Planning Commission

captions standing by. T order, right? Promptly at 7:00. I like doing your time city of, um, It's okay. Um uh, taking over this evening because our chair is in now or somewhere. Yeah. It's always amazing what he does. Um, I do see that we have a quorum engineer. So does anybody want to change anything on the agenda? The next item is brief announcements from staff Commissioners and Council Liang. Stand. Thank you, MADAM, Vice chair. Darren with principal planner. Um, really. The only thing I have for you in terms of announcements are some project updates, which I can give you now and I'll keep them brief or we could do them later with, um, forthcoming scheduling. So it's at your pleasure. Mostly like with the schedule of what we'll be seeing, then. Maybe we should kep it to the end. These are actually projects that either won't be coming to you quite yet or won't come to you at all. Because they're in the downtown specific plan. We do that part and then at the end with the schedule. Okay? Very good. That was, what I have thought. So we'll kick it off with uh, palamino place the um, subsequent eir is out and, um, the comment period closes on SEPTEMBER 23rd. This actually our calendaring for later, but we are anticipating that, uh it will come to planning commission on SEPTEMBER 11th meeting. For review and the public hearing. For shriners, uh, last night we have an alternatives discussion with council and um, tey voted, um, to recommend moving forward with some slight amendments to, um, some of the alternatives to try and hone in on, um, the vmt calculations travel calculation. So that was a bit of a conversation which is good. Um and so the eir preparation has commenced officially and formally. So that's coming along village farms. Similarly has had quite a bit of progress on the draft ei and the last several weeks in particular. Um, and so as a point of calendaring, um, it we are looking on our to have the draft eir for village farms coming on DECEMBER 11th to plan any commission. That would be in the middle of their 45 day. Draft tier comment period. So, we have a little bit of a pipeline coming for you, but we'll get into that later. Child's rnch, uh, the chair row asked if we had an update on child's ranch for you all. So the da assignment went to city council on JULY forward from there. The new owner century is working with social services staff and planning staff to complete their due diligence and move forward with um processing. They have not submitted anything formal yet. And in terms of a final pd or a design review modification but we're looking at those things. um, if we can't, the final pd would come back to this body so that could be teaming up in the next. Few months depending on what their timing is. So that's a little too for for us at this point, but they are moving ahead and purchase went through. So child's ranch is is moving. Um, few updates on actually the last 4 are all on the downtown plan and form based code. So these would be projects that you have not seen or would not see 305 east street. Um, is a new application. It's between it's on third street between d and e. It's a 6 unit, 3,000 square foot long residential proposal that we're processing again, it's phone based code so it would not come before you. Um, good news on the lifestyle hotel, which we've mentioned over the last several, um months, um staff, thomas has approved that project. Um, the notice is out and the deadline for comments is septembar, 4th uh, similarly, 413 east street has been approved and the appeal deadline is SEPTEMBER 6th. So we've got a few more projects belt with the form base code, and then a newer project that has come in is um a small town home project on sweet bride. And again from base code so the um yes, it's north east of g street more. So, um, the coop shopping center, the strip center. That loop south of fifth. Do you want me to explain it? And and people will know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a very unusual street. It has 1 house on it. So if you're in the co-op parking lot and you're facing the street and we look to your right that sweet ryan. It's that little tiny street that connects g with 8th street, it just curves around and there's 1 house on it. 1 home owner proudly dclares that 1 of our students is I am the resident in the street rather, so I know. What's 3, unit town homes. So a total of 12 units, that's a roof. Thank you commissioners. Anybody have any comments? Yes, I just want to thank the staff for a couple of things. The first thing was the links that you provided. Thank you. We asked for that last time and everybody else found those helpful but we never quickly identified what where in our city code. The various elements were that we had to refer to and we can find it really quickly. So, thank you for that. And I really appreciated the clear and concise analysis, you did of the different sites that were, um, that we were going to be looking at, um, for the second item in our in our packet. Uh sorry the first item in the packet looking at, at our um, sorry, tired from that. I'm hiking too much and I but, uh, the 1 based code at the other cities that had that, and the good description that you put together of what you looked at, why you, you did it, what was comparative and I just want to thank you for doing that. It was really helpful. To have? No, thank you. I think daryl has all the updates, so I don't have anything for today. Great. All right, so the next we go to is a public comment, this is any member of the us on commission on matters which are not listed on the agenda. For a list of the consent calendar. Do we have any uh, public comment. You want to make something that's not on the agenda. So we can move on to the consent calendar. Now for the consent calendar, if you don't mind. Um, I'd like to ask us to look at februari 14th, first minutes and then MARCH 27th, stupidly. Only because linda, I know you accused from the 14th. So is everybody looked at the minutes from the 14th. That motion. We go? Much 27th. You. We'll move on. Victor. 1 who did the work. I think we're now ready for item 6. The public hearing on the downtown, davis, fund-based, code, amendments. Um, partner. I guess we have seen this before. U, I'm assuming staff. You will have a presentation. To make ad then at that point, um, we will probably get to ask any clarifying questions we have, but what's there? Then we'll open it up to will come back. Our deliberations. Thank you, MADAM, vice chair and good evening. Commissioners, thomas with noreen within the community development department. Tonight, we will continue a conversation on the downtown, form-based code tonight will be a brief presentation, but it will act as a refresher in an update to guide the conversation as evening. To provide that refresher, uh, from the last meeting the code allows certain building types, only in specific zones. Staff realized that detached house, building types were not allowed in any of the zones and rendered them legal non-conforming. After some aplications submitted, uh, to propose changes that conflict with what staff thought the intention of the code. Was we sought further direction from the planning commission and city council since the last meeting staff has conducted research into the various other jurisdictions, including college towns to compare how the proposed amendments differ from across the board. The feedback we received in APRIL, generally, a firm staff's interpretation of the code, but some areas as well. For example, the city council agreed with the current cassification of the detached house building type. It wanted to or they wanted to allow reasonable incremental development of legal non-conforming structures. They noted that any demolition of major or major alteration on a legal non-conforming building site must establish a new building type and they generally wanted to promote redevelopment and densification rather than increment development. Planning commission you all expressed an interest in allowing incremental developments. You did not want to penalize. Small alterations in modifications to legal non-conforming structures, uh, but you didn't express any opinions on the on allowing separate building sites with a legal non-conforming structure for presence. Uh, with our consultation with opticos, they told us to use uh chapter 40.28 of the davis municipal code, which is the section regarding any structures that MAY be non-conforming in the downtown area, um, they also told us to to look at other jurisdictions as well, which is what we have done. On our research, uh, other jurisdictions are quite similar have quite similar code. So what we're proposing tonight, um, the proposals tonight aren't unique and they're actually quite consistent with most jurisdictions that we've seen, um, with rgards to legal non-conforming structures. There are various methods in allowing it, um, some jurisdictions limit modifications or alterations to floor area ratio or square footage, which is, uh, language that you have tonight, oher jurisdictions don't allow any changes whatsoever or some of them actually allow that decision to be made by the planning director. Um, regarding the rebuilding of legal non-conforming structures, most jurisdictions actually set their trigger or their limit at 50%. Whereas davis's is at 60 so there's a bit more latency there. Um, and the time limits to rebuild that were mentioned last time are actually not as common as we thought. Um, so the 2 years to rebuild after um, damage isn't in the majority of codes that we looked at the forum based code that is and in terms of college towns, out of all the college towns in california, there are only 3 others outside of davis that have form-based codes. Um, hayward rowan park in santa barbara vista. Um, those form-based codes actually. Uh, differ quite drastically form based codes. Um, hayward rowan park in santa barbara vista. Um, those form-based codes actually, uh, differ quite drastically from the intention of, uh, davis's form based code. So, to provide a quick recap of the proposed language um a new building type requirements, is proposed to be triggered if the structure is damaged by more than 60% of, its appraised value for tax purposes and enlargement or alteration results in an increase of more than 15% of the footage existing at the time of adoption of the form-based code. And when more than 25% of the perimeter is demolished, additionally, the proposed amendments uh will add language to preclude, an additional building site etablished if there is an existing legal non-conforming structure on the site. Regardless of, if the building sites fits on the parcel or not, a quick summary of these um, they're both proposed as incentives for redevelopment and to increase density downtown uh the top uh change sets a threshold for compliance with the code and the other restricts further investment into a property that has a legal non-conforming structure on it. Um, both of these are specific just to the downtown area where the form-based code resides. There are, um, potential risks to adopting these amendments, the potential risks, uh, include the lack of development to redevelopment entirely uh as property owners who are not fully educated on the parameters of legal non-conforming structures, MAY stay away from the issue. Another risk is a scenario where a property owner MAY not be able to afford to rebuild a structure that differs from what originally stood and finally the risk of not being able to acquire a loan or refinance, your home and uh with a legal non-conforming structure. Benefits, uh, from the proposed aendments, include a clear intention for increased development in the downtown area. Increased opportunities for residents who live in or work in the downtown area. And it will create a predictable scale of development. Um, the remainder of the changes are quite minor alterations and clarifications that benefit staff's processing of the downtown projects. Quickly. um, the changes would remove some regulatory barriers and establish consistency. Um, and also provide some clarity for practitioners and developers and I will say, generally the planning commission was quite in support or pretty much in support of of these amendments during last meeting. And finally due to the interest from the planning commission, we will provide a brief update on the project at 523 g street. Staff the project to illustrate the type of hypothetical projects that the code right now does not allow prior to bringing the project forward staff worked with the applicants through multiple iterations of their plans staff offered other options of the compliance, like attaching. The addition to the existing structure or replacing the existing structure, with the new 1, but the applicant indicated the proposal you see before you is what they wanted. We presented the project to the planning commission as a zoning issue, is, but there were other issues with the project as well. The applicant was also presented complications with meeting the fire code to which the project has still not reached compliance. There have been many revisions to comply with the code but staff, do not foresee the issue being resolved in its current design. The fire code issues were not mentioned in the previous meeting as though the app. Uh, as we thought the applicant would be able to revise the project into compliance and staff focus the conversation. The last meeting around the zoning amendments since the previous meeting staff took, or looked into options such as sb9, uh, grandfathering and the project and other adu options as the planning commission indicated but the project is not allowed for these processes as currently proposed. Staff came to the determination that it would be best for the applicant to revise the project and replace the existing structure, meet the code entirely or withdraw the application. Sympathetic of the situation, the applicant has been in, but with 2 code, compliance issues staff is concerned that the applicants resources are being spent with no clear path for compliance. Please keep in mind, though, this project was just an illustration of the code. The planning commission, MAY make recommendations to alter the zoning amendments to allow projects, like 5 2 3, so to sum up in conclusion staff recommends, that the planning commission the city council approve of an ordinance of the city council of the city of davis, amending various sections of article, 40 of the davis municipal code to amend regulations regarding the downtown davis form basis. And I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have it. Thank you thomas, is that it great? Okay, so I think what we'll do is in the start on my left with johannes, just announced the time to ask clarifying questions to thomas or we're just going to walk through and then we'll internal calm. So um, when things I'm curious about is I'm looking at the audience and I don't see people. Really that mean, I don't know what that means, um, but my question 2 questions, the first 1 is what, what process did you notify people of this meeting today? Um, could you just talk to that and the second 1 is I know, this is how many of the structures that are out there that fall into this category are owner occupied. At which, uh, staff takes to notice. Uh, items such as this that afect um a large area. Um, we for this 1 in particular, we um issued an eighth page ad and the davis enterprise that was um in the last issuance or the 1 last week, essentially we gave a 10-day notice or more? Um, if that's what lines up. In addition, we post the news to our website. Um, our web page for email anyone who is signed up for planning commission. Emails will also get that notices, get sent directly to the owners or occupants of the homes or the structures in, in this instance, um, because there were so many different properties. We, um, opted for the davis enterprise option. Um, so, we actually noticed in the paper, every time we notice, it covers such a large area, the eighth page ad fulfills, the state requirement for public noticing and so we opted not to send some a mailed direct, um, notice to each and every property owner downtown and to answer your second question, um, I you don't know how many our owner occupied if you're talking specifically about the single family homes or the detached house building type, um, we would have to do that research and come back. Were relevant to the conversation. Ys. If not know I'm, I was just curious about whether both of those questions and I would suggest that maybe in the future. Um, there were 30 buildings, if I'm not mistaken. Is that right 30 properties? We estimated that there were approximately 30 detached house types, whether those are single family, or residential or commercial in use, um, we we didn't break it down to that level, this discussion has been centered around. Right? So, but you do have that information if you if you. So if you decided in the future to do something like that, you would be able to pull that data out pretty easily or would that require a huge amount of staff time to do that? I'm not sure because we're not terribly automated. So I would probably check and see if that's something social services might keep track of or maybe through all of our building permits with with necessarily show us that either. I'm not even sure how we would accomplish that research, bt happy to look into it and out. Thank you. So, the sony changes that we're looking at? Um, are pretty obviously covered the whole downtown area. It's not specific to the g street property and if these changes are doesn't make any difference with regard to the applicant. Would conforming if these changes happen? I don't think so. So that's not how I read it. So no these these um, amendments. Further, um, limit legal non-conforming. That's what I thought. Okay? I just want to make sure I got it right in my head. Okay, I'm good. Thanks. So my question is about density, how is density being determined? Is it being determined by unit count by volume of the building by square footage of the building and I'll tell you why I asked you. Okay. Um, so the direction that it sounds like council has been taking is that it's for the new, you know, to not have these types of um, properties be maintained that in other words, they want to go to the new medium density, zoning, um, and the reason for it is, I understand it is because of density ad it ws a question. I asked our last meeting on this and that is if some of the properties that had already been changed, meaning there was uh, housing units, added behind the front office space. Um, is that density? Any greater or less than what the new code would require? So therefore my question well what is density then? How are you actually measuring that? Um, that we calculate density is by the dwelling units, so it's typically handled by are looking at dwelling input acre. Um, there's both gross density and net density. Um, calculating both residential area and all of the area per day. In terms of how density is played, or is taken into account with the form-based code. Um, it doesn't look at density, it more. Looks at you know, some zones I should say some building types required a certain amount of units to be in the building type to be, um, allowed. But the zone doesn't limit the density. Um, it's more within the building type that that alters that so, give me an example. Then, in the case of it, it's a good example for us to use, whether it's, you know, going to happen or not. That's not the point. But the example of 523 g street, what the be there versus what the unit count would be. If the medium zoned um, 1-based code, was applied to that site. Can you can you give me an estimate of that? Yeah. I I think I understand. So currently, there are zero units on the property as its commercial property. With the proposed project. I think they've proposed 5 units. So, if they were to build this um, proposed structure, it would be 5. But property, um, something like a multiplex small, um, puts the baseline at 5 units. What we have seen in other uh parcels downtown that their locs is that people usually opt for the multiplex large which has a baseline of 7 units. So, to maximize the zne, um the main street medium zone. Um, you would you could build a a multiplex large, which gives you at least 7 units. Not required to do that. No form. Based code, could be the multi flex small correct. So which is a good example. So, it really isn't in that particular example isn't denser, if you're using unit count, if we're talking dwelling units, pro approved a lot. Yes. It would be the same. Well, in the form-based code has to give you or give us some specific as to what density will, what what the definition for density will be. If it's unit count, then we're not gaining anything by um, enforcing this new code on these sites. Is what I'm saying, we're not really gaining anything. So the the um, caveat of, uh, pushing the idea of density really is and sounds to me, like it's not necessarily a valid idea. In the sense, there's some constraints on the site of course 523. This is yeah I'm that. I don't want to I know they have fire comp issues. You know I'm not worried about that just using it as an example. Right right right and and so I don't probably they couldn't reasonably fit more than 5 more units unless they tore down the existing building. So in this particular illustration, it's on a par we could potentially get 2 more units or maybe 3 or 4 more units under the code. But just in terms of site constraints, unless the existing building was I don't think we would we wouldn't get more than 105 units are proposing. So there's a comparable. I I would say. Yes. Yeah. And and I would also hazard that that's probably true in similar instances where we've got, there's a lot of old and funky stuff out there but there's a lot of case by case basis, but I think that would probably we would probably find that true if we did some kind of audit of all the single family detached house, forms that appeared to have room to expand. A few questions with regard to 523 jeep. What is the fire code issue that is holding up? And and review at this time. Yeah, s the fire code complications at 523 g street are unique to to this area because they're proposing a new building site nw dwelling units in the rear of the property, whereas they relied on the alleyway, um, to act as fire access, having not consulted, the fire department. Prior the fire department is not comfortable using alleyways, at least that alleyway is an access point because of how narrow it is. um, and often, you know, degree in the way and they were not comfortable using it as the main access point for this, therefore, the property had to establish another access point and that access point by default would have been g street, um, for the fire code. G street is of an access point for the property for the new dwelling unit. Um, by 30 or so feet too far. Um and therefore, that's almost a non-starter with the fire code. There were some other issues that we were looking at like the side yard. Um having enough room for the fire department to hist ladders that has since been resolved but additionally with the alley or with the fire access being along, g street. Um, if case there was a third story structure. Fire the fire department would not be able to use their ladder truck as there are, um, utilities overhead the access which is also written in the fire code is, is basically a non-starter okay, thank you have to clarify sir um, when you were doing your survey of other form, based codes. Did you find any other examples of where there was a prohibition on the building a on a non-conforming site was that unique to for davis. The so no there. I didn't find another. We didn't find another. Um, limitation of building site per se, um, it was more wrapped into alterations and modifications, I would say in i found. A lot more than what davis had, um, in consultation with opticos. They also said that, you know, if the building site being too large, was an issue that the planning commission can always essentially. But in in the research tat we conducted, um there was no, you know, on on the limiting, building sites being established if there was a a legal non-conforming structure. If the last the form based code. I, I raised the question about unsure of bill and percent destruction scenario, and then having to build a big conforming structure and that there might not be insurance coverage for that you jump in. They run that 1 by off the coast. So, add additional fund adapter, we didn't run it by opticos. Um, this is more of a legal non-conforming question and we didn't find it that opticos would expert to to reach out to I terms of insurability or appraisal questions. Um, we we spoke to a few other people in, in job space. And and got our them. Um, when you were doing your survey of other form-based codes, uh did any of them include? Say a hardship exemption to like address some of these potential risks call them in your summary. You know, it's financially and feasible or, or uh, it's incapable of being financed. Or or access and competitive through development. Um it's just any other jurisdiction, you have a hardship exemption. there were many different ways to handle the scenario of a a damaged or destroyed structure. Um, some of them in the case that you're bringing up often went to either the planning director, sometimes the planning commission but generally, it was pretty clear across the board that, you know, here's here's the way that you come into compliance, um, if you can't do it, then you kind of forego your option of the way it was essentially. Are my questions. Thank you. Okay, thomas. Nice, nice report. Um, couple of looking at other jurisdictions, the I mean 1 you mentioned that uh that many had a time to rebuild that was substantially longer uh than what data says do, do any of the other amendments? Uh, look at that time to rebuild. We didn't alter what we proposed from the first meeting in terms of the rebuilding. Um, aware that. Is quite a short amount of time and we might not be thinking. I can't even get my lawn mowed at 6 minutes. So, we are aware of the issue and and we decided that that is, you know, touching the that portion of the code is going to be a more significant um upheaval and so no we haven't, you know, changed any of that. To say about that later, I think, um, the modifications to legal non-conforming, uh, structures. You have a few bullets here, that they're very methods for the allowance, some jurisdictional stone law. Any changes are there any jurisdictions that um, don't have any, uh, requirements. So there's no threshold limit. We do what's the range of yeah, there were, there were a couple jurisdictions. I can't remember the specific ones that but allowed any and all modifications they're in compliance or in further compliance with the code. Um, so it ranges from full allowance as long as it's compliant to nothing at all, and everything in between. So so, the whole range is good. Um, and then 1 I just have a quick cmment and this is related to your honest comment. I think it's really surprising that there's not more public comment and I think the outreach. Um I mean yes these property owners knew it couple of them caring questions. First of all, I just want to make sure that when we're talking about the detached houses we are also this is not just single family. This is commercial as well, right? Like burgers and brew or there's there's plenty of commercial in detention. Correct staff worked through this. We came to realize that it's not just the detached house style, it is a large proportion of the existing commercial whether they are a detached house form or not some other type of, of this is about to catch house form, right? This is it would apply to commercial. The non-conforming debt. Absolutely would apply to all the commercial buildings. The second part I wanted you to actually address. So thank you. That was my second. Since downtown is not greenfield, right? So we went, we took an existing place and we said, here's this new form-based code. Go forth and multiply, but already and now we're dealing with stuff that's already there in the sense. Instead and attached houses isn't there other stuff in downtown that's legal non-conforming? In addition to these detached houses. We have a surveyed, but so I don't can't give you a number. There there are, there are some newer buildings that are 3 or 4stories that are pushed up against the sidewalk have more typical storefront facades have entryways that MAY conform with the code. There's a lot of single story um, less, um, intense, not as tall. Some of the some of the interior like core areas where there's just single basically, single story, sort of strip commercial, um, would not be considered compliant or consistent with the fun based code as adopted. So they do but have similar issues as the things go forward. In terms of those those commercial properties and what they would do, correct. So I think it's significant, okay? You last clarifying. Question, you guys talked about like the planning director or somebody like that. I'm wondering about is, I that you want to kind of get these. Coordinates, I guess kind of codified. And and I understand that and we're just recommending. So we need some changes and we're going to go in city council would then approve but felt like, needed to be. I don't know there court of last resort or disability to go to a planning director or some way you were trying to hardship, you know, we would okay this is fine. This is the rule. But you can you can visit the appeal process. There's some way to go to somebody else because as it's done right now it's like we need it or you don't goodbye. Well ys, I'm glad you brought that up because this is something we've been grappling with, as well. Um, it, you know, is there a release valve, is there a way? Um, I get out of jail card is, you know, is there some appeal? Essentially staff could deny and under the form, based code, doesn't comply with the form based code and essentially an applicant could appeal to planning commission project is not consistent with the form-based code. Neither staff, nor planning commission, will be in a position to make findings for approval. So the it the code has locked us in to it's not even about the uses. So there there as the form-based code, is written there, really isn't that ability? Deviate from the path to deviate from a staff level approval, we check the boxes. You know, we provide it all of all of the looks the, the form that we want. The only way that, that that developers are getting, you know, around that is through the state density bonus and we've talked a little bit about that, right? That's for a bigger project. That's a bigger project than affordable housing center. I got bask in robbins, you know, I want to do something. Alternative. Like that in because I sounded like in some of these other jurisdictions, there was a way to go to the planning director or the planning department or the planning commission or something like that. How would perhaps you can guide us as we go to our discussion? I'll go to the public comment in a moment but I know that that will be certainly something I'm interested in, I know, but the rest of you but I have something I think we would be interested in understanding how that would. All right, so I'm going to end that part. We question, go ahead. I wanted to go back to the, um, topic that commissioner mcllen brought up on fire department. Um, can you revisit that for me, um, 1 more time and that is why the fire department, what what their reasoning was for? For that particular property. Yeah, so for the property in g street, there needs to be um clear access for the fire department to reach the property and it needs to be within x amount of issue of um, this property is close to the alley, um, which would normally srve as, as, um, fire access. But this alley is to uh, narrow for the fire department, access reliably with the fire trucks. And so the fire department chose to um, indicate that the alleyway is not going to be a primary? Uh, therefore indicating that g street has to be access form and g street actually ends up being too far away within fire code to allow that way from what from the property itself from the proposed structure. I'm listening then I'm thinking about what that literally means. So I'm thinking about 3 other properties on g street. Um, if there is this challenge with access, then the fire department's going to have that with the other properties that are already there. That I guess weigh into all of this? I'm not aware of those other specific situations so I can't be on the alley. I can't necessarily, you know, provide any clarification there. Do we have an idea of when those projects were completed because the fire code gets updated fairly frequently. Yeah. And there some discretion of the fire chief has in in terms of making decisions about how to interpret the fire code, how to enforce the fire code. Give you dates. Okay. I mean I wasn't here when they were built or whatever. Okay. But I can tell you this that property 523 is not on either end of g street. It's more internal. And there are other properties already there that you'd have to go by and the fire truck to get to 523. So I just it, it just sounds like, I don't know. Did somebody go out there and look at it, you know, the fire department did make 3 field trips to the surveyed it. Um they found that it's also a 1-way and 1 way out ali as the alleyway is walk ballers. Um, additionally I should say that the footprint of this project is you know 3 stories which adds a level of intensification compared to some of the adus that you might be thinking of in the alleyway. I'm not familiar with any additional. Um, primary dwelling units within the rear, um, alleyway area. Family, just like, what's being proposed and there are they're like right on the property line. I brought this u at the last meeting too. So it just, it doesn't, you know, it's not your issue. It's the fire department. I realize you can't speak for the fire department, but I'm looking to see if you had additional information because again, it doesn't it just doesn't make sense to me, you know, if you've got a property in the middle of the, the the um, row of properties there. Okay, of units. However, I want to say that and the fire engines, got to go or the other to get to it. Well, okay, what about all these other buildings that are right on the property line, you know? So just something um, maybe I don't know if you can pursue it with or maybe the clients might want to pursue it with a fire department. Any more clarifying questions because I would like, now open to public. We have any recorded for a comment. No, is luis miguel. I'm here with my partner. Uh, we are the owners of uh, 3 businesses in the city of davis and longtime residents for 40 years. I've been with them have, uh, we are the proposals for the 5223 g street project, we are not contesting that issue. Today we wanted to talk about the form based code but an is an example of uh, I think what we believe will happen if this amendments as the proposed by staff are um, because essentially we we don't have the funds, the expertise, or the willingness to destroy the existing structure that we build something that is not in what we believe to be in the best interest of this. We are for we, you know, the the the code has proposed right now. Essentially give us a straight jacket. Because as, uh, thomas aptly said, the fire code is is prohibiting us from building something there. Although there's a new adu that is coming up on, uh, g street. On on the, the next block on 6, uh, between 6 and 7, there's a new adu that is coming up right now, which is further away from the streets than were our building is so u, we we really don't understand why that would be appropriate, but ours would not be appropriate. Ineligible are for an adu because tese state adu code that it's only applies to, um, home dwelling units and we chose to use our unit as a, as an office, we could choose to use it as a home. Around that. Uh, but that's not what we use for at this point. So at this point, we have a straight jacket. Couple of points that were brought up before about the density of what would be in the property with a new um, building because we right now. Correct that with a new units that we're adding, it would be only 5 more, but if we chose to change that into a dwelling, increase the density. Also by 2 units or whatever, so it would be just as much as you would be getting on with a form based code, uh, as a support the within the form based code as, as it applies right now. So another mention that, um, thomas made of ballards alley, those are just, you can just pick them up and pick them up. As a matter of fact, I took a picture of those send them to, uh staff and u, to show them that those bowlers are just very easy to move. I'm srry, I'm just going to have to ask you to wrap it up, just because it was said 3 minute. Okay? Uh, if if you don't mind, if I can get a few more minutes, a few more uh time I really appreciate it. This is a very important thing for me to um, the other thing that I wanted to to mention is that um, is a big liability for the city, the fact that the fire trucks don't want to go there. It's really a big liability because as you mentioned, there are many structures that are in that area that ae not reachable within the ft distance, that the fire portal ones that the fire department that's really a big problem for the city. Do those alleys are paid they're pretty wide. They're not obstructed and we don't really see what that would be an issue. Lastly, wanted to urge you to um, reject, the amendments that have been proposed to you today because that those amendments are not what you indicated the last meeting that you wanted. I believe that we should be able to uh, existing structures, as we see fit as long as they're within the regulations that are appropriate and that we should not be straight jacketed, just because we happen to be on 1 side of the street. Whereas our neighbors right behind on the other side of the alley and able to build in use and any other structures because they are in in in another example for your attention. Bye. Public comment. In a close-up portion and to discussion. Ellen, think I'll just start it. Um, so, in terms of uh, your proposal, uh, table 1 has a number of the sort of minor proposed changes. I read through them. Look great. No issue there. So my concern obviously legal non-conforming issue and I have to say I'm pretty strongly in the increment. Uh, I find that and so I find the recommendations to be somewhat arbitrary. In fact, a lot arbitrary, uh, and punitive and punitive for what punitive for being a long-term downtown, uh, property owner. So when you report though, I did take note of a comment uh, says, council chooses to change nothing property owners would be permitted to make aterations to their non-conforming structure. And ithink that in our last meeting on this topic, that was my preferred course of action. To remain silent. Um, since then my viewpoint has hardened up that more and in addition to remaining silent on alterations and modifications, I'm sure this isn't possible, uh, but I would like to see 40.28, 0.110 10 on rplacement of damaged non-conforming structures, uh, just be deleted. So, going through both of these, in terms of alterations and modifications. Uh, my question is, why 15%? That seems uh, completely arbitrary to me and I think as thomas pointed out in the studies that we did this varies all over the board in other jurisdictions. Um, so why 15% if there is going to be a number I'd like to see a number that has, uh, some rationale behind it or some rationale that I can understand. Um but in any case, I think it should be much higher even as as high as 100%. Yeah, I replace it. Uh, in terms of damage to non-conforming structures, seems like there are few problems and these have come up. Uh, in in your report and other comments. Uh, but imagine homeowner and you suffer a 61% loss by fire or earthquake and you don't hve the financial or insurance resources to rebuild. You have the resource to rebuild your home but not to establish a new building type. I think this kind of events going to be extremely rare anyway, so it's not going to drive a lot of redevelopment. Um, you know, why include this, uh, as something that could be a huge why it a 60% threshold? Uh, this would essentially sacrifice the remaining 40% of value, perhaps could be salvaged 100. Uh, be a better. Although even then why should a homeowner be compelled to lose their single family helped. Um, and then the last uh point that I think is problematic is the 6 month rebuilding? Problems and, and, and not a supporter of the recommendations as 16. I'm not sure, I understood everything, you said, but I think I've got my loop come back though. Um, you know, we're already permitting adus, you know, on a streamlined basis. Uh, I don't see where you know, prohibiting a second building on a non-conforming site. Promotes densification. I think it has the opposite results. So I'm a proponent of accepting on page 7 of the report. The second recommendation, which is to remove the language of limits, 1 building site to a parcel with an existing legal non-conforming structure, it just seems to be inconsistent um, as it as for, um, commissioner bennett's discussion of percentages. Um, in terms of, you know, modifications being 15% of the square food in the 25% exterior alterations. Um, we've been told that that is that is, it's written that way to discourage incremental redevelopment, but I would personally not trouble with either uh incremental if 1 of the commissioners made a proposal to modify these percent, I I and then, I'd mentioned concept of a hardship exemption, uh, during my questions. But while I call it a hardship exemption, I don't rally want to create a hardship exemption which basically encourages a rush. To staff or something. If if there's a technical, um, reason that you're not complying with the form based code, but I could support and I would support something that's maybe a little more general, that indicates, that you have a right to appeal on the following 2 or different bases, and leave it at that rather than grant you the hardships. Be some. With an application is satisfied with. It just has a different point of view. So those are my clothes monitors. i'm trying to get down to specifics once we get everything sense. Um, my point, um, that I was getting at with regards t densification. Um, if in fact, I understand um, what councils and we have 1 of our council members they can clarify for us. Um, but if in fact, the idea is to create more units in the downtown area. I think we already said, it's not, we're not talking, you know, a difference. If you're tracking unit count. So it makes no sense to me to um do something that feels very um harsh on the property owners. Um, it doesn't make any sense to me to do something that will eliminate, u, quite possibly buildings that I think really give the charm and aesthetic. Um, it doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me to throw away, something to build something new. Um, when you're not really gaining something more given, uh, the definition of density. Um, so I'm not in favor of uh, changing the policy. I think it should stay as it is. Um that's 1, 1 piece, I want to offer. The other is, um, I had asked at the last meeting in regards to the this is, uh, 40.1 4.080 um, clarifying. The historic resource shall be designated to the standard to apply. Um, and I think that's um, the way it is right now, and there there's a proposal to change the wording. So, my comment was there should be a list made available of all the historic, u, homes designated historic, excuse me, commercial along with this because right now it's making a comment about, um, historic resources when it's not there and we don't have what, what? I would consider a current list of what those properties are. So I think that needs to be made a part of this are my comments. I mean, uncomfortable with the amendments of the sections that have not have nothing to do with the non-conforming issues that we were that I agree with you. Ido think it's important to have some type of an appeal process built in here. I am sure that there isn't any mention of, even if it just goes to the planning director or to us, or whomever, I think we need to have that in there. And I like what you said about, we don't want it to be the exception that rules is like, okay, then everything is going to become a hardship that let's have the if we can delineate. Few to narrow it down. I'm agreeable to that I can't think off the top of my head that those should be. But maybe with your discussion we can can I do want? I I don't want to overregulation and agree with the densification ideas, I I want to be going in that direction. I understand what the purpose is behind the farm based code. But I also understand we have these nn-conforming properties. I'll use that phrase know, I would like to know what are the historical properties? I think we have some cool places and I don't want them to be forced to go out if something happens. I'm still, ihaven't come to a place where I'm at yet on the percentage wise we at 15% or 100% damage, have to be rebuilt, but I think that does warrant more discussion. Regard. I agree with what james said, and I personally when I was going through this, I had checked off on the second option, removing language a little bit. Um when building site for parts I agree that we need to move to a sensation our issue that we brought up about having a list of what are the as you call? I get confused on. That was the uh properties. The the list of designated historic. And designated the service. I would as soon as the difference between the 2 others. So, how easy it might be to be confused about what those are for the general public and other people interested in this. So having that definition and that list being available, I think would be really helpful. Um, so those are my comments at this point. Um, I like what you said all summer show but I want to go back and do something and I think it's really important. For m, all to consider this as a potential, an additional recommendation with regards to what we do with this convenient decision. I think that homeowners from buyers, as well as um, agents of sellers homes should have this these requirements that is limitations absolutely made clear and any sale moving forward. Because you if you only noticing it in the paper, not noticing people who are directly affected by this. I think we're doing a disservice to our community and our community members because they're not only affected by not only buyers affected, but the people living around them, are all social I think it's really crucial that we consider that and somehow we put that into kind of concern or consideration for council moving forward so they can direct staff. Let me make a suggestion and see how this flies. Okay. And I actually think we have maybe 4 elements. The first 1 is the 1. You just raised so we could have some learning around, um, planning commission's concern that people who are affected by this, MAY not truly understand all the ramifications of this, including des hommes asessors. Will that really anybody? Whatever. So we have some concern on that. So we might want to perhaps get some kind of recommendation. Gets the public meeting or something. But let's I just say that a step 1. So that's it. There's something like that. All right. Step 2 is I sounds like if you look at table 1, um, which has it sounded like they were able to be exception of? I think 40.14 low um georgina I think that was the 1 that you had some reservation about it. Sounded like for the most part we were okay with that. So can you tell me how you would change the wood in here needs there to be a current in reference list in the code of all historic, designated historic properties. So people aren't having to look somewhere else to find out, you know? And I'm not sure that the list of designated historic properties, we have is current or complete. I've looked at it online a couple of times, but so if we said clarifying, the historic resources that the up to date, historic resource list of the standard to apply or something like some other in their that a list of the designated historic. Go ahead. If I MAY MADAM Vice chair, I wanted to to let you all know that in the last few months, we have cmpleted. The 2023 2024 downtown historic sort surveys, they did go to the historic resource commission and in JULY don't hold me to a date um if you would please and they are the 17th council agenda for septembar. Council to consider um, the survey list. And if they so choose to designate, any of those properties that have been identified as eligible to be designated as a historic resource. So, the updated list is well in the works. Um, I think it would just live where it normally lives, but we could potentially reference it. We could put something on the form-based code web what I was people trying to get at is what you just confirmed from me because I knew the list wasn't current and up to date. So are you have to deliver that? It is getting updated. I think it should be linked in the table so people can just go right over where the list of designated historic. Properties are without trying to figure out is this the current list is this not so in 40 to 14 or there's a link actually goes with the link. That's okay. Great. So I'm sorry I was going through 4, but I just don't get through that okay, so then I think the third part is and I'm hoping folks have some suggested changes is really under I think section 4 5, bt which is the um, multiple buildings, the percentage, so all all that. Um, we might want to make some changes too. Or let me sound like some things to gt rid of it. Suggested changes, so I think that's the third thing. We need to look spend the bulk of the time there and then I think the fourth thing what I brought up and sound like other people agree with, which is even if once we we recommend. Yep. This is this is what we're good with that. We would like to add some kind of alternative plan path for approval that there be some something outside that whether it's an ability to go somewhere. Department or whatever. Yeah, needs to be that even though this is here for the legal non-conforming, you know. So let's say we go with the 60%. Of someone that's 61. Could they go t somebody and say, come on, you know, can't can I, you know, something like that. So with that. I we're somewhat closed on. The first 2, um, you might want to think some wording for the the recommendation you'll have us about what we don't know, but we got second 1 I think we're more or less close enough that we've gotten the update in the historical. So if you have some thought about sort of what things people would like to suggest and change and looking at the actual their. Because I think don't will need that for our recommendation. A couple ideas. Very simple. Appeal process that we can designate. Who if if um compliance with the form based code is economically unusual. It's just a general term economic feasibility that could be of things could form under that lack of, ability, lack of capability of findings and um, uh, incapable of getting the appraisal so just have an appeal process for economic so we need some kind of simple alternate and half for approval remove economic. Feasibility. Yeah. Financial and feasibility, and then I'm open to suggestion as to who that appeal would be too. But, um, there's, there's got to be some recourse, you know in a hardship I think you should perhaps it's you're not called to plan for me to open community development or what is the department called? Community with planning division. Administrative appeal. Otherwise, it would have to be, it would have to come to this body, okay. Number 3, but we have to jump to number 4, is that something like that suitable to people for that notion of a safety valve. Or yeah, I think you should try and keep it with staff because the idea for base code is to simplify and not have to coming back to commissions. So I of director planning department. Go to number 3? Which was the the the various social know, all all all those sections that are in the section. So I can, I'll make your radical suggestion which MAY make yur appeal process unnecessary. Um, so if we're looking at section 5, uh, where it talks about, uh, structures that are damaged or that are enlarged. The preamble to this says, existed prior to the adoption of the form-based code and which became non-conforming by reason of the adoption from base code shall be submitted to continue in use as listed in section below, um, and just stop there, and you could. And as I suggested, we could just eliminate and the 80 silent ones because this means these buildings can continue to modify themselves. They damaged and we don't they can have more than 25% of their wall. Prepared, and it becomes a non-issue and therefore there's not there's no need for an original process. I think the appeal process we can create a separate thing modifying the ordinance. Let's say to modify the order to do that. I think we need a separate thing which says the process because remember our recommendation, this is a recommendation city council to get in. Yeah, we can, um, want to comment on his notion of. Let me just get rid of all those. This commissioner bennett. I think if you made the motion on that, I would be happy with this second. Anybody else discussion on that part of it, I would be fine with that. Those steps that 1 236. Um, since you're on a roll, yeah, was there anything you wanted to do on section 4? Which was the um, 1 building. Yeah, well yeah. I see the probe issued against the system 1 of the suggestions was to remove the language the limits 1 building 2 parts 1. I would support that as well. Okay, so you're so so in the change because I think you've got a motion there. Just I want to make sure there's nothing else. I apologize for interrupting but commissioner bennett made an important point and we couldn't hear what you said. So it if you would mind repeating it. It's been a little hard to see. Some reason, I don't know if the masks are turned down really low or hearing is. Thank you, which part last sentence. You said something and it was it just the very last thing that you said well, very last thing I said was referring, um, to a suggestion made by staff that they removed the language the limited 1 building site person who doesn't existing legal non-conforming structure, was that the previous? I'm not sure I'm listing, because I say that thank you for being. So I think that must have been it is other discussion before because I think we could do a motion. I'm hoping someone could do which would um say, you know the ordinance of the table 1 and whatever and then make those changes. So I'm not sure how to modify but so I'll make a motion that uh, section 4 of the resolution, be modified to remove the language that limits 1 building a parcel. So that's the first part of the motion and the second part of the motion is that under section 5, sections, b2 and b3. There be a link in 40.14 that I thought that was another piece. Yeah. In other words you're trying to get it all in 1 motion. Oh, all right. I aologize. I didn't understand that. So I wrote down 2 other things. Uh, in addition to what, MR. Uh, bennett said we would also, uh, modify 40.14 080 to develop a link to a current list of the historical, the fourth edition or the last edition would be um, to include an appeal process to the community development drector, in the event of economic and feasibility. More piece 2 that beyonce was talking about which is to make some type of public. Presentation transparency around abuse rules. This as a starting point, which is notice be sent to all property owners of the, uh, outcome and changes of non-conforming structures, simply and that need some amplification, I'm sure but I think that that would be a good way and if you feel free to modify it if you like but I think that's kind of the things that should be done. Process is completed and the second piece of that was real estate agents. Informed clients uh of the legal ramifications sale of homes that are legal or non-conforming, instructions. I should say just structures bcause as you said it's more than home, it's just a certain thing to exactly well I'm not sure we have the power to regulate the broker community and maybe it would be. I like your idea of sending notices to people with informed based code, uh, jurisdiction and, uh, maybe there could be a disclosure. And notice when you do the inspection to sell a house so that that would be provided to the buyer along with being results of the city inspection. I like that. Those would be things the city could do. I would like to see that separate from this motion that we're working on, on the specific to the ordinances I agree with that. I could not agree more if you don't mind. The person make commission advantage if it's okay to keep your recommending to city council that um they ordinance with the following changes, we have the first 1 being the link. On the historic resource. You want me to read it from the top and then I'll make a motion. So our motion is to, we did. He was, he was um, are you okay with him? Amending your motion I want to restate everything else. So, the restatement of the motion would be, we're actually accepting the the modifications as set forth in with the addition that in 40.148. We're going to include a link to current list. Uh of, uh, historical properties. Uh, the second item would be in section 4. We're going to remove the requirement of 1 building. Building per site. For the pohibition of the second building on the site on the non-conforming site. Uh, the tird thing we're going to do section 5. We're going to delete the 1, 2 and b3. And the fourth thing we're going to do is have an appeal process to the community development director. In the event of economic on feasibility. Everybody, understand the motion that we have, okay? We have additional recommendation. We wanted to make around communication sounding like I like, I actually like what we had said, then. So including it as a sale point. And so feel free to modify it. Let's start with this is just notify us to be sent to all property owners, the outcome of the changes to not conforming structures to 1 recommendation. Would be that real estate agents and this is where it would be modified uh informed clients of the, the sale of homes, uh the the legal ramifications uh of the sales of none and controls. Well, somebody, um, uh, on the panel here talked about we saw and there's a resale, um, application process and that's where it can be noticed. And real estate agents, or the homeowners, agents, or the homeowners, or I should say property owners, would end up, getting tat information then neither real estate agents or the homeowners or I should say property owners, would end up, getting that information then every time the property sells, there's a resale. How would we frame that then it's just a recognition. Well, I think we just make it a city obligation limited to them. So, it's so I think the concept would be then to inquire a notification to al properties and informed.