HESC After Five Years: A Look Back at Davis Land Use Decisions
by Matt Williams
Time flies when you are having fun.
Five years ago tomorrow, the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) convened its first working session. A whole lot has happened since then, and I thought it would be interesting to examine how the HESC looked at and evaluated alternative housing sites.
The following is taken from the minutes of the March 22, 2007 HESC meeting.
Overview: The purpose of the discussion under Item #7 of the Steering Committee’s March 22, 2007 meeting was to identify possible factors for evaluating potential sites for housing. A comment sheet was provided for Steering Committee members to write down thoughts in regard to the following question:
What do you consider to be the most important factors that should be considered when developing criteria for evaluating the suitability of potential sites for housing?
A Steering Committee discussion then followed [resulting in] the topics [and factors] listed below.
|
Working Draft of Assessment Factors
Condensed from Committee Brainstorming on March 22, 2007
Community Form, Land Use, Housing
- Contiguity to existing city boundary or urban development in City or County.
- Ability to accommodate higher density housing in general.
- Promotes opportunities for higher density housing in downtown.
- Provides opportunities for identified housing needs including workforce housing, young families, seniors, aging in place, and other households with special needs.
- Provides opportunities for a mix of housing types.
- Retains general land use balance of residential and non-residential uses in Davis area.
- Likely that any compatibility issues with existing neighborhoods can be avoided or adequately mitigated.
- Promotes a buffer or “community separator” between Davis and other cities.
- Site proximity to downtown.
- Site proximity to UC Davis and other employment areas.
- Site proximity to existing and planned shopping areas.
- Site proximity to elementary schools.
- Site proximity to existing park, greenbelt, recreation and open space areas or contribution to new opportunities for such areas.
- Potential timing of development of site based on needed entitlements, infrastructure or other factors.
Community Resources and Environmental Health
- Conserve prime farm lands (especially working lands) and gives priority to sites with poor soils, OR evaluate amount of land converted.
- Ability to provide opportunities for adjacent ag impact mitigation.
- Minimizes or avoids development on lands with flood hazards or contribute to solving existing drainage problems.
- Avoids existing contaminated sites or reuses / improves a brownfield site, contributes to solving existing contamination problems.
- Preserves viewsheds, minimizes impacts on existing scenic views, particularly from public viewing places.
- Avoids or minimizes floral and fauna habitat loss or contributes to creation / improvement of habitat.
- Consider impacts on water resources.
- Consider compatibility with existing noise environment and minimize need for mitigation.
- Proximity to potential health effects of living near freeways.
- Distances to community facilities promotes walking and biking rather than auto use, minimize air and noise impacts.
Community Facilities and Services (including infrastructure, transportation, public safety)
- Ability to accommodate project needs for infrastructure facilities of: water, wastewater, storm drainage.
- Ability to accommodate project needs for services of: police services, fire protection services.
- Utilizes underutilized capacities of existing infrastructure.
- Contributes to the formation of connected neighborhoods, provides opportunities for multiple connections to existing streets.
- Site has convenient access to public transit or would involve minimal costs of expanding transit routes to serve site.
- Site is well served by bicycle system or provides opportunities for improving system.
- Distances and response times from fire stations.
Community Economy and Fiscal Stability / Health
- Maintains (or converts) existing / planned commercial uses which are feasible and have potential to generate revenues for City.
- Provides housing opportunities for current and anticipated new employees.
- Minimizes impacts on local agricultural economy.
- Promotes the economic viability and enhancement of neighborhood shopping centers and the economic revitalization of the neighborhood.
|
Looking back on the HESC’s list of factors, several questions come to mind:
- Now that five years have passed, how well do you think this set of factors for evaluating potential sites for housing holds up?
- Would you add any additional factors?
- Would you deemphasize any specific factors on the HESC’s list?
- Do you think that this list of factors helped the residents of Davis better understand the issues, considerations and trade-offs that the HESC had to wrestle with in order to come up with its final listing of potential housing sites into “Green Light” “Yellow Light” and “Red Light” sites?
- Bottom-line, if asked today, what do you consider to be the most important factors that should be considered when developing criteria for evaluating the suitability of potential sites for housing?
I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Categories:
Land Use/Open Space
I think these factors hold up well. Unfortunately some members of our past City Councils have ignored these criteria and approved Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch, each of which converted Ag land while other land closer to downtown and shopping was available.
However Davis voters seem to get it, since they easily rejected both of these proposals.
Would I add any factors?
I’d emphasize that any new development must at least be fiscally neutral, which was an issue with CV and WHR. Its hard to make housing pencil out in California, unless homes are very expensive.
I’m with Dr. Wu – any new housing development needs to be net fiscally neutral. I would also elevate one criteria above many of the others, and that is “need”. Is the particular type of housing needed for those citizens already living/working in Davis? For most, I think these are the two most critical elements in any decision-making on new housing for most folks – need and cost.
Also, I would like to see an improved process by which development applications are processed. It seems there is a certain favoritism in the system, so that some projects are pushed forward before others, where there is not equal access among development projects in any meaningful way. We saw this several times, where the HESC recommendations were not always followed, and were to some extent ignored. The Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility was stymied in their efforts to move their application forward, bc of certain opposition by powerful interests. There needs to be a much fairer process…
Agree with Elaine. Also think once approval is made there should be a reasonable time limit and if no progress, need new approval. When we finished a room over the garage we had a city-imposed time frame. If we didnt progress, we had to get new permits. I think sometimes land developers get approval then sit on it and/or sell to someone else and by the time the land is developed, the original ideas, approval, plans are not applicable or appropriate. I may be wrong and stand corrected if I am!
[quote]Also think once approval is made there should be a reasonable time limit and if no progress, need new approval. [/quote]
I too agree w this observation…
The factors list was developed before the first HESC Community Workshop on May 24, 2007, where the public got an opportunity to weigh in about the factors list and the priority of the factors themselves. The Agenda Packet for HESC meeting on May 31, 2007 contains a [i]Workshop # 1 Summary[/i] and [i]Workshop # 1 Summary Addendum[/i] that summarize what the attendees gave as feedback. Here’s a link to the Summary [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/GPUpdate/pdfs/20070731/Workshop_1_summary-complete.pdf[/url] and the Summary Addendum [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/GPUpdate/pdfs/20070731/Additional_comments_received2.pdf[/url]
Here are the key findings about the factors:
[i][b]KEY RESULTS OF COMMUNITY INPUT RECEIVED AT COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 REGARDING SITES AND EVALUATION FACTORS
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)[/b]
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA)
designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in
neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
[b]SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS[/b]
1.Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods. 2.Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable
amenities. 3.Best locations for student and university employee housing. 4.Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub. 5.Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.
GENERAL COMMENTS (comments mentioned multiple times)*
1.Make Measure J permanent and enforce the Pass-Through Agreement with Yolo County.
2.Meet the SACOG allocation but not the 1% growth resolution by the Council majority.
3. No urban development on prime ag land. Sprawl encourages more auto trips.
4. Use sites available in the city first. Densify and build higher, a new paradigm to solve problems of open space, transportation. More flats, more affordable, no mansions.
5.Densification in some older neighborhoods would bring traffic congestion and other costs.
6.Accommodate the growing seniors segment, some for active lifestyles and some with continuing care. This will free up existing large houses which are underutilized.[/i]
[b]There is a whole lot more in the Summary that is well worth reading. Again the link to the document is [/b][url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/GPUpdate/pdfs/20070731/Workshop_1_summary-complete.pdf[/url]
Good article, matt