Davis Planning Commission Meeting Summary – July 22, 2026

The City of Davis Planning Commission met on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in Community Chambers, 23 Russell Boulevard. Four of seven commission members were present, and staff confirmed a quorum. The commission approved an amended agenda, deferred the consent item, received an informational General Plan Update, held a public hearing on an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance amendment, and conducted a public workshop on a draft mobile vending ordinance. The meeting continued past 9:30 p.m.

Consent Calendar

• Item 5A, Commission Schedule Standardization, was removed from the consent calendar during agenda approval and moved to the next regular meeting. Staff noted that the next regular meeting would be September 9, 2026, and that no August Planning Commission meeting was currently scheduled, effectively creating an August recess.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Spear, a Davis resident, expressed support for street vendors and urged adoption of a positive, inclusive mobile vending ordinance, citing street vendors' community value, economic opportunities for seasonal workers and immigrants, and public safety benefits.
• Matt Williams praised the first General Plan Committee session and urged that Fiscal Commission representatives participate in the General Plan Update process, citing $264.77 million in unfunded street-related liabilities and nearly $200 million in unfunded pension and retiree health care benefits.
• Dave McLaughlin urged preserving the current General Plan, making no changes to Measure J or Measure D, restricting housing development to south of Channel A, prohibiting development in FEMA floodplains and conservation easements, and pressing UC Davis to provide student housing.
• Ziv Lang, a 25-year Davis resident, opposed gutting the citizen-based General Plan, asked that the Village Farms site be removed from the preferred land use map, objected to development north of Channel A due to floodplain and toxics concerns, and urged UC Davis to commit to at least 50% on-campus housing.
• Scott Davis opposed nullifying conservation easements and open-space commitments, saying the city's character and voter-approved protections were at risk.
• John Cooper, speaking for the second time that day, urged preserving Measure J/R, removing Village Farms from the map, and encouraging UC Davis to provide more faculty and student housing.
• Rena Nyer asked that the vision statement remain unchanged, that no growth targets be added to the General Plan, and that Measure J/R, historic neighborhoods, habitat restoration, and conservation easements be protected. She also noted that approved Nishi should be on the map while Village Farms should not.
• Arch Island raised concerns about renewed efforts involving the Wild Horse Golf Course conservation easement and submitted an email thread on the matter.
• Marjorie Longo, acting chair of the North Central Wild Horse Neighborhood Association, urged the commission to reject any swapping, consolidation, relocation, or extinguishment of conservation easements and asked when staff would respond to the July 1 land use subcommittee letter.
• Karen Shaw, a Davis resident since 1986, cited the 1995 Wild Horse Neighborhood Development Agreement's requirement that the conservation easement preclude development of the golf course property and said the land use subcommittee's July 1 letter broke public trust.
• Brad Sutton requested that the General Plan expressly preserve all conservation easements in perpetuity, citing flood-control, groundwater recharge, and greenway benefits along Channel A.
• After the General Plan presentation, Matt Williams asked that the vision statement include an accountability element and suggested cross-laminated timber as a lower-carbon, lower-cost option for taller buildings.
• Susan Rainier said showing Village Farms in its full footprint was disingenuous after voters rejected it, cited concerns about approximately 1,600 cars, gridlock, and the need for a transportation master plan, and said development should not guide the General Plan.
• Jeff Merritt, an 11-year resident, asked the commission to respect voters, remove Village Farms, protect Measure J/R, preserve the citizen-based nature of the General Plan, push UC Davis to house its students, build already-approved projects first, and protect conservation easements.
• Sam Lonese, a UC Davis student and Davis resident, supported citywide intensification, increased density in single-family zones, mixed-use expansion, southern annexation with transit planning, and policies that streamline housing production.
• John Johnston called for measurable population, housing, and school-enrollment goals before finalizing the land use map, and said the plan should more clearly demonstrate how it would meet Davis's 2040 carbon-neutral goal, noting that about 74% of the city's CO2 emissions come from cars.
• Eileen Samets, a former planning commissioner and coordinator of Citizens for Responsible Planning, said the current General Plan was an excellent citizen-based model that needed updating rather than a major overhaul, opposed amending Measure J/R, urged moving the urban limit line south of Channel A, and called for stronger UC Davis housing language.

Discussion Items

General Plan Update (Informational Item 6A)

• The GPU consultant from Raimi + Associates/ALTA presented an abbreviated version of the presentation given earlier that day to the General Plan Committee. The presentation covered the vision statement, project outcomes, community outreach, spring land use concepts, feedback received, and a revised preferred land use map.
• The revised map proposes downtown height and density increases and a modest expansion of the downtown boundary, housing opportunities on school, institutional, and faith-based sites, modest density increases in single-family neighborhoods, intensification along commercial centers and transit corridors, an adjusted urban limit line, and retention of existing open space and conservation easements. The map also kept previously proposed sites such as Village Farms on the map.
• The consultant noted that upzoning alone does not guarantee construction because private developers must balance construction costs and feasibility. He also noted that ADU production and SB9 use in Davis and Yolo County have been limited. Future work will examine utility capacity, transportation, feasibility, and economic impacts.
• Commissioner discussion included concern that revisiting the downtown form-based code could delay development; support for southern expansion with new road and infrastructure planning; requests for agricultural buffers; a suggestion to add the golf course and El Masero within the urban limit line; concern about the jobs/housing balance in the northwest area; and a statement that the draft land use map does not yet achieve a jobs/housing balance.
• Commissioner McLaughlin responded to public criticism of the July 1 land use subcommittee letter, saying it was not intended as a threat to conservation easements and did not mention Wild Horse. He explained the subcommittee's planned analytical process and cited housing shortfalls, possible state enforcement, and the city's chronic budget shortfall. A motion asking staff to respond to the letter by August 31 was withdrawn after staff and the Community Development Director said a written response was already planned for the next regular meeting.
• The commission did not take a formal action on the General Plan Update; it was informational. Commission consensus was that the map needs changes, with individual commissioners offering different specific recommendations.

Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - 2026 ADU Ordinance (6B)

• Staff proposed amendments to Chapter 40 to align the city's ADU and junior ADU regulations with current state law. The update covers definitions, permit processes, height and setback standards, design requirements, and sales/conveyance provisions. Staff noted that the non-ministerial ADU section would be considered later alongside future SB9 work. Staff stated the ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
• No public comments were made on this item.
• Commissioner discussion included support for the update, questions about SB9 lot splits, and a question about interaction with the downtown form-based code. One commissioner questioned a proposed requirement for privacy film on second-story ADU windows, and another commissioner urged exploring incentives for property owners who deed-restrict ADUs for low-income renters.
• The commission passed a motion approving the resolution recommending City Council adoption of the ordinance amendment. After the vote, the commission made a separate recommendation that staff bring forward an ADU incentive program for deed-restricted low-income units.

Public Workshop: Draft Proposed Mobile Vending Ordinance (6C)

• Staff presented a preliminary draft ordinance to add mobile vending on private property to Chapter 40. The workshop was for feedback only; no action was requested. Staff said the mobile vending ordinance would later be combined with a separate sidewalk vending ordinance for public property and business-license updates.
• Staff posed questions about location restrictions, co-location restrictions, permit caps, approved commissary location, and whether mobile vending should be allowed in mixed-use zones.
• Public comment on this item included: Gustavo Landeros, a street vendor, urged that the ordinance be drafted with vendors, warned that some provisions he disagreed with may be illegal, recommended consulting a street-vending lawyer, and called for a welcoming, inclusive program such as a taco plaza modeled on Sacramento. Sam Lonese and Mariana opposed permit caps and gas-station restrictions, questioned the 500-foot school buffer, and supported allowing mobile vending in mixed-use zones. Another commenter said SB 946 prevents cities from banning sidewalk vendors to protect restaurants from competition, urged space for both vendors and brick-and-mortar businesses, and asked for Spanish-language outreach.
• Commission discussion by question:
  • Location restrictions: one commissioner supported the 500-foot school buffer; another felt 500 feet may be too restrictive; another said restrictions need a health, safety, or welfare justification. Several commissioners opposed the farmers-market proximity restriction as protectionist and favored allowing vendors on vacant or underused private lots.
  • Co-location restrictions: commissioners generally supported no specific co-location bans beyond health and life-safety review, leaving the decision to private property owners.
  • Permit caps: commissioners generally opposed arbitrary caps. Some noted caps may be legally difficult to justify, while one commissioner expressed concern about unlimited pop-ups but had no proposed methodology.
  • Commissary location: commissioners generally opposed requiring the approved commissary to be located within Davis city limits. One commissioner called it an undue burden and suggested exploring inter-county inspection reciprocity.
  • Mixed-use zones: commissioners agreed mobile vending should be allowed in mixed-use zones.
  • Commissioners also raised prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis sales. Staff noted the intent to keep mobile vending and sidewalk vending rules parallel.

Long Range Calendar

• The next regular Planning Commission meeting is anticipated for September 9, 2026. The deferred Commission Schedule Standardization item will be considered then, and staff will provide a written response to the July 1 land use subcommittee letter.
• The next General Plan Committee meeting is scheduled for August 12, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
• Staff indicated a goal of bringing a more developed mobile vending ordinance back for commission consideration on September 9, 2026.
• Potential future items include SB9 and SB6 ordinances, a historic resource management ordinance, and December historic resources training.

Key Outcomes

• Agenda approved as amended, with Item 5A moved to the September 9, 2026 meeting.
• General Plan Update received as informational; no formal vote. Commissioner feedback will be reported back to the General Plan Committee.
• ADU ordinance resolution approved by voice vote, recommending City Council adoption.
• Commission recommended that staff bring back an ADU incentive program for deed-restricted low-income units.
• Mobile vending workshop held with no formal action; commission feedback will inform a future ordinance draft.
• Staff committed to publishing a written response to the July 1 land use subcommittee letter at the September 9, 2026 meeting.