[0:40] last meeting when we

[0:42] were talking about.

[0:44] College park I

[0:45] mentioned a book that I

[0:46] had brought up once

[0:47] before, and I have it

[0:48] with me this evening.

[0:48] So we can get that on

[0:50] the record and in our

[0:51] notes. Is called a

[0:52] field guide to

[0:54] american houses and

[0:55] it's virginia savage

[0:56] and mcallister. It's

[0:59] used by architects

[1:01] historic historic

[1:03] tours of historic

[1:05] homes it's a great

[1:06] reference just so we

[1:09] have something to

[1:10] utilize when the

[1:10] conversation comes up

[1:12] in regards to our

[1:13] historic homes town.

[1:18] Thank you.. I have

[1:19] >> one it's not

[1:20] necessarily brief.

[1:22] We've been receiving

[1:24] some documentation

[1:27] recently about

[1:27] plowing.

[1:28] >> that is american

[1:29] houses

[1:30] >> the site. That was

[1:31] proposed for the

[1:32] village farms

[1:33] development. It seems

[1:36] to be fairly well

[1:37] documented through

[1:38] photographs and in

[1:39] person. Observations

[1:41] that were done. And

[1:42] what's concerning

[1:43] about this is that the

[1:45] plowing has included

[1:46] the 47 acres.

[1:46] Evidently, of wetlands

[1:47] that were scheduled to

[1:49] be set aside in a

[1:50] habitat preserve. If

[1:51] the village farms

[1:52] development had, in

[1:55] fact, been approved

[1:56] concern about that is

[1:58] that this document,

[1:59] the biological

[2:00] resource assessment

[2:01] that was done for the

[2:02] village farms project,

[2:04] which comprised

[2:06] appendix d of the eir

[2:08] clearly identifies

[2:09] those wetlands as

[2:10] what's called waters of

[2:12] the united states. In

[2:13] other words, they

[2:13] recognized by the army

[2:16] corps of engineers has

[2:16] jurisdiction over the

[2:17] federal clean water

[2:19] act.. I did make an

[2:20] inquiry with staff

[2:21] about this as to

[2:22] whether or not any of

[2:23] the official

[2:23] government agencies

[2:25] had been informed I

[2:26] was informed by sherry

[2:27] that, in fact, state

[2:28] fish and game has been

[2:30] informed. My concern is

[2:30] that doesn't go far

[2:31] enough because, as I

[2:33] said, it's the federal

[2:33] army corps of

[2:34] engineers and the

[2:36] federal. Fish and

[2:38] wildlife service that

[2:39] have jurisdiction over

[2:40] these wetlands. And the

[2:42] species. Really not

[2:44] much a city can do

[2:45] because this territory

[2:47] is in the county. So I

[2:48] have not had time to do

[2:49] it yet, but I intend to

[2:50] pursue this with the

[2:51] county to see if

[2:52] they're going to

[2:54] investigate it. All of

[2:56] my resources that army

[2:57] corps of engineers and

[2:58] U.S. Fish and wildlife

[2:59] service are somewhat

[3:00] older. I think all

[3:01] those people are

[3:03] retired and the staff

[3:04] resources that those

[3:05] agencies are somewhat

[3:07] but I do find this

[3:08] very concerning. That

[3:10] an area that's been

[3:11] identified just as

[3:12] recently as earlier

[3:14] this year in an is now

[3:17] being plowed up and

[3:19] we've e-mails about

[3:20] it. And maybe at the

[3:21] next meeting, if I have

[3:22] some further answers,

[3:23] I'll bring those back

[3:25] to the commission.

[3:28] Thanks..

[3:28] >> any other

[3:29] commissioners with

[3:33] announcements?

[3:33] SEPTEMBER 30th at 2

[3:34] P.M.. I'm going to

[3:37] welcome ariel who's a

[3:39] professor of planning

[3:39] from the east coast,

[3:41] and she studies the

[3:42] impacts of school

[3:44] closures on land use

[3:46] there'll be an event

[3:47] campus at gm for folks

[3:48] who are interested in

[3:50] learning more about

[3:50] what school closures

[3:51] here in davis might

[3:53] mean for community

[3:55] values. Land use,

[3:57] property values. She is

[3:58] a national expert, so

[3:59] we're lucky to have her

[4:02] in town. And then

[4:02] first week in OCTOBER,

[4:04] the california.

[4:04] American planning

[4:06] association conference

[4:08] is holding its annual

[4:09] conference in la. And

[4:10] there are sessions

[4:11] online for those who

[4:12] are interested. And I

[4:14] hope this is a

[4:14] conference one day that

[4:15] we can all attend

[4:16] together. Maybe with

[4:17] planning staff. It's a

[4:18] really great

[4:19] conference. It's coming

[4:20] to sacramento next

[4:22] year, so it'll be

[4:23] right next door. Lots

[4:24] of really interesting

[4:26] sessions, including

[4:27] one on hw to deal

[4:29] with contentious

[4:29] politics as you're

[4:32] trying to make policy.

[4:33] With that, let me turn

[4:35] it over to MADAM Mayor.

[4:36] Do you have any

[4:38] comments? I don't,

[4:39] thank you. And I,

[4:40] apologize in advance

[4:41] that I have to step

[4:42] out in a bit and go to

[4:43] another meeting and

[4:45] step back in. So it's

[4:45] not because I'm not

[4:46] interested in what

[4:46] you're doing, just so

[4:49] you know right.

[4:50] Wonderful. With that,

[4:51] we're going to open it

[4:53] up for public comment.

[4:55] And you will receive

[4:56] three minutes on the

[4:58] clock. So pease

[5:01] welcome you to

[5:08] planning commission

[5:09] good evening. Planning

[5:10] commission

[5:13] commissioner members

[5:15] kathy howard crowe of

[5:16] a third generation

[5:17] resident of college

[5:19] park. I'm also a

[5:21] member of the steering

[5:22] committee for the

[5:23] college park

[5:24] neighborhood

[5:25] association ad I'm

[5:26] speaking on behalf of

[5:28] the college park

[5:30] neighborhood

[5:31] association at the

[5:32] request of the history

[5:34] committee. And we have

[5:38] some members here..

[5:41] The college park.

[5:42] Neighborhood

[5:44] association is a city

[5:45] organized city

[5:47] sanctioned association

[5:49] that represents the

[5:52] entire college park

[5:53] neighborhood of 48.

[5:56] Homes. Thank you for

[5:57] your service to the

[6:02] community. And to the

[6:03] planning commission

[6:05] understand that you are

[6:07] volunteers and

[6:07] appreciate the

[6:09] commitment to the

[6:11] community. We are also

[6:13] working as volunteers

[6:16] for the community and

[6:17] tonight. Members of

[6:18] the college park

[6:19] neighborhood

[6:20] association history

[6:22] committee. This is a

[6:24] small representation

[6:25] of the community

[6:27] members involved as we

[6:28] have several

[6:30] committees. And dozens

[6:32] of members college

[6:34] park neighborhood

[6:36] association is very

[6:37] interested in your

[6:38] discussion of our

[6:40] historic neighborhood.

[6:43] At your SEPTEMBER

[6:44] ninth meeting, because

[6:46] of this discussion, we

[6:47] realized that we

[6:48] should have shared

[6:51] with you the college

[6:52] park neighborhood

[6:53] associations letter as

[6:57] of AUGUST 4th, 2026 to

[6:59] mayor neville and the

[7:01] city council. That

[7:03] letter, along with the

[7:04] relevant city

[7:05] ordinance. Along with

[7:07] the unidentified

[7:10] unadopted design

[7:11] guidelines sent to you

[7:13] last week. If you did

[7:16] not receive it. I

[7:22] copies happy to.. The

[7:22] college park

[7:23] neighborhood

[7:25] association. Strongly

[7:26] advocates for the city

[7:28] to adopt the college

[7:29] park historic

[7:31] district. Design

[7:34] guidelines dated

[7:37] SEPTEMBER 30th, 2021.

[7:39] Along with historic

[7:40] preservation

[7:42] incentives described

[7:49] in the city ordinance.

[7:51] 423. We believe these

[7:53] essential actions

[7:55] bring the city into

[7:56] compliance with the

[7:58] ordinance and allow the

[7:59] community to take

[8:00] advantage of the state

[8:03] and federal financial

[8:04] incentives available

[8:08] to historic districts.

[8:09] Sincerely appreciate

[8:10] your assistance and

[8:12] approval of the

[8:13] college park historic

[8:16] district. Guidelines.

[8:17] Process is being

[8:20] awaiting completion.

[8:24] For 46 years college

[8:25] park neighborhood

[8:26] association was ready

[8:27] and willing to assist

[8:29] you as needed in the

[8:31] approval process.

[8:32] Thank you for your

[8:39] time. Thank you. For

[8:48] responding to public

[8:48] >> next public

[8:54] comment, please.

[8:56] >> commissioners. I

[9:01] mean here regarding

[9:02] that happened this

[9:05] past week. For those

[9:05] of you who haven't

[9:08] heard the unthinkable

[9:09] has happened as if it

[9:10] wasn't bad enough that

[9:11] the burrowing owl

[9:12] habitat got just two

[9:15] years ago the village

[9:18] site and then the

[9:20] pools. On the same

[9:22] site, which is now the

[9:25] village farm site. Was

[9:26] in 2023, just before

[9:28] the eir started but

[9:28] then, of course, the

[9:30] eir confirmed that

[9:31] there were endangered

[9:32] species of vernal pool

[9:33] tadpole shrimp. And

[9:36] rare native plants. La

[9:37] native californian

[9:39] orleans yet they were

[9:42] again. This past week.

[9:44] This is a horrendous

[9:48] act be tolerated. And

[9:52] it makes clear that

[9:53] there was never any

[9:54] intention to preserve

[9:56] these branches face it.

[9:58] I mean, the slogan of

[10:00] of houses and habitat

[10:03] was just a big scam so

[10:04] the vernal pools.

[10:07] Fortunately survived

[10:10] the first the APRIL

[10:13] 2023, roughly over

[10:14] 2023, listing. So the

[10:15] hope is that they're

[10:16] going to survive

[10:19] again. But it makes

[10:21] clear for the need to

[10:22] preserve these pools

[10:23] for the conservation

[10:25] easement. Since there

[10:27] is was no sincerity

[10:29] ever to to protect

[10:34] them. So please, I

[10:37] hope to see this you.

[10:37] >> thank you for the

[10:39] public comment. There

[10:40] any other public

[10:47] comments?

[10:50] >> hello, my name is

[10:51] and I've been

[10:52] individually and as a

[10:54] member of the rotary

[10:55] rotary club, trying to

[10:56] do something with the

[10:59] boy scout cabin and I

[11:00] understand that the

[11:01] city of davis has now

[11:04] adopted some sort of a

[11:05] downtown development

[11:08] project. The history of

[11:09] that. I don't know you

[11:11] are familiar with

[11:13] that, but the land was

[11:14] owned by the

[11:15] university of

[11:17] california until about

[11:18] 3 or 4 years ago. And

[11:19] then the city

[11:19] purchased it for a

[11:22] dollar some of

[11:23] individually have been

[11:23] trying to get the city

[11:25] to do something. And

[11:27] quite frankly, it is a

[11:28] mess. And as I read

[11:31] about this nino and I

[11:32] look at the dirt and

[11:34] the stuff around that

[11:36] cabin the tree stump,

[11:37] I don't know who's in

[11:39] charge of that for the

[11:40] city but we've got

[11:41] nothing. We've written

[11:43] letters to the city

[11:45] council guess I would

[11:48] urge you as a part of

[11:50] this downtown economic

[11:51] plan to look at the

[11:54] boy scouts as the only

[11:56] real attraction.

[11:58] Downtown that has a

[11:59] historic background

[12:00] and that it could be

[12:02] made into a park in the

[12:03] future. But if we keep

[12:04] going, we're going to

[12:05] end up demolishing

[12:07] that cabin because it's

[12:08] not going to survive

[12:11] many years more. The

[12:14] club in 1992.

[12:16] Completely rebuilt the

[12:17] inside of the cabin, so

[12:19] it's almost a

[12:20] self-sustaining at.

[12:22] Least supporting

[12:23] document. But I'm not

[12:25] su with the merging

[12:26] of these two

[12:26] commissions, the

[12:28] historical commission

[12:29] and the planning

[12:30] commission where the

[12:32] boy scout cabin is and

[12:33] the mess. But I would

[12:36] just urge you to send

[12:38] a resolution to the

[12:40] city council saying

[12:40] something's got to be

[12:42] done before el nino

[12:44] comes and completely

[12:44] destroys it. Thank you

[12:47] very much.

[12:47] >> thank you so much

[12:48] for your public

[12:50] comment. Are there any

[12:51] further public

[12:55] comments? For comment?

[12:56] We take but we don't

[12:58] do question and

[12:59] answer. You can come

[13:00] forward with these

[13:01] question, and it's your

[13:02] prerogative as chair.

[13:03] If you wish to address

[13:05] respond or ask staff to

[13:06] respond to it, but

[13:07] only if it's

[13:08] >> within the purview

[13:09] of the items on the

[13:10] agenda. I think that's

[13:11] a great idea. If you'd

[13:12] like to come forward

[13:13] and ask the question,

[13:15] we'll see if we can

[13:16] potentially have staff

[13:18] respond I'm going to

[13:19] make a little or send

[13:20] to staff for answering

[13:21] at a later date. If

[13:22] that's more

[13:23] appropriate

[13:24] >> carl hiller. I'm

[13:25] part of the college

[13:26] park group. I've lived

[13:28] on college park for 35

[13:32] years. I'm in general

[13:33] agreement with what

[13:34] they want to

[13:34] accomplish here. But

[13:36] as I time this

[13:38] afternoon to reread all

[13:40] this stuff. And some of

[13:42] the provisions here

[13:44] are obsolete. Compared

[13:46] to, you know, in these

[13:48] what historic

[13:50] preservation stuff is

[13:50] compared to what we're

[13:51] trying to achieve

[13:53] nowadays, like if you

[13:53] want to put an

[13:55] accessory dwelling

[13:57] units and you require a

[14:00] one car wide driveway

[14:01] not the bst way to do

[14:02] that. You know what I

[14:03] mean? That means cars

[14:04] are going to be on the

[14:06] street. So what I want

[14:08] to do is urge some

[14:10] flexibility in looking

[14:12] at all these historic

[14:12] guidelines, which in

[14:14] some cases can be a

[14:15] little rigid and urge

[14:17] some more flexibility

[14:17] in how to interpret

[14:18] those, because some of

[14:20] them are obsolete what

[14:21] we want to achieve

[14:23] these days. Okay.

[14:24] Thank you.

[14:25] >> thank you very

[14:29] much. Right. Seeing no

[14:30] further public

[14:31] comments, we're going

[14:32] to close public

[14:34] comment and move on to

[14:35] our consent calendar.

[14:37] We have two items

[14:41] before us tonight. One

[14:42] is a requested second

[14:43] driveway to an adu and

[14:44] the other is the

[14:52] general plan update..

[14:53] We're ready

[14:54] >> right. Thank you

[14:55] MADAM Chair, and good

[14:56] evening planning

[14:58] commission samantha

[14:59] bailey, assistant

[15:00] planner. Tonight I'm

[15:01] be giving a brief

[15:02] presentation regarding

[15:04] a request for a

[15:06] revised final plan

[15:08] development to allow a

[15:09] second driveway at

[15:10] 3103 shelter cove

[15:13] place and the subject

[15:16] parcel is zoned pd

[15:17] 3174. Is the stone

[15:20] gate subdivision. All

[15:20] the surrounding

[15:22] parcels are also under

[15:24] that same zoning and

[15:26] the land use is

[15:26] residential low

[15:29] density so the left of

[15:30] this slide is the

[15:32] vicinity map. We can

[15:33] see our project

[15:34] location is at located

[15:35] at the end of a cul de

[15:38] sac. And it's other

[15:39] single family

[15:41] residences to the

[15:42] right of the slide is

[15:43] the site plan, which

[15:44] shows the location o

[15:46] the driveways as well

[15:46] as some of the

[15:50] existing landscaping.

[15:50] That second driveway

[15:52] is. Located towards

[15:54] the southern entrance

[15:55] of the property and

[15:56] would go back towards

[15:58] the southeast corner

[15:59] where it would provide

[16:01] access to a proposed

[16:02] adu and detached

[16:04] garage in the

[16:06] backyard. And so this

[16:08] pd does not have any

[16:09] specific standards for

[16:10] driveways in which

[16:11] case then it reverts

[16:13] back to the base

[16:15] zoning code and the

[16:16] standards for

[16:17] driveways for single

[16:18] family residences.

[16:20] Residences. Is under a

[16:21] code section.

[16:22] Regarding location of

[16:24] off street parking

[16:25] there, there's a

[16:27] standard that there's

[16:28] no more than one

[16:29] driveway allowed for

[16:31] street frontage, and

[16:32] then another important

[16:34] code section within

[16:35] that same section is

[16:36] that there's a

[16:38] limitation to a 40%

[16:40] maximum coverage by

[16:41] impervious surfacing.

[16:42] And the required front

[16:45] yard and so because of

[16:46] those two standards,

[16:48] the applicants are

[16:49] requesting to be able

[16:50] to add a second

[16:51] driveway. As there are

[16:54] some issues. In

[16:56] designing a single

[16:57] driveway that would

[16:59] allow it to meet the

[17:01] that surfacing

[17:03] standard and

[17:03] additionally, the

[17:04] applicants also have a

[17:05] desire to preserve

[17:07] some existing mature

[17:08] trees that are on the

[17:09] property and so the

[17:10] design would would

[17:11] assist with each of

[17:13] those items and so

[17:14] there is a code

[17:15] section that allows

[17:16] minor revisions to

[17:17] final plan

[17:17] developments, which can

[17:19] be applied either to

[17:20] the entire plan

[17:21] development or just to

[17:23] a sngle site in this

[17:23] case, the applicants

[17:25] are just requesting it

[17:26] for their residents,

[17:28] their parcel and with

[17:30] all of that, stuff,

[17:32] hasn't any significant

[17:34] concerns or any

[17:35] significant impacts to

[17:36] the surrounding

[17:38] properties. We've also

[17:39] found that this is

[17:40] appeared to be in with

[17:41] the intentions of the

[17:42] general plan or the

[17:44] zoning and

[17:44] additionally, the

[17:45] applicants have

[17:46] expressed that they

[17:48] have from the

[17:50] homeowners homeowners

[17:50] association, excuse me

[17:52] and some surrounding

[17:53] neighbors for this

[17:56] project. Ad so in

[17:56] consideration of all of

[17:58] that, recommendation

[17:59] tonight is for the

[18:00] planning commission to

[18:01] approve the resolution

[18:02] that would approve

[18:04] revised final plan

[18:05] development to allow

[18:07] second driveway at

[18:08] 3103 shelter cove

[18:11] place that concludes my

[18:11] presentation, but I am

[18:13] here to answer any

[18:14] questions applicant is

[18:16] here as well. Thank

[18:19] you.

[18:20] >> wonderful

[18:20] applicant. Would you

[18:22] like to come up and

[18:30] say anything??

[18:35] >> I am homeowner. I

[18:37] I'm the homeowner. Can

[18:38] I answer? Specific

[18:39] questions? That's

[18:42] really la

[18:42] >> can move on. Do we

[18:43] have any clarifying

[18:46] questions?

[18:46] Commissioners?

[18:50] >> no questions. I

[18:51] think it's more.

[18:52] Germane to our

[18:55] conversation efforts

[18:55] >> no, no, no

[18:56] clarifying questions

[18:58] right now. So thank

[19:01] you yeah. Well, I'll

[19:02] ask you back up. Just

[19:03] in case we go that

[19:06] route. Next we'll have

[19:07] clarifying questions

[19:08] for staff if we have

[19:11] any..

[19:11] >> I had a quick

[19:12] question. I'm looking

[19:15] at this map and I see

[19:18] that there's a lot of

[19:22] hard surface. And if

[19:23] I'm not mistaken,

[19:24] we've been talking

[19:25] about in the city. At

[19:26] some point I couldn't

[19:27] figure out where it

[19:29] was about making sure

[19:32] that new do a

[19:33] driveway. Best

[19:34] practice was to move

[19:35] it towards something

[19:38] that was more porous

[19:40] and I didn't see that

[19:42] in this proposal and

[19:44] I'm wondering if that

[19:46] is not a requirement

[19:47] it's just a

[19:50] suggestion. Or if it is

[19:52] something that the

[19:53] other little grove of

[19:54] trees there that you're

[19:55] trying to put in and

[19:56] I'm wondering if sme

[19:58] of that might be

[19:59] deferred diverted to

[20:00] that as a way to keep

[20:01] those trees healthy

[20:04] and cut the water bill

[20:05] just because it seems

[20:06] to make sense. And

[20:07] it's a good practice.

[20:08] And I know there has

[20:10] been least discussed at

[20:11] some place. I couldn't

[20:12] remember where it

[20:13] wasn't here. But it

[20:14] could have been, you

[20:17] know came out. One of

[20:18] the flyers. That we

[20:19] get from the city about

[20:20] how to preserve water

[20:21] and trees and other

[20:23] things. So just as a

[20:26] if it if it serves

[20:26] chair, maybe we could

[20:28] bring the applicant u

[20:29] and ask if they might

[20:31] be amenable to that and

[20:32] whether the design

[20:34] works or not for that

[20:35] particular type of

[20:35] arrangement. Or it

[20:36] could be slightly

[20:37] modified would that

[20:39] cause any problems for

[20:39] the city? Would they

[20:41] have to reapply? Would

[20:43] they have to resubmit

[20:45] something just a quick

[20:47] question and maybe

[20:48] have perhaps

[20:49] >> let's first have

[20:50] all of our clarifying

[20:51] questions and staff can

[20:52] respond. And then

[20:53] we'll have the

[20:53] applicant back up. How

[20:58] does that sound? Greg

[21:00] .. Just a question

[21:01] about the homeowners

[21:02] association. I assume

[21:03] there's nothing in the

[21:04] homeowners association

[21:05] documents that causes

[21:07] any conflict with this

[21:08] >> nothing that has

[21:09] been brought to my

[21:10] attention. Again, the

[21:11] applicant, they might

[21:12] be able to speak

[21:14] further to that

[21:16] >> you.

[21:17] >> all right. Do you

[21:20] want to respond to

[21:21] samantha first, if we

[21:24] if the city has any

[21:25] requirements for

[21:26] pervious surfaces.

[21:27] >> currently there's

[21:30] no standard that sounds

[21:31] right that we probably

[21:32] encourage that. But

[21:33] there's no requirement

[21:38] in the zoning code...

[21:39] >> are totally

[21:39] comfortable using

[21:40] permeable surfaces.

[21:41] It's one of the things

[21:42] that we explored when

[21:43] we were looking at the

[21:44] driveway. I'm

[21:44] absolutely fine with

[21:45] that. It's not going to

[21:46] be used often. So

[21:47] that's not a big deal

[21:49] for us. And all of our

[21:52] plans go through the

[21:53] them to planning and

[21:53] building. So they have

[21:58] a..

[21:59] >> thank you for being

[22:01] open to that sure

[22:02] what's required in this

[22:03] wonderful. When people

[22:03] come up in are willing

[22:04] to say that makes

[22:05] sense for you, and

[22:06] it's a win win for.

[22:07] For our city too. So

[22:11] thank you very much.

[22:11] >> all right, with

[22:13] that, I think we'll

[22:13] open this item up for

[22:16] public comment. There

[22:17] any public comments on

[22:20] this item? If not,

[22:22] then we'll move on to

[22:24] the liberation so it

[22:26] sounded to me like you

[22:27] wanted to make a

[22:28] motion to add a

[22:29] permeable surfaces to

[22:31] the staff

[22:31] recommendation to

[22:34] approve the resolution

[22:35] ...

[22:36] >> yes, I think w

[22:36] don't have any trouble

[22:37] with the consent of

[22:40] the of the applicant.

[22:40] Think I would put that

[22:42] in as a recommendation

[22:44] for sure, for their

[22:45] consideration. It

[22:46] sounds like they to

[22:47] explore that. At the

[22:54] very least. So yeah..

[22:55] I'm more comfortable

[22:56] keeping it as a

[22:58] recommendation..

[22:58] >> okay. Do you want to

[23:01] make a motion

[23:04] >> be include for as

[23:05] part of the

[23:06] recommendation. Me to

[23:07] do for recommendation

[23:37] or foundation is okay.

[23:37] The construction of the

[23:39] secondary driveway as

[23:40] depicted in further

[23:40] described in the

[23:43] planning resolution 26

[23:44] xx x and subject to

[23:45] the conditions of

[23:46] approval list of

[23:49] exhibit a the approval

[23:50] conditions. I guess

[23:51] that's all I have to

[23:52] do with the. With the

[23:54] added recommendation.

[23:56] That they consider the

[23:56] possibility of

[23:58] diverting some of the

[23:59] hardscape water to a

[24:02] of. To feed and other

[24:03] things more permeable

[24:06] substance to allow for

[24:07] the feeding of trees

[24:08] and other agricultural

[24:10] purposes and on the

[24:13] property.

[24:14] >> I'll second that

[24:16] motion. Right. All in

[24:22] favor. Motion passes

[24:22] thank you for coming to

[24:23] the planning

[24:24] commission meeting

[24:26] tonight. Right. Enjoy

[24:29] your adu and now. We'll

[24:31] move on to the second

[24:31] consent item, which is

[24:32] the general plan

[24:33] update by our

[24:34] principal planner,

[24:37] sherry. Metzer...

[24:39] Sorry, our head of

[24:40] community development.

[24:44] Yeah. Been big on.

[24:44] >> titles, so it

[24:45] doesn't matter. It's

[24:48] all good.

[24:48] >> this is sherry

[24:49] metzger, community

[24:51] development director

[24:53] wanted to take this

[24:54] opportunity to the

[24:55] planning commission on

[24:56] where we are on the

[24:58] general plan as you

[24:59] all know, we've had a

[25:01] few meetings. We've had

[25:03] lots of pblic

[25:03] engagement and things

[25:05] like that. And we have

[25:06] been collecting

[25:08] comments. On a

[25:10] proposed draft. Land

[25:12] use plan, which is the

[25:13] first big step in the

[25:14] updating of the

[25:17] general plan. So next

[25:18] big opportunity for

[25:19] participation will be

[25:20] the public workshop,

[25:21] which we will be

[25:24] holding on OCTOBER 14th

[25:27] from 2026. And that

[25:27] meeting will be held

[25:29] out at the veterans

[25:31] memorial and this

[25:32] time, instead of

[25:34] having several

[25:36] stations where folks

[25:37] can go around and just

[25:38] talk to whoever is

[25:40] manning the station

[25:41] we're going to have a

[25:42] series of smaller,

[25:43] well, not terribly

[25:47] small tables that are

[25:48] tables where we can

[25:49] have 8 to 10 people at

[25:51] the table and they can

[25:53] discuss the revisions

[25:55] that have been made to

[25:57] the draft plan and come

[25:58] up with their own

[25:59] recommendations for

[26:02] how they think the

[26:05] plan should be

[26:07] amended. Not amended

[26:08] what they think. So

[26:09] it's just another

[26:10] opportunity for people

[26:14] to participate and get

[26:15] involved in how the

[26:17] general plan comes

[26:19] together then on

[26:21] NOVEMBER the 9th, the

[26:22] transportation

[26:22] commission is going to

[26:24] be meeting because, as

[26:26] you MAY recall. After

[26:28] the last general plan

[26:32] committee meeting, the

[26:32] members of the

[26:33] committee were to go

[26:35] back to their various

[26:36] commissions and seek

[26:37] input from their

[26:39] bigger commission on

[26:41] the land use plan and

[26:44] those dates start with

[26:45] the well, I guess they

[26:46] don't really start with

[26:47] the transportation

[26:49] commission. They more

[26:50] like end with them.

[26:51] We've had several of

[26:53] them meet already, and

[26:54] talk about the various

[26:55] issues tat they might

[26:56] have with the plan and

[26:57] things that they might

[26:59] consider changing. And

[27:00] then all of that will

[27:02] be brought back to

[27:05] general plan committee

[27:06] in DECEMBER. But it

[27:07] kind of depends on how

[27:08] this all comes

[27:11] together on te 14th.

[27:13] There was apparently

[27:15] at your SEPTEMBER 9th

[27:16] meeting quite a bit of

[27:18] discussion about

[27:20] strengthening the of

[27:21] cities. Open space,

[27:24] easements so that

[27:26] right? Okay. And

[27:27] through land use

[27:29] controls and staff has

[27:30] done some background

[27:31] work that we wanted to

[27:33] share with you about

[27:34] what that means. I

[27:35] guess there was an

[27:38] idea where we might

[27:40] make our sphere of

[27:42] influence very large

[27:43] and include all of

[27:44] those parcels that

[27:47] were within that are

[27:48] out there under an open

[27:50] space. Easement.

[27:52] Within our sphere of

[27:54] influence. And so dara

[27:55] spent some time. There

[27:56] is our principal

[27:58] planner some time

[27:59] talking to the staff

[28:01] at lafco, who are

[28:02] responsible for

[28:03] approving spheres of

[28:06] influence. And

[28:07] apparently it's not as

[28:09] simple as just sying

[28:09] this is where we want

[28:11] our sphere of

[28:11] influence and drawing

[28:13] it very large to

[28:14] include all of those

[28:16] properties. Apparently

[28:18] lafco has their own

[28:19] policies and their own

[28:20] procedures that are

[28:21] required as part of the

[28:23] state law. On how

[28:24] annexation are

[28:26] supposed to happen.

[28:28] And I apparently it

[28:29] also is true that if

[28:32] the city really has no

[28:35] long term plans to

[28:36] grow and develop to

[28:38] that ultimate size.

[28:40] Then they are very

[28:41] unlikely to approve

[28:42] the sphere of

[28:43] influence. The sphere

[28:45] of influence that

[28:46] would feed all of

[28:49] those space parcels.

[28:51] that make sense. I'm

[28:52] not sure. I feel like

[28:53] I explained it very

[28:59] well. Anyway.. So she

[29:00] also wanted everybody

[29:02] to know that the

[29:03] locations of the

[29:04] easements have been

[29:06] intentionally selected

[29:08] and out to try to

[29:09] create a buffer

[29:10] between davis and

[29:12] woodland as

[29:13] development actually

[29:14] happens in the two

[29:14] cities. Actually grow

[29:17] closer to each other

[29:18] and the open space.

[29:19] Easements that we

[29:20] already have are part

[29:21] of that effort to try

[29:23] to maintain some

[29:25] distance that's

[29:26] undeveloped, that's

[29:27] agricultural between

[29:29] the two cities. Tracy

[29:30] is here with us

[29:31] tonight as a matter of

[29:32] fact, tracy and I work

[29:33] together quite a bit.

[29:35] Those open space.

[29:38] Easements are very

[29:40] deliberate they cost

[29:42] money. And so they are

[29:44] very strong indeed.

[29:45] And I think you would

[29:47] find that in and of

[29:48] themselves they are

[29:52] difficult to undo the

[29:53] sphere of influence

[29:54] isn't really going to

[29:55] add any kind of layer

[29:56] of protection, because

[29:57] they would still be

[29:59] under the county and so

[30:00] they would have

[30:02] ultimate land use

[30:04] authority. But be that

[30:06] as it MAY before the

[30:08] next available meeting

[30:09] which as I understand

[30:11] it, is later in

[30:12] OCTOBER will have a

[30:14] little bit more of a

[30:15] discussion with the

[30:16] staff to get an even

[30:17] better understanding

[30:20] of how that process

[30:24] works in totality. And

[30:24] so that would lead me

[30:26] to the final point. I

[30:26] wanted to make, which

[30:29] is your next meeting.

[30:33] Is OCTOBER 28th, were

[30:38] we wll have a an

[30:39] opportunity for the

[30:40] general plan

[30:41] subcommittee made up

[30:42] of commissioners

[30:44] mclaughlin and to

[30:46] present their

[30:48] findings. Of on the

[30:49] land use plan and the

[30:51] issues at hand. On the

[30:55] general plan with

[30:56] that, I can entertain

[30:58] any questions.

[30:59] Commissioners.

[31:00] >> are there any

[31:03] questions? I would

[31:04] just say that the next

[31:05] meeting that we do

[31:07] talk about the sphere

[31:09] of influence and you

[31:11] know what? I'll areas

[31:11] that you were

[31:13] discussing or sharing

[31:14] with us in your

[31:16] presentation it would

[31:18] be really great to

[31:19] have a map that we can

[31:20] look at while we're

[31:23] doing that it's hard

[31:24] for me to kind of think

[31:25] about it in the

[31:27] context of in my head

[31:28] so if we could see it,

[31:29] I think we could better

[31:30] understand it. That

[31:31] would be a helpful

[31:32] tool

[31:34] >> mean a map of our

[31:35] existing sphere or

[31:37] existing open space?

[31:37] >> I think that's

[31:39] great. And then what we

[31:42] proposed versus what

[31:43] lafco has said will

[31:45] not does it work? Does

[31:46] it make sense? So we

[31:48] can understand it.

[31:57] Okay.

[31:58] >> extending that line

[32:01] of thought. Receive an

[32:01] interesting

[32:02] correspondence from a

[32:03] member of the public

[32:04] and was trying to

[32:05] educate us on sphere

[32:07] of influence.

[32:09] Exclusion criteria and

[32:10] inclusion criteria. So

[32:11] perhaps in the next

[32:13] staff report some of

[32:15] the primer there in

[32:17] terms of explaining

[32:18] sphere of influence a

[32:20] little better for our

[32:21] collective education

[32:22] what can be included?

[32:23] What cannot be

[32:25] included we tend to

[32:28] use. Do sometimes

[32:29] terms interchangeably.

[32:30] So maybe some

[32:31] definitions like what

[32:33] is the davis plan

[32:34] area? Distinguished

[32:35] from sphere of

[32:36] influence. And where

[32:40] does the limit line?

[32:41] Play into this entire

[32:42] analysis as well? So if

[32:44] we're going to some

[32:45] maps together, I think

[32:48] some primer going along

[32:48] with it would be

[32:54] helpful..

[32:56] >> and commissioner

[32:56] was going to

[32:57] >> suggest the same

[32:59] thing as vince and and

[33:01] go further in saying

[33:03] that when the new

[33:03] general plan is

[33:04] published, I think it

[33:05] would be really good to

[33:07] have like a glossary

[33:08] of terms so that

[33:09] things like davis

[33:11] planning area, urban

[33:13] limit lines sphere of

[33:14] influence etc. Can all

[33:16] be included in there

[33:17] because you know, those

[33:18] those terms are not

[33:19] necessarily

[33:20] interchangeable. The

[33:21] differences. So I would

[33:22] say for the next both

[33:23] the next meeting and

[33:26] then also document.

[33:27] There should be a

[33:27] discussion of those

[33:30] things, including the

[33:33] list of exclusion and

[33:34] inclusion criteria

[33:35] that we were provided

[33:39] with influence. And

[33:41] that was I an email

[33:46] from, I think longo..

[33:49] >> thanks..

[33:52] >> okay

[33:54] >> think I'll

[33:55] >> just

[33:55] >> my

[33:56] >> clarifying

[33:56] question.

[33:57] >> we have the city

[33:58] limits and then we

[33:59] discuss the urban limit

[33:59] line, and then we have

[34:01] the sphere of

[34:02] influence on the

[34:02] outside. So all of

[34:04] these questions about

[34:05] can we see maps of

[34:07] where we are now? What

[34:09] inclusion criteria are

[34:11] will help shape

[34:14] conversation? After we

[34:14] move on from

[34:15] clarifying questions,

[34:16] we'll have an

[34:17] opportunity for public

[34:17] comment on this. And

[34:19] then the next thing is

[34:20] that the commissioners

[34:21] are going to revisit

[34:22] some of those gneral

[34:24] plan update

[34:25] recommendations. That

[34:27] we left off with last

[34:29] time. So if it's okay,

[34:30] I'm just going to

[34:32] review what we covered

[34:33] last time because this

[34:34] was one of those, this

[34:35] was a couple of those

[34:35] items. And then what we

[34:37] have yet to discuss,

[34:37] and then I'll open it

[34:41] for public comment..

[34:43] >> ask who owns I know

[34:44] that you are doing a

[34:45] lot of work with gis

[34:47] and maps. City owned

[34:49] that. Or is that the

[34:50] purview of the

[34:50] consultant? That's

[34:51] providing us

[34:52] information? Just a

[34:54] quick question. The

[34:56] >> maps themselves.

[34:58] >> gis files. Layer

[34:59] files that they use to

[35:00] produce the maps for

[35:01] us.

[35:02] >> they own them right

[35:06] now. Now, some of them

[35:08] some of the maps. Are

[35:09] base maps. They got

[35:12] from us. But as they

[35:13] have been working on

[35:14] them and making

[35:16] changes for proposals

[35:16] like the land use plan

[35:18] for example. That's

[35:22] their map.

[35:22] >> okay,

[35:23] >> so I don't have

[35:24] digital versions of

[35:26] that

[35:28] >> you.

[35:30] >> okay. Any other

[35:31] clarifying questions

[35:33] that popped up I'm

[35:34] going to go through

[35:35] what we discussed last

[35:37] time for folks who came

[35:38] out this evening.

[35:39] Thank you. And for all

[35:41] of us as a primer. So

[35:42] we talked about

[35:43] widening the sphere of

[35:44] influence, which was

[35:45] recommendation we

[35:46] passed. We talked

[35:46] about lighting the

[35:48] urban limit line to

[35:48] any place that the city

[35:50] of davis provides

[35:51] utilities, including

[35:52] willowbank, the golf

[35:54] course, and that

[35:55] passed. We also talked

[35:57] about encouraging or

[35:59] whether to discourage

[36:02] development on the

[36:02] floodplain, which I

[36:03] know you've spoken to

[36:04] in the past. But you

[36:05] weren't there that

[36:07] night. That

[36:07] recommendation did not

[36:10] pass did make a

[36:11] recommendation for

[36:12] comprehensive flood

[36:15] control that passed

[36:16] recommended

[36:18] formalizing an aim of

[36:19] 7300 housing units.

[36:21] That passed

[36:22] recommended exploring

[36:23] just thinking through

[36:25] decking over. I-80 that

[36:28] passed recommended

[36:30] expanding the city

[36:31] limit so what's

[36:32] incorporated within the

[36:34] city south of the

[36:36] creek? That passed.?

[36:40] We recommended.

[36:43] Expanding to the golf

[36:45] course. That also

[36:47] passed then what we

[36:48] need to discuss

[36:51] tonight is expanding

[36:53] north east contingent

[36:55] on comprehensive flood

[36:55] control plan. So this

[36:56] is what we're going to

[37:00] talk about tonight. We

[37:01] passed a

[37:02] recommendation to pair

[37:03] development with

[37:05] protected bike lanes

[37:06] within a given

[37:06] distance of three

[37:07] blocks from new

[37:09] development. In that

[37:11] passed and then we

[37:12] recommended adding

[37:14] density to transit

[37:15] corridors to four

[37:16] stories or more that

[37:18] passed also considered

[37:19] whether or not to

[37:20] annex parts of uc

[37:22] davis with student

[37:22] housing, and that did

[37:26] not pass with that, I'm

[37:26] going to open it up to

[37:28] public comment and then

[37:30] we'll revisit these

[37:32] points one more time.

[37:33] Are there any folks

[37:33] here for public

[37:34] comment on the general

[37:41] plan??

[37:42] >> good evening. My

[37:43] name is brad sutton.

[37:46] >> I live in horse

[37:49] subdivision. On the

[37:50] council goals for the

[37:52] general plan udates.

[37:54] Specifically on the

[37:57] climate and the

[37:58] permanency of

[38:00] easements such as the

[38:01] conservation

[38:02] easements, which

[38:03] california civil code

[38:06] section eight eight.

[38:07] 15.2, subsection b, a

[38:08] conservation easement

[38:09] shall be prpetual and

[38:12] in duration. Those are

[38:12] important because a

[38:14] lot of our studies and

[38:15] plans you look at

[38:16] things like flooding,

[38:17] like we're talking

[38:19] about tonight. The

[38:22] depth and frequency of

[38:23] flooding are based on

[38:25] those conservation

[38:26] easements and the

[38:27] absorption of that

[38:31] land. Those studies.

[38:32] Assume that the

[38:33] conservation easements

[38:34] and going to remain

[38:36] there as opposed to

[38:37] paving that over.

[38:39] Having additional

[38:40] roofs and then having

[38:42] all of that runoff go

[38:43] someplace where right

[38:44] now the conservation

[38:45] easement is absorbing

[38:49] that.. It's it's it's

[38:52] really important that

[38:53] the general plan

[38:56] update make clear and

[38:58] prevent the inverse

[38:59] condemnation of flow

[39:00] easements on

[39:00] properties that are

[39:02] dependent upon the

[39:03] conservation easement.

[39:04] When someone flows

[39:05] water over someone

[39:06] else's property, they

[39:08] have to have a flow

[39:10] and if the city were

[39:14] to basically take away

[39:16] those, those

[39:17] conservation easements

[39:18] that can result in an

[39:19] inverse condemnation.

[39:21] Of flow easement on

[39:23] properties. That are

[39:25] statutorily permanent

[39:27] and I also ask that it

[39:29] make clear that we not

[39:33] move channel a and

[39:37] that that all

[39:38] development occur

[39:38] south of the current

[39:40] channel. A, which is

[39:41] which is necessary for

[39:42] the health and safety

[39:44] of our citizens. So

[39:46] thank you

[39:47] >> you for those

[39:48] comments. Next comment

[39:54] please. Is hopefully

[39:54] these comments are

[39:55] relevant as it seems

[39:56] like things are moving

[39:58] pretty quickly I am

[39:58] concerned that the

[40:00] process is being

[40:00] tracked, given that the

[40:02] commission have been

[40:02] and there's really no

[40:05] broader participation.

[40:05] Frequently relative to

[40:07] how fast the moving.

[40:08] So please preserve the

[40:09] main policies and

[40:10] principles that

[40:11] current citizens. Based

[40:12] plan, with only minor

[40:15] updates. Our historic

[40:15] neighborhoods by

[40:17] preventing higher

[40:17] there. This

[40:18] neighborhoods are part

[40:19] of what gives davis as

[40:20] lovely character

[40:21] provide real climate

[40:22] change solutions,

[40:22] including better

[40:23] public transit, to

[40:24] meet our climate

[40:25] action and rotation

[40:27] plan and offset by

[40:28] development

[40:29] consultants. Preferred

[40:30] land use alternative

[40:31] map should not have

[40:32] included farm site in

[40:32] the first place, given

[40:34] a multiple problems

[40:35] with toxic sludge and

[40:36] endangered species.

[40:38] That vote voters choice

[40:39] rejected similar

[40:41] proposals. There even

[40:42] after all the multiple

[40:42] comments I've been

[40:43] hearing that these

[40:44] meetings I couldn't

[40:45] find an updated map

[40:46] they had changed the

[40:47] map to only be below

[40:49] the channel. So I feel

[40:50] like voters are being

[40:50] kind of ignored on

[40:51] that. And could you

[40:52] please advise them

[40:54] that I'm concerned

[40:54] extremely concerned

[40:57] also about te

[40:57] recently as they were

[41:00] before the village

[41:01] started in the initial

[41:02] map included housing

[41:03] on top of the vernal

[41:05] pool. There this is

[41:06] despite the fact that

[41:08] pool documented in the

[41:09] ir are protected by

[41:10] the fderal endangered

[41:11] species act and that we

[41:12] all knew about this

[41:15] pools. Village. Ago.

[41:16] So it's imperative to

[41:17] set aside the vernal

[41:19] pool habitat and plan

[41:20] map. Along with other

[41:22] habitat critically

[41:23] species and

[41:24] conservation easements

[41:25] as quickly as possible

[41:27] to protect a prior

[41:28] meeting discussed

[41:29] easement consolidation

[41:31] and found that really

[41:31] confusing. As I

[41:32] thought all

[41:33] conservation easements

[41:33] were improved

[41:34] perpetuity, so that

[41:35] could be clarified and

[41:36] there could be a list

[41:37] of all the current

[41:37] conservation easements

[41:39] on the map. And show

[41:40] that that's really off

[41:41] limits to all

[41:43] development. And line

[41:44] is problematic because

[41:45] doesn't seem to be a

[41:46] plan. After the line

[41:47] is reached. So we

[41:48] should instead instead

[41:51] be carefully potential

[41:52] development and there's

[41:53] supporting measure jr d

[41:55] as it is, I

[41:55] continually hear.

[41:56] Measure jr d is being

[41:58] blamed for housing

[41:59] situation.

[41:59] Acknowledging that

[42:00] historically the city

[42:01] has not provided

[42:02] adequate housing, te

[42:03] city has allowed

[42:04] apartments designed

[42:04] for students rented by

[42:06] the band, which

[42:07] excludes other.

[42:08] Housing. Even citizens

[42:09] vote yes on

[42:10] development,

[42:10] developers haven't

[42:11] followed through on

[42:12] their campaign

[42:13] promises, so jrd is

[42:13] not the problem.

[42:16] Please as it is neds

[42:17] more on campus

[42:19] housing, including of

[42:20] staff housing years ago

[42:21] there was a great

[42:22] presentation to the

[42:23] city council showing

[42:24] multiple on campus &

[42:25] locations suitable for

[42:26] staff and student

[42:27] housing so please

[42:29] revisit that to

[42:29] relieve housing

[42:30] pressures in town and

[42:31] then off campus. We

[42:32] need multiple housing

[42:33] types to meet a

[42:35] variety o needs

[42:36] affordability and

[42:37] environmental

[42:37] sustainability. Thank

[42:39] you very much.

[42:40] >> thank you. Next

[42:52] comment.

[42:53] >> can you hear me

[42:56] now? Okay, all right.

[42:57] And dear planning

[42:58] commissioner, city

[42:59] staff and consultants.

[43:01] My name is zev lang

[43:01] and I am greatly

[43:03] concerned that this

[43:03] general plan process

[43:04] is being fast tracked

[43:05] and appears to want to

[43:07] gut an overhaul. Our

[43:09] current citizens based

[43:10] general plan. Some of

[43:11] the issues that

[43:13] concern me the most

[43:14] following one the

[43:15] revised preferred land

[43:16] use alternative plan

[43:18] map. Retains village

[43:18] farms as it was &

[43:20] proposed, in measure

[43:21] v, even though this was

[43:22] rejected by david's

[43:23] voters. The map needs

[43:24] to be updated in the

[43:26] urban limit line.

[43:26] Channel a so that

[43:28] there's no development

[43:28] north of the channel,

[43:29] where the bulk of the

[43:30] mass of floodplain

[43:32] toxics are from the

[43:33] unlined old davis

[43:34] landfill and sewage

[43:36] treatment plants. Two

[43:37] over densification and

[43:38] the potential to

[43:39] eliminate new single

[43:40] family housing and

[43:41] allowing only

[43:42] multifamily housing

[43:43] does not work as a one

[43:44] size fits all slution

[43:46] to a housing

[43:46] challenges. While

[43:47] there is a need to

[43:48] increase the densities

[43:49] to some extent, it

[43:50] needs to be reasonable

[43:52] and not impose

[43:53] detrimentally on our

[43:53] existing

[43:54] neighborhoods. In the

[43:56] case of infill

[43:57] density, 5 to 7 story

[43:58] housing does not

[43:59] provide the

[43:59] flexibility and

[44:00] privacy families want

[44:02] for the kids and pets.

[44:03] What city needs is a

[44:04] mix of low, medium and

[44:06] high density housing in

[44:08] all new developments to

[44:08] accommodate different

[44:10] residential needs..

[44:11] Three increasing

[44:11] housing density does

[44:13] not work without first,

[44:14] improving public

[44:15] transit. The current

[44:16] public transit system

[44:17] is designed primarily

[44:19] to serve. Uc davis,

[44:20] not the entire

[44:20] community. Leading to

[44:22] many of the ongoing

[44:22] proposed housing

[44:23] projects being

[44:24] underserved especially

[44:25] during school breaks

[44:26] and increasing the

[44:27] traffic congestion

[44:29] problem. Fixed transit

[44:30] system first before

[44:30] trying to increase

[44:33] density significantly

[44:33] stronger language is

[44:35] needed in the general

[44:36] plan. Release davis to

[44:38] far more high density

[44:39] housing on campus for

[44:40] students, faculty and

[44:41] staff. Being the

[44:43] largest uc campus for a

[44:43] huge amount of dormant

[44:45] land with housing such

[44:47] as west dave, west

[44:47] village, there is no

[44:49] reason why uc davis

[44:51] cannot also commit to

[44:52] building at least 50%

[44:52] on campus housing.

[44:54] Like all the other

[44:55] except landlocked uc

[44:57] berkeley. Uc irvine

[44:58] and uc san diego are

[44:59] successfully building

[45:00] high density student

[45:01] housing. So uc davis

[45:02] has no excuse why it

[45:04] can't producer as well

[45:05] finally residents

[45:06] wants our current

[45:07] citizen based general

[45:08] plan to serve and not

[45:09] gutted. While it does

[45:11] need some updating

[45:11] that does not mean

[45:12] discarding the

[45:13] excellent policies and

[45:14] principles. There must

[45:15] be no changes or

[45:17] amending of measure j.

[45:18] D the citizens right

[45:20] to vote on future uses

[45:21] of open space and

[45:22] agricultural lands.

[45:23] Davis residents do not

[45:24] want measure grd

[45:25] weakened exemptions

[45:25] and made vulnerable to

[45:27] being overturned.

[45:29] Thank you.

[45:30] >> thank you for the

[45:31] public comment. Next,

[45:33] please. Hi, my name is

[45:33] elizabeth ray and I

[45:35] have argued. I am hard

[45:36] of hearing as well. I

[45:39] need people to so.

[45:40] Thank you for taking my

[45:43] comments tonight I

[45:44] wanted to say that I

[45:46] was really

[45:47] disappointed and

[45:49] alarmed to see that the

[45:51] village farms was in

[45:52] map of the proposed

[45:53] general plan update

[45:55] and this is my comment

[45:57] for it. For several

[45:57] months earlier this &

[45:59] year, village farms

[46:00] village farms

[46:01] developers steamrolled

[46:03] of the I process to

[46:05] force a public vote

[46:06] for their badly placed

[46:08] between project on

[46:09] JUNE 2nd of this year.

[46:10] Likely because they

[46:11] wanted the vote to

[46:13] occur before two rather

[46:14] large building

[46:16] projects started in

[46:18] downtown davis on JUNE

[46:20] 2nd. Their project was

[46:23] again. Voted down by

[46:25] davis voters that the

[46:27] general plan update is

[46:28] included. Village

[46:30] farms project in its

[46:31] original proposed

[46:32] configuration, with no

[46:34] protection for the

[46:35] pools in the map of the

[46:36] proposed changes to

[46:38] the general plan and

[46:38] expressly against the

[46:40] davis indicates that

[46:41] there is little

[46:42] intention perhaps, of

[46:43] the city ever

[46:45] listening to voters

[46:47] the map ignores the

[46:48] eir drectives that

[46:51] davis taxpayers paid

[46:53] for this unregulated

[46:54] ability of developers

[46:56] and industry models to

[46:59] infiltrate and control

[46:59] every level of

[47:01] decision making in our

[47:03] city is extremely

[47:04] alarming. We are

[47:05] seeing this and

[47:06] national level

[47:07] throughout every

[47:09] single state in the

[47:12] united states. We are

[47:12] seeing this level of

[47:13] corporate bullying

[47:14] occur throughout the

[47:15] nation. Planning

[47:16] commissions with

[47:18] dangerous including

[47:19] the force onto

[47:20] unwilling and

[47:21] outraged. Communities

[47:21] who appear to be

[47:23] seeing the same bully

[47:25] boy tactics. Occurring

[47:26] davis. With the

[47:27] general plan update

[47:29] with little insert

[47:32] here. I am hping that

[47:33] the people will be not

[47:36] be so exhausted. Not

[47:37] notice this at every

[47:38] turn. The develops a

[47:39] developers of this

[47:40] project will start to

[47:43] defy the voters have

[47:43] smothered pblic

[47:44] opinion and be appear

[47:45] to have council

[47:47] members determined to

[47:48] assist these

[47:49] developers at every

[47:51] turn I am asking you

[47:53] please make sure that

[47:54] the village forms as it

[47:56] is listed as it is,

[47:56] was originally

[47:58] planned, is removed

[48:00] from the proposed

[48:02] general plan update

[48:04] only. This is the we

[48:06] cannot develop on all

[48:09] of this. Floodplain me

[48:10] I'm the safety manager

[48:12] of a lrge animal

[48:13] diagnostic facility.

[48:14] We have one down to

[48:15] larry. Everybody said,

[48:16] well, it's not going to

[48:17] flood. No problem. We

[48:20] have taxpayers paid 75

[48:22] million for it, but

[48:23] from 2023. It flooded

[48:25] and now guess what?

[48:27] Just because some guy

[48:28] said that, oh, don't

[48:29] worry, we've mitigated

[48:30] all the flooding

[48:33] issues you guys are

[48:34] paying 25 million to

[48:35] pay for it thank you

[48:37] for your comment while

[48:38] the next public

[48:39] commenter comes up,

[48:41] ask staff to put up a

[48:43] map of the floodplain

[48:45] tee up our discussion

[48:48] for the davis and the

[48:49] floodplain? It was.

[48:49] Don't think we have

[48:51] that with us tonight.

[48:53] It was part of our the

[48:56] last time we met we'll

[48:57] try to see if you find

[49:00] it. Thank you. You're

[49:01] welcome to start your

[49:02] public comment. Yeah.

[49:03] >> could you. Okay.

[49:06] Thank you. Come on

[49:09] >> is I have been

[49:10] attending your meeting

[49:11] a couple of times, and

[49:14] I served as historical

[49:17] resources management

[49:17] commission for five

[49:19] years and I'm here

[49:19] first. You know, I

[49:22] want to I was a

[49:24] realtor before I was a

[49:25] realtor. I was manager

[49:26] for 18 years. And then

[49:28] I become I lost my job

[49:30] to I. I become a

[49:32] realtor worked for

[49:34] banker and mexico. So

[49:35] when I taught

[49:37] listening these

[49:38] comments, I want to

[49:40] share with everyone my

[49:41] knowledge as you know,

[49:42] the actually the

[49:45] easement. Has no

[49:47] ownership of transfer

[49:50] and the conservation

[49:52] easement is

[49:53] restricting for

[49:55] development. It's is

[49:58] set up to protect the

[49:59] land. So when the

[49:59] developers say, oh, we

[50:01] want the estimate, you

[50:03] don't have implement

[50:05] and the city can ask

[50:06] easement is for

[50:07] protecting the land &

[50:08] and the city won't get

[50:10] the ownership. And the

[50:11] second one is for the

[50:12] whatever comments is,

[50:15] is like three,

[50:17] whatever, you know

[50:19] place for seven years,

[50:20] I'm driving around the

[50:22] city as a realtor.

[50:23] Only serve city of

[50:25] david here. I do not

[50:26] go to sacramento very

[50:28] often I've never heard

[50:31] that. Shelters are..

[50:34] Avenue. Street line at

[50:36] gate. I want to share

[50:37] something else. As you

[50:39] know when I doing

[50:41] research on senate

[50:43] bill 3706 and the

[50:45] title is communist

[50:48] control actor signed

[50:51] into law in 1954. And

[50:53] if you read the more

[50:53] details about the

[50:55] debate, why that you

[50:56] know, the communist is

[50:58] outlawed and it's

[51:01] because the war time.

[51:02] United states, russia,

[51:03] china made a lot of

[51:06] it's called

[51:07] mobilization

[51:09] equipment. Rights

[51:11] looks so real. And

[51:12] after the war, the

[51:13] government actually

[51:13] liquidated them. And

[51:15] sold to private

[51:17] citizens. And

[51:20] whatever, you know as

[51:22] secretary and those

[51:25] robots do not the toys

[51:27] do not have legal

[51:29] personhood to you

[51:30] know, men shall not

[51:31] allow your robots to

[51:33] vote and they shall

[51:34] not let them not own

[51:35] any property because

[51:37] they're not even

[51:38] human. And the gene is

[51:40] not a human. It's a

[51:41] realtor. I think maybe

[51:42] that's why my, you

[51:44] know, memory and they

[51:46] cannot you know, alter

[51:48] or inner street and

[51:50] anything like that.

[51:51] And one, one last thing

[51:52] I noticed the bike

[51:53] rack is much, much

[51:55] less than before. And

[51:55] I want to know what is

[52:00] going on. Thank you..

[52:01] >> thank you I can

[52:03] direct staff to it. It

[52:05] was in our packet last

[52:06] week. It's the map of

[52:07] all owned land with

[52:08] sphere of influence.

[52:09] And then there's a link

[52:11] to the general

[52:12] plan.Com. And and

[52:14] concept. Number four

[52:15] has concepts outside

[52:16] of the city for

[52:18] annexation with

[52:20] floodplains thank you.

[52:21] Sorry. Please go

[52:22] ahead. Make your

[52:26] public comment. Eileen

[52:27] as you know, I was a

[52:29] former o planning boy

[52:31] right in front of

[52:32] better. Former

[52:33] planning commissioner.

[52:34] I served on the

[52:35] general plan update on

[52:37] the land use committee

[52:38] and the subsequent

[52:38] housing element

[52:39] steering committee. And

[52:41] I'm coordinator of

[52:41] citizens for

[52:43] responsible planning

[52:45] concerns also about the

[52:46] general plan update

[52:49] and center. A letter

[52:50] city's concerns. I,

[52:52] like many others. Feel

[52:54] that our general plan,

[52:55] which is based.

[52:56] General plan is an

[52:58] excellent progressive

[52:59] which needs updating,

[53:00] which should not be

[53:01] gutted or, you know,

[53:01] have a cmplete

[53:04] overhaul. We also

[53:05] don't want measure j or

[53:07] d amended or have

[53:08] exemptions which would

[53:09] weaken it and set it

[53:10] up to be overturned.

[53:11] The general plan does

[53:12] not need to get into

[53:14] the subject. Most

[53:14] importantly, the

[53:16] consultants draft

[53:17] preferred alternative

[53:19] map a critical change.

[53:20] If there is. If there

[53:23] is an line as the map

[53:24] includes right now it

[53:25] needs to be moved

[53:27] south on the village

[53:28] farms, land to the

[53:29] channel. A this means

[53:30] no development. North

[53:32] of the channel because

[53:34] there is. Above the

[53:35] channel a it would be.

[53:36] It's where all the

[53:37] toxics are coming

[53:40] from. The adjacent old

[53:41] landfill and the

[53:42] enormous floodplain.

[53:44] And there should only

[53:45] be 900 to a. Thousand

[53:47] to a thousand units

[53:49] maximum importantly, it

[53:50] needs to have a

[53:50] conservation easement

[53:53] on the pools as you as

[53:54] I spoke earlier about

[53:55] why and also to have

[53:57] protective funding for

[54:00] it to the future. So

[54:03] the reduced footprint.

[54:04] Alternative that was

[54:05] from the that was in

[54:06] the general in the

[54:07] village. Ir is similar

[54:10] to what we proposed

[54:10] was the

[54:11] environmentally

[54:11] superior alternatives.

[54:13] And distances. The

[54:13] housing from the you

[54:15] know, from the toxics

[54:16] and, you know, as

[54:17] floodplain and reduces

[54:17] all the impacts.

[54:18] That's what needs to

[54:20] be done on this map.

[54:21] There should be no

[54:23] building on large fema

[54:23] floodplains. I'm not

[54:25] sure how the

[54:26] commission kind of got

[54:28] off on that, because

[54:28] it doesn't make any

[54:30] sense. I mean, that is

[54:31] a planning principle.

[54:33] 101. Is you don't

[54:34] build on enormous

[54:34] floodplains and looked

[54:36] at natomas, all those

[54:37] examples of where

[54:38] flooding has happened.

[54:39] And this just cost the

[54:39] state is not going to

[54:40] bail us out anymore.

[54:41] The state has said, you

[54:42] know, if you're dumb

[54:43] enough to build on a on

[54:44] a floodplain and

[54:44] you're going to eat it

[54:46] when it happens, and it

[54:47] will happen because we

[54:50] have you know, cumming

[54:51] super el nino coming

[54:52] and no building on

[54:53] conservation

[54:53] easements, including

[54:54] the well golf course

[54:56] for crying out loud.

[54:58] Both of tese are

[54:58] planning principles.

[55:00] Let's get better

[55:01] transit instead of

[55:02] just going like, let's

[55:03] go. High dnsity, but

[55:04] we don't have any

[55:07] planning for transit

[55:08] there needs to be much

[55:09] stronger language in

[55:10] the general plan.

[55:10] Pressuring ucd to build

[55:12] far more and far

[55:14] higher density on

[55:14] campus. I mean, they

[55:15] need to practice what

[55:17] their preaching to

[55:18] everybody else

[55:19] particularly because

[55:19] they're the largest.

[55:21] you see with over 5300

[55:23] acres and 900, 900 acre

[55:24] port campus. And

[55:25] there's a huge amount

[55:27] of land still on west

[55:28] village. So please.

[55:29] And there's an lrdp

[55:30] coming up. So this is a

[55:31] very important policy.

[55:32] Thank you. Thank you

[55:33] for your public

[55:37] comment.

[55:39] >> right afternoon.

[55:41] Commissioners and my

[55:41] commission. I just

[55:43] heard commissioner

[55:44] director metzger say

[55:48] that the course I can

[55:50] I just heard director

[55:51] metzger say that

[55:52] transportation

[55:53] commission had not yet

[55:55] given feedback on the

[55:56] general plan update.

[56:00] We actually have

[56:01] SEPTEMBER 4th meeting.

[56:03] We passed a number of

[56:03] recommendations that

[56:04] were relayed to the

[56:07] planning staff and on

[56:08] the 17th of SEPTEMBER.

[56:08] So they should have

[56:10] received that I'll

[56:11] just read them in the

[56:13] record here. Thank

[56:14] you. Planning

[56:15] commissioners, for

[56:17] making recommendations

[56:18] transportation and

[56:19] protected bike lanes

[56:20] seconded that and we

[56:21] split that into

[56:23] physically mobility

[56:24] infrastructure as well

[56:26] as gade separated

[56:27] crossings around you

[56:30] know. Hy arterials

[56:31] recommended to include

[56:33] some explain to the

[56:34] public why we are

[56:35] planning the way we're

[56:36] planning for mobility,

[56:37] that way we are

[56:38] planning for it.

[56:40] Otherwise can't expect

[56:40] buy in from the public

[56:43] unless you make that

[56:47] we also recommended

[56:47] benchmarking the

[56:48] success of

[56:49] transportation to

[56:50] whom? To who can

[56:52] navigate that young

[56:53] people, old people or

[56:54] aging in place and we

[56:56] need a plan for a

[56:57] whole range of people

[56:58] with a range of ages

[57:00] and abilities so that

[57:02] they can have options

[57:05] to get to places

[57:06] including making sure

[57:08] that we have

[57:08] neighborhood

[57:09] destinations for

[57:10] shopping for medical

[57:12] need. For local

[57:13] recreation, for

[57:15] schools. The idea here,

[57:15] and I heard

[57:16] commissioner ro in the

[57:17] last meeting talk about

[57:20] this, is, you know, 10

[57:20] or 15 minute cities in

[57:21] europe. We just call

[57:23] them cities the idea

[57:24] that you have this

[57:26] need, right there. So

[57:26] that you don't have to

[57:28] get into a car for

[57:30] everything. So when

[57:31] when this is why it's

[57:32] so important to have

[57:34] planning and land use

[57:35] and mobility planning

[57:36] side by side. So I'm

[57:36] really pleased that we

[57:38] are pushing both of

[57:40] the forward together.

[57:40] They also recommended

[57:42] to potentiate any

[57:44] potential green fields

[57:46] developments for to

[57:47] existing strip

[57:48] generators, because is

[57:49] campuses in downtown

[57:51] and not all green

[57:52] fields in the land use

[57:54] plan are equal. We

[57:56] also talked suggested

[57:58] that we should

[57:59] prioritize high

[58:00] density transit

[58:02] oriented development

[58:04] so that we can

[58:05] maintain a somewhat

[58:06] compact urban form.

[58:07] This is from a

[58:07] transportation

[58:09] perspective. Know,

[58:09] best practices.

[58:11] Because yu otherwise

[58:12] will end up with a

[58:13] place where people will

[58:15] get into a car for

[58:16] most of their trips.

[58:18] And then we finally

[58:19] also added a note of

[58:20] caution from the

[58:20] transportation

[58:23] perspective on if we

[58:25] annex an end, go south

[58:27] of south davis. You're

[58:28] going to run into

[58:29] issues and how we're

[58:30] going to connect that

[58:31] from the

[58:32] transportation

[58:33] perspective to the

[58:34] places where people

[58:37] go. Thank you so much

[58:38] >> you. Are there any

[58:39] further public

[58:43] comments? Not seeing

[58:45] any. We can move into

[58:48] discussion. All right.

[58:50] So what we have here

[58:52] is a map of some of the

[58:54] proposed annex areas

[58:55] with the floodplain

[58:58] and a nice lavender

[59:01] shade. There. I

[59:04] wanted to invite our

[59:06] community. Development

[59:09] director to say a few

[59:09] words, because she

[59:10] wasn't here at our

[59:11] last meeting, and

[59:13] she's gone on public

[59:13] record speaking a lot

[59:14] about the floodplain

[59:15] issue. So I wondered

[59:16] if you could guide us a

[59:18] little bit. Tonight as

[59:19] we're thinking aout

[59:20] northeast, northwest

[59:22] and this massive

[59:22] floodplain in which we

[59:28] find ourselves.

[59:29] >> sound like an

[59:34] engineer. So..

[59:35] >> as you can see from

[59:37] this map. We have a

[59:39] rather unique

[59:40] situation here in

[59:41] davis. We almost sit

[59:43] on an island if you

[59:49] will. O area that is

[59:50] within the floodplain.

[59:52] Which is nice for

[59:53] everybody who lives

[59:55] here and hs to pay for

[59:56] insurance and things of

[59:57] that nature. But it

[59:58] does make it rather

[1:00:00] difficult for those of

[1:00:01] us who are trying to

[1:00:02] plan for the future of

[1:00:03] davis and trying to

[1:00:04] figure out where we

[1:00:07] could do that where I

[1:00:09] think that the city

[1:00:11] has missed an

[1:00:12] opportunity in the

[1:00:15] past. Is because we

[1:00:17] have set up our land

[1:00:19] use situation where we

[1:00:20] evaluate every

[1:00:22] project. Singly, one at

[1:00:25] a tme is no

[1:00:27] opportunity to put

[1:00:30] together a plan for a

[1:00:33] master planned

[1:00:34] infrastructure system,

[1:00:35] which includes

[1:00:36] drainage and detention

[1:00:38] basins. And things of

[1:00:40] that nature. And so

[1:00:42] what I would foresee

[1:00:45] in the northwest area

[1:00:47] and the northeast to a

[1:00:49] large part as well,,

[1:00:50] although that one is

[1:00:50] much smaller because

[1:00:52] most of that is

[1:00:52] included in an open

[1:00:53] space. And

[1:00:54] conservation easement.

[1:00:55] And so probably would

[1:00:58] never be anyway. But

[1:01:00] anyway, I think one of

[1:01:01] the first steps that

[1:01:02] the city would have to

[1:01:03] do if they decide that

[1:01:05] they would like to

[1:01:06] move ahead with

[1:01:07] development in the

[1:01:08] northwest area of

[1:01:12] town. Would be to have

[1:01:13] some civil engineers

[1:01:14] put together a master

[1:01:17] plan for how that area

[1:01:18] could be protected

[1:01:21] from the floodplain.

[1:01:22] And there's anything

[1:01:24] that I have learned

[1:01:25] anything can be

[1:01:28] engineered in the

[1:01:29] past. You know, we've

[1:01:31] done projects that were

[1:01:33] in the floodplain in

[1:01:34] fact, this map isn't

[1:01:35] even totally up to

[1:01:36] date because the

[1:01:37] bretton woods project

[1:01:39] is no longer in the

[1:01:42] floodplain. The fema

[1:01:44] folks have not amended

[1:01:47] their map since 2010.

[1:01:49] There are amendments.

[1:01:50] you can find them

[1:01:52] online at the fema

[1:01:52] website that will show

[1:01:54] you where things have

[1:01:55] been taken out of the

[1:01:56] floodplain and show

[1:01:58] what the resulting

[1:01:59] floodplain looks like.

[1:02:01] But this isn't an

[1:02:03] exact reference

[1:02:03] representation of

[1:02:06] that. But as was said

[1:02:07] earlier, what it took

[1:02:09] to get that to happen

[1:02:12] was a very lrge and

[1:02:13] deep hole in the

[1:02:15] ground. What I think

[1:02:17] could happen is more

[1:02:20] like a series of holes

[1:02:22] in the ground, which

[1:02:23] are essentially

[1:02:25] detention basins. And

[1:02:26] that they would be

[1:02:27] connected by what

[1:02:31] could become..

[1:02:32] Essentially a channel

[1:02:34] or a swale. That could

[1:02:36] be vegetated on the up

[1:02:37] on the banks of it.

[1:02:39] And actually could

[1:02:40] even become something

[1:02:43] like a trail system.

[1:02:44] Throughout the city as

[1:02:45] opposed to just a

[1:02:47] public work where, you

[1:02:47] know, it's just there

[1:02:50] for flood control I

[1:02:52] don't have my hands on.

[1:02:55] Yet is information

[1:02:56] about what this

[1:02:59] floodplain actually is

[1:03:01] and how deep it is bad

[1:03:03] is it that I don't

[1:03:04] have yet. Although we

[1:03:06] think we're on to

[1:03:07] source where we might

[1:03:08] be able to get a lot

[1:03:09] more of that

[1:03:10] information. And then

[1:03:11] once we get that, i

[1:03:12] can meet with the

[1:03:13] engineers and we can

[1:03:14] talk more about how we

[1:03:16] might go about

[1:03:21] creating a.. String

[1:03:25] of a charm bracelet.

[1:03:25] Where basically you

[1:03:26] have your channels and

[1:03:27] then you might have a

[1:03:29] pond and then the

[1:03:30] channel and a pond and

[1:03:31] it would go along

[1:03:32] throughout the city

[1:03:34] and instead of just

[1:03:34] assuming that it's a

[1:03:35] public work, like I

[1:03:37] said, I think there are

[1:03:38] opportunities in there

[1:03:40] for us to use some of

[1:03:41] that detention basin

[1:03:43] land something more

[1:03:44] than just a big hole

[1:03:48] in the ground to me.

[1:03:49] Hollow is the best

[1:03:49] example

[1:03:50] >> all that we have of

[1:03:52] a combined use, we have

[1:03:54] dog park and we have

[1:03:55] detention basin in the

[1:03:56] same place.

[1:03:57] >> now there are

[1:03:57] limitations to what you

[1:04:00] can do. And there are

[1:04:00] things that you have

[1:04:03] to be wary of because

[1:04:04] it will flood. So you

[1:04:06] don't want to build

[1:04:06] anything down in there.

[1:04:08] That's going to be a

[1:04:09] but maybe you could

[1:04:10] have soccer fields I

[1:04:14] it. Maybe you could do

[1:04:16] habitat for some kind

[1:04:17] that is okay with

[1:04:18] flooding once in a

[1:04:20] while. Those are the

[1:04:21] ideas that I have. The

[1:04:22] other thing I have

[1:04:23] found out about this

[1:04:25] map. Is its not

[1:04:26] engineered it's

[1:04:28] modeled so this is

[1:04:30] fema's best guess as

[1:04:32] to what is in the

[1:04:32] floodplain and what

[1:04:34] isn't in the

[1:04:35] floodplain. Until the

[1:04:37] land is actually

[1:04:39] engineered you can't go

[1:04:43] buy this 100%. And

[1:04:43] thats what fema

[1:04:45] requires you t do in

[1:04:47] order to say well, I'm

[1:04:48] in or I'm not in.

[1:04:49] That's what they

[1:04:50] require. Is

[1:04:52] engineering. Is that

[1:04:52] what you were looking

[1:04:53] for

[1:04:54] >> it is. Do you know

[1:04:56] when we might have a

[1:04:57] map like that?

[1:04:59] >> we have no plans

[1:05:00] and no funding to do

[1:05:01] anything like that. So

[1:05:02] we are looking around,

[1:05:03] trying to figure out

[1:05:05] the best source of

[1:05:05] information that we can

[1:05:08] get we're trying to

[1:05:09] work with the county

[1:05:10] to see what they might

[1:05:13] have know, the

[1:05:13] farmers, truthfully,

[1:05:14] the farmers aren't

[1:05:15] incentivized to figure

[1:05:16] it out. That really

[1:05:17] doesn't matter to

[1:05:19] them. They're just

[1:05:20] going to keep farming

[1:05:22] and they have to deal

[1:05:28] with it.

[1:05:29] >> all right. Would we

[1:05:31] like to start

[1:05:33] discussion on this

[1:05:34] last piece of our

[1:05:35] recommendations and see

[1:05:37] if there's any further

[1:05:39] recommendations to add

[1:05:44] ?? Commissioner.

[1:05:47] >> now. But I talking

[1:05:48] about revisiting ones

[1:05:49] that we've already

[1:05:51] made correct.

[1:05:52] >> correct.

[1:05:55] >> okay.

[1:05:56] >> there's another

[1:05:59] good map that depicts

[1:06:02] the the theme of 100

[1:06:04] year plan that was

[1:06:07] part of the JUNE 24th

[1:06:08] staff report. That we

[1:06:11] had I think it was

[1:06:11] about the seventh

[1:06:13] slide. It's an aerial

[1:06:14] photograph and so it

[1:06:16] doesn't have on it the

[1:06:19] the general plan.

[1:06:19] Elements. It's just

[1:06:21] like the current, you

[1:06:22] know, city and it

[1:06:25] really does show the

[1:06:25] floodplain is is being

[1:06:31] pretty extensive.. I

[1:06:32] think the hesitancy I

[1:06:35] have in, in know,

[1:06:36] making recommendation

[1:06:39] to consider expanding

[1:06:41] to the northeastern

[1:06:45] northwest is, is that

[1:06:46] I think such a

[1:06:47] recommendation neds to

[1:06:49] have contingency in it

[1:06:50] that, you know that

[1:06:52] there is in place.

[1:06:56] Some type of you know

[1:06:59] plan for dealing with

[1:07:00] the stormwater

[1:07:01] management and

[1:07:04] flooding. It's either

[1:07:07] part of an individual

[1:07:07] development or that's

[1:07:08] part of an overall

[1:07:10] comprehensive plan for

[1:07:11] the whole to the whole

[1:07:13] city, because I think

[1:07:13] that's one of our

[1:07:14] probably our single

[1:07:16] biggest constraint.

[1:07:17] Now on expanding

[1:07:20] outward is those

[1:07:21] designations. But but

[1:07:23] as you say there were

[1:07:24] done in 2010. We don't

[1:07:25] know accurate. They

[1:07:28] are so I think that's

[1:07:29] that's where I am right

[1:07:30] now is is I could I

[1:07:32] could support

[1:07:34] recommendations to, to

[1:07:34] show where we'd like to

[1:07:36] go, what we'd like to

[1:07:38] build through the year

[1:07:39] 2050. Contingent upon

[1:07:41] there being adequate

[1:07:41] stormwater management

[1:07:48] and flood control..

[1:07:48] >> commissioner

[1:07:50] valencia. I'm just

[1:07:51] going to it's more of a

[1:07:52] question to put on the

[1:07:54] record. I guess heard

[1:07:56] you know, news. I was

[1:07:57] just actually trying &

[1:07:59] to do a quick look up

[1:08:01] that there is

[1:08:03] consideration. By the

[1:08:05] flood agencies to

[1:08:07] increase the flooding

[1:08:08] area of the causeway.

[1:08:10] And that might include

[1:08:12] more. Land in county.

[1:08:13] And I don't know if

[1:08:15] that means the

[1:08:18] northeast. You know so

[1:08:19] I don't have anything

[1:08:20] more than that to add

[1:08:21] right now. I didn't

[1:08:22] come prepared. You

[1:08:24] know, with the details

[1:08:25] on it, but I know I

[1:08:26] heard it. It's in

[1:08:28] response to the super

[1:08:31] el nino in preparation

[1:08:33] for that is what I had

[1:08:36] understood. You

[1:08:37] commissioner

[1:08:39] mclaughlin. I'll just

[1:08:41] I'll note that last

[1:08:43] time we did talk about

[1:08:45] annexing the northwest

[1:08:46] and that

[1:08:47] recommendation passed

[1:08:50] without me. And now

[1:08:51] we're talking about

[1:08:54] the the northeast. So

[1:08:55] also note that even

[1:08:56] though this floodplain

[1:08:59] map is from 2010, you

[1:09:00] know, what? It doesn't

[1:09:01] show up in these

[1:09:02] repeated maps of our

[1:09:04] floodplain is the area

[1:09:05] south of the city. So

[1:09:07] that really seems like

[1:09:10] a great place to focus

[1:09:11] so I guess what I what

[1:09:12] I'm hearing from my

[1:09:13] fellow commissioners

[1:09:15] is some hesitancy to

[1:09:16] make any

[1:09:17] recommendations in the

[1:09:19] northeast. And would

[1:09:23] table that long term

[1:09:26] .. Or anyone can make a

[1:09:27] motion to move it

[1:09:28] forward. One of the

[1:09:29] motions again, that

[1:09:32] didn't pass that I

[1:09:33] proposed last time was

[1:09:35] saying, how about we

[1:09:36] just say we won't

[1:09:37] develop in a

[1:09:40] floodplain? But we do

[1:09:41] you know, we can't. We

[1:09:43] could expand in a

[1:09:44] contiguous fashion

[1:09:45] from davis, not

[1:09:45] leapfrog development,

[1:09:47] but contiguous

[1:09:48] development. Where

[1:09:49] we're not in the

[1:09:50] floodplain, which would

[1:09:52] get at these these of

[1:09:53] being in the

[1:09:54] northeast, but not

[1:09:55] being within the

[1:09:57] floodplain or the

[1:09:59] village area, but, but

[1:10:00] below the channel and

[1:10:01] in a and a little bit

[1:10:02] more below the

[1:10:03] channel, because there

[1:10:03] is there are areas that

[1:10:05] are that are also

[1:10:07] within the floodplain

[1:10:12] below the channel..

[1:10:12] >> think the hesitancy

[1:10:14] I have in, in flat out

[1:10:17] saying won't come up

[1:10:20] with a new land use

[1:10:21] plan for the year 2050.

[1:10:24] If it's in a currently

[1:10:27] area, is that this is a

[1:10:28] plan for 2050. And we

[1:10:30] just don't know. What

[1:10:30] might happen along the

[1:10:32] lines of what sherry's

[1:10:34] discussing you know

[1:10:36] flood control and

[1:10:36] stormwater management

[1:10:37] plans. We don't know

[1:10:39] what engineering

[1:10:40] solutions evolve in the

[1:10:44] next 24 years. I think

[1:10:45] that's a hesitancy I

[1:10:47] have in my a motion

[1:10:49] that this is uniformly

[1:10:50] says, no, we won't go.

[1:10:52] You know, where it's

[1:10:53] mapped because it

[1:10:54] could be shortchanging

[1:10:56] ourselves from some

[1:10:57] creativity in how we

[1:10:58] approach these issues

[1:11:05] in the future..

[1:11:05] >> we can't go back

[1:11:07] and visit the notion

[1:11:09] of building the above

[1:11:11] a that's from

[1:11:14] animation. Chapman

[1:11:14] correct? I'm not

[1:11:15] trying to advocate for

[1:11:16] that. I'm just looking

[1:11:17] at the same thing that

[1:11:18] I'm sure every person

[1:11:20] in this room has seen

[1:11:22] the governor's

[1:11:22] statement about. And I

[1:11:24] tried to make that

[1:11:25] point at the last

[1:11:26] meeting. But we are in

[1:11:28] for a whopper. The

[1:11:30] data keeps getting

[1:11:32] worse and worse about

[1:11:33] what we can expect in

[1:11:34] california.

[1:11:36] Specifically around el

[1:11:39] nino.. Moved from all

[1:11:41] this among the top

[1:11:43] three to. It will be

[1:11:46] above. Worst of worst

[1:11:47] if we're not

[1:11:48] considering that as we

[1:11:51] move forward we go and

[1:11:53] pass something without

[1:11:56] any vision of what a

[1:11:56] potential storm of

[1:11:57] that nature could

[1:11:59] cause for us. And I

[1:12:00] know people have been

[1:12:01] tracking like, how do

[1:12:03] you go from a

[1:12:06] basically a windstorm

[1:12:06] of 50 miles an hour to

[1:12:09] a cat five hurricane

[1:12:11] in 24 hours. You've

[1:12:12] seen that happen just

[1:12:16] the other day. So I, I

[1:12:18] just caution us to be

[1:12:19] very, very careful

[1:12:20] about the choices we

[1:12:22] make about expanding

[1:12:23] into anything that

[1:12:25] looks like a at this

[1:12:25] particular point in

[1:12:27] time. And I don't know

[1:12:28] if there's ways to

[1:12:29] check in on things as

[1:12:31] we move forward or we

[1:12:33] points built into the

[1:12:36] general plan should

[1:12:36] catastrophically

[1:12:37] catastrophic events

[1:12:40] occur we have that

[1:12:40] built into our general

[1:12:41] plan where we can

[1:12:42] revisit, I mean, what

[1:12:44] do we have to signal?

[1:12:45] 50? That's it. We made

[1:12:46] that decision. That's

[1:12:47] the best we can do. I

[1:12:49] have another just quick

[1:12:50] comment. The map that

[1:12:52] you have here, greg,

[1:12:52] and the one that we

[1:12:54] have here. I know gis

[1:12:55] I'm not offering to do

[1:12:58] it. Taking those two

[1:12:58] maps and combining

[1:12:59] them should take no

[1:13:00] more than an hour with

[1:13:01] somebody who knows

[1:13:03] what they're doing.

[1:13:04] With these two maps.

[1:13:05] That he's looking at

[1:13:07] this is an updated

[1:13:07] version of the fema

[1:13:08] one. Is that what that

[1:13:10] is?

[1:13:10] >> yeah, it was

[1:13:12] included in the JUNE

[1:13:13] 24th staff report. We

[1:13:14] had. Gneral plan

[1:13:17] update. Its seventh

[1:13:20] slide in that package.

[1:13:21] And it's an aerial. So

[1:13:23] it it know, shows the

[1:13:25] current city and then

[1:13:27] in in sort of a medium

[1:13:32] blue color. Outlines

[1:13:33] 100 year floodplain.

[1:13:34] Which it's interesting

[1:13:35] that it notes that the

[1:13:36] bottom of the of the

[1:13:38] page. 100 year

[1:13:39] floodplain, of course,

[1:13:40] means 1% chance of

[1:13:43] flooding each year.

[1:13:43] 26% chance of major

[1:13:44] flooding over the

[1:13:46] period of a typical 30

[1:13:48] year mortgage

[1:13:49] >> down there where we

[1:13:52] got that map.

[1:13:54] >> in the consultants.

[1:13:56] It's in

[1:13:56] >> I'm assuming they

[1:13:58] got it from fema.

[1:13:58] >> yeah.

[1:13:59] >> so it's the same.

[1:14:00] >> yeah. The title of

[1:14:03] the of the exhibit is

[1:14:04] federal emergency

[1:14:06] management agency. And

[1:14:07] davis floodplain.

[1:14:08] >> yeah. It's the

[1:14:09] same.

[1:14:11] >> yeah.

[1:14:11] >> it's just the way

[1:14:15] it's depicted

[1:14:16] >> more clear to see

[1:14:17] on this. This exhibit

[1:14:18] because it doesn't have

[1:14:19] all the multitude of

[1:14:20] colors that appear in

[1:14:23] the the draft general

[1:14:24] plan map.

[1:14:27] >> MADAM. My yes,

[1:14:29] absolutely. Please

[1:14:30] know that it's it's a

[1:14:34] very unsettling. Idea

[1:14:36] to move ahead with the

[1:14:37] idea of moving ahead

[1:14:39] with land uses that are

[1:14:41] in the floodplain. But

[1:14:43] I want you to think

[1:14:44] about one thing. We're

[1:14:48] only picking here you

[1:14:52] still have eight

[1:14:52] elements to get

[1:14:54] through of the general

[1:14:57] plan itself. That all

[1:14:59] deal with various kinds

[1:15:00] of issues that would

[1:15:03] affect these landraces

[1:15:05] it's far a as I can

[1:15:08] see have many, many

[1:15:10] opportunities still be

[1:15:12] able to come back to

[1:15:12] your land use plan and

[1:15:14] say, hey, you know

[1:15:15] what this year isn't

[1:15:16] going to look like.

[1:15:18] It's when we do the

[1:15:20] hazards section or the

[1:15:22] safety section, which

[1:15:22] is where we're more

[1:15:23] than likely going to

[1:15:24] get into these

[1:15:25] floodplain issues. And

[1:15:26] a whole lot more

[1:15:27] detail than we are

[1:15:28] right now. You MAY

[1:15:30] have to say, hey, you

[1:15:31] know what? I think we

[1:15:32] MAY have to dial back

[1:15:33] our or figure out

[1:15:35] another way in fact, I

[1:15:36] had a conversation

[1:15:38] with our consultant.

[1:15:40] Just day before

[1:15:43] yesterday. And I said

[1:15:45] know isn't going to be

[1:15:46] the final vote. And she

[1:15:48] said, oh yeah, I know.

[1:15:51] I be highly surprised

[1:15:54] if we got a blessing,

[1:15:55] if you will. To on a

[1:15:57] land use plan from the

[1:15:58] city council and then

[1:16:00] we move forward into

[1:16:01] policy writing and all

[1:16:03] the other chapters and

[1:16:04] we didn't make one

[1:16:05] change to that land

[1:16:07] use plan. That would be

[1:16:10] shocking to me. Yeah.

[1:16:11] Can I ask.

[1:16:11] >> a follow up

[1:16:12] question? Sure. I hear

[1:16:13] what you're saying.

[1:16:15] And at the same time

[1:16:16] map, that's before us

[1:16:18] right now looked at

[1:16:20] annexing and

[1:16:20] developing the

[1:16:21] northwest and the

[1:16:22] northeast. But not the

[1:16:25] south. Not where we're

[1:16:26] clear of a lot of the

[1:16:27] floodplain issues. And

[1:16:29] me, it seems like yes,

[1:16:31] we can make tweaks and

[1:16:31] adjustments, but if

[1:16:32] we're saying, you

[1:16:34] know, actually having

[1:16:35] listened to a lot of

[1:16:36] public comment and

[1:16:37] folks who don't want

[1:16:38] us to develop in the

[1:16:38] floodplain, we will be

[1:16:40] upset about a general

[1:16:42] plan that proposes

[1:16:43] that why don't we just

[1:16:45] do that right now and

[1:16:47] make a plan to develop

[1:16:49] in the high ground and

[1:16:50] start moving ourselves

[1:16:52] down afeasible path?

[1:16:53] What you haven't seen

[1:16:54] is the

[1:16:55] >> revised map. I've

[1:16:57] seen it. It includes

[1:16:59] the south area. But you

[1:17:00] do realize that we

[1:17:01] don't have a whole lot

[1:17:03] of room in this all we

[1:17:04] have is this isn't

[1:17:05] going to be very easy

[1:17:08] to see. Right here.

[1:17:09] This sort of triangle

[1:17:11] shape between mace and

[1:17:13] to the west, where

[1:17:14] that's it. That's all

[1:17:17] we have

[1:17:18] >> do a land swap with

[1:17:19] solano county and.

[1:17:20] >> it's going to take

[1:17:21] years..

[1:17:22] >> it's a general plan

[1:17:23] to 2050. And we

[1:17:25] already own land. The

[1:17:26] city owns land in

[1:17:27] solano county.

[1:17:27] >> yeah. So that means

[1:17:28] they hve

[1:17:32] jurisdiction. We don't

[1:17:35] you could have

[1:17:36] suggested to some

[1:17:37] members of the general

[1:17:39] plan committee that

[1:17:40] maybe the idea of

[1:17:41] going to the south is

[1:17:42] something that you put

[1:17:44] in the general plan as

[1:17:47] an overall policy. But

[1:17:50] if you think that is

[1:17:50] going to solve your

[1:17:52] meeting, your

[1:17:53] requirement and

[1:17:55] getting economic

[1:17:56] development land use

[1:17:57] available, it won't.

[1:17:58] It's going to take

[1:17:59] years and besides of

[1:18:01] which, that assumes if

[1:18:03] we could get solano to

[1:18:04] agree and if we can

[1:18:07] get the state to agree

[1:18:08] which we don't we don't

[1:18:10] know and if we go to

[1:18:10] the south. We're

[1:18:11] probably going to have

[1:18:12] to go all the way down

[1:18:14] to padraic just what

[1:18:16] you see here, but even

[1:18:17] more because we're

[1:18:19] going to need a second

[1:18:20] way in and out of that

[1:18:21] entire area. You

[1:18:23] cannot serve that whole

[1:18:24] area off of base

[1:18:26] boulevard

[1:18:27] >> up question.

[1:18:28] >> for

[1:18:32] >> the project? Wasn't

[1:18:34] it an annexation in

[1:18:35] solano county? No.

[1:18:37] >> no, it got it got

[1:18:38] switched over.

[1:18:39] >> it got swapped

[1:18:40] between yolo county and

[1:18:41] solano. And how long

[1:18:43] did that take for

[1:18:43] solano?

[1:18:43] >> it happened before

[1:18:44] I got here, so I don't

[1:18:45] know.

[1:18:46] >> that might be worth

[1:18:47] investigating because

[1:18:49] if it's been done

[1:18:49] before.

[1:18:51] >> we're talking about

[1:18:52] hundreds of acres

[1:18:56] versus was 70? I mean,

[1:19:06] it's a big difference.

[1:19:07] >> the only other thing

[1:19:08] I have a little more

[1:19:10] clarification. U.S.

[1:19:11] army corps of

[1:19:12] engineers has

[1:19:12] tentatively selected a

[1:19:14] plan to widen the road

[1:19:15] bypass in eastern yolo

[1:19:18] county. And it's more

[1:19:20] the upper elkhorn

[1:19:20] basin. So I don't know

[1:19:22] that it's going to

[1:19:23] affect that area. We

[1:19:27] have here just an fyi.

[1:19:29] We can look into that

[1:19:30] and see what they

[1:19:31] think is going to

[1:19:33] happen. I suspect it

[1:19:35] would significantly

[1:19:37] different considering

[1:19:39] where they end up

[1:19:40] flooding 1200 more

[1:19:42] acres is what is the

[1:19:42] potential for it.

[1:19:48] Yeah. Commissioner

[1:19:49] mclaughlin of our land

[1:19:50] use committee. Do you

[1:20:06] have anything t add

[1:20:06] can you speak into the

[1:20:07] microphone so the

[1:20:11] public can hear you?

[1:20:11] >> to what extent can

[1:20:12] you be

[1:20:15] >> conditional draft

[1:20:17] plan because if it's

[1:20:18] everything's

[1:20:18] conditional, then it's

[1:20:21] more like suggestions

[1:20:23] and I'm not a firm

[1:20:25] plan, but this is a

[1:20:26] this unique to do's

[1:20:30] and think I heard that

[1:20:31] before. But yeah, there

[1:20:36] on but and and so

[1:20:38] flooding. So I issues

[1:20:39] in natural areas that

[1:20:42] you would think for

[1:20:45] expansions. So so I

[1:20:46] don't know. I'd like

[1:20:47] to think about the

[1:20:50] issue and could kind

[1:20:52] of around and see, you

[1:20:54] know, is there a way to

[1:20:56] draft there is seen it

[1:20:57] done.

[1:20:59] >> basically what

[1:21:00] other cities who have

[1:21:01] maybe it's not

[1:21:02] floodplain issues,

[1:21:03] maybe it's some other

[1:21:04] issue where they don't

[1:21:05] have some kind of

[1:21:06] infrastructure built

[1:21:08] or really big freeway

[1:21:09] interchange or

[1:21:10] something basically

[1:21:11] say in their general

[1:21:13] plan and in a policy

[1:21:15] that developers are

[1:21:17] people who need people

[1:21:17] who would actually

[1:21:19] build on those lands

[1:21:20] not allowed to come in

[1:21:22] and build on anything.

[1:21:23] I've got any

[1:21:24] additional

[1:21:25] entitlements until

[1:21:26] they come in with

[1:21:26] something of, let's

[1:21:30] say, 200 acres or 300

[1:21:32] acres at a time. And

[1:21:33] what that allows for

[1:21:35] is a lot more master

[1:21:37] planning of facilities

[1:21:39] and infrastructure

[1:21:41] than you get on a 75

[1:21:42] acre parcel like you

[1:21:44] did on bretton woods

[1:21:45] and so what we might

[1:21:47] do is write policies

[1:21:49] that say can't come in

[1:21:51] and do you know,, 50

[1:21:52] acre parcel that's not

[1:21:54] going to work? Or if

[1:21:56] you do have to go and

[1:21:58] work with the guy who

[1:22:00] owns the land up here.

[1:22:01] Where maybe they're

[1:22:02] down here and you're up

[1:22:04] here and that's where

[1:22:05] the detention basin

[1:22:07] needs to be MR.

[1:22:09] Developer figure it

[1:22:11] out. I had a project in

[1:22:13] rockland. It was 900

[1:22:15] acres, five different

[1:22:16] people. They all had

[1:22:17] different objectives

[1:22:18] about who was going to

[1:22:20] do what and they were

[1:22:21] trying desperately to

[1:22:22] make sure that the

[1:22:23] land uses that got

[1:22:25] assigned to their

[1:22:26] properties were equal

[1:22:29] between them. Well, we

[1:22:29] did a pretty good job

[1:22:31] of that. But then when

[1:22:33] time came to build

[1:22:34] were not too excited

[1:22:35] about having to build

[1:22:37] bridges across creeks.

[1:22:39] Or detention basins or

[1:22:40] any of that kind of

[1:22:41] stuff, because guess

[1:22:42] what? You don't make

[1:22:43] money when you have to

[1:22:44] build those kind of

[1:22:45] improvements. But there

[1:22:46] was no way they were

[1:22:46] going to be able to

[1:22:48] build houses and other

[1:22:49] things until those

[1:22:51] things were there. So

[1:22:53] we forced them via

[1:22:54] policy to say you got

[1:22:56] to figure it out. You

[1:22:56] guys figure it out.

[1:22:57] And then come back and

[1:22:58] see us when you're

[1:23:04] ready did they did all

[1:23:05] about motivation and

[1:23:06] incentive. It can be

[1:23:07] done. It hasn't been

[1:23:09] done in davis because

[1:23:10] we've always done one

[1:23:11] little project, one

[1:23:12] little project, one

[1:23:13] little project, and we

[1:23:14] don't connect the

[1:23:15] roads. W don't

[1:23:17] connect the drainage

[1:23:19] it's one piece, as i

[1:23:21] said, like we have

[1:23:22] several giant cul de

[1:23:25] sacs, because you

[1:23:27] can't go any other way

[1:23:30] in between.. Thing

[1:23:36] for drainage.

[1:23:40] >> so.. Just a

[1:23:40] recommendation was to

[1:23:42] consider being

[1:23:44] contrast forward

[1:23:47] anything. Sure that we

[1:23:48] own the gs maps that

[1:23:49] they create.

[1:23:49] >> well we're going to

[1:23:50] get them at the end.

[1:23:53] >> oh thank

[1:23:54] >> conversation. We're

[1:23:55] getting them at the

[1:23:55] end.

[1:23:56] >> thank you.

[1:23:57] >> absolutely. We just

[1:24:01] don't have interim.

[1:24:02] No, I've done that. And

[1:24:05] it's really bad. All

[1:24:07] right do we have any

[1:24:09] further questions or

[1:24:09] comments. Does anyone

[1:24:10] want to make a motion

[1:24:26] on this sure.

[1:24:27] >> I can talk to him

[1:24:29] about it. And

[1:24:30] >> we can possibly come

[1:24:32] back with some generic

[1:24:33] recommendations and

[1:24:35] kind of something like

[1:24:36] what I described about

[1:24:38] how that would work do

[1:24:40] that

[1:24:48] >> very interesting.

[1:24:49] >> I'll just say also

[1:24:52] that I think in davis

[1:24:53] , one of my concerns

[1:24:55] with the general plan

[1:24:56] update is that we have

[1:24:57] heard from the a lot

[1:24:58] about floodplains and

[1:24:59] how important they

[1:25:01] are, and so I that if

[1:25:04] we don't listen and

[1:25:05] recommendation to not

[1:25:06] develop in them or

[1:25:08] really mitigate them,

[1:25:09] that that will cause

[1:25:11] problems later on. And

[1:25:13] I also I also worry

[1:25:16] that a development

[1:25:17] where we're saying it's

[1:25:18] going to be a large

[1:25:19] scale, large

[1:25:20] developer. Davis has

[1:25:22] always preferred small

[1:25:25] local shops and so yu

[1:25:26] know, I'm, I'm just I

[1:25:27] think that's going to

[1:25:30] take some it's going to

[1:25:31] take some out with the

[1:25:31] public and some time

[1:25:32] for folks to think

[1:25:34] through and talk and

[1:25:35] voice opinions on as

[1:25:38] well. I understand

[1:25:39] that and I understand

[1:25:39] that people have

[1:25:40] thought that way for

[1:25:43] many, many years. I

[1:25:44] personally am very

[1:25:44] hopeful that we'll

[1:25:45] grove will get

[1:25:47] approved and I'm

[1:25:48] hopeful that we'll have

[1:25:49] grove will waylay all

[1:25:51] of those concerns.

[1:25:52] Because it's not going

[1:25:54] to get built that way

[1:25:54] it's going to get

[1:25:57] built by a master

[1:25:59] developer with to

[1:26:00] guess. Several

[1:26:01] different home

[1:26:03] builders involved

[1:26:05] because that's the way

[1:26:06] modern homes

[1:26:08] construction is done

[1:26:15] ..

[1:26:15] >> right.

[1:26:16] >> I'm not seeing a

[1:26:17] motion on the table for

[1:26:18] the northeast. So I

[1:26:20] think we're it's we're

[1:26:21] not making a

[1:26:23] recommendation on it.

[1:26:23] We've made our

[1:26:25] recommendation on on

[1:26:27] the south and then

[1:26:27] commissioner rowe, did

[1:26:28] you have something

[1:26:30] else to add

[1:26:31] >> yeah, I do have

[1:26:34] something else and I

[1:26:34] apologize. This will

[1:26:36] take a few minutes

[1:26:36] just some background

[1:26:38] here. I was appointed

[1:26:40] to this commission in

[1:26:41] JANUARY of 2018, and

[1:26:43] at that time I was

[1:26:44] handed this massive

[1:26:47] document to 2007

[1:26:48] general plan and I

[1:26:49] read it cover to

[1:26:51] cover. I ws very

[1:26:52] interested in it

[1:26:52] because I come from a

[1:26:54] planning background

[1:26:55] professionally. I took

[1:26:57] the time to read it

[1:26:58] cover to cover again.

[1:27:00] Last DECEMBER. And I

[1:27:02] really carefully

[1:27:04] evaluated it in the

[1:27:04] context of the of the

[1:27:06] multitude of projects

[1:27:07] and policy decisions

[1:27:09] that I've had to be

[1:27:09] involved with in,

[1:27:11] during the last eight

[1:27:12] and a half years. And

[1:27:13] also in the context of

[1:27:15] the zoning code, which

[1:27:17] actually, of course

[1:27:19] the general plan and

[1:27:20] that resulted in a long

[1:27:22] I wrote, which at that

[1:27:23] point was about ten

[1:27:23] pages. That was

[1:27:24] addressed to the

[1:27:25] planning staff and

[1:27:26] which I. Basically

[1:27:27] point by point section

[1:27:30] by section. Critique

[1:27:32] of the current general

[1:27:34] plan I recently

[1:27:35] revised that memo with

[1:27:37] some valuable input

[1:27:39] from my co member on

[1:27:41] the land use concepts

[1:27:43] committee. Mclaughlin.

[1:27:44] The intent of that

[1:27:45] memo is to provide

[1:27:46] what I hope will be

[1:27:47] useful background

[1:27:48] information for this

[1:27:50] commission and for the

[1:27:52] general plan

[1:27:53] committee. I looked at

[1:27:54] everything from the

[1:27:55] visions, the community

[1:27:57] forum, the used in

[1:27:58] creating that land use

[1:28:01] map. Growth management

[1:28:02] policies, growth

[1:28:03] management and infill.

[1:28:04] I should mention that

[1:28:06] everybody on the

[1:28:06] commission received a

[1:28:08] copy of this memo.

[1:28:08] This afternoon, and

[1:28:09] there's, I think, a

[1:28:12] copy in that green

[1:28:15] binder at the back..

[1:28:17] And I guess we I came

[1:28:20] up with in general

[1:28:20] about six conclusions

[1:28:22] and recommendations in

[1:28:24] this 11 page memo, I

[1:28:25] think the first

[1:28:25] observation is that the

[1:28:26] current general plan

[1:28:29] was adopted in 2007.

[1:28:31] It was adopted at that

[1:28:32] time in the context of

[1:28:34] the circumstances and

[1:28:35] perceived community

[1:28:36] needs at that time

[1:28:39] that no longer exist.

[1:28:40] As such, I find it to

[1:28:43] be outmoded

[1:28:44] prescriptive

[1:28:44] cumbersome, and

[1:28:45] restrictive in a

[1:28:46] manner that cnstrains

[1:28:48] economic and housing

[1:28:48] development in the

[1:28:51] city of davis seen

[1:28:53] this evidence of this

[1:28:55] in a presentation that

[1:28:55] vincent, I received

[1:28:56] from katie yancey,

[1:28:58] where she summarized

[1:28:59] her interviews that

[1:29:00] she's had with with

[1:29:01] business leaders and

[1:29:02] potential developers

[1:29:04] who have said general

[1:29:07] plan the pd's

[1:29:08] development districts

[1:29:08] that are inherent in

[1:29:10] zoning code, just

[1:29:10] makes it really

[1:29:12] difficult to develop

[1:29:14] in davis almost as if

[1:29:15] the crrent general

[1:29:16] plan is intended to

[1:29:17] discourage development

[1:29:19] from that perspective.

[1:29:20] The primary goal of the

[1:29:22] general plan and this

[1:29:23] appears in page after

[1:29:25] page after page. Is to

[1:29:26] preserve the small

[1:29:28] university ambience

[1:29:30] and character of davis

[1:29:31] in reality, I think

[1:29:32] what we need is a new

[1:29:33] plan tat promotes and

[1:29:34] provides for future

[1:29:35] economic and housing

[1:29:37] development, economic

[1:29:38] development ad housing

[1:29:39] opportunities think

[1:29:41] what we need to

[1:29:41] realize in developing

[1:29:42] this new general plan

[1:29:43] is that we're part of a

[1:29:46] dynamic evolving

[1:29:46] metropolitan area, and

[1:29:47] like it or not, the

[1:29:49] city of davis is in

[1:29:50] direct competition

[1:29:53] with other cities. For

[1:29:54] employment generating

[1:29:56] development. And as

[1:29:57] the people who've been

[1:29:58] interviewed by katie

[1:29:58] yancey said, our

[1:30:00] general plan doesn't do

[1:30:01] that. It doesn't it

[1:30:02] doesn't encourage

[1:30:04] economic development.

[1:30:04] Think we need a

[1:30:06] general plan that

[1:30:07] enables our city to

[1:30:08] leverage the

[1:30:09] advantages that it has

[1:30:10] to obtain our share of

[1:30:12] economic advancement.

[1:30:13] Other thing that's

[1:30:14] kind of strange is the

[1:30:15] current general plan

[1:30:17] has a major emphasis

[1:30:18] on providing off

[1:30:19] campus housing for uc

[1:30:22] davis students which

[1:30:23] has allowed uc davis to

[1:30:24] avoid its

[1:30:25] responsibility to

[1:30:26] provide on campus

[1:30:28] housing think the new

[1:30:29] general plan update

[1:30:30] should iclude

[1:30:31] specific policies that

[1:30:32] will encourage uc

[1:30:33] davis to substantially

[1:30:35] increase on campus

[1:30:36] housing historically,

[1:30:37] just as some

[1:30:38] background is. This

[1:30:40] commission was looking

[1:30:42] at a major student

[1:30:44] housing project in

[1:30:45] 2018. It was the

[1:30:47] university.

[1:30:47] Redevelopment, and it &

[1:30:49] was proposed for 4 or 5

[1:30:50] stories of rent by the

[1:30:52] bed luxury student

[1:30:53] housing on top of the

[1:30:54] mall. And this

[1:30:55] commission unanimously

[1:30:58] and vigorously. On a 7

[1:30:59] to 0 vote, said, don't

[1:31:00] do it. We've already

[1:31:02] approved for big

[1:31:05] housing projects. A

[1:31:07] thousand units and

[1:31:07] 4000 beds for student

[1:31:09] housing and we said

[1:31:10] no. Unfortunately, the

[1:31:11] council didn't abide

[1:31:12] by that. But there

[1:31:12] seems to be at least

[1:31:13] in recent years, a

[1:31:16] pretty consistent

[1:31:18] emphasis on on having

[1:31:19] uc davis take care of

[1:31:22] its own number four,

[1:31:23] when we get to the

[1:31:23] zoning code, I think

[1:31:25] we need to completely

[1:31:26] drop this idea of

[1:31:27] planned development

[1:31:29] districts. There are

[1:31:30] layered on top of the

[1:31:30] existing zoning. And

[1:31:31] again, that's

[1:31:32] something that katie

[1:31:33] cited as an example of

[1:31:34] the problems that

[1:31:35] developers have when

[1:31:36] they want to do

[1:31:37] something in davis,

[1:31:37] they look at the

[1:31:38] zoning code, they come

[1:31:40] in to do a give a

[1:31:41] proposal, and they go,

[1:31:42] oh, by the way, you've

[1:31:43] also got to look at the

[1:31:45] pd. We have 150 of

[1:31:47] these. Pd can't keep

[1:31:48] track of them. I don't

[1:31:49] know how the city.

[1:31:50] Staff keeps on track.

[1:31:50] Track of it. I think

[1:31:51] we need to get rid of

[1:31:54] them. So I think the

[1:31:55] conclusion that's in

[1:31:57] this memo is that we

[1:31:58] need to continue

[1:31:59] proceeding with a

[1:32:00] completely new general

[1:32:02] plan that focuses on

[1:32:02] economic development,

[1:32:03] job creation and

[1:32:05] housing opportunities

[1:32:06] in the last point,

[1:32:07] getting back to the

[1:32:08] discussion, we just had

[1:32:09] here is that

[1:32:10] successfully

[1:32:11] implementing this

[1:32:11] general, this new

[1:32:12] general plan is going

[1:32:13] to require

[1:32:14] comprehensive plans

[1:32:16] and strategies for

[1:32:16] stormwater management

[1:32:19] and flood control so

[1:32:20] you all have the 11

[1:32:21] page memo. I hope you

[1:32:22] have an opportunity to

[1:32:24] look at it. I don't

[1:32:25] know when it's going

[1:32:26] to get broader

[1:32:28] distribution. And I

[1:32:29] appreciate the

[1:32:30] excellent input I got

[1:32:31] from from vince on it.

[1:32:34] And. I've been doing

[1:32:35] this for eight and a

[1:32:36] half, almost nine years

[1:32:37] on this commission.

[1:32:39] And I can't in good

[1:32:40] conscience look at at

[1:32:42] what exists now that

[1:32:43] many people think

[1:32:44] shouldn't be changed at

[1:32:46] all. And say this is

[1:32:47] the way forward,

[1:32:48] because I don't think

[1:32:49] it's going to get us to

[1:32:50] where we. We need to

[1:32:51] be. I think we need to

[1:32:52] focus on how we can be

[1:32:54] a dynamic city that's

[1:32:55] open t the future

[1:32:56] rather than trying to

[1:32:57] preserve the past. So

[1:33:01] that's all

[1:33:04] >> I just.. I'm going

[1:33:06] to just soften what you

[1:33:07] said a little bit by

[1:33:08] saying that I think a

[1:33:08] lot of the folks who

[1:33:10] work very hard on our

[1:33:11] general plan and have

[1:33:13] made davis what it is

[1:33:13] today. Care a lot

[1:33:15] about it. And I don't

[1:33:15] hear them saying they

[1:33:17] don't want to change

[1:33:19] anything. I hear them

[1:33:21] being anxious about

[1:33:23] some of the changes. So

[1:33:24] I think as we continue

[1:33:26] to collaborate on our

[1:33:27] 2050 vision, it's

[1:33:28] important to

[1:33:29] acknowledge that

[1:33:31] collective work and

[1:33:32] figure out how to mve

[1:33:34] together and honor

[1:33:35] that work for what it

[1:33:36] was then. We're in a

[1:33:39] different space now

[1:33:39] >> agree.

[1:33:40] >> all right. Along

[1:33:44] those lines tabled the

[1:33:45] the conversation about

[1:33:49] the northeast ad our

[1:33:49] conversation tonight

[1:33:51] made me think about the

[1:33:52] recommendation that we

[1:33:55] made for the south and

[1:33:56] also we we have

[1:33:57] recommendations from

[1:33:58] the transportation

[1:33:59] commission. So what I'd

[1:34:00] like to do now for our

[1:34:02] general plan update

[1:34:05] recommendations is one

[1:34:05] put forward on the

[1:34:07] table explicitly. We

[1:34:09] had said look at

[1:34:11] annexing south. But now

[1:34:12] hearing our of

[1:34:13] community development

[1:34:14] say, we don't have

[1:34:15] much room, I want to be

[1:34:16] explicit that we should

[1:34:18] explore land swaps

[1:34:21] with solano county. So

[1:34:22] I wanted to see if my

[1:34:23] fellow commissioners

[1:34:23] were interested in

[1:34:25] that. And then also if

[1:34:27] they were any of the

[1:34:28] transportation

[1:34:29] commission

[1:34:29] recommendations that

[1:34:32] they wanted to second,

[1:34:37] as we move forward.

[1:34:38] >> I would make a

[1:34:39] motion that as part of

[1:34:40] the general plan

[1:34:43] update process. Wi

[1:34:45] vigorously examine the

[1:34:47] potential for doing

[1:34:48] swaps with solano

[1:34:57] county.

[1:34:57] >> do we need any

[1:34:58] discussion? Are we

[1:35:04] ready to

[1:35:06] >> got an exploration

[1:35:07] exploration of that or

[1:35:08] is that recommendation

[1:35:10] that we do it I'm

[1:35:12] asking that the issue

[1:35:13] is correct, the

[1:35:15] process of doing that

[1:35:17] will take years and

[1:35:17] maybe that's a

[1:35:19] variable. Maybe it

[1:35:20] isn't the other

[1:35:21] question is the cost

[1:35:22] involved in that? I

[1:35:27] mean certainly some

[1:35:27] challenges to how much

[1:35:29] money we actually do

[1:35:30] have in our budget?

[1:35:31] But that's another

[1:35:33] question. So I would

[1:35:35] I'd be for it if it

[1:35:37] were contingent upon

[1:35:39] some really good

[1:35:40] understanding of what

[1:35:42] that really means.

[1:35:43] Because just to put it

[1:35:44] in their without a

[1:35:46] deeper understanding

[1:35:47] of how we go about

[1:35:50] that. Maybe we should

[1:35:51] have our thoughts

[1:35:52] being focused on other

[1:35:53] things rather than that

[1:35:56] if in fact it's just

[1:35:58] doesn't work. In

[1:35:59] workplace. Within the

[1:36:00] time frame. We'd like

[1:36:02] it to or it would be

[1:36:06] such legislation and

[1:36:07] various levels of

[1:36:07] approval that would

[1:36:09] take. As you said,

[1:36:10] sherry literally years

[1:36:12] for it to work and

[1:36:13] maybe we're okay with

[1:36:14] that. But I certainly

[1:36:14] would like to know what

[1:36:15] those are before we

[1:36:18] jump into that

[1:36:18] >> commissioner ro

[1:36:21] recommended was land

[1:36:22] swaps with solano

[1:36:25] county.

[1:36:26] >> maybe we just sit

[1:36:27] investigate

[1:36:27] feasibility a little

[1:36:29] bit of next couple of

[1:36:31] months and then we

[1:36:36] find kind of sur

[1:36:37] >> have any qestions

[1:36:38] about this motion on

[1:36:40] the table? No. All

[1:36:42] right. Are we ready to

[1:36:43] move it forward? All

[1:36:48] right. All in favor?

[1:36:56] .. I okay. Unanimous

[1:36:58] support the the next

[1:36:59] piece of this is do we

[1:37:00] want to consider

[1:37:02] seconding any of the

[1:37:02] recommendations from

[1:37:03] the transportation

[1:37:08] commission??

[1:37:09] >> think I'd like to

[1:37:14] hear them.

[1:37:15] >> my notes aren't good

[1:37:20] enough could I bother

[1:37:21] commissioner posting

[1:37:22] to come up and read

[1:37:23] the recommendations

[1:37:28] through to us?

[1:37:29] >> and do them slowly?

[1:37:32] Some of us are old.

[1:37:35] >> I am also pushing

[1:37:36] the media to go slow.

[1:37:37] I'll try. I was

[1:37:38] working against public

[1:37:39] comment in the time

[1:37:40] that was allotted for

[1:37:44] that. Two of them were

[1:37:45] refinements of came to

[1:37:48] planning before around

[1:37:49] mobility and also how

[1:37:51] one gets across major

[1:37:52] thoroughfares.

[1:37:54] Separated crossings

[1:38:02] there was I

[1:38:02] recommendation to

[1:38:03] prioritize targeted

[1:38:04] dwelling units

[1:38:05] increase with density

[1:38:07] on the transit

[1:38:08] corridors to. Four

[1:38:08] stories of more or

[1:38:11] more that is also in

[1:38:12] to what the planning

[1:38:13] commission had talked

[1:38:14] about. These three.

[1:38:18] Think, in effect we

[1:38:19] talked about this idea

[1:38:20] of developing

[1:38:21] neighborhood shopping

[1:38:22] centers for daily

[1:38:23] needs. We said

[1:38:24] groceries medical care

[1:38:25] and other day to day.

[1:38:27] This is around this.

[1:38:28] This idea that you

[1:38:29] want to put things

[1:38:30] that people need

[1:38:32] people live. So that

[1:38:33] they have options to

[1:38:34] not drive everywhere.

[1:38:35] This not a mandate

[1:38:37] that you cannot drive

[1:38:38] anywhere. It is just

[1:38:39] to give people options

[1:38:46] outside of the car we

[1:38:48] we recommended to

[1:38:50] prioritize potential

[1:38:52] greenfield sites. For

[1:38:53] their proximity to

[1:38:54] local trip generators.

[1:38:56] If and when the city is

[1:38:58] going to expand how

[1:39:00] close you put that to

[1:39:01] current trip

[1:39:02] generators matters

[1:39:03] from a transportation

[1:39:04] perspective. If it's

[1:39:05] further away, people

[1:39:06] will drive or travel

[1:39:07] more. If they travel

[1:39:09] to far they will

[1:39:10] travel by car. That is

[1:39:12] the philosophy behind

[1:39:16] that.. We added a

[1:39:17] note of caution from a

[1:39:18] transportation

[1:39:21] perspective on the

[1:39:22] expansion south of

[1:39:23] bank, and I think I

[1:39:24] heard direct metzger

[1:39:25] also articulate

[1:39:26] concerns on, you know,

[1:39:28] there is a bottleneck.

[1:39:30] Transportation. There

[1:39:33] we from a purely land

[1:39:36] use perspective. Put

[1:39:39] back put further there

[1:39:41] is a corner on the

[1:39:43] campus. Current campus

[1:39:45] land that for a

[1:39:47] proximity to downtown

[1:39:49] to existing schools.

[1:39:50] Is a location that

[1:39:54] would be remiss to not

[1:39:56] explore try to. Some of

[1:39:58] the floodplain issues

[1:39:59] that have been coming

[1:40:01] up in the community.

[1:40:02] There is an

[1:40:02] administrative barrier

[1:40:04] there

[1:40:05] >> specific about what

[1:40:05] you're talking about.

[1:40:06] >> yeah, I'm talking

[1:40:06] about

[1:40:07] >> there is a whole

[1:40:09] corner next to the one,

[1:40:09] two of two next to

[1:40:10] russell. That is wde

[1:40:11] open land. That is ag

[1:40:12] land right now. It is

[1:40:14] not but it's right

[1:40:15] next to a bunch of

[1:40:16] freeway access. And

[1:40:17] it's right next to

[1:40:17] downtown. And it's

[1:40:18] right next to campus.

[1:40:21] If you looked at the

[1:40:22] one.

[1:40:24] >> 113 in russell or

[1:40:25] 113 in health

[1:40:25] sciences.

[1:40:26] >> no. One. 13 in

[1:40:28] russell, this is the

[1:40:29] corner of 113 and

[1:40:31] russell if you looked

[1:40:33] at the campus and the

[1:40:34] city as one unit,

[1:40:35] which most residents,

[1:40:36] you know, go back and

[1:40:38] forth all the time.

[1:40:39] That is a location

[1:40:41] that's from a purely

[1:40:42] land use. And

[1:40:42] transportation

[1:40:43] planning makes a

[1:40:47] sense. And we seem to

[1:40:47] the recommendations

[1:40:48] for transportation was

[1:40:52] to not not let that go

[1:40:54] unexplored. And then we

[1:40:56] made a general

[1:40:57] recommendation to this

[1:40:58] is separate separate

[1:40:59] from the, hey, do we

[1:41:00] annex who does it

[1:41:01] matter who develops

[1:41:02] it? If that location is

[1:41:05] a perfect location or a

[1:41:06] better location than

[1:41:07] any other locations.

[1:41:12] So housing and then we

[1:41:13] talked about how we

[1:41:15] benchmarked success of

[1:41:16] transportation.

[1:41:17] Networks. For their

[1:41:19] ability to be

[1:41:20] accessible to young

[1:41:21] people, to old people,

[1:41:22] to people who. Might

[1:41:24] not have access to

[1:41:25] cars inclusive as

[1:41:27] possible. And

[1:41:27] implement policy goals

[1:41:30] to reduce vehicle

[1:41:32] ownerships and again,

[1:41:33] these were transmitted

[1:41:34] to staff. And I was

[1:41:34] told they were

[1:41:35] transmitted to

[1:41:37] planning. Week ago. So

[1:41:38] the only reason why

[1:41:39] this came up now,

[1:41:39] because they were

[1:41:41] family, had not been

[1:41:43] came to listen not to

[1:41:44] participate

[1:41:46] >> for participating.

[1:41:49] Nonetheless fellow

[1:41:50] commissioners, any of

[1:41:51] those recommendations

[1:41:53] for transportation

[1:41:57] commission would like

[1:41:59] to second.

[1:42:02] >> to be walker

[1:42:03] progress here, but I

[1:42:05] prefer to see writing

[1:42:06] and have some chance

[1:42:07] to contemplate them

[1:42:09] and perhaps then be in

[1:42:11] the staff report

[1:42:13] rolling over to OCTOBER

[1:42:14] 28th. I just I respond

[1:42:18] better to more.

[1:42:20] >> I concur. I prefer

[1:42:20] to see it fleshed out

[1:42:24] in black and white. I

[1:42:26] don't recall seen it.

[1:42:27] I mean, I guess it was

[1:42:28] conveyed to staff made

[1:42:30] its way into any that I

[1:42:31] know has been provided

[1:42:33] to us.

[1:42:33] >> samantha and

[1:42:35] sherry. Could we

[1:42:35] request tat we have

[1:42:37] the transportation

[1:42:38] recommendations in

[1:42:40] writing before our

[1:42:41] next meeting in

[1:42:45] OCTOBER believe you're

[1:42:46] supposed to get all of

[1:42:47] them. At

[1:42:51] >> your next in

[1:42:53] >> I

[1:42:53] >> for some reason,

[1:42:54] don't have.

[1:42:54] >> that note hndy,

[1:42:57] but I seeing it

[1:42:58] somewhere that that

[1:42:59] was the idea was we

[1:43:00] would get all the

[1:43:02] feedback from all the

[1:43:03] commissions and that

[1:43:07] we would have that..

[1:43:08] >> okay, that sounds

[1:43:09] great. We will wait

[1:43:10] until our next meeting

[1:43:12] and we will prolong

[1:43:12] our general plan

[1:43:13] update conversation

[1:43:15] about recommendations

[1:43:15] and considering what

[1:43:17] we might. Second, I

[1:43:18] have to say, I'm

[1:43:18] surprised the

[1:43:19] transportation

[1:43:20] commission didn't

[1:43:21] mention exploring car

[1:43:22] free neighborhoods. So

[1:43:23] maybe that's something

[1:43:28] we can add not doing it

[1:43:30] with that. I think

[1:43:31] we're going to close

[1:43:33] our general plan

[1:43:35] update agenda item

[1:43:38] with no actions. And

[1:43:40] turn it over to sherry

[1:43:41] for the long range

[1:43:44] calendar.

[1:43:46] >> okay. Again. Sherry

[1:43:48] metzger development

[1:43:50] director. Okay, so the

[1:43:53] as you know, now we

[1:43:53] down to one meeting a

[1:43:55] month. And your other

[1:43:57] meeting is a sort of an

[1:43:59] on call meeting for

[1:44:02] OCTOBER are going to

[1:44:04] use the first

[1:44:05] wednesday to do the

[1:44:07] public workshop for the

[1:44:09] general plan update

[1:44:10] again, as I said, that

[1:44:11] will be held at

[1:44:14] veterans memorial and

[1:44:14] the public will be

[1:44:16] invited to that one.

[1:44:19] So on OCTOBER the 28th,

[1:44:21] we will be again.

[1:44:22] Discuss the general

[1:44:23] plan update. We will

[1:44:25] also bring forward an

[1:44:25] ordinance amendments

[1:44:27] that relate to sb

[1:44:30] nine. And chapter 40

[1:44:31] amendments that relate

[1:44:33] to mobile vending.

[1:44:34] That will ultimately

[1:44:35] be. Both of those two

[1:44:36] items will ultimately

[1:44:39] go forward to city

[1:44:40] council. Probably in

[1:44:42] NOVEMBER and. Sb or

[1:44:45] longer, but anyway

[1:44:46] then in NOVEMBER. As

[1:44:48] the way the calendar

[1:44:51] fell wednesdays fell

[1:44:54] on holiday days. First

[1:44:55] one being veterans day

[1:44:56] and the second one

[1:44:57] being the night before

[1:44:59] thanksgiving. So there

[1:45:01] will be no the

[1:45:04] planning commission or

[1:45:05] general plan meetings

[1:45:08] in NOVEMBER and then

[1:45:09] we hope to have the

[1:45:11] general plan cmmittee

[1:45:12] meeting in lieu of

[1:45:13] planning commission

[1:45:15] meeting on DECEMBER.

[1:45:17] The ninth. No second

[1:45:18] meeting and no

[1:45:18] DECEMBER, because

[1:45:20] again, it falls.

[1:45:22] before christmas eve. I

[1:45:23] think so we aren't

[1:45:24] likely to get very

[1:45:25] good attendance, so we

[1:45:26] will just simply

[1:45:28] cancel that and so

[1:45:30] that makes your first

[1:45:30] meeting in the new

[1:45:33] year, JANUARY 27th.

[1:45:35] And at this point we

[1:45:36] have on that agenda is

[1:45:37] more general plan

[1:45:38] update I think you're

[1:45:39] probably from this

[1:45:40] point on, just going

[1:45:41] to have it all the

[1:45:44] time. Because we are

[1:45:48] we are in it now. And

[1:45:50] .. Possibly a meeting

[1:45:52] on the historic

[1:45:53] resources and training

[1:45:55] for that. And we I know

[1:45:57] we have some other

[1:45:59] pending that we need to

[1:46:07] scheduled as well

[1:46:09] >> this OCTOBER 28th

[1:46:10] meeting is going to be

[1:46:10] a big one for us. It's

[1:46:12] going to be our last

[1:46:13] major year we're gonna

[1:46:15] try to MARCH through

[1:46:17] scores of you know

[1:46:18] recommendations, try

[1:46:20] to aopt them as policy

[1:46:22] commission if there's

[1:46:23] any possibility of

[1:46:24] bringing us to at

[1:46:27] least a staff report

[1:46:28] in that portion of the

[1:46:30] agenda before the

[1:46:30] thursday before the

[1:46:32] friday before that

[1:46:33] would be very helpful

[1:46:35] because I think if

[1:46:36] everybody's had time

[1:46:37] to consider all the

[1:46:38] recommendations that

[1:46:40] are flowing in for to

[1:46:41] move more efficiently

[1:46:45] through the material

[1:46:46] >> and then the

[1:46:47] environmental justice

[1:46:48] commission also has

[1:46:48] their meeting with

[1:46:49] they're discussing

[1:46:51] general plan updates.

[1:46:52] Upcoming

[1:46:53] >> I understand. Yes.

[1:46:54] >> so that might be

[1:46:54] something to put on

[1:46:56] your calendar. And

[1:46:56] attend to. Listen in

[1:46:57] person and hear how

[1:46:59] the discussion goes

[1:47:00] and I misspoke

[1:47:01] earlier. We did have

[1:47:02] one motion with our

[1:47:03] general plan update. It

[1:47:05] was annexing and land

[1:47:05] swap with solano

[1:47:07] county just for the

[1:47:10] record. Any further

[1:47:11] comments? No. All

[1:47:12] right. With that, I

[1:47:13] adjourn our planning

[1:47:15] commission meeting you

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript