Charting Davis’s Transportation Future Amid Local Concerns
Davis, CA – Kacey Lizon, Deputy Executive Director of SACOG made a presentation to the Davis City Council on SACOG’s Blueprint 2050.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Blueprint 2050 is the centerpiece of regional planning efforts, outlining a long-range transportation and land-use strategy that reaches all the way to 2050.
The discussion touched on key issues such as congestion on I-80, the need for expanded public transit, housing development, and sustainability initiatives. The meeting also raised questions about how these regional plans will impact Davis specifically, particularly in balancing state-mandated growth with the city’s unique policies and priorities.
As cities and counties across the Sacramento region prepare for future growth, the Blueprint is intended to serve as a comprehensive guide that will steer investments, policy decisions, and infrastructure improvements for decades to come.
“The Blueprint is our long-range transportation plan,” explained Kacey Lizon, Deputy Executive Director of SACOG, during her presentation. “We call it the Blueprint as a nod to the original effort about 20 years ago when we envisioned the region’s future. This plan is updated every four years to reflect new challenges and opportunities, and it is designed to help us meet federal and state requirements while also addressing our regional sustainability and mobility goals.”
Lizon’s presentation illustrated that the Blueprint isn’t just about roadways and transit lines—it’s a holistic vision that seeks to harmonize housing, economic development, and environmental priorities with transportation policy.
SACOG is a collaborative regional agency that brings together 22 cities and six counties in the Sacramento area to coordinate long-term transportation and development strategies. As Lizon explained, the agency plays a crucial role in tackling regional challenges that no single community can solve alone.
“We are an organization where all 22 cities and six counties of the Sacramento region get together around a table to do long-range planning and transportation funding and coordination,” Lizon stated. “It’s the only public agency in the region where all of those communities come together twice a month to tackle issues and carry out that mission.”
The Blueprint 2025 Plan is SACOG’s long-range transportation plan and land-use strategy, setting priorities for infrastructure investments that will shape growth in the region for decades. The name “Blueprint” traces back to a major regional visioning effort 20 years ago, which sought to create a cohesive development strategy for sustainable communities.
“This plan, the long-range transportation plan, has to achieve many things under federal and state law,” Lizon said, emphasizing the necessity of aligning the regional strategy with legal requirements and funding opportunities.
Davis is a full participant in SACOG’s planning process, with Councilmember Josh Chapman serving as the city’s representative. Chapman underscored Davis’s commitment to regional collaboration while ensuring that local interests remain a priority.
“We are very grateful to have Davis’s full participation,” Lizon said.
Chapman acknowledged the importance of SACOG’s work but expressed concern about how the Blueprint’s priorities align with the city’s needs.
“I appreciate the vision that’s being put forward, but I think we need to take a careful look at how it applies to Davis specifically,” Chapman said. “We have unique challenges when it comes to housing, transportation, and sustainability.”
A significant portion of the council discussion focused on the transportation component of the Blueprint. With SACOG emphasizing multimodal solutions—including transit, biking, and pedestrian-friendly developments—the plan aligns with many of Davis’s long-term goals.
Planning Manager Sherri Metzker pointed out that while SACOG’s Blueprint aligns well with Davis’s sustainability objectives, the city has specific concerns about implementation.
“The Blueprint is definitely pointing us in the right direction,” Metzker said. “But we need to make sure that the transportation investments truly reflect our needs, particularly with our commitment to bike infrastructure and alternative transportation.”
She also stressed that land use decisions should remain in the city’s control.
“We have to be cautious about how much of our local planning is dictated by regional priorities,” Metzker added. “It’s important that our General Plan update reflects what our residents want, while also taking SACOG’s recommendations into account.”
One of the key themes of SACOG’s Blueprint is accommodating future population growth in a sustainable manner. Lizon emphasized that while much of the growth in the region is expected to happen in suburban and exurban areas, there is a strong push to concentrate development in existing urban centers.
“We know that the Sacramento region is expected to grow significantly over the next several decades,” Lizon said. “Our challenge is to make sure that growth happens in a way that minimizes sprawl and maximizes transportation efficiency.”
Council members raised questions about how these projections will impact Davis, particularly given the city’s long-standing slow-growth policies.
Metzker highlighted the tension between regional expectations and local preferences.
“We recognize that there’s a need for more housing, but Davis has always had a very deliberate approach to growth,” she said. “We want to make sure that we are part of the regional conversation without sacrificing what makes Davis unique.”
City staff also questioned how SACOG’s Blueprint will influence infrastructure investments in Davis, particularly regarding transit funding and road maintenance.
City Manager Mike Webb emphasized that securing funding for local projects remains a challenge.
“One of the biggest questions we always have is: where does the money come from?” Webb said. “The Blueprint lays out a vision, but we need to understand how funding will be allocated and whether Davis will receive the necessary support for our priorities.”
Lizon acknowledged these concerns and noted that SACOG works closely with federal and state agencies to secure transportation grants and other funding sources.
“There are many opportunities for funding, but competition is fierce,” Lizon explained. “SACOG’s role is to make sure that our regional projects are well-positioned to receive state and federal dollars.”
One of the main takeaways from the discussion was the need to balance regional coordination with local autonomy. While Davis benefits from participating in SACOG’s Blueprint, council members were clear that local priorities must come first.
Chapman emphasized the importance of ongoing dialogue between the city and SACOG.
“It’s great to be part of this regional effort, but we have to make sure that our voices are heard,” Chapman said. “Davis has always been a leader in sustainable planning, and we want to continue shaping our own future.”
Metzker agreed, stating that Davis should leverage its involvement in SACOG to advocate for projects that align with its values.
“We have a seat at the table, and we should use it to push for policies that reflect what our community wants,” she said.
As SACOG continues to refine the Blueprint 2025 plan, Davis city officials will work to ensure that the city’s needs are addressed in the final version. The next steps include further engagement with SACOG and public discussions to refine Davis’s approach to regional growth and transportation.
Lizon encouraged the city to stay involved in the process.
“We want to make sure that the Blueprint works for all communities, including Davis,” she said. “Your participation is key to shaping the final plan.”
Webb assured the council that city staff would continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the Blueprint progresses.
“This is an ongoing conversation,” Webb said. “We’ll keep working with SACOG to make sure that Davis is well-represented and that our priorities remain front and center.”
“They” say public transportation like saying it makes a quality form of it exist, along with the will and the incentive for people to ride. Yet massive investment in I-80 is occurring, supported by our city & county, and what behavior shall we expect from that?
Too, Folsom south of I-50. Massive, ugly, sprawl. No way that is served by public transit, because it was designed auto-centric.
Some glimmer of hope that the future NE suburbs will be considered to be built around a transportation corridor, thanks to Bapu adding it to the long-range calendar. This will take decades to be of use after all the burbs are built, but at least those living there will have a more-efficient option by design (if it’s designed right).
The Capitol Corridor will be back to 15-round-trips by the end of the year if all goes according to plan (up from 12 currently – dip from pandemic ridership drops). However, we need a massive investment of many billions to shift a significant number of people off the highway via electrification, a direct link to San Francisco and the Peninsula, and increased frequencies.
Continuing to widen I-80 isn’t going to reduce VMTs, quite the opposite, no matter how many times SACOG chants “public transit” in meetings.
How is it that an organization like SACOG claims to “exist”, when we’re seeing results like the sprawl occurring throughout the region – as well as the expansion of I-80? In a state that isn’t even growing, and with an entire nation not having kids at replacement levels?
Seems like a mythical organization.
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is a regional planning agency that serves six counties in the Sacramento region: Sacramento, Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, and El Dorado. SACOG is primarily responsible for:
1. Transportation Planning & Funding
• Develops the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), which guides long-term transportation investments.
• Allocates state and federal transportation funds to local projects, such as road improvements, bike lanes, and public transit expansions.
• Oversees regional transit coordination among agencies like Sacramento Regional Transit and YoloBus.
2. Land Use & Housing
• Works with cities and counties on smart growth strategies, promoting affordable housing, sustainable development, and reduced sprawl.
• Supports compliance with state housing laws and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
3. Economic & Environmental Sustainability
• Develops policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with California’s SB 375.
• Supports economic development initiatives to improve job access and regional competitiveness.
4. Data & Regional Analysis
• Provides demographic, economic, and transportation data to local governments for informed decision-making.
• Conducts research on topics like climate resilience, freight movement, and equity in transportation.
SACOG does not have regulatory authority but plays a key role in coordinating regional planning efforts among local governments.
It would be interesting to know who/how they’re “graded” regarding their own goals. And how those goals are measured in the first place.
Because right off the bat, what’s occurring is the OPPOSITE of many of those goals. Though I don’t even know what “equity in transportation” means, for example.
RO say: ” I don’t even know what “equity in transportation” means ”
Dirty little secret: no one does. It’s all self-defined (if defined at all) and usually found as a meaningless immeasurable phrase in the goals of organizations. But since it’s not defined, those reading it define it for themselves and assume the organization is doing what * they * think the organization should be doing. For ‘equity’.
“serves”
All those things are what they * say * they do. So how come we keep doing what we’ve done, and keep getting more of what we’ve gotten.
Take a drive around the new Folsom south of 50 sometime, and tell me how that meets our “vision” for housing, auto-use reduction, increased public transit, saving the oaks — anything. They totally destroyed White Rock Hill, scraping it for houses and putting a little fence around the white rock outcrop. Who is in charge that thinks this is good for society in any way — except a few extra million in the developer’s pocketbook?
The City needs to take the initiative and only approve developments that actually conform with SACOG’s guidelines. The problems in Folsom that Alan highlights show how this requires very deliberative steps that might make developers unhappy (but they still need to earn their money.)
I have scarcely seen anything as perplexingly WTF and angering as the destruction of White Rock Hill. That should have been a beautiful centerpiece park at the major intersection of White Rock and Payen Roads in their development. But that wanted that income from a couple of dozen more houses, and apparently the people and the government of Folsom got their give-a-damn center of their brains kicked in by a horse. So they gave the developer ‘sh*tty museum’ mitigation right instead of making the whole hill a park.
This is similar to a few bricks being saved and piled up at 2nd and G Streets in ‘honor’ of the destroyed Aggie hotel, or a postage-stamp memorial at People’s Park in Berkeley instead of kicking out the so-called homeless people and making it into a world-class historic and usable park for the neighbors and the world. We lost that war when the University let the place go to hell and then the only people left fighting for the remaining dump were so-called homeless advocates. So we got our sh*tty postage-stamp memorial mitigation concession, the developers make millions, the university ends their decades-long ‘problem’, the neighborhood loses what could have been a beautiful park, and James Rector died for nothing and the developers and the University pooped on his grave.