dismiss completely the concerns of process here. It was appalling that city staff pushed this discussion to the last possible date when the developers had requested a June hearing. It is equally inexplicable that the Council would have heard another time consuming item before beginning discussion on this project three hours late (after 10 pm). Those are concerns that need to be addressed in the future, neither of which were under the control of the applicant.”
Dear David:
You are again being intellectually dishonest with your arguments; you decry the fact that the Council hastily improved the project, but make no objections to Lamar Heystek’s “12th hour” motion to move the project to a Measure J vote even after Ruth had concerns; then you say that the “applicant” had no control in the process, yet clearly Ruth asks the developer (John Tallman) his “choice” as to whether thet preferred a Nov or later election (April or June), and he tells her to proceed with Lamar’s motion (Nov election, with less of a turnout, and greater chance for them for approval); stop your one-sided criticism of Sue Greenwald, Souza, Dunning; and just for once all and declare your unabashed support for this project, due to you and your wife’s affiliation with Bill Ritter…you are a truly dishonest “investigative reporter”
Dear Disgusted:
The voters will get the ultimate choice here, if they think it’s a good project, the process doesn’t matter. If they don’t think it’s a good project, the process doesn’t matter. If the project had been placed on the agenda two months ago, you would still have the same November issues, so I fail to follow your rationale about process here. The process caused the vote to be at the last minute and late in the evening, the process did not cause the vote to be placed on the November ballot.
I don’t understand the need to personally attack anyone here.
BTW, I see no criticism of Sue
I still can’t believe that Gore lost!
Pam:
From the California Field Poll —
“Strong support for Proposition 13 is virtually unchanged since the landmark property tax cut initiative passed in 1978.
At that time, 57 percent approved of Proposition 13 to 34 percent who disapproved. In 2008, it was 57 percent to 23 percent, with the increase in those with no opinion counting for the difference.”
Trying to change Prop 13 would be quixotic and surely unsuccessful.
Matt,
You seem to be confusing one-time payments with annual revenue.
Prop. 13 lost in Yolo Co. at the time, 53.5% against, due mainly to 67% voting against it in Davis.
Just interesting to see how Davis politics has responded to state-wide trends.
David,
It’s been a very hectic day, and I have been reading this in bits and pieces.
You list that “The project was scaled down from 259 units to 191 units” and “Gone are the four story buildings” as two of the projects chief assets? This is a reason to approve another project when we have 2,000 approved and unbuilt units in the pipeline?
I can see it now: the next developer comes in with a proposal for a project with 300 units and 5 stories, and then lowers the number of units to 189 with none taller than 2 stories. How could we turn him down?
These arguments get stranger and stranger.
wdf, George McGovern won in Davis in 1972!
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Matt, You seem to be confusing one-time payments with annual revenue.[/quote]
No confusion at all. Why is a series of 151 one time payments any different than a series of 15 annual payments? Or a series of 38 one-time payments?
The answer to that is very simple. 1) What is the payment for? and 2) How is the City accounting system going to handle the payment?
On a typical deveopment project there are two kinds of payments and the City has historically accounted for them in a consistent manner. One group of payments (Property Taxes, Property Transfer Tax, Sales and Use taxes, Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax, Municipal Service Tax, Parks Maintenance tax, Public Safety Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Business License Tax, Franchise Fees, 0.65% Motor Vehicle License Fees, Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees, Fines and Forfeitures) come in each year for every project. All those revenues were accounted for in the Staff Report page 4 statement, “As proposed, the Wildhorse Horse Ranch development project would result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund, averaging approximately $67,500 per year under the “base case” analysis.”
The second group of payments also come in for every project, but don’t recur each year consistently. The Staff Report notes, “The project would also generate one-time construction tax revenues of $791,476 and one-time development impact fee revenues of $5.5 million” These one-time revenues are not included in the “base case” analysis, nor should they be.
The Staff Report further says “The negative fiscal impact is largely attributable to: 1) . . . 2) . . . and 3) the tax rate area for this property, which only provides 11.79% of the total property tax collected to the City in support of municipal services. The local property tax share for this property is well below the city-wide average of 17.5%.”
At this point you are no doubt saying, “Come on Matt, why don’t you tell me something I don’t already know.” So I will.
The developer recognized that the low 11.79% tax retention rate for the property was going to create a fiscal deficit, so voluntarily they offered to supplement the Property Tax revenues and close the at fiscal gap in two ways. The Staff Report documents the first of those ways on page 4, “Additionally, the developer has agreed to pay $5,000 per market unit as a supplemental fee.” and on page 5 “The Development Agreement includes the provision for the developer to contribute [u]$5,000[/u] per market unit for the city to utilize at its discretion.”
So the question becomes, “How do you account for these additional revenues?” One way would be to see how similar revenues are handled in other projects. However, since other projects haven’t made up the tax retention rate shortfall there haven’t been similar revenues in other projects. Another way would be to account for these revenues based on how the city will utilize them. But regardless of how these revenues are accounted for, the “base case” analysis for the project should include them because as the Staff Report says, “The base case analysis is supplemented by a sensitivity analysis for selected assumptions deemed to have the greatest influence on the results of the fiscal model. The fiscal model results, assumptions and sensitivity analysis are summarized in Attachment #11 of this staff report.”
However, the 151 payments of $5,000 appear nowhere on Attachment #11. Both Mike and Paul agreed with my analysis. Can you give me any reasons why those payments shouldn’t be?
Page 5 of the Staff Report documents the second way the developer voluntarilly went beyond the normal project payments, “Developer intends to construct the affordable apartment units. This would free the city of the typical subsidy associated with a land dedication site. These subsidy amounts typically are in the $80,000 to $90,000 range per rental unit or approximately $3 million.” Not including this $3 million windfall for the city in the “base case analysis” makes some sense, because these windfall isn’t equivalent to tax revenues. However, I believe including this $3 million as a below-the-line entry in Attachment #11 is very appropriate. My response to Pam Gunnell earlier in this thread explains why. I won’t repeat that explanation here.
One final point is worth mentioning. Attachment #11 does not include any of the new CFD (community facilities district) revenues, which the city will receive every year as an added amount to cover the city services that are included in the “base case analysis.”
Bottom-line, after excluding all the one-time construction tax revenues of $791,476 and one-time development impact fee revenues of $5.5 million, this project has significantly more revenue inflows over the 15-year analysis period of Attachment #11 than it has expenditures. The result is a close to $5 million gain for the city.
I look forward to talking with you more about this.
Matt,
Let me give you an example of the problem with your analysis. The $5 million development impact fees are paid to offset the additional capital expenses necessitated by the project. By law, they are not a net gain, but, to repeat, just represent the capital costs incurred by the project. And they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the project does not bring in enough revenue annually to cover the annual costs of maintenance.
Similarly, the affordable housing costs or savings have nothing to do with the fact these units, again, do not bring in enough revenue annually to cover the annual costs of maintenance.
You have to separate the capitol costs from the operation and maintenance costs. There is a relatively small amount of construction tax, etc., but that is a one time deal which doesn’t represent a drop in the bucket.
It’s the annual operation and maintenance deficits that are the problem.
I hear you Sue, and the one-time construction tax revenues of $791,476 and one-time development impact fee revenues of $5.5 million should be, and are excluded from the Attachment #11 analysis for that very reason.
Now lets look at the three sets of revenues that I do think should be included in the Attachment #11 analysis, and whether they should be part of the “base case analysis” or should be shown as “below the line” revenues without offsetting capitol costs.
1) The whole CFD concept is to generate revenues to offset the annual budgetary expenditures for Public Works, Planning and Building, Community Services, Parks and General Services, Police, Fire and General Government. They are supplemental revenues to add to the stancard revenues categories of Property Taxes, Property Transfer Tax, Sales and Use taxes, Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax, Municipal Service Tax, Parks Maintenance tax, Public Safety Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Business License Tax, Franchise Fees, 0.65% Motor Vehicle License Fees, Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee. I would even argue the CFD Fees should be added as a standard line in every “base case analysis.” Check with Paul Navasio to see if he agrees.
2) Looking at the $5,000 per market unit Parlin has agreed to pay as a supplemental fee from the perspective of your post above. What additional capital expenses necessitated by the project are these voluntary additional payments covering? If the answer to that question is, “no capital costs that aren’t already covered by the $791,476 and the $5.5 million.” With no matching capital costs, what does the $755,000 (151 times $5,000) match up to? If I read the Staff Report correctly that amount was added by the developer to supplement the shortfall in Property Taxes. Therefore, it should be included with the Property Taxes in the “base case analysis” revenues.
3) What additional capital costs are associated with the $$80,000 to $90,000 per rental unit land dedication site subsidy wind fall? Well typically the dedication site fees would be the matching capital costs, but the reality is (as noted by the Staff Report) that the city won’t have to incur or pay those fees because of a decision by the developer. So, bottom-line the city is getting the capital improvement without having to expend the customary $3 million plus. We can account for this $3 million in a number of ways. We can add it to the $791,476 and the $5.5 million, and then the city will have a $3 million surplus of one time revenues over one time capital costs. Or we can add it to the “base case analysis” and create a surplus there, but I don’t think that is correct accounting. Or we can show it as a below-the-line entry on Attachment #11. Regardless of what accounting method is chosen the $3 million is a windfall for the City that is a direct result of a decision by the developer.
says it all. Community facilities
Matt, where have you been!! We developers love your fiscal logic. Keep it up so we can use it in our next big project!
Joe D: You do understand that this particular developer and project has gone well beyond what the city requires them in terms of fiscal impact to avoid a negative fiscal impact just as they have gone above and beyond the city’s requirements for sustainability, GHG emissions, and accessibility. As I understand it, most developers are going to oppose this project for fear that it will establish new baselines in this city.
Joe, we aren’t talking about rocket science here. It is simple GASB Accounting. The reason that past developers haven’t done this is that they haven’t gone to the “above and beyond” level of fiscal and technological commitment that Parlin has. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge there never have been revenues without the matching capital costs that Sue described.
Let me take a moment to digress from finances to make a simple statement about this project. At this time I neither support nor oppose the project. The sticking point I have is in the realities of Workforce Housing. In order to support the project I need to see clear evidence that members of the Davis workforce want to, and can, purchase one of the ownership units in an attainable manner. That to me is the key question that needs to be answered between now and the day Davis votes.
They have both raised and lowered the bar. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!’
Pam: [i]”Don, not wanting to beat a dead horse (no pun intended!) but because Prop 13 does not allow property taxes to keep up with inflation and income tax revenue falls in recessions, it was only a matter of time before California went belly up.”[/i]
This really is not true. You are confusing cause and effect. While it is the case that the revenue stream from income taxes and sales taxes have a higher beta — that is, they fluctuate up and down more based on the speed of economic growth — that fluctuation is not the cause of our long-term crisis in California.
The cause of the long-term fiscal problems in California is [i]entirely[/i] on the spending side. We increased government expenditures (and liabilities) from 1998-2008 in California something like* 8.5% per year every year on a compounded basis (adjusted for population increase). However, our revenue growth, over the whole period was something like 5.9% compounded (adjusted for population growth). If the state government had simply capped its expenditure growth to the long-term revenue growth, there would be no crisis in state government, today. During the housing bubble, the state would have built up a very large surplus, and during this recession we could have spent it down.
*I’d have to look up the exact numbers. I read this information about a year ago in a PPIC examination of state finances. One important fact in why our expenditure growth was so extremely out of whack was Prop 98. In terms of effect on the state fiscal crisis, you should have a much bigger complaint against 98 than you do against Prop 13.
Speaking of putrescent, cancerboard-construction suburban sprawl… are we not to presume all such projects at this juncture in history are (probably secretly) compliant
with
[url]http://inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/11469/2009-08-07.html[/url]
?
BTW, is there a local lobby to stand up for constitutional rights as a locality, in the face of tyrannical fed efforts?
http://www.infowars.com/nle-09-fema-takes-preparations-for-martial-law-to-the-next-level/
Have a day.
ps.
Anyone think BO’s idea of “change” is turning out to be genuine? I wonder what the Framers of the Constitution would think of this Constitutional scholar heading the Dems…
“I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:69
–[url]http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1320.htm[/url]
I mean, anyone think he’s genuinely fighting for the workingclass?? Check this update I found via [url]singlepayeraction.org[/url]…
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm
I have read all 70 preceding comments and can’t wait to vote “YES” on the Wildhorse Ranch project. And, please, Pam Gunnel & Sue Greenwald, stop trying to distract citizens from all the innovative aspects of this project by carping about Prop., 13 and “process.”
This project has been in the pipeline for 3-5 years (depending upon whom you believe)and the developers have made one good-faith modification after another to make it a state-of-the-art, environmentally-sustainable model for future development proposals.
The fact that Sue Greenwald is opposed should be a non-issue. Sue argues against everything (possibly reaching new heights as the penultimate CAVE member), but cannot defeat this excellent project, even with renewed support from her former campaign manager (and failed council candidate).
I predict that the “Ranch” project will be approved by voters, because they prefer a sound, environmentally-sustainable infill project rather than a continuum of never-ending sprawl. If the houses don’t sell, that is the developer’s loss on his gamble.
And, perhaps for the greater benefit of the progressive movement in Davis, if we can approve such an environmentally-superior project, we can show the entire community that we are willing to work together for the right development.
I’m voting YES on Measure P, as a commitment to the future of Davis as an environmentally-sustainable community and model for the future.
rick, I disagree with you. The process that Pam and Sue have taken to task was indeed flawed, and they are right to voice their concerns. But at the end of the day (pun intended) the short timeline the Council chose hurts the pro-WHR forces even more than it hurts the anti-WHR forces.
The 12 days that Freddy Oakley has set for writing the ballot statements should be a piece of cake for WENA, whom I suspect will be central to the statement writing process. They have been dealing with this for many years, and their arguments are as a result fully formed. If you believe in carryover, the anti-WHR forces start the election cycle with an effective 60-40 lead based on the results of the Measure X vote.
The pro-WHR forces have to craft their message in the same 12 days, and that message needs to generate enough gravitas to swing the pendulum back 10 percentage points just to get to breakeven.
But regardless of what side of the pro-con divide you are on, Pam and Sue’s concerns are legitimate. Hopefully Staff won’t make the same mistake again.
If measure J passes for the WH Ranch proposal, does the zoning change from agricultural to residential, whether or not the WH baseline development agreement(and the subsequent full development agreement) actually results in the project. What happens if Parlin just delays building the project and ultimately comes to Council and says that he is unable to build the the project as described in the Development Agreement and is planning to sell the property. In other words, does Parlin have to build the project that he is “hawking” to the Davis voter or can he sell the land that is now much more valuable, with the new zoning that would no longer require a measure J vote, to another developer. If so, this would greatly increase the value of the land with the new zoning within the city limits. Anyone have the answer?
What does whose fault it was that this was rushed through at 1:30 AM have to do with anything? Does the fact that staff may have been responsible give Parlin’s proposal a “pass” to short-cut a full process of consideration by all the Council members? Parlin’s plan to get his Measure J vote in Nov. when it would be the only item on the ballot(if Sue is accurate and I fully agree that it gives him an overwhelming advantage) was potentially being derailed through no fault of his own;so,sh..t happens!
On another issue being discussed, my take is that David’s article clearly should have been subtitled,”Commentary” with him signing off as David Greenwald COMMENTING rather than REPORTING.
ol’ timer, I personally would have rather not had this item considered when it was. I stayed to the bitter end. However, in what way did the late hour “short-cut a full process of deliberation”? Steve and Sue both got their full allotment of minutes to voice their concerns about the project and they used those allotments in full. No member of the public who desired to speak and was in the room was denied the right to speak for their full allotted time.
How would the discussion have changed if it had started on schedule at 7:00?
Or better yet, how would the discussion have changed if it had started two to four weeks earlier?
“I personally would have rather not had this item considered when it was..”
Steve raised the issue of process, i.e, not bringing the commissions into the process. Staff(read Emlen, former Planning and Development Director) argued that the Council had laid out policy and staff had concluded that these criteria had been met so the Commissions could be kept out of the process. Steve(and many others) do not accept this argument. The last- minute insertion of a Home Owners Association fee that would partially negate negative fiscal impacts of the project was convincingly addressed(tellingly from the podium, in public comment) that past examples of this strategy have shown that it is seriously flawed. It was recognized that the Budget and Finance Commission and Open Space Commission raised issues during the Measure X campaign that clearly “hurt” the Yes on X campaign. Emlen appears determined not to make this “mistake” again. Your repeated statements, as above, suggest to me that you also recognize the process issue but have concluded that the merits of this project outweigh your “personal concerns”.
I should not have to explain the obvious. Without grassroots funding, FREE air time at open Council with potential FREE Enterprise coverage is absolutely critical in bringing information to the voters. Denial of TIME to inform the voters appears to be the strategy in play.
Maybe you do need to explain the obvious:
“FREE air time at open Council with potential FREE Enterprise coverage is absolutely critical in bringing information to the voters. Denial of TIME to inform the voters appears to be the strategy in play. “
As you know, or should know, surveys from a year ago indicate a very tiny fraction of the public watches a council meeting. Most of those people are probably the insiders who have already made up their mind.
As you also know, there will be plenty of free Enterprise coverage, Vanguard coverage, and other coverage bring a variety of viewpoints to bear for the voters.
And I’m not sure that denial of time appears to be a strategy. The developers as indicated in Greenwald’s article wanted the item to come before the council in June. So who is trying to deny time? What you see as malice, I just see as stupidity on the part of an incompetent city staff and a council that never holds them accountable for their stupidity. Unfortunate, but not the fault of the developers.
Isn’t it a bit suspicious that Ceclia Greenwald, David’s wife, and her no-growth campaign supporters are suddenly so supportive of this conversion of ag land on edge of the City with such high density right next to ag land owned by the Conway Ranch developers. Could it be that Celia’s campaign manager, Bill Ritter, has been hired by the Parlin to run their Measure J campaign. Could Celia’s campaign debt be tied to her support for Ritter’s latest developer client. David needs to reveal the connection between Parlin and his wife’s campaign debt.
“How would the discussion have changed if it had started on schedule at 7:00?”
You’ve got to be kidding?! Many people who wanted to stay and speak could not stay until the wee hours of the morning. I, for one, wanted to hear what everyone had to say. This is typical for Davis CC meetings – put important items on late at night, to cut down on public comment.
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
1) Steve raised the issue of process, i.e, not bringing the commissions into the process. Staff(read Emlen, former Planning and Development Director) argued that the Council had laid out policy and staff had concluded that these criteria had been met so the Commissions could be kept out of the process. Steve(and many others) do not accept this argument.
2) The last- minute insertion of a Home Owners Association fee that would partially negate negative fiscal impacts of the project was convincingly addressed (tellingly from the podium, in public comment) that past examples of this strategy have shown that it is seriously flawed.
3) It was recognized that the Budget and Finance Commission and Open Space Commission raised issues during the Measure X campaign that clearly “hurt” the Yes on X campaign. Emlen appears determined not to make this “mistake” again.
4) Your repeated statements, as above, suggest to me that you also recognize the process issue but have concluded that the merits of this project outweigh your “personal concerns”.
5) I should not have to explain the obvious. Without grassroots funding, FREE air time at open Council with potential FREE Enterprise coverage is absolutely critical in bringing information to the voters.
6) Denial of TIME to inform the voters appears to be the strategy in play.[/quote]
Excellent points. To make them easier to address, I’ve numbered them in your quoted post.
1) As I sat in the chamber room, I found Emlen’s answer acceptable. I guess a lot depends on whether you see the Commissions as editorial boards or as arbiters of policy. If you see them as the former, then Emlen’s position is wrong. If you see them as the latter, then what policy matters would you have expected them to weigh in on in this case?
2) Based on my experience as the former president of the El Macero Homeowners Association I’m having a hard time imagining what the serious flaws of this approach have been. Can you help me out of my ignorance?
3) As I noted above the question here is one of editorial review vs. policy review. What were the issues the Commissions raised during Measure X?
3A) Won’t the Commissions be weighing in on the terms of the as yet not finalized Development Agreement?
4) Absolutely correct. I have yet to see an item come before the Council that has to do with land use that hasn’t caused me to have “personal concerns.” As I said in a prior post I don’t support or oppose this project right now. There are definite questions I want to see answered regarding the attainability of the townhouses for Davis workforce buyers. However, I felt that the project definitely had reached a level of merit where it should be put before a vote of the people.
5) If you believe that then get you tush in gear. I can’t speak for David, but I would be very, very surprised if he turned down even one article submitted on the WHR project, regardless of the article’s position. Council meetings is not the only place to get free air time.
FWIW, I believe there are far more pressing things the Council needs to address in the coming weeks and months that are more important than creating a vehicle for free airtime. One could argue that the whole reason the WHR discussion took place on the date and time it did was because of low priority items that the Council had included on its agendas in prior meetings.
6) For every minute of denial for the anti-WHR constituents, there is an equal minute of denial for the pro-WHR constituents. Considering the fact that the pro-WHR constituents are starting their campaign with a 40-60 handicap, they have much further to go than the anti-WHR constiuents.
[quote]
Observer said . . .
1) Isn’t it a bit suspicious that Ceclia Greenwald, David’s wife, and her no-growth campaign supporters are suddenly so supportive of this conversion of ag land on edge of the City with such high density right next to ag land owned by the Conway Ranch developers.
2) Could it be that Celia’s campaign manager, Bill Ritter, has been hired by the Parlin to run their Measure J campaign.
3) Could Celia’s campaign debt be tied to her support for Ritter’s latest developer client.
4) David needs to reveal the connection between Parlin and his wife’s campaign debt.[/quote]
1) I don’t find it suspicious at all. Half the 25 acres is paved over and unfarmable. Close to half the remaining 13 acres can’t be farmed because it is too close the east side of Caravaggio lot lines. A substantial portion of the remaining 7 acres has existing trees on it or is in the City’s greenbelt easement. So that leaves a farmable plot of 3-4 acres. What farmer in his/her right mind would consider farming a 3-4 acre plot?
1A) How does adding 3-4 farmable acres to the ag land owned by the Conway Ranch developers change the value of the the Conway Ranch developers’ land?
2) That is a statement of fact. Consultants work for a series of clients. Heck Marlee Matlin and James Carville work for bitterly opposed clients. No one seems to mind. I think we have a Walter Cronkite moment here.
3) Can you explain what your underlying logic is in asking this question?
4) To me the answer to that question is, “there isn’t enough economic leverage in what you have laid out to merit any linkage.
4A) David has clearly stated he won’t answer such questions from anonymous posters, but to humor you I will ask him your question and will post an answer whan I get one. Will that satisfy you?
Do you have any more specious conjecture?
Observer, that did not take very long. David just sent me an e-mail. Cecilia doesn’t have any campaign debt. Shortly after the election she personally paid off all residual debt owed by the campaign.
So to this neutral observer, if there is no campaign debt, how can there be any connection between Parlin and something that is non-existant?
Curious: [i]”… does Parlin have to build the project that he is “hawking” to the Davis voter or can he sell the land that is now much more valuable, with the new zoning that would no longer require a measure J vote, to another developer?”[/i]
Parlin can sell the project, the land or whatever at any time to anyone. This is actually what happened to the Wildhorse development when it was built. It was designed and proposed by the Duffel Brothers, but after delays, a vote, a lawsuit and a lawsuit settlement,* the Duffels sold out to another developer which built the project.
[i]”If so, this would greatly increase the value of the land with the new zoning within the city limits.”[/i]
I’m sure that is true. However, it’s not unlikely that the increased value is roughly equal to the money Parlin has already poured into these 25 acres, thus far.
Whether it is sold to another builder or not, that should make no difference to residents of Davis. The terms of the agreement would remain the same. Parlin, as it happens, is not a Davis company. However, Talbott Solar, which has been working with them on the design (and presumably will install the photovoltaics) is from Davis.
————-
*At the risk of oversimplifying a very complicated matter, the settlement money given to WHOA by the Duffels was wrongly taken by Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer. In the end, Robinson had to pay back $20,000 and Glazer had to pay back $85,000. I had no part in WHOA. However, like WHOA, I opposed Wild Horse and voted against it.
Rich, the 90% GHG reduction is written in all documents, including the conditions of approval. The COA run with the land, so anyone who buys the project from Parlin (assuming they sell it) has to do it.
Has to do it onsite.
So Rich, you are saying that there is NO TRIGGER that returns the land back to its original zoning(requiring another Measure J vote) if we vote Yes on Measure P(for Parlin?) and Parlin sells the land to another who then works out another development agreement, this time only with Council majority approval and WITHOUT the final OK of a Davis majority vote. If true, this gets curiouser and curiouser.
as it would be a way around Measure J and Measure J specifically precluded such endeavers.
“As I noted above the question here is one of editorial review vs. policy review. What were the issues the Commissions raised during Measure X?”
….having been intimately involved in the NO on X steering committee, I can tell you,without question, that both the Open Space Commission and Budget and Finance Committee weighed in and challenged some basic assumptions and decisions of staff and the Council majority. Both Commissions held Davis citizens with impeccable credentials( finance/ mathematician and environmental/biology UCD professors). Two issues that come to mind(it was some years ago now) were where and what the land mitigation should be for the CV project and the finance calculations that staff reported out as basically “neutral”. Staff did this by, among other manipulations, assuming that housing property values would rise about 6% in perpetuity..dah… wrong guess.
….that’s 6%/year.
Matt said:
“As I said in a prior post I don’t support or oppose this project right now. There are definite questions I want to see answered…”
My position exactly. Where we differ is whether completing the baseline agreement AFTER it has been approved to go on the Nov. ballot(remember staff’s musing about what an embarrassment it would be if Measure J had to be pulled from the ballot) essentially puts the ball in Parlin’s court. It is also clear to me that ,with Measure P already approved for a Nov. vote, there will significantly less Council time/energy devoted to this issue since the majority has determined that, with some minor additions, it is ready to go before the voters.
“6) For every minute of denial for the anti-WHR constituents, there is an equal minute of denial for the pro-WHR constituents. “
With genuine respect…. not really worthy of a “Matt Williams” byline. Parlin can BUY all the campaign exposure “time”(TV,newspaper ads ,mailings,literature,hired spokespeople on his payroll) he needs. Not so, those who attempt to raise what they feel are legitimate issues for public consideration.
[quote]So Rich, you are saying that there is NO TRIGGER that returns the land back to its original zoning(requiring another Measure J vote) if we vote Yes on Measure P(for Parlin?) and Parlin sells the land to another who then works out another development agreement, this time only with Council majority approval and WITHOUT the final OK of a Davis majority vote. If true, this gets curiouser and curiouser.[/quote] You have it right. However, I don’t understand why it would make a difference to anyone voting for or against WHR whether Parlin ends up the builder of the project. If Parlin sold the land (with all the development agreements) to another builder and the new builder did a poor job, then I could see how that would affect the price potential buyers would be willing to pay for the available homes. But as a voter, it seems irrelevant as to whose name is on the side of the trucks which do the construction.
While the Cannery Park project would not require a Measure J vote, it would have been in a similar position to what CURIOUS is talking about (though I don’t see why it is an issue at all). Lewis Properties does not actually build anything. (I think they did at one time, but sold that business.) Lewis’s interest was to invest in the property, design a plan that they thought the people of Davis wanted (and the CC would vote for), and then after getting approval, they would find a subcontractor to install the necessary infrastructure and then Lewis would sell off all of the lots to other developers. They make their money by increasing the value of the land by going through the design and bureaucratic process and the installation of infrastructure (such as streets, electric connections, water hook-ups, etc.).
If and when any sort of rezone comes forward for the Cannery, many of us support it being put on the ballot, similar to Measure J. If I could make two changes to the J renewal, I would remove the sunset, and add a J vote for any rezone of the Cannery.
The CC put the Target Shopping Center on the ballot, and Cannery should be there, too, if they come forward with another housing proposal.
[quote]
Curious said . . .
So Rich, you are saying that there is NO TRIGGER that returns the land back to its original zoning(requiring another Measure J vote) if we vote Yes on Measure P(for Parlin?) and Parlin sells the land to another who then works out another development agreement, this time only with Council majority approval and WITHOUT the final OK of a Davis majority vote. If true, this gets curiouser and curiouser.[/quote]
Actually Curious you raise a very interesting question. I seem to remember the developer of Willowbank 9 asking for an extension of the expiration date of the entitlements for Willowbank 9. I also remember that the original entitlements had to be renewed when the original owner sold the property to the current owner/developer. I don’t know whether such expiration dates are standard parts of Development Agreements. It is worthy of some homework.
[quote]Matt Williams said . . .
6) For every minute of denial for the anti-WHR constituents, there is an equal minute of denial for the pro-WHR constituents.”
and ol’ timer replied . . .
With genuine respect…. not really worthy of a “Matt Williams” byline. Parlin can BUY all the campaign exposure “time” (TV, newspaper ads, mailings, literature, hired spokespeople on his payroll) he needs. Not so, those who attempt to raise what they feel are legitimate issues for public consideration.[/quote]
Your point is probably valid, although I don’t think this is going to be a very complex election. I really think it will turn on whether there truly is a demonstrable need for Workforce Housing in Davis. If Parlin can not demonsrate that need then I think the anti-WHR sentiment will be very viral. All the technological advances are not time dependant. If there isn’t sufficient internal demand to sell the units of this project to current Davisites (either workers or residents) then that same technology will be available when there is sufficient internal demand.
As most of you know, I don’t get to vote in Davis elections, but looking back on Measure X, the most powerful message of the No On X campaign was the picketing of selected Davis street corners simulating the clogged traffic conditions that CV would have created. It was a message that cost virtually $0 to create, but its impact was priceless. All the slick brochures in the world didn’t have the power of that message.
[quote]
ol’ timer said . . .
Having been intimately involved in the NO on X steering committee, I can tell you,without question, that both the Open Space Commission and Budget and Finance Committee weighed in and challenged some basic assumptions and decisions of staff and the Council majority. Both Commissions held Davis citizens with impeccable credentials (finance/mathematician and environmental/biology UCD professors). Two issues that come to mind (it was some years ago now) were where and what the land mitigation should be for the CV project and the finance calculations that staff reported out as basically “neutral”. Staff did this by, among other manipulations, assuming that housing property values would rise about 6% in perpetuity..dah… wrong guess.[/quote]
Your comment is interesting for two reasons,
1) WHR is approximately 1/10 the number of units and 1/15 the number of acres of CV, so the complexities of the two projects are wildly different. That doesn’t mean that the Commissions wouldn’t have found issues. Heck, I have major problems (as we all know) with the Staff financial analysis. But because of WHR’s relatively small size, and the extensive meeting history with WENA and the City, I really think the Commissions would have been hard pressed to find much, if anything that needed adjustment.
2) One of the things I’ve been very impressed with about Parlin is how well they listen and learn. They clearly learned from CV’s mitigation mistakes, and if anything went overboard in coming up with a mitigation plan that both Mitch Sears and the folks in Planning agreed with. I may be wrong, but I don’t expect Parlin to change its high quality listening approach any time in the near future.
There was no time to ask any of these questions being discussed, and many others on my list.
I believe I was given about 15 minutes to ask questions and make my observations. We had virtually no time to discuss the fiscal impact report, the development agreement, the baseline project features, the status of the land in the original Wildhorse development agreement, the relative value of the greenhouse gas reduction from the green building requirements versus the additional gas needed due to the peripheral location of the site, what percentage of residents of our recent peripheral subdivisions work in Davis, versus the percent that commute out (we could be adding to gas consumption by building peripheral subdivisions, if residents are commuting out), and on and on.
We had no time to ask questions about the wording and the feasibility of the CFD, which was proposed on the fly at 1:30 in the morning.
We rammed the ballot measure on a sole-item election, guaranteed to have a low turn-out, which will more easily be bought by professional campaign consultants who will conduct an expensive get at the vote drive, identifying every supporter in advance and getting those voters, and only those voters, to the polls.
By putting this on a low turn-out election, the spirit of Measure J has been gutted, and this election will have set a precedent for future developers to use the same hard-ball tactic.
Again, this was the worst abuse of process that I have seen since I have been on the council.
Sue, all of that may be true, but at least in part the reason you didn’t discuss those issues was that you chose to use your allotted time to discuss the process rather than to list the issues that needed to be discussed and then begin to discuss them. All of the issues you list here merited discussion. Did they get discussed?
What were your concerns about the fiscal impact report?
Isn’t the development agreement yet to be finalized? Won’t there be a thorough, focused discussion of it by Council well prior to November?
The baseline project features was an extremely important issue. Why didn’t you take your allotted time to discuss them?
The status of the land in the original Wildhorse development agreement was discussed at length in the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings. Those discussions concluded that there were no restrictions on the WHR land. What concerns did you have that weren’t thoroughly vetted by the HESC?
The relative value of the greenhouse gas reduction from the green building requirements versus the additional gas needed due to the peripheral location of the site, what percentage of residents of our recent peripheral subdivisions work in Davis, versus the percent that commute out (we could be adding to gas consumption by building peripheral subdivisions, if residents are commuting out is a very important issue with a highly dependant answer. If the residents of WHR are current Davis workers who commute to Davis from Sacramento or Woodland or even Dixon, then the commuting GHG component of the site will be a significant improvement and the peripheral location of the site will be largely moot; however if the units aren’t attainable by the Davis workforce then the commuting GHG of added housing in Davis will be higher than current levels, regardless of where the added housing is located.
Because of this last last point I think the developer has quite a bit more work to do on the attainability of WHR for Davis’ internal housing demand. However, it is probably unrealistic to expect them to have concrete answers to the specifics of the current Davis workforce housing demand at this stage of the project. The City doesn’t even have answers like that, and has recently put on hold the Senior Housing Committee , which was going to try and do that very thing (focused on Davis seniors rather than Davis workers). So, I believe the realistic approach to the issue you have raised is to get into it in depth between now and November.
One issue I personally wanted to see discussed was whether the attainment of the 90% GHG reduction should be applied to all new homes in Davis.
If you really believe the date of the election compromises the election quality, would an April date be preferable?
As always you have given us food for thought. I look forward to the ongoing dialogue.
[quote]By putting this on a low turn-out election, the spirit of Measure J has been gutted, and this election will have set a precedent for future developers to use the same hard-ball tactic.
Again, this was the worst abuse of process that I have seen since I have been on the council.[/quote]Many of us agree with you.
This is an absurd argument. First of all, there is no provision in Measure J precluding putting it on a low turnout election.
Second, it’s easier to convince people to vote No on something than yes.
Third, Measure X was placed on a similar election, the difference was at that point, Arnold put the ballot measures on which turned it from a low turnout election to an election with reasonable turnout.
Matt: your replies suggest that you are unwilling and/or unable to adequately address the questions raised here. You dismiss Sues’ lengthy argument with a flippant “That may be true” and then go on extensively to divert the issue to why then didn’t SHE use her 15 MINUTES to raise and attempt resolve all these issues. In my case, I tried to answer your question concerning commission input before the Measure J vote on CV.
The size is irrelevant. If your analysis is correct, the relevant commission’s work would very quickly be concluded and reported out to Council. Yes, staff has been negotiating with Parlin for some time now but, as you are well aware, Davis voters traditionally do not take much notice until it becomes vigorously debated, both pro and con, on the Council dais, public comment and Enterprise letters to the editor(and now this blog).
Rich Rifkin said:” You have it right. However, I don’t understand why it would make a difference….”
I admit to being ignorant of the law here but am trying to use what common sense I possess. Are you saying once the development agreement is created by this Council following a Measure J approval and zoning change, it can NEVER be altered by future Councils? If that agreement, for whatever reason, makes the property now zoned for residential, unprofitable for residential development , then it stands empty and unused forever more?
ol’ timer, you have lost me. Probably more than anyone posting in these WHR threads, I have consistently tried to tease out all the pertinent issues and encourage objective discussion of those issues. Yet, you take me to task as “unwilling or unable.” Please help me understand what issues you believe I am unwilling or unable to discuss.
Go back and read my first sentence to Sue. “Sue, all of that may be true, but at least in part . . .” What is it about the words “in part” that fits your description. The thrust of my post is that we can not change what happened in the Council Chambers. It is memoriallized forever in the public record. What we need to do now is to do everything we can to make the ongoing discussions as robust and educational as possible. Sue’s list of concerns was an excellent one. I’m not sure how it is a bad thing asking her to share her thoughts/concerns on the items in her list. We will all benefit from such a discussion.
I reitterate the words I used to end my post to her, As always you have given us food for thought. I look forward to the ongoing dialogue.
Now regarding your point on the commissions. Let me be clear.
1) Would any harm have been done by having the relevant commissions review the proposal? Absolutely not!
2) Would those commissions have had suggestions that could have made the proposal better? Quite possibly so. I certainly would have expected the Finance and Budget Commission to wrestle with the cash flow issues I’ve documented in other posts.
3) Was the process harmed in any meaningful way as a result of mike Webb’s/Bill Emlen’s decision? Not in any way that I can see.
4) Would the fact that Davis voters don’t pay attention until the last minute have meant there would have been a big turnout or small turnout for any Commission meetings? I really don’t know the answer to that question. What are your thoughts?
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
I admit to being ignorant of the law here but am trying to use what common sense I possess. Are you saying once the development agreement is created by this Council following a Measure J approval and zoning change, it can NEVER be altered by future Councils? If that agreement, for whatever reason, makes the property now zoned for residential, unprofitable for residential development , then it stands empty and unused forever more? [/quote]
I realize you addressed this question to Rich, but if my sketchy understanding of recent motions at the Planning Commission is correct, then the granting of entitlements for a parcel does not lest in perpetuity. There comes a time when those entitlements become “stale” and the property owner has to reapply.
I too am ignorant of the law (and regulations) on this subject. Hopefully we will get a more in depth answer.
It is a very important question.
Sorry Matt, I am perhaps overly sensitive to the strategy that says, look, I am being balanced by acknowledging that you have good points(one sentence) and then going on for the rest of the page(or speech) arguing the contrary.
First, this is more than just about this project. Measure J’s populist underpinnings was inevitably going to be challenged the next time out by those whom it deprives of previous total control. Measure J is under attack, make no mistake about it. To me, this is more about subverting the intent of Measure J to give the electorate fully informed final approval rather than a Council majority that, all to often in the past, has shown itself to be beholden to developer interests for their Council campaign funds and future IOU’s when they attempt to move on to higher office. This perceived collusion between developer interests and Council members was the reason that Measure J was created in the first place. If you think that announced-candidate- for Supervisor Don Saylor(with Ruth Asmundson-in-tow) will allow the time/resources for any real “in depth” exploration by the Council or commissions before the election, I think that you will be disappointed. Lamar is the swing vote again here as to what the agenda will look like. It will be very interesting to see how he handles this.
“There comes a time when those entitlements become “stale” and the property owner has to reapply.”
…my point; in the WH Ranch case, does the Measure J zoning change also become “stale” and the property revert back to its original zoning, requiring another Measure J vote rather than just a new development agreeement negotiated and approved by some future Council majority?
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
Sorry Matt, I am perhaps overly sensitive to the strategy that says, look, I am being balanced by acknowledging that you have good points(one sentence) and then going on for the rest of the page(or speech) arguing the contrary.[/quote]
No need to apologize. I worked hard to be sure post to Sue was as Socratic as possible, i.e. soliciting her thoughts on the concerns she listed. Sue has never been one who is short on words. I fully expected a thorough response.
[quote]First, this is more than just about this project. Measure J’s populist underpinnings was inevitably going to be challenged the next time out by those whom it deprives of previous total control. Measure J is under attack, make no mistake about it. To me, this is more about subverting the intent of Measure J to give the electorate fully informed final approval rather than a Council majority that, all to often in the past, has shown itself to be beholden to developer interests for their Council campaign funds and future IOU’s when they attempt to move on to higher office. This perceived collusion between developer interests and Council members was the reason that Measure J was created in the first place.[/quote]
You and I are of like minds on the importance of Measure J. Where we may differ is that I believe that Measure J was just as vulnerable to an attack based on the fact that no project could ever make it through the multi layer presteps, and therefore it is unworkable. So find myself balancing the pros and cons of too much detail versus not enough detail.
We probably also differ on the respective roles of the baseline Measure J features and the development agreement. I’m pretty sure I have more faith in the enfore=ceability of the development agreement than you do; however, I can understand your skepticism.
[quote]If you think that announced-candidate- for Supervisor Don Saylor (with Ruth Asmundson-in-tow) will allow the time/resources for any real “in depth” exploration by the Council or commissions before the election, I think that you will be disappointed. Lamar is the swing vote again here as to what the agenda will look like. It will be very interesting to see how he handles this.
[/quote]
I agree it will be interesting.
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
My point; in the WH Ranch case, does the Measure J zoning change also become “stale” and the property revert back to its original zoning, requiring another Measure J vote rather than just a new development agreeement negotiated and approved by some future Council majority?
[/quote]
That would be ideal, but I don’t think it is the case. Further, I don’t think you could get three votes in favor of that provision from this Council. I categorize that in the “nice to have” category, or alternatively in the “casualty in the negotiations process” category.
That is my realist side talking.
“..but I don’t think it is the case. ”
If your “realist side” is accurate, then this 90% on-site GHG reduction “wow” factor campaign hoopla COULD BE to get this through the Measure J process and a zoning change within the city limits. No one seems to have commented on the consultant’s description of how he was going to meet this promise. Remember?, first 30% “low hanging fruit”, next 30% more difficult and the last 30% requiring some serious and unspecified “REAL WORK” to be met. Without “teeth” in the baseline agreement, BEFORE we vote on approving Measure J, that tries to guarantee that the developer fulfills the promises he is making to the Davis voter, he will have his zoning change and can then “renegotiate” this part of the development agreement without any further interference from the bothersome electorate.
Very reasonable point.
In a perfect world, and we all know we aren’t dealing with a perfect world here, but if we were, what “teeth” would you like to see put in place?
“..what “teeth” would you like to see put in place?”
The developer’s consultants claim that they can bring this in(90% GHG reduction on-site) and still make the project financially viable. They add that they know that it can be, and has been done for a higher price tag than they are promising. so.. the “teeth”?… financial penalties of such a degree that it would be better to go with the more expensive technologies that meet their promises and take a smaller, or perhaps even no, profit. That would be the risk that they would take in getting our Measure J vote because we believe their promises. As I have said before, developers justify the extraordinary profits they make by talking about the financial risks they take… then they do everything in their power to eliminate those risks.
Very reasonable. If tangible teeth like that existed would you support the project, or are there additional issues that need to be addressed?
My own answer to that question is, “Those teeth are indeed a comfort, but I have some other issues that need to be addressed before this project can get my vote (if I had a vote).
If I was guaranteed that these promises would be kept, I would most likely support this project even though I still have reservations about adding to the potential Davis housing glut(new and existing houses up for sale) with the permits already approved and waiting to be built. As for affordability, it is assumed that the developer WOULD NOT be passing the additional costs on to the buyer but rather would absorb them himself. I also am concerned, as you are, about the price tag of these condos and how they serve our “workforce”. Venturing into your “real world”, I don’t see the developer buying into this risk. It’s one thing to expound passionately from the Council podium, quite another to put your cash on the line. I still am of the opinion that staff’s initial reluctance to accept the 90% reduction on-site claim for the baseline development document for the Measure J vote may have had to do with the staff’s understanding that this was a WH Ranch Measure J campaign promise that staff could not back up.
One of the main selling points for the WHR project is that it will set a new standard for green development in Davis. The developers, Vanguard, project proponents, etc. have gone so far as to claim that the project is so green that it will get state and national attention — and will “put Davis back on the map.”
If all this is true, why don’t we hear any mention of LEED certification? I searched both this thread as well as “Wow Factor: Wildhorse Ranch Achieves (sic) Unprecedented 90% Greenhouse Reduction” and cannot find any mention of LEED certification. I have paid reasonably close attention to the debate thus far, and can’t recall the issue being discussed. That’s not to say that it has never been mentioned … but it certainly isn’t a big topic of debate
For those that aren’t sure what LEED is, here are quotes (emphasis mine) from the Natural Resources Defense Council[quote]What is LEED certification?
In the United States and in a number of other countries around the world, LEED certification is [u]the recognized standard for measuring building sustainability[/u]. Achieving LEED certification is the best way for you to demonstrate that your building project [u]is truly “green.”[/u][/quote]and Wikipedia[quote]The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction. Since its inception in 1998, LEED has grown to encompass [u]more than 14,000 projects in the United States and 30 countries covering 1.062 billion square feet (99 km²)[/u] of development area. The hallmark of LEED is that [u]it is an open and transparent process where the technical criteria proposed by the LEED committees are publicly reviewed for approval by the more than 10,000 membership organizations[/u] that currently constitute the USGBC.[/quote]Since one of the core disagreements seems to be the credibility of the developer’s 90% on-site GHG reduction claims, why doesn’t the City require LEED certification?
As far as I can tell, the only certification that is currently required is HESS certification (as in Community Development Director, Katherine Hess). While Katherine may be a very capable person, she is surely not a substitute for the U.S. Green Building Council and their certification process. With more than 14,000 LEED certified projects in over 30 counties, it begs the question … Why is this project (that is being marketed to the voters as a “game changer”) not being vetted by an independent LEED certification body?
There may be a perfectly reasonable answer. If so, I’d like to hear it.
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
As for affordability, it is assumed that the developer WOULD NOT be passing the additional costs on to the buyer but rather would absorb them himself. I also am concerned, as you are, about the price tag of these condos and how they serve our “workforce”. Venturing into your “real world”, I don’t see the developer buying into this risk. It’s one thing to expound passionately from the Council podium, quite another to put your cash on the line. [/quote]
We are on the same page. Ultimately the units are going to have a price and that price is either going to be attainable by Davis workforce households or it isn’t. If it isn’t I won’t support the project. I’ve been explicitly clear with the Parlin team on this point.
With that said, a buyer may choose to factor into their own financial calculations the monthly savings on utilities they will be realizing. But whether they do or don’t it will get down to a “do we buy, or do we pass” decision.
In the end the developer has risk regardless. Look at Willowbank 9. The developer has put in all the roads and other infrastructure for the 31 lots and thus far they have only sold one. In simple terms they are over priced. I don’t think Parlin will make that same mistake.
Follow the money. The “progessives” support for this “green” project is not about its supposed zero carbon footprint. Its about who is managing the developer’s Measure J campaign. Who is footing the bill for the push phone poll? Why is David writing such glowing articles about a “greenfield” (not infill) development project? Could it be related to who paid for the slick promotional mailer about the new Vanguard website?
In any event, the talkative blogheads above are just arguing with each other, not convincing the community to vote for this project. This mud-slinging article is all about the next Council and Co. Board election in June 2010.
This Wildhorse project has no chance of voter approval when both the developer and the Council ignore neighborhood and community input. All the big bucks flowing under the radar to buy support for this project and the “big name progressive supporters” won’t result in voter approval. Didn’t anyone learn anything from the Covell Village campaign?
All observations . . . are any of them facts?