General PlanOn Tuesday night, the Davis City Council will start take steps towards developing a plan of attack for the next General Plan Update. According to the staff report:
A General Plan update would potentially address all of the Council goal categories of: Infrastructure; Fiscal stability; Downtown Davis; Housing; Sustainability; Safety and Health; Organizational Strength; Civic Engagement; and Long-Term Visioning.
In particular, a General Plan update would address the Long-Term Visioning goal: “Prepare for the lasting success and well-being of the Davis community by engaging in long-term visioning.”
The city is looking at a process that would initiate an update through 2035 but could include a long range vision for Davis perhaps up until 2050. The recent housing element process has focused on housing strategies in isolation from other long range community issues.
Other issues that city staff wants to address include:
• Sustainability and AB 32 requirements.
• Economic and business related sustainability.
• Community and resident health.
• A general study of senior needs including housing, transportation, recreation and
social services.
• Ultimate urban growth and ag preservation boundaries.
• Open space / greenways system.
• Growth and balance of housing, employment, retail and services.
• Vision for the downtown and its development intensity.
• Multi-property planning on the edges of the City where coordinated planning would better address issues that may cross parcel boundaries.
• Fiscal impacts of alternatives.
• Planning for the January 2012 – June 2019 Housing Element planning period and
RHNA.
• Explore possible new locations for city and DJUSD corporation yards and the PG&E service center.
One of the challenges the city faces right now is the cost to the project including EIR costs. According to the staff report, costs range from $1 million to $4 million with a typical cost from between $1.5 million to $2.5 million. With a time frame ranging from two years to upwards of five years.
“Staff recommends that the Council determine what kind of a General Plan update is wanted / needed while being sensitive to the difficult budget conditions the City faces, as well as other priorities. After a “first cut” at deciding what kind of General Plan update, staff can return with more information and options for funding the update.
Concerns with City fiscal and budget conditions have evolved since the original Steering Committee recommendation and the Council direction to initiate a “truly comprehensive General Plan update…to address a long range community vision to year 2040 or 2050…with a broad community engagement program”.”
The report also accesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current general plan.
The strengths include the fact that it is comprehensive, addresses and contains “smart growth principles,” and was citizen based.
However, it also criticizes the previous report as long and unfocused.
“The lengthy document of almost 400 pages and 1,000 goals, policies and standards is difficult to use and focus on overall themes, key issues and trade-offs. The connections between the plan’s general visions and principles and more specific implementing actions are not always clear. Policies related to sustainability are not well coordinated.”
Moreover,
“Not clear in its guidance of how the community should evolve in the long term, particularly in terms of residential and non-residential growth.”
In particular,
“The 1% growth cap resolution is a helpful tool through January 2010, but does not a provide a quantitative basis for 20 to 25 years because the resolution was based on a housing needs analysis through year 2015 only. The plan provides the framework for promoting infill but does not address appropriate sites and the land use map…”
Furthermore:
“Does not provide for reliable projections for financial and infrastructure planning.”
There are three other criticisms. First:
“Individual development proposals and policy. Preferably, individual projects would not drive policy.
Second:
“Coordination with UC Davis plans. The City and UC Davis continue to be challenged to proactively address short and long term mutual interests and needs.”
Third:
“New State requirements for general plans. New legislative requirements in general plans for the topics of climate impacts, water supply, environmental justice, and tribal contacts should be checked and incorporated as necessary.”
The staff report then elicits a number of comments from council in terms of goals, what the updated plan should contain, what the process should look like.
On thing that might be interesting is for citizens to use the comment section of this article to express some of their goals and concerns about what they would like to see included in the next general plan. Issues such as sustainability, climate change, senior needs, urban growth boundaries, and sustainable economy ought to be considered. One of the main issues that needs to be address is what this community should look like in 2035. How do you want to see Davis change? What would you like to see remain the same?
Finally there is the issue with Measure J. The council had deferred discussion of Measure J until after the election. However, it still really has not addressed it. Are there three votes to keep the measure as it is currently written when it goes before the voters? When will that be addressed?
The staff report contains some other thoughts on Measure J. For instance, whether the General Plan update to go to a Measure J vote if it involves Measure J sites. Whether the entire General Plan package should go to a Measure J vote.
“One option for the Measure J renewal is to do a limited extension until the update is ready for a Measure J vote, and amend Measure J so that if an urban land use is approved by the voters then a second Measure J vote is not necessary.”
That would seem to be a rather dangerous proposition for both sides. On the one hand, it might make it difficult to pass the general plan if there are controversial projects contained within it. On the other hand, it might make it easier to pass controversial projects. And once the Measure J vote is passed for the general plan, what safeguards the project to ensure that it does not get altered significantly from passage as part of the general plan. I certain do not believe I would support such a provision.
What other issues need to be addressed here? This is the beginning of the general plan process, the citizens need to take a very proactive role in insuring that their needs, values, and goals are addressed within the framework of the general plan updating process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Renew Measure J as a separate and distinct policy. I dont think that a General Plan update needs a citywide vote unless there is widespread disagreement about some policies in it.Also, I think that the General Plan update should basically update the current plan, with the focus on new policies combatting global warming.
…According to the staff report, costs range from $1 million to $4 million with a typical cost from between $1.5 million to $2.5 million….The staff report actually says one to three million dollars, not four million….Total costs for updating the City
…with the focus on new policies combatting global warming….What does that mean, Mike? Are you saying keep in place all elements of the current GP, but modify them where possible so as to reduce gaseous effluents in Davis?
…Total costs (including EIR) ranged from $1 million to $4 million (City of Sacramento) with a typical cost of $1.5 to $2.5 million ($2.4 million for City of Chico). EIR costs ranged from $250,000 to more than $1 million….
…On thing that might be interesting is for citizens to use the comment section of this article to express some of their goals and concerns about what they would like to see included in the next general plan. Issues such as sustainability, climate change, senior needs, urban growth boundaries, and sustainable economy ought to be considered. One of the main issues that needs to be address is what this community should look like in 2035. How do you want to see Davis change? What would you like to see remain the same?…1)Measure J needs to be left alone. It works just fine the way it is.2) We also need to embrace the concept of inviting more business that can generate much needed tax revenue.3) It is imperative that we insist developers pay their fair share of development costs, and not saddle taxpayers with the burden of those expenses.4) There needs to be a careful assessment when instituting any global warming solutions. All this talk of solar panels may be premature, if the technology significantly changes in the near future. Make sure that any such suggestions are truly cost effective.5) I don't have objections to urban sprawl, as others do. I come from a large metro area orignially, where there is tons of urban sprawl. I don't have a particular affinity for the downtown Davis area, which has deteriorated with homeless problems, too much traffic, parking problems. Better to relieve some of the congestion by inviting business to the outlying areas – such as Target will be. When I first came to Davis, in 1987, it had very few stores or restaurants. The grocery stores were very small. I love the fact that we have a plethora of wonderful restaurants, large grocery stores (altho I would like to see some more neighborhood grocery stores), and now some retail where inexpensive items can be purchased in Davis rather than having to go to Woodland and elsewhere….Nonetheless, the cost estimate raises a question: Is spending millions of dollars on this update the best use of precious dollars right now? Can we legally put this off for another five years and just extend the life of the current GP?…I agree with this comment. Right now is not the time to be spending millions of dollar on a …plan…. What good is such a …plan… if the city is headed for bankruptcy?
I think the General Plan update should be postponed. I don't understand why a bunch of paperwork is so expensive. I think we should get rid of Measure J entirely. I get the point of it that people don't want …sprawl,… but we should be trusting the city council and staff to make sure that unwanted development doesn't happen. Putting it up to a vote just lets all the nongrowth grouches have their say even if the proposed development is nowhere near where they live. City council should be making these decisions and can take everyone's needs in mind.
Well for starters it's not a bunch of paperwork. It's EIR's, staff time, planning, community meetings, etc. the expense is staff time, consultants, and the EIRs.In terms of Measure J, if you plan well, then you can get the voters to approve it. You are not going to get rid of Measure J, it's not going to happen.
I think we should get rid of Measure J entirely. I get the point of it that people don't want …sprawl,… but we should be trusting the city council and staff to make sure that unwanted development doesn't happen.***********************************YOUR unwanted is their ESSENTIAL and vice-versa. Wow–a lot of folks worked very hard to get Measure J passed-it is a very effective tool. …Trust the city council and staff……They're not our friends; you can trust them if you want but don't urge others to. Some of us KNOW better.
I didn't say we should trust THIS city council. I was talking about ideally we would have people in city council that we could trust to handle these issues. Obviously people don't trust them because they passed Measure J which takes some power out of their hands. I agree Measure J is very effective…. at preventing any and all development in those properties.
That's not what you said the first time.
Whatever. I don't know where you saw that I wrote CURRENT city council or used their names. I meant city council as an entity. The point I was getting at was that we should elect different people to city council if it is such a necessity to pass something like Measure J which overrides them.
…Mike Harrington said… Renew Measure J as a separate and distinct policy….I agree. Incorporate the conclusions of the Housing Element Task Force somehow.Add boilerplate language to satisfy ……new State requirements for general plans. New legislative requirements in general plans for the topics of climate impacts, water supply, environmental justice, and tribal contacts should be checked and incorporated as necessary…. There is no point in going into detail in this document about any of those.Direct staff to spend no more than 100 hours total. Other than that, extend the current general plan for at least a decade.
This is a total waste of money, which I have been opposing from the start. Our current general plan is very good, and way ahead of its times. The housing element update can be done independently. The plan can be amended quarterly.There is no way we have the money for this exercise. I can only imagine that growth agendas are driving it.
Sue, interesting idea you have: dont update the 2001 GP at this time? I dont remember the legal ramifications of operating with an out of date GP. If you could find out and post more on this issue, maybe you would get a lot of support for the …if it aint broke, dont fix it… mode. (That's the argument that defeated the charter city proposal.)I would definitely be in favor of a limited update of the GP. It's just that since 2001, the entire Global Warming Debate became a non-debate, and states and cities everywhere are adopting progressive policies.Sue, do you remember our votes on some projects requiring …Title 24 efficieny plus 10%… ? I remember staff practically having a cow that we were requiring the extra 10%. The project owners really complained … well, what we know now is a 50% efficiency increase is well within tolerances of most project budgets.So, I think that the city's policies that would assist with combating global warming should be inserted in an amended GP. Those policy drafts could come from the climate study committee and the National Resources Commission and others.
BTW, do we need to form a YES ON RENEWAL OF J steering committee?I think that J sunsets at the end of 2010, and it really should be on a ballot for late this year, or not later than middle of 2010.We simply cannot take a chance on the opponents to renewal from taking us down in a last-minute election.We need at least one fall-back regular election between the renewal vote and the sunset.
…It's just that since 2001, the entire Global Warming Debate became a non-debate, and states and cities everywhere are adopting progressive policies….It makes NO DIFFERENCE to update the GP for Global Warming. That would be a complete waste of money.The City Council already adopted THE US MAYOR
Mike, We can just take the existing plan with the new housing element, make a couple of changes (we do that regularly anyway), and adopt it as our new plan. As I said, it is a sound plan which is way ahead of its time.
mike harrington said… Sue, interesting idea you have: dont update the 2001 GP at this time? I dont remember the legal ramifications of operating with an out of date GP. If you could find out and post more on this issue, maybe you would get a lot of support for the …if it aint broke, dont fix it… mode. (That's the argument that defeated the charter city proposal.)I would definitely be in favor of a limited update of the GP. It's just that since 2001, the entire Global Warming Debate became a non-debate, and states and cities everywhere are adopting progressive policies.Sue, do you remember our votes on some projects requiring …Title 24 efficieny plus 10%… ? I remember staff practically having a cow that we were requiring the extra 10%. The project owners really complained … well, what we know now is a 50% efficiency increase is well within tolerances of most project budgets.So, I think that the city's policies that would assist with combating global warming should be inserted in an amended GP. Those policy drafts could come from the climate study committee and the National Resources Commission and others.2/6/09 8:52 PM
Given that we have a Housing Element that covers us for the next five years and the economic times being so uncertain a postponement of a General Plan update would make the most sense. However, if the Council does pursue an update it must limited (not further than 2020) and most importantly it needs to preserve the existing General Plan that over 200 citizens served on GP committees for two years to create this document and then was vetted through the public for input as well. Our current citizen-based 2001 General Plan is a core document which speaks to a long term vision of the future of Davis. It took years and over $1 million dollars (paid for by Davis citizens) to develop 2001 document with the citizen based visions, goals, policies and actions. The concept of trying to plan ahead 25 years in these volatile times is not logical. Even the Yolo County General Plan is not trying to plan this far out. Look how much has happened economically and environmentally (global warming, energy source issues, etc.) nationwide in just the last few years. We need more information before trying to plan that far ahead. We need to wait to see how we recover nationwide and locally from our current problems and when we have enough information, then we can approach planing carefully, and for a reasonable amount of time, into the future.
Great Review! Well written and quite descriptive as well.. If any item or topic comes out then you should be the one releasing it to the public and make it known! The way you describe it is very intriguing and feels like candy to my ears, if that really makes any sense 🙂 but you catch my drift.. In one of my classes, we were given a paper with instructions of how to build a swan made of aluminum foil and we had to explain to our group verbally how to construct the swan.. It was difficult! But, manageable and we came second in place, but it was tasky 🙂 Nevertheless if you post anything else up I will most definitely check it out! Great review!