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?