GMO modification

The City Council decided Monday night to ask the voters in November to modify the Growth Management Ordinance, removing the cap of 30 permits per year and allowing allocations to be determined by a new Housing Plan. I hope Healdsburg voters see the light and approve this referendum. The current GMO is a solution in search of a problem; we have never had a runaway growth problem in Healdsburg.
The GMO was created in reaction to Parkland Farms. However, it was obvious (to anyone that thought about it, even superficially) that it would not, could not, continue. It took over 20 years for the area, which had been designated for future annexation and within the UGB, to come to fruition. Once Parkland Farms was completed the growth rate went back to normal; which historically has been under 1 percent. Not because of the GMO, but because there just aren’t large tracts of land to build on in Healdsburg.
Building in Healdsburg will occur slowly as small infill parcels turn over and a few homes can be built here and there. What the GMO has prevented is multifamily rental housing, because builders cannot get financing for a project that needs to be built in a single phase without assurance that the permits will be issued. As we have heard, multifamily rental housing has a difficult time penciling out, or creating the return on investment needed for these types of projects to be undertaken. The additional impediment of a GMO makes it a virtually impossible. This is the type of housing we sorely need.
Ironically, the type of community the advocates of the GMO often decry, one made up of wealthy second home owners, is advanced by our GMO. Without the ability to develop multifamily housing, we only see expensive single family homes affordable to the wealthy. This is particularly critical since redevelopment funds, which largely financed our subsidized affordable housing the past 25 years, were eliminated by the state several years ago. Another irony is that the advocates of the GMO often use environmental reasons for opposing growth. Our lack of rental housing is likely the single greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions due to the required auto commute that the workers make every day. The argument that eliminating the GMO will put pressure on our Urban Growth Boundary is weak. The UGB was supported by over 75 percent of the voters and this will not change. Nor do I believe LAFCO would allow Healdsburg to expand into the surrounding greenbelts. City centered growth is the foundation of planning in Sonoma County.
The most important and our best hope for multifamily housing is in the Central Healdsburg Area Plan (NuForest). Healdsburg needs this area to have housing for locals or hospitality related uses will dominate. Relief from the current GMO is needed for this to occur. There has been a lot of effort expended over the past three years attempting to craft a ballot measure to modify the GMO. The City Council’s split vote on how to proceed is a testament to the fact that this issue is too complicated to codify (or to explain or understand) in a short policy that can fit on a ballot measure. It is also impossible to anticipate our evolving needs. It is best handled by our elected officials and staff with public participation. But make no mistake, if we don’t modify the GMO Healdsburg will continue on the path towards becoming less of a real town and more of a tourist destination.
While the GMO has been the focus of attention there are other areas the city should consider in its efforts to promote more affordable housing, such as zoning regulation revisions to permit higher infill densities, changes in city policy to promote more second dwelling units (units that are affordable due to their small size without the need for deed restrictions), and looking for ways to generate revenue to subsidize affordable housing that spreads the burden across the entire community and not just on the backs of builders.
Alan B. Cohen is a Healdsburg resident and architect, and a former member of the Planning Commission