In a long and meandering meeting that began at 5 pm with a joint discussion with Woodland City Council on water, ended just before 2 am with a 3-2 vote to deliver the Wildhorse Ranch Project for a Measure J vote in November 2009.
Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza repeatedly attempted to delay this discussion, in part based on the lateness of the hour and in part based on not only the complexity of the issues but also problems that they had with the project.
Councilmember Souza had a number of problems with the current plan that precluded him from voting for the site at this time. He was concerned about the number of units, the density, and also the location of the affordable housing. He acted as though affordable housing were a blight that needed to be hidden from view.
The neighbors remain steadfastly opposed to the project.
Phil Wyels representing the Wildhorse East Neighborhood Association (WENA) spoke before council at length. He continued to argue that the neighbors do not support this project for a lot of reasons. But he also made the point that the neighbors and the developers had worked together after January 2008 to produce a final project where the neighbors were much less negative toward it than the original project.
“Frankly many of us consider this to be a great new design, particularly the orchards, the land dedication, the solar components, and the greenhouse gas reductions commitments, but they continue to have concerns with the sheer number units, the third story townhomes, the number of parking spaces, in addition to the belief that many share that the horse ranch should just remain a horse ranch.”
He continued:
“I believe that Parlin negotiated with us in good faith except that we understood that they were unwilling to keep the basic footprint but reduce the number of units and the height of the building.”
Mr. Wyels was appreciative for the increased in parking spaces but argued for 150 units and exclusively two story townhomes.
Recognizing perhaps that this was likely to pass, Mr. Wyels asked for three things that he found much more modest in scope. First, he wanted a reduction in the hours of construction to reduce the impact on residents. He asked for a similar consideration as given for Chiles Ranch and Grande. Second, he asked for the private and public open spaces be protected with a conservation easement to protect them in the future. Finally, he asked the Orchard buffer to be constructed sooner than currently proposed at the 75th building permit. He asked to change it to 1st or 10th or 15th building permit.
During the public comments, Former Davis Mayor Maynard Skinner read a statement signed by three other former Mayors Jerry Adler, Ken Wagstaff and Bill Kopper in support of the project based on the need for affordable housing and sustainability.
The project appeared to be headed at least for delay. Mayor Ruth Asmundson made a motion to approve the project that failed to garner a second. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald wanted to delay the site until September and even Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor appeared to want to wait until Monday, August 3 to finish the discussion.
However, then Councilmember Lamar Heystek stepped up and provided the leadership in support of the project. As a result, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor stepped up and supported placing the project on the ballot and they were joined by Mayor Asmundson.
Councilmember Heystek:
“I would like to comment on the project in general. We challenge applicants to be environmentally sensitive, to be green, to present us with projects that make sense for our environmental future, and then we act surprised and incredulous when they actually take us to our word and actually present us with a project that makes environmental sense.
I would not like a project that makes this much environmental sense to be a victim of the projects that aren’t as environmentally sensible, the ones that have been passed before.
Councilmember Souza, I have a great deal of respect for you… but you talk about affordable housing as something that detracts from the project for various reasons. I see the affordable housing in this project as being one of the crown jewels because it is going to be fully accessible. It is something that I have strongly called for, Councilmember Greenwald and I supported an ordinance that called for as much, and the City Council as a whole has been unanimously in support of affordable housing that provides full accessibility.
But this another, I hate to use it because it is not a General Plan term, but the wow factor. The fact that there is some semblance of social equity provided for… I look at the fact that we are providing the people an option that they have not had before in this community…”
He continued:
“We have an opportunity to put before the people a project that includes modest sized homes, not McMansions.”
Furthermore,
“As of now, with current technology it is about as carbon neutral as we can get. I fully support including the assertion of 90% below the baseline greenhouse gas emissions.”
Councilmember Heystek’s comments inspired Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor to make another go of getting the item on the ballot. And so with a series of 3-2 votes with Councilmembers Greenwald and Souza opposing, the Council majority for one night of Mayor Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor, and Councilmember Heystek placed the item on the ballot where the voters will be the ultimate judge.
There were some continuing issues that needed to be address.
FISCAL IMPACT
Matt Williams ran new numbers in response to the fiscal analysis that argues that it would be a $1 million drain on the budget. However, as Mr. Williams argued, the city did not include the $5000 per unit supplemental that the city pays nor did they include the $3 million windfall that the city realizes by not having to do the land dedication subsidies. If they are included in the calculations the project appears to go from accumulating the $1,012,692 deficit for the General Fund shown in Attachment 11, to a $4,095,852 gain over the 15 year life of the project. Mike Webb said that while the numbers were not incorrect, the city did not include them because they represented one-time fees.
Wrote Mike Webb:
“The key issue, and reason for the difference in numbers, is that items such as the supplemental fee, construction tax, and land dedication subsidies (or lack thereof) are one time payments. The fiscal analysis deals only with recurring and ongoing revenues and expenditures and does not take these onetime fees into account. “
90% ON-SITE GHG REDUCTIONS
“The way that we had the language worded in the original development agreement that was presented to you provided for explicit flexibility in the event that the 90% could not be achieved through the units themselves. In other words, it allowed if they said look we can meet 85% or 88%, pick a number, in the units themselves, but we’re short a few percentage, then we had interest in providing the flexibility that they could still accomplish the 90% that maybe make up that difference with either off-site mitigations or even some sort of in-lieu fee. That sort of flexibility is what is built into the resolution that was adopted a few months ago.”
However, the developers and David Galbraith wanted the reduction to be on-site and insisted on stronger language.
Mike Webb:
“The applicant has expressed some interest in holding true to their proposal to do the 90%… But it sounds as though that they are committing with the language in the development agreement to doing the 90% on site. That is what is reflected in the revised language that is before you tonight.”
Here is the language from the development agreement and conditions of approval:
“Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Requirement. The Project shall meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction standards adopted by the City Council by Resolution #06,166, Series 2008, and Resolution #09-043, Series 2009. In accordance with Resolution #09-043, the unmitigated 191 unit project will generate 1,050.5 metric tons (MT) of CO2, which shall be mitigated consistent with the City GHG Reduction Policy. Furthermore, the project shall reduce its Green House Gas emissions by 90%, from the base line of 5.5 metric tons per unit standard established by the City of Davis in its Resolution #09-043 regarding Green House Gas reductions. Concurrently with the Tentative Map application the Developer shall submit a GHG reduction program identifying specific measures to be implemented within each land use sub-area, subject to review by the Natural Resources Commission and approval by the Planning Commission. This submittal shall provide general descriptions of the measure and associated Green House Gas emission reductions. It is not intended that the Developer will submit Title 24 energy calculations at this stage, but rather the measures to be employed to achieve the necessary energy demand reductions. 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. “
Some have called into question the last three words, suggesting that the Community Development Director is probably not the best judge. However, as David Galbraith made clear on multiple occasions, the developers and consultants believe that this is feasible, that it is economically viable and they are committed to doing it.
Mr. Galbraith in addressing council, argued that first, the numbers are real and that is based on the guidelines passed by council on April 21 that gave them a real methodology that they could use to reduce GHG. Second, this is legally enforceable and transparently so. The builders will submit drawings with a legally enforceable calculation. There is a certain amount of photovoltaic that will be on the building that can be enforced. Third, we can do this for a manageable cost. There are substantial costs as laid out.
“The first 30% of greenhouse gas reduction, we aren’t going to break a sweat. The second 30 is a bit of work. And the last 30 is real work. Managing that cost will depend on how well we design the project.”
He continued:
“The fourth factor is that this really is socially important. There really is a ‘wow factor’ here. One wow factor is that we really are at 90% GHG reduction, that’s really not done. Everyone else is really at something like 50 or 60%.”
“After April 21, we are certain we can do a 90% GHG reduction, it is economically feasible, and that is going to make a point to the world.”
The other wow factor is that while you can get a wealthy client to do the reduction and it’s fairly easy to do, but in this project we are doing it for 191 unit that have to be sold on the market and a great deal of them have to be affordable and “that mirrors how most residences are built in the world.” Mr. Galbraith declared that he wants to show that they can build this project, manage the costs, and prove that it can happen on every project.
However, even with that Councilmember Souza questioned Mr. Galbraith later in the meeting:
“All of our plans have been on-site and the point that we want to make is that it is on site. Anybody can go buy a bunch of carbon credits and that sort of thing. The point here is that everything here has been on site.”
He continued,
“If it’s not on-site, it’s not doing what we want it to do. That’s the way we planned it.”
BRIEF COMMENTARY
My support for this project began when they achieved 90% GHG reduction and it hinges on their ability to deliver on that promise.
The other point that ought to be highlighted is that the project is the most accessible and visitable project in Davis. The affordable units on both floors are fully accessible and visitable. This was achieved in part through the leadership of Councilmember Heystek and at great expense to the applicants.
While I was disappointed to hear some of the comments of Councilmember Souza, who I believe was instrumental in pushing for more environmentally sustainable and innovative projects in this city, I was appalled at his disparaging remarks about affordable housing, as though they will be the blight of a project. As Councilmember Heystek put it, one of the reasons he supports this project is that the affordable housing is upfront, it is seamless with the rest of the project, and most importantly, it offers people who lack housing options with exciting new housing that we can all be proud of.
There are other issues that need to be worked out. No housing project can address all issues, but this is the best housing project in terms of both accessibility and sustainability that we have seen in Davis. It will hopefully set the standard for new housing projects and will put Davis back on the map as a leader in sustainability and now accessibility in the nation and the world.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Why the rush, especially in this financial climate, to put it on the Nov ballot?
Why did Sue G. vote against this?
As I understood Mr. Souza he wanted to put the affordable housing in a better location and intregate them as part of the new community. Not put them on the outside on the least valuable land as is so offten done.
The answer to the question posed by Why the rush? is both simple and straightforward. I spoke to Sue after the meeting and she said she felt that the negative of the “over 2000 units already approved” outweighed the positives of this individual project.
She went on to say that she considers WHR a good project that is far superior to Verona, Grande and Chiles Ranch, but that her Council votes against those projects did not win the day, therefore she had no choice but to include the inventory of already approved units in her assessment of the WHR proposal last night.
The new Big Three (buddies) in Davis…..Lamar, DPD, Bill Ritter, working to promote a housing development. Who would have thought….even joining forces with Saylor. Wow!
Several comments:
1)Regionally, we have a housing glut-considering Spring Lake in Woodland and countless foreclosures in Natomas and Elk Grove. So my basic reaction is this project is not a good idea at this time if we are to think more globally. The best environmentally friendly thing to do it not add more housing to a region that is already saturated in houses.
2) If the project is as environmentally foward as it is portrayed then I wish it could have been used as a model to adopt a true green building code in Davis which has not been done. It would be a shame if this turns out to be a stand alone project. If approved by voters I hope it can become a base line for requirements that all future developers need to meet.
3) If we are going to attract small, innovative projects we may need to look at our city requirements that require small projects to provide as much affordable housing as large projects. Considering economies of scale I think our present affrodable requirements and fees favor large developments.
There is no reason why this project has to be on the Nov. ballot other than an attempt to stifle further examination of the proposal. This was exactly what the then Council majority(Asmundson, Saylor and Souza) attempted to do with their Covell Village project and Lamar Heystek repeatedly resisted their obvious strategy to cut off the Covell Village proposal disussions. One cannot help but wonder how much the fact that his former major political supporter and campaign manager, Bill Ritter(now on the payroll of the developer of the current Wildhorse Ranch proposal),influenced his decision last evening.
“One cannot help but wonder how much the fact that his former major political supporter and campaign manager, Bill Ritter(now on the payroll of the developer of the current Wildhorse Ranch proposal),influenced his decision last evening.”
There is no doubt that Bill Ritter influenced Lamar Heystek. Do you know how he did it? Lamar got his accessibility in the affordable units among other things. Lamar made this project a great project for all of Davis.
re Brief Commentary above:
When the question was raised as to what penalties the developer would have to deal with if he did not reasonably meet the 90% GHG reduction, the answer was none and his “commitment” was all that we have, no potential penalties, etc. Davis has a history of being “burned” by developer promises without clearly outlined consequences for non-compliance in the development agreement.As I remember it, the Wildhorse development agreement was challenged some years ago, in a citizen-initiated referendum, when the Council majority at that time allowed the developer to reneg on development agreement “promises” that had no contractual consequences for non-compliance.
What you fail to understand ol’ timer is that this developer actually fought for tougher language because they are committed to bringing the project that is path breaking. Read Talbott’s words:
“After April 21, we are certain we can do a 90% GHG reduction, it is economically feasible, and that is going to make a point to the world.”
Talbott wants to show the world they can achieve 90% GHG reduction. He wants that to become the standard. So does Parlin. So do I.
What you seem to not get is that this is not just the same old developers, but rather you have put a committed environmentalist in charge of bringing Davis the greenest project he can.
David… development agreements are contracts and should not rely on inspired rhetoric. If the passionae “commitment” is real, why not put in writing in the development agreement with contractual consequences?
As the ol’ saying goes, “words are cheap….”
DPD: The Talbott Solar representative was David Galbraith, Managing Partner. Mr. Galbraith was responsible for performing most of the sustainable energy calculations for the July 1 report to Parlin that formed the basis for the 90% GHG mandatory reduction policy. Mr. Galbraith also performed the financial calculations for Parlin that allowed them as sound business people to commit to the 90% reduction. So far as I know, this is the first California project (maybe the country) that requires the 90% on a real-world large project that has to pay its way.
Talbot Solar was founded by Dean Newberry, who grew up in Davis and has a B.S. in Environmental Sciences from UCD, earned while working fulltime as a contractor and raising several kids. Mr. Newberry designed the HVAC systems on my 2003 office building that won several local and national awards.
Mr. Galbraith is an architect and lawyer with natural skills in business financial calculations, and has been a great fit with Mr. Newberry.
Both Dean and David are about as straight-up guys as you will ever meet. They are both brilliant problem solvers on the carbon footprint challenges that we all face, and they have grown Talbot Solar while working hard to save the world, project by project.
Parlin and Talbot Solar are my office tenants. The environmental sustainability aspects of this project resulted from the two companies simply meeting each other on the premises, and they combined their shared passions for making the Parlin Wildhorse Project the best that California has to offer.
The process last night was very interesting … but I have my own small business to run and will comment later.
I posted the language from the development agreement. The important thing is that the language ends up in the Measure J vote which would mean if it does not meet the standards of 90%, they will have to go back for a vote.
Also both Talbott and Parlin has a huge stake in meeting the needs. Talbott because his reputation rides on it. Parlin because he presumably has other projects he wants in Davis and if he ends up reneging on the 90% a lot of his current supporters will turn on it.
If you think about this, the progressive community for the last decade in Davis supports this project, Ken Wagstaff, Mike Harrington, Stan Forbes, Lamar Heystek, Tansey Thomas, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald with the exception of Sue Greenwald and apparently Pam Gunnell above, that’s a decade’s worth of progressive candidates, add in Bill Kopper and Dick Livingston and that’s pretty heavy environmental gravitas. All of that is there because of the 90%.
Mike: geez, I’ll fix that. No sleep. That’s my plea.
To Judy Crust: I think locating affordable housing on the outside might facilitate easier access to public transportation which has been an issue for such housing. Both Unitrans and Yolo Bus goes past Monarch on Covell but I don’t know where the bus stops are. So far as using location to integrate members of a homeowners association with members of an affordable housing association as a community is no easy task.
To old timer: You have to understand something here: Parlin FOUGHT to add the mandatory 90% reduction to the Conditions of Approval …. identical language is in the Development Agreement and the implementing ordinance. The Conditions of Approval run with the land … Parlin can sell the property before it’s built or give it away and live on Mars, but that 90% runs with the land and binds all future owners. Parlin anticipated the opposition arguments (“developers do bait and switch”), and demanded that the 90% be identical in all documents, be enforceable, and run with the land. Further, Parlin INSISTED that the GHG Reduction Program be submitted to the National Resources Commission for review, then the Planning Commission for approval. This is not just about some staff member arbitrarily approving the program design: Parlin wanted our local citizen experts to provide welcome feedback and approval.
“There is no doubt that Bill Ritter influenced Lamar Heystek. Do you know how he did it? Lamar got his accessibility in the affordable units among other things. Lamar made this project a great project for all of Davis.”
Lamar Supporter: Above is irrelevant!. A great project for all of Davis can certainly withstand the scrutiny of a full Council discussion, not rammed through at 1AM. The developer’s spokesperson actually suggested that the vote not be taken then. With knowledge of the past Covell Village fiasco, he recognized the potential political “fallout” in this obvious attempt to shut off public discussion. The developer sitting there overruled him and pressed for an immediate vote; a decision that I believe he will rue.
David Greenwald wrote:[quote]I think the public record will show the intent of the developers[/quote]Indeed! The article above fails to adequately report on the most significant exchange that occurred during the meeting.
What I saw was –
(1) The council, at Sue’s request, amended the “Base Line Measure J Project Features” to require [u]on-site[/u] GHG mitigation.
(2) The Parlin project manager came to the podium and, unbelievably, tried to get the council to delay their vote until Monday (based on some obtuse argument about project features, clarity, voters).
(3) Don Saylor asked why they wanted a delay after the council had just been told by staff that they had to approve the project that night so that the ballot-related documents could be at the county for a deadline in the morning.
(4) The developers were able to recompose themselves, and then reversed their position and asked the council to proceed.
This was an extraordinary chain of events and, to reemphasize David Greenwald’s language, shows “the intent of the developers.”
The on-site requirement is clearly a problem for Parlin. Despite his excessively self-confident sales pitch from the podium, it also appears to be a problem for Talbott (judging from his reaction in the audience).
IMO, they were rattled, tried to stop the proceedings so that they could negotiate relief from the on-site requirement, and then decided that they had to take what they could get before the whole deal unraveled.
David Greenwald … you’ve been played.
I think one reason that the applicant wanted to get this on the ballot now may be due to the fact that John Whitcombe is bringing CV II forward for consideration in January. You saw what happened when the council majority’s favorite developer brought CV forward for a vote in 2005. Lewis Homes, who had been in line first, was asked to step aside. I think Parlin wanted to get his approvals now to avoid that same type scenario. I may be wrong. Anyway, no homes are planned for the project until 2012.
David Greenwald wrote:[quote]I posted the language from the development agreement. The important thing is that the language ends up in the Measure J vote which would mean if it does not meet the standards of 90%, they will have to go back for a vote. [/quote]No it doesn’t. The base line features are silent on nonperformance.
“ol’ timer” wrote:[quote]David… development agreements are contracts and should not rely on inspired rhetoric. If the passionae “commitment” is real, why not put in writing in the development agreement with contractual consequences?
As the ol’ saying goes, “words are cheap….”
[/quote]I agree 100%. The passionate commitment should also be put in writing in the base line project features to provide a Measure J trigger. I’m concerned with the fact that the council can modifying the contractual consequences without voter approval.
“…and demanded that the 90% be identical in all documents, be enforceable,”
Mike.. perhaps I missed it( it WAS between 1-2AM), but my recollection is that the answer to the question of how the city enforces the mandatory 90% commitment was that the city is relying on the passionate commitment represented by the spokespeople at the podium. You may remember that Mike Corbett was also a passionate spokesperson for the Covell Village project. He did acknowledge, when pressed, that he worked for the developers and had no voting power in their future decisions.
Ol’ Timer: You’re comparing this project to Covell Village and suggesting that Mike Harrington, Talbott, Parlin, Ritter, et al are trying to pull one over on the voters?
[quote]Reality check said . . .
Indeed! The article above fails to adequately report on the most significant exchange that occurred during the meeting.
What I saw was –
(2) The Parlin project manager came to the podium and, unbelievably, tried to get the council to delay their vote until Monday (based on some obtuse argument about project features, clarity, voters).
(4) The developers were able to recompose themselves, and then reversed their position and asked the council to proceed.
This was an extraordinary chain of events and, to reemphasize David Greenwald’s language, shows “the intent of the developers.”
The on-site requirement is clearly a problem for Parlin. Despite his excessively self-confident sales pitch from the podium, it also appears to be a problem for Talbott (judging from his reaction in the audience).
IMO, they were rattled, tried to stop the proceedings so that they could negotiate relief from the on-site requirement, and then decided that they had to take what they could get before the whole deal unraveled.
David Greenwald … you’ve been played.[/quote]
I spoke to Masud after the meeting. While I understand your IMO, what Masud told me was they were hearing the words coming from Steve Souza’s mouth as an indication that his vote was teetering on the edge. Masud felt a 4-1 vote by Council would be a stronger endorsement, so they (mistakenly IMO) proposed the vote delay until Monday. They didn’t [u]need[/u] Souza’s vote, but they wanted it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t sense any problem with the technology on their part.
Just so we’re clear….. Passionate belief in a certain outcome does not sanction short-circuiting legitimate process. Process is EVERYTHING here. Cliches spring to mind that may be instructive here…. “The Ends justify the Means” is one.
What process do you believe was short-circuited?
[quote]my recollection is that the answer to the question of how the city enforces the mandatory 90% commitment was that the city is relying on the passionate commitment represented by the spokespeople at the podium[/quote]To “ol’ timer”:
Your recollection is consistent with mine. I also called another “witness” who corroborated my recollection.
My take is that they were so rushed to meet their Wednesday morning “deadline” that there was no time to craft the language in the documents. We were lucky to get the on-site stipulation added to the project features, but that was a fairly easy modification (even in the dead of night).
We will be able to review the video, so the truth will come out.
is that staff admitted they were the reason the on-site provision was pulled out in the first place. The developers wanted it included originally and had to fight city staff to get it put back in.
Harrington, Talbott, Parlin, Ritter
All four parties that you mentioned have financial ties to the the project.
Yep. And they also have reputations on the line for future endeavors and thus have a vested interest in making sure the project ends up as advertised.
Can you produce one shred of tangible evidence to back up that claim. All we’ve got right now is heresay from David Greenwald and Mike Harrington, neither of whom were in the room during these discussions.
Staff has accepted responsibility for the action, we all heard that, but there is nothing to support the claim that this was an adverse action done over the objections of Parlin.
Perhaps Parlin (or Talbott) could produce some emails to prove the assertion?
Perhaps. But at least in a couple of cases there doesn’t seem to be much concern about reputations. Also, there’s a lot of money on the line, and it will be years before we will know if there’s a problem.
On an historical note: they are not making any new land around here (to sort of quote Samuel Clemens). All sprawl proposals may come forward with a green stamp on them. But they still beg the question, when are we going to stop? Housing these days is often developed with a regional eye. In our region there is a lot of degraded land upon which tomatoes can’t grow and deer and antelope don’t play. Why not build there? Why not build at the Cannery on the concrete slab (leave the natural parts)? Why not cap 113 (idea originally from Mike H) and put houses there? Supporting a project because it is greener is not the same as supporting it because it is green.
To Matt:
I’ll concede your point about wanting Souza’s vote. IMO that was also part of what rattled them.
However, and with all due respect, I think it’s highly unlikely that Masud would reveal anything to you about their GHG concerns or reasons for their erratic behavior.
Agreed
All the issues with green house gases, carbon, low cost housing are irrelevant.
This project is a negative to me as a resident of Davis.
I’ve got a vote and I’m voting no.
Only if the greedy developers share a substantial part of their profits and provide a very significant positive impact on the Davis budget would I even consider voting yes on such a project. This is nowhere close to meeting that standard.
“Only if the greedy developers”
How are they greedy? They are pumping out $30K for each of the 191 units to reach a GHG measure no one else has in the city. Oh that’s right you don’t care about GHG emissions. But your lack of concern about the future of our planet does not make the developers greedy.
I think it’s ironic that you are calling the developers “greedy” given that you entire post is all about what is in it for “you”–if they are greedy, you are selfish and also unconcerned with things such as the environment and low cost housing. Nice. And you have the gall to call others greedy?
Souza’s vote was all about Covell Village. The sooner people get that, the better off we will all be.
Thank you Lamar, Don & Ruth for putting the Wildhorse “Ranch” development on the ballot. That’s exactly what we need – an opportunity to have a full-blown, community-wide discussion over “sustainable,” “green, and “wow” development factors.
As an aside, if anyone still considers Greenwald or Souza “progressives” or “environmentalists,” check their records. Souza has voted FOR every development (except in his backyard) and Greenwald has voted AGAINST every project.
The fact that Greenwald & Souza teamed up to deny citizens an opportunity to vote on the “Ranch” project revealed their true intentions: keep the minions in their place; “we’re the bosses.” (In my opinion,time to get rid of Souza & Greenwald; a dual disgrace to our Council & community.)
And, again, thanks to Lamar. You should be proud of teaming up with Don & Ruth to give citizens a vote. I consider your vote to move the proposal forward the most courageous action you have taken as a council member.
And, by doing so, you are no longer just a “member,” you’re a Leader!
Rick E.
@ From where I sit – Is it possible that Souza’s vote was about the complete disregard of our Commissions and that with proper input we could have an even BETTER Wildhorse Ranch project? Don’t forget that he served over a decade on numerous commissions. Public input on this project has been almost non-existant. That’s a problem for me, maybe for him.
Shame on Lamar for forgetting his Commission roots… last night, he made every Commission impotent.
It’s a horrible precedent, too. Now, any Measure J project that comes forward gets to bypass all of the commissions except Planning and the ADA subcommittee of Social Services.
That was his excuse not his explanation for voting as he did.
What? Every City commission that reviewed the “Ranch” project approved & supported it. And, now, some anonymous naysayer is trying to lay a guilt trip on Lamar for having studied the issue & voting his conscience?
Sorry, opponents; you don’t have a leg to stand on. Lamar was great!
Interesting debate here. I thought Mike Webb probably did a reasonable job of explaining why the lack of commission output–which was staff’s call, not the developers–but mainly it was because the project met or exceeded all city requirements in terms of affordable housing, accessibility, GHG, 2-1 ag mitigation, and other mitigations.
BTW, I also find it rich that some of the same people calling for commissions now were the same people who did not want Measure J sent to the commissions as it was. Process is fine, but the social services commission’s purview is to make sure the issues are addressed–no one that I have seen on this thread has asserted that they weren’t. So it would appear that the only rationale for taking them to commissions would be a delay tactic. I don’t know what stalling for time would accomplish, but I sure as hell would prefer this vote not be on the ballot with Measure J AND the council elections.
Souza: “Frankly many of us consider this to be a great new design, particularly the orchards, the land dedication, the solar components, and the greenhouse gas reductions commitments, but they continue to have concerns with the sheer number units, the third story townhomes, the number of parking spaces, in addition to the belief that many share that the horse ranch should just remain a horse ranch.”
They give you the “wow” factor, and you still aren’t satisfied? The CC (including you) directs the project to be even more dense, the developer actually decreases the density, but you still aren’t satisfied? Perhaps what is really going on is that you don’t want this project bc it would interfere with Whitcombe’s push for Covell Village Redux?
Mike Webb: “The key issue, and reason for the difference in numbers, is that items such as the supplemental fee, construction tax, and land dedication subsidies (or lack thereof) are one time payments. The fiscal analysis deals only with recurring and ongoing revenues and expenditures and does not take these onetime fees into account. “
This is double speak for “The city will use up one time moneys on other things, and will not use it toward mitigating the extra costs of city services”.
Funny that City Staff gave the developer wiggle room for the 90% GHG reduction, but the developer was willing to guarantee it. If the developer is willing to guarantee it, why not let him? City Staff should not get so hung up on trying to control everything, INCLUDING CITY STAFF’S POLICY OF NOT ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO PUT THEIR PROPOSALS BEFORE VARIOUS AND APPROPRIATE COMMISSIONS AT THE EARLY STAGES OF THE PROCESS. How else to you get a proper community dialogue going, so that developers know what citizens really want?
Lamar Heystek: “Councilmember Souza, I have a great deal of respect for you… but you talk about affordable housing as something that detracts from the project for various reasons. I see the affordable housing in this project as being one of the crown jewels because it is going to be fully accessible. It is something that I have strongly called for, Councilmember Greenwald and I supported an ordinance that called for as much, and the City Council as a whole has been unanimously in support of affordable housing that provides full accessibility.”
Good for Lamark, and shame on Souza!
That said, I have two big concerns about this project. I personally don’t like “densification”, but will hold my nose and vote for it ONLY IF IT PROVIDES AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING. The figure given by the developer was $425,000 for townhomes, $550,000 and up for single family homes. I do not consider $425,000 affordable workforce housing. $350,000 is about as high as I am willing to go. This is my hesitancy in voting in favor of this project. There are houses sitting on the market already for $425,000, no? Correct me if I am wrong. A realtor’s expertise would be helpful here…
All the other issues, for me, are either secondary or a smoke screen for hidden agendas.
@entrikin – the only commissions that reviewed the Horse Ranch were Planning & the ADA sub committee, both legal requirements.
Webb’s comments were empty… What were those six or seven issues that staff felt thy needed guidance on if they weren’t policy.
Progressives who don’t think that OS&H, Natural Resources, Safety & Parking, Finance & Budget and Bicycle Commissions should have helped inform and shape this project early on are HYPOCRITES, plain and simple.
Just because our progressive mothers and fathers (in cahoots with the pro- development council members) helped create a project, does not mean that they are exempted from our citizen advisory process. Or does Big Progressive Brother know best??
Dear Sue: You had a chance to vote for a project that would set a new standard for development. You could say, you are not anti-development, just simply anti-lousy projects. You could draw a line in the sand and say this is what all other projects have to reach to get my vote. You could have eliminated Cannery and Covell from the discussion. You failed to see past the end of your nose unfortunately. Very disappointed. I’ve voted for you each time. I hope to vote for you again, but I’m disappointed in your lack of leadership here.
[quote]Progressives who don’t think that OS&H, Natural Resources, Safety & Parking, Finance & Budget and Bicycle Commissions should have helped inform and shape this project early on are HYPOCRITES, plain and simple.[/quote]
In what way are they hypocrites?
To My View: “There are houses sitting on the market already for $425,000, no? Correct me if I am wrong. A realtor’s expertise would be helpful here…”
Online information is available here:
[url]http://www.trulia.com/CA/Davis/95616/#for_sale/95616_zip/price;-)_sort/[/url]
I am thoroughly disgusted w process last night. Look at how it was scheduled. From 5 to 7 was a joint meeting between Woodland and Davis City Councils to formalize a JPA for the water project. It went overtime a bit. Then came the dedication to Vanderhoeff – which took until about 8. Then a 3 hour discussion on an important affordable housing project that took the next 3 hours, WEDGED IN AT THE LAST MINUTE. WHR presentation and discussion, originally scheduled for 7 pm, did not take place until 11pm. Our illustrious mayor, after presentations of the developer and city staff were made IN A RUSH, and THOSE LEFT made their public comments, urged the CC to make a decision on this important project IN 30 MINUTES. To his credit (and I generally cannot stand him) Souza, and Greenwald, both protested at the ridiculous time constraint. What a disgrace.
I am on the fence about this project, and came to hear what it was all about. I did not come away knowing enough about it, and from the glazed over eyes of CC members, they don’t even know enough about what they voted on. Why is Ruth jam packing agendas like this? Why are there not more CC meetings with less dense agendas? Our CC meetings make this town a laughing stock, compared with those of West Sac and Woodland. I know, bc I have been to each city’s council meetings.
What happened last night, in regard to process, was an insult to the public, especially those that just could not stick it out more than four and one half hours to speak at Public Comment.
Progressive politics in this town denote several, among other, things: transparency, maximum public input, decisions for the greater good.
Hypocrite – a person who puts on a false appearance of vitue; a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
is that clear enough?
I consider most commissions rubber stamps for the council majority who appoint the members, so I don’t think the values you espouse apply.
I find it puzzling David Greenwald did not report my reasons for opposing hasty action on this project. I stated clearly and many times during the meeting that my chief concern is that we have 500 approved but unbuilt houses within the city of Davis, and another 1,500 approved but unbuilt houses and dwelling unit equivalents (one dwelling unit equivalent equals 3 beds in a dorm or apartment style rental) at the University, for a total of 2000 unbuilt but approved units.
With 2000 approved but unbuilt units waiting to be built, and no pressure from the State to build more at this time, I feel it premature to be approving new additional new development.
I hesitate to praise Ruth, because she truncates public comment, which I consider the most important part of any council meeting.
On the other hand, Ruth, Don & Lamar had the good graces to open the “Ranch” issue to a community-wide debate, leading up to a citizens’ Measure J vote in November.
From my vantage point, I favor the “strange” group (of Ruth, Don & Lamar)over the unholy alliance of Greenwald & Souza, who have worked in concert to deny us even our most basic of rights: an opportunity to vote.
Therefore, I urge all citizens to ignore both Greenwald & Souza – totally!
Sue: Don’t take offense, I wrote this at 4:30 in the morning after going to bed at 2:30 in the morning. I figured you would come on and explain your vote. I agree with you in part about the number of units, but I see this as a way to really block out Cannery and Covell by setting new standards for sustainability that we can enforce and hold other projects to.
At “not really” and rich entrikin and the rest of you progressive hypocrites –
follow your logic and we should just disband all of our citizen commissions. It will save those commissioners from wasting their time on an unvalued service, save them the indignity of being called thoughtless puppets, save the city money and save you (and your developer friends) the inconvenience of having a meaningful conversation in Brown Act settings
I don’t recall Bill Ritter working on Lamar’s campaign.
Sue the university is not part of the City of Davis and its growth is independent of the Davis’ growth according to SACOG. Of course making the argument that the growth of the University should be included in the growth of the Davis keeps others from supporting annexation of West Village. So while claiming to be in favor of annexation your position actually works against inclusion of West Village in civic life.
I have served on a Commission — appointed by a Council that was mostly green (thanks to some of you on this list) and taken off the Commission by the new majority. I can attest from that experience to the Commission members generally supporting the views of their Council sponsors (but not always). Still, noone has responded to the no-need to build approach (except Sue’s rationale for her vote above). The Bush, Boyd, Saylor, Obama, Wolk, and Asmundson experience seems to have rocked progressives so far back on their heels that re-branded sprawl can now be good. Defaulting to a Measure J vote is a bad thing, not a chance for the people to “discuss” projects. Its more work for the no-sprawlers to fight another battle against incredible monetary odds. Maybe Vanguard could sponsor a community workshop on “Alternatives to Sprawl” where green re-branding and the consumption of land they’re not making anymore can be discussed.
Sorry. Sue, but you blew it completely. Teaming up with Souza, and trashing this relatively-small, innovative, sustainable development has destroyed your political future.
And, now I’m hearing rumours that you are going to challenge Don Saylor to replace Helen as County supervisor? What planet are you living on? As much as I disagree with Don on nearly every issue, I admire him greatly for his willingness to engage in open discussions and work to ensure the rights of regular citizens to vote on major issues.
Unfortunately for “progressives,” you have none of those qualities.
Don Shor: “To My View: “There are houses sitting on the market already for $425,000, no? Correct me if I am wrong. A realtor’s expertise would be helpful here…”
Online information is available here:
http://www.trulia.com/CA/Davis…ce;-)_sort/”
I went to take a look at the link Don provided. There were 17 houses/condos listed on the market for sale in the LAST SEVEN DAYS for less than $425,000. Still think a $425,000 townhouse represents affordable workforce housing?
FWIW, some of the houses listed are due to foreclosures.
To Black Bart, who said “I don’t recall Bill Ritter working on Lamar’s campaign.”
With all due respects, coming from someone who was also there every step of the way, Bill Ritter was one of the inner-inner circle members of Lamar’s 2006 campaign and was hugely instrumental in his victory. Bill puts his time and money where his mouth is: progressive politics.
Also, to some of you who through ignorance seem to try to tie Bill and I with sprawl developers: Bill and I were a major part of the No on X campaign. If YOU were there, you would know it. If YOU were around when I was on the CC, you should already know my progressive voting history.
I want to add my voice to those who are commending Lamar for that awesome persuasive no nonsense speech. He was the key in paving the way to the vote approving the Wildhorse Ranch Project scheduling for the Measure J vote. Also, thank you Ruth and Don.
Thanks Mike, Just because I don’t remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Matt Rexroad announced he’s running for Davis City Council. I guess he’s going for Saylor’s seat. Here’s his video promo:
http://www.rexroad.com/Rex4Davis/RexroadforDavis2/tabid/138/Default.aspx
After seeing this, I decided I like this guy. He’s just brimming with testosterone. I think he’d really do what needs to be done around here.
At Mike Harrington – progressive when it suits you and your friends’ monetary interests is more like it. I remember the X campaign. I also remember you and your cronies using the “there wasn’t enough public input or commission hearings” card quite effectively. And didn’t the CV project get discussed at most of the commissions several times over? You are an opportunistic hypocrite.
Also, just for the record… You killed the wonderful and thriving spirit of the Turtle House… Those tiny, carved up warren of rooms gutted the architectural heritage and social life of that once beautiful (if rundown) home… All for an extra buck. You’re a despised character downtown and a majority of your past and present tenants think very poorly of you.
To: Bad precedent
I am not sure Steve Souza cares all that much about commission positions on issues. Covell Village went through every commission, I believe, or most of them, and not one supported the project and had numerous concerns, yet Steve and the rest of the council majority disregarded the commissions and voted to approve CV “as is”.
My View: During the Covell Village campaign, we learned from a fiscal analysis done for the project, that a work force family could afford a home up to $410,000. The townhomes in the Parlin development sell in the mid-$300,000 to mid-$400,000 range. So it is providing work force housing.
Fraser: How is this sprawl? Wild Horse was sprawl. This is a small, dense development on land within the city already, not county, with many sustainability features.
It cannot function as a horse farm, despite the hopes and intentions of the proponents of Wild Horse who wanted to leave this little 26 acre parcel as a reminder of our ag heritage after paving over hundreds of acres of our ag heritage. It is too near housing. If the land owner actually ran it as a horse ranch with the permitted 65 to 70 horses, the neighbors would complain about the odors and flies–and rightfully so. Horse ranches belong in rural areas.
Ok, sorry, that was a low blow about the Turtle House… Hypocrisy gets me a little hot under the collar
“A workforce family could afford up to a $410,000.”
That was then and this is now. Back then you could bank on your job being there and refinancing your mortgage in five years. Now you need to figure out how to make ends meet with 15% less.
It is shocking to see many of the advocates for measure J and against measure x turn into developers and cheerleaders for this project. I don’t know how I’ll vote yet but I am leaning towards no since the proponents of this project have worked to block other peoples projects.
Fraser could not be more correct. The most green is to utilize what is already available and the 2,000 units (as Sue pointed out) in the pipeline. Voting for a project because it is green is a red herring. Taking a deep breadth, acknowledging that what we need is a UNIFORM green building code, and developing it for the future, IS what we need.
Even the developers say no units until 2012, so what is the rush? Why the midnight politics? Why inadequate review and discussion by council?
Seems obvious does it not?
For those of you who didn’t brave staying up until 1:30am to hear the final outcome, I highly encourage you all to watch the proceedings on the video archives on-line;
What you will see is a travesty of “civic” proceedings; after many motions to consider trailing the final vote until September until Council get more IMPORTANT questions answered (including the fiscal analysis numbers with these last minute added on CFD’s), why this project never wasn’t reviewed by the Open Spaces and Habitats Commission (which was a concern shared by both Saylor and Souza), which meant a June election, then Lamar Haystek decides to push the motion for a Measure J vote and is hailed as being hailed for it; listen to Asmundson’s comments only minutes before she seconds Lamar’s motion, in which she questions if all the project details had fully been investigated, and how is the Council’s “civic duty” to present a ballot measure only after such a process; then minutes later she is publicly asking John Tallman from Parlin Development whether they would prefer a November or June election;
WHY IS THE MAYOR OF DAVIS ASKING A DEVELOPER WHEN HE WOULD LIKE THE BALLOT MEASURE TO BE DETERMINED? (Is that not the duty of a well-informed Council) Measure J does not mean that the Council must rush a project to public vote, without knowing all the particulars and details of such a project (including the extremely important fiscal impact analysis details to the City). Please watch the video when you have time, and if you are not as outraged as I am after doing so, then I’m so sorry for the civic processes in this city!!!!
DSD: Email or call me at the office. Sorry about your comments, but nice to be asked about the 1921 house. I’ll send you photos of the fire trap that I bought, and what I had to do to save the house. It’s the last of the city boarding houses (ask John Lofland) that used to fill the areas around the university. The leader of the group of residents who were there and ousted by the seller in July 2005 was offered by the seller the chance to buy and manage the house, and his European wealthy family was willing to buy it, but he travels outside the country for months at a time and did not want the responsibility to overhaul the house or be responsible for tenants. You know who I am talking about. When I bought the house, the upstairs porch was falling off (the kids used to drink and dance up there, to see if it would wiggle a lot); there were eletrical shorts in the basement; there were natural gas leaks in the basement (ie, the same room as the shorts); rats owned the place, for three stories in the walls; the attic was filled with rats that had destroyed the heater controls, so the upstairs mostly lacked heat; two large trees were destroying the foundation; etc, etc.
Heck with Saylor or Sue, we should vote Lamar for Yolo County Supervisor. I hesitated voting for him the first time and I never will again. He has proved his worth.
Thrilled that this passed by the way. I can’t wait to vote for it!
What the rush to get it on the ballot? The deadline for placing it on the ballot. Of course without measure J we could have a more deliberate and nuanced debate.
anonymo: “Matt Rexroad announced he’s running for Davis City Council. I guess he’s going for Saylor’s seat. Here’s his video promo:”
“After seeing this, I decided I like this guy. He’s just brimming with testosterone. I think he’d really do what needs to be done around here.”
Oh, boy….
At least there’s entertainment value to be had.
He moved from Helen’s district to Jim’s ! I know that he wanted to own that small home, but if he had stayed put, he surely could have won the seat, and earned a real salary for a change. Oh well …
When Jim makes it to the assembly in five years Lamar can run for Supervisor. Don or Sue its a no brainer!
At Harrington – why would I ever attempt trying to talk to you again? Your generic response is one of the following:
a) ignore
b) talk over the other person in your “conversation”
c) insinuate that your superior knowledge, access and acumen (ha!) means you’re always right
d) continuously look over my shoulder searching for someone more important
e) flaunt you and your cronies’ disgustingly litigious nature
you got voted OUT of office, go away.
Oh, and good job to all of you avoiding my hypocrisy charges.
Sue Greenwald wrote:
“I find it puzzling David Greenwald did not report my reasons for opposing hasty action on this project. I stated clearly and many times…”
Sue, take this with all due respect, but you should try to concentrate on saying less “uh” and “um” while you think of what you want to say. It is very distracting and sometimes I have a hard time following what you say via your microphone then via the television or via the internet.
I mean this sincerely- I truly think how you talk sometimes gets in the way of what you want to say. Try slowing down a bit and this might help. There is an efficiency you can employ when you select your words that may help you get your point across.
Rexroad for Davis City Council?? Interesting, because Saylor is announcing tonight that he’s running for Thompson’s Board of Supervisor’s seat.
Anyone who has been convinced to support Parlin’s project because they think that it might stop Covell Village is very naive. There is no relationship at all. Sue Greenwald has pointed out in the past that we have over 500 units in the pipeline and she has said we are done with our growth requirement. So since we don’t need anymore growth why is there any excuse for this unattractive and congested development? And how would another 191 units stop Covell Village? I really don’t understand the logic.
Also I have seen an argument that the horse ranch is too near houses and not an appropriate use. Well does that mean that should have no ag land anywhere near residential either? If that is so, then Parlin’s housing project should not go forward on the edge of town where it is adjacent to all that farm land.
This Parlin development is just a big PR snow job for what is a really bad and overcrowded development on the periphery of town.
Unbelievable. Some of the very same proponents of the original Wildhorse development, which paved over hundreds of acres of prime ag land (an example of sprawl @ its worst), are now opposing a 13-acre, sustainable, infill project as “sprawl.”
And, please, those of you who argue that we should reject “Wildhorse Ranch” in favor of “infill” @ the PG&E corporation yard (5th & L), get real! The PG&E site is unavailable and not for sale.
So where do we build? Sprawl onto hundreds of acres @ Covell Village II or the Northwest quadrant? Or gradually relieve the “growth pressure” by approving small, innovative projects such as “Wildhorse Ranch?”
And, with all due respect to those concerned about a housing “glut” and property values, I agree. So, if the developer insists on building homes that are over-priced or otherwise unaffordable, then the houses won’t sell. In that event, the City would have collected the development fees, we’ll have no increases in traffic, emissions or utility demands, and the only loser will be the developer. Seems fair to me.
Lamar’s use of visual aids, pointing to the stack of papers before him(some obviously unread as they were delivered during the meeting), held supreme historical irony. This was EXACTLY what Steve Souza attempted ,with a much higher stack of binders, in arguing that no more discussion was needed concerning Covell Village. Lamar then took the opposite position on the significance of binder material height.
Hey Mike,
You said that you were against Covell Village but I seem to remember not seeing your name as a “No on Measure X” endorser on any literature or ad. How come?
“Rexroad for Davis City Council?? Interesting, because Saylor is announcing tonight that he’s running for Thompson’s Board of Supervisor’s seat.”
I think it’s suppose to be a joke. Rexroad’s thing, that is. Slick, clever video, though.
“Bill and I were a major part of the No on X campaign.”
Mike… this is not my recollection. I do not remember you
participating in the NO on X leadership meetings. Bill’s participation was directed towards creation/production of campaign material.
Harrington’s name is listed prominently here: [url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/cfrp/housing.html[/url]
Response to Well:
One’s name in a No on X endorsement list is usually not characterized as “playing a major part in the NO on X campaign”.
That was in response to this post: “I seem to remember not seeing your name as a “No on Measure X” endorser on any literature or ad.”
Sue:
Thanks so much for joining this conversation. As always, I am impressed with your willingness to actually talk to people.
My View:
I’ve been saying all along that $425k isn’t “affordable workforce housing”. Start w/ the down payment (10% = $21,000). Depending on terms, ballpark monthly costs are $3k. You can buy a good size 3bed/2ba house for this on an actual lot w/o the neighbors in your living room. I think the townhouses/houses are for upscale couples or well to do people that want to downsize.
Whatever WH is, it’s certainly got more imagination than Chiles Ranch. CR has zero “wow” appeal. It is an ugly crowded project w/ minimal separation from the existing neighbors. Like WH, prices are in the 400’s. No bike lanes? No innovation whatever (well connections for PV will be provided, just no panels actually installed) I don’t think it will be successful but unfortunately the many spectacular oaks come down for site preparation. Souza’s little chat w/ one of the developers about moving trees (for $15k each) somewhere else was really pretty funny.
Had an interesting chat w/ Galbraith. Tailabot pretty much demanded the GHG goals be formally included in the development agreement.
Again, suggest people use their real names. Without being self congratulatory, thank you to the people who are willing to do this. It’s just pitiful to hide behind a label and sling insults.
On the “No on X” campaign, is anyone claiming to be responsible for the creation of the t-shirts and street signs?
[quote]Also, to some of you who through ignorance seem to try to tie Bill and I with sprawl developers: Bill and I were a major part of the No on X campaign. If YOU were there, you would know it. If YOU were around when I was on the CC, you should already know my progressive voting history.[/quote]Come back from the dark side.
Also amused that Hess wasn’t there last night. On vacation or something. I do give Lamar credit for driving from Tahoe to attend the meeting. Especially since he had to drive back up afterward.
I love Lamar!!!
Put a ring on it!
[quote]So where do we build? Sprawl onto hundreds of acres @ Covell Village II or the Northwest quadrant? Or gradually relieve the “growth pressure” by approving small, innovative projects such as “Wildhorse Ranch?”[/quote]I vote for small, innovative projects such as Wildhorse Ranch.
But only if the land is owned by Parlin. It’s time that we accept the fact that there are “good” developers and “bad” developers. We should run the all those bad sprawl developers out of town on a rail.
I like Parlin because they hire progressives. In this economy, we need more developers like Parlin that will really “support” (if you know what I mean) the progressive community.
Maybe I can get an introduction from Bill Ritter.
” It’s time that we accept the fact that there are “good” developers and “bad” developers.”
What there really is are good and bad developments.
Mike Harrington wrote:[quote]Bill Ritter was one of the inner-inner circle members of Lamar’s 2006 campaign and was hugely instrumental in his victory.[/quote]Thanks Mike. I didn’t know this. This is an important new piece of the puzzle for me.
It certainly helps explain the (in David Greenwald’s words) “strange coalition” that advanced a peripheral subdivision on ag land in the dead of night with minimal discussion and uncompleted planning documents.
The puzzle pieces so far …
(1) Bill Ritter is a paid consultant of Parlin Development.
(2) Bill Ritter is a publically acknowledged friend and advisor to David Greenwald.
(3) David Greenwald owns and writes most of the articles for the Vanguard, including several pieces highly supportive (IMO) of the Parlin subdivision proposal.
(4) “Bill Ritter was one of the inner-inner circle members of Lamar’s 2006 campaign and was hugely instrumental in his victory” (7/29/2009, Mike Harrington in the Vanguard)
(5) Mike Harrington, with respect to Lamar’s 2006 campaign, characterizes himself as “someone who was also there every step of the way” (7/29/2009, Mike Harrington in the Vanguard).
(6) Mike Harrington leases space to (and presumably collects rent from) Parlin Development, Talbott Solar, and Ritter & Associates.
(7) Talbott Solar will manage the GHG reduction effort for the Parlin subdivision (which will presumably generate substantial revenue for the company).
(8) In the process of putting the Parlin subdivision proposal on the Nov 2009 ballot, the city staff and council relied primarily on representations from Talbott Solar to assess the feasibility of the 90% GHG reduction proposal.
Lamar’s bizarre behavior last night suggests that he has also been co-opted by the neoprogressives. His little speech about doing the people’s business no matter how late it gets now makes me want to barf. Perhaps he meant “his people’s” business?
Fair enough.
We need more “good” developments like Wildhorse Ranch where progressives can get a piece of the action.
Well wrote:[quote]Harrington’s name is listed prominently here:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/cfrp/housing.html%5B/quote%5DThis must have been generated before Harrington demanded that his name be removed from all the literature, and kicked the campaign out of his conference room.
To Not-So-Nice Catch:
Yep, must have been generated somewhere in there. Was it in the weeks before the committee melted down as disfunctional, and The General reconstituted the Committee with individuals who were able to win in the last several weeks? Must have been in there somewhere? Some will say that my booting her was the event that shocked everyone enough to change the dynamics that set up the final race to the successful conclusion. Who really knows?
What’s the point of your summary? Like, ho-hum.
There were some good discussions the other day, this has all degenerated into some perverse anonymous showmanship.
[quote]Also amused that Hess wasn’t there last night. On vacation or something. [/quote]
Council takes a vacation starting August 3. You would think senior staff would time their vacations around that. Nope. Instead, you have Emlen who took a two and a half week vacation in JULY. You have Hess taking a vacation in JULY. Navazio came in last night but he is on VACATION. And for good measure people like Danielle Foster were on vacation last week.
HELLO? Why not wait until council is off?
Nobody seems to be bothered by the fact that the Mayor asked the developer what election month they preferred? I ask the question that if these were different developers (like Covell Village) would there not be more outrage. Since when should the citizens be in the business of rating developers “good” vs “bad”, when their end means are the same, huge profits. The fact that at 130am, after many public comments that there was more important analysis to be done by the Council, and then the Mayor hears from Parlin that they “prefer” a quicker election in November, and agrees with that, is just DISGUSTING!!!!
I URGE all concerned Davis citizens to specifically view the video archive starting at time point 6:24 through 6:27:
In summary, initially John Tallman from Parlin tells the Mayor perhaps more time and discussion is needed before sending the proposal to a Measure J election; then, while Council continues to debate the topic, he “re-consults” with Masud Monfred (a.k.a “the good developer”) and comes back to the Mayor, who asks him for his “decision”, and he tells her to “proceed with your actions”; who is dictating the Council’s agenda here, clearly it is Parlin Development!!
Mike:
You’ve already made it crystal clear that you are antagonist towards Eileen; so much so that you routinely accuse other posters that you disagree with of being her in disguise.
Your response to my post was evasive; and little more than a personal attack on Eileen.
To recap the thread:
1. You claimed that you were a “major part of the No on X campaign.”
2. Two independent posters responded that they were there, and implied that your representation is false.
3. Someone else came to your defense and posted some evidence that seemed to contradict their assertions.
4. I have some knowledge of the history, and pointed out a probable explanation.
5. Your response was to acknowledge this explanation in the context of yet another attack on Eileen.
So, we still don’t know the basis of your claim of having been a “major part of the No on X campaign” … unless you are referring to your hypothesis that kicking them out of your conference room was potentially the decisive catalyst that ultimately led to the defeat of the well financed and politically powerful pro-Covell Village alliance.
BTW What is the alleged lie?
“There were some good discussions the other day, this has all degenerated into some perverse anonymous showmanship.”
Agreed. More like schoolyard sniping, recently.
You are definitely not alone. I suspect that many people that share your views are tired and discouraged – and have tuned out.
From my perspective, the level of pandering to the developer was astonishing given the poor state of the documents, inadequate time for debate, objections from members of the council, and lack of input from the various commissions.
While I understand your reaction to Ruth, her actions were very predictable and “in character.” Staff brought her a development proposal with a recommendation to move forward, and she did her best (in her own peculiar sort of way) to make it happen.
The shocker for me was Lamar. I thought he had much more integrity than he displayed last night; and I was extremely surprised to see him enabling the Mayor given the circumstances. If you are disgusted with the Mayor and the screwed up process that was on display last night, please recognize that it would not have been possible without Lamar and the pro-Parlin neoprogressives.
So why don’t you add something substantive (although I’m sure we’re all interested in your evaluation of the dialog)?
[quote]I URGE all concerned Davis citizens to specifically view the video archive starting at time point 6:24 through 6:27[/quote]Perhaps someone with the technical know-how could post the clip to YouTube to make it more accessible to the masses?
If anyone was “shocked” by Lamar’s joining in such a seemingly-odd vote with Don & Ruth, then you don’t really know Lamar. Lamar is the only true “progressive” on our CC, and he studied the “Ranch” issue exhaustively before voting.
So, why are the “pseudo-progressives” complaining? By voting with Don & Ruth, Lamar became a leader on the CC and a true representative of the people. In fact, all Lamar did was agree with Don & Ruth to give all Davis residents an opportunity to vote on this proposed project.
And, for those of you who have complained about lack of process through various commissions (all the while claiming they are either “stacked” or ignored by the Council majority, which is all too true), what could be more representative or democratic than a vote by our entire community?
This entire debate (see comments 1-110 above, and still counting)is a hard and fast demonstration of why the “progressives” cannot elect a majority to the City Council. Everyone seeks individual power or control, they hold grudges against one another and they have no single unifying purpose or goal. As the old saying goes, “divide and conquer.”
So, now I ask you, who are the most divisive forces among the so-called “progressives” in our community? In my opinion, without doubt, they are Eileen Samitz and Sue Greenwald. And, as long as we support either one of them in any way, we will never be able to join together to elect a truly progressive city council majority.
Together, they have divided and destroyed what was once a vibrant, unified progressive movement in Davis. And as long as either of them is viewed as a “leader,” the progressives have no chance of electing a council majority. Like it or not, those are the facts: plain & simple.
Lamar did himself some serious political damage with his swing vote to cut off further discussion with so many questions acknowledged to have been left unexplored and unresolved by the Council. Lamar’s swing vote decision to push for a Nov. Measure J vote without further Council deliberation almost immediately followed his uncharacteristically rambling statement about being willing to accept a June date for the Measure J vote. His apparent abrupt reversal when the applicant reversed HIS position on extending the discussion did not pass the “smell test” and cannot be reconciled with Lamar’s past actions and stated principles from the dais. As a strong supporter of Lamar in the past, I was saddened to see this self-inflicted damage to the reputation that he has earned in our community. I would like to believe that fatigue played a significant part in his decision at 1:30 AM. In addition, the political pressures that he was being subjected to can only be surmised; they have been fairly well outlined in the Vanguard reader postings on issue. I hope that Lamar’s immediate future actions from the dais will offer me the opportunity to bring him my unqualified support as in the past.
Rick you are correct and as Sue takes your scene over the edge by opposing everything she makes you all look like the Republicans in the Congress. It is not enough to oppose everything, you must put forward ideas and contribute, otherwise you stagnate. This is where Sue’s leadership has taken you.
To disgusted. I already explained this but you ignored me. The measure J deadline caused the rush to judgement. Get rid of measure J and create a more deliberative and nuanced debate.
at Rich “Big Progressive Brother Knows Best” Entriken – as I’ve stated before, ignore process at your own peril. Sure, measure j is great, but only when used correctly after a project receives a thorough vetting by commissions and council…
As for divisiveness, you and your wife’s “holier than thou” ( or should I say, progressiver than thou) attitude is no help
and your comments are neither plain nor simple facts, they are your own simplistic observations
“So, now I ask you, who are the most divisive forces among the so-called “progressives” in our community? In my opinion, without doubt, they are Eileen Samitz and Sue Greenwald. And, as long as we support either one of them in any way, we will never be able to join together to elect a truly progressive city council majority.”
I don’t know you, but I would like to comment on your attacks on Sue Greenwald; she made clear and cogent arguments at the meeting last night, with regards to the housing supply glut soon to arrive in Davis (with approximately 2000 units, not including all the current unsold homes on the market, and nearby Spring Lake). The “wait and see” approach she advocated for was a wise one, as opposed to the approach that the Asmundson-Saylor-Heystek trio rushed to a Measure J election, and is being hailed by “progressives”; I thought “progressives” in Davis were about “slow-growth”; how is it slow growth if we are approving all these projects, without waiting to see the corresponding demands? I, for one, am quite content to have a council member like Sue who see easily doesn’t pander to developers, especially those who have influenced “progressives” through their employment of Bill Ritter
So Sue was against development when the housing market was hot because you can’t build enough to meet demand. Now she is against development because increased supply will sap the market. So what is the consistancy of her positions. She is against development under all market conditions something that favors existing owners at the expense of those who would like to buy without destroying their family budget. Yes what are the progressives for, high property values. In this they are in agreement with developers. Oh, of course some of the progressives are developers.
The narrative that the applicants had to press staff to include the “mandatory 90% GHG reduction ” in the baseline agreement(BEFORE the on-site provision was added by Council) may have resulted from the staff’s recognition that without contractual consequences for non-compliance written into the baseline development agreement, this “wow” factor had the potential to be no more “good intentions”, valuable as a Measure J campaign issue, but ultimately unenforceable. Development agreement penalties for non-compliance of these on-site reductions would move the developers to spend more( and take less profit)if necessary to meet their “mandatory” commitment.
“She is against development under all market conditions something that favors existing owners at the expense of those who would like to buy without destroying their family budget”
425,000 for townhome/condo; many unsold properties currently on the market in that price range, and more approved properties in the pipeline, how is the delay in approving Wildhorse Ranch until next June election (which developers have already stated wouldn’t be build at least for three more years) denying anyone an opportunity to pursue “affordable” housing???
To staff is messed up. Maybe she had something on her personal agenda she needed to deal with this week.
Jim,
I concur that the WH development will do nothing to help with affordable housing.
Let’s take my case as an example. Both my husband and I work for UCD with a combined salary of 82k. The median household income for davis is around 71k so we’re doing slightly better. Coming up with 10% would involve draining our savings and 401k; it is doable but barely. The PITI of 3k is a killer though. We’d be one minor emergency away from a bankruptcy.
Our other option was to move away and buy a 1600 sqft sfr for a third of the WH price tag which we did. Our hope is to eventually move the Med Center and be done with Davis.
This is what is happening to Davis. The only young people who can buy will need massive support from their families (trustifarians). Everyone else who is in the target market has already purchased a home.
Green issues aren’t always environmental. They are also social.
So now we commute into UCD everyday, expanding Davis’s carbon footprint. Is that really what the people of Davis want? To preserve their landvalues by saying they want green development, while in fact are contributing to sprawl and environmental pollution? I guess as long as they don’t have to look at it from their kitchen windows, it doesn’t exist.
FOLKS: I’m getting complaints via email and on the phone.
[u]
Here are the groundrules:[/u]
Post your thoughts. Make your arguments. If you attack someone by name, expect that it will get taken down.
Lamar is a hero in my book for doing what he did Tuesday night. And, no, I have not gone over to the dark side. I still oppose the Lewis Homes and Covell Village II sprawl developments and all others like it. I opposed the Wild Horse development for the same reasons. I will continue to fight them as I always have. I support this little infill development for all the reasons I have stated before.
Interesting that a certain poster using various names is still pointing fingers at those who support this project while I seem to remember that this person was a major proponent of Wild Horse itself which paved over hundreds of acres of productive farmland.
Mike Harrington is correct in his assessment of the Measure X campaign. It was disfunctional until The General pulled it out of the toilet and turned it into a winner. Mike was indeed a big part of the campaign, especially after The General took over.
To Disheartened: That little shake up at the council meeting on Tuesday was due to the fact that the applicant thought Steve was getting close to a support position but needed more time for discussion. He was then advised by consultants that that was not the case and withdrew his request for a continuance.
I do not agree with Sue’s assessment of why we don’t need this project. I support this project despite the fact that we have already approved 500 units in Davis, because I honestly believe it will set a new standard for development in Davis. If Parlin had waited until next year or even later, CV II would have been upon us with all of the same problems as the first iteration, and we would have had no higher standard to hold it to.
Whether you are for or against this project, what is the reason to delay this Measure J vote to June? The three months or so before November would seem to give ample time to scrutinize the proposal and make a decision.
Even before WHR was formally proposed, there were years of discussion on acceptable development in Davis that would inform the current debate.
Rick Entrikin wrote:[quote]Together, they have divided and destroyed what was once a vibrant, unified progressive movement in Davis.[/quote]For those of you that aren’t aware of the inside baseball, the personal (and in some cases deeply offensive) attacks on Eileen Samitz and Sue Greenwald by [——-], [——-], various anonymous posters, etc, are part of an agenda by the neoprogressives and their sycophants to consolidate all Davis progressive power around Bill Ritter and David Greenwald (no relation to Sue).
Eileen – Keep the faith.
Sue, Steve – Thanks for trying to do the right thing under very difficult circumstances.
Lamar – Shame on you for caving to pressure from the pro-Parlin neoprogressives. If you weren’t on their side, you would now be subjected to an endless stream of ad hominem attacks about how you’ve gotten in bed with Parlin Development so that they will bankroll your future political campaigns. Better yet, you might even get your own moniker from David Greenwald (sorry, Mr. Civility is already taken).
I agree completely with the analysis of “disheartened” …[quote] Lamar did himself some serious political damage with his swing vote to cut off further discussion with so many questions acknowledged to have been left unexplored and unresolved by the Council. Lamar’s swing vote decision to push for a Nov. Measure J vote without further Council deliberation almost immediately followed his uncharacteristically rambling statement about being willing to accept a June date for the Measure J vote. His apparent abrupt reversal when the applicant reversed HIS position on extending the discussion did not pass the “smell test” and cannot be reconciled with Lamar’s past actions and stated principles from the dais.[/quote]
To To Fang:
I was just explaining why it went down the way it did. It went down that way because of the measure J deadline.
If you think 425000 is a reasonable price for an entry level home in Davis you either don’t want to give up any capital appreciation or paid too much for your own home.
PRED old timer:
My wife and I have a combined mid 80’s income. We live quite frugally. There’s absolutely no way we could afford WH. It’s also possible to buy a 3/2 house right now for the same price. I gave up talking (in here and around town) about “affordable housing for the local workforce” because no one seems to think a $425k townhouse is expensive. I think the target market is upscale working couples (ie: higher end professional and working spouse) or a current homeowner (here or somewhere else) with pre crash equity that wants to downsize.
What drives me crazy are the misleading facts and cute labels used to get support for WH (and others). “Affordable Housing” means RENTALS for low income folks (like us??). “First Time Ownership Opportunities” is for folks that can come up w/ the $20k – $40k down payment. “Housing for the local workforce” seems to be the couple w/ approx $100k or higher combined income. Price range is “mid 300’s – mid $400’s. This is really misleading. If the MEDIAN price for 70+ townhouses is $425k, there are VERY FEW mid 300’s offerings.
TIME TO CALL THIS PROJECT WHAT IT IS – UPSCALE. IT’S AN ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT W/ INNOVATIVE GREEN FEATURES. HOWEVER, LIKE VILLAGE HOMES, A UNIT IN WH IS EXPENSIVE. IT’S GOTTEN SUPPORT FROM PEOPLE THAT DON’T SEEM TO HAVE LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS.
Pam Nieberg wrote …[quote]Interesting that a certain poster using various names …[/quote]Sorry Pam (AKA Yolo Watcher, etc) despite your (self-proclaimed but unverified and lacking credibility) new status as a reformed coward (your characterization, not mine), you are still barking up the wrong tree.
I’m not Eileen, I don’t speak for Eileen.
While it may come as a surprise to you, there are many progressives in this town that disagree with the Pro-Parlin neoprogressives. Your gratuitous attempts to marginalize dissenting posts with insinuations and/or direct allegations that they come from Eileen are getting pathetic.
@ Fed Up – Hear, hear
Who is The General? (Just trying to keep this wacky cast of characters straight…I think I’ll need a plot map) Thx
“The General” was Dick Livingston.
The negative characterizations of the No on X campaign by Pam and Mike are becoming tedious.
The negatives characterizations of the No on X campaign may be tedious, but they are true characterizations. Many people were leaving the campaign due to all the internal conflicts. The General reorganized us, and we went on to win. That was a very difficult campaign and there are still a lot of unhealed wounds. I hope that the next one can be better organized from the outset.
Sue and Eileen appeared constitutionally incapable of working together and the NO on X steering committee worked smoothly and cooperatively once they were gently 86’d. Sorry Pam… my recollections do not include Mike Harrington playing any major role in our NO on X steering committee. He did not participate in any meetings,important strategy sessions or participate in organizing and leading our grassroots volunteers who went door to door to win our victory. I do remember him denying us the use of his building’s conference room for our meetings, in a fit of pique.
Some people just can’t take a hint.
It’s “uncivil” to air your dirty laundry in public. In this particular case, it’s also very destructive to the larger progressive agenda. With CV II already on the horizon, publically dumping on the internals of the No on Measure X campaign for self-serving reasons is inexcusable.
Take it indoors children.
I did some interesting calculations on a $425,000 house using standard mortgage values of 28% of income as a maximum mortgage payment and 36% of your mortgage debt being your income. These values come from the Mr. Mortgage web site.
With a 20% down of $85000 at the current 5.2% 30 year fixed rate your monthly payment would around $2100/month. This includes property tax but not insurance and special assesments so these figures are conservative in that regard. Your income would need to be about $90,000 a year to do this but to keep your debt at 36% of income you would need an income of about $120,000 a year.
If you put 10% down your payments would go up to around $2400/month and you would need an income of $100,000/year to make the mortgage but and income of over $135,000 to make keep your debt ratio under control.
With 0 down payments are $2700/month income would need to be $110,000/year and debt to income level would need to be $150000/year.
So this is what we are really talking about to qualify you would need income of at least 120000 a year and 85000 down unless you want to take a risk with some sort of exotic mortgage. If interests rates go up when the economy recovers all the numbers get bigger.
A few thoughts:
One of the consequences of prop 13 can be seen in all the extra money the developers must pay to make the deal work for the city. This should be recognized as the cost of doing business for the developers who pass it along to the buyers. It can also be thought of as a subsidy to existing owners who pay lower rates as a consequence of being long time owners. My point is that prop 13 drives up prices for newcomers. Now I know the response is that people should pay for their on infrastructure but before prop 13 the costs of development were spread out through the community. Yes prop 13 made us all individuals without a sense of community.
Secondly, there has been much written on this blog about how much public service sector workers make but with the exception of people at the very top of UC few make enough to qualify using traditional mortgage criteria for these homes. So while people want the homes to be some great new kind of development with features that also drive up costs we should recognize that the only people who will be able to afford them are move up buyers who have some equity left, people who have inherited money, people in the private sector with above average incomes, or people who have 2 earners in the family willing to stay on a treadmill. Not really workforce housing if you ask me.
Oh and don’t forget the impact of pay cuts, layoffs and furloughs have on people carrying large mortgage debt.
Did a word cloud:
[img]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/wh_word_cloud.jpg[/img]
Very cool!!!
“This entire debate (see comments 1-110 above, and still counting)is a hard and fast demonstration of why the “progressives” cannot elect a majority to the City Council.”
Why do you assume only progressives contribute to this blog. I’m a registered Republican, and love the discussions on this blog – that part of the discussion that does not get down to name calling.
Let’s get beyond the petty sniping and look at the issues. WHR is going to a measure J vote, like it or not. So is it a good project?
“fang” has done a pretty good job showing that $425,000 a pop is not really “affordable workforce housing”. Let me add further that for a family to stretch themselves to the limit financially these days is 1) much more difficult bc of the tighter credit market; 2) suicidal, since the job market is so shaky, w furloughs/layoffs a very real possibility.
If you take a look, (Don Shor provided the website), in the last 7 days there were 17 homes in Davis on the market for less than $425,000, many of them on sale due to foreclosure. As Sue Greenwald has pointed out, we have already permitted for hundreds of homes, and West Village is on the verge of being built. Thus our total inventory is in the thousands.
If WHR is not really going to provide AFFORDABLE workforce housing, is very dense, and there is plenty of housing already on the market, WHR could be fiscally negative to the city, why should we vote anything but “no” on this project? If you are in favor of WHR, start poking holes in these arguments. Can you? Let the games begin…
And I would also add, who is going to buy these overly expensive townhomes? Will it serve an INTERNAL need?
Most staff families can’t afford West Village either.
How will West Village work? Will UCD own the houses and rent them? or give first opportunity to purchase to UCD staff and faculty.
This project is being presented to us for a measure J vote and its main campaign “selling point” is being trumpeted as a MANDATORY 90% reduction in GHG emissions on-site. There is NOTHING in this baseline agreement that makes the developer’s(and his consultants) public statements MANDATORY. One can easily foresee the developer coming to the Council later to explain that he has discovered that meeting this 90% reduction nn-site ,as pitched to the voters during the measure J campaign, is not economically feasible(read to do so would reduce developer profits to an unacceptable level). The developer’s consultants have argued that they are convinced that they can bring this off for the developer; it should then be no problem to have fees in place for non-performance large enough to motivate the developer to dig deeper into profits ,if necessary, to meet his self-proclaimed mandatory 90% GHG reductions on-site goal. There may be some risk here for the developer but taking on risk is what is argued justifies extraordinary profits.
To Skeptic re West Village: the University will be selling the homes to faculty and staff at below-market prices, and there will be resale price limitations. The model for this is Aggie Village, where “…[h]omes are kept affordable for future buyers by capping the appreciation of homes at the faculty salary index or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater.”
In other words, they will discriminate in their choice of buyers and they will artificially constrain the prices.
Thus, West Village will not directly make homes available for workforce housing except for UCD employees, nor will it make rental housing directly available for non-UCD students or other local renters, who, again, get the short end of the stick as yet another housing project is developed. But if non-student renters are lucky, some of the rental space in town might trickle down and maybe rents won’t go up as fast as they have in the past.
This is the big problem I have with the way planning is going in this community. Seniors apparently have special housing needs. UCD workers apparently have special housing needs. But the people who work at local businesses, the people who live here but can’t afford to buy houses — apparently they don’t have special housing needs.
The 90% is mandatory. Parlin used the word “shall” over and over. That means mandatory, in the legal world.
Talbot thinks that the project could hit 100% reduction when it is all over and done with. Dean is one of the most brilliant people I know, and I have never known him to be wrong.
Don Shor I’m starting to like the way you think.
[quote]This project is being presented to us for a measure J vote and its main campaign “selling point” is being trumpeted as a MANDATORY 90% reduction in GHG emissions on-site. There is NOTHING in this baseline agreement that makes the developer’s (and his consultants) public statements MANDATORY. One can easily foresee the developer coming to the Council later to explain that he has discovered that meeting this 90% reduction on-site, as pitched to the voters during the measure J campaign, is not economically feasible (read to do so would reduce developer profits to an unacceptable level). The developer’s consultants have argued that they are convinced that they can bring this off for the developer; it should then be no problem to have fees in place for non-performance large enough to motivate the developer to dig deeper into profits ,if necessary, to meet his self-proclaimed mandatory 90% GHG reductions on-site goal.[/quote]To anonymous:
While the Talbot landlord’s response to your post is technically correct (the word “shall” was used in the Measure J base line features – and is presumably still there unless Harriet changed this language when she inserted the on-site stipulation requested by Sue), there is no penalty for noncompliance written into the document. So while the 90% is mandatory, there is no explicit consequence in the document for failure to perform to this standard.
This raises the interesting question of what happens if the developer is in “breach” of the base line features. What we need is a legal opinion from an attorney that (1) does not have a financial conflict-of-interest and (2) practices in the area of land use.
MEMO TO SUE: During the Monday hearing, it would be helpful if you could ask Harriet this question (about breach of the baseline features) from the dais … to get her on record. If the answer is hedged, or otherwise not clear, she needs to be pressed until fully responsive.
We also need a second opinion from an independent source. Fortunately, there are plenty of attorneys in the progressive network, so it will be no problem getting a referral for a second legal opinion that is un-conflicted and fully informed.
The advocates of this project will no doubt mount the misleading arguement that this issue will be adequately handled in the Development Agreement – a document which is subject to amendment without another Measure J vote if the developers have over-promised and seek relief from a cooperative council. Any reliance on claims that Talbot will meet or exceed expectations from friends that are financially-conflicted would, of course, be irresponsible.
It’s also worth noting that the developers were granted a land use change and access to the ballot without a finalized Development Agreement on the table. The council majority, by subjugating their administrative responsibility to the developer’s timeline, has set the stage for another train wreck by advancing a project to the voters that is only partially specified in the base line features.
With respect to the city’s ability to now negotiate the final Development Agreement, the majority’s action on Tuesday (in the dead of night with very limited debate), has destroyed the city’s position of strength … a monumental blunder that has hurt the community.
Very interesting thought rc. Another way to deal with it could be to pass an Ordinance that specifies consequences . . . not only for this specific project, but as part of what Pam Gunnell discussed, a comprehensive GHG policy.
Thanks, Don. Good points.
Matt:
Wouldn’t an ordinance would be subject to a variance by a cooperative council?
Until an attorney (qualified in land use with no conflicts of interest) weighs in, my working conclusion is that the 90% GHG “commitment” is not mandatory unless significant consequences for noncompliance are written into the base line conditions.
To reality check:
Those of us who were around for the citizen-initiated referendum concerning violations in the Wildhorse development agreement remember how the Council majority, publicly pitched by the then Davis mayor Lois Wolk , launched a last minute campaign claiming that if the initiative was successful, the development agreement would be voided and the developer could then do ANYTHING he wanted with his development without city control.
This argument was soon refuted but, as was obviously the strategy of the developer and his Council supporters in bringing this forth 1 week before election day, this bogus claim could not be effectively refuted by the initiative supporters before election day. Lesson? do not count on a Council majority holding developers to the development agreement. Writing consequences for non-compliance into the baseline development agreement for a Measure J vote is necessary to guarantee that the voters are getting the “mandatory” 90% GHG reductions on-site that they are voting for.
[quote]do not count on a Council majority holding developers to the development agreement. Writing consequences for non-compliance into the baseline development agreement for a Measure J vote is necessary to guarantee that the voters are getting the “mandatory” 90% GHG reductions on-site that they are voting for[/quote]
Yes. That’s my point as well. So we are in agreement.
The problem, of course, is that Lamar (with the support of Ruth and Don) has already sent the base line features forward to the county with no consequences for non-compliance. A profoundly bad (and naive) decision.
I don’t know if there is a mechanism for the council to correct their action. Staff made a couple of comments that suggested that they still have some degree of control, but I don’t know how this might work.
The one thing that we know for certain is that it will be much harder for the staff to effectively negotiate a finalized Development Agreement on behalf of the community now that the council majority has already certified the FEIR, rezoned the land, and sent the project forward to the ballot. If I had an employee that screwed up a negotiation this badly, they’d probably be looking at a pink slip about now. There’s no excuse for this. Creating the illusion of a deadline is a common negotiating tactic, and they should have seen this coming from a mile off.
The developers agreement is not finalized yet, so if you want stronger GHG standards, why don’t you suggest language.
There is no point. Development Agreements are subject to amendment [u]without[/u] an additional Measure J vote. The developer now has the upper hand in the negotiations. Staff and the developer are unlikely to accept language from the public.
If you read the last two threads on this issue, you will see several claims from Harrington, D. Greenwald, and others suggesting that the developers begged the city on bended knee (I know, that last bit was a bit hyperbolic) to add stricter GHG language to the documents but were rebuffed by the staff (claims that are currently unsupported by the evidence).
Perhaps David Greenwald could publish the developer’s draft language that the city rejected. That would be a reasonable starting point.
Couldn’t Lamar bring this vote up for “reconsideration” on Monday? I believe that this may be possible. I had the distinct impression ,exhibited by his uncharacteristically withdrawn and “distant”(he appeared to be reading prepared material at times)manner that he was not very comfortable in the position that he found himself. We will see on Monday what a few days of rest, adequate sleep and thoughtful self- examination bring.
So you’re just inventing a reason to complain. Got it. The developers have gone to great lengths and expense to put the 90 percent in, you wish to believe they are doing that to pull the wool over your eyes, whatever.
To anonymous: I don’t think there is any chance that Lamar is going to do that.
Anonymous:
I think I heard Mike Webb said something about the “embarrassing” prospect of pulling the project from the ballot. This would support your suggestion that a vote to reconsider might be possible.
Do you really think Lamar would abandon his pro-Parlin neoprogressive supporters at this juncture??
He’s a young man with obvious political aspirations, and will need to have friends in the development community if he is going to move up.
When you talk about friends in the development community, who are you talking about? The big developers in Davis are Whitcombe, Ramos, Gidaro, the Yachzan’s (sp), etc. Parlin has developed one very small project in Davis. He is not part of the cabal. In fact, it is questionable at this point whether the big time developers will support this project or whether they like Souza will see this as a threat to future development.
GHG and all that nonsense does not address the real question – does this dense project provide AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING? No, it does not, as “fang” pointed out. All WHR does is provide more of the same sort of housing we already have more than enough of, in a denser space, at above market rates. $425,000 for a 3 bedroom townhouse? $550,000 for a single family home w virtually no yard? With 400 permits in the pipeline already for homes not built yet; 17 homes coming on the market in the last seven days (many of them foreclosures) – all for less than $425,000; with West Village to be built with another 1600 homes?
The WHR project makes no sense to me, and no one is refuting my points. What are you people saying, that 90% GHG reduction is the sole criteria by which houses in Davis should be built? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? It is not a reason grounded in logic.
Or is this more of a tactical decision to deter the building of Covell Village Redux? If that is the reason for such a “groundswell of support” for WHR (NOT), this little project will not do a thing to deter CV Redux. Remember, WHR doesn’t have any “senior housing”, or whatever other stupid gambit Whitcomb and Co. will think up next to push development at the corner of Poleline and Covell. Furthermore, now the county has to weigh in on any such development at that site.
Let me ask you, how do you suggest we reduce the cost of housing in Davis? Are you suggesting reimplementing the mid-range affordable requirement where we constrain market pricing? Just curious.
Also can you show me where we have approved 400 units?
To GHG:
And you are just inventing a reason to argue. My position is that the language must be in the base line features, or it’s irrelevant. Once you’ve taken the time to read and undertsnad my posts, I will respond to your position. Got it?
So are you suggesting you will unequivocally support the project with the GHG in the base line features and will you suggest language for such an inclusion?
To “This is absurd”
Here is a link to Parlin’s active portfolio –
[url]http://www.parlindevelopment.com/projects.htm[/url]
Your assertion that Parlin is just a small player is incorrect.
Your cheap shot at Souza does not change the basic facts. Lamar is being strongly supported by the pro-Parlin neoprogressives, and he just voted to send their uncompleted and flawed development proposal to the voters after minimal deliberation in the dead of night.
My point that Parlin is small players in Davis still stands. They own a couple of small tracts one of which is the 25 acre WHR, their only previous project was a small infill project on Russell, and they own one other fairly small tract north of the hospital. They are not on par IN DAVIS with the other developers I have mentioned. They have don’t have a huge amount of political clout and they are not ones who are going to bankroll Lamar for the future. Lamar is supporting this project primarily because he was able to get the affordable units to be 100 percent accessible for disabled people which has long been his goal.
GHG Emissions: One explanation for the developers insisting on the mandatory 90% emissions in the Measure J ballot language could be because without the mandatory phrase , the project loses much of its campaign punch “wow” factor and its argument for being built in the face of 500 permits already approved and waiting for build-out is greatly diminished. The phrase “mandatory” when used is always accompanied by an …or else. That’s what makes it mandatory!. This is absent in this baseline development agreement to be presented to the voters for their measure J approval.
AAARGHHH said:
“…this little project will not do a thing to deter CV Redux.”
I agree. Don Saylor said as much when he dismissed the WH Ranch project with an almost casual vote for its approval, adding that he sees it as insignificant in relation to Davis’ future housing plans. Saylor and Asmundson will be pushing CV II no matter what the outcome of the WH Ranch development proposal.
Anonymous:
How do you know that the developers insisted that the 90% requirement be included in the baseline features? Isn’t it more likely that this language came from staff trying to capture the developers’ pitch on paper? I don’t find this meme (that the developers wanted stronger language but the staff insisted on loopholes) very credible.
To your second point -[quote]The phrase “mandatory” when used is always accompanied by an …or else. That’s what makes it mandatory!. This is absent in this baseline development agreement to be presented to the voters for their measure J approval.[/quote]That’s a great way to explain the issue. “Mandatory” with no consequences is not mandatory. It’s an illusion. The question is, was that also their intent?
No Sir said
“Lamar is supporting this project primarily because he was able to get the affordable units to be 100 percent accessible for disabled people which has long been his goal.”
The issue is not whether Lamar supports this project but why he voted to cut off further exploration of issues that were of concern to two Council members, both of whom he professes to “respect”, to rush it to a Measure J vote in Nov. This is the very issue that he rejected when the Council majority attempted the same for Covell Village. Are you saying that this vote at 1:30AM on Tuesday was the price extracted from him by the developer for the 100% accessibility ?
To “No Sir”
The other “fairly small tract” (your language) is the Binning property – 132 acres – which is larger than the Cannery site that caused all the uproar a couple of months ago.
They’ve also got an unspecified 75 acre site listed as “Covell”, and an additional 363 acres in Yolo County.
That’s a total of almost 700 acres just in Yolo County.
It’s absurd to argue that Parlin is [u]not[/u] a major player in Davis. It’s also obvious that they have a large financial interest in who gets elected to the Davis City Council and Yolo County Board of Supervisors.
Anonymous said[quote]The issue is not whether Lamar supports this project but why he voted to cut off further exploration of issues that were of concern to two Council members, both of whom he professes to “respect”, to rush it to a Measure J vote in Nov. This is the very issue that he rejected when the Council majority attempted the same for Covell Village. Are you saying that this vote at 1:30AM on Tuesday was the price extracted from him by the developer for the 100% accessibility?[/quote]
I would also add to your most excellent argument that 38 units of accessible affordable is not much to crow about – especially given the magnitude of our housing problems in Davis.
“Are you saying that this vote at 1:30AM on Tuesday was the price extracted from him by the developer for the 100% accessibility ?”
Not at all. But Lamar clearly got what he wanted from the project as a result of meeting with the developers for several weeks. Neither Sue nor Stephen had the courtesy to meet with them. I don’t see why Lamar owed them anything. If Sue or Stephen had concerns, they had ample opportunity before hand. Neither did. Sue did not have the decency to even return calls and Stephen was downright hostile from what I have heard through the grapevine.
“I would also add to your most excellent argument that 38 units of accessible affordable is not much to crow about “
I love how you are so judgmental of what other people’s values ought to be.
“especially given the magnitude of our housing problems in Davis.”
This is a very interesting statement from someone who is opposing a 191 unit project that meets some of our housing needs, but obviously not all. What do you consider our housing problems in Davis and what do you propose as a solution to them?
rc said:” How do you know that the developers insisted that the 90% requirement be included in the baseline features? Isn’t it more likely that this language came from staff trying to capture the developers’ pitch on paper?”
I would like to think that our city staff was looking out for the interests of the citizens and city, approaching negotiations with a level of healthy professional skepticism. Hence, I would like to think that the developer actually had to “twist their arm” to get the mandatory(which staff may have recognized was not really mandatory)thing in the baseline agreement. Your explanation that staff may have been just naively sucked into the pitch by the developer’s people is another more disturbing explanation..
To “Arggghhhhhhh!”
Cool your jets a bit.
I’m certainly not saying that 90% on-site GHG reduction is the sole criteria by which WHR should be judged. The project has a whole laundry list of issues that weren’t dealt with on Tuesday.
In addition, I’m not ignoring your position (or implying that it’s not valid) by way of the arguments that I’m personally pursuing. If fact, I agree with 90% of the affordable housing criticism that has been posted (otherwise I might have responded).
Please recognize that there can be multiple “real questions” that are not mutually exclusive. The GHG reduction and affordable housing are both legitimate concerns – it’s just a question of personal interest and priority. For those of you focusing a spotlight on the affordable housing issue; IMO you’re doing a great job analyzing the situation, and I read your posts with great interest.
Ironically, the advocates for this project are arguing precisely what you’ve complained about (and from them it truly does sound ridiculous). I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the meme that WHR will “raise the bar” on all future development in Davis – the obvious implication being that all future developments will have to meet or come close to the 90% standard. Adding an additional 25-30K to every dwelling unit built in the city going forward is probably not in the cards (because of all the affordability issues that have been highlighted).
No Sir said:”Not at all. But Lamar clearly got what he wanted from the project as a result of meeting with the developers for several weeks…”
Sorry No Sir… POOR ANSWER. You are saying that Lamar negotiated separately to get what he wanted for his vote and then chose to deny his Council colleagues the opportunity to fully explore their own concerns, some of which appeared that very evening, before having to vote on the project for a Nov. ballot? I personally think more of Lamar than that and would like to believe that the basis for his poorly-considered vote was extreme fatigue coupled with unrelenting political pressure.
“anonymous said”[quote]Sorry No Sir… POOR ANSWER. You are saying that Lamar negotiated separately to get what he wanted for his vote and then chose to deny his Council colleagues the opportunity to fully explore their own concerns, some of which appeared that very evening, before having to vote on the project for a Nov. ballot? I personally think more of Lamar than that and would like to believe that the basis for his poorly-considered vote was extreme fatigue coupled with unrelenting political pressure.[/quote]I would also add that the allegations directed at Steve and Sue are also unsubstantiated hearsay, lacking in any credibility. Give us some legitimate facts if you want us to believe the ugly picture you are trying to paint.
“Sorry No Sir… POOR ANSWER. You are saying that Lamar negotiated separately to get what he wanted for his vote and then chose to deny his Council colleagues the opportunity to fully explore their own concerns”
No what I’m saying is that neither Sue nor Stephen chose to meet with the developers and address their concerns as Lamar did. Lamar had no obligation to give them additional time when they were running against the clock.
“Give us some legitimate facts if you want us to believe the ugly picture you are trying to paint. “
Why don’t you ask them and see what they tell you. Sue posts here, ask her if she chose to not meet with the developers? Ask Stephen the same thing.
You’re the one making the allegation. I heard it on the grapevine lacks any credibility. Why don’t you post the real source?
Because you’re just a person hiding behind a moniker, I’m not going to divulge info to you. If you really want to know you can ask, if not, I don’t care if you believe me or not.
Lamar is justified in sending an uncompleted development application forward to the ballot in the dead of night with limited debate because Steve and Sue didn’t deliberate in advance with the developer behind closed doors (public hearings are so messy and time consuming).
Parlin is just a small Davis developer (pay no attention to the other 200+ acres in our planning area – or their massive regional portfolio); and we shouldn’t be concerned by their connections to Lamar or his uncharacteristic behavior Tuesday night.
If you dare try to debate a contrary position on the Vanguard, someone from the inner circle is going to snipe at you with aggressive and confrontational posts to try and deflect your arguments or make you go away.
“No what I’m saying is that neither Sue nor Stephen chose to meet with the developers and address their concerns as Lamar did. Lamar had no obligation to give them additional time when they were running against the clock.”
No Sir.. if what you say is true, then it was even more imperative for Lamar to give his colleagues ample time to explore what they perceived as potential problems with the baseline development agreement. Individual Council members meeting privately with the developer to “lobby” for their “pet” goals raises the question of what tit-for-tat arrangements may have been agreed to. This makes it all the more important that Lamar not be perceived as cutting off the inquires of his colleagues concerning this baseline development agreement. Perception is everything here .
Reality Check: “I’m certainly not saying that 90% on-site GHG reduction is the sole criteria by which WHR should be judged. The project has a whole laundry list of issues that weren’t dealt with on Tuesday.
In addition, I’m not ignoring your position (or implying that it’s not valid) by way of the arguments that I’m personally pursuing. If fact, I agree with 90% of the affordable housing criticism that has been posted (otherwise I might have responded).
Please recognize that there can be multiple “real questions” that are not mutually exclusive. The GHG reduction and affordable housing are both legitimate concerns – it’s just a question of personal interest and priority. For those of you focusing a spotlight on the affordable housing issue; IMO you’re doing a great job analyzing the situation, and I read your posts with great interest.
Ironically, the advocates for this project are arguing precisely what you’ve complained about (and from them it truly does sound ridiculous). I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the meme that WHR will “raise the bar” on all future development in Davis – the obvious implication being that all future developments will have to meet or come close to the 90% standard. Adding an additional 25-30K to every dwelling unit built in the city going forward is probably not in the cards (because of all the affordability issues that have been highlighted).”
Good points Reality Check!
FWIW, “adding 25-30K to every dwelling unit built in the city” in exchange for saving $100 to $300 per month on utility bills is a reasonable trade off IMHO. If on averae the annual savings is $2,400, the payback on $25,000 would be less than 11 years (which is approximately 1/3 of the length of a 30-year mortgage), and the payback on $30,000 is less than 13 years (again a small fraction of the typical mortgage term).
As further evidence of the fact that investing the $25,000 to $30,000 is a good investment, the mortgage payment for $30,000 @ 5% on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage is $161.05 or $1,932.60 a year, and that amount is deductible, but electric and heat bills aren’t.
In response to some of the Measure X comments, I was at most of the steering committee and other campaign meetings. I never saw “Mike boot Eileen” and in fact I don’t really know what this means. Mike stopped being actively involved so maybe some of this is taken out of context. I am concerned that this blog has degenerated into personal attacks left over from past campaigns. Any issues should have been resolved then. Yes, there were differences of opinion, as I’m sure there are in any campaign, but lots of people including Eileen made sacrifices, pulled together, and worked hard to win that campaign against amazing odds and everybody deserves credit instead of all this negativity.
I don’t usually read the vanguard and there seems to be a lot of other negative comments directed to other people as well. I wish people who have an issue with someone would contact them directly and not air it in public cyberspace. Let’s focus on the Wildhorse proposal before us.