OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

City of Davis Planning Commission Meeting Summary - March 27, 2024

City Council & Planning Commission — Wednesday, March 27, 2024
BodyDavis, California
SessionCity Council & Planning Commission
DateWednesday, March 27, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:25:58

Transcript — Verbatim
0:07

Good morning, everyone.

0:09

It is 7 p.m.

0:11

as the vice chair has informed me.

0:14

So I will call to order this Wednesday, March 27, 2024 meeting of the City of Davis Planning Commission.

0:23

In terms of roll call, Commissioner Rutherford has an excused absence tonight.

0:29

So alternate Commissioner Bennett will be voting tonight.

0:33

So let the record show that everybody else is here.

0:37

In terms of the agenda, we have a little bit of an issue that I've discussed with uh the vice chair and with our city clerk's office on the consent calendar number 5A.

0:51

We're approving a whole lot of minutes from previous meetings.

0:54

The problem is, with the exception of September 27th, somebody's gonna have to recuse themselves on it virtually every other month because there were people absent every month.

1:04

So rather than approving this on consent, when we get to that point, we'll take each meeting for a separate vote.

1:15

And those people who and I'll indicate who wasn't at each meeting because I've got those notes, and then those people who weren't at a particular meeting can recuse themselves from voting on that.

1:25

So with that, any other changes to the agenda that anyone would like to propose.

1:31

So I think we can say by consent we are approved the agenda.

1:36

Let's move to number three brief announcements from staff, commissioners and council liaisons.

1:41

I will pick on our recently arrived council liaison first.

1:48

Oh, you don't even have a microphone.

1:50

You get a pass.

1:52

And I don't have any updates either, but thank you.

1:55

Thank you.

1:56

Uh staff.

2:00

Thank you, Mr.

2:01

Chair.

2:01

Good evening, Dare Dunworth, Principal Planner.

2:04

Um I'd just like to share a little bit of good news.

2:06

We've had a soft launch for our pre-designed accessory dwelling unit plans.

2:12

Um they are they are out there, they are live, they are available.

2:15

We've had a few inquiries.

2:17

Um we have some folks who appear to be moving forward.

2:20

They've started the paperwork and have requested plans.

2:23

So you can help spread the word.

2:26

We'll be doing uh more of a marketing uh launch once we get a few through the process and kind of beta test our process and make sure what we think will work will work, and we can be fast and efficient like we want to be.

2:40

So that's coming right along.

2:43

And other than that, um I have scheduling notes, but we can do that at the end.

2:48

Okay, thank you very much.

2:49

Thank you.

2:50

Any announcements from Commissioners?

2:56

I just have one.

2:57

Um Commissioner Trust and I attended the Palomino Ranch uh EIR scoping meeting on Monday, March 11th.

3:08

Somebody else may have arrived after we both left for about seven, but uh it was very informative.

3:13

I think there's probably what, 20, 25 people there, perhaps.

3:17

Uh what I think was most interesting was virtually none of the people that were asking questions of staff or of the project proponent were asking things that were of environmental nature, even though it was an EIR scoping meeting.

3:31

The big question was how much are the houses gonna cost?

3:35

And and that was the topic of interest to everybody, and and one of the most pertinent questions too was is any is the developer thinking about offering a uh plan similar to what the developer did of um Grand Village where there was certain designated homes set aside for like teachers and other local employees and that type of thing.

3:56

And I think the the answer to that is like once it's approved, nothing's gonna start construction for a couple years, so it's too early to tell what the prices are gonna be, and that's about all we know.

4:05

Did you want to add anything?

4:07

No.

4:08

Okay.

4:10

So with that, we'll open uh we'll go to item number four.

4:14

This is uh the point on the agenda where any member of the public may address the commission on matters that are not listed on our agenda or are listed on the consent agenda, and speakers are limited to three minutes.

4:29

So if there's anyone who wishes to come to the microphone and address any item of concern to them that is not on the agenda, this is your opportunity to do so.

4:41

I don't see any crowd of people rushing to the microphone.

4:44

So Victor, do we have any recorded public comments?

4:47

We don't have any recorded comments.

4:49

Okay.

4:50

So with that, we'll go to our modified item number five.

4:57

Uh for the meeting minutes of September 27th.

5:00

For the meeting minutes of September 27th, everybody was here on for that meeting.

5:05

So can I have a motion to approve those minutes?

5:08

I move to approve the September 27 minutes.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Transportation Safety███████████████████19%
Housing███████████████15%
Senior Living Facilities███████████11%
Affordable Housing███████7%
Procedural██████6%
Public Comment█████5%
Zoning Regulation█████5%
Community Engagement█████5%
Urban Planning█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

City of Davis Planning Commission Meeting - March 27, 2024

The City of Davis Planning Commission met on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in Community Chambers, 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis, CA. Chair Greg Rowe presided; Vice Chair Michelle Weiss and Commissioners Linda Deos, Vince McLaughlin, Johannes Troost, Georgina Valencia, and alternate Alan Bennett were present. Commissioner Darryl Rutherford was excused, and Bennett voted in his place. The Commission approved the agenda and minutes, held a public hearing on the University Retirement Community (URC) Covell expansion, and unanimously approved the project with an added design-review condition related to intersection safety. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:06 p.m.

Brief Announcements

  • Principal Planner Dara Dungworth announced a soft launch of the city's pre-designed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans; several inquiries and applications are moving forward.
  • Commissioner Troost reported on the March 11, 2024 Palomino Ranch EIR scoping meeting: roughly 20–25 people attended, and most public questions concerned home prices and possible workforce housing set-asides similar to Grand Village, rather than environmental topics.

Consent Calendar

Chair Rowe modified the consent calendar so each set of minutes was voted separately because commissioners who were absent for a given meeting recused themselves. All were approved unanimously:

  • September 27, 2023 minutes
  • October 11, 2023 minutes (Rutherford and Valencia absent)
  • November 8, 2023 minutes (Rowe and Troost absent)
  • December 13, 2023 minutes (Troost absent)
  • January 10, 2024 minutes (Bennett absent)

Public Comments & Testimony

No members of the public spoke during the general non-agenda public comment period, and no recorded comments were received.

For the URC public hearing, the Commission heard from ten speakers. Positions included:

  • Elaine Roberts Musser, a private attorney and former Davis Senior Citizens Commission chair, expressed strong concern that placing the expansion across Covell Boulevard from the main campus creates a burden on frail elders, risks inadequate skilled nursing supply, and may raise state licensing and ADA compliance problems.
  • John Taylor, an independent-living resident since 2014, former resident council president, and URC board member, expressed support, citing demand, parking relief, state approval, and planned upgrades to the existing campus.
  • Judith Williams, a URC resident, expressed concern about shuttle capacity and hours, dining access after 7 p.m., handicapped parking, and whether the expansion's construction costs would be fully covered by new resident buy-ins.
  • Gary Godefroy, a URC resident for two years, expressed support, saying the project is proactive and meets demand for continuing care retirement community amenities.
  • Jim Daniel, retired actuary, URC resident, and Senior Citizens Commission co-chair speaking personally, argued the expansion does not comply with voter-approved Measures J, R, and L and City Council Resolution 18-094 because the Senior Citizens Commission concluded that negative impacts on current residents far outweigh positive benefits.
  • Larkin Lapides, a URC resident, expressed support and noted planned improvements to assisted living, memory care, dining, and parking.
  • Marcia Wilson, URC resident and Master Plan Resident Task Force chair, expressed support and asked for improvements to the Covell/Shasta corridor and intersection, plus upgrades to existing facilities.
  • Kim Icorn, a Davis resident, URC board member, and realtor, expressed support, saying demand is high (some prospective residents have waited up to 10 years) and the adjacent location is the best available option.
  • Alika Castillo, URC executive director, expressed support, describing the campus master plan process since February 2020, resident engagement, and improvements benefiting current residents.
  • Bob Kerr, URC Board of Directors chair, expressed support, citing multi-year board collaboration, resident council input, financial monitoring, and the board's community credentials.

Discussion Item: URC Covell Expansion Public Hearing

Staff and applicant presentation:

  • The proposed project is a 74,396 sq. ft., four-story residential building with 34 two-bedroom licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) units and administrative offices, a two-story parking structure with rooftop gardens and amenities, and seven two-bedroom cottages on a 3.1-acre site in the Bretton Woods Final Planned Development.
  • Staff recommended (1) determining that no further environmental review is needed under EIR SCH#2017042043 and (2) approving Design Review application #23-65, including a floor area ratio (FAR) increase from 0.5 to 0.66. Staff stated that the FAR increase was what triggered Planning Commission review; the project would otherwise have been administratively approvable. Staff also noted the nearby affordable apartments were approved at a 0.77 FAR.
  • Staff explained that operational concerns, including health, safety, and welfare of current residents, were assigned to the Senior Citizens Commission by the preliminary planned development; the Planning Commission's action is limited to design review findings under Municipal Code Section 40.31.08 and the Bretton Woods Design Guidelines.
  • Applicant Brian McLamore and architect Jay Blatter described the design, resident consultation, state Department of Social Services review, financial and market feasibility studies, parking and bicycle improvements, emergency power planning, and a draft shuttle schedule. They noted the building is set back about 142 feet versus the guideline's 75-foot minimum and that the parking structure helps screen Covell Boulevard noise.
  • Commissioner questions addressed Department of Social Services approval timing, RCFE licensing, parking placement, flood mitigation, EV charging, solar/battery systems, emergency power, dining and transportation plans, and whether the bonus provisions in Municipal Code Section 40.15.080 apply. Staff confirmed those bonus provisions do not apply because the project is not in a mixed-use zone.

Commission deliberation focused on the Covell/Shasta/Riesling intersection. Several commissioners supported the project as much-needed senior housing but wanted stronger assurance that the intersection would be safe for residents to cross. Commissioner McLaughlin proposed expanding Condition of Approval 30 to require a survey assessing the overall safety of that intersection. Staff responded that subdivision improvements already meet city standards, the city traffic engineer can adjust signal timing, and the master developer (De Nova) is responsible for the improvements. Commissioner Troost cited past city cost issues such as the Cannery underpass and Mace Boulevard and urged clarifying responsibility. Chair Rowe also suggested measuring crosswalk timing on a summer Thursday when residents use shopping carts to reach the farmers market.

Key Outcomes

  • The Commission unanimously (7–0) approved the first recommendation: no further environmental review is necessary and the project is consistent with the certified Bretton Woods EIR.
  • The Commission unanimously (7–0) approved Planning Application #23-65 for design review, including the FAR increase from 0.5 to 0.66, subject to the findings and conditions of approval, with Condition of Approval 30 expanded to require a survey assessing the overall safety of the Covell/Shasta/Riesling intersection.
  • The Commission did not incorporate the Senior Citizens Commission's operational motions into the approval, because those issues are outside the Planning Commission's design-review scope.

Long Range Calendar

  • Staff stated the April 10, 2024 meeting likely will not occur; the next meeting is likely April 24, 2024. Future scheduled dates are April 10 and 24, May 8 and 22, and June 12 and 26.
  • Upcoming or potential items include objective design standards work, downtown specific plan/form-based code cleanup amendments, and the Child's Ranch development agreement extension. Staff also provided an informal update on form-based code implementation, including a resubmitted hotel project that staff said is now more consistent with the code.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning, everyone. It is 7 p.m. as the vice chair has informed me. So I will call to order this Wednesday, March 27, 2024 meeting of the City of Davis Planning Commission. In terms of roll call, Commissioner Rutherford has an excused absence tonight. So alternate Commissioner Bennett will be voting tonight. So let the record show that everybody else is here. In terms of the agenda, we have a little bit of an issue that I've discussed with uh the vice chair and with our city clerk's office on the consent calendar number 5A. We're approving a whole lot of minutes from previous meetings. The problem is, with the exception of September 27th, somebody's gonna have to recuse themselves on it virtually every other month because there were people absent every month. So rather than approving this on consent, when we get to that point, we'll take each meeting for a separate vote. And those people who and I'll indicate who wasn't at each meeting because I've got those notes, and then those people who weren't at a particular meeting can recuse themselves from voting on that. So with that, any other changes to the agenda that anyone would like to propose. So I think we can say by consent we are approved the agenda. Let's move to number three brief announcements from staff, commissioners and council liaisons. I will pick on our recently arrived council liaison first. Oh, you don't even have a microphone. You get a pass. And I don't have any updates either, but thank you. Thank you. Uh staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Dare Dunworth, Principal Planner. Um I'd just like to share a little bit of good news. We've had a soft launch for our pre-designed accessory dwelling unit plans. Um they are they are out there, they are live, they are available. We've had a few inquiries. Um we have some folks who appear to be moving forward. They've started the paperwork and have requested plans. So you can help spread the word. We'll be doing uh more of a marketing uh launch once we get a few through the process and kind of beta test our process and make sure what we think will work will work, and we can be fast and efficient like we want to be. So that's coming right along. And other than that, um I have scheduling notes, but we can do that at the end. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Any announcements from Commissioners? I just have one. Um Commissioner Trust and I attended the Palomino Ranch uh EIR scoping meeting on Monday, March 11th. Somebody else may have arrived after we both left for about seven, but uh it was very informative. I think there's probably what, 20, 25 people there, perhaps. Uh what I think was most interesting was virtually none of the people that were asking questions of staff or of the project proponent were asking things that were of environmental nature, even though it was an EIR scoping meeting. The big question was how much are the houses gonna cost? And and that was the topic of interest to everybody, and and one of the most pertinent questions too was is any is the developer thinking about offering a uh plan similar to what the developer did of um Grand Village where there was certain designated homes set aside for like teachers and other local employees and that type of thing. And I think the the answer to that is like once it's approved, nothing's gonna start construction for a couple years, so it's too early to tell what the prices are gonna be, and that's about all we know. Did you want to add anything? No. Okay. So with that, we'll open uh we'll go to item number four. This is uh the point on the agenda where any member of the public may address the commission on matters that are not listed on our agenda or are listed on the consent agenda, and speakers are limited to three minutes.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com