by Simon Efrein
At the recent Davis City Council Meeting, a side debate emerged during discussion of an update of the Davis General Plan Housing Element steering committee. It concerned whether or not Davis should pursue further housing development in the near future. Mayor Sue Greenwald put forth a motion to have staff look at amending the growth resolution passed in 2005 by the City Council. Her goal was to lower the amount of growth specified in the General Plan to the Fair Share guidelines outlined by RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) until 2013. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion as both council members encouraged holding off development until it was firmly ascertained whether or not it would be prudent to engage in large development in such areas as Covell Village, the project that was voted down in the last election by a 60-40 vote.
The other three council members, consisting of Don Saylor, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza, all argued against changing the projected city growth rate of 1 percent, arguing that the 1 percent number represented a ceiling for development rather than a minimum rate. After both Councilmember Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson voted no, Councilmember Souza decided to abstain from the vote after it was clear that his no-vote would not be required. During the debate about the motion, Councilmember Souza clearly opposed any change to growth policies established two years ago by the current council majority.
Mr. Souza directly declared that it does not matter what the growth parameter is for Davis, because the City Council can determine, of their own accord, exactly how much they want to grow each year, and that the 1% growth parameter was simply a recommendation.
Mayor GREENWALD:
The major concern that Mayor Greenwald has here, and that is shared by the broader community, is that they are now disregarding the 1% growth parameter to establish housing allocations and projects from 2008 until 2013 in the Housing Element Update. Furthermore, projects included in the Housing Element Update for the general plan have a tendency to become reality.
Mr. Souza is correct that some of these projects will face the voters in a Measure J vote. However, advocates of slower growth, such as Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek, also understand that with limited resources available to slow growth advocates, opposing every Measure J vote is an inadequate way to control growth. The most effective method is to set a reasonable growth goal in the General Plan and allocate housing in the update accordingly.
While Stephen Souza abstained from voting, his position on this issue was clear, and he was largely joined by his colleagues Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald did well to get the council majority on the record favoring a higher than 1% growth rate in the city of Davis. Davis voters have a clear choice in the next election. The current course set by the council majority will have a 1% growth rate equivalent to 325 units per year, which is higher than that required by RHNA. Given the housing market at this time, it is not clear that this is a sensible direction for Davis. However, this council majority has rarely seen a development project that they have not voted for. If left to them, we know exactly where this is going.
Simon Efrein is a beat reporter covering the Davis City Council for the People's Vanguard of Davis.
At the recent Davis City Council Meeting, a side debate emerged during discussion of an update of the Davis General Plan Housing Element steering committee. It concerned whether or not Davis should pursue further housing development in the near future. Mayor Sue Greenwald put forth a motion to have staff look at amending the growth resolution passed in 2005 by the City Council. Her goal was to lower the amount of growth specified in the General Plan to the Fair Share guidelines outlined by RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) until 2013. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion as both council members encouraged holding off development until it was firmly ascertained whether or not it would be prudent to engage in large development in such areas as Covell Village, the project that was voted down in the last election by a 60-40 vote.
The other three council members, consisting of Don Saylor, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza, all argued against changing the projected city growth rate of 1 percent, arguing that the 1 percent number represented a ceiling for development rather than a minimum rate. After both Councilmember Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson voted no, Councilmember Souza decided to abstain from the vote after it was clear that his no-vote would not be required. During the debate about the motion, Councilmember Souza clearly opposed any change to growth policies established two years ago by the current council majority.
Mr. Souza directly declared that it does not matter what the growth parameter is for Davis, because the City Council can determine, of their own accord, exactly how much they want to grow each year, and that the 1% growth parameter was simply a recommendation.
Mayor GREENWALD:
I read our council growth resolution very, very closely, and it doesn’t say it’s a cap, the one percent minus affordable, which is, IS, about 325 houses a year if you average it out over any reasonable period. And that is not stated as a cap, it is stated as our policy. It’s very carefully worded, to not say it’s a floor, not say it’s a cap, but definitely to say it’s a policy. And that’s how it was presented to the growth steering committee, to plan for this much growth, because that’s the council’s growth policy. And that’s the policy that, given the current housing slowdown, and the desires of the community in every poll we’ve ever seen, and every vote we’ve ever taken, to grow more slowly, that we should … lower our growth policy.Councilmember SOUZA:
Well in essence we’re a community that grows by initiative now, anything that we’re gonna have before us except for infill and one last piece of property that is of a substantial size, that’s the Lewis property, is via initiative. We as a body, will be a body that designs as we did with the Covell Village project. But the community is the part of our process that decides whether the project, whatever project that comes before us on any piece of property outside the city limits will be determined by the community. That is the process by which we determine growth in this community now. So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow.Don Saylor tried to play the middle ground here, suggesting while at the same time opposing any changes to the growth policy:
“We should wait until the Housing Element Steering Committee results are known.”Councilmember Saylor misses the point, the key part of this process is in fact the direction given to the Housing Element Steering Committee. As Kevin Wolf, chair said, the committee can plan for whatever growth rate the city wants. But that growth rate is in fact going to determine which projects are included and which are not.
The major concern that Mayor Greenwald has here, and that is shared by the broader community, is that they are now disregarding the 1% growth parameter to establish housing allocations and projects from 2008 until 2013 in the Housing Element Update. Furthermore, projects included in the Housing Element Update for the general plan have a tendency to become reality.
Mr. Souza is correct that some of these projects will face the voters in a Measure J vote. However, advocates of slower growth, such as Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek, also understand that with limited resources available to slow growth advocates, opposing every Measure J vote is an inadequate way to control growth. The most effective method is to set a reasonable growth goal in the General Plan and allocate housing in the update accordingly.
While Stephen Souza abstained from voting, his position on this issue was clear, and he was largely joined by his colleagues Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald did well to get the council majority on the record favoring a higher than 1% growth rate in the city of Davis. Davis voters have a clear choice in the next election. The current course set by the council majority will have a 1% growth rate equivalent to 325 units per year, which is higher than that required by RHNA. Given the housing market at this time, it is not clear that this is a sensible direction for Davis. However, this council majority has rarely seen a development project that they have not voted for. If left to them, we know exactly where this is going.
Simon Efrein is a beat reporter covering the Davis City Council for the People's Vanguard of Davis.
