by Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw –
by Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw – The Sierra Club is not known for its support of housing developments, but we are urging you to vote yes on Measure P, the Wildhorse Ranch project, on November 3.
Wildhorse Ranch is a small-footprint housing project with 191 units on 25.8 acres located within the Davis city limits. It will be compact, with 78 townhomes; 73 single-family homes; and a 40-unit apartment complex, 38 of which will be affordable to low and very-low income families. The affordable apartments will be 100% handicap accessible.
The developer of Wildhorse Ranch has worked with local solar and energy-efficiency professionals to design a project that will greatly limit onsite greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Wildhorse Ranch housing units will produce just 10 percent of the GHG emissions of a typical Davis home—0.5 metric tons per year instead of 5.5. This will be accomplished through a combination of passive solar design to reduce energy demand and extensive use of photovoltaics on every home, on parking covers, and on similar structures, to reach an average of 2.4 kWs per household for a total of 458 kWs of clean solar power.
The homes will incorporate the latest technology in green construction and design including insulation, wall and roofing materials, and recycled construction products. The project will utilize high-efficiency heating and air conditioning, highly reflective roof and wall colors to reduce solar gain, high efficiency lighting, solar or high efficiency water heaters, and Energy Star appliances. To further reduce air conditioning demand, the project will utilize a system that introduces cool, filtered outside air into the homes at night. Residents of Wildhorse Ranch will be able to monitor and adjust their energy usage 24/7 through smart metering. Wildhorse Ranch will exceed California’s Energy Efficiency Standards by 50%.
We also applaud features of the project that will reduce water consumption: water-efficient irrigation, water-saving fixtures, and the use of California native and drought-tolerant species throughout the landscaping. This will include the planting of native trees to help reduce temperatures and capture and sequester carbon. An existing agricultural well that does not draw from the city drinking water aquifer will be used for watering the public greenbelts and open spaces. Project streets will be narrower to limit pavement, and storm water run-off will be slowed and infiltration increased by the use of bioswales —landscape elements designed to remove silt and pollution.
In 2006, the city of Davis joined the U. S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which called for local and national action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change. And in 2007 the City Council voted unanimously to adopt a strategy to reduce citywide GHG emissions. Davis has since established GHG emission thresholds, standards, and mitigation guidelines for new residential development. The Wildhorse Ranch project is planned to exceed Davis standards for new residential projects by 100 percent.
For years developers have been claiming that building truly energy-conscious homes is uneconomical and simply unrealistic. But with the global climate crisis upon us, it is this business-as-usual attitude that is unrealistic. We need a clear statement that the times have changed. The Sierra Club believes we must support and encourage developers who demonstrate that building energy efficient residences can be accomplished while still keeping home prices realistic.
The energy-efficiency and water-conserving features built into the Wildhorse Ranch project will raise the standard for future development and make daily living more affordable for the homeowners for many years to come. As such it will provide a model for other communities to examine as they grapple with the difficult issue of how we can reduce greenhouse gases without a significant lifestyle sacrifice.
The opportunity to go forward with a project that clearly and effectively addresses today’s primary environmental threat is here. This is a big-picture vote and we urge you to vote yes on Measure P.
Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw are members of the Yolano Group of the Motherlode Chapter of the Sierra Club
Can someone verify that indeed the local Sierra Club CAN endorse and if so this was a bonafide endorsement, e.g., after presentation and discussion of both sides.
From the posts yesterday both seem in question. And if not using the ‘endorsement’ in mailers is misleading at best.
The endorsement was approved by the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club and by the Local Ballot Measure Review Committee at the state level.
A few questions/thoughts regarding the Sierra Club endorsement:
1. What happens if we DON’T build at WHR; how much greenhouse gas emission is currently happening at the horse ranch (compared to 191 units with 400+ cars)?
2. Shouldn’t voters first ask the question: “Is more housing necessary for Davis” before they ask, “Is it green”? For those of you who blog how necessary more housing is for Davis, please cite reasons/fact to support (i.e. counter arguments include: why haven’t any of the 500+ approved units in town started building yet? Has Davis NOT met it’s SACOG housing targets?)
“What happens if we DON’T build at WHR; how much greenhouse gas emission is currently happening at the horse ranch (compared to 191 units with 400+ cars)?”
The real question is where those inhabitants currently live and whether they work in Davis. Because if they live outside of town and commute to town, there is a lot of savings.
Which goes toward your next question–does WHR supply housing that fills internal needs in Davis.
Why didn’t you print the opposing op-ed by Sue Greenwald as well?
Tomorrow
Aren’t there development forces entrenched in the local Sierra Club?
“Aren’t there development forces entrenched in the local Sierra Club?”
David, can we get a list of the local Sierra Club members or executive officers posted? For instance, we all know that Pam Nieberg is the President, but who are the other “key” players in this organization?
I think it would be important for people to know this…
To: The Druid:
Not at the local level. We successfully fought Covell Village, a very bad project. And we fought Target, also a very bad project and precedent. We are all opposed to sprawl development. This project is an infill project on the remainder of the Wild Horse development itself that was left undeveloped when the original 400 acres or so of farmland was developed for typical sprawl development.
To: Soda’ite: The local Group held two publically announced (in the Enterprise) meetings stating that the Wildhorse Ranch project would be discussed. One person showed up at the first meeting on this project. He supported it. No one showed up on this issue at the second meeting.
Good one, Sierra Club! Glad that it was thoroughly reviewed all the way up the chain of organization, to at least the top of California statewide.
The outside review eliminates the No on P argument that a local few snuck it through the meetings … I remember seeing the board meeting ads in the paper, and I am sure that since No on P personnel seem to care very much for the environment, they must have been members and been on the newsletter lists?
I am sure that since No on P personnel seem to care very much for the environment
Mike,
We do care about the environment and that is why we are saying that if we don’t build unnecessary homes at the WHR site, that will contribute to LESS greenhouse emissions than if we did build!
“Wildhorse Ranch is a small-footprint housing project with 191 units on 25.8 acres located within the Davis city limits. It will be compact, with 78 townhomes; 73 single-family homes; and a 40-unit apartment complex, 38 of which will be affordable to low and very-low income families. The affordable apartments will be 100% handicap accessible.”
Where do you get off calling these townhomes/apts “affordable”. Your idea of “affordable” and mind are worlds apart. These dense townhomes, that have virtually no yards for kids to play in (developer admits this) are averaging $450,000. The rents for most of the “affordable” apts are $1000 – $1200. The prices speak for themselves, at a time when we don’t need more housing. To call these homes “affordable” is highly misleading.
If you look at the Mother Lode SC site–then under Challenge Sprawl- Their biggest concern is Affordability—what is so affordable about a condo that is almost half a million dollars???? This project will not provide Affordable housing unless you are Bill Ritter who was paid well over $15,000 in one month by the developers of this project to ram it through. Or John Tallman who stated at the debate that affordability is relative…..relative to your jobs income I took him to mean. And in the next breath that this will be affordable for teachers, police and firefighters who live in town?? Really think about it.
Also, if these residents of Davis who are on the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club feel so strongly about being green why don’t they start at home with their own home. Bring their home up to a higher standard. Think Globally –Act Locally
Greg, the 90% standard will become the legal standard in Davis if this project passes. I am pretty sure that this project is the first subdivision in California that requires the 90% GHG reduction in the operation of the buildings.
There was an exchange at the 7/28 CC meeting that was fascinating to me. Steve asked David Galbraith (Talbot Solar) to explain, in effect, why this project was able to produce the 90% reductions, when other developers were always complaining that reductions approaching that level would bankrupt them (the old “it does not pencil out” mantra that the CC hears every week). David testified that the 90% was very possible due to improvements in building and energy efficiency technologies.
I built my office building in 2003, and it won some sustainable building awards (also a national award). David tells me that even though the glazing on the windows and doors was state of the art only 6 years ago, the new doors and windows have much much better films that increase the R-values far above what I could get in 2003.
Dean says that 100% GHG reduction is very possible at a reasonable cost, but 90% is enough for this project. (The City’s informal recommended standard is only a 45% reduction, and that is far better than the legal statewide standard.)
The 90% GHG reduction, coupled with the political issues that I have discussed here, are enough to have me endorse the project.
I will say that the public process has caused this project to be much better; Measure J is doing its job.
Yolano Chapter may like the green aspects (some of which do appeal) but it’s still supporting a project that is being promoted as “affordable for local workforce buyers” and “affordable for 1st time buyers”. Neither of these statements seem appropriate when talking about $425k townhouses. A down payment is $45k.
Why no LEED certification?? The chapter is supporting a developer that first intended to buy carbon credits off site. Green analysis does NOT include auto emissions generated on the 3 mi trip downtown. Slight omission?
“Approved by the Sierra Club” and “Approved by the Sierra Club (State of CA)” look VERY different to me.
YOP brochure does NOT specify that this is a local/state level Sierra Club endorsement. It looks like a FULL organization (ie national) approval. This is misleading.
I am a NOP. I do care about the environment. I am not automatically opposed to development but green, to me, means sensible growth. Do we really need another development when there are so many already approved?
To: John Muir would cringe:
The SC smart growth criteria reference to affordability is to low and very low income–the legal definition. They do not refer to market rate housing.
If you look at the city’s criteria for market rate housing affordable to middle income families in Davis, you will see that most of the homes in WHR are affordable to the middle income.
People in this town are politically active. If WHR is so great, why isn’t anyone volunteering their support (other than a few members of the local Sierra Club)? The folks standing in front of the YOP display make $15/hour. The kid that knocks on my door is paid. Bill Ritter is paid.
Jim:
This is full approval by the Sierra Club. It is one club. The local group went through the established procedure for approval of a local ballot measure/project with the Club. This is the procedure, and this is a Sierra Club endorsement, not a local or regional or state approval, but Sierra Club, period. That is how it works. There was no subterfuge on the part of the local group. If you would like to see changes in how the Club policy on endorsements works, I suggest you become active at the local level and work toward a change.
The development has been accepted into the LEED certification program. LEED certification cannot occur until final designs have been submitted to give the certification committee something to evalutate.
To Huh:
“Wildhorse Ranch is a small-footprint housing project with 191 units on 25.8 acres located within the Davis city limits. It will be compact, with 78 townhomes; 73 single-family homes; and a 40-unit apartment complex, 38 of which will be affordable to low and very-low income families. The affordable apartments will be 100% handicap accessible.”
The reference to “affordable” in this statement is to the affordable apartment units. These are the legally affordable units that fall under the purview of the City of Davis’s affordable housing ordinance. The city sets the rent for these units to be affordable to low and very low income families. The statement you reference does not refer to the town homes or single family detached.
Did you vote for Obama? Most of his community organizers who made it possible for him to win the primary were paid. Obama spent record amounts of money, a lot of it was on paid organizers.
Mr. Watson:
I support Yes on P and I appove of pay for our local college students and local residents including Bill Ritter.
BTW, as I understand it that $15K payment to Ritter was for three months, not one month.
To Pam Neiberg… thanks for clearing up the Sierra Club endorsement process. Since the local Yolo chapter was not authorized to endorse and had to go to the Mother Lode Chapter, were the opponents of Measure P notified of a meeting that they could attend, as we did for Covell Village? The subsequent Sierra state-level decision is most likely automatic unless there was a formal challenge to the Mother Lode chapter decision.
Some questions that you could clarify.. Why is it necessary to approve this project NOW when we already have 2000 housing units approved and unbuilt? You have always argued strongly that Davis should wait to approve more housing, after it has fulfilled its SACOG obligations, until the Davis voters can take it up in our next General Plan update, due in 2013, I believe.
How do you justify giving the WHR project a “pass” for its much more egregious savaging of our Measure J process when you so vigorously argued that the Council Majority supporting the CV project was attempting to do EXACTLY the same thing?
Doesn’t the fiscal analysis for this project really come down to the voters of Davis being asked to subsidize Parlin’s WHR project because of the “bragging rights” that we will earn for the global warming issue? It is acknowledged that the WHR technology cannot have any real impact on this global warming problem. Natural gas for electricity generation, heat and hot water are one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels and the global warming problem is caused overwhelmingly by coal-fired energy plants and automobile emissions(which will increase in direct proportion to our peripheral residential housing that serves predominantly commuters to Sacramento)?
“Doesn’t the fiscal analysis for this project really come down to the voters of Davis being asked to subsidize Parlin’s WHR project because of the “bragging rights” that we will earn for the global warming issue?”
As Paul explained to me the fiscal analysis of this project comes down to how much we expect employee compensation to rise over the next 15 years. If we accomplish what people like Councilmember Heystek, Greenwald, myself, Rich Rifkin and others have been pushing, the project will at least break even. If we bow to the firefighters, then this project will be in the negative.
We can have green development in Davis without WHR. And if you took this project and put it closer to shops and workplaces it would be inherently much greener since transportation represents 40% of greenhouse gases in California while homes represent a much smaller percentage. It would also be greener if it didn’t pave over Ag land–and please don’t tell me that its not “real” Ag land.
Unfortunately, while the Sierra Club has its heart in the right place, it has not always been right. One example–in 1971 the Sierra Club backed measures that would support the eastern coal company interests when negotiating the Clean Air Act (See “Clean Coal: Dirty Air: http://books.google.com/books?id=5WK1Xrvv7LcC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=sierra+club+clean+coal+dirty+air&source=bl&ots=InJbgSkpyt&sig=OqjTZ96j00mPiGs9its60_1WY_A&hl=en&ei=zjDKSsSLLIn-sgOurLyiBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=sierra club clean coal dirty air&f=false )
The result here set back reductions in sulfur dioxide emission at least 10 years. I believe this support for WHR is similarlyu missplaced.
The Sierra Club does not always get it right–support green requirements in Davis, but not this project which paves pover Ag land and ignores the largest contributor to GHG (transportation).
To the No on P Campaign: Sue did it to you, again.
With all of her free time, she completely failed to inform you guys that Sierra Club was considering to endorse or not? That there were multiple public announcements? That the political pros in town (of which she claims to be one) always think about the Sierra Club when it comes to these environmental matters? I wish one of you would post anonymously and tell all of us how she is blaming all of YOU for her failure to be on top of the Sierra Club endorsement process? Most of you are political novices in terms of citywide campaigns; how does it feel to be the victim and blamed for the process and outcome? I’ve seen it for about 10 years. It’s why I won’t sit on a committee with her.
This is consistent with her failure to inform Open Space and F & B Commissions that this project had been filed with Planning in AUGUST 2008.
And her failure to tell the CC that she wanted to see review by these commissions?
Or that she thought the BAE financial model that was prepared for CV should be re-examined?
Or that her conduct before the F & B Commission was so awful that the CC felt compelled to remove her? All of you know that there is an audio tape of that meeting, right? And that Sue “resigned” before staff could play that tape at the CC meeting? I was at part of the F & B Commission meeting, and I was so appalled at what I saw and heard that I wished my cell phone had a video recording function so I could bring it to public comment and play it? What a waste of my personal life, but I would have done it, to protect public process.
Or that the LWV always required balanced panels, and her trying to force herself onto the No on P panel would likely result in the LWV cancelling the debate?? Did she tell No on P that the LWV cancellation will probably result in severe public damage to the credibility of the No on P campaign, since it was rightfully publically blamed for the community’s loss of the only debate that most of the public actually watches?
I can hardly wait for November 3 to be over.
Ol timer:
As far as I know no one from No on P was given any chance to present a rebuttal to the local Sierra Club chapter’s argument to the national club, which is in San Francisco. If the Yolano chapter was confident in their arguments, surely they would have invited us to at least present our case. For the life of me I cannot see how this serves the long term interest of environmentalists–at least have a spirited discussion.
I am also bothered by the fact that Parlin has no real environmental ttrack record. Folks will say it makes no difference–but to me it matters if a builder has experience and dedication.
I again would like someone to present the actual tonnage(or pounds)/day SAVINGS generated for a 90% GHG reduction for a townhouse in WHR when compared to the same house if built in WHR under the 45% GHG emission current Davis standard. Then take this number and express it as hours/day automobile driving. This would give us a true picture of what the Davis voter is being asked to subsidize.