Housing Element's Plan Looks Bleak But There is Some Hope for Consensus Building

A fascinating story this morning the Sacramento Bee by Hudson Sangree.

In it, there is a discussion of the Housing Element Steering Committee's (HESC) housing plan. From the onset there were 15 members, 3 appointed by each of the councilmembers. The assumption was that with a 3-2 split on council between those aligned with local developers and those favoring less growth, that there would be a 9-6 pro-growth majority.

However, according to Vice Chair Mark Siegler, a Sue Greenwald appointee, that's not what happened.

According to the article:

"It came as a surprise when a committee of 15 residents, appointed by council members to help shape the future of Davis, worked together for a year and reached agreement on an innovative housing plan.

It proposes modest growth within the city's current borders. Infill projects deemed beneficial to the city would get priority."

Mark Siegler is quoted saying:

"It was sort of an amazing outcome... I was ready to go in there and just do battle to the death."

Instead now the fear is that the plan that was meticulously worked on over the course many months would be undermined by the city council with very different agendas and ideas than the committee members.

"Over the course of several months, we came to much more of a middle ground... I wouldn't be surprised if members of the City Council are not happy with the outcome based on who they appointed... I hope they don't just dismiss this thing out of hand."

HESC Chairman Kevin Wolf said:

"We have the political consensus to force the City Council in a new direction."

However, if the meeting last week is any indication, this consensus is about to break down into the usual fighting.

For example, Councilmember Stephen Souza and Don Saylor want to push for developing the Nishi property which was ranked No.17 by the steering committee. Mayor Ruth Asmundson complained that some of the properties like the PG&E site and the school district headquarters are not feasible since no one determined if the current occupants would be willing to move or develop their properties.

On the other side of fence, Councilmember Lamar Heystek worried that the list would lead to an artificial means by which to induce growth. Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued vehemently last week the city does not need to grow given the weak market.

However, in my discussion with Lamar Heystek on KDRT Radio last week, he agreed that the city council had considerable room for consensus building. There are clear philosophical differences between the two sides over the rate of growth and the willingness to develop on Measure J sites, however, there is also significant agreement on other areas.

The reason the HESC was able to come to consensus is that they avoided the more contentious "how much issue" and went toward the "where" issue. And in the immediate future, almost everyone agreed that we ought to grow in infill sites near the city's core and move out.

The council majority of Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson have a choice. They certainly have the votes and the recent election results to push forward with any agenda they see fit to seek. On the other hand, strategically speaking, they may be better off tackling development projects where they have basic agreement on location first.

As the HESC report makes clear, there are more than enough of these infill projects to meet either the low end RHNA numbers for the next five years or even the high end, 1% growth cap numbers without looking to a single peripheral project.

However, there are still a lot of pitfalls along the way.

Covell Village: The return of Covell Village is one thing to look at. The group formerly known as the Covell Partners has repackaged the project splitting the development into three segments. The first segment which would be on the lower third is looking towards senior housing. Senior housing is probably the next huge hot potato in general. There is a divide within the community about the need for senior housing and the type of senior housing. Some have suggested that senior housing internal needs are small and any big project would pull from a more regional and even statewide basis, others suggest that residents in Davis ought to be able to move their senior parents into closer proximity.

The form of senior housing is another question. Some have suggested that ideally smaller condos are better suited for seniors than senior-only segregated communities. The argument here is that many seniors want to downsize, but not live in senior-only communities. Some seniors do not even want to downsize.

Nishe: If one looks to location alone this Measure J project would be ideal. But there is a huge hurdle--that is lack of road access. The only access right now would be the narrow Olive Drive leading to the congested Richard Blvd interchange. The road access is so prohibitive that developers have suggested having only campus access for cars and otherwise only direct access to the rest of the city via bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Sounds good in theory, but recognizing the need for special traffic provisions illustrates the pitfall of the development. One alternative might be to give it to the university and have the university use it to expand it's on-campus housing base.

Lewis Property: This is the property that divides the progressive community. On the one hand, many believe that Lewis is an ideal place to develop as means to accommodate growth demands while at the same time not paving over farm land. The fact that it's already paved over and has some of the infrastructure needs plays into that desire. Still, others worry about provisions that Lewis is developed with a mind toward its more controversial eastern neighbor, Covell. While Lewis is considerably smaller than Covell, some of the same concerns that plagued Covell, apply to Lewis. Others such as Councilmember Sue Greenwald have been steadfastly pressing for high tech industry, arguing that we have few high tech zoned sites, that this is the ideal way to bring in new industry, and that the site is not conducive to residential development. The current owners however are pressing hard for a residential development. This is not a Measure J site, and it seems like that the residential side will eventually win this fight much to the chagrin of a number of others.

Wildhorse Horse Ranch: This is another peripheral site that would trigger a Measure J vote. The property came up for consideration early this spring and the meeting was largely an unmitigated disaster as neighbors complained about the project and even council would-be supporters seemed close to pulling the plug on the deal. However, the project has been re-worked. Many of the neighbors are if not supportive of the project, at the very least had their criticism muted. This is likely the next Measure J project Davis will vote on. Probably sometime in 2009. How will it go? It's only 40 acres. The project is said to be extremely environmentally innovative on the cutting edge. If the neighbors are brought along it could pass. If the neighbors remained as outspoken as they were at the last meeting before Council, it is a different story.

Those projects represent varying levels of political opposition. There are other projects within the city limits that would be slam dunks. I still believe one of the biggest mistakes of Covell Village was the timing. The council put all of their eggs into one basket on development and as a result, when Covell was voted down, there was nothing left in the queue. The result, few new housing permits the last three years of city council. The pro-growth majority, for a two-year stretch, a 4-1 pro-growth majority oversaw the period of the slowest growth in recent Davis history.

The question at this point is whether the council majority has learned a true lesson from Covell Village. The lesson is not that people do not want growth. However the lesson is also not that they did not explain the project or sell it well enough. The lesson is that the council tried to do too much, too quickly, with one project that was easy for people to understand the consequences of and easy for people to oppose. Moreover, it was polarizing. If the council can avoid polarizing future votes and issues, and instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do, they will be successful. If they cannot, their majority will likely be lost.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Moves Forward on Housing Projects Despite HESC Process

One of the points that came up over and over again during the discussion of the Wildhorse Horse Ranch project last night was why this project was being discussed and pushed forward at this time, given that the Housing Element Steering Committee was in the process of determining rank order of the best sites in which to have future growth.

In fact, it is not alone. Last week the City Council heard proposals about the Simmons Property and the Lewis Property has been going forward as well.

And yet at the same time, it would appear that at least according to the steering committee members prior to their meeting next week, none of these locations are ideal for growth in the next general plan cycle.

10 - Simmons, E. Eighth Street
21 - Lewis Cannery
27 - Wildhorse Horse Ranch Mix of Housing Types

This is not to suggest that I think these particular projects are good or bad. Only to question the process by which this is all occurring. And while, as I heard last night, I understand that for instance the Horse Ranch has been under proposal since Covell Village was voted down, I still have to wonder about the timing of things.

This came up during multiple points in time last night. Councilmember Stephen Souza made it a point to suggest that this is not meant to undermine the work done by the HESC. He saw the role of the council as being different than that of the HESC anyway, since the HESC is looking at sites and the council at specific project proposals. But I cannot help wondering how the council can go forward looking to develop a site that is in the bottom third of site priorities.

Thus from a procedural standpoint, not weighing on the merits of any of these three projects, I would argue that the council should not be moving forward with these projects at this time. Councilmember Don Saylor made it a point to say that he feels that we are in need of housing and projects are not going forward at this time. Part of that of course is due to the front-loading of projects from the last General Plan toward the beginning of the period rather than spreading them more evenly.

The fact remains that the housing situation has turn, RHNA numbers are down, and the need to grow is not nearly as apparent as it might have been even two years ago when Covell was first brought up.

Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson made a more basic appeal of our need for additional housing and particularly affordable housing. But again, ignored the broader implications of the current housing market.

The more surprising development last night was an assessment of where this project actually stands both in the minds of the council as well as the broader community.

For one thing, I think the council was led to believe as I was that there was broad buy-in by the neighborhood adjacent to the Horse Ranch for this development. As impassioned and articulated appeals made clear this is not the case. The neighbors like the Horse Ranch next to their street, particularly now that it is well run. There remains a bit of irony that you may be more likely to get what you want if you run your property poorly than if you run it well.

They have concerns with the density difference in the new proposal. They have concerns about the height of the proposed condos. And there are concerns that the new neighborhood would stand out some from the existing neighborhood.

While the council majority was willing to push the process forward for an EIR paid for at the developer's expense, even they had a degree of reluctance and hesitation with the project as it stands now. As it this requires a Measure J vote, both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor kept pointing to a "wow factor" to use Councilmember Souza's term, although Mr. Saylor had similar language and reservations. In other words, we need to be sold on the idea that this project is needed. There has to be a reason for the people of Davis to vote for it and they do not see that reason right now.

During the course of this meeting I went from believing that this was merely a formality to believing that this project is in really serious trouble.

At one point Mayor Pro Asmundson asked City Manager Bill Emlen for an honest assessment. One of the goals is to have this for a Measure J vote by November of this year, but Mr. Emlen seemed very concerned about that ability to get the project to that point by that time. And he quite bluntly suggested that that timeline was in deep jeopardy based on what he had heard now.

There were a number of council machinations about what to do. Mayor Sue Greenwald first pushed for a vote to agendize a hearing that would kill the project altogether, but despite a second from Councilmember Lamar Heystek, that did not have the support of the Council Majority.

Clearly the council seemed disturbed--and all of them--that the neighborhood had not bought into this process at this time as they had previously believed. To me that is a key first step.

Having this level of density on the periphery is another concern. I am reluctant to expand the periphery of Davis to begin with. Frankly I like the smaller units on this project and the affordability of the units on this project, but the sustainability model, the model of smart growth is that you put this level of density in the core and that reduces the carbon footprint by reducing the amount of car trips. Putting this level of density on the perimeter obviously does not do that.

The big problem for me is again a timing issue. If the council is putting their trust in the HESC process, and clearly the members of the HESC have put in considerable work to determine where to grow, then the council should allow that to go forward.

The distinct impression I get is that the council would like to jump the HESC process by approving Simmons and Wildhorse in particular before the HESC wraps up. Lewis is more complicated with its vicinity to COvell Village. Once they have these properties in the actual approval stage then they would would consider the HESC' proposals.

The debate over growth rate is coming. Another debate over Measure J will be coming as well. Given concerns about the housing market, given concerns about carbon footprints and global warming, I am less than certain any of this is responsible. Mayor Sue Greenwald made a number of general points about growth that need to weighed heavily both on a local basis and a regional basis. It does not seem like anyone really wants to take on the tough questions.

I find it difficult to reconcile the concern that some on the council majority have about carbon footprint with the continuation of sprawl and urban development. And more importantly the lack of process based planning and development.

All of these considerations have probably been tossed aside by the reality on the ground so to speak that at this time, this project is not ready to go forward. They will take out an EIR and essentially push the decision into the future, but the tough work lays ahead on this. In the meantime, the HESC will come out with their recommendations for good areas to grow and none of the current proposals are going to make even the top 5 that place them into the likely category for development in the next six years given current growth guidelines and housing markets. It would seem then that the council ought to slow down and allow the HESC process to finish before moving forward on these projects.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Plan to Preserve Ag Buffer Around the City Contains a Key Loophole

Those who read the Davis Enterprise’s coverage of the agricultural mitigation item missed a great deal of several key aspects of the council’s actions. First there was the work of Councilmember Lamar Heystek to bring both Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza on board in supporting a 2:1 mitigation for all projects under all circumstances. There was also the key fight for adjacent mitigation whereby the council voted to support an adjacent buffer of one-quarter mile next to all developments regardless of whether that adjacent mitigation would exceed the 2:1 prescribed ratio. However, the council majority also exempted agricultural projects of less than 40 acres from adjacent mitigation.

For the sake of simplicity, there were two separate concepts introduced in this item. The idea behind mitigation is that any development along the periphery of Davis would require the developer to concurrently set aside twice as many acres to be protected and preserved as agricultural land. Crucial to the agricultural protection is the notion of adjacent mitigation, which means that there would be a quarter mile designated buffer zone along any development that would be designated as a protected land that would have a permanent designated land-use of agricultural. The idea here is that with that buffer zone, you reduce the possibility of developing the next parcel of land and therefore prevent leap frog development and urban sprawl.

In addition to the adjacent mitigation there would be another strip of land protected somewhere else that along with the adjacent strip would account for twice the acreage of that developed. So if you had a 100 acre parcel for development, you would have to mitigate for a total of 200 acres, part of that would be a quarter mile strip adjacent to your developed property and the rest could be wherever you could secure such mitigation within the planning zone.

The idea here is that as you develop outwards, you create a permanent urban limit line. Now Councilmember Saylor recommended that there be a sunset to this proposal. He argued that this would protect against any unforeseen consequences from this policy. However, that proposal died for lack of a second. The majority in this case argued that the council already would be able to change the ordinance if so needed, and that there was no need to sunset the law.

Councilmember Saylor accused Councilmember Heystek of making an 11th hour change here:

“I’m concerned that our ordinance should be targeting preserving of agricultural land in specific location where the quality is the best land possible, to secure it forever, I’m really interested in doing that, and overemphasizing the adjacency without a 20 or 50 year plan I think is not good. I was willing to balance that with the proposal that was here before us, because it was weighed carefully, through a deliberative process that included voice from all the stakeholders. I’m willing to vote for the ordinance as it has been presented to us in most respects, but this deviation is an 11th hour change that I’m troubled by. So I can’t vote for this.”

Councilmember Heystek strongly rebutted Mr. Saylor’s charge that this is an 11th hour change by reading the motion that was unanimously approved by Open Space Commission “not at the 11th hour but on March 7, 2005.”

They passed the following,

“in the rare instance that more than the 2:1 mitigation acreage is required to create the adjacent mitigation area, the project shall be required to require more than the required 2:1 mitigation acreage to satisfy the adjacent mitigation requirement of this chapter.”

Councilmember Heystek went on to explain that the “notion of 2:1 is not an 11th hour revelation,” instead it is something that has been in the process for a number of years. The delay of bringing this forward was due to the overlap of issues due to Covell Village.

As discussion proceeded, the rest of the council became more steadfast in their support for minimum 2:1 mitigation under any and all circumstances while continuing to support the priority of adjacency of the remaining mitigation. Finding Saylor voted against the project and was on the short end of a 4-1 vote. However, in the aftermath of the vote, a secondary discussion developed Councilmember Saylor backed off, switched his vote, and eventually joined the majority.

The irony about the 11th hour charge by Councilmember Saylor is that staff in the middle of the meeting passed out a handout with key amendments to the proposal—not at the 11th hour but rather at the 13th hour. Davis Open Space Coordinator, Mitch Sears, introduced the idea of exempting projects from adjacent mitigation that were less than 40 acres without any sort of notice to the council. This last-minute maneuver incensed Councilmember Heystek.

When pressed on the issue by Councilmember Heystek, Mr. Sears admitted,

"It's not a staff proposal.... We heard from several different councilmembers... that there was a possible interest in looking at... addressing smaller projects"

Several was actually two—Councilmembers Souza and Saylor.

One of the key small projects that was exempted was the Wildhorse Horse Ranch project. What this means is that with the exemption, the Horse Ranch would not be required to have adjacent mitigation—a one-quarter mile agricultural buffer around it--that would have effectively prevented the development of the adjacent property.

This brings up the question as to why you would need to exempt small projects from having a buffer?

Councilmember Saylor reintroduced discussion of the exemption for small projects a few hours after Mr. Sears initially presented the staff recommendation for an exemption. Then Councilmember Souza moved to exempt small projects. The motion eventually passed by a 3-2 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson, of course, joining her allies Councilmembers Souza and Saylor on this vote.

By exempting the Wildhorse Ranch Horse Ranch project from the requirement for adjacent mitigation, the Council majority supported the creation of a more substantial easterly city limit in this quadrant, starting from the northeast corner of the existing Wildhorse development all the way down to the southeast corner of the Wildhorse ranch project at Covell Blvd. By allowing this lengthened border absent any adjacent mitigation, it seems that the Council majority wants to facilitate future urban development on the agricultural land adjacent to the non-urbanized edge of the Wildhorse Ranch project, which is owned by Steve Gidaro.

It appears then that agriculture preservation won a key battle with the council voting to maintain a minimum of a 2:1 mitigation ratio and an adjacent mitigation buffer zone regardless of whether or not that buffer zone exceeded the 2:1 ratio. However, it was a mixed victory as it appears that the exemption, which was passed by the Council majority of Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson, was done so for the specific purposes of protecting key supporters and leaving the door open for them but not others to have future peripheral development.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wildhorse Ranch: The Next Big Development Controversy

Just when you thought it was safe to watch your city council meetings... A few days after the voters have apparently narrowly passed the Second Street Crossing Project--better known as Measure K and Target, we have a new controversy developing.

On Tuesday night, the City Council will have on the agenda an item to approve an EIR Consultant Contract for the Wildhorse Ranch Project.

This is the early stages of the Wildhorse Ranch project. It is approximately a 25.8-acre parcel that will be developed into around 192 single-family homes.

The key thing here is that this will involve an amendment to the General Plan land use designation of the site from Agriculture to Residential and also a rezoning.

Anytime you make a general plan amendment it is subject to Measure J voter approval.

In other words, it would have to go before the voters for approval. The city since 2005 has gone through two bitterly divisive campaigns on growth. The first, Covell Village in November of 2005 was soundly and thoroughly defeated. The second, just this week, was approved by the narrowest of margins in the form of the construction of a Target.

The City Council figures to try to push this one through as well, leaving city residents once again divided on the issue of growth. Moreover at the pace of these enactments, you can figure that the city council is trying to wear down the opposition. The developers largely will front the money for these campaigns, just as Target did this fall, and it is up to the grassroots citizen groups to organize against. While the Target people put up a valiant fight against Measure K, it was somewhat smaller than the effort against Covell Village and this time the council was able to eek out a narrow victory.

Right now the applicant has requested that this project be placed on the ballot in November of 2007. If this ends up on the ballot in November of 2007, figure that the progressive community will be suffering from exhaustion. Fortunately, city staff does not believe that's enough time to deal with the legal and practical constraints of the Environmental Impact report. Thus a 2008 ballot measure would be more feasible. However, we need to remember that since 2008 is a Presidential election, that means there is a March primary rather than a June one. That extends the time period only by four months at the most.

Regardless of whatever machinations come forth on Tuesday, it's obvious that this item will pass 3-2 and that eventually the Davis voters will once again have to weigh in on a development project that is likely to bitterly divide the city. While Measure J provides us with a bit of a firewall against growth, the only real defense is a 3-2 majority on the City Council so that these projects will not go forward to begin with. We have less than one year and a half before the next council elections and that is where we really need to find a way to pick up a third vote on the council.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting