Davis General Plan Committee Special Meeting - July 22, 2026

The General Plan Committee (GPC) held its first special meeting on July 22, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Community Chambers, 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis. Agenda items included election of a chair, approval of the consent calendar, and the first presentation of the draft preferred land use alternative/map for the 2050 General Plan update. The committee heard extensive public comment, but did not complete the planned commissioner round-robin discussion; several data requests and a proposal for a vision-statement subcommittee were carried forward to a follow-up meeting.

Consent Calendar

• Approved Meeting Administration and Procedures by one unanimous motion; no commissioner requested removal of the item.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Chair Catherine Brinkley noted roughly 50 people in the audience, and public speakers were limited to three minutes.
• Ningwan, a former Historical Resources Management Commission member, asked the committee to weigh major changes to downtown Davis carefully because downtown is a historic resource and is close to her family's history.
• Susan Rainier said Village Farms should be fundamentally redesigned or removed rather than embedded in the general plan, urged a transportation master plan covering roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, emergency access and future mobility, and said projects should conform to the general plan rather than the general plan conforming to projects.
• Jim Flanagan said any future development and the urban limit line should stay below Channel A to avoid flood hazards, defended Measure J/RD, called on UC Davis to build far more on-campus housing, and criticized the survey as voluntary, non-representative, and open to non-residents.
• Nikki Bameron, a Nextdoor moderator, expressed concern about the community's division after the Measure V debate, worried that the same proposal appeared on the draft map after a narrow defeat, and asked how the process would heal divisions; she said she had not seen community meeting outreach on Nextdoor.
• Tim Keller of the Davis Citizens Planning Group urged the committee to be bold, argued the draft lacked a transit-first plan and a compelling vision, and said transit and density are mutually reinforcing.
• Richard McCann of the Davis Citizens Planning Group endorsed transit-first comments, said transit corridors were not actually shown on the map, and said the prospect of separate Measure J/RD votes along East Covell would require a comprehensive approach.
• Matt Williams said the presentation jumped to solutions before defining the problem, cited $264 million in unfunded capital infrastructure repair and replacement liability and 10 studies showing housing costs the city more than it generates in revenue, and said the vision statement lacked a measurable vision.
• John Cooper objected to Village Farms remaining on the map after voters rejected it and asked the city to encourage UC Davis to build more student and staff housing.
• Marjorie Longo, acting chair of the North Central Wild Horse Neighborhood Association, said conservation easements are not fungible and raised alarm about a planning commission land use subcommittee letter discussing consolidating or swapping open space and agricultural easements; she opposed weakening the Wild Horse Golf Course or North Davis Farms conservation easements.
• Jeff Merritt asked to remove Village Farms from the map, said any future version would need to be smaller, below Channel A, outside flood zones, protective of vernal pools, and reasonable in scale; he also called for UC Davis to house substantially more students on campus, warned against converting family neighborhoods into informal dormitories, and supported density in downtown and walkable commercial areas while noting the approved Nishi project should be built.
• Victoria Link supported preserving existing open space and adding new open space, said Wild Horse residents feel surrounded by development pressure on all sides, and urged traffic mitigation and grade-separated crossings for schoolchildren before conditions worsen.
• Julie Silva, a senior center volunteer, opposed large borrow pits next to homes, citing drowning, mosquito, and public health risks, and said such pits should be kept far from residential areas and water channels.
• Sam Onise, a UC Davis student and Davis resident, said the proposed single-family density increase from 5.99 to 7.5 dwelling units per acre should go significantly further, called for broader upzoning, and supported southeast annexation because much of the land north of the city is in a floodplain.
• Rena Neyer said the general plan process should be citizen-driven and accessible, cited a consultant report in which 62% of respondents questioned the urban limit line as drawn, defended Measure J/RD, urged UC Davis to build more on-campus housing, said Village Farms should be removed after Measure V and Measure X defeats, and said any urban limit line should be below Channel A.
• Eileen Sammits, former planning commissioner and coordinator of Citizens for Responsible Planning, said the existing general plan is an exemplary citizen-based document created by more than 100 volunteers on 15 committees at a cost of about $1 million and needs updating rather than overhaul; opposed weakening Measure J/RD; urged moving the urban limit line south of Channel A to avoid landfill toxins and FEMA flood hazards; opposed building on large floodplains and conservation easements; and called for much stronger UC Davis on-campus housing requirements, noting UCD is among the few UC campuses not committed to 50% on-campus housing.
• Fred Bouderi said existing neighborhood shopping centers should not be allowed to drop required commercial space to make housing easier to build, because removing neighborhood-serving commercial space would increase car trips and work against sustainability.
• Zachariah Okenda supported upzoning lower-density residential areas, said SB9 provisions could become useful over time, supported considering expansion below Montgomery in South Davis, and urged the plan to explicitly address where shelters and services for unhoused residents can be located.
• Russ Allen Slee said Measure J/RD should be left alone, the general plan should respect voters, UC Davis should build housing on its own land, and conservation commitments should be lasting promises.
• Steve Chapman said the supporting materials appeared to treat conservation easements as fungible and asked that the committee remove that idea from the process.

Presentation: 2050 General Plan Update and Draft Preferred Land Use Alternative/Map

• Eric Yurkovich of Raimi + Associates presented with Community Development Director Sherri Metzger and Principal Planner Dara Dungworth. He explained that the General Plan Committee is an ad hoc body that will meet at key milestones, about eight times across the process, and that commissioners are asked to report back to their respective commissions.
• The draft vision statement is: Davis advances safe, fair, affordable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods where everyone has what they need to thrive and succeed. Project outcomes include a broad range of housing types, active mobility and social gathering spaces, parks and biodiversity, places for businesses, multimodal connectivity, fiscal sustainability, and climate readiness.
• Earlier engagement included Commission Palooza #2 on April 13, a community workshop on April 30, an online survey, and piggyback meetings in May and June. Three land use concepts were tested: a concentrated high-intensity option, a dispersed lower-intensity option, and an employment-focused option, plus options for growth outside city limits including an urban limit line, open space preservation, and possible annexation of El Macero and Old Willowbank.
• Feedback showed strong support for a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use downtown; support for more housing in more places; support for neighborhood centers and transit corridors with varying density; strong support for neighborhood-serving retail, small offices, and health care; less support for hotels, industrial, and large offices; and mixed views on the urban limit line.
• The draft preferred map recommends incremental downtown changes and expansion to West Olive Drive and several parcels east of downtown; identifies faith-based and institutional sites for streamlined higher-density housing; modestly increases density in lower-density single-family neighborhoods; designates medium-density mixed-use centers at locations such as Davis Manor, Westlake Plaza, and The Courtyard; increases employment densities along the I-80 frontage and in South Davis; adjusts the urban limit line in the northeast; removes El Macero and Old Willowbank from the southern alignment; maintains open-space easements; and keeps existing projects such as Village Farms, Willow Grove, and DISC in the mix while considering land use changes along the 113 corridor and Covell Boulevard. The consultant stressed the map is not final.
• The consultant noted the city has received no SB9 applications since the law took effect, and Yolo County also has none per HCD databases. Rough-cut projections in the staff report estimated 8,000 to 9,000 housing units within the city through the revised map and other pipeline sources, with a caveat that HCD may not accept all of those as housing sites in the near term.
• Remaining technical work includes flood zone impacts, utility capacity, traffic analysis, economic benefits, housing feasibility, and additional community and commission engagement in the fall. The same presentation was scheduled for the Planning Commission later that evening.

Commission Discussion & Clarifying Questions

• Staff confirmed that California law requires cities to maintain and periodically update general plans, and that HCD is scrutinizing local ballot measures that may limit housing production.
• Commissioner Chris Ringer cited data from a recent town-gown discussion showing UC Davis on-campus housing rose from 29% of students in 2016 to 42% now, and requested comparable city housing production data to ground future discussion.
• Several commissioners emphasized that land use and mobility planning must be developed together. The consultant said mobility networks are being worked on in tandem but were intentionally not released with this land use draft; a broader land use and transportation discussion is planned for the fall.
• Commissioner Steve Greco asked why expansion west of Stonegate and south of Willowbank were not included. Staff and consultants explained that areas west of 113 have severe floodplain constraints, and the South Davis area is small, constrained by the county line, difficult to access without adding traffic to Mace Boulevard, and would require boundary adjustments and a resident vote.
• Commissioners raised concerns about utility and wastewater capacity as a potential urban service area issue. Staff said wastewater treatment capacity is limited and expansion could cost $60 million to $80 million, so capacity must be understood before further land use planning.
• The Open Space and Habitat Commission is completing an open space and habitat priorities assessment and map that will be brought into the committee process.
• Commissioners requested the exact SACOG/state target population number the plan is planning for, more time with the community engagement feedback, and integrated mobility information.
• A commissioner proposed forming a subcommittee to turn the draft vision statement into a more ambitious statement beginning with By 2050, Davis will...; staff responded affirmatively, with details to be determined.

Key Outcomes

• Catherine Brinkley was elected chair at the start of the meeting.
• The consent calendar was approved unanimously.
• No formal commission recommendation on the draft preferred land use map was adopted; the four consultant questions remain open for a future meeting.
• City staff said they will ask the City Council whether Village Farms should remain under study after voters rejected the project at the ballot.
• Commissioners requested, and staff and consultants agreed to compile: UC Davis on-campus housing data and city housing production figures; the SACOG/state target population number; utility and wastewater capacity information related to urban service areas; integrated land use and mobility materials; and further clarification of urban limit line choices in West Davis and South Davis.
• Staff responded affirmatively to a proposal to workshop a stronger vision statement in a subcommittee.
• The next meeting was scheduled for August 12, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. Staff said future GPC meetings will be evening meetings on Wednesdays when the Planning Commission is not meeting, and the procedures will be amended to adjust the prior time limit. The committee used the option to continue past the scheduled 5:00 p.m. hard stop and adjourned about 10 minutes over.