Key points:
- Davis City Council to discuss General Plan Update on August 19.
- Update aims to tackle emerging challenges and build on community strengths.
- The General Plan Update process is expected to run for several years.
DAVIS, Calif. — Following this week’s General Plan Community workshop, the council, looking to push forward, is preparing to reshape its long-term vision with a sweeping General Plan Update that will set policy direction for more than two decades.
On Aug. 19, the City Council will take up two items: integrating environmental justice (EJ) into the plan for the first time and establishing a new General Plan Committee to ensure broad representation from city commissions.
The twin efforts hope to launch further the scope of the update, which city staff have described as a blueprint to guide Davis through “its next 20+ years”.
The General Plan Update, launched earlier this year under council direction, is intended to tackle emerging challenges while building on community strengths. Staff have noted that all of the council’s goals will be addressed through the process, including fiscal resilience, climate resilience, housing, social services, infrastructure, and economic development.
At Tuesday’s meeting, the council will hear from Raimi and Associates on how state law requires environmental justice to be part of the update.
California’s Government Code defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”.
The issue has taken on new significance since the passage of Senate Bill 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, in 2016. The law requires local governments to identify disadvantaged communities when updating general plans and to address six minimum areas: reducing pollution exposure, promoting public facilities, expanding food access, ensuring safe and sanitary homes, improving opportunities for physical activity, and enhancing civic engagement.
In Davis, staff conducted a preliminary screening using two methods defined by state law.
The first method, based on CalEnviroScreen data, did not identify any Census tracts in Davis ranking in the top 25 percent statewide.
However, the second method, which layers income data with pollution indicators, revealed that four Census tracts and 18 block groups in the city qualify as both low-income and disproportionately burdened by pollution.
According to the analysis, some tracts scored in the 75th percentile or higher statewide for pesticide use, groundwater threats, impaired water bodies, cleanup sites, hazardous waste sites, and solid waste facilities. Staff noted that many of these areas also have large student populations, with more than 30 percent of residents between ages 18 and 24.
The consultant team from Raimi and Associates is expected to explain the meaning of these findings at the public meeting.
The city has also turned to UC Davis for help shaping how environmental justice is woven into the plan. Students in CRD 149: Environmental Justice and Community Development, taught by Professor Jonathan London and Teaching Associate Lupe Franco, have been working directly with city staff and consultants.
Their class project engaged more than 100 residents through 16 focus groups, two surveys, and a walk audit. The groups represented residents who often bear the brunt of environmental burdens but are marginalized in planning, including Indigenous people, unhoused residents, farm workers, Spanish- and Chinese-speaking residents, students, people with disabilities, and those in affordable housing.
The students produced three major deliverables: focus group reports, a compilation of promising policies from other jurisdictions, and a compendium of maps and data. From this, they developed a database of goals, policies, and actions that can serve as a foundation for Davis’ General Plan Update.
According to the staff report, “the UC Davis team will also produce an EJ framework that can either be drawn upon to produce a stand-alone element or as a section to situate EJ in the General Plan as a whole.”
They are hoping to complete this process by October 2025.
Beyond the policy substance, the City Council will also decide how to structure its public engagement and commission oversight.
Staff have recommended forming a General Plan Committee, or GPC, to bring together representatives from six existing commissions: Climate and Environmental Justice, Open Space and Habitat, Recreation and Park, Transportation, Planning, and Social Services.
The purpose of the GPC will be to deliberate on cross-cutting issues that span commissions, such as land use, open space, mobility, and environmental justice.
According to staff, “the GPC will be a key forum for commissioners to engage across commissions during the GPU process.”
Members will be expected to represent the consensus of their commissions rather than personal views and to serve as liaisons by reporting back on discussions and progress.
The process for forming the GPC will begin with commissioners submitting Statements of Interest. These will be reviewed by the General Plan Subcommittee, currently composed of Mayor Bapu Vaitla and Josh Chapman, who will recommend two members from each commission to the full City Council. The council will then confirm appointments to the 12-member committee. Staff recommend limiting membership to regular appointees rather than alternates.
The GPC is expected to meet up to eight times over the next two years, primarily during the phases of the update dealing with land use and mobility planning and policy development. Meetings will not follow a fixed monthly schedule but will be convened as needed, sometimes in consecutive months and sometimes with long pauses. The committee will be dissolved once the final General Plan is adopted.
Both staff reports emphasize that the General Plan Update is designed to be a comprehensive, community-driven process. City officials have pointed to the importance of involving residents who historically have had little voice in planning decisions.
SB 1000 requires “the meaningful engagement of those facing the heaviest burdens of environmental injustices,” a mandate that the city is attempting to meet through both the UC Davis partnership and the expanded commission system.
In addition to these efforts, the council’s stated goals for the update include strengthening climate resilience, shoring up the housing continuum, improving social services, and stepping up economic development.
The General Plan Update process is expected to run for several years, with adoption not anticipated until late 2026 or later. The decisions made this month on environmental justice and committee structure will shape how the city proceeds with one of the most significant planning undertakings in its history.
“…the council’s stated goals for the update include strengthening climate resilience, shoring up the housing continuum,…”
What does shoring up the housing continuum mean? It certainly doesn’t mean adding supply, the obvious answer, to high rents.
As far as I can tell the City Council has dragged its feet on project after project during the last three years since the current Mayor was elected demanding the perfect at the expense of the good. Name one project of any size that has gone from concept to construction since the Mayor was elected? The CC didn’t even bother to put any Measure J project on the ballot in 2024 on the recommendation of the subcommittee of the Mayor and a now retired CC member. Yet the Mayor is in charge of the General Plan update. What a waste of time.
But hey, at least they’re looking into environmental justice.
I think they are referring to things like affordable and missing middle housing
I doubt that any of the projects as currently conceived would pass a Measure J/R/D vote because they would be opposed by both the usual suspects and the pro-growth voters who want the projects to meet reasonable expectations. Instead these look like the same old, same old single family sprawl priced too high for those who commute into Davis to work today. The question is how do we push the developers to accept alternative designs that at least get the support of this latter group? That’s what we need to get past the vote hurdle. Leaving these decisions to single individuals in the private sector will just deliver more of the same problems that we’re trying to get out of.
One person’s reasonable expectations are another person’s folly. As I said above the perfect is the enemy of the good. If people are willing to vote no because something isn’t good enough for their liking current supply demand imbalances will persist with all the accompanying hardships lack of supply inflicts upon the non-ownership classes.
From article: “According to the analysis, some tracts scored in the 75th percentile or higher statewide for pesticide use, groundwater threats, impaired water bodies, cleanup sites, hazardous waste sites, and solid waste facilities. Staff noted that many of these areas also have large student populations, with more than 30 percent of residents between ages 18 and 24.”
(They apparently left out exhaust from I-80, in regard to Nishi. As I recall, the argument went something like “they’re only there for a short period, they’re young and they can take it, we’ll plant some magic, pollution-eating trees along the border with I-80, etc.”)
A deeper dive into the environmental analysis showed that the air quality hazard was not as significant at the opponents claimed. When the prevailing wind is out of the southwest, its generally either during the cooler fall/winter/spring months or when there is a Delta breeze that brings fresher air from the ocean. Prevailing north winds occur during the summer when pollution levels are higher, but those winds blow the I-80 exhaust away from the development. A proposed alternative site on the side of I-80/Old Davis Road has a higher exposure the air quality hazard from the prevailing north wind.
On the other hand, we have put a number of multi-family buildings along both sides of I-80 within city limits. The hazards at those sites are at least as high as Nishii and most likely higher. That’s where the real EJ issue is.
“the City Council will take up two items: integrating environmental justice (EJ) into the plan for the first time”
Good luck with that. That’s as ludicrous in Davis as voting districts, and as likely to happen. Wait . . . what? We have voting districts? Hold the phone! Hold my beer! And EJ – oh, we are giving reparations to members marginalized of marginalized communities who are exposed to toxic industrial outputs? Do Jews by the railroad count?
“and establishing a new General Plan Committee to ensure broad representation from city commissions.”
Oh, a new committee in an era of committee reduction to ensure representation by the non-purged, remaining committees :-|
“the second method, which layers income data with pollution indicators, revealed that four Census tracts and 18 block groups in the city qualify as both low-income and disproportionately burdened by pollution.”
Wait, what? Do if you have “pesticide use, groundwater threats, impaired water bodies, cleanup sites, hazardous waste sites, and solid waste facilities” that it only matters if you are low income? I mean dead from toxins is dead from toxins, no matter what your wallet looks like. If these are threats, shouldn’t the City long ago have told us about them? And by the way, these threats only matter if the public can be exposed, not just because they exist. I live on top of a groundwater toxic plume, but it has not threat potential to mys truly.
“Staff noted that many of these areas also have large student populations, with more than 30 percent of residents between ages 18 and 24.”
Haven’t we long-ago established that student populations show up as ‘low income’ in government data when in fact they should be classified as ‘not yet earning’ ?
“The consultant team from Raimi and Associates is expected to explain the meaning of these findings at the public meeting.”
I look forward to the entertainment.
“The city has also turned to UC Davis for help shaping how environmental justice is woven into the plan. Students in CRD 149: Environmental Justice and Community Development, taught by Professor Jonathan London and Teaching Associate Lupe Franco, have been working directly with city staff and consultants.”
Davis, the town were students in a class in taught by social justice activist professors are sourced as experts to help ‘shape’ how environmental justice is ‘woven’ into our General Plan. What could possibly go wrong?
“According to staff, “the GPC will be a key forum for commissioners to engage across commissions during the GPU process.””
Or the remaining combo-commissions could just talk to each other, without the new layer of bureaucracy of a commission to oversee commissions.
“Members will be expected to represent the consensus of their commissions rather than personal views and to serve as liaisons by reporting back on discussions and progress.”
Of course. No personal views. Save that for “I’m on the X commission but not representing my commission today” public comments.
“The process for forming the GPC will begin with commissioners submitting Statements of Interest.”
‘I’m Alan C. Miller and I’d like to join the GPC in order to disrupt the process. No seriously. That’s my interest.’
“The committee will be dissolved once the final General Plan is adopted.”
And the General Plan will be dissolved slowly, in chunks, every time a developer with sufficient money bags wants an exception.
“City officials have pointed to the importance of involving residents who historically have had little voice in planning decisions.”
And those of you who historically talk a lot: please shut up. No I mean it, that’s what they really really want. They won’t tell you that’s what they want, what they really really want. But . . . serious question . . . what residents historically have had ‘little voice’ ? I mean, everyone has the right to be heard by the City, and there are more options than ever on ways to do so. So what does this really really mean?
“SB 1000 requires “the meaningful engagement of those facing the heaviest burdens of environmental injustices,””
Again . . . Jews by the railroad tracks engulfed in diesel fumes and computer-triggered horn blasts – in or out?
“In addition to these efforts, the council’s stated goals for the update include strengthening climate resilience, shoring up the housing continuum, improving social services, and stepping up economic development.”
Where would I even start?
“The General Plan Update process is expected to run for several years, with adoption not anticipated until late 2026 or later.”
At which time it will be obselte and violated already, and if we stay on schedule, see you at the next General Plan cycle kickoff-meeting when you can wheel in my wheelchair or my coffin into the Senior Center, depending on how things go.