I recall an evening meeting at the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission in the late 1990’s. A developer had proposed building 75 homes on a vacant parcel. The proposal was contentious.
Many existing residents of the city were opposed. Some simply did not like the idea of growth. New residents meant additional cars, and more cars meant more congestion. You can study it all you want, but you are unlikely to completely ameliorate these concerns.
Others were concerned about their property values. If a new development came in with lower-priced homes or, heaven forbid “affordable housing,” whether in the form of houses or, even worse, apartments, would not the value of existing homes suffer?
The feelings and concerns of the local community were on full display that evening in Arroyo Grande City Hall. The applicant presentation, followed by the public comments, followed by the comments of the Planning Commission, consumed several hours. At the conclusion, the applicant was sent packing without approval.
That evening was, coincidentally, the first day of employment for Joe, a planner I had just hired. As we left the meeting, at 10:00 p.m. or so, I told him “This is as good as it gets.” I was referring to our work—planning and environmental review. It was, as I explained, work that was seen as very important by the community, as well as City staff. What better venue to discuss our work, and our professional conclusions, than in a hearing room full of interested people?
I mentioned another lesson to Joe in the following days. The hearing we attended ended without approval of the project. Many of the residents, I am sure, left the meeting confident that they had defeated the project, and would hear of it no more.
Not so with the developers. They heard something completely different. Oh, yes, the eventual result was something other than approval, but they walked away pointing to positive comments from the commissioners. Comments like: “This is better than what you proposed in the past.” “The number of homes could be reduced to make it a better project.” With these comments in mind, the developer was busily engaged in re-design, outreach, and modification of the project pro forma financial plan the morning after.
Developers are in it for the long haul. That is something that any credible opposition effort must accept. Developers understand that some projects will take years, even decades, to process.
I have rubbed elbows with many developers over the years. While some of their critics may claim that it is money that is the prime motivator, I doubt that is true. Profit is important, of course—substantial reward supports substantial risk.
It is more likely that developers are energized by the prospect of building something that is worthwhile, important, and of substantial public benefit. Houses. Jobs. Parks. Schools. We can easily believe that a general contractor can be gratified, and even fulfilled, by constructing a well-built, solid structure that will serve as home to a family, maybe for many years, and maybe even for generations. The developer might feel the same motivation, but on a community scale.
I was reminded of Arroyo Grande by the news that one of the major landowners and developers in our region will be briefing a nearby city council and county board on a proposal for a new major development. There are no specific proposals here, only a vision. Not surprisingly, there are some in the community that will express concerns about the impacts of such new growth: traffic, public services, financial burden, and water will all be mentioned.
At this point, though, the developer will correctly state that we are simply talking about a concept, about ideas, and, be assured, we’ll review and consider all those things as we move ahead.
There is also concern here, as in another early-stage development proposal in Solano County, that the proposal is not consistent with the land use plans the community agencies have made for long-term growth. These plans have been prepared and adopted at the city, county, and regional levels. While the developers must deal with these plans, and with the fact that much of the planning for infrastructure (water, sewer, utilities) is proceeding in reliance on the plans, the essence of such early-stage discussions is a grand plan: this is something we, as a community, should consider for the future of our children and grandchildren.
We are talking here about “greenfield” development. This is the process of transforming a “vacant” or “empty” piece of land into an urbanized community. (The other major type of development is “infill,” which builds in existing urbanized areas.) The first step in greenfield development is vision. Once the idea is planted, the next step is to include it in long range planning documents (sphere of influence, general plans). Responsible planning then calls for infrastructure plans, public improvement financing, and hearings, briefings, and breakfasts and lunches with the politicians.
Much of the informed and organized opposition to these proposals comes from non-profit organizations in the community that are focused on specific concerns. Saving the Swainson’s Hawk is a good example. So is Save the American River Association. These are not profit-based, and depend, in most cases, on substantial volunteer commitment.
Guess what? The local grass-roots organization has a tough time maintaining oversight of the developer’s “vision.” This isn’t all about money, but money pays for staff, offices, meeting rooms, publications and, perhaps, even breakfasts and lunches with elected officials to chat about the project. Grass roots can sometimes get overrun by big money, though our review processes are designed to provide a level playing field.
It reminds me of my firefighting days with the Forest Service. I was 20, and when we showed up at a fire out in the woods, I would grab my tools and energetically begin cutting the fire line. After 10 minutes I would be worn out and in need of a break. Sitting and gasping, I would look up and Jean, my 45-year-old firefighting partner, would be working much more slowly, but steadier, and would continue at that pace for hours.
The developer, as we saw in Arroyo Grande, will accept setbacks, but live to fight another day. There’s nothing wrong with that. If the community wishes to have an effective say, though, they should make sure they’re around as the land use process continues its inexorable process. Sometimes opposition kills a project, but the more reasonable goal is often improvement in its design.
Whatever the various skills and talents that a developer must have, tenacity is essential. It is just as essential for community resolve. To be effective make sure you’re Jean on the fire line, not Tom.