The City of Davis has posted the Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the Wildhorse Ranch Proposal. The Vanguard to this point in time has taken no position on the project itself. However, the Vanguard expresses some concern about this EIR for the overall goals within our community. The public is encouraged to read the full report for themselves.
The Vanguard in general has opposed new development on the periphery of the city in an effort to prevent sprawl, protect farmland, and protect the environment. However, we do not and have never taken a no growth position. If there is to be growth, it should be done with proper density to ensure that a minimum amount of land is paved over. Moreover, given the future concerns about climate change, new development ought be done in a sustainable and environmentally innovative manner. The early model for such innovative sustainable development would be Village Homes.
Since then, Davis has fell well short of early innovation with most projects paying at best lipservice to overall views on the stewardship of the environment. The planners at Cannery Park could not even address issues of sustainability in concrete terms.
The Vanguard, again, has not taken a position on the project itself, but does have general concerns about the Draft EIR undermining goals that the council has rightfully established regarding both density and addressing climate change. The Vanguard is flat out baffled by the alternative proposals suggested within the DEIR.
The project site rests on 25.79 acres of land that at this point in time is being used for a horse ranch rather than growing crops. The proposed development includes up to 191 residential units including 73 detached single-family residents and 78 two to three story attached single-family townhome units and then an additional 40 units of affordable apartment housing.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Critics have suggested that the Wildhorse Ranch does not meet the standards for green other than constructing solar power, however, this report at great length suggests otherwise.
In its section on climate change, the EIR suggests that since a single project cannot mitigate impacts associated with the large-scale issue of global climate change, it rates impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change as significant.
- “The City is still in the process of establishing GHG reduction targets for new development occurring prior to 2010. Therefore, the City does not currently have an established threshold of significance against which the proposed project can be evaluated. Although the proposed project would implement several design standards to reduce energy use well below 2009 Title 24 standards, as well as ensure overall consistency with the latest GHG reduction measures identified by the California Attorney General, a single project cannot, on its own, feasibly mitigate impacts associated with the large-scale issue of global climate change; therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change would remain significant.”
This conclusion makes little sense given both their previous analysis and the goals of the target reductions. The question ought to be what individual impact this project has, not whether or not it solves the global problem of climate change.
“The Climate Change analysis indicates that even with implementation of the mitigation measures a significant and unavoidable impact would result.”
What is interesting is that they never specify what that impact is. The only thing any project can do is minimize its own impact on global warming by reducing the amount of carbon emissions it is responsible for.
We borrow from the work of Rich Rifkin, who shows that on many fronts, the project meets or exceeds city-established environmental standards. Mr. Rifkin finds that the developers of this project have in every case met or exceed the standard set by the City of Davis for GHG mitigation.
City standard: Design buildings to be energy-efficient. Site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use.
WHR: As part of compliance with the Green Building Ordinance, the proposed project would include buildings designed to exceed existing Title 24 standards. Roofs would be oriented to ensure solar efficiency.City standard: Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings.
WHR: All buildings would be designed to make use of energy-efficient
lighting technologies.City standard: Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.
WHR: The project would make use of strategically-placed shade trees.
City standard: Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
WHR: All residents would be provided with educational information regarding the energy reduction measures incorporated into the units, and how to further reduce energy use.
City standard: Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems.
WHR: All units would include energy-efficient heating/cooling systems and appliances.
City standard: Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street, and other outdoor lighting.
WHR: Traffic and street lighting would be installed in compliance with City of Davis standards, and would make use of LEDs to the extent feasible.
City standard: Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
WHR: Exterior lighting would comply with City of Davis standards and hours of operation will be dictated by security and safety requirements.
City standard: Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives.
WHR: As noted above, all units would include energy-efficient heating/cooling systems. In addition, residents would be educated on the existing State and national incentives regarding solar installation. Units would include efficient hot water delivery (demand-initiated tankless heating/core plumbing systems). Photovoltaic would be included where feasible.
City standard: Create water-efficient landscapes.
WHR: All landscaped areas would be designed to reduce their water
requirements, and to take advantage of stormwater runoff. Furthermore,
landscaping would make extensive use of drought tolerant species.City standard: Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls.
WHR: Irrigation will be controlled by systems designed to ensure waterefficiency, including within the project’s proposed orchard area.
City standard: Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.
WHR: All irrigation systems would be designed to ensure that water is only applied to vegetation.
City standard: Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
WHR: All residents would be subject to any watering restrictions established by the City of Davis.
City standard: Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.)
WHR: The proposed project would make extensive use of Low-Impact Development techniques, including vegetated swales and rain gardens. Stormwater would be routed to swales and shallow open space detention areas instead of centralized detention ponds.
City standard: Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including but not limited to: soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
WHR: The proposed project would reuse and recycle construction and
demolition waste in compliance with State law and City ordinance.City standard: Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas.
WHR: Recycling services are provided by Davis Waste Removal. The applicant would work with Davis Waste Removal to ensure that adequate recycling opportunities are provided to future residents.
City standard: Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.
WHR: The proposed project includes attached single-family townhomes, and a multi-family housing area that could be developed at a density of 21
units per acre.City standard: Incorporate public transit into project design.
WHR: The project site is located in close proximity to bus stops for two transit systems.
City standard: Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio.
WHR: The project would include 8.31 acres of interior open space, agricultural buffers, and greenbelts. In addition, all streets would be lined with shade trees, and the project design includes an orchard area.
City standard: Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking.
WHR: The project would include a 10-foot-wide bike path connecting the
existing Wildhorse community and the proposed bike trail on the east
side of the project site.City standard: Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
WHR: Idling time is limited by State law.
City standard: Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles.
WHR: Low and zero-emission vehicles would be used to the extent feasible.
City standard: Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations).
WHR: The project does not include any fueling stations. Residential garages would include electrical outlets which could be used for electric vehicle charging.
City standard: Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments.
WHR: As noted above, the project would include bicycle facilities.
City standard: Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
WHR: The project has been designed to accommodate bicyclists.
City standard: For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking.
WHR: The project does not include commercial uses.
For those who would argue that this project only includes a solar component, this summary certainly suggests otherwise and it seems very much at odds with the Draft EIR’s own conclusion. The standard that this EIR sets up means that no project can avoid significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment. The addition of even one house, by this definition, would be a significant impact. The reasonable goal that the city has addressed is to make all future development as close to carbon neutral as possible so that the development does not add to the existing climate impacts–not so that it solves existing climate impacts (that is impossible). If all future projects do this, we will eventually begin to have significant impacts on GHGs and climate change, and more importantly it will allow us through other measures to address existing impacts. Is it now the city’s position that we have no additional projects ever for the city of Davis? That is the implication of this EIR.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Most of the impacts are reduced to less than significant after mitigations measures. However, there are several that are listed as significant and unavoidable.
First is the loss of prime agricultural land. This is somewhat odd to begin with since the land is currently not used for soil purposes given that it is primarily been used as a horse ranch.
“The project applicant shall set aside in perpetuity active agricultural acreage at a minimum ratio of 2:1 based on the total project footprint of 25.79 acres, through granting a farmland conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction, or other farmland conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of the City and/or a qualifying entity approved by the City. The mitigation acreage shall be set aside prior to recordation of the final map(s). The location and amount of active agricultural acreage for the proposed project would be subject to the review and approval of the City Council.”
Along the same lines it characterizes “Long-term impacts to Prime Farmland from the proposed project in combination with existing and future developments in the Davis area” as significant and unavoidable, however, once again, this is mitigated through two-to-one ag mitigation.
Further they find this as significant and unavoidable:
“Impacts related to altering the existing character of the project site and obstructing views from existing homes.”
“Long-term impacts to the visual character of the region from the proposed project in combination with existing and future developments in the Davis area.”
More on this when we discuss project alternatives.
Moreover it finds that there will be an increased demand for fire protection services.
“Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute funds to the Davis Fire Department for the provision of facilities needed to provide adequate fire protection service to the proposed project. These facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to a fourth City fire station and a ladder truck. The amount of funding shall be determined by the Community Development Director and the Davis Fire Chief.”
Once again there is the impacts concerning the GHGs which we have already discussed.
DISCUSSION OF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
In quick summary, we have the climate issue that I think the project goes above and beyond the call of duty to address. If the city believes that it does not meet current standards, and wants to reject the application based upon this Draft EIR, then the city needs to adopt much tougher standards and allow the applicant to meet them. If not, this should be stricken from the record.
The Vanguard has long been an advocate of preserving farmland. In general, we have opposed peripheral development that reduces viable farmland unless there is strong and compelling reason to do so. There are reasons that we have not taken a position to support this project that can be discussed and addressed at a future time. However, the loss of ag land that is being used for a horse ranch rather than crop production is not one of them. Moreover, the applicants have complied with the city’s current requirements for ag mitigation by preserving farmland in a two-to-one manner for their project’s twenty-six acres of development. Again, if the city wants to pass a more stringent ordinance, we are on board.
Third, we have the fire protection issue. It seems highly unlikely that an additional 26 acres of use will require a fourth fire station given both the relatively low number of service calls and the fact that the fire department essentially has to cover that geographical area anyway. The Cannery Project with its 600 residential units was far more likely to require a fourth fire station, though even that might have been questionable.
Finally we have the loss of views and visual impacts for the neighbors. It is somewhat ironic that this would be included because the original Wild Horse project did the same thing to the existing neighborhoods. Other than for the immediate neighbors this is a small and very local issue. The new Target store has effectively done the same thing for some in Mace Ranch, did the current residents of Wild Horse vote against the Target proposal on that basis? The Vanguard does not consider this a viable environmental impact unless the city wants to take the position that there can be no further development on the periphery since it will block and alter people’s views of the countryside.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
There are five current alternatives. First is the standard no project/ no build alternative which would allow the project site to remain a horse ranch with the associated pastures.
Second is the viewshed preservation alternative:
“The intent of the Viewshed Preservation Alternative is to maintain the partial views of agricultural land and the Sierras east of the project, which are currently afforded to existing residents immediately west of the project site. In order to still achieve the basic objectives of the project, the project site would still be developed with residential uses, albeit, at a lower density than the Proposed Project. Similar to the Proposed Project, this Alternative would involve a General Plan Amendment. For this Alternative, the project site would be re-designated from Agriculture to Low Density Residential. Using the minimum density of the Low Density Residential designation of three units per acre, the Viewshed Preservation Alternative would include 75 units (3 du/acre * 25 acres = 75 dwelling units).”
The major problem with the viewshed alternative is that it would violate council standards on density. The city was originally pushing the developers to create a 259 unit project. The neighbors understandably were in strong opposition to this proposal and working with the neighbors the developers have reduced that down to 191 which still maintains the need to put houses onto a smaller plot of land while at the same time, it moved the project away from the existing neighborhood giving it a good buffer of trees to reduce impacts. That seemed to be a reasonable compromise. The alternative of 75 units is grossly contrary to the city council policy to increase density by using smaller footprints to reduce the conversion of land to an urban use. In fact this alternative would create a suburban sprawl project (fewer homes on bigger lots) that the city is trying to turn away from. Quite frankly this project alternative makes little sense.
Third is the agricultural character alternative.
“Similar to the Viewshed Preservation Alternative, the Agricultural Character Alternative would include the construction of 75 residential dwelling units. The units would be predominantly detached single-family residences; however, duplexes would be included to provide the affordable housing component. The Agricultural Character Alternative would differ from the Viewshed Preservation Alternative in that housing would be clustered on smaller lots.”
Fourth is the off-site alternatives.
“Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.”
This includes infill site alternatives.
“The Infill Site Alternative would combine geographically separated sites to develop the same project components on a land area of approximately the same size as the Proposed Project. Many potential sites exist within the existing City Limits; however, for the purposes of this analysis three sites have been identified for discussion:
• Simmons Properties (12 acres)
• Grande School Site (8.83 acres)
• Nugget Fields (9.01)”
It continues by pointing out that none of the sites are owned by the applicant and two of them have already been approved for development:
“None of the above listed properties are currently owned by the project applicant. Grande School site recently received entitlement approvals from the City Council for the development of 41 single-family units. The property is owned by the school district who intends to sell the entitled property to prospective developers. Project applications have been submitted for the Simmons property for the development of 108 single-family units. The Simmons applications are under review and have not been approved by the City Council. No formal applications have been submitted to the City for the development of the Nugget Fields at this time.”
No one that I have spoken to about this can ever recall such a provision in an EIR that one of the alternatives be alternative sites for development. Added to the fact that two of these sites are already approved for development, and we are completely baffled by their inclusion in this EIR.
Finally is the Measure J alternative which is on the Signature Property Curve. This is even more baffling as it is outside of the city limits, would present many of the same complications as the current project, and it is larger in terms of acreage.
“The Measure J Alternative project site is located in Yolo County, north and east of the City of Davis City limits, southwest of the curve where East Covell Boulevard becomes Mace Boulevard. The Alternative site is comprised of approximately 47 acres. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Measure J site would need to be annexed to the City of Davis and would require public approval pursuant to Measure J. The site is not currently owned by the current project applicant. The Measure J Alternative would result in the construction of the same number and type of residential units. However, both the dedicated greenbelt/open space and single-family detached lots sizes would be increased to fill the approximately 21 additional acres.”
The EIR concludes that the Infill Site ALternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
“For the Wildhorse Ranch Project, aside from the No Project Alternative, the Infill Site Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. The Infill Site Alternative, Viewshed Preservation Alternative, and Agricultural Preservation Alternative would all reduce several of the impact areas discussed for the Proposed Project such as aesthetics, air quality, and noise. However, only the Infill Site Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics by placing the project on lands already designated for urban uses. Therefore, the Infill Site Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts than the Proposed Project while still providing opportunities to achieve most of the City’s and the Applicant’s project objectives.”
CONCLUSIONS
This EIR is unlike any that we have ever seen. Without getting into bizarre conspiracy theories, it is difficult to understand why the city would put forth such an EIR unless they were bent somehow on killing the project. We challenge anyone to find an EIR that actually recommends alternative sites owned by separate owners as its environmentally superior alternative.
The project is what it is. It is a relatively small project on less than 26 acres of land. It is on the edge of town on land zoned for agriculture but within the city limits. The EIR inexplicably completely ignores the environmental innovation of the project in its conclusions even as it praises it in the report itself.
The Vanguard would argue regardless of larger issues, the most serious environmental impacts affecting this community are mitigated. First, the project goes to great lengths to address global climate concerns. Second, it goes to great lengths to address loss of mitigation. From an environmental standpoint that is all that we can reasonably ask from any applicant.
That does not mean that we approve of the project at this time. However, the EIR itself is baffling. The implications of it is that they threaten to kill any environmental innovation, ignore council set goals on sustainability and increased density by providing more housing units using smaller footprints of land. We want to know why. Perhaps someday we will find out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The so-called “alternatives” are not alternatives for this city. The consultant’s suggestions and low densities are just more valley sprawl, which the 2001 City of Davis General Plan pretty much ended. This EIR takes us back 10 years. It’s a strange document …
Whatever new development is done, it must be denser and must conform to the climate changes policies.
Future projects need to use less land to accommodate more people. The density of the proposed project (building homes on smaller footprints of land) is a plus.
Future projects need to use all the sustainability technologies available to reduce our carbon footprint by utilizing renewable energy such as solar and incorporate passive solar designs, green building materials as well as energy and water conservation systems. This project does that.
Davis needs to return to being a leader in lessening the impact of future growth on the land, reducing our need for energy and reducing our contribution to Green House Gas emissions. This project is a step in the right direction.
The DEIR’s suggestion that an acceptable alternative is to build 75 homes on the site is to continue the urban sprawl folly that uses too much land to house our population, which is killing our planet.
“However, the EIR itself is baffling. The implications of it is that they threaten to kill any environmental innovation, ignore council set goals on sustainability and increased density by providing more housing units using smaller footprints of land. We want to know why. Perhaps someday we will find out.”
I don’t find this EIR report puzzling at all. City Staff has determined the following:
1) we don’t need any new housing right now bc of the current economy/city’s abysmal budget situation that cannot sustain any project that will require additional city services;
2) if we are to build any kind of housing, we want big fat houses that will generate lots of tax revenue for the city – whatever is built has to be a moneymaker for local gov’t.
Then City Staff uses convoluted logic to get to the conclusion it is trying to reach – no matter how illogical, circuitous, inane the argument. That said, what the City should really be saying is that we do not need houses built at this time, until the City gets its fiscal house in order, and the state and the federal gov’t get theirs in order. Let’s wait and see how the current economic mess plays itself out before we build houses than no one may buy.
“The Vanguard in general has opposed new development on the periphery of the city in an effort to prevent sprawl, protect farmland, and protect the environment. However, we do not and have never taken a no growth position. If there is to be growth, it should be done with proper density to ensure that a minimum amount of land is paved over. Moreover, given the future concerns about climate change, new development ought be done in a sustainable and environmentally innovative manner. The early model for such innovative sustainable development would be Village Homes.”
Village Homes was innovative for many reasons, but not because it prevented sprawl or protected farm land. It is one of the lowest density developments in Davis which, of course, it what makes it so special: the integrated community gardens and open space.
“The DEIR’s suggestion that an acceptable alternative is to build 75 homes on the site is to continue the urban sprawl folly that uses too much land to house our population, which is killing our planet.”
The Draft EIR comes up with conclusions that the neighbors of the project have been asking for, less units, and now we are “killing the planet” if we don’t accept this project.
The DEIR has confirmed that this project is not environmentally neutral (as no new development is), and begs the question again WHY NOW??? Why if the DEIR comes up with reasonable arguments against development, do we have to assume their is some “conpsiracy” behind the report…give me a break, accept the findings and accept the fact that we DON’T need this project for once and all!!!
It is clear there is more than an environmental agenda here…are the supporters of this project along with Mr. Greenwald’s concerns abou tthe DEIR being fueled by some type of political expendiency and allegiances?? Because if that is the case, that is quite concerning….
I am unofficially neutral on Wild Horse Ranch.
I think it is unfair, though, to suggest that it’s not innovative and that the developer is not trying to do everything he can to make his project “green.” If built, WHR would be the greenest new neighborhood in Davis. There may be other reasons to oppose this development or reasons to think now is not the time, but its environmental impact is not one of them.
HGTV recently had a program about buying a (so-called) green house in Davis ([url]http://www.hgtv.com/house-hunters/searching-for-a-green-and-energy-efficient-home-in-davis-california2/index.html[/url]), and what was most notable about the show — I’m not sure when it was filmed — was that the couple on the program couldn’t find much here in the green category. They ended up buying a place in Sacramento, instead, with the husband having to commute back to Davis for his job. If WHR is permitted, that would provide homes for people like the Davis couple featured on that show.
One thing about green building I’ve learned while serving on the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission — and I don’t say this as a knock against WHR or any other new projects — is that the “greenest” type of development is adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Generally speaking, modifying and updating an older building will have a lower “carbon footprint” than tearing it down and building a new structure with all of the latest green standards.
This comes from the Architectural Trust ([url]http://www.architecturaltrust.org/taxadvantage/newsanalysis/reduce.asp[/url]):
“While it may seem easier to tear-down and rebuild a new green building in its place, the process of deconstructing and reconstructing an entirely new building completely disregards the embodied energy of the original structure. The building’s embodied energy encompasses every step of its construction, including the extraction of the raw materials and their transport, assemblage, and installation, through the building’s eventual deconstruction or decomposition. These beginning and ending stages of construction create a major strain on the environment, which is often overlooked.”
“City Staff has determined the following”
City staff has not determined anything. The DEIR was completed by a consultant.
“Wow” and “Anon”:
Neither the DEIR nor city staff concludes that we don’t need new housing now. Quite the contrary. What the DEIR does do is outline environmental impacts of this project and define measures to mitigate those impacts to less than significant, as do all EIR’s.
The neighbors are asking for fewer units, but that is not environmentally sound in this day and age. The DEIR’s alternatives suggesting even fewer units is very puzzling. I have never read an EIR that actually suggested a project that was less environmentally sound than a proposed project. To suggest that we put 75 single story units there instead of the proposed number or to put the 191 on a larger piece of property is simply the old sprawl model that is killing the planet.
The proponents do not claim that their project is environmentally neutral. But they have done an incredible job of reducing its impact. The DEIR confirms that in very positive terms. I suggest that you read it.
“Wow” asks if there is some hidden agenda on the part of the supporters of the Wild Horse Ranch proposal. I cannot answer for others, but my “allegiance” is to sound, environmentally-sensitive planning. This development proposal is one of the better I have seen. If we are to house more people here, this is the type of development we need to be considering, not more low-density sprawl. I might add that the common, often baseless and empty, arguments used by the handfull of opponents of the project make me wonder if there is not some hidden, personal agenda behind that opposition.
Once again, the proposal is not to build now. The proponents do not plan to build anything for two to three years. They are simply starting the process now.
David: Great article. Again.
“It is clear there is more than an environmental agenda here…are the supporters of this project along with Mr. Greenwald’s concerns abou tthe DEIR being fueled by some type of political expendiency and allegiances?? Because if that is the case, that is quite concerning…”
Let’s start at the beginning, “Wow” and hopefully you will bear with me and can honestly answer this question:
How many EIR’s have you read?
“The DEIR’s alternatives suggesting even fewer units is very puzzling. I have never read an EIR that actually suggested a project that was less environmentally sound than a proposed project.”
So the DEIR is wrong in its recommendations and you Yolo Watcher are right?
Still waiting for your answer “Wow!”
“Wow”:
In a word, “yes.” As far as environmentally sound planning is concerned, yes.
I don’t have any criticism of city staff or the WHR developer as to the DEIR. The “independent” consultant drafted it, and is responsible for promoting yet more valley sprawl. The City should ditch the “same old, same old” alternatives, and focus on the project itself. Is it a net plus for the city to approve it and place on the ballot for a Measure J vote?
I think having a successful Measure J vote on a reasonable project would be a good thing for all concerned.
The EIR makes it pretty clear that this paving over this horse farm with this proposal does just as much harm as any other project. Also, sorry Vanguard, but stating that because this ag land is not being farmed gives you and excuse to pave it does not work. This would be saying that we should pave over any ag land for livestock. Ag land is needed for a variety of needs, not just farming. With the type of argument you are trying to make, then you may as well make the argument that open space is not being farmed so it should be paved over too (which I certainly do not agree with.
I find it amazing that the same names keep coming up rooting for paving over a horse farm rather than using non-agricultural (urban) land, yet in the name of saving ag land. None of the defensive comments of this terrible project resonate environmentally and they certainly do not support the basic concept of preserving ag land. The EIR is just stating what seems pretty intuitive on this project. Leaving it ag land is the most “green” solution.
Who cares about saving ag land? Its a ridiculous concept and I challenge anyone to defend it.
[b]Leaving it ag land is the most “green” solution.[/b]
If there is excess housing demand in Davis — I’m not saying there is — and the result is that lower-density, more conventional developments are built on farms in Woodland, Dixon, West Sac, Natomas, Winters, etc., then leaving WHR as ag land would not be a green solution at all.
You can argue that this is not an either or question: that we can put new housing (as needed) elsewhere in the city of Davis. Fair enough. Then suggest those sites and those developments. I know we have quite a large number of houses (200 or so?) which have already been approved as infill, and have not been built because of the current economy. However, it seems likely that down the road those will be built and the question on WHR becomes an either or: either those “green” houses are approved; or ag land elsewhere is paved over.
Good analysis, Rich.
Sorry Vanguard but I am disappointed to see a loss of objectivity on your repoerting on this Wildhorse project. I read in previous articles that your friendship with Bill Ritter who ran your wife’s City Council campaign, is working for the Wildhorse developer and I am seeing that loss of objectivity now in your article. Also, you seem compelled to criticize the Cannery Park proposal constantly which I read was a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design project, yet you do not criticize other projects like the Verona project which has no green aspects. I am sorry to see that Mike Harrington, who is also a close friend of Ritter’s, is supporting the paving over of the horse farm as well. Come on you guys, complaining because the EIR did not glow (as you are trying to imply it would)is simply no reason to promote this terrible project. Stand up for agland and preserve the horse farm.
Objectivity:
I am going to ask again just as I asked before: Did you support the development of the Wild Horse property? That land was all farmland and it was being farmed. If you supported that development, paving over many more acres of farmland than the Wild Horse Ranch proposal, then you are a hypocrite for opposing this development because it is “ag land”.
You are the one who has lost objectivity. It is clear from the way you continue to turn this personal rather than sticking to the issues, and constantly attack the Vanguard and Mr. Ritter, that you have personal reasons for attacking this project. Admit it. You cannot come up with any valid reasons for opposing it other than your constant mantra of “ag land” when referring to land that has not been farmed in decades and never will be and does not produce anything of value for this community.
If you took the time to read the DEIR, you would see that it is “glowing” and gives the project just praise for the reduction of its carbon footprint and for far surpassing the city’s guidelines for green development. Have any of the projects you have supported been able to make similar claims? And as I said previously, LEED means nothing. There are many different levels of LEED standards, and many of their requirements are already City of Davis requirements for all development.
Tell me, did you actually buy it when the Target project claimed to be a LEED project? Did you support the Target proposal because it made claims to being LEED?
First, I have to question the objectivity of an article that begins by saying that the Vanguard has taken no position on the Wildhorse Ranch Project and then spends pages of text praising the project and questioning the EIR when it does not praise the project.
Second, Development in Davis should proceed with parcels that are currently zoned for development. AG land should not be rezoned when other non AG parcels exist.
Third, The Hunt Wesson plant/Cannery Park site is IN Davis and it is paved. It has already been developed. The AG land that it sits on has already been paved. It is an eyesore and currently provides little benefit (other than a carnival site) to the citizen’s of Davis. It is unfortunate that after years of working with citizens and the city that the developers threw up their hands in frustration. It would be great if a project for this site could be approved. This site is one of the most appropriate sites for development in Davis.
Fourth, As the DEIR points out the Wildhorse Ranch property is prime AG land. Yes, it is being used as a horse ranch and not for crops. But htat is an AG use. The Vanguard is misguided to imply that acceptable AG use is limited to crops or other plantings. Livestock is a perfectly good AG use. A horse ranch is an AG use.
Fifth, While some might not consider a horse ranch to be the highest of agricultural uses for prime AG land, it is an AG use nevertheless. And as long as the property is not paved the agricultural purposes that the land serves can change. However, once land is paved it can never be agricultural again.
Wow, what a firestorm! I have a question: What is the Vanguard’s relationship with Bill Ritter? Has the Vanguard become just another pro-development group with ties to a different developer than the “usual suspects?” How disappointing, but so common in Davis; if you want to develop, first pretend that you are against development, then bring in your own “green” team, and have at it.
I totally agree with the last two posters…David Greenwald walks the fine line of saying the Vanguard has not opposed or supported the Wildhorse Ranch project, yet then concludes with “However, the EIR itself is baffling. The implications of it is that they threaten to kill any environmental innovation, ignore council set goals on sustainability and increased density by providing more housing units using smaller footprints of land” It makes one wonder what the Vanguard/Greenwald “agenda” is: to support this project, because of pressure by Bill Ritter to do such, and then when Cecilia runs again for City Council, they will tout Wildhorse Ranch as a successful “green” project which she backed
Why are we still talking about paving over agricultural land? Aren’t we trying to protect agriculutral land? Paving it over increases the earth temperature. Open land has many values including ground water recharge, letting the soil breath, creating tule fog as part of our landscapes life cycle. Agriculutral land which is not planted is still valuable to the citizens of Davis. We should be talking about building on the the already paved Wesson-Hunt cannery property, not the horse farm or other agricultural land boardering Davis!!!!
Developers and STEAMROLLER City Council – DON’T PAVE ME IN.
Our cities waste water treatment system is already over loaded. We have not business builiding more until we figure out a way to pay for and fix that situation.
I just wanted to address a couple of the issues that were pointed at me for some reason.
First, I have known and been friends with Bill Ritter for number of years.
Second, Bill Ritter did not run Cecilia’s campaign. Cliff Tillman was the campaign manager. Bill Ritter however did work on the campaign as did numerous other people including Eileen Samitz.
Third, I have not taken a position on the Wildhorse Ranch project. When and if I do, I will let people know.
Fourth, as many who have been long time readers know, I am very concerned with process as a key part of ensuring proper public policy. I am concerned with the DEIR here because there are some very strange features. Few of you who have focused in on the person aspect of this have attempted to address my concerns in a rational and reasonable manner. I would prefer for the purposes of this discussion that we focus away from interpersonal issues and towards the substantive issues.
Anyone who have further questions about my relationship with Bill Ritter, my wife’s past campaign, or other issues are encouraged to call me at 530-400-2512. I will be more than happy to sit down and chat. As such I would prefer that any other personal questions not be addressed on this forum.
I encourage people who have questions or issues with the project to post them here. That is what this site is for.
After reading this, I question the objectivity of Vanguard’s bloggers, as the Vanguard says it take no formal position on the WHR project, but has seemingly bent over backwards in this post to address the EIR findings, one by one, refuting each point that might lean towards leaving the ranch undeveloped, in a clearly pro-WHR development manner. The argument and “case” for pro development seems to sure have been well thought out and positioned prior to drafting this post.
Developers (as well as organizations in literally every industry now) know well that blogging is now the optimal viral “channel” to influence public opinion, especially in a tech savvy community like Davis, and my interest has been piqued re: what’s going on behind the blog.
My question: why would Vanguard put this much painstaking thought into defending elements of the Wildhorse EIR, the majority points that support development at the ranch, when other projects in town have proved preferable + in alignment with Davis’ growth needs, yet have been rejected by Council? WHR was low on the development priority list, but now a high density development with more 3-story buildings on the easternmost border of town, on a parcel that was included in the Open Space component of the Wildhorse Development Plan, and was intended as a soft buffer from a medium density residential neighborhood to agricultural land, is up for a Measure J vote. I would also like to know why the Vanguard says it has no position, yet points out interests only a developer might likely raise re: the scope of other project EIRs?
The blog poster calling themselves “Vanguard has lost objectivity on the Wildhorse horse ranch proposal” and “Objectivity” sounds like Eileen Samitz.
Eileen, I know you wanted Cannery Park approved, but it was not. This does not mean that you have to stifle discussion or go negative on the Wildhorse Ranch Project.
Hunt-Wesson is for a high tech business park and the city needs to conduct a more aggressive business search for the area. As a matter of fact, David, can you do a story on what attempts the city has done to recruit businesses to Hunt-Wesson? They have been so focused on last project there that I bet they have not done much.
Quite frankly some of us appreciate the fact that the developer for Wildhorse is attempting to incorporate some ideas that the Davis community has been advocating for, for some time.
Eileen if this is you making these personal attacks (or whoever else this might be), please set personal issues and attacks aside. If you support or oppose the project that is one thing, but you should engage in the discussion and leave the personal attacks out just like David suggested.
Thank you for continuing to cover this issue David. I hope that all future developments in Davis have some innovative ideas like this proposed development.
“Fourth, As the DEIR points out the Wildhorse Ranch property is prime AG land. Yes, it is being used as a horse ranch and not for crops. But htat is an AG use. The Vanguard is misguided to imply that acceptable AG use is limited to crops or other plantings. Livestock is a perfectly good AG use. A horse ranch is an AG use.”
I totally agree with GW’s point; since when have we become so high and mighty to say the horses in an open field is not “ag land”; I am concerned that we are ready to sacrifice Davis’ remaining open land spaces to developers when we have existing “in-fill” sites (PGE property and Cannery Park) which are a) not ag land and b) quite frankly eye-sores that need to be rennnovated and re-developed.
What seems to be very odd here is that there are very defensive comments regarding information that are simply facts and observations. For instance, it is a fact that Bill Ritter is working for the Wildhorse horse farm developer. It is another fact that Ritter is good friends with the Vanguard’s editor and his wife. It is an observation that the Vanguard article on the Wildhorse project contains much defensive commentary about the Wildhorse horse farm proposal even though the EIR does not deem the project as any kind of a extraordinary “green” project. The comments made by readers noticing all of the defensive commentary by the Vanguard of the Wildhorse horse farm project, is also an observation made by a number of readers.
To characterize any criticism of the Vanguard’s articles about whether it is weighing this issue fairly is not an attack, but a commentary as well from readers. If the Vanguard only wants to hear comments from people who agree with it entirely, it really should not present itself as a blog, or it should have a policy clarifying that if you don’t agree with the blog, then please don’t write in.
“If the Vanguard only wants to hear comments from people who agree with it entirely, it really should not present itself as a blog, or it should have a policy clarifying that if you don’t agree with the blog, then please don’t write in.”
Give me a break, more than half the comments on here are counter to the Vanguard’s position, that’s clearly not the policy. The point that David appears to be making is keep the topics away from personal and towards the substantive, particularly if you lack the courage to post under your real name (Something else the Vanguard allows).
In other words, if you disagree with David, argue your point, don’t attack his wife or friend.
“even though the EIR does not deem the project as any kind of a extraordinary “green” project. “
Let’s put this very simply, I spent several hours putting together an argument for the fact that the EIR is flawed. You are free to refute that. Instead you have brought my wife and my friend into this matter and caste aspersions toward me and my motives without making a single substantive argument. If you believe I am wrong, say why. That’s all I am asking. And if you want to attack me or my family, use your real name.
Facts and observations:
Ah, but the DEIR most definitely DOES deem the proposal as an extraorinary green project. The climate change section talks at length about how great the project is in terms of reducing its carbon footprint and GHG emissions and how it far surpasses the City of Davis guidelines for “green” development. The rest of the document is pretty much boiler plate EIR talk common to all EIRs. PLEASE read the document.
What David and many others would like to see is discussion of the issues, not attacks on others who don’t agree with you. As soon as “Vanguard has lost objectivity on the Wild horse ranch proposal” chimed in yesterday with personal attacks on the Vanguard and Mr. Ritter,all the really non-objective remarks started on this blog.
My recommendation for everyone is to read the DEIR and then make your comments.
I have read the DEIR and it clearly outlines four impacts that are “significant and unavoidable”; including loss of ag land, fire protection services, aesthetic changes to existing neighborhoods and yes, climate change issues (when you take an existing open space inhabited by wildflowers, horses, and weeds, and then introduce development, bulldozers, cement rollers, trucks, etc-how could you not contribute to climate change);
I agree,take the personal attacks out on Greenwalds, Ritter, Eileen, and go back to the basic issue, this DEIR brings up serious impact issues and to say it is simply flawed or “strange” is concerning; let the voters of the City make up
mind on the DEIR findings and we’ll see what happens….
ANY development contributes to GHG emissions to some extent. Many of those who oppose the Wild Horses Ranch development supported the Lewis Homes development. That is also land occupied by weeds and wildlife, and development there would have produced even more GHGs as it was a much larger development. Also, horses produce GHGs. Horse manure and urine produce methane, a GHG 21 times worse than CO2, according to the DEIR. So, the site is not neutral even in its current state.
The point the DEIR makes is that this proposal goes far beyond what the City of Davis recommends and far beyond what any project we have ever had proposed in Davis in reducing its carbon foot print and GHG emissions. That is the key issue.
“The Vanguard has long been an advocate of preserving farmland. In general, we have opposed peripheral development that reduces viable farmland unless there is strong and compelling reason to do so. “
What is the strong and compelling reason for this project? I have been asking this question for a while. The only answer I have heard is that SACOG has growth targets for Davis–we must build housing even if people who live in Davis don’t want it and even if we don’t need it. The Sacramento area overbuilt housing in the last few years and now Woodland, Natomas and many other areas have a glut of housing that will last for years and have seen their home prices fall 40-50%. The citizens of Davis have stood up to developers and we do not have the same problems that many neighboring communitioes do. SACOG’s interests and forecasts our not necessarilly in our best interest.
THis project is on the outskirts of town and is not “infill” as some people claim. The overwhelming majority of neighbors have clearly said in a recent city sponsored survey that they oppose any development or at least the current plan which Parlin has presented. We have potential infill development in many places in Davis which is not on Ag land, so how can this project be considered green? If the current project is desirable in Wildhorse it will be even better if it is actually real infill and not on Ag land, so I am not sure how one can support this project on environmental grounds. The EIR demontrates that there will be environmnetal impacts. Some impacts may be unavoidable but do we really need more houses? Do we need to place houses on Ag land when other land is available?
THanks–a concerned neighbor.
Thanks for your well thought post; I couldn’t agree with you more on the “in fill” vs ag land arguments…let’s hope that more concerned residents will see this when they read the EIR.