[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