OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Davis, California/City Council & Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

General Plan Committee Meeting on 2050 General Plan Update - August 12, 2026

City Council & Planning Commission — Wednesday, August 12, 2026
BodyDavis, California
SessionCity Council & Planning Commission
DateWednesday, August 12, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:16:04

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
2:39

I know.

2:40

You probably have two for a book.

2:44

Possibility to do.

3:05

All right, we are back.

3:09

In session, we're now recording.

3:12

Welcome to the general plan committee, everyone.

3:14

We're going to do um roll call, approval of the agenda, consent calendar.

3:20

Um, we'll continue our general plan update.

3:23

And uh after that point, we'll welcome public comment.

3:28

Okay, so with that roll call, I think we're missing Sarah Moore, Tony.

3:34

Nope.

3:35

Oh, sorry, got you.

3:37

Uh, Tony, Anna Lisa, and Alan.

3:43

Right?

3:44

Okay.

4:07

Thank you.

4:09

Second.

4:10

All right, all in favor.

4:17

And next we move on to consent calendar.

4:24

I move to approve.

4:26

Second.

4:28

All in favor?

4:31

Aye.

4:33

Now we will hear um.

4:50

So that document that's printed before you is for your reference.

4:54

That is the consent item and you for your use in the future.

4:57

We're all we're all set on item number three, so we can move to item four.

5:01

Thank you.

5:02

All right.

5:03

Moving to item four, and now we're going to continue our conversation from July 22nd on the general plan update.

5:12

Yes.

5:12

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

5:13

I'd like to introduce Eric Yerkovich with Alta aKA RAMI.

5:21

And he is here again with us tonight to present some additional information that's outlined in the staff report.

5:29

The slides are similar, but there's again additional information that the General Plan Committee and the Planning Commission asked for on July 22nd.

5:37

So we'll be providing that new information out to you all, and then the discussion that commenced on July 22nd will continue.

5:46

I would just like to make note for the folks in the audience that public comment will be based on the new material.

5:53

We will not be able to accept public comment, general public comment, or public comment on anything that was previously presented in the July 22nd packet.

6:03

Thank you so much.

6:04

I'll turn it over to Eric.

6:07

Good evening, everyone.

6:08

Nice to see you again, and thanks for having us back here this evening.

6:12

I'm gonna do a presentation as Dara said on some of the materials that were requested at the previous meeting.

6:20

I'm gonna talk a little bit about housing trends in the city, uh housing trends on UC Davis's campus.

6:26

We're gonna talk a little bit about target population and housing for the city, and then a little bit of conversation around utility capacity uh within the city itself.

6:35

Um this is all uh in addition to the materials that you all heard a couple of weeks ago when we were here.

6:42

Uh I'll share then a little of the feedback that we received from the community members as well as the planning commission who also heard the same item in the evening after the general plan committee meeting.

6:53

Um so we're gonna start with housing trends.

6:56

Um we'll start here first uh within the city of Davis.

7:00

So these two graphics show the population and housing trends by decade for the city uh overall.

7:08

Uh you can see on the right on the left hand side both the population and uh and housing trends by decade.

7:14

Um, and you can see the population and housing both grew pretty rapidly from the 1970s and even earlier than that through uh 2000.

7:24

Um and then you can see after 2000 a leveling off of both population and housing units within the city, but particularly population.

7:33

So last 15 years or so, population's been more or less stable in the city.

7:38

Um on the right hand side you can see the number of housing units that were constructed by decade within the city.

7:44

So from um you can kind of see on the left hand side of that graphic that pre-2000 uh the city was producing a significant number of housing units each decade, some of them were in the four to four to five to six thousand range, and then after that you can see it uh it drops off after the passage of not just the passage of measure J, but changes in economic conditions, the build out of the city, right?

8:09

So all of those things were happening kind of simultaneously, and you can see how the city's producing about a thousand to two thousand units kind of per decade.

8:18

Now, the city also uh by resolution tracks the number of building permits for residential units uh that occur in the city, and city staff presented this to council earlier this year, and this uh graphic comes from that presentation and staff report.

8:36

Um, this shows the number of building permits issued by year in the city for the total number of housing units and then the total number of deed restricted housing units as well, deed restricted for by income, so affordable housing and moderate income units.

8:50

Now those deed restricted units are part of the total number here, so they're not additive.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing████████████████████████████28%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████13%
Public Engagement███████████11%
Procedural██████████10%
Transportation Safety█████████9%
Environmental Protection█████████9%
Water And Wastewater Management██████6%
Active Transportation███3%
Parks and Recreation███3%
Summary of Proceedings

General Plan Committee Meeting on 2050 General Plan Update - August 12, 2026

The General Plan Committee (GPC) met on August 12, 2026, at 6:00 PM in Community Chambers to continue discussions from July 22, 2026, on the 2050 General Plan Update and Draft Preferred Land Use Alternative/Map. The meeting included a presentation on new materials—housing trends in Davis and at UC Davis, target population projections, and utility capacity—followed by public comments limited to those topics and committee deliberation on key questions. The committee voted to form a subcommittee to revise the vision statement and project outcomes, and agreed to agendize a presentation on open space and habitat element assessment for the next meeting.

Consent Calendar

  • Item 3A – Meeting Administration and Procedures: Approved unanimously by motion.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Susan Rainier (licensed architect, 1999 resident): Expressed concern that the process is too developer-friendly; urged net-zero energy targets, protection of Measure J, no building on floodplains, preservation of conservation easements, planning transportation before major growth, and stronger requirement for UC Davis to house students. Called for removing Village Farms from the map and respecting voters’ two rejections.
  • Beth Fouracre (program director, Redwood Seed Scholars Program): Emphasized the need for protected bike lanes to serve people with disabilities, especially with e-bikes.
  • Alan Miller (Old East Davis resident): Opposed expansion of downtown east of the railroad tracks; expressed distrust of the planning process, stating that public input is often ignored.
  • Marjorie Longo (30-year resident, acting chair of North Central Wild Horse Neighborhood Association): Stated that the revised draft land use map erroneously shows low-density residential on a 13-acre conservation easement along Road 113; requested correction and reaffirmation that all conservation easements are permanent. Also concerned about the “Death Star” expansion north of 113 lacking green space and blocking wildlife corridor.
  • Ziv Lang (25-year resident): Opposed high density in existing neighborhoods; called for fixing transit first, stronger language to pressure UC Davis to build 50% on-campus housing, and preservation of Measure J/RD.
  • Ningwan (long-term resident, former HRMC liaison): Noted that downtown is a designated historic district requiring state approval for changes; questioned the need for expansion due to population stagnation; expressed concern about AI and women’s rights; opposed taking farmland; asked to keep Rancho Yolo area unchanged.
  • Elizabeth Fosanski (Rancho Yolo resident): Requested a commitment to 100% renewable energy in the plan.
  • Mary Ann Hernandez (resident off Pole Line): Urged removal of Village Farms from the map, keeping Measure J/RD intact, and requiring UC Davis to house more students.
  • Rena Nyer (resident): Asked for clearer advance focus; stated Village Farms should be removed after two voter rejections; requested that conservation easements be shown on map and clearly off-limits; expressed concern about an urban limit line implying growth priority; opposed a fixed growth target; supported on-campus housing but not annexation with UCD.
  • Elizabeth Ray (since 1976): Opposed development near old dump, above Channel A, and near vernal pools; called for traditional apartments for workers, free electric bus service every 15 minutes to campus; warned against building on floodplains; urged keeping Measure J/RD to counter outside money influence.
  • Dr. Glenn Holstein (environmental scientist, director of Tuliomi conservation group): Spoke for democracy; appalled that Village Farms remains on the map after two voter rejections; urged removal.
  • Brad Sutton (City of Davis resident): Stated conservation easements are in perpetuity (Civil Code 815.2) and needed for flood control; requested general plan explicitly preserve all easements and reject any exchange or extinguishment; asked to remove Village Farms.
  • Eileen Samets (former planning commissioner, coordinator of Citizens for Responsible Planning): Opposed major overhaul of current general plan; urged no amendment to Measure J/RD; requested urban limit line drop to Channel A; no building on large FEMA floodplains or conservation easements; stronger language for UC Davis to build 50% on-campus housing.
  • Jeffrey Stalnick (vice chair of Davis Senior Citizens Commission): Noted Measure V lost by 276 votes; claimed the “no” campaign was funded by a group of mostly white male homeowners over 60 with average home price over $1 million; supported infill development.

Discussion Items

  • Presentation by Eric Yurkovich (Alta/Raimi + Associates): Presented housing trends: population and housing growth leveled off after 2000; from 2013-2020, ~1,400 units permitted; UC Davis has built 6,200 beds since 2016 LRDP baseline, with remaining capacity of 2,800 beds; on-campus student housing increased from 29% to 42% (target ~47-48%). Discussed three data sources for future housing projections: CA Dept of Finance (higher), SACOG (lower due to limited land), and RHNA trend (~7,300 units beyond current 28,000). Staff recommends planning for ~6,200 additional units beyond the 6th cycle RHNA of 2,075 units to meet future need. Wastewater treatment plant has capacity for about 8,000 additional units beyond already approved pipeline projects (including Village Farms and Willow Grove). Draft land use map unchanged from July 22; includes increased density downtown, along transit corridors, in neighborhood centers, and on faith-based/institutional lands; also includes areas outside city limits (Village Farms, Willow Grove, Disk project, northeast and north areas). Public comments and Planning Commission feedback summarized: remove Village Farms, protect ag easements, need transportation plan, focus density on transit corridors, require UC Davis housing.
  • Committee Discussion: Commissioners posed clarifying questions on timeline for mobility element, flexibility of commercial space requirements, housing unit projections, wastewater capacity specifics, flood control planning, and the need for integrated transportation and land use. Commissioner Husing emphasized planning for active mobility (protected bike lanes) to meet climate goals and improve affordability; linked transportation to social equity. Commissioner Greco advocated for comprehensive flood control planning, realigning Channel A away from Covell Boulevard, and considering west side development. Commissioner Brinkley (Open Space) recommended focusing on southward expansion (south of Willowbank) to avoid sensitive habitats in the north and to connect to Poodah Creek and Grasslands Park via bike/ped infrastructure. Commissioner Ringer (Social Services) stressed housing affordability, noting UC Davis employees commuting from outside (62% of 11,000 employees live outside Davis) and median home prices significantly higher than neighbors. Commissioner Ennis supported upzoning single-family areas (SB9 allows four units without rezoning) and mixed-use neighborhood centers with higher densities. Commissioner Moore (Climate & Environmental Justice) suggested a minimum percent commercial space aggregated over an area rather than per parcel; also noted unhoused populations congregate in floodplains and should be considered in flood control planning. Chair Brinkley proposed that the urban limit line be adjusted to include conserved lands in the sphere of influence, and recommended setting a formal housing unit target rather than a range.

Key Outcomes

  • Subcommittee on Vision Statement: Motion by Commissioner Ennis, seconded, to create a subcommittee to revise the current vision statement and project outcomes into overarching design principles for the city. Vote: 5 in favor, 1 opposed (motion carried).
  • Agenda for Next Meeting: Commissioners agreed to agendize a formal presentation of the Open Space and Habitat Element Assessment (pending approval by the Open Space and Habitat Commission).
  • Staff Request: Staff (Dara Dungworth) asked each commissioner to report back to their respective home commissions to ensure the input given tonight reflects the full commission’s direction, with any additional feedback to be brought to the third GPC meeting in winter.
  • No Formal Resolutions: Staff deemed their notes and recording sufficient; no resolution or summary from this body was required at this stage.

Meeting Transcript

I know. You probably have two for a book. Possibility to do. All right, we are back. In session, we're now recording. Welcome to the general plan committee, everyone. We're going to do um roll call, approval of the agenda, consent calendar. Um, we'll continue our general plan update. And uh after that point, we'll welcome public comment. Okay, so with that roll call, I think we're missing Sarah Moore, Tony. Nope. Oh, sorry, got you. Uh, Tony, Anna Lisa, and Alan. Right? Okay. Thank you. Second. All right, all in favor. And next we move on to consent calendar. I move to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Now we will hear um. So that document that's printed before you is for your reference. That is the consent item and you for your use in the future. We're all we're all set on item number three, so we can move to item four. Thank you. All right. Moving to item four, and now we're going to continue our conversation from July 22nd on the general plan update. Yes. Thank you again, Madam Chair. I'd like to introduce Eric Yerkovich with Alta aKA RAMI. And he is here again with us tonight to present some additional information that's outlined in the staff report. The slides are similar, but there's again additional information that the General Plan Committee and the Planning Commission asked for on July 22nd. So we'll be providing that new information out to you all, and then the discussion that commenced on July 22nd will continue. I would just like to make note for the folks in the audience that public comment will be based on the new material. We will not be able to accept public comment, general public comment, or public comment on anything that was previously presented in the July 22nd packet. Thank you so much. I'll turn it over to Eric. Good evening, everyone. Nice to see you again, and thanks for having us back here this evening. I'm gonna do a presentation as Dara said on some of the materials that were requested at the previous meeting. I'm gonna talk a little bit about housing trends in the city, uh housing trends on UC Davis's campus. We're gonna talk a little bit about target population and housing for the city, and then a little bit of conversation around utility capacity uh within the city itself. Um this is all uh in addition to the materials that you all heard a couple of weeks ago when we were here. Uh I'll share then a little of the feedback that we received from the community members as well as the planning commission who also heard the same item in the evening after the general plan committee meeting. Um so we're gonna start with housing trends. Um we'll start here first uh within the city of Davis. So these two graphics show the population and housing trends by decade for the city uh overall.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com