As the Vanguard reported on Thursday, February 25, 2010, the City Staff is bringing back the Willowbank Development after only small modifications despite the fact that the neighbors still have considerable concerns and they believe that they should be allowed time to work with the neighbors to reach an agreement most are willing to accept.
City Staff believes that the “after further neighborhood outreach it is clear that there is not universal support for this proposal or residential development of this site in general” however they believe “the proposed project presents a balance of fiscal neutrality, neighborhood compatibility, and marketability.”
The most extensive change was to the drainage system. As explained on Thursday, right now the greenbelt area from an existing park would be minimized to accommodate the drainage requirements of the new development. The residents are asking that developers provide adequate drainage for current and new residences without taking away amenities and quality of life from current residences, particularly they want to minimize any encroachment onto existing parkland.
The design puts future water drainage into the Willowbank Park property from the 5 acre Catholic Church parcel at the corner of Mace and Montgomery, thereby forcing a significant increase in the capacity of the existing catchment basin on Willowbank 9 placed an immediate and unnecessary burden on both the neighbors and the Willowbank park developers.
City staff maintains that a portion if not all of the anticipated drainage for the Catholic Church parcel was factored into the design of the existing drainage pond. So if the Catholic Church site is developed consistent with the intended capacity–then the pond will not require future expansion. If the Catholic Church sites requires additional drainage capacity then they will need to accommodate it onsite.
Unfortunately, this would impose immediate and real burdens on existing residents.
The staff report gives the project a fiscally neutral average annual impact:
“The base case fiscal analysis scenario yielded a fiscally neutral average annual impact (an approximate net gain of $2,800/yr.). The base case scenario for this project assumed an inflation rate of 3%, personnel inflation rate of 5%, and assessed value of homes increasing 2%, 4%, and 5% for years 1-5, 6-10, and 11-15 respectively. Additionally, favorable and unfavorable scenarios were considered. These scenarios assumed adjustment of inflation rates 1% and assessed values by 2%, in either direction. These scenarios provide a range of between -$2,735 and $6,398 average annual impact to the general fund over 15 years.”
The staff report addresses 32 separate concerns. These concerns can be read starting on page 7 of the staff report, click here: http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20100302/08%20Willowbank%20Park.pdf
City staff recommends approval of the project based on the following rationale:
(a) the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood;
(b) the mix of housing types, size and prices, including the affordable component, address the City’s local and regional housing needs;
(c) conditions of approval recommended for adoption will adequately address any concerns raised;
(d) the uses and buildings will be compatible with existing uses and structures; and
(e) the project as conditioned is consistent with City sustainability goals and objectives.
However, we continue to ask why now. There is no election need for approval, so there is no timeline that must be adhered to. The applicant is not likely to begin construction on the site for several years. The city does not need more housing by any requirement and has a considerable amount of houses already approved. The voters have previously opposed a small project with better and more innovative overall features. And finally, the neighbors and the developers are not that far apart and the council ought to direct them to continue to work together.
City staff did not adequately explain in the staff report why they believe they need to go ahead without gaining consensus.
From the perspective of the neighbors, the most serious problems have not been addressed.
They argue that a comparison of site layouts from November’s hearing and from the upcoming March 2nd hearing reveal the only change to the project is its enforced compliance with the 50’ Department of Fish and Game riparian habitat buffer. This is not a minor concession as the applicant fought very hard to avoid compliance with the city’s General Plan provision for a 50 foot buffer.
Staff and neighbors interpreted the City Council’s direction that evening to mean that a collaborative process should be undertaken involving the Applicant, neighbors and Staff for a redesign of the project, with a return to the Council by the end of March. Councilmember Souza specifically mentioned the Grande project as a collaborative redesign process, involving all stakeholders, which was successful. By early December it was made clear by the Applicant that their intention was to massage the existing site plan to comply with the 50’ buffer and resubmit as early as January. City Staff was able to get the developers to agree to an addition meeting which took place on February 4.
The meeting revealed 74 open issues and concerns which run the gamut in terms of very general to very specific. However, since that time the city has indicated that they do not anticipate further outreach regarding the design of the project. The suggestion was that any unanswered questions from the neighborhood meeting will be addressed in the staff report.
From the neighbors perspective the redesign meeting yielded little in the way of substantive forward movement toward resolution of outstanding concerns about drainage, protection of established green space in the Willowbank 9 park, open and green space in the Willowbank Park development, a sensible and safe bicycle connection to Mace Blvd., and adequate protection of the Putah Creek Parkway and the wildlife inhabiting the Willowbank Park site as well as adjacent areas of Willowbank 9 and Rancho Macero.
The neighbors passed along several other concerns that could not be addressed at the collaborative meeting due to time constraints, including: design of the affordable units (lack of sufficient storage or even covered parking, lack of accessibility for mobility-impaired individuals); lack of community/neighborhood enhancements provided by the developer on-site; the capacity of the current Willowbank 9 park to absorb usage by 27 more families while potentially losing significant green space due to drainage pond expansion; and a very dysfunctional “process” led by city staff particularly the Community Development Department which fails to seek input of appropriate interested citizen commissions.
At this point given the nature of the concerns and the length of the council agenda, it only makes sense for council to direct staff to bring the neighbors and the developers together one more time and try to resolve their differences. The sense I have gotten from discussion with some of the neighbors is that the two sides are not incredibly far apart.
The neighbors made a good point. Councilmember Stephen Souza said in November that in the time that he has been on the council, has been exactly one project that has had full support of developer and neighbors and that was Grande where the developers were the school district and that only happened after years of contention and a complete redesign.
So why push this through before the two sides can agree? It is clear that in this market, these units will not be built any time soon.
—David M. Greenwald
What you left out is the City-ordered meetings were conducted by an outside “facilitator”, required it seems because of the obvious animosity between the parties. Given what looks like an impasse following those meetings, the correct question remains: why *not* submit to the Council now?
The information I received indicates that the staff declared impasse prematurely. Several people indicated that the two sides are not that far apart and differ mainly on details.
“outside facilitator”? Was city not involved? Who paId and what was his charge ? If developer paid and charge was very specific concern, that explains why not more resolved? Who was animosity directed towards? DPD can you clarify?
Yes there was an outside facilitator, perhaps one of the neighbors can explain why that was needed.
The neighbors told me that since the beginning of the process last year, they have accepted the development of the parcel. They believe that that the concerns they have expressed reflect what Davis has historically valued and expected of planned development. They are not asking or expecting the developers to go above and beyond the standards enforced upon other developments, but merely to abide by the rules and standards already on the books.
They also said they are not motivated by animus towards the developers in this, just consistency and fairness.
With little new building in Davis and even less change in Planning staff numbers WHY would an outside facilitator be necessary (and nit an outside labor negotiator!?). Once again I am struck by process concerns with this city and especially the CDD Dept.
The other point is if they would do that, why then truncate the process?
It is worth noting the council’s agenda for this week:
1. Joint Discussion of Community Farms (which we may talk about tomorrow)
2. Tree Commission Appeal
3. Vacation of portion of an Easement
4. Update on Housing Element (tomorrow)
5. Willowbank
6. Wastewater Charrette
7. Water Rate Hike
8. Sanctions
Seriously, but what the heck are they thinking? They are going to ram all of this stuff through with hour discussions or do they plan to be there until 4 am.
Seems to me they should put off Willowbank
And forget about Sanctions at least for now
That still leaves a lot, but the last willowbank discussion went on for several hours and my guess is that the public will speak and this is at least a two hour item, the water discussion has to be at least an hour maybe two, the housing element is another hour.
I don’t get it.
David: I don’t get it.
Me neither. Where the Council has the option of rescheduling, they should.
Hi David, in terms of your question “why a facilitator?” I’m not sure we can shed much light on that, as neighbors were also surprised to find out that one was being engaged for the Feb. 4th redesign meeting for Willowbank Park. When we asked Staff whether this (using a facilitator) was an unusual occurrence, their response was not so much, especially given the number and complexity of outstanding issues. It is our understanding that the City was footing the bill for the facilitator. The fact that the City was doing this was interpreted by neighbors as a signal of Staff’s commitment to carry out the Council’s directive to engage in a collaborative redesign process before returning to Council by the end of March.
It was communicated to all meeting participants in advance that the goal of the evening was to allow all stakeholders in the project an opportunity to express their concerns and to get these concerns formally documented. It was explicitly stated that no final decisions were to be made that evening. The facilitator was engaged for one meeting only, and would ultimately produce a document that lists 74 open concerns and issues (brought up by neighbors, Applicant, and Staff representatives). Soon after release and distribution of the facilitator’s report, neighbors contacted Staff to find out about next steps. In response to neighbor queries, Staff stated that they do not anticipate further outreach regarding the project. The 74 open concerns would be addressed in writing in the Staff Report.
Neighbors believe that the redesign process was truncated, and wonder why Staff folded up the tents so abruptly after going to the bother and expense of engaging an outside facilitator, one with no previous ties to the City or to the Applicant. Neighbors also wonder what the rush is to put this matter on an already packed agenda tomorrow evening. But this project has been fast-tracked with the assistance of CDD since the beginning, so in some ways there is no surprise at the way it’s playing out now.
The council is on call the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month. They should obviously meet more often until these issues have resolved themselves. Please don’t erase this post David.
[quote]Neutral said . . .
Me neither. Where the Council has the option of rescheduling, they should.
[/quote]
Three Council members attended the facilitator meeting. Despite the fact that it was called for by Council on November 17, it was delayed by Staff until early February. The facilitator report was then assembled and distributed to the participants. Staff issued its updated report Thursday.
Lets look at that time-line:
11+ weeks between the 11/17 Council meeting and the 2/4 Facilitator meeting
1 week between 2/4 and 2/11 for assembling the Facilitator report
Less than 2 weeks between 2/11 and 2/25 for acting on the information from the meeting and in the report.
Some number of days prior to 2/25 for Staff to create their updated Staff report on 2/25.
What does that timeline tell us? 1) there was certainly no sense of urgency on Staff’s part to schedule the report, 2) there was a clear commitment by the neighbors and at least 3 Council members to participate in the meeting, 3) when Staff delayed the meeting from its original January date they chose not to delay the 3/2 Council hearing date, 4) it took Staff 79 days to make the meeting happen, but approximately 10 days to declare the meeting output useless and begin writing the updated Staff report.
The bottom-line of those 4 points is that any money spent on the facilitator (who I think did a very good job — yes I was there) was squandered.
I can only think of one word to sum up my feelings . . . “Why?”
As further evidence of the truncation of this process, I sent the following e-mail to the planner on February 18 after I finally received a copy of the facilitator’s report earlier that day(I had to chase it down):
What steps are being taken between now and the agendized next Council Public Hearing on March 2nd to ensure the likelihood that the best possible result is obtained? For example,
On the Bike Path item the last bullet is “Get recommendation of Bike Commission.” When is that scheduled to happen? Will there be an opportunity for public participation?
Late in the afternoon on 2/22 I received the following response from the planner:
At this time the project is not scheduled to go back to the Bike Commission. The Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator was consulted and believes that the proposed bicycle path and street connection is appropriate and consistent with the recommendations from the Commission.
I went to the Bicycle Commission meeting today and came away with the clear impression that they would have appreciated a voice in the choices regarding how the South Davis Bicycleway will cross the Willowbank Park site. Bottom-line, I think they felt a bit blindsided by my questions.
I don’t want to put words in the Bicycle Commission’s mouth. Hopefully, one (or more) of the Commission members will share their thoughts.
Occam’s Razor: the outcome was pre-determined.
[quote]I went to the Bicycle Commission meeting today and came away with the clear impression that they would have appreciated a voice in the choices regarding how the South Davis Bicycleway will cross the Willowbank Park site. Bottom-line, I think they felt a bit blindsided by my questions.[/quote]
Why is is necessary for the city to ask for public input for how a bikepath crosses a park. Are you kidding me? That would be a ridiculous waste of time and money. Seriously, as long as you can ride your bike in the park without going through the restrooms…..
preston, you do realize that Willowbank Park is not a park . . .