On Tuesday, the Davis City Council will decide whether or not to approve the 191 unit, 25.8 acre Wildhorse Ranch project and forward it to the voters for an election per Measure J requirements.
Staff recommends full approval of the project in each of its component parts. The request is to change the land use designations for the site from agriculture, where the property currently contains a horse farm, to residential.
After a lengthy period of outreach by the developers to the Wildhorse Each Neighborhood Association and other adjacent neighborhoods as well as the community at large, and working with city staff, the neighborhood association opted to oppose the project. Nevertheless, city staff believes that “this site plan configuration is acceptable, and addresses most of staff concerns expressed about previous plans.”
Their issues include the following:
- Should the subject site be converted from agricultural use to residential uses?
- Should a partial roadway improvement be allowed within the lower quarter of the 200’ Urban Agriculture Transitional Area?
- Is the provision of less than 100 feet average width and slightly less than ten percent of the project area in neighborhood greenbelt acceptable?
- Is the provision of bio-swales within the Neighborhood Greenbelt acceptable?
- Should narrower street widths, as proposed, be considered?
- Density. Neighbors have expressed concerns about the proposed density and the compatibility of such density with the adjacent neighborhood and with a site on the boundary of the city limits
- Building height. The project proposes three story building components for the townhomes/condos and affordable apartments. Concerns about architectural compatibility and view sheds have been expressed by neighbors.
- Adequacy of on-site parking. Concerns about whether adequate on site parking is provided for the proposed units and provision of adequate spaces for guests. Will parking overflow into the adjacent neighborhood on Carravagio Drive, thereby adversely impacting the adjacent neighborhood?
Ultimately, staff believes that the project is “one that can be supported.”
Included in their reasons for support:
“The project is within the city limits and efficiently utilizes land to provide for up to 191 housing units that will be of the size and price range that the City has been striving for to help meet internal housing needs per the Housing Element Steering Committee recommendations and City Council goals.”
“Affordable housing — 38 of the units will be permanently affordable to low and very low income households. This is the first proposal to incorporate affordable rental units since construction of Cesar Chavez apartment on Olive Drive in 2007.”
“Mix of housing types –The project provides a mix of unit types, including single family detached, single family attached, and multi-family housing.”
“Overall project plan — The site plan incorporates sound new urbanist principles in its design by incorporating greenbelts, paseos, alleys, common driveways, a grid street pattern, community open space areas, and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the site and to the existing city network.”
“Pedestrian friendly — The project is pedestrian friendly with most units fronting on paseos, the greenbelt, and the urban/agricultural transition area, and is located immediately adjacent to an existing bus route; near transit and bike connections.”
“Sustainability measures — The project will incorporates sustainability measures, which are likely to exceed those seen in recent projects. The applicant indicates commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the units by ninety percent. The project proposes measures to significantly conserve water and increase energy efficiency.”
At the same time, the staff report also expresses an array of concerns including the fact that the site “has been intended to remain a horse ranch in order [to] provide the opportunity for residents to keep their horses at the edge of the City limits.” It also expresses concerns with the fiscal impact, the fact that the site is a “yellow” site which was ranked 27th out of 36 sites (however it is important to note that the council later amended the committee’s recommendation to move the project to number 21 however the staff report for reasons unknown uses the number 27), and concerns raised by neighbors about a three-story, housing unit of moderate density with potential parking impacts.
There are several issues that were raised in the staff report which need to be addressed.
The most concerning impact is the negative fiscal impact where the staff report claims:
“The Wildhorse Horse Ranch development project would result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund, averaging approximately $67,500 per year under the “base case” analysis.”
However at the same time, the staff report goes on to state:
“The project would also generate one-time construction tax revenues of $791,476 and one-time development impact fee revenues of $5.5 million (assuming the project is not annexed into the existing North/Central Community Facilities District 1990-3). Additionally, the developer has agreed to pay $5,000 per market unit as a supplemental fee.”
The staff report attributes the negative fiscal impact to three factors:
“1) the number and mix of housing units, 2) the assumption that the affordable housing units would be exempt from property taxes, and 3) the tax rate area for this property, which only provides 11.79% of the total property tax collected to the City in support of municipal services. The local property tax share for this property is well below the city-wide average of 17.5%.”
The negative fiscal impact analysis by staff is heavily disputed by the developer who argues that they are paying an additional supplemental payment of $5000 per unit that would mitigate this.
Under the City’s model the affordable housing units do not produce any property tax revenue, yet all of the expense related to these units are expected to be covered by the market rate housing. This contributes significantly to the fiscal impact presented. When viewed with only the market rate housing the annual impact is reduced to a negative $36,600 per year. The larger policy issue is how the community will deal with the requirement for projects to provide affordable housing and how the cost of services should be covered. If we continue to require projects to cover all of these costs we will end up with projects with affordable housing and then very expensive housing with the middle left out and having to see homes elsewhere in the region. While this is not a part of this project it does open up the reality of the current policy and warrants more discussion.
The fee of $5000 per unit, which is greater than the fee paid by Chiles Ranch developers of $3500, would generate a total of $755,000 which the city could use to offset the impact of the project.
The city staff report seems to negate this fact, merely suggesting that this would be money that the “city [could] utilize at its discretion.”
The other impacts of this project are a product of long standing negotiations with the neighbors as well the desire to achieve 90% GHG reduction per unit. The project was at one point deemed to be 259 units, the neighbors objected to both the proximity of the project to Caravaggio Drive as well as the size and density of the project. So the developers in deference to the concerns of the neighbors reduced the size to 191 units and shifted the entire project to the east and south to mitigate the impact of the neighborhood, placing a large open space area in between the neighbors on Caravaggio Drive and the new development.
In so doing, the project concentrated the density in a small area. Overall the densities are approximately 13.8 units per acre, yet if the same number of units were developed over the entire 25.8 acres the density is around 7.4 units per acre, just slightly greater than the density of the immediate Caravaggio neighborhood to the west. The question for the community is whether continuing the suburban development pattern of urban sprawl is what is best for our community or should we find more efficient ways to plan that requires less land area to accommodate the same number of homes.
The developers also removed the four story buildings from the original proposal and kept some of the three story buildings, but nestled them between two-story townhouses. This means that the roofline height distance is a mere 8 feet and the impact on sightlines given that small vertical distance, the trees planted in the orchard, and the distance from the neighborhood should be minimized.
Parking is always a concern, however in this case, it seems highly unlikely that people would on a regular basis hike from Caravaggio Drive, through the entrance, and to their homes which may be up to a quarter mile away if not further.
The strength of this project is clearly the sustainability aspect which we highlighted in great detail previously. Basically, the developers have committed to reduce GHG emissions from homes by over 90%. They do this in three ways as highlighted in far greater detail on July 6.
First, they will employ passive solar design which will reduce energy demand. One of the key aspects of this is the layout of the residences in an orientation that will minimize solar gain through east and west facades. They will also work to maximize the output of the photovoltaic installations.
Second, they will design the building systems and equipment so as to reduce the overall energy use. According to Talbott Solar & Radiant Homes, “In Davis, residential use by the heating and cooling system makes up about 50% of the entire energy use of the average homeowner.” To reduce this amount, the project will utilize passive thermal design combined with a high efficiency HVAC system or radiant heating and cooling to reduce heating and cooling use well under 2005 standards.
They intend to supplement this system with a low energy nighttime air circulation system. They will also utilize equipment that is energy efficient for hot water, lighting, appliances, and they will monitor and meter the systems to verify their efficiency.
Third, they will use a photovoltaic system and on site forestation to mitigate the resulting GHG emissions. Most of the remaining residential energy use will be mitigated through a photovoltaic system sized to produce an average of 2.4 kW per unit.
However, this innovation and efforts to make the project accessible and visitable come at a cost. The costs along with concerns about future preservation of farmland and sustainability have driven the project to become more dense and to go to three stories to minimize the project’s footprint and encroachment onto farmland. It has also delivered with it a substantial fiscal cost.
It is ironic that an op-ed on Sunday suggested that the design of the project is not green-driven but profit margin driven. In fact, the green innovations alone will run costs into the millions. Talbott Solar has indicated that the cost to achieve the energy efficiency features and providing the photovoltaic systems will run upwards of $30,000 per home which means an unreimbursed cost of $5.73 million for the entire project just for solar panels, including the commitment to provide the same GHG reduction on the affordable housing. The Measure J features call out the GHG emissions reduction level so the project must achieve the 90% GHG reduction or face a new Measure J vote for any attempt to reduce the commitment.
Moreover, not only does this project exceed current city sustainability regulations by 100%, but it also exceeds current accessibility standards. Neither of these features suggest a drive to increase profit margin. In fact, the project would likely be more profitable for the developer if it were developed like the original Wildhorse community where larger homes could more easily accept the higher cost as the per home values would be higher. The requirement to appeal to the larger community desiring more affordable and modest homes drives the need for the project to be innovative and push the envelope of the comfort level of the developer.
Clearly some in the community see this project as a threat, yet the alternative is to turn back an effort to move the ball forward in terms of a very different approach to development. Here we have the choice to see a project that is significant in it sustainability measures that is striving to provide housing affordable to the workforce in our community. If we do not embrace this concept we will be faced with the same old thing we have seen so much of since the vision put forth by Village Homes. Do we want to be the leader in sustainable design and prove to the doubters that true carbon reduction planning is possible, or do we want to bow to the naysayers that want to let this opportunity pass us by? Measure J provides the community with the certainty that what the project promises the project will deliver. When will we see another opportunity like this, one that causes little impact to the community, does not convert productive farm land, and delivers so much toward meaningful progress toward reducing the impacts of climate change?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,this is well articulated and persuasive – a masterpiece. I will study it and comment further later on. This is a Wow!
“When will we see another opportunity like this, one that causes little impact to the community, does not convert productive farm land, and delivers so much toward meaningful progress toward reducing the impacts of climate change?”
Little impact to the community? A fiscal negative to the city at this time should be of great concern. The neighbors are opposed to this project, which should be of great concern. The project provides a mere 38 units of low income affordable housing, but my understanding is most of the units will cost $450,000 and up for densely packed homes/townhouses – not much in the way of affordable workforce housing. But we are supposed to support this project bc why? It reduces GHG by 90%? Sounds like the negatives far outweigh the positives. What is being said here, that bc this project reduces GHG by 90%, that factor alone is enough to “wash away” all the negatives?
This is the best residential project since Mike Corbett’s Village Homes, 30 years ago.
The city apparently does not proof read and has gotten sloppy, eg this, other cases of cut/paste and the yin/yang last wk about Rancho Yolo.
Why doesn’t this wonderful project get built on the Cannery property. Makes much more sense.
“Why doesn’t this wonderful project get built on the Cannery property. Makes much more sense. “
The owners of Cannery were not interested in a project like this. For another, Cannery is a much larger plot of land. I think the location for this project is pretty good. I like the idea of a business park usage at Cannery, not residential.
“A fiscal negative to the city at this time should be of great concern.”
Yes it would be of great concern except that it appears the city messed up their calculations.
The town homes range in price from the mid-$300,000 to the mid-$400,000. This is affordable to the work force family. As we learned in the Measure X campaign, a middle income family can afford up to about $410,000 for a home. So the development provides the affordable middle income housing in abundance.
The fiscal negative is off-set by the $755,000 the developer is giving the city in addition to the regular development fees normally paid. See David’s analysis.
The “mere” 38 units meets the city’s requirement for low and very low income housing, just as any other development must provide. I’m not sure why this is being attacked. Unfortunately, it is the low income housing that causes the project to become fiscally negative. Low income housing does not provide taxes sufficient to cover service costs. That has to be essentially subsidized by the rest of the project, or it falls on the community.
I’m not seeing much in the way of negatives for the community, and it is the larger community I am thinking of. This project sets a standard for future development in this town. We have simply got to get out of the old sprawl pattern of development and move toward environmentally sustainable growth. This project shows us how that can be done.
As to building it on the Hunt Wesson site: This developer does not own the Hunt Wesson site, and Lewis Homes certainly did not propose anything but the old sprawl model. I for one believe that the Hunt Wesson site should remain zoned for a high tech business park.
Excellent article, David. As Tansey says, you have articulated the issues cleary and persuasively.
What does “affordable” mean? There aren’t any projected sales prices. Surely the developer can provide this information but of course no one’s asked. Who are the projected buyers? It’s not the middle class (altho I no longer know what that term means).
Of course the innovative technology is great. It may cost “millions” to provide the technology but who pays for it? Try a possible median price of $400k/unit and we have a $76.4 million project. Sorry but developments are “profit driven”. If it takes concessions to get a project approved then the profit is a slightly lower. No developer takes the many risks and assumes large carrying costs without (quite legitimately) trying to maximize the return.
Densification does mean lower land cost per unit for a developer. Village Homes is indeed visionary. It is also an expensive place to live. When it comes to development, the “Davis way” doesn’t seem to include real world numbers.
“The fiscal negative is off-set by the $755,000 the developer is giving the city in addition to the regular development fees normally paid. See David’s analysis.”
Yes, but isn’t the negative fiscal impact yearly, so that eventually the one time fee of $755,000 will be “used up”?
I think it is only fair to point out connections that are at play regarding this project. Mike Harrington is the landlord for Talbot Solar and a personal friend of its owner. Mike is also the landlord for and a personal friend to Bill Ritter who is helping manage the project through the City planning and political process.
That said, I do think that this project definitely has some very positive things going for it. I think that the neighbors’ concerns regarding parking is a little “grasping at straws” considering there is no connection to their street from the project. I think that the neighbors will end up really liking the proximity to this development just as the neighbors around Village Homes enjoy the assets of that development.
The cost is a real issue. I have concerns that, once it is approved, the developer will not follow through with some of the plans due to the substantial cost of implementing it. For me to fully support this project (and I am leaning very much that way) I would need to see some sort of language that would guarantee the full implementation of the plans.
” I have concerns that, once it is approved, the developer will not follow through with some of the plans due to the substantial cost of implementing it.”
Ryan: Let me address that point, I think that is a good concern on your part. As I understand it, anything that is put into the Measure J vote is locked in and can only be changed by another Measure J vote.
“The fee of $5000 per unit, which is greater than the fee paid by Chiles Ranch developers of $3500, would generate a total of $755,000 which the city could use to offset the impact of the project.
The city staff report seems to negate this fact, merely suggesting that this would be money that the “city [could] utilize at its discretion.””
I wonder if the city staff knows something we don’t, such as the likelihood that the $755,000 will be used to mitigate the impact of the project is about slim to none.
“Yes, but isn’t the negative fiscal impact yearly, so that eventually the one time fee of $755,000 will be “used up”?”
As I understand it, the impact is for a set period of time, not indefinitely. It would appear that the impact is slightly more than the $755,000 (which is actually not a one-time fee, but paid out in $5000 increments as each unit is built, but so too is the impact accrued).
There is also question about how the $65000 was calculated. Some think that number is way too high. I don’t know.
“I wonder if the city staff knows something we don’t”
Katherine Hess is trying to kill this project like she did Cannery. Pure and simple. She is intentionally manipulating the staff report to do so. Same thing that happened with Cannery.
The city staff doesn’t know something we don’t – they are just incompetent.
[quote]My View said . . .
. . . but my understanding is most of the units will cost $450,000 and up for densely packed homes/townhouses – not much in the way of affordable workforce housing.[/quote]
My View, I’ve asked this of you in prior threads and you have chosen not tio answer. Perhaps you will answer now. “What is your source for your statement “. . . most of the units will cost $450,000 and up . . .” The Op-Ed in yesterday’s Entwerprise by Susan Monheit, David Balgobin and Eileen Samitz made the statement “yet the average home will be $425,000 to $550,000.” I wish I could ask them the same question.
Would you support this project if the price range were $100,000 less?
[quote]The fee of $5000 per unit, which is greater than the fee paid by Chiles Ranch developers of $3500, would generate a total of $755,000 which the city could use to offset the impact of the project.
[/quote]The fee per unit for the Verona project, as another example, ranges from $12,000 to $6,000. If you do the math, Verona is contributing almost 3X more per acre than Wildhorse ($768,000 per acre for an 8.5 acre in-fill project). At a time when the city budget is under extreme pressure, the trend is moving in the wrong direction.
Also, the annual negative General Fund impact model needs to be scrutinized. The $67,500 annual drain on the budget is probably a best-case-scenario, and the actual risk to the city needs to be better understood.
[quote]Pam Nieberg said . . .
The town homes range in price from the mid-$300,000 to the mid-$400,000. This is affordable to the work force family. As we learned in the Measure X campaign, a middle income family can afford up to about $410,000 for a home. So the development provides the affordable middle income housing in abundance. [/quote]
Pam, I ask you the same question I asked My View. “What is your source for the price range you quote?”
On the subject of affordability of these units for middle income workforce family, at the 90% GHG-Reduction level, the monthly utility bills for each unit will be something like $100 less per month. That $1,200 per year savings makes the burden of a mortgage somewhat easier to bear for members of the Davis workforce who are ready to own their own home.
As I look at it, there is no incentive for me to vote yes on this project.
1. I don’t particularly want 191 new units of housing built. Why should I? What’s in it for me?
2. There are likely negative impacts on the City which are not being trumpeted by the developers and their PR people. For example, the impact on water and sewer rates, which are already skyrocketing. The impact on fire and police services. etc. etc.
3. There is no big positive for the city on this one. No major new sports fields. No new school site. No citywide park or golf course.
4. There are big profits in this for the developers and their buddies and landlords. But nothing in it for me and Davis residents. Thanks to Measure J, we have a vote on this, and I don’t see why we would vote yes unless there is something in it for us.
The cool thing about Measure J is that now the voters have to be paid off, not just the politicians.
Hey,if you really want to hear the neighbors whine . . . buy 191 head of horses and turn the place into a [u]real functioning for profit[/u] horse ranch! Preserve those “agricultural” qualities like dust, flies, manure, noise and country smells. After a month of nostalgic bliss and no backyard bar-b-ques, I guarantee they will be back begging for this development . . . yippie-kai-yo-kai-yea!
[quote]Reality check said . . .
The fee per unit for the Verona project, as another example, ranges from $12,000 to $6,000. If you do the math, Verona is contributing almost 3X more per acre than Wildhorse ($768,000 per acre for an 8.5 acre in-fill project). At a time when the city budget is under extreme pressure, the trend is moving in the wrong direction.
Also, the annual negative General Fund impact model needs to be scrutinized. The $67,500 annual drain on the budget is probably a best-case-scenario, and the actual risk to the city needs to be better understood. [/quote]
Well said Reality Check. This staff report raises more questions than it provides answers. Homework is needed between now and tomorrow night.
Who are the projected buyers?
Me, for one. If this project gets approved I will be sure to take a look and consider buying a house there. I love the idea of living in an innovative neighborhood within city limits.
[quote]”The Wildhorse Horse Ranch development project would result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund, averaging approximately $67,500 per year under the “base case” analysis. … The project would also generate one-time construction tax revenues of $791,476.”[/quote] If the City would take that nearly $800,000 in construction tax revenue and invest it in a coupon bond paying 8.528% per annum, it could indefinitely generate $67,500 per year in income, covering the annual fiscal impact.
The problem, of course, is where you can get someone to pay you 8.528% on your money? I don’t think there is such a place which is worth the risk. However (and I say this only half-jokingly), Chinese bonds might be a good idea. Over the next 10-15 years, my estimate is the dollar will fall in value against the renminbi (人民幣) by about 50%. That would mean that if you could get 4.264% APR coupon bonds in China, you could fully fund the annual fiscal loss from WHR.
Much better, of course, would be to stop forcing developers from building sub-market-rate housing. If we combined that with restraining the growth of employee compensation to the long-term CPI for our region, we would not have any fiscal loss from any housing projects.
Skeptical said: “Katherine Hess is trying to kill this project like she did Cannery. Pure and simple. She is intentionally manipulating the staff report to do so. Same thing that happened with Cannery. The city staff doesn’t know something we don’t – they are just incompetent.”
Hess did not kill the Lewis Homes; they pulled the project. The City Council voted 5/0 for a new EIR, with equal weight to full commercial. Hess did not manipulate anyone on that project.
From what I can tell, Hess and her staff have been working 24/7 to get the Parlin project to the CC in time for a November Measure J vote. I dont see any manipulation. Staff and the CC should be commended for getting this project through the complex city system and ready for CC vote this Tuesday night.
In terms of typos, glitches, etc: these things happen when the deadlines are so tight. Things can get fixed on Tuesday night as needed. I used to see these types of issues when I was on the CC, and 99.99% of the time the problems were not deliberate, but arise from the press of business. Remember, the CC is taking a break and this is the last substantive meeting for this season, until September.
So, Skeptical, you get NOWHERE with anyone in your attempts to demonize staff.
To Matt Williams:
Thanks. I agree. There are many questions, and no time to post. The GHG element has more holes than Swiss cheese. Very sloppy work.
BTW It’s almost impossible to do a reasonable analysis of a 300 page staff report in 4 days spanning a weekend. But, of course, I think that’s the whole point. If the Community Development Director had wanted scutiny, the document would have been released some time ago.
“There are big profits in this for the developers”
This is simply untrue. Given the costs of the accessibility and sustainability components, there really aren’t huge profits for the developers in this project. They could make far more with a standard 75 unit sprawl development project.
What do you get as a voter?
1. Innovative and sustainable project that mitigates carbon emissions and creates the standard by which all other projects will be judged.
2. Fully accessible affordable housing component
3. Makes it far less likely you will see far larger projects at Covell and Cannery
4. Reduces pressure for senior housing by providing affordable and accessible units
I would say compared to most projects you are getting a ton.
Or understand at least that with affordable housing requirements come a cost that the city will have to bear. In this case most of the cost is mitigated by developer impact fees and supplementals.
[quote]No Way said . . .
As I look at it, there is no incentive for me to vote yes on this project.
1. I don’t particularly want 191 new units of housing built. Why should I? What’s in it for me?
2. There are likely negative impacts on the City which are not being trumpeted by the developers and their PR people. For example, the impact on water and sewer rates, which are already skyrocketing. The impact on fire and police services. etc. etc.
3. There is no big positive for the city on this one. No major new sports fields. No new school site. No citywide park or golf course.
4. There are big profits in this for the developers and their buddies and landlords. But nothing in it for me and Davis residents. Thanks to Measure J, we have a vote on this, and I don’t see why we would vote yes unless there is something in it for us.
The cool thing about Measure J is that now the voters have to be paid off, not just the politicians. [/quote]
I completely agree with you that “The cool thing about Measure J is that the voters get their say. I also don’t have a problem with your perspective. What in essence you are doing is defining at a personal level the “Greater Good” that a project must clearly define for all the voters. For me, IF (and I emphasize that IF) the townhomes come in at a true workforce housing price range, then the sustainability of Davis’ economy is enhanced. The middle income workers who can be Davis homeowners as a result of the provision of workforce housing will benefit directly. People like you and me will benefit less directly, but will benefit nonethe less.
Davis’ middle income workforce has been treated as step children for too long. We need to accept that fact and take steps to remedy our failings of the past 15 years. That truly is a Greater Good.
Or should I say, Eileen Samitz…
” If the Community Development Director had wanted scutiny, the document would have been released some time ago.”
The Community Development Director does extremely poor work here, leaving huge holes in her analysis, failing to properly calculate impacts, etc. It is clear to me that she is trying to kill the project without actually doing the dirty work herself.
“Hess did not kill the Lewis Homes; they pulled the project. The City Council voted 5/0 for a new EIR, with equal weight to full commercial. Hess did not manipulate anyone on that project.”
Really, who came up with the idea of the equal weight EIR that doubled the cost? That is the reason they pulled the project. Yes, Katherine Hess killed the project and she is trying to kill this one too.
Why? I would start following the money and looking who lines her pockets.
[quote]Katherine Hess is trying to kill this project like she did Cannery. Pure and simple. She is intentionally manipulating the staff report to do so. Same thing that happened with Cannery.[/quote]With all due respect, the staff is fast-tracking this project. The appropriate metaphor is Covell Village, not Cannery Park. If Lewis Homes had gotten this kind of cooperation from Katherine, the Cannery project would have broken ground years ago.
If she was trying to fast track it, why put in the negative fiscal impact when the money used from the supplemental would bump into revenue neutral? Why the strange EIR? You’re not this naive. She’s not the one fast tracking it. SHe’s the one trying to kill it along with Covell and all of the other developers who see this as a threat to future development.
To “To Harrington”:
Who came up with the equal weight? Actually, a lot of us did, with all due respect. Sue worked very hard and took the lead in about 2001 to change the zoning to the current high tech/R&D/commercial, and we all voted for it, 5/0. So getting a first class full study of the feasibility of it being used as zoned was something that many had been asking for. Hess was merely responding to the obvious need.
The City had earlier accepted at face value a commercial study by a consultant chosen by Lewis Homes and paid for by them, and guess what? Not feasible! What a shocking result.
So when a full study was finally required, with the consultant to be chosen by the city and paid by the developer, then Lewis pulls the application for housing. Why? Because they knew the result: good for commercial, bad for housing.
But the Lewis consultants are angry; they lost a sweet, rich contract. Their posts on this Blog attacking Parlin’s small, reasonable project with wonderful environmental sustainability features are obviously bitter. Even the Sunday Op Ed piece written by Eileen and her two friends who live in Wildhorse smacks of anger and bitterness, and refers over and over to Lewis’ “Jurassic Age” project. That opinion piece was so full of holes and factual mistatements that it was difficult to read.
[quote]why put in the negative fiscal impact[/quote]Because that’s the best they could do with a straight face. Anything more “optimistic’ probably wouldn’t have passed the smell test.[quote]when the money used from the supplemental would bump into revenue neutral[/quote]I think that was the whole point. The $5,000 per unit was necessary to whitewash the fiscal impact.
To all of you conspiracy theorists who are working for Lewis Homes and attacking everyone under the sun who dare disagree with you on this Blog:
I just contacted Planning and Building to ask Hess about some of the process issues and language in the report that has been discussed on this Blog, and gues what? She is on vacation! So much for conspiracies. Ike and Mike Webb are handling this project, and both are above reproach.
She wasn’t on vacation last week.
“I think that was the whole point. The $5,000 per unit was necessary to whitewash the fiscal impact. “
It’s not a whitewash if it balances out the books.
SODA’ite – Cannery Project needs to be used for a business park. As for Wildhorse Ranch? This is a good project that has what we have been asking for.
An Open Letter to the Owners of Lewis Homes:
Your local consultants are doing nothing but harming your financial interests. The anger, bitterness, and hatred turn everyone off to discussing the merits of your projects. Shockingly, your local consultants were publically ENDORSING a map that showed direct future connections from your dense residential project directly into Covell Village and Grande Neighborhood. Did you know that your consultants were adding those development connection arrows? What a non-starter. We were going to force a J vote over those arrows.
You should go with the commercial, or sell your land to someone who will fully endorse and support a project that complies with the current zoning.
To Eileen Samitz a.k.a “Reality Check” –
Why are you so negative and so opposed to the project if it has many of the features you’ve been wanting for so long? It makes no sense that you are advocating for Cannery when THEY are the ones that pulled it. It’s as if you are willing to throw out any and all logic for some personal vendetta? That’s sad.
As for this project it is a good one and I support it. I know of at least 5 people from Davis that are interested in housing at Wildhorse because of the new, cutting edge, innovative design. And, they are “progressive” and they are “environmentalists.”
This blog is truly bizarre. If anyone dares speak in opposition to this project then they are automatically labeled “Eileen Samitz” or a Cannery Park consultant. Get a grip people. You won’t squelch the debate with this tactic.
I am particularly disappointed with Mike Harrington. As an attorney and former city council member, he should know better than to throw around spurious accusations unsubstantiated by fact. His behavior, to use David Greenwald’s language, is uncivil – and it demeans both the dialog and the Davis Vanguard.
Shame on you.
It’s a whitewash precisely because it balances the books. Why not zero? Why not $12,000 like Verona? It’s an obvious compromise to neutralize the negative fiscal impact issue.
Because Verona didn’t have the affordability, sustainability, and accessibility components of Wildhorse. So they have attempted to mitigate their impact on the fiscal through the supplemental.
Not anybody, just you. Dozens have opposed the project, only you have been labeled Eileen Samitz.
Sorry Pam, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Nobody appointed me as Blog Policeman, but please can’t we simply debate the merits of the project? It isn’t perfect, and there are still questions that have to be answered between now and tomorrow evening, but lets leave the personal attacks out of the discussion.
Mike, you were doing fine up to the point where you personalized your comments with “But the Lewis consultants are angry; they lost a sweet, rich contract. Their posts on this Blog attacking Parlin’s small, reasonable project with wonderful environmental sustainability features are obviously bitter. Even the Sunday Op Ed piece written by Eileen and her two friends who live in Wildhorse smacks of anger and bitterness, and refers over and over to Lewis’ “Jurassic Age” project. That opinion piece was so full of holes and factual mistatements that it was difficult to read.” That comment accomplished nothing other than to elicit equally personal responses.
I agree with whomever complained that they had only four days to go over the 299 page staff report.
I’m going to highlight the Dedication, Preservation, Fees, Exactions & Public Benefits
Wildhorse Ranch will provide as much as $22,216,737 in land dedications, sustainable and climate improving technology, fees and housing for low and very low income households.
According to the project applicant these contributions will benefit much of the community as well as the region and are as follows:
• Reduce GHG emissions from the home constructed within the project by 90% above the City baseline established in City Resolution #09-043, Series 2009, examples of how this level can be achieved are:
* Improving the energy efficiency of the proposed homes by exceeding the 2005 Title -24 energy standards to 50%. (approximate value of $2,865,000/$15,000 per unit)
* Including an average photovoltaic system of 2.4 kW for each unit win the
community (approximate value of $2,865,0001/15,000 per unit)
• Dedicate to the City the 2.26 acre parcel to be added to the existing city agricultural buffer adjacent to the property. (approximate value of $1,366,604)
• Dedicate to the future Home Owners Association, for permanent open space, the 4.4 acre to buffer the adjacent neighborhood (approximate value of $2,660,645)
• Pay to the City a Supplemental Development Fee for use by the City for project and needs elsewhere in the City. ($755,000/$5,000 per unit)
The Developer shall also comply with City requirements, standards, policies and mitigation measures by providing the following:
• Dedicate to the City the 1.61 acre parcel for continuation of the City greenbelt (approximate value of $973,554)
• Dedicate to the City permanent conservation easements on 51.58 acres of active agricultural land. (approximate value of $1,031,600)
• Provide up to 15.5 acres of Swainson Hawk foraging habitat through the purchase of a Conservation Easement, or payment of mitigation fees to the Yolo County Habitat Joint Powers Agency. (approximate value of $139,500).
• Dedicate to the City or acceptable not-for-profit builder of affordable housing a 1.92 acre site for the production of 40 apartment style homes including 38 homes affordable to very low and low income households. (approximate value of $1,389,000)
• Pay to the City of Davis an in-lieu Parkland Dedication fee by appraisal pursuant to City Policy (estimated up to $461,000)
The project shall also pay the following fees to the City, the Davis Joint Unified School District or Yolo County as part of the development fees for the project. Such fees are part of the ordinary development process but represent new fees not previously anticipated and therefore represent additional funds for the relevant agency. The actual amounts to be paid will be the amount of the fee then in force at the time the project applies for building permits. These fees presently are as follows:
• Pay to the Davis Joint Unified School District approximately $775,981 for use in modernizing, upgrading or constructing new classroom facilities.
• Pay approximately $599,724 to Yolo County for Public Facilities.
• Pay approximately $1,258,419 to the City of Davis for Road fees.
• Pay approximately $842,412 to the City of Davis for Park Improvement fees.
• Pay approximately $145,796 to the City of Davis for Open Space fees.
• Pay approximately $166,656 to the City of Davis for Public Safety capital purposes.
• Pay approximately $401,367 to the City of Davis for General Facilities.
• Pay approximately $1,799,220 to the City of Davis for Water Connection fees.
• Pay approximately $1,174,650 to the City of Davis for Sewer Connection fees.
• Pay approximately $49,455 to the City of Davis for Storm water facilities.
• Pay approximately $1,200,000 to the City of Davis for Construction Tax and miscellaneous fees for operations.
• Pay approximately $50,000 to the City of Davis for Long Range Planning efforts.
And that total does not include the amount the developer is paying for all of the affordable units and some of the market units to be fully accessible.
Matt, I suppose you are right about using her name, but I was responding to her putting her name on a published op ed piece.
I just want to go straight ahead, and deal with the Parlin Wildhorse on its merits. Forget about Lewis Homes and their consultants.
Also: the fiscal analysis needs to be carefully reviewed and, if necessary, corrected ASAP.
Reality Check:
I read where you said, “The GHG element has more holes than Swiss cheese.” I read the report myself earlier and was wondering how you arrived at this conclusion? I’m somewhat familiar with this type of work and thought it looked pretty sound, particularly if it will be placed into the Measure J ballot language.
Pam Nieberg wrote: “The town homes range in price from the mid-$300,000 to the mid-$400,000. This is affordable to the work force family…”
Where do you get these numbers from???
Please refer to the City Council staff report on the project (link below) for the actual numbers:
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090728/04 Wildhorse Development Project.pdf
(On Page 296 of 299), you will find the estimated market values of the “affordable units” (the City Council voted on 5-19-09 to suspend the requirements for “affordable” middle income housing in new developments), and the developers will be selling these townhome/condos at the above market values (starting at 425,000); if you all believe that 425, 000 (or greater) is “affordable”, then that’s a real WOW; also, look up the Davis MIS and see how many current properties between 425 and 550K, and you’ll see about fifty homes in that price range remain unsold
“Wild horses couldn’t pull me away” . . .
While I think it might be only fair to point out as you did, “I think it is only fair to point out connections that are at play regarding this project. Mike Harrington is the landlord for Talbot Solar and a personal friend of its owner.” I think it would also be fair to point out that Mike Harrington was the landlord of Talbot in 2005 when they were working on Covell Village and yet Mike was a staunch opponent of Covell Village and often hosted no on covell village meetings in his conference room. Point being that Mike’s business affiliations have not stopped him from opposing bad projects in the past. It is also worth noting that Mike has said he started supporting the project when it reached 90% sustainability. I think Mike is on pretty solid ground here in that respect.
Michael Harrington needs to take a chill pill. No one has identified themselves as Lewis Homes people, so how could he know it is these people or their consultants that are disagreeing with the project here?
Please stop, for everyone’s benefit.
For the 78 Wildhorse Ranch townhomes, the average price will be $425,000. Townhomes will range in price from the mid-$300,000’s to mid-$400,000’s. Based on current lending institution practices, an applicant must be able to show a $79,000 annual income in order to qualify to purchase a townhome at $425,000 with a 20% downpayment. Thus workforce families with dual incomes of 40K (80K combined) will qualify for a townhome purchase. To put this in human terms, a two DJUSD teacher household could afford to purchase a townhome.
For the 73 single family detached Wildhorse Ranch homes, the average price will be $550,000. Homes will range in price from a high $400,000’s to the high $500,000’s. Again assuming a 20% downpayment, a family with a combined income of $102,000 would qualify for a $550,000 single family detached home purchase. Putting this in human terms, a Davis policeman, a local nurse, an assistant or associate UC college professor with a working spouse who earns somewhere around $40,000 could afford to purchase a single family detached home.
After the 20% down payment, the above income qualifications include principal and interest, taxes, association dues and consumer debt.
With a 10% down payment, the income qualifications would increase to $86,000 to purchase an average townhome or $108,000 to purchase an average single family home including mortgage insurance, principal & interest, taxes, association dues and consumer debt.
“For the 78 Wildhorse Ranch townhomes, the average price will be $425,000. Townhomes will range in price from the mid-$300,000’s to mid-$400,000’s”
First point, I don’t see the word “average” price anywhere in the staffing report; so please tell me what information you have that suggests any of these units (roughly 1700 sq ft, including garage space) would sell in the “mid-300,000’s”
Second point, given your analysis, if this range is affordable for work force families as you claim, why fifty current properties in this price range are unsold?
Let’s get to DAVIS “middle income” housing opportunities and the “ignored middle class buyers”. You can buy a 1,500 ft2 house right now for $425k. You can buy an old condo for $250k. Chiles Ranch median is $472k and it’s a crummy project w/o the many nice environmental adds.
For a first time buyer, a $425k purchase w/ zero down (first time home buyers + govt loan) is $2,458 (6% mortgage for 30 years). Add approx $341/mo in taxes. Approx $62/mo for insurance. That’s $2,861/month (w/o HVAC or city services). Let’s say a $3,000/month total. Roughly double the price of a SFO rental. A total of $36k/year in housing. Are the developments supposed to provide opportunities for current DAVIS homeowners and/or seniors? I own a 1500ft 3/2 in East Davis. It’s a single story which is handy (try multiple story units when you age). Why on earth would I want to swap for a multi story unit w/ minimal lot space and neighbors in my living room? Easier upkeep? Simple enough to hire folks to mow, houseclean and repair (and a lot less expensive).
Recent house sales on my block are to folks from San Francisco because they have equity (and income). One sale was to an investor w/ multiple properties. The other was folks w/ a very comfortable double income.
Want innovative w/ an existing Davis house? Install solar panels, double pane windows and high efficiency appliances. Set the thermostat appropriately. Remove the lawn. Use existing roads and pathways for transit needs. Ride a bike.
Again, in the probable price range of the new units ( a figure never provided until you ask), you can buy something now. I’m not against innovative well done development that really does provide affordable housing opportunities for the local residents that now rent. I am opposed to high price developments which don’t really provide possible housing purchase op’s
Hi Jim:
You’re fiscal anlaysis of home pricing and your “low-tech” enviornmental changes make more sense than what the Vanguard/Greenwald is doing by his cheerleading for Parlin
Why haven’t the Open Space & Habitat Commission, Natural Resource Commission and the other relevant commissions weighed in on this proposal?
Where is the community input?
If I remember correctly, Covell Village went through a year of commission meetings… presenting at some of them twice. Why do the Parlin/Wildhorse Ranch developers get to bypass those important advisory boards?
Consider that staff has several concerns that are the direct domain of the Open Space & Habitat Commission and Natural Resources Commission, namely:
– Should the subject site be converted from agricultural use to residential uses?
– Should a partial roadway improvement be allowed within the lower quarter of the 200’ Urban Agriculture Transitional Area?
– Is the provision of less than 100 feet average width and slightly less than ten percent of the project area in neighborhood greenbelt acceptable?
– Is the provision of bio-swales within the Neighborhood Greenbelt acceptable?
Shouldn’t these developers get advice and “buy-in” from those advisory bodies BEFORE they try to force us to a vote in just 3 short months?
I’m surprised nobody else is scandalized by this serious breach of public trust.
If you look at page 296, those are the average costs, so the average cost of the 73 market rate units will be roughly $425,000. You are correct, you don’t see the word average anywhere, Hess screws up again.
[quote]Affordable Housing for Davis workforce???? said . . .
Please refer to the City Council staff report on the project (link below) for the actual numbers: (On Page 296 of 299), you will find the estimated market values of the “affordable units”[/quote]
I haven’t read all 299 pages of the Staff Report, but a quick search of the document for the three characters “425” finds only that one reference. It will be interesting to see where Staff got those numbers from. They suspiciously look like the Chiles Ranch numbers not the Wildhorse Ranch numbers.
[quote]Jim Watson said . . .
Are the developments supposed to provide opportunities for current DAVIS homeowners and/or seniors? I own a 1500ft 3/2 in East Davis. It’s a single story which is handy (try multiple story units when you age). Why on earth would I want to swap for a multi story unit w/ minimal lot space and neighbors in my living room? [/quote]
The reality is that you wouldn’t. The primary target audience of workforce housing is couples that currently work in Davis and either 1) rent, but want to own, or 2) live outside Davis and want to be able to relocate their residence to Davis. You aren’t in either of those cohorts.
[quote]Jim Watson said . . .
For a first time buyer, a $425k purchase w/ zero down (first time home buyers + govt loan) is $2,458 (6% mortgage for 30 years). [/quote]
Why do you choose the zero down example? In the current lending market, is a zero down loan even available?
Let’s give Eileen some credit. Whatever your point of view, she does take the time and energy to participate. Easy to sit here and complain w/ emails. It’s a lot harder to actually do something. We’re automatically labeled “no growth”. What about “slow growth”? It’s what we did for years and one of the reasons people pay high prices to live here.
There’s the small town feel with a physical center, local business and the Farmer’s Market. Wide streets and lots of green. Slightly quirky commitments to alternative politics and transit (ie: bikes). In a real estate market that’s crashed, City is pushing expensive high density development reduced only when we object. Less green because the City won’t pay for upkeep. In at least one development, no bike paths or racks. Take a look at the declining bike use and rapidly increasing car traffic (check out the ever longer lines at traffic lights). Look at the costs to the City of the new developments. Look at the parking planned for the new developments. Sure fancy environmental touches sound great. Does car use factor in here somehow?
All the development to provide “affordable” and “low income” housing? Davis really is a nice place. Add lots of people, pave it over and some of the character does go away.
Also, suggest that people use their actual names. It’s pretty sad to hide behind a label and fire away.
To “To ‘To Reality Check'”:
If your post “Sorry Pam, you are barking up the wrong tree.” is referring to me, then I am sorry to burst your bubble. I am not ” To Reality Check” or any other Wild Horse Ranch project supporter on here, except “Pam Nieberg”. I post only under my own name now.
“I post only under my own name now.”; you mean after you were called out as “Yolo Watcher” and were calling opponents of this development “NIMBY’s” (when there was no such language used for the opponents of Covell Village?)
Jim:
I appreciate your comments and especially your willingness to put your name behind them. This is the first project I have supported, mainly for the sustainability aspect to it. I wasn’t opposed to any project at Chiles, but I was disturbed that the city reneged on the agreement between your neighborhood and the developers. I feel that while the neighbors and developers did not reach agreement with WHR, that the neighbors would concede that they got many concessions from the owners and they have a far better project than the one that is going in next to your neighborhood. I hope that this project will help to set a new standard for development in this community and prevent the much larger and less sustainable Cannery and Covell projects from coming in.
Considering the history of development in Davis, the money trail question is legitimate, although it needs to be handled carefully. “Bitterness” and “anger” are simply ways to put down your opponent, and simply ad hominem. I and some of the defenders of the current project got angry together over Covell Village. Angry or not, there are issues. The developer stands to make money. The City and the taxpayers stand to lose. We always have, and these are particularly hard times fiscally. This is being rushed through. And NOBODY is talking about the demands on our water supply, just noting a “connection fee.” Great. Connection to what? Whose responsibility is it to make sure that water will be available, and who will pay for it?
anyone?
is my prior question not important?
Matt:
To answer your question about where did I get the price range for the town homes in the Wild Horse Ranch project: You have by now seen David’s post of the figures for the project. I had already seen those figures. That is where I got the information.
As to the figure for what a middle income or work force family can afford, that came from a fiscal analysis done, I believe by the city, for the Covell Village campaign. We used it to show that CV did not provide work force housing.
Appreciations to Jim Watson, Matt Williams, Rich Rifkin, Don Price, and Pam Nieberg for posting under your own names. I don’t see why others cannot do so as well.
To “To Pam”: I decided to post only under my own name because I decided that I do not want to be a coward any longer and hide behind a moniker. I was also being accused of being all sorts of other posters who were also not posting under real names. So, in order to help demonstrate that there actually are lots of supporters of the project besides me posting here, I am posting only under my own name from now on. How about you? I did not use the term “nimbys”. That was someone else.
To Don Price: “And NOBODY is talking about the demands on our water supply, just noting a “connection fee.” Great. Connection to what? Whose responsibility is it to make sure that water will be available, and who will pay for it?”
I don’t think there is any issue with Davis water supply being insufficient for this project or any others that have been proposed. It may become an issue a number of years down the road, as Davis grows, if the wells aren’t replaced or augmented, or a surface supply isn’t developed, or both. But I have never heard that Davis growth has any reason to be limited due to absence of water supply yet.
Don:
I believe the connection fee refers to the fee to tie into the city water supply. The site does have a well that will provide water for all on-site land scaping excluding private yards. It is an old ag well and not in the city’s drinking water aquifer. This will be used for the orchard and other open spaces. The city confirmed at a public meeting that this small project will not have a serious impact on the city’s water supply. There is no need for the project to drill a new well into the drinking water aquifer as there was with Covell Village with 10 times the homes.
Unfortunately, the city is moving ahead with the water project, despite many efforts to stop it. It does not seem to matter to Public Works or the council that there may be no need to do this and it is going to be unbelievably expensive for the rate payers. Plus, who in his right mind believes that river water is better water?
I wonder what effect the Lewis Homes project (if it comes back) and the new iteration of Covell Village that is moving along will have on the water supply? Lewis Homes is three to four times the size of this project and CV II will probably end up pretty much the same size as the last offering.
I don’t really consider this being rushed through, since the applicant has been working with the neighbors and the city for 4 years now.
Matt,
1) I agree about no personal attacks. I’m here to learn something.
2) I think it would be great if any of these developments provided a chance for working couples or current renters to own a house. I am totally supportive of workforce housing but I just can’t make the numbers work. Maybe the affordable housing portion of a developments provides the opportunity. The market rate stuff certainly doesn’t. Coming up w/ a $20k – $40k down payment still sounds like challenge to me. The only way I own a house is because we bought years ago. I don’t think my wife and I would qualify as “middle class” at this point.
3) I chose the zero down as the most optimist possible scenario. I think there are gov’t loans and first time buyer credits but I have no direct experience.
4) I included myself because I am looking for any ways that these developments actually provide benefits for local residents. One example is a senior that wants to downsize. Problem is that a multistory unit just isn’t particularly attractive to him/her.
To Sean Michaels:
Two things that caught my eye are …[quote]Prior to Final Map approval, the Developer shall submit documentation to verify implementation of the approved GHG reduction program to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.[/quote]I think it is a big mistake to give the Community Development Director the power to certify compliance. It should be bumped back to the Planning Commission for final review and approval after input from independent advisors with the appropriate expertise.[quote]In the event that Developer is unable to meet its entire Green House Gas emission reductions required herein in the manner set forth in the approved GHG Reduction Program, City and Developer shall meet and discuss on other measures to achieve the required reduction, including onsite, offsite and in-lieu fees for specific projects intended to reduce Green House Gas emissions within the City, but in no event shall the emissions reduction of 90%, as set forth in the Project Baseline Features, be modified. Any amendment to the GHG program must be approved by the Planning Commission.[/quote]This is the most problematic section I have seen so far. After all the hype and spin from the Vanguard about how this is a game-changing green development with 90% GHG reductions, I’m shocked to see that offsite reductions and in-lieu fees are on the table. While this is obviously intended to provide a fall back position if the developers can’t deliver, it calls into question the credibility of the staff, the developers, and their consultants. The project is being “sold” to the community as “90% reduction in GHG”, but at the end of the day the developers can escape this requirement by making a cash payment to the city. Given this new reality, why not set the bar at 100%? 110%? Plus it sets the precident that any developer can now come to the table with a 90% project by simply shifting their reductions off-site. Not good.
Pam: “Plus, who in his right mind believes that river water is better water?”
Just about any gardener in town, among others. But there’s no point in getting this thread sidetracked on the surface water project! I’m sure we’ll have a chance to get back to that topic soon.
[i]Appreciations to Jim Watson, Matt Williams, Rich Rifkin, Don Price, Ryan Kelly, Mike Harrington, Sean Michaels, and Pam Nieberg for posting under your own names. I don’t see why others cannot do so as well.[/i]
Because you invite it! If you simply required registration before posting, and if you requested real names (even though it’s harder to strictly require that) except when there is real reason for anonymity, you would have a lot more people posting under their real names.
What did the Even Staff Report say?
David:
I appreciate the Wildhorse details and potential purchase scenarios. The challenge I see is the 20% down payment. For a $425k townhouse, that’s $85k. It usually means the purchaser already owns somewhere. I think that “affordable housing” sounds like it provides a first time purchase opportunity for residents and local workforce. I support the idea completely but can’t make the numbers work. Wore my calculator out w/ the Chiles battle so maybe that’s the problem.
Agree that sustainability should be a part of development in Davis.
Here is an old blog of yours (aka “Yolo Watcher”) re: Cannery Park;
03/18/09 – 11:13 AM…
I agree with Mike Hart’s sentiments on this. While Lewis Homes did try to work with the community on this proposal, they started with the idea that this was to be mixed use and predominantly housing. The land set aside for a business park was too small to attract anything of significance. This is not the time to be talking about more housing developments. Davis needs something that will generate tax revenues to benefit our local economy. Housing developments do not do that….”
Four months later, and now we NEED development?????
$425,000 for a townhouse? What family income are we assuming here? Or does it take a two family income? While a few folks in Davis..or maybe a lot…make incomes which find this affordable, I know just a whole lot of the ‘work force’ that does not. And those folks would love to own a home here.
Even with the $25,000 down payment grant from the city, an $85K down payment
is a big chunk of change.
From the staff report page 4
“The negative fiscal impact is largely attributable to: 1) the number and mix of housing units, 2) the assumption that the affordable housing units would be exempt from property taxes, and 3) the tax rate area for this property, which only provides 11.79% of the total property tax collected to the City in support of municipal services. The local property tax share for this property is well below the city-wide average of 17.5%.”
From the staff report page 296
Market Rate Units $425,000 X 73 = $31,025,000
Medium Small Market Rate Units $550,000 X 78 = $42,900,000
Taxable Assessed Value $73,925,000
After 15 years the:
Total Revenues – Total Expenditures = -$1,012,692 divided by 15 = -$67,513 per year
For a complete breakdown of revenues and expenditures look at page 297.
[quote]Don Price said . . .
This is being rushed through. And NOBODY is talking about the demands on our water supply, just noting a “connection fee.” Great. Connection to what? Whose responsibility is it to make sure that water will be available, and who will pay for it? Where is the Community Input? Is my question not important? [/quote]
Don, your question is very important. IF the analysis has been done correctly by the Public Works Staff, the current water fees we pay includes an amortization of the replacement costs for wells that periodically reach the end of their useful life. Further (again subject to the same IF statement the current water system is sized to handle the 1% Growth Cap projections, which we have been well below for thje past three years, and expect to be well below for several more years in this economy.
[quote]resident said . . .
While a few folks in Davis..or maybe a lot…make incomes which find this affordable, I know just a whole lot of the ‘work force’ that does not. And those folks would love to own a home here.
Even with the $25,000 down payment grant from the city, an $85K down payment
is a big chunk of change. [/quote]
You are absolutely right, and as much as I am championing the whole idea of ownership housing for the Davis Workforce, that will remain fiscally out of reach for a substantial number of Davis workers, whether they have one income or more than one.
To “To Pam”:
Still playing “gotcha!” You are assuming I am Yolo Watcher. When do you get tired of personal attacks?
Whether I was YW or not, I do believe that the Hunt Wesson site should remain zoned for a high tech business park rather than for more typical sprawl housing, which the Lewis Homes proposal was. We need a site for high tech business that will provide revenue for our community.
I generally do not support housing developments. This is the first I have supported and I support it ONLY because of its innovation and sustainability features. It truly will set a standard for more sustainable growth in this community that other developers will have to meet if they want to build here. I don’t need to go into too much detail as to my reasoning, as you have figured out that
To Reality Check: the wiggle room paragraph on the 90% GHG reduction requirement has to come out. I completely agree with you.
This project or others being built now are not, as I understand it, the tipping” point for building the so-called surface water project. After a long talk this a.m.,with Bob Weir, Dir of Public Works, it seems this project is “on-track” and, actually, it has been for years…one way or another as the City Council has made incremental decisions to fund studies to move forward and has directed staff and the City Attorney to pursue “perfecting” the water rights – if I understand correctly…you need a project – in order to demonstrate that you need the water- in order to proceed to perfect the water rights with the State Water Board…or something like that…chickens and eggs!!!..though I could be wrong. Maybe I should stick to Whiskey.
One big step comes tomorrow night..but with little or no sufficient and necessary advance notice as far as I am aware. Tuesday 5-7 is a “rare” joint Davis and Woodland Council meeting in the City Council Chambers on forming a Joint Powers Authority for the “surface water project..”
Still under discussion are where to locate: the intake pipe(s)from the river, the water-treatment plant (near Woodland, to treat the Sacramento River water), and the underground pipe-line route to Woodland and to Davis.
To date the project is under $400,000 in today’s $$$. The cost depends on how the city raises money: – grants, bonds, etc., and how the project gets built – by the private sector (design and build – Bechtel, Veolia Environment, or others???). Would the private sector continue to operate and maintain – for how long? One year to train Davis Public Works? 5-years, 20-years. In talking with Bob Weir, it appears that a corporation is more likely to propose a g IMHO: make additional profit on the O-M side). How would an O-M (Operate and Maintain) private contract impact water-rates since the private sector must return profits to investors? With the city in the business of providing water hookups (pipeline/well water), the city is in the business of assisting developers in meeting the state requirement to show 20-years of water. What will developer fees be for city water hookups after the pipeline is built. Certainly more than Wildhorse Ranch developers will pay and why the push to get this project approved now.
After talking with Bob Weir getting answers to many questions, I find it amazing that I, and the general public, know very little about this hugely expensive capital project that has its own momentum. Shouldn’t we?
Shouldn’t the City Council and Public Works put on a public workshop at which WE get to ask the questions until we get full and satisfactory answers? Let’s not wait until we are confronted with water-rate hikes. Remember the reaction when sewer rates went up?
I am beginning to think that the Davis rate-payers need an impartial Ombudsman to represent our interests. Speaking of which: It would be important to clarify if the private sector were to operate and manage this “project” for 5-10-20 years – would the CA Public Utilities Commission have jurisdiction over rate increase requests.? This would be a disaster. Across CA, private for-profit water providers are asking the PUC for in excess of 40% rate hikes. It is crucial to understand what the governing authority would be over rates in regard to the JPA and any public-private partnership deal. .
David Greenwald wrote:
[quote]I agree with whomever complained that they had only four days to go over the 299 page staff report.
I’m going to highlight the Dedication, Preservation, Fees, Exactions & Public Benefits …[/quote]I wasn’t complaining about not having time to read the talking points from Parlin, but thanks for posting them anyway. What I’m complaining about is the fact that the community is given a 299 page staff report late Friday for a Tuesday night public hearing.
Memo to the City Council — Why don’t you continue the public hearing until after the August break so we can all have some time to read the report and question staff?
reality Check, while I too feel that the lead time makes little sense, the kind of issues we would uncover by a more thorough reading will need to be addressed by the developer in detail prior to any measure J vote. If they don’t the project will go down in flames at the polls. Thus far the developer has shown me that they are indeed listening to the citizens of Davis and tailoring the project particulars to deliver the maximum of Greater Good. As a result I’m inclined to believe that a delay until after August won’t make any substantive change in the Council vote outcome.
On a separate note, for those of us who want to see Measure J renewed “as is” I can see elements of the developer community attacking Measure J as “ridiculously unworkable” if this project with all its positives never gets to a Measure J vote. I can hear them saying, “What does it take to make it over the hurdle? Clearly the pro-Measure J forces are detached from reality!!” On the other hand, if this project does get a full hearing through a Measure J vote, if it does get voted down, the reasons that it did will be crystal clear . . . and as a result a clear set of guidelines for what needs to be provided in order to avoid repeating WHR’s failings.
To Matt Williams,
The flaw in Measure J is that it opens the door for the City Council to just punt their problems to the voters. That, in turn, shifts too much control to the staff. I would personally prefer to see the City Council take on the really hard issues before we (the voters) are confronted with a take-it-or-leave-it decision. If it takes two or three meetings and some delay to get it right, so be it.
In my experience, the developers are not going to do much “listening to the citizens of Davis and tailoring the project particulars” once they get past the City Council. The more likely scenario is that they will hunker down and mount a professionally managed marketing campaign, while in parallel trying to control the progressive debate via the Vanguard (the extraordinary level of detail in David Greenwald’s posts is a big red flag).
Regarding the theoretical impacts on Measure J; I don’t buy the argument that the renewal “as is” is in any jeopardy. The problems with Davis are crystal clear throughout the region, and this particular project is not likely to move the needle much in either direction.
Reality:
On Chiles Ranch, City (Hess) ignored important parts of a formal written agreement between neighbors and developers. City Council approved anyway.
Nancy:
Think the idea of an independent representative sounds great. Citizen input on residential and commercial developments doesn’t seem to have any value anymore. Commitment to slow growth has vanished. Projects like Covell Village come back over and over despite clear public resistance. Follow the money trail. Large developments get approved, people get re-elected.
Thanks for the heads up on the water project. Once again, the voters are in the dark despite the fact that we provide the capital.
“….. Mike Webb are handling this project, and both are above reproach.”
I agree that this project is good for Davis, I so very much disagree that Mike Webb is above reproach. Quite the antithesis from my experience with him.
Jim:
You seem to find the “truths” out there despite all the propaganda; you guys got burned with Chiles Ranch (with the help of Hess), and now she is doing the same pushing along this Wildhorse Ranch project; unfortunately, you all didn’t have a Measure J election, but we do with WHR, get the word out and tell your angry neighbors to vote NO, against Parlin Development and against more unneeded growth in our city!!!
If you think that Hess is trying to push this project through, you have no idea as to what is going on.
Mike Webb has had his share of incompetent moments in his role. Not necessarily on this project. Ike is an unmitigated disaster.
“Thanks for the heads up on the water project. Once again, the voters are in the dark despite the fact that we provide the capital.”
It’s been under discussion for something like 20 years, with numerous public decisions by city councils. Lots of information here: [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/[/url]
It hasn’t exactly been flying under the radar; there are several threads on this blog on the subject as well.
[quote]To: Jim said . . .
tell your angry neighbors to vote NO, against more unneeded growth in our city!!![/quote]
To Jim, I respect your opinion, but can’t help but wonder what your solution is to the dearth of workforce housing in Davis (both for rent and affordably for sale), as well as the systematic exclusion of workforce housing from the 3,400+ units of new hosusing that have been built in Davis over the past 10 years?
Your solution?
[quote]To: Jim said . . .
. . . now she is doing the same pushing along this Wildhorse Ranch project;[/quote]Jim, how can you say that a project that first made application to the City Planning Department approximately one year [u]before the Measure X election[/u] is being “pushed along.” Have you no0t been paying attention for the past five years?
So why don’t you clue us in? The “Hess is trying to kill the project” meme just surfaced today, and there does seem to be an air of hysteria from the pro-Parlin neoprogressives.
Is Parlin pushing back on language that would plug the loopholes on their “commitment” for a 90% GHG reduction? Is there some new problem with the fiscal analysis?
Anon:
Based on personal experience and her unending public support for max possible density, it certainly seems like Hess is pushing development. She signs the final design documents and makes the recommends to City Council.
She does a great job of derailing the citizen input that might reduce density. She is paid a healthy salary to be the Community Development Director. Is someone else making the development decisions?
Don:
I meant the upcoming meeting.
“But I have never heard that Davis growth has any reason to be limited due to absence of water supply yet.”
There was a recent staff report by Public Works Dept, showing a graph of water needs, including the surface water project. It assumed a 1% housing growth rate. It raised serious questions about the nexus between development and our “need” for a surface water supply. I wrote an article about it right here in the Davis Vanguard, entitled “Water, Water Everywhere”. You might want to take a look at it. Scary stuff…
“To date the [sewer] project is under $400,000 in today’s $$$.”
I think you have your decimal point in the wrong place and a lack of zeroes. I wish the sewer project was only going to cost $400,000!!!
After getting home from work all day I had a chance to look over the Vanguard story and the comments. It is unfortunate to see the personal attacks toward me because of my opposition to this project. Rather than debate the issue, the objective by a few has been to cause harm. This is the only posting that I will have on the blog today.
I will not engage in the kind of mean spiritedness that has been posted on this blog regarding my position on this issue. There are different point of views on this project and I’ve expressed mine in the Op-ed piece that I helped co-author. If you want to see many of the
arguments why this project should not go forward, please see the Op-ed from the Sunday, July 26th Enterprise at
http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=52251.
Some information not in the article which came out later in the staff report revealed more reasons to oppose the Parlin project.
1) The Parlin project is long on promises and very short on commitment. The language to implement the 90% GHG is very weak and the obvious loophole is that if they can’t achieve the promised 90% GHG reduction, then the developers get to renegotiate it with the City. They can relocate any of their GHG reductions “off-site” or instead pay “in-lieu” fees.
2) The project will cost Davis citizens $67,500 annually to start with and this cost will increase with time. Why should the citizens of Davis subsidize this project into the future?
3)The average housing unit is not affordable (I mentioned this in the article but it is a major shortcoming of this project).
4) Most importantly, if this project gets approved by a Measure J vote the developers get to keep their land use change from ag to residential even if a “green” project never materializes.
5)The project is not subject to the small builders provisions of the Municipal Code, so the local small builders do not get an opportunity for work in these difficult economic times where jobs are hard to find.
This adds to the list of the many reasons why this project needs to be rejected. It brings impacts that cannot be “greenwashed” away. The best green use of this site is to keep it a horse farm, and to not impose the financial burden and other impacts of the Parlin project on the citizens of Davis.
E Roberts Musser:
Thanks for the informative posting.
Eileen:
Agree that the mean spirited postings accomplish absolutely nothing. Thanks for the well thought out posting.
Suggest people attend City Council tomorrow and comment.
My apologies, but when I did a search for the link for the Op-ed I accidentally got another article. This is the correct link.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/story.php?id=631.2
http://www.davisenterprise.com/story.php?id=631.2
Looks like the last address I posted for the Op-ed link is correct but not connecting. I’ll try one last time to see if this one works.
“There was a recent staff report by Public Works Dept, showing a graph of water needs, including the surface water project. It assumed a 1% housing growth rate. It raised serious questions about the nexus between development and our “need” for a surface water supply. I wrote an article about it right here in the Davis Vanguard, entitled “Water, Water Everywhere”. You might want to take a look at it. Scary stuff…”
Hi, Elaine,
The chart at your essay shows a 1% growth rate, but however you draw that line it illustrates that in the next 20 – 30 years, all the wells will have to be replaced and/or a surface water supply will be needed — even if Davis doesn’t grow at all, which is obviously not realistic. Regardless of development proposals, the city will have to spend money to maintain the current water system. We can spend that money to replace existing wells and pump groundwater, or we can spend more money to bring in a surface water supply. Bringing in the surface water supply solves, to some degree, the waste water treatment problem that the city also faces.
Eileen, will you help me drill down into your multi-point post?
Your point 1) — I don’t know enough about the legal language issues associated with this point. How would you tighten the language to eliminate the loophole you perceive is there? Also if you would, please help me understand any scenarios where you feel the loophole would hurt Davis.
Your point 2) — When I read the Fiscal Analysis language and looked at the spreadsheet numbers this evening, I found two glaring omissions in the Staff Report. By my calculations the project does not accumulate a $1,012,692 NET GENERAL FUND BALANCE deficit over the 15-year analysis period, but rather a $4,095,852 gain. Staff did not include either 1) the 151 $5,000 payments that Parlin is going to make in order to bring the 11.8% tax retention rate up to the 17.5% citywide average, or 2) the City’s $3 million expenditure savings associated with the 38 Affordable Units.
Your point 3) — The numbers you cited in your OpEd piece would indeed be tantamount to unaffordable as workforce housing; however, there is some confusion about where you got thos numbers. It appears that those are the Chiles Ranch numbers rather than the Wildhorse Rabch numbers. Can you check your source and verify the correct prices. Pam Neiberg’s has posted a toen homes price range “from the mid-$300,000 to the mid-$400,000.”
the
Your point 4) — I think the suggested solution you included in your OPEd is an excellent solution to this problem. I support you 100% on this point.
Your point 5) — Interesting point. How would you fix it?
Thoughts?
David Greenwald wrote …[quote]Wildhorse Ranch will provide as much as $22,216,737 in land dedications, sustainable and climate improving technology, fees and housing for low and very low income households.[/quote]His valuations for the land dedications are based on an assumption that the land is worth $605,000 to $723,000 per acre. These numbers are obviously grossly inflated and, as a consequence, the $22,216,737 claim is misleading.
Does anyone know what the actual purchase price of the property was? Since this transaction occurred before the bubble broke, it would provide a reasonable starting point for estimating the maximum value of the land dedications.
On the top of Page 5 of the Staff Report, Staff refers to the land dedication fees for the 38 affordable units as being “typically in the $80,000 to $90,000 range per rental unit, or approximately $3 million.”
Matt:
I believe this refers to the construction cost subsidy for building affordable housing on a land dedication site, and does not speak to the underlying value of the land.
I wasn’t sure, but the terminology was similar, so I thought I would let inquiring minds bat it around.
Matt:
There are 78 Wildhorse townhouses ranging in price from “mid 300’s to mid 400’s”. Median price is $425k which means NOT MANY MID 300’s offered. A 20% downpayment on a $425k unit is $85,000
There are 73 Wildhorse single family homes ranging in price from high 400’s to high 500’s.
A 20% downpayment on a $475k unit is $95,000
Chiles Ranch units median cost is $472k. A 20% downpayment is $94,400.
Don’t have the full downpayment? If you qualify (how?), City assistance is $25,000 (a low interest loan?). This adds to monthly costs (approx 3,000/mo total) and you still have to come up w/ a more than $50,000 downpayment. Chiles or WIldhorse means a hefty downpayment.
These isn’t “affordable housing for the local workforce”. These “ownership opportunities” are for people who already own property (bought pre crash) with some equity. Other possible is an inheritance. I can only guess that the potential buyers are upper middle class people.
Other possible is that the developers have no intention of building at this point. With City Council approval of the project, the land becomes more valuable. It can be sold now or in the future. When (if) house prices rise, the townhouse prices become more attractive.
I agree with the math in your first paragraph. I also think the specific mix of townhome sizes will depend in part on what interest the developer gets from potential workforce buyers. One area where I would like to see more specific information would come from two collaborative efforts, on with the DDBA and the other with UCD. Both efforts would be outreaches to the workforce. Giving workers who are interested in purchasing their first home. Both efforts would provide a convenient two-way communication vehicle for both answering the workers’ questions and hearing about their levels of interest. The information that those collaborative efforts would generate would no doubt affect the mix of town home sizes (and prices).
One category of buyers that you have omitted are the young couples whose parents help them with the downpayment. That was the only way I was able to afford to purchase my first home.
Between now and the Measure J vote I would hope that the spectre you raise in your last paragraph can be eliminated. I think that is what Eileen is getting at in her point 4). I support that idea 100%.
Eileen Samitz wrote …[quote] 4) Most importantly, if this project gets approved by a Measure J vote the developers get to keep their land use change from ag to residential even if a “green” project never materializes.[/quote] This is the [u]only[/u] serious leverage that the voters have to insure that the project goes forward as intended. Therefore, it is essential that this stipulation be added to the “Base Line Measure J Project Features” during the city council meeting tonight! This document can be found on pages 109-113 of the staff report. The link is [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090728/04 Wildhorse Development Project.pdf[/url]
The “Base Line Measure J Project Features” represents the only “contract” between the developers and the citizens. These features cannot be changed without another Measure J vote (although there is some potential for mischief in that the city gets to decide whether something falls within the legally defined parameters of “change”). Everything else (especially the Development Agreement) is subject to amendment if the council and developers both agree.
I strongly encourage everyone to read these four pages with a legalistic eye. If it ain’t there … don’t count on it ever happening. If you see any loopholes, they are there for a reason. If the language is vague, it is vague for a reason. I assure you, attorneys for the developers and the city, as well as the city staff, have gone over this language with a fine tooth comb.
There is [u]no[/u] language addressing the consequences of failing to get the GHG reduction plan certified by the city. Nor is there language addressing certification. Right now the bar is set remarkably low – certification by the Community Development Director without any requirement for final Planning Commission approval or advice from independent experts.
Another obvious red flag is that there is no requirement to reduce GHG emission by 90% [u]on-site[/u]. This suggests that they already know they can’t achieve this goal (despite all the rhetoric from the neoprogressive spin meisters allied with Parlin), and they need to be able to do something off-site to hit the requirement.
If the GHG reduction is moved off-site, then the project is reduced to a very high density peripheral housing development with lots of solar panels, energy efficient design features that are already becoming widespread elsewhere (and why isn’t the project LEED certified?), narrow streets, and an unusual site plan. Hardly something that will “put Davis on the energy efficiency map.”
Here’s the link again …
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090728/04 Wildhorse Development Project.pdf
Reality:
Good post. Several comments….
1) To 3 members of the current City Council and Hess, citizen/developer agreements have absolutely no value. in the recently approved 129 unit Chiles Ranch development, several key parts of a formal citizen/developer agreement were completely ignored. These include the number of units and size of buffers. Community Development Director (Hess) has publicly stated that citizen input has no impact on final design decisions. Tthe City Attorney has publicly stated that the citizen/developer agreement has no legal value to the City.
2) Allowing only Hess to be the sign off on the certification is a big mistake. There must be an independent review
I’ve watching and waiting to buy since 2004. My question is why would you pay 400k for a small townhouse full of fees and assessments instead of a larger SFR in either Woodland or Sacramento for half the price? Especially if I can make the payments based on a single income.
Relying on two wage earners to support housing costs is a good part of why the economy is doing so badly. I recommend reading Elizabeth Warren’s work, the two income trap.
In today’s Enterprse (7/28) there are two articles that address this blog topic. One is Bob Dunning’s column, the other is an op-ed piece by Greg Sokolov and Phil King that responds to Mark Braly’s op-ed a week or so ago.
Your argument makes a world of sense. IMHO it is at the heart of the whole “theoretical demand vs. actionable demand” discussion that is part of answering the question “What is Davis’ true Housing Need?” It is one thing to say “I would really like to live in Davis.” It is another thing altogether to say “I’m ready to write a deposit check right now.”
“What is Davis’ true Housing Need?”
Rental housing.
Can’t argue with that.
This has certainly been a great two-day discussion on this issue. I know that our greatest need is equity building ownership housing for families with young children. I would like to see the return to the days when a large number of such families consisted of those who were students, staff, and faculty of UCD and City staff including the police and firemen. Their presence contributed significantly to the quality of life here. I believe that any effort to this end should be supported.
The developers will build the 78 townhouses and 73 homes to provide “ownership opportunities for first time buyers”. They will DEDICATE 1.92 acres to the City or an acceptable “not for profit” builder (whatever that means). This means SOMEONE ELSE actually builds the 40 apartments at some point (in 1 month? 10 years?). I now understand “affordable housing” means rental properties for lower income folks. I think “ownership opportunities” simply means the chance to buy expensive higher end townhouses and houses. Oh yeah, there’s the City down payment “assistance” program. Almost seems like the City is helping the developers sell the units. Of course, iIt does load the buyers w/ more debt.
Reality: you’re so right about the red flags. There’s no developer obligation to actually provide the GHG technology. Why is Community Development promoting projects that don’t force developers to actually do things? No performance bonds? No time lines? Generous working hours (M-F 7/7, S/S 8-8)?
There’s a LOT of verbal smoke and mirrors here. Community Development (Hess) has an interesting agenda.
Sacramento-area rents fall for third straight quarter
By Jim Wasserman
Published: Wednesday, Jul. 15, 2009
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/2026511.html[/url]
“Rents fell in every city but Davis, home to a university with thousands of students.”
Thanks for correction on number of zeros and decimal point for to-date estimated cost of the pipeline. I’d better stick to water instead of whiskey; and, thanks to Don Shor’s reference to the public works website – there is a great deal of material there and reports. I should add, however, that even though this project has been before the public for years, few among the general public have been paying attention – the will when their rates go up and that will be too late. Thanks to E Roberts Musser’s reminder and reference to his excellent article on water.
I’d like to remind readers to take a look at “Water Democracy in California: Community Rights Not Corporate Control” at http://www.defendingwaterincalifornia.org
Nancy Price
[quote]Jim Watson said . . .
I think “ownership opportunities” simply means the chance to buy expensive higher end townhouses and houses. Oh yeah, there’s the City down payment “assistance” program. Almost seems like the City is helping the developers sell the units. Of course, it does load the buyers w/ more debt. [/quote]
Jim,
1) What do you consider the affordable workforce housing price range to be?
2) What range of # of bedrooms and square feet do you believe should be purchaseable in your selected price range?
Jim:
If the city was truly interested in creating “ownership opportunities”, they would focus on much smaller dwelling units (~1,000 sq ft starter homes with single car garages on very small lots). If there weren’t too many expensive amenities to pay for, I’m guessing this type of product would probably sell for less than $300,000 in this market.
Wildhorse Ranch starts at 1,400 sq ft and goes to 2,000 sq ft and has to adsorb lots of neighborhood amenities in the price of the units. This talk about affordability is just more hype to try and sell the project and lock in entitlements.
Tansey:
Agree totally about the importance of home ownership and value of working families w/ kids as citizens.
I simply don’t think the proposed $400k – $550k prices (well there are a couple of mid 300’s) are affordable for first time buyers. My neighbors include a firefighter and policeman. Neither of them can afford the proposed WH units as a 1st purchase. My wife has taught for 20 years and I freelance. We couldn’t afford WH. Another neighbor (Woodland City staff w/ kids) bought 7 years ago. He couldn’t do WH as a 1st time. My impression is that a typical double income w/ kids doesn’t cover $3,000 + incidental home ownership expenses. There’s also the down payment issue. Even 10% = $40k. Parental help was mentioned in here. I hope people have that as an option. I would like to believe that WH truly provides realistic purchase options.
I support innovative developments that truly have community benefits. GHG sounds great but there’s no formal obligation to actually do it. WH developers build the townhouses and homes. Low income rentals have some benefit. Unfortunately, WH developers will only donate the space but not actually build the apartments.
From here, WH doesn’t fit.
Jim:
There will be a formal agreement on the GHG before this thing is put on the ballot. I really didn’t think my opinion of city staff could drop, but it has. Hopefully an update on this at some point.
Hi Tansey:
Our op-ed piece was published in today’s Enterprise, which outlines our concerns that WHR is by no means an “affordable housing” option for middle income families; as a UCD employee and a product of the UC system, I too would support any measure which ensures that University employees have the opportunity to own a home in Davis (especially with these unprecedented economic times, including furloughs); but I simply don’t see how townhomes selling for market value around 425,000 could be construed as “affordable” housing options; West Village developments is still on-line to serve the housing needs of UC employees and family, and hoepfully other developments with more affordable townhomes/condos will come on later.
at $350,000 is that affordable? ANd I’m not sure I agree with Greg that a $4350,000 townhouse isn’t affordable for middle income people, I don’t own a house right now, but that’s the range I’m looking at. And I’m certainly middle income.
TO: “But what about”
If you check the Davis MLS, there are quite a few unsold properties on the market in that price range now
Understood, but this is probably the low point of the market, perhaps it’s slightly above the nadir, but not much.
[quote]Greg Sokolov said . . .
Our op-ed piece was published in today’s Enterprise, which outlines our concerns that WHR is by no means an “affordable housing” option for middle income families; as a UCD employee and a product of the UC system, I too would support any measure which ensures that University employees have the opportunity to own a home in Davis (especially with these unprecedented economic times, including furloughs); but I simply don’t see how townhomes selling for market value around 425,000 could be construed as “affordable” housing options; West Village developments is still on-line to serve the housing needs of UC employees and family, and hoepfully other developments with more affordable townhomes/condos will come on later. [/quote]
Greg, what was your source on the pricing of the WHR town homes? To the best of my knowledge the [u]average[/u]price for a townhome in WHR will be $425,000, with prices going down to the mid-$300,000 level.
With that said, what do you consider “affordable” to be in Davis, and how will the 90% savings on monthly utilities factor into your affordability equation?
“West Village developments is still on-line to serve the housing needs of UC employees and family, and hoepfully other developments with more affordable townhomes/condos will come on later.”
When is construction expected to start on West Village? Just wondering if the current economy is delaying the start of that development
David Greenwald wrote:[quote]There will be a formal agreement on the GHG before this thing is put on the ballot.[/quote]It will be put on the ballot tonight unless the council (1) continues the public hearing until after the August break, (2) denies the application, or (3) amends the language from the dais. Anything less will be a smoke screen to try and finesse the application.
Mike Harrington wrote:[quote] you get NOWHERE with anyone in your attempts to demonize staff.[/quote]Parlin and their neoprogressive allies got caught trying to slip one past the public, so now it’s time for David Greenwald to slam the staff? The developers could have raised the problem at any time through their mouthpiece (AKA the Vanguard), and they didn’t.
Obvious question … How does David Greenwald know so much about the internal deliberations going on in City Hall, and why should we trust his assurance that everything will be worked out?
Move along folks. Nothing to see here. We’ve got it under control. Don’t worry. Return to your houses.
[quote]Greg Sokolov said . . .
TO: “But what about” If you check the Davis MLS, there are quite a few unsold properties on the market in that price range now
___________________________________________________________________________
But what about replied . . .
Understood, but this is probably the low point of the market, perhaps it’s slightly above the nadir, but not much.[/quote]
One added factor is the condition of the residences on the market. They could well be priced right, but be unacceptable from a aesthetic / quality of life perspective. Compared to the alternative of a new town home with virtually no monthly utility costs, it becomes easy to pass on one of the currently listed “dogs.”
Jim:
I’m not trying to defend “the staff” in my post above. Some individuals obviously cause a lot of problems. I just think it’s a cheap tactic to call them out in this particular instance.
I’m sorry for what happened to your neighborhood. Your experience was a stark and unfortunate illustration that (1) with the notable exception of Measure J baselines, citizens typically have no legal standing in any agreement, and (2) the neoprogressives aren’t on your side.
Your neighborhood negotiation was a mechanism for the city and developers to move the ball down the field. At the end of the day, to add insult to injury, your neighborhood had only partial support from the progressive community because the neoprogressives support high density in-fill as a (misguided and naive) strategy to prevent ag land conversion.
Matt:
My source for the 425,000 price range is from the City Staffing Report for tonight’s Council meeting (on page 296); whether or not this is an “average” price is arguable, since it doesn’t list “average” anywhere in the tables, and I’d be quite suprised if a new townhome/condo in Wildhorse with square footage around 1600-1700 sq ft would sell in the 300’s range, I’m not a real estate agent, but I would certainly ask a few if that price would ever be realistic; as for the “dogs” comment, others may have a different point of view, i.e. one could get a backyard for the same price and not have to look out at three story apartment buildings in their view
“so now it’s time for David Greenwald to slam the staff?”
Hey I’ve been slamming the staff for three years, where have you been?
“How does David Greenwald know so much about the internal deliberations going on in City Hall, and why should we trust his assurance that everything will be worked out?”
The first answer is that I am the Vanguard.
The second is that you should not trust my assurance and if you do not see the formulations laid out in black and white, I will join you in trepidation.
Reality check, many people who support higher density infill do so not for ag land protection, but rather for Carbon Control reasons. Kevin Wolf and Kemble Pope are tow names that quickly come to mind. As Tallulah said in a prior thread, Washington DC has lots of relatively high density infill that has been done tastefully and sensitively. Design quality is the key to successful implementation of a Carbon Reduction strategy.
I encourage you to come to El Macero and look at the 37 town homes right in the middle of our neighborhood. They are on 3.32 gross acres. That is a gross density of 11 du per acre , and probably in the 16-20 du per acre net density range. They are tastefully done and a real asset to the community. It is not all about numbers.
David:
When might we see these formulations? If we don’t get them tonight,then you’ve been played.
[quote]Greg Sokolov said . . .
07/28/09 – 03:35 PM…
Matt:
My source for the 425,000 price range is from the City Staffing Report for tonight’s Council meeting (on page 296); whether or not this is an “average” price is arguable, since it doesn’t list “average” anywhere in the tables, and I’d be quite suprised if a new townhome/condo in Wildhorse with square footage around 1600-1700 sq ft would sell in the 300’s range, I’m not a real estate agent, but I would certainly ask a few if that price would ever be realistic; as for the “dogs” comment, others may have a different point of view, i.e. one could get a backyard for the same price and not have to look out at three story apartment buildings in their view [/quote]
Greg on page 7 the town home size is listed as “home sizes will range from 1,400 to 1,600 square feet” If the price per square foot is $250 then a 1400 square foot town home would sell for $350,000 and a 1600 sq ft would sell for $400,000. Recent town home sales in Davis have ranged from $223 per sq ft to $290. My wife and I lived in a very nice two-bedroom 1248 sq ft apartment in Franklin, Tennessee before we moved to Davis. 1250 square feet for $350,000 works our to $280 per sq ft. See what your realtors think about that combination. Saving $1,000 to $2,000 a year every year on utilities is a factor as well.
Matt:
The only problem with that formulation is that our jobs to housing ratio is out of whack. If you’re driving out of town to work (as many residents do), it really doesn’t matter much whether you start out from Wildhorse Ranch or North Davis Farms. I don’t buy the idea that high density infill is a solution for vehicle emissions in Davis.
Reality Check: I hope tonight. But if we do not see them by the time the ballot language is finalized–if the council approves it tonight–then staff will have killed it.
[quote]Reality check said . . .
When might we see these formulations? If we don’t get them tonight,then you’ve been played. [/quote]
Rc, I disagree. The Measure J vote will be incredibly visible, highly contentious, and a failure to nail the formulations down will result in the very quick defections of some of WHR’s strongest current supporters. Read Pam Neiberg’s comments earlier in this thread. Virtually 100% of her current support stems from the environmental “greater good” that Parlin has commited to. Others feel the same way, David among them, and I can guarantee you that they will be watching the process like hawks. Similarly, on the affordable workforce housing issues I will be monitoring the steps they take between now and the day Davis votes. I am not bashful, and if they back away from a clear commitment to Davis’ workforce I won’t quietly fade into the background.
DPD: post the GHG program final language, if you have it. People need to see it ASAP.
[quote]Reality check said . . .
Matt:
The only problem with that formulation is that our jobs to housing ratio is out of whack. If you’re driving out of town to work (as many residents do), it really doesn’t matter much whether you start out from Wildhorse Ranch or North Davis Farms. I don’t buy the idea that high density infill is a solution for vehicle emissions in Davis. [/quote]
The reason I propose that Parlin work actively with the DDBA and UCD to identify “actionable workforce housing demand” for their units. We need to work as a community to do everything we can to make sure that every one of the WHR units is filled by either 1) a current Davis resident or 2) a person with a current Davis job, or 3) an elderly parent of a current Davis resident. If we don’t do that then you will be right.
BTW, Table 1 of the Economic Evaluation in the new Yolo County General Plan Update appears to argue that our jobs to housing ratio in Yolo County isn’t any worse than the region. It can always be better, but it isn’t like we are bringing up the rear.
David:
You mean “killed it” by not rubber stamping Parlin’s language? Perhaps they are just doing their jobs in this instance?
That would depend on what your goal is. My goal is to make the 90% happen and be unequivocal. IMO the city has intentionally watered down the language to give them a fudge factor.
David:
Then why didn’t you disclose this suspicion before 5:25 pm on the day of the hearing?
Frankly because I didn’t expect it to still be an issue at this point. I’m appalled that it is. But I blame city staff on this.
[quote]the city has intentionally watered down the language to give them a fudge factor[/quote]
BTW This doesn’t square with what I’m hearing on the grapevine.
Greg Solkolov’s letter was interesting but not for the reason he might think. He has a line in the letter about not building during slack demand. So some people think that we can’t build when the real estate market is hot because you can’t satisfy demand by building and others think we shouldn’t build when the market is weak because adding supply will lower prices. So the consistancy of all these arguments is that we should restrict supply. Of course Solkolov is correct in his assumption that building will add supply in a time of weak demand. Of course I am also consistent in arguing that we should increase supply to meet demand because rstricting supply is exclusionary and benefits owners who condemn developers for doing the same thing the owners are trying to do, enhance their own financial situation.
Here are the three issues to watch for tonight re: the 90% GTG reduction. They all need to be specifically incorporated into the “Base Line Measure J Project Features” or any council action is meaningless. The language must be clear and unambiguous or the GTG controversy will not go away.
(1) All GTG reductions should be required on-site, with no option for credits from off-site reductions or in lieu fees.
(2) Final certification authority for the GTG reduction plan should be taken away from the Community Development Director and placed in the hands of the Planning Commission with a requirement that they consult independent experts prior to making their determination.
(3) The land use should be rezoned to agriculture and all development entitlements forfeited if the developer fails generate a GTG reduction plan that is granted final certification.
In my prior post …
(1) speaks to the WOW factor
(2) speaks to oversight
(3) speaks to leverage
I’d love to have a brief summary of tonight’s CC meeting. Anything interesting happen?
They are still working through the Redevelopment Agency agenda items. Stay tuned.
On 7/8/2009, Mike Harrington wrote:[quote]For me, the 90% GHG reduction from the city standard is what is important. The reduction has to be clearly spelled out in the development documents, black and white, locked in.[/quote]Well guess what folks … it didn’t happen. The City Council, on a 3-2 vote with Steve and Sue opposed, just approved the “Base Line Measure J Project Features” without “locking in” the 90% GHG reduction.
According to the design of Measure J, the only way for the citizens of Davis to be assured that anything is locked in is by its inclusion in the Project Features document. As the current controversy over land use of the Wildhorse Ranch parcel so clearly indicates, Development Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. They create an illusion of finality, but they can be amended without an additional Measure J vote.
The council majority agreed to modify the Project Features to require on-site GHG reduction, but the final GHG language is so vague that they’ve opened up a quagmire of potential implementation, certification, enforceability, and nonperformance issues that are now totally outside the control of Measure J.
[u]Nothing[/u] was locked in except for the goal of 90% on-site reduction. Control of what will actually happen going forward is now in the hands of the City Council, staff, and developers.
“Hi, Elaine,
The chart at your essay shows a 1% growth rate, but however you draw that line it illustrates that in the next 20 – 30 years, all the wells will have to be replaced and/or a surface water supply will be needed — even if Davis doesn’t grow at all, which is obviously not realistic. Regardless of development proposals, the city will have to spend money to maintain the current water system. We can spend that money to replace existing wells and pump groundwater, or we can spend more money to bring in a surface water supply. Bringing in the surface water supply solves, to some degree, the waste water treatment problem that the city also faces.”
Don, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. The only point I was trying to make is that the more development, the more water will be needed. The more water that is needed, the more infrastructure will be required to support the need. More development most definitely correlates to the need for more water. So when development is proposed, citizens must always keep in mind how much the costs will be in city services, including water. In the past, water has been relatively cheap, compared to what it is going to cost us in the future. SMART GROWTH is the key!
By the way, I always enjoy your informative and CIVIL posts!!
Let’s stop the personal attacks on Eileen. Agree or disagree, time to give the lady some respect. For YEARS, she’s been a tireless voice for the things she believes in. Unlike some posters in here, she doesn’t have current financial relationships w/ developers or potential business opportunities. I do see that as an inherent conflict of interest.
I have no idea why she’s being blamed for No on X campaign problems. I did the No on X campaign t-shirts and road signs. She helped pay for them. She and I (w/ other volunteers) stood on busy street corners waving signs. I do want to believe this helped.
Again, let’s see a name (not a label) if you want to slam people. ID yourself if your business is development related. Something like “Political Consultant” or “Office space for Parlin Inc”.
David, it’s your call of course, but I do think you should require personal names.
Jim: Why just Eileen, what about myself, Bill Ritter, Mike Harrington, et al? I’m with you Jim, but this whole thread is rife with attacks most of which are spurious.
David: agree completely. Just seems like Eileen gets “shot at” more often. The attacks defeat the purpose of the Vanguard. Most of us are here to learn and exchange ideas.
RC: appreciate the Chiles comments. High density seems to have automatic acceptance in this town. Like any development, there are “good” and “bad” ones. In development in this town, ignore the cute labels and look at the numbers. Ignore the warm fuzzy verbals and look at the contractual agreements. Also helps to look at the concept sketches and get a better feel for the proposed development.
On affordability, here’s one way to look at it. Davis median income level is supposedly $72k (I don’t know if that’s correct and it seems a little low). Traditionally, 25% of income went to housing. That’s probably outdated for today’s high prices but it’s a starting point. That’s $1,500/mo available for housing.
A $425k purchase (with a $42k down payment which I presume might be a problem for most middle income folks) takes approx $2,765/month (PITI not including city and incidental expenses). Basically we’re in the $3k/month area. Working back up the ladder, that’s $33,180/yr. Using the 25% of gross for housing, it takes a $130k/yr income to carry a $425k purchase. Oh and there’s that $42k down payment).
Now if you own something and have pre crash equity, the picture changes completely. It’s much easier. However, WH is being sold as “first time ownership opportunities”. I just don’t see it.
Getting a development approved in this town is a long arduous and expensive process. After the initial land purchase, carrying costs and years of arguments, it may or may not be approved. Long waits and ongoing costs have to mean more expensive housing. I am sure that many residents would like to see some simple, relatively inexpensive condos (say 300k). However, If I were a developer, I’d go for the highest possible price units that might actually sell to someone. I think that’s understandable considering the many costs. WIth WH, the I think a potential buyer owns property (w/ pre crash equity) and has income that I call at least upper middle class.
Jim:
You got me thinking… I decided to create a word cloud for the article and comments. Enjoy.
[img]images/stories/wh_word_cloud.jpg[/img]
David:
Excellent synopsis! :-))
Let’s look at these facts (and please correct me if I am in error):
Bill Ritter worked for NO for Measure X; the developers of Wildhorse Ranch (i.e. Parlin Development) decided to avoid the same mistakes, they would hire a ” Davis Insider”, who would help to court the “progessive, environmentalists” in town; it also turns that Bill Ritter is good friends with David and Cecilla (Escimila) Greenwald, and that the Vanguard could utlimately serve to influence key “activists” in town (who in ’06 opposed Covell Village; I am specifically referring to name by Pam Nieberg, Holly Bishop); so now in 2009, we have Parlin paying Bill Ritter to sway Davis electorate that this project is a.) green and b.) necessary (DESPITE FACT THAT CITY AND UC DAVIS HAS ALREADY APPROVED NEARLY 2000 UNITS TO BE BUILD) “Slow growth progressives”, if that is what you still believe accurately describes yourselves, PLEASE wake up and see the snow job what is happening in front of our collective eyes; Parlin Development through Bill Ritter, through David and Cecilia Greenwald, is trying to sway Davis “progressives” that Wildhorse Ranch is a.) necessary and b.) the greatest thing to happen to Davis since Village Homes….please take a long and educated look before you accept this……