Davis, CA – A few years ago, there was a suggestion that Davis wait to put projects on the ballot until it had a General Plan update.
In all fairness, in a perfect world, that probably would have been a good idea—have a community visioning plan to have at least some shared understanding of the vision of the future of Davis prior to asking voters to approve projects.
It is definitely a novel concept.
Unfortunately, I knew from long experience that, even under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult to roll out a new General Plan prior to the need for housing to be approved to keep up with the current Housing Element.
So while I understand the sentiment behind put the plan first, approve second, build third approach, the reality of the housing crisis and state impositions largely negated that possibility.
I think it was a year ago that I asked the City Manager how long it would realistically take to complete a General Plan update—acknowledging that the process is not a new General Plan but an update.
As staff put it, “The City will not be starting from scratch but instead, will be using the existing 2001 General Plan as a basis for beginning the update process. Many policies are applicable today and simply need adjustments to make them more applicable going into the future.”
The City Manager at that time suggested a two- to three-year timeline.
So here we are, a day away from the first 2025 Council Meeting—where do we stand?
The staff report gives us an update: “Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement (PSA) contract with Raimi+Associates, Inc. for the preparation of the 2025 General Plan Update.”
So, assuming all goes well, in almost exactly a year, the council after Tuesday will have a PSA with Raimi.
(Musical interlude – dah dah dah).
Apologies for my glibness—but this is exactly what I feared and why I didn’t want to put off consideration of Village Farms, Shriners, and other projects while we wait for the General Plan Update.
As city staff put it: “City Council has directed staff to begin an update to the current City of Davis General Plan… While the current General Plan has served the city well over the last 2 plus decades, it is time for an update.”
What is the plan?
According to staff, “The City will make use of its extensive commission system to identify and lead the community stakeholders in community engagement and to review and craft new policy language.”
They add, “The City’s commissions will also serve as the city’s ambassadors for outreach and engagement to ensure a deep level of community involvement in the update process.”
I guess I have to point out… again… the self-inflicted wounds that happened last spring over the Commission realignment… but that would be repetitive and this is starting to read like a column I would have written in 2007 rather than 2025.
Back to the plan…
In addition to the six individual commissions participating directly in the update per prior Council direction, “it is also suggested that the City Council appoint a General Plan Committee (GPC).”
The GPC will be made up of “two representatives from each of the six commissions, including the Planning Commission.”
Mind you: “The exact timing for meetings and the membership of the GPC has yet to be determined, but it can be said that the GPC will convene at key intervals (likely on a roughly quarterly basis) in the process to serve as a check point at key milestones. They will also serve as a conduit to the City Council at various times in the process, possibly through joint meetings as needed.”
The staff report also notes the Housing Element that was recently certified, “and therefore will not be updated as a part of this process.”
They plan to cross-reference the Element and its Housing and Affordable Housing policies (some of which will be updated at this very meeting).
They also note that the Housing Element is required to be updated more frequently and on a separate schedule from the rest of the General Plan.
Staff kind of buries the lede—at least if it were a news article—by noting, “A key area where the General Plan Update will require considerable attention and focus is on the anticipated housing growth needs, and commensurate land use needs, over the life of the General Plan beyond the current Housing Element. This will require anticipation of what the Davis RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) will be over the next few decades, and planning for accommodation of that state required housing growth.”
Additionally, they add that “it will be crucial to identify what the community commercial and other non-residential land needs will be in balance.”
That probably doesn’t do justice to what is actually going to take place. Anything short of a holy war on housing will probably be disappointing.
Somehow staff doesn’t mention the 50,000 pound elephant in the room—and in deference to my dear friend Ron Glick, I will mention it here—Measure J.
The reality as I have been beating the drum now for several years is that, in order for Davis to be in compliance with state laws and in order for Davis to address its internal housing needs, we need to figure out a way to make Measure J manageable.
The council already punted once on approaching the issue of a Measure J modification or amendment, and that also figures to be a brutal battle.
None of this is going to be easy. We have put off the hard decisions, but if we cannot and do not address them during this process, we will leave the tough decisions for future councils and future voters.
*Correction: Item is a regular agenda item, not on consent.
Unfortunately, bad housing projects are worse than no projects at all. The poorly executed East Davis developments are the genesis of the current community resistance to further development, and the Cannery hasn’t made this easier. What’s on the table now will increase traffic problems and worsen both climate and affordability problems. Yet we have no means of correcting what are readily solvable issues other than by rejecting what’s proposed and starting over. If the projects are rejected, we won’t be solving the housing supply crisis. Too often crises are confused with the need for urgency. More often, a real solution requires due consideration or the problems can get worse.
BTW, the high speed rail project is a great example of how the supposed urgency of a needed solution derailed (pun intended) consideration of need and effectiveness, and whether alternatives would work better: https://davisvanguard.org/2025/01/governor-announces-completion-of-key-construction-of-high-speed-rail/
(See my comments there.)
RMcC, totally agree. Rather than my stating the same thing, reread what RMcC said and let it sink in.
I will be voting against all future projects due to A) being lied to in the past, and B) a completely failed transportation policy both in the past, and what we have now for future. Stating that one is a council-person concerned about “climate change” and then allowing a city policy that in reality creates auto-centric developments that will be with us for all time is delusional and borderline criminal (if the world adopted the laws of Alan C. Miller world).
Took me a moment on the headline, DG. Good intent, but bullet trains themselves do actually move fast. The problem is, the have to *exist* to move fast, so maybe: “General Plan Update… Moving at the Speed of *The California* Bullet Train *Plan*” ???
IS it likely if passed, Village Farms and the former Shriners will negate most reasons for a General Plan update of North-East and East Davis. Is it also possible that the ten year build out or longer of these two projects will eliminate any further city annexations over at least the next ten years and possibly longer rendering the General Plan Update somewhat obsolescent.
It appears to me the timing of the General Plan Update will miss out on having much positive impact on critical issues such as climate change, long term structural planning and affordable housing for families earning between 30%-120%.
So a more intense look at the two projects is required as they appear at this time to be too car centric with not enough market rate apartment housing to address the issue of affordability for renters and not enough low income nonprofit housing to meet the real need in our community.
Above all, Davis citizens deserve better planning than planning from the past dictating our future.