Planning Commission

by. Clock. So we go. Welcome to the planning commission. It is. JUNE 11th, 2025. See that we have a full contingent of commissioners. So, that's great. And with that, um, I wonder if anybody wants any changes to the agenda. Can I get? You could the agenda. Perfect. Item is brief. Announcements, any from staff? Yes. Good evening. Thank you MADAM. CHAIRWOMAN Darren dunworth principal planner. Um, I just wanted to report back out, um, on our tasks and info items diligently working on them. In fact, they've been working with our esteemed city clerk um to bring the uc davis, annexation staff report to city council on consent. Um, don't think I'm going to make it by friday. Unfortunately, for the JUNE 17th council meeting but we are committed to getting on JULY 1st, that was the top priority as we discussed last meeting. And so, then I'll be working through the other um, tasks, to elevate on consent to council, um, after their JULY recess. So we'll just keep plowing ahead. Um, other than that, i don't think I have anything exciting about any of our projects, they gave a pretty robust update last meeting. Um, we're working on the general plan update, we're working on the big peripheral projects. Everything is just moving ahead and we're, we're busy. Busy busy. So, if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Well, I'll just segue a little bit off of what uh, daryl was saying when that is, let's see. The project on uh, full line road is um, they're doing um, the the grading it right now that was don felt's project 30 units, woohoo under the wire and ten the other projects moving right along too. That's on. Um, is that history now? Is it history, 8th street, 8th and pole line, right? Yeah, child's ranch. Yeah yes. So you know that's housing. Yay. Things are happening? Yep. Thank you. Um, I have a request. We're going to have 2 large projects coming to us, uh will grow and uh, village farms davis and I'm wondering if there's any possibility of issuing the documents for those like 2 weeks ahead of our meeting. because both of them, if we get it, that's the friday night before the wednesday meeting. It's a slob. To try to get through a thousand 2,000 pages or or whatever, you know, between friday afternoon and wednesday afternoon, there's any feasibility about doing that, that would be geatly appreciated and spinner. Um intent. Um we'll certainly try to keep with that depending on the timing as we get into the fall. We'll have a better idea of how things are going to time out. Um, we do have to get village farms through council and no later than their regular meeting of JANUARY 6th 6th 2026. So we're we're that's our, that's our goal date. So we'll we'll keep you apprised. And yes, we will. We have every intention of getting the entire staff report out in advance and not just giving you the weeknd, ideally, it would be a week maybe 10 days in advance that you would have te entire package if we can get the eir on the street sooner than that. Um, we will certainly do that. So, would it be reasonable to assume then that the target is for approval by council at its JANUARY 6th meeting and we don't usually meet the fourth, wednesday DECEMBER. It would be seeing it like first wednesday, the second wednesday in DECEMBER you got to get it to council ideally before, 6th, or that would have to be the second council meeting so oh. Unfortunately, your calendar should hopefully be free earlier in the fall than that. We really like to have it to you. Um, before DECEMBER. Okay. So the governor's office of land use and climate initiatives has opened their annual planning service, just do JUNE 20th. Um, I don't know if we get a chance to see the response. Before it goes out, that would be fun. I would love to see it. Um, and then other state level news, the state is revising, their general plan guidelines and a lot has changed. Um, and I, I also want to encourage everyone here to um to look at their call for feedback for how, um, the general plan guidelines can be better used by local communities. What would, what would be more helpful if especially as we're dealing with mutual tools, like, artificial intelligence and that can help with plan drafting but also make complicate, public comment. Anyone else? How about cancellations? No updates, but I just want to say. It's good to be back. I'm really sorry that I missed not 1 but 2 meetings. So it's good to see you all again. Well, we're happy to see you. Donna. Okay. All right with that. Um, it's time for public comment, uh, any members of the public MAY address us on matters, not on the agenda. Okay. Anything, uh, recorded. Wonderful. So on our consent calendar, we're minutes from MARCH 12th 2021 we have a motion to approve this. Paper. By. So, thank you. Oh, you're moving right along. Um, excuse me before we get to number 6, regular item 6, which is a informational presentation. I just wanted to very clearly state slight change in process. Ryan will speak, then I will open it to public comment because this is informational and then we'll come back to us for our discussion and questions. Anything we want want to bug him about, but we'll go to public comment when he's done. That's okay. Council's information. I'm not making it's all yours. Thank you so much for being here. Hey, good evening. Um, I'm ryan chapman and the assistant director of public works engineering and transportation. And I wanted to bring before you the traffic impact study guidelines that we have prepared. And just kind of set the stage. Um, we've had a couple conversations about some projects recently and I realized that we didn't have any policy language about when, or how or what we're doing with traffic impact studies. And so, I put this together to kind of provide that that information. And when we're going to ask for them and how we're going to get these in and then what we expect to b able to bring for you on your larger projects. Um, also, this is very much going to be a living document. I know that at least moving forward with the general plan. There's probably going to be policy changes that are going to require us to update these when that is complete. But we've got projects coming in now and we need to kind of establish what we're going and what that expectation is. So we're bringing this to you at this time. Um, and again, this is really going to be consistent with state law, the new general plan plus the existing general plan language and then if there are any changes in the best practices we're going to be incorporating those as we can. So really, I'm going to walk through kind of the process and how we've organized this and the first 1 is when is the study actually made at home? And we're looking at when a project creates 500 or more daily new trips. Um, with 100 or more of those being an am or pm research. Um, we're looking at. Sudden increases or changes to intersection volumes that we can identify. We're looking at. Um, projects that are in locations of areas. Where we know we have existing level of service problems, um, under our current general plan, uh, just in congestion issues that we're looking at. And those are really the things that we're looking at is when we're triggering new starters. When is the study not needed? Really, for me that boils down to it doesn't need any of these criteria or if it meets 1 of these criteria, it's something that's already been looked at in another plan like the downtown davis specific plan. Or it's got a sequel exemption that makes it. So we can't really do this type of analysis under the current laws of the state. And 1 that if most recently encountered on that is residential apartment. Complexes that have a very high percentage of low-income housing units associated with them. Have an exequial carve out for traffic impacts. Um, as far as what level of analysis we're doing, I we, we do this with a serious scenario. So we look at what is the existing without the project? Just what's going on today? And it's not existing scenario plus project, traffic. Then that plus any other improved projects in the area to kind of identify. If an identified impact is project specific or something. That's commutative. Um, then a community of scenario, what if everything else is dealt without a project essentially build out of the general plan? And with the project as well, and it's just a series of scenarios I think in the draft eir for village farms. Um, or the traffic study out for village um or the traffic study out for village farms is not about the I apologize, it really does lay out that. That is the approach that was used for that project and it's pretty well articulated in that document. Um, as far as the details of what we're at, we need to know what the estimated traffic is, what, what is going to be generated by this project? And when is it going to be generated? And how is this going to afect the capacity um, and I'm looking at not only level of service, but ching as well. And we've seen excessive stacking. Are we seeing q spill back from left turn pockets anything that's going to cause operational issues on the roadway that need to be addressed. Especially if there's something that could morph into a safety issue, which is the other thing that we're really looking at. Um, existing collision patterns or history. Tere's anything in the project that somebody and how this might or might not effective. We're also looking at a bunch of other. Less. Um, clearly defined objectives. Site access being a huge 1 of the 1. How many drive driveways is. The project going to have. Or are those driveways going to be located in proximity to interceptions or other driveways? Do we need to look at restricting terms? So maybe it's a driveway. That's right. And turn in only or something like that. And again, stacking if we've got people stacking do we have adequate room to accommodate that? I also look at some line site stuff. Um, drive-through windows and the killing from them, not blocking the street, or your parking lot. It's been a big 1 coming out of co. We've seen a massive increase in the use o directors and just making sure that things are kept clear, and there's adequate stacking or something, we drive-through windows and the killing from them, not blocking the street, or your parking lot. It's been a big 1 coming out of co. We've seen a massive increase in the use of directors and just making sue policy. Um, and this is something that I very much expect. It's going to change in conjunction with the general climate update. Currently we're doing everything based on the governor's office of land use and climate innovation lci. I apologize in advance. I will probably off and refer to it as opr. Um, and I'm looking at past precedents for projects and how we've analyzed them to in the city up until this point, especially disc is probably the biggest vmt analysis that's been done. U, prior to the projects we're considering now, and then for recommendations, this is just received input, um, update and then provide comments that you might have on it. I do want to note that the transportation commission did look at this. They provided some minor feedback more about clarifying that this is for development projects and not necessarily for capital improvement projects that are being um, done by the course. Or she is a slightly different process. Okay. Thank you, brian. So um with that, I'm going to go ahead and open it up for. I there any type of comments on the side of are there any that recorded? Wonderful, we can just go ahead and go to the commission, um, could be, uh, 2 months, if I start with up start with on my right. This. Try. To drive through a neighborhood or we've seen interstate aid and heading towards sacramento on a friday night and people are on both north south from droz. How how does how do those kind of driver behaviors? Make their way into a traffic device that? So, for some of the site specific stuff like driveway location that's really taking into account, probably & behavior and trying to make sure that we're not seeing u-turns and then usual places or people trying to cut around stack traffic by driving to the bike line and then making improvements that we can try to mitigate and address some of those concerns. For the larger stuff, especially some of the cut through taffic. We're seeing with people coming off a lady. That's a little bit harder, we can model it with some of the traffic models that we've seen to kind of come up with an estimate for us. I am working on putting together a report for the transportation commission to go into that in a little more detail in relation to the next project. Uh, specifically, trying to figure out how we can measure, what you've got through traffic is and how we can measure in the future, what changes we made and how that changes that behavior of how we can measure in the future, what changes we made and how that changes that behavior, whether it moves them back onto the trail or not. Well, I'm glad to hear you're thinking about it. Um, when you were analyzing, the vehicle miles traveled. I didn't I didn't see anything about the dreaded per capita. Vehicle miles traveled. So, is that a consideration or when you perform the traffic came back study, or either way. Or some kind of general plan direction on this. we're doing per capita for residential developments because that's the guidance from the state. And we're using kind of original of community, the mt metric, for commercial projects. Again, that's the guidance from the state, and that's on the lci document that we currently have attached. I do monitor what they're doing, and if they are changes to recommended practices for calculating bmc, we will be incorporating them. So, do we have a policy to analyze capital per capita dmt? Or is it just something that and then sorry our practice hs been to follow the state guidance which is per capita damage. Once a project is built out in occupied and tracking appears to be say more than expected in gis. Um, this is city, have the ability to inclusive like traffic impact study will impose conditions after the fact. I do not know. So I think it's really got a big condition that the time of improvement. What are are, are there any remedies that you're aware of, you know, and we bent that. Tracking and subdued. Having a greater impact than the gis. That was used to approve the project and what my experience as it becomes a public works project to try to address something. And and if that's putting in a new medium, or some some ballinger delineators to kind of address whatever they needed impacted since normally how we've approached it in the past. Um maybe this is a question for staff. But in terms of the general plan update uh what traffic issues are the planning commission. If anybody has to look at that's a good question. Um, I suspect that the traffic the bigger traffic questions will go to the general plan committee and um that was actually an update. I probably could have given. We are all the city clerk and I are also working on creating that process for the commissions to nominate their 2, representatives to go to the general plan community, and that first meeting is expected in OCTOBER, so we're not having the general plan update, work plan to hand or memorized um that that would be likely the first time that 2, representatives of the planning commission would be asked to look at that, whether it would come to the full commission. I, I don't know, I'd have to look at the work plan it MAY but I can't say for sure. Okay, that's very helpful. Um, I, I was interested in your 1 aspect of the report we were talking about like sight lines. You know as a driver I I was interested in your 1 aspect of the report we were talking about like sight lines. You know as a driver and very aware of of sidelines and sight lines for obscured. U this does a tragic uh impact study today. Mandate removal of trees, for instance, uh, as a condition or as a recommendation in traffic impact study because as you know, we we might have issues. Go go trees and we've had a tree commission. I was curious where that interface is. Yeah, if 1 of the issues that's identified is that sight distance is obstructed or blocked by a tree or other vegetation. We can condition to have that trimmed back or if necessary removed we make an express condition. Yeah. Um, I I found 1 of your points, interesting which is in the context of traffic counts. You indicated that? You the clients use artificial intelligence. You have a criteria in mind. Which time you value to consider using ai. We would never use ai in the context of the traffic. No, I think that yes, we could use the ai and we've considered ai in the past and I'll probably have to use it to create dta that we don't have some in the past based on some vehicle, crop data from companies like replica. Um, I prefer to have real accounts that we can use to calibrate things and check the validity of, not only ai, but the traffic models whenever possible. And I think we're about to count programs going to be especially for those projects. It's going to be really important in order to make sure that the data that's being presented is accurate. Ai is getting better in the first couple of years that we were seeing that used to it gives some funny results in a couple different things are solved. I have a couple of specific questions about projects that the JANUARY and the uh, in the brand needs project but I think I'll defer them to later and there's time. Maybe I'll catch you maybe I'll catch you after after afterwards and move on into it. For more information. So, um, traffic is 1 of those things. I, I go out and experience in the real world but I'm not sure. I understand everything that I read about it. Um, but 1 of the questions I have and and that is maybe the state has a policy or do we have a policy that creates a hierarchy if you will of what the um measures would be for? Um slowing down. Or calming traffic. Let me kind of explain myself because I don't have all the jargon if you will, um, you know. So, um, we're adding in a new project let's say and we recognize that there needs to be something to accommodate the traffic on. We'll call it poleline road next to village farms assuming that that would go in. Do we look at a hierarchy meaning? Do we start with like speed bumps and then go to traffic circles? And then go to you know, some other thing to direct and or slow the traffic down as opposed to just going directly to street lights, you know? Does that make sense? Yeah, I think. Yeah. Makes sense. Um, I think there's a couple things here that we look at and the first 1 is really the users of the realm. So for example, polene not a world, I'd be recommending spade humps on. The pole line is not a route, I would recommend straight homes on and that's because it's an emergency response route for fire and police and ambulance services and the speed humps would really disrupt their ability to efficiently, move through town. Um, as far as looking at traffic signals versus roundabouts, versus all these stops or anything like that. I like to have some sort of an analysis that plays the benefits, so they the pros and the cons of each device and come up with something that really going to be the best fit for the situation. And is that coming from the traffic consultant or yes? Normally it would be put together by the traffic consultants. Uh, the state process through uh, the state process through calr intersection control evaluation. They've just updated the guidance slightly but it really does mandate that before you put them in the traffic signal. Or you'd have to look at other methods, whether that be a roundabout and all like, stop or something, and we're not just dropping traffic signals everywhere. Which traffic signals are expensive and hard to maintain, and if ican find a way to manage traffic without something that requires that level of, effort at an intersection for my preference. That makes sense. Thank you. And then my other question is more sort of edification for myself. Once again, I don't necessarily know about traffic or greenhouse gases. And all of that the like, but, um, as um, the analysis is being done for. Um, we'll say increase in impact to greenhouse gases. Is there a formulation that tkes into account and you MAY not notice, this MAY be something that the state, you know, deals with. I don't know. But is there, um, a formulation that takes into account, um, the change in vehicles and what you know, say new vehicles today are um uh producing as far as greenhouse gas versus earlier vehicles. I mean is there anything like that um developed in the analysis for greenhouse gas? So this is a little bit out of my wheelhouse but yes there's a vehicle fleet composition that used and put together by the state that looks at. Kind of what the classifications of vehicles are in what type of vehicle at least they create. And I believe that's updated periodically. Thanks for the presentation. It's nice. Um, so my question is also maybe similar to the searching is is there is vmt your understanding or is there are there metrics moving? Beyond vmt that maybe some of the new standards or metrics. That's a tough question. I believe the mta is here to assist the new metric. We're still working through a lot of what we am too. Is it's really been used for this over the last 6 or 7 years. And when you look at squad and level of service being the last 50 or 60 years, I think a lot of the a lot of what we're working through right now is just education and how to present the data. And that that means let me mt is here to stay. It's probably going to change over the next decade to be looked different than it does right now. But if you call our external this time, and just to clarify when I did vince's comments so vmt, my understanding is that always reverse the vmt per capita design, correct. No, it does it and that's that's part of my frustration with this, as we say vmt and in squaw and we're talking about 3 different things. So we say vmt in like traffic, safety and other things. That means everything. But for residential development since vmt per capita, for like commercial or type developments, it would be a regional vmt and how the project affects snaps. And then when we're looking at, rodeway wide name are anything else. Where would physically change in the infrastructure of the browse? The mta is actually an induced demand where we're looking at by widening. This are we encouraging more driving instead of less and I think a lot of the confusion. Oh, I know that a lot of the contribution I have with people and we're talking about this is, I say vmt, and it means 3, things within state club, and probably a dozen things without within the entire scope of transportation. Okay, I wonder I'm confused. Thanks so much. Yeah, related to a question that that that vince had was that this commission and number of years ago, I could you were asking like can you go back later and impose you know, something later and I asked the consultant they MAY have been somebody from fehr and peers I said, okay does does the transportation consultant like yourself ever go back after a project has been completed? And, see what the traffic is really like, in other words to test the assumptions of of the traffic analysis you did and he said no, you never do that because you don't get paid for that. So it started to me calls into into question, the real world reality of I mean, when I was working with sql for years, I always thought transportation studies was like a black box for a bunch of stuff went in went out, went in and bunch of stuff, came out the other end and you didn't really understand so, I I can understand why you're saying that this technical advisory needs to be revised because it's a DECEMBER 2018 date on it. Um, 1 of the things I find troubling about the document I, it seems to imply throughout that it's possible for local government to force people to change their behavior. Against neatly want to do. Uh, and there's a number of places in it, where it essentially says in black and white that 1 of the ways you can be, you can reduce vmt is by increasing residential density. So, I guess my question and just everybody knows I sent him this question yesterday. So we're looking at a project village farms. Davis that came in proposed with 1,800 units. The council's. Now looking at the possibility of increasing that b 50%, by adding 900 more units to be 2700 units. So, from the standpoint of vmt. If you're increasing residential density, and this technical document says, if you increase in city, you reduce vmt by what proportion are we talking about? Does it assume that if you increase density by 50%. That there will be then a commensurate 50% reduction in the number of people driving alone in their car or conversely, a 50% increase in the number of people riding a bus or taking carpool. Or those kind of equations out there or what kind of assumptions do we make about that? So, there's some research on this in the capcom manual. Um, I don't have it at my fingertips. I don't believe it's a 1 to 1. Ratio. I don't think it's reduced to increased density by 10% and reduced. The average per capita, dmt by 10%, but those, those do exist in the manual, we could get that information for you. So there is some relationship but not necessarily 1 to 1. Yeah, and there is a relationship that denser development areas tend to have reduced or decreased automobile use okay. I guess 1 of the other assumptions in this document that that I find disconcerting is is it, it it pushes it puts a big emphasis on increased transit use. And, we've got 2 bus system systems in this city. We have unitrans, which the routes, and the timing essentially correlate to the needs of the students. And then there's yolo bus. And if anybody ever looks carefully at a yolo bus, regardless of the time of day, you're lucky if you've got half a dozen people riding on it. And and I, I hope 1 of the things that we overall can take into consideration with, with the general plan is if these assumptions are being made by the state that you can get people out of their cars and into transit, according to the, the financial forecasts given to the council at the workshop. Last week, we're looking at a budget shortfall of 3.2 million. In phys, fiscal year 26 and 2.8 in fiscal year 27 and an annual average of 2.3 million dollar shortfall or deficit in the 10 years between fiscal year 25 and 3535. So I don't see any way there's a city. We can like actually comply with the assumptions and this technical manual because there's no money. That's just a comment more than a question. But I I don't know I you have any feelings about that or what if you've done any noodling about that yourself? There's a lot of uncertainty I think with the financial forecasts moving forward. I, I would say that if we do see a significant increase in users on the bus, that will come with associated fees that are paid by those users to use transit. So I don't think it's just I think that deficits a little harder to identify or estimate. Because of that increased revenue, that's going to come from our users. Some people paying fairs. Yeah, okay. Okay. Thank you, appreciate it. Um, thank you so much for your work on this document and for helping us bring the the city into line with with state policy and I'm apreciative of the the transportation um, commission for their review, as well. Um, so, just so we're clear the thresholds suppose the project is going to generate 499 new daily, 2-way trips under the threshold. are you you're going to determine the fuzziness around those exact numbers. Yeah, I mean, if it's coming in 499 or 99 or something along those lines, I'm going to be giving it a good hard look to see if we need to do a traffic competion. That was just do you think that might influence the scale of development? That's proposed by by having that single threshold. Yeah, I I think developers are crafting their projects to try to avoid. Analysis and studies. So it might be countered, that threshold might be countered to getting towards the density that that java sites have said they wanted for some proposals. Perhaps. And that's possibly. But I also think that the sql exemptions. You get for that density in the low income housing. Probably the 1 attempted way to side steps is something. Okay. All right. Um and then I wonder too if if you could tell us a little bit how u this proposal might fit. Because the know build option I often used as a comparison and and so um, a traffic impact study. Can sometimes exaggerate the negative impacts of comparison to know build. So, how, how do you see that? Those possibilities weighing out. I, so, I think the project should be looked at in this entire contents context and not just traffic. Because yes, almost any projects going to come with an additional increased of people and therefore traffic. But there's always benefits that need to be considered and really what we're trying to do is come up with an reporting of what the potential impacts are. So the decision makers can weigh the best possible information and then it's interesting. All right. Thank you. Hi. Um, thank you again for your work and I just do a presentation, but the other ones you've done too. So I appreciate you 2 questions in addition to some of them have already been asked, first question I have is have we looked at, or has anybody question? I was asked. We know of any other jurisdictions that have actually created this priority of of options, and does it exist in california, and I know that you could use ai and find that out very quickly. Second question, I have related to that is the version of ai that we have. Is it the paid version? The paid version or is it just out of the box, or do we know that? Do you know what you have available to the city? So on the ai question, we're not it's not like a chat, jbt or any of those things that are just right? Probably available. Um, what tends to happen is they use its vehicle pro data, it's all the data from your cell phones to the various bluetooth and wireless kind of setup in your car. To um, far from at&t whoever has it made anonymous so we don't know. Can't track individual users and then just looking at percentages of traffic on these routes estimation how much of it originated from plano county is going to the cosplay, for example. And then ai is used to try to expand that from just a data set of people that have smartphones. And don't eter sharing their data to what we think the general population is going to look like it does a pretty good job with some of those larger like freeway road. Connections. The first time I saw it was in co we were looking at a traffic signal near a school and it couldn't identify pedestrians on the street, waiting for pickup. And people in cars drive. So there there were some issues we're working through it. I think there's some value. I think it's there in the long run. I just don't think it's ready to be like crime time. It still needs to be proofed and questioned and proofed and questioned and double checked and making sure that it's accurate. And with the modeling & we do anyway, we spend a lot of time making sure that the results will get in from the computer are accurate. Okay, thank you. Um, my next question, is related to present the data back to us, my concern is that we do it in a way that the general public also understands it. And I know in reading the report there is, I'd be very surprised if 5% of the people in the city would understand exactly what's in this. But what I do think will help because I've done it before myself. It's gis layers with colors to differentiate the volume of traffic of the studies that you're going to do. Said that we can look at the current. Impact, but also the impacts of existing other studies that have been done because it's a system. And we've talked about this. The last meeting I brought up the fact that what happens on f and covell. Well yeah, it's going to be further down. Is that going to have an impact? Are we going to measure that? I would hope you would and I would hope we would look specifically at what those multiple reports might how they might inform 1 another as a system. Can we do that? And would, is this the technology? I know we have this technology. I know we have gis and I'm wondering if we can use the roads and to show which segments are impacted in the traffic studies that you've done. And it would MAY that of the commissioners, but I think it would be getting a visual is be very, very helpful, rather than looking at a statistics of columns in this point and other things. We need we need to know guys. It's hard to follow. Okay? You're making a comment. you're asking him is, are we going forward? We need we need to know guys. It's hard to follow. Okay? You're making a comment. You're asking him is are we going forward? If we could have some more visualization when presenting and maybe that's a a request of your consultants etc. So that every day people don't understand things, I think that's exactly the point. But I was thinking specifically of something that, you know, whether it's gis or some of the form to just show the impact on the roads and the, and the, the the impact points and the volumes translating some of that data into ways that the community can understand. So, yes, we can definitely work with the consultants to make sure that things are more visual and more readable and we have been working towards that. Um, as far as putting we and as far as the second half, we're just trying to use the city gis. System to kind of relay this data. We've been working on a traffic data map. I've imported a lot of the account data and other information that is provided and we studies on that map. So we got 1 common repository where people can go and look at their starting data. Um, I don't think it goes as far as you are asking it to ad they'll take a look at what we can accomplish with this to us and available to that time. We really appreciate that. You're going to give a look at that and greatly appreciate it because the other thing that that can do then is inform you of what you, how frequently you MAY need to update your roads and other things that all add data fits together. And I think it's more than just looking at this development. I think it's looking at the impacts of the development longer term on budgets and other things that are equally important to the city right now. Okay. Um, MAY I add my thanks to you for, for bringing this for us. I thank you dear for putting in on the agenda. This is obviously for for us this has been an important consideration. I know that we have our colleagues in transportation commission that you've been giving you and have more detailed uh, feedback. So appreciate tat. I have a very fast question um for the traffic impact analysis, who pays for that. The developer. Okay. Um, 1 bmc question. I promise. Is. We just every distinguished like an e like an electric bmt versus a internal combustion engine. We're not making that distinction. What's the current policy? There's a lot of discussion about that in the industry and at the state level. And at least, at the moment, the electric vehicle adoption of such that it really hasn't changed those numbers much. I expect as we look at updating our fleet connections with more electric vehicles. With the natural fallout from the fleet with the natural fallout from the fleet mixture they assemble the model. So okay. Um, this. Okay, since everybody else got to make a comment, I'm going to make a comment interesting to me. Thank you for attaching that whole state thing. In addition to your, you know, criteria. Um, interesting to me on 1 of the things to kind of reduce bmt was um tell a work and given that our governor has now decided that everybody has to go back to the office. I just thought it was kind of interesting that that would, you know, we're we're taking away, the sort of 10 items that we could do to reduce vmt, and that was 1 of them. So I think we as legislators need to look at that kind of thing. Okay, with that. Um any other & quick questions or anything? Can we send ryan on his way? Uh oh here it comes. A bunch of questions, 1 specific 1 because it's 1 it's been on my mind as you remember. Um, basically talked about basically talked about that in your section when we receive the entire meeting was going on. Expansion. It's going up. We haven't seen the changes in in that intersection. Uh, what can we expect from you and when you expect it, let me follow up with the developer and see when they're going to be making those robbing problems. They should be happening soon. I think there was some condition with a unit trigger. So once the second 100 home or something, goes up then going to do that. I want to make sure it's on there right now, so I will follow up on that. Thank you. Thanks for allowing me to the question. Yeah, no, no worries. Um, ryan, again, thank you very much, appreciate okay, with that. Um, we're going to move to the next item. Tme as well. I think we're fine. Yeah. Um, I have a medical emergency after anywhere. Ready for 6 for you to become the best zoning ordinance. And follow scan for procedure. That last question. Have a comment on that to us. I hope we make you some recommendations to move forward with some of this work. Okay. Um, thank you MADAM Chair and good evening planning commissioners. My name is thomas arne, associate planning and ninth, we will be bringing forward the 2025 omnibus, zoning ordinance amendments. So, staff is proposing to amend various sections in the zoning ordinance. These ordinance amendments have been about a year and a half in the making, basically, since sarah. And I have been onboarded. This has been a topic of discussion. Um, & generally a zoning ordinance update is a good practice, every few years to um, maintain consistency with regulations from the state to provide more clarity after having new opportunity to implement certain policies. And then also um reflect changes in in policies that um, have been updated by the city council or beyond. The previous omnibus amendments. If some of you remember were approved back in 2019 so it has been a little while, but the amendments proposed to you tonight are ideally the beginning of a large longer process, um to modernize and update our zoning code, we would eventually love to bring everything to & you all at once. But tonight, we have the um, amendments that are ready for you basically. Um, so you all MAY be familiar with the requirements on the city's. Implements adu policies from the state. In the similar vein, the ab 2097, the 1 that you see on your screen is a similar example, um, of the state establishing enforcement prohibitions, as I'll explain later, ab 297 prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum auto automobile parking requirements on residential commercial or other development projects. That is within 1, half mile of public transit. This is the rationale for the majority of the zoning ordinance tonight. Beyond parking. The ordinance, amendments include definitions uh, consistency with the housing elements. Uh parking lot shading requirements and administrative with the google guidelines. There are a few um a few ordinance amendments that I'm not going to go over in the presentation tonight so I apologize if I skip them in my presentation. Um, but if there is something that you would like to talk about from the staff report or the uh ordinance, I'm happy to talk about that. Um, so um, as I present these different topics. I want you all to know which ones you might have a question on um, or which ones you would like to debrief more on later. Um, proficiency, we recommend that the planning commission make a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance sections. There's consensus on and so if there isn't consensus on, um, a particular item, we recommend that these individual ordinance sections be pulled for further delivery. Without further ado section 2 um of the ordinance proposes, several definition amendments or additions to know the few examples. The definition of families being updated in accordance with the updated housing element to comply with fair housing law, low barrier, navigation centers being defined because w are proposing it as an allowed ue in some zones. Additionally as a result of the influx of adu law, um, the definition of dwelling has become to blur with some of the adus appearing as second dwelling units. Uh, on properties where a second dwelling unit, MAY not be allowed. So we are proposing. Um, some definitions to accurately, define a single family home both attached and detached as well as defined with the duplexes, these definitions will help staff. Uh analyze projects and differentiate primary dwellings with the secondary dwelling. Before I dive into parking, I want to establish a baseline. So in conjunction with ab2097, say cog has developed a regional map of transit stops uh with a half mile radius around each you can see, the majority of davis is actually within the half mile radius of each of these transit stops on 1 hand. It's quite impressive to have a robust transit system and a well-renowned you can see, the majority of davis is actually within the half mile radius of each of these transit stops on 1 hand. It's quite impressive to have a robust transit system and a well-renowned transi districts and thus, is proposed to be removed. I want to make an important point. We are only removing the minimum parking standards, um, we're not removing parking requirements entirely. So as you'll see later, if a parking or if I if parking is provided by an applicant or developer, there will still be developments standards to follow. Um, on another note, staff has witnessed many of our projects, struggle to acquire financing to build. Not just because the economy is not friendly to development right now but because uh, projects are not providing enough uh parking to get funding essentially. So, um, in addition ab 2097 is also a relatively new bill. It's only about 3 years old. And so we anticipate the market to eventually stabilize and developers begin to provide them adequate amount of parking with their developments. There are also many housing elements policies that we are um that we have been working on since the housing element has been adopted many of the proposals tonight are um in accordance with the goals and & policies proposed and housing elements. I'm happy to talk about and you those if you would like um but 40.25 is basically where the bulk of the change was lie in this um on the bus. Simply put, we are remanding everything but the development standards within 40.25. Um, so if an applicant or & developer alex provide parking there will still be standards in place. The um, majority of the sections that are remaining put are largely unchanged from what is existing in code right now. Except for 1 um exception. The requirement for covered parking staff is proposing, um more flexibility around the covered parking requirements in the attempts to alleviate the urban heat island effects. It's apparent that parking lots around town that have a tree canopy um that tree canopies are basically not covering the 50% required within the 15 years of planting. So, staff is proposing to keep this requirement in the code. Um, if developers want to maintain status quo and, and keep using that requirement. But we're proposing to other, um, alternatives, 1. That promotes tree growth with larger um footprints to promote shade requirements. Um, but it doesn't have that 50% requirement. So um they aren't being designed as such um, the other alternative also allows solar structures which currently isn't allowed right now. Um, as proposed, all 3 options will require robust landscaping and screening is currently required in the code right now. Um, but staff hopes that this brings more flexibility and incentivizes uh, developers to provide adequate shade while um, producing many co- benefits. In sction 40.26. Uh, this is where um, the code regulates standards for accessory buildings. Um, and structures staff is proposing, 4 changes, pretty minimal changes to the code to provide more flexibility for property owners. Um, while maintaining the intention of the original standards. So for the first 1, we're proposing to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory structures by 5 feet. So moving from 10 feet to 5 feet, basically all patio covers, trellises and gazebo already have that set back with the allowance of the same height. So we're just making that consistent across all accessory structures. The second, um, proposal is to eliminate the standard that requires a minimum separation of structures. Essentially allowing more room for properly on their suits, to build, um, the third standard. Harbors are allowed to be built a the zero, um, setback, and they're allowed to be built at 10 ft tall. And so, we're proposing to close a potential loophole where someone can build a arbor right next to each other and then have a 10th of a fence along their rear yard. Um, finally the um, last standard their create additional standards for small storage shed. Um, basically defining it, um, allowing a little bit more flexibility but also, um, protecting, uh, the, the intention of the code. So um, finally, as a reminder we recommend making a motion on the ordinance sections, you find consensus on um those where there MAY be a disagreement, we recommend individual motions so you MAY deliberate um, and formally vote on that section, if you need some sections to be continued, you MAY motion to do that individually as well. Um, and recommend approval of the rest. So if you have any questions or if you'd like to to go over any of the sections that I missed, um or breezed over I'm happy to do so thank you, thomas. I know how much work this kind of stuff, is it? It feels like it should. It should have more stuff, doesn't it? Just takes so long to do this kind of work, I can. Well imagine that, um, we're going to go ahead and do clarifying questions, and then we'll go ahead and eventually this. It's a general question about, um, you know, we talked about an individual family home, selex etc. Is there anything in the code? And I's just a question that came up with utilities commission of wmen's relevant or not relevant here, you know, which is places that get close to rent by the bed. Is there anything in code anywhere that would exist? Would that be affected by this or not? And just a quick question, I don't know. It made a difference for utilities for sure. Yeah, there is um, in planning. We define that as an sro or a single room occupancy, okay? Um it's basically the dorm style setup where it's rented by bed kind of room by room, but sometimes multiple or multiple beds. So, they'd be applying for that and you know right up front but that's okay, you know much like what they were going to do. Um, out by, um, the development of just university, mall. Universities originally, you know, they came to it's going to be housing on top of that and that was all they set it up front. That would they would be renting by the bed in that situation. So um so that would be very clear if the universities originally, you know they came to it's going to be housing on top of that and that was all they set it up front. That would they would be renting by the bed in that situation. So um sot not quite. That's what I wanted to be sure. Okay, step 1, step 2. Another question. You mentioned medical facilities in here. I know there's an issue that came up around some questions around whether a veterinarian can is considered a medical facility. But is there clarity in that? Because I'm, it MAY have been in the but I might have missed it. So I wondered how far that description went because you took out medical services and it sounded. Is it all lumped under medical? Is that how it is? How is that? Yeah, so the term medical services is not defined anywhere in the code. The reason for the change is to change that definition or that phrase to me and already existing definition of medical islamic. Um that was similar with a few other phrases in, um, the downtown code right now. Um, in terms of the, the veterinarian services, I think that that's clearly defined and and certain places in our code already. Um and it's I believe that there's already a definition introduction that services as well. Third question has to do with, um, the definitions for for basically um, sheltered for people, you know, unhoused people and things like that. So my question is, is there any impact on our faith communities delivery of services when they open up for winter shelters or or summer break for summer. Resting for people, as a result of the change in code, this omnibus does not have anything that would impact space. Thank you. This is really exciting this code. Clean up. Um, will help streamline development, make expectations, clear and reduce. Hopefully reduce arbitrary review and staff time. So this is this is wonderful. Um, even though we're not, we don't have a packed house, we should all be celebrating. Um, so I I have a, a couple of questions. Um, 1 there, you didn't mention the reduction of um, the time. A lot for determination of a complete application. So I if you could & touch on why that clause was removed because it seems like having an expectation of, when an applicant could expect to have a hearing with the important benchmark to know that our process was running smoothly. Yeah. Um guys, can I ask you when you a specific? Can you give us the number? Having an expectation of when an applicant could expect to have a hearing with the important benchmark to know that our process was running smoothly. Yeah. Um guys, can I ask you when you a specific? Can o it's, I believe it's more in terms of noticing for, um, zoning code amendments. Um, anything that will be amending, the zoning code, that's going to the planning commission needs to b notice. They extended the the date from 10 days to 20 days. So it's more of a noticing period. Sure. So, to answer your question, I think there is a 30-day requirement on certain applications that require staff to determine completeness or provide comments on a project and that's separate from what we're proposing tonight. But there is that requirement just notice that the 45 days of determination was scratched out. Do you see that in the, the current code? Look at the red line version? Yeah. Um at 4022.180 it says, it's here by amended to read as follows. And then, the first line, it public hearing shall be held no more than 45 days. That is scratched, that is crossed out. That's what she's questioning. Yeah, I see that now. Um, I that 1 specifically was at by our city attorney. Um, that was kind of a result of the getting put through the digester and that 1 came out. I don't know the rationale behind that scratch, um, but I can absolutely get an answer for you. Okay. That would be wonderful. Just because again, having a for folks who are proposing something knowing when they can expect to to hear back, I think it's important for keeping us all moving forward. Um, okay, and then I I have a question about the carport covering so I wondered why I have a couple of questions around that. And I don't know if we want to save those for later and I asked a more general question. What would you just keep going? Okay, just a technical stuff. So okay. Um so I wondered uh why uh 30% of the spaces was settled upon instead of I don't know, 75 okay, can we give give us a number? So we can all follow along. Yes. So 40. Where are we? 40.25 point 060. 30% is absolutely a term that you all can. Determine appropriate or not tonight. Um, 30% from staff's expertise seems like a good middle ground between providing shade while. Also main being attainable to a developer, um, because it is a bit more of a significant investment, um, rather than trees. And so we were trying to find that number to still incentivize the use of solar carports rather than, um, you know, never seeing it. Which is why there's uh, you know, originally there was a a provision that incentivized 50% as well, that was struck kind of through the process of figuring out where the best numbers are, okay. Um, then along along wondered why this clause was added, where it says, the energy shall be provided to structures on site to offset a portion of the total building site energy usage, but that seems to add constraint as and I, I, I've asked this, because I think a lot of utilities are moving towards a more distributed model. So perhaps they could generate on the site and sell it to their neighbors. But if this clause is in here, then that would include them from doing that. Absolutely. Um I hear you if you recommend to to remove that or even alter that, I think we would be happy to hear that. I think the question is first, what, why did you guys put that in there and then you just understand the rationale. And then she might say, well, yeah, I think the original intention was to help the tenants of these actual shopping centers. So if there's, you know, going to be an impact of like screens, um, then this impact of potentially saving on the electricity bill, um, would benefit those who are, um, on site rather than the property owner having say, in where the energy goes, or even just pocketing all of those savings. The the rationale was to pass that benefit onto the tenants of the space. Okay? Um, but again, if you feel, you know, it could be um, amended happy to to have that discussion. Okay, thank you for explaining. Um and then the, I think the next big question I have isn't necessarily reflected in, in um, these updates and it might float across multiple pieces. So I'm not going to refer to a section, but the question is about how senate bill 9, um, sort of overlays with these recommendations because a lot of effort has gone into bringing our zoning codes into compliance with new state, guidelines, and senate bill 9, uh, legalizes duplexes 4, plexes allows, lots to be split. And so I I didn't necessarily see um, that reflected and and these recommendations. And and I think that bill especially gets to missing middle housing and we've had a lot of conversations. I feel about um, well, it is a state law that it is, is it necessarily on our books. So how emboldened do private property owners feel to make use of it. So big question, that's a really good question. And I think that it was 1 of those that just didn't make the & cut. I think through all of we have I mean 3 or 4 page lists of things that we want to change and the sb9 has been around for a bit. We've had many conversations with, um, different property owners or applicants who want to invoke usb 9. But as we've worked through the process with them, a lot of the lots in davis, just aren't set up to easily um invoke or utilize sb9, and so I think that that keeps it from being 1 of those priority changes that ends up over another um, but it's it could, it could easily be 1 of the the next items that we bring forward. Okay, that's wonderful to know you're open for it. And I hate t just ask questions of the, the things that I find issues with because there's so many wonderful things in here that I'm appreciative of. So, I can, I can just telling you, I'll send you an email and say how appreciative I am instead of losing more time tonight because I look at my chair. Thank you. Were there any more things that you had? Some? Clarifying questions. Okay, great great. I have no clarifying questions. I just echo the comments. Katherine makes long time coming and much appreciated. Call us some comments later about things that I really liked. But I don't have any questions. Alright. Okay alan h. Yeah, I think just 1 quick, comment. Um, section 2 where you defined? The dwelling units and I think part of te rationale, uh, was that uh, that adus could be confused as an additional pimary so I I just expected to see a definition of the accessory dwelling unit on your list. So for some reason that doesn't appear on your list or I believe it's already an existing definition. Um and I can't remember if it references the state code or not. Um, it's something that I can check pull it up, so maybe find anywhere else in this talk. It's not in the omnibus but I I believe it's already defined in the zoning ordinance. And accessory dwelling unit, and ithink that was done maybe in the 2019 update. When there were a lot of um 80u related um ordinance amendments. Okay. That's it. Thank you. So I appreciated what commissioner brinkley asked? And um, all the hard work, it's like, you know, progress always feels good. Um, so my question is something I just didn't understand the wording, the statement. So maybe you can walk me through it. I'm looking at section 40.13 0.020 the applicable ability. Um, and it's the last, uh, 2 sentences. I guess the fire station to be reconstructed on so, I appreciated what commissioner brinkley asked? And, um, all the hard work, it's like, you know, progress always feels good. Um, so my question is something I just didn't understand the wording, -um, this provision gives us some flexibility and gives the the developers of the fire station. Um some flexibility to develop something that within regulation of a fire social rather than having to worry about a form-based code. Um, it's not to say that we won't. You know, make it look and feel like it's supposed to be within the rest of downtown. It just gives, um, the city some flexibility on creating things that MAY or MAY not be easily regulated before base code. Okay, I'll accept it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, first I wanted to compliment the effort here to put this um ordinance amendment together. I I'm I'm very sure there. Was you really had to pay attention to detail and ging back and forth, uh, between different ordinances and I'm sure you had probably explored a couple of times. Um, and I and I do want to compliment. Whoever came up with the idea of doing a red light ordinance that was a great idea because what? Okay, yeah. I mean, ican maybe as an attorney. I can relate to read lines too. But I was able to put the staff report up on 1 was able to put the red line up on the other screen and it would allow for me to officially review what you were doing. I mean it, it must have cut the time in half at least and so thank you for that. So, basically, in, in this exercise, so, I was, I kind of came up with 3 areas of concern that I want to ask about. And I'll track back to commissioner, trust who was asking me about medical services versus medical clinic too and I caught that issue from the same reason you did. I was thinking about that vent surgery center that we approved. And, uh, and if you look at the permitted conditional uses and particularly 40.13 0013 which is page 5 of the red line. I'm questioning, why would you change that definition for medical services to medical clinic? Is that to me seems like you're trying to limit development until clinic being made. Having a more specific definition of medical. As opposed to medical services, which is broader, definitions that in services and would encourage or at least allow approval looking for more medical purposes, sensing. So my initial reaction was to think that was not a good idea so maybe you could convince me why that changed things to the yeah, I could attempt, this is a something that we talked about bringing forward as a part of that. Actual formation didn't think that it elevated, that was the issue of bringing forward. Then since then we've actually had this become um, you know, an issue that we've talk