By Greg Rowe
This article is a slightly modified version of a letter I recently sent to the Davis City Council in support of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (Plan) discussed at the March 3 Council meeting. In particular, my letter endorsed the Plan’s recommendations for simplifying the City’s Zoning Code and development application procedures. Specifically, I advocated significant revisions to the Planned Development (PD) District provisions in the Municipal Code (Article 40.22.010- 210), and recommended that achieving the Plan’s aspirations would be bolstered significantly if the PD provisions were completely expunged from the Municipal Code.
Concerns:
Development in Davis has been hindered by an inordinately complex, prescriptive, rigid and incomprehensible zoning code and land use entitlement process, which makes achieving development outcomes cumbersome, time consuming, and unpredictable. A central goal of the General Plan Update (GPU) and its implementing zoning code should be a simple, flexible, expansive and predictable development framework. Davis has long had a regional reputation as a difficult place in which to “do business,” which to a large extent results from the current complex and regimented zoning code (which implements the General Plan).
Instead of a General Plan that strives to preserve a “small college town atmosphere,” there is an imperative need for integrating the General Plan Update, zoning code and economic development strategy to position Davis as a dynamic, forward-facing city ready to meet the future as part of a vibrant regional economy.
Planned Development (PD) Districts Impose a Layer of Complexity
The ostensible purpose of a PD is to allow a development project to be relieved from the strict standards of conventional zoning. But in my experience, a PD is instead an additional zoning framework imposed on top of an area’s underlying zoning, thereby making the development process more cumbersome and complex. It is an extra regulatory requirement that imposes another hurdle that potential developers and businesses must navigate. Entities desiring to improve their property can’t just look to the zoning code when contemplating a project, but must also understand the applicable PD.
PD Districts Are An Obstacle to Economic Development
As succinctly pointed out on page 18 of the March 3 City Council staff report on the economic development strategy (Plan page 11), the City zoning code now has more than 250 PD overlays. Gaining an understanding of the provisions of each specific PD, and more importantly how to apply those provisions to a new project, significantly slows down an already burdensome and time-consuming permitting process. This complex process puts Davis at a competitive disadvantage compared to other, more business-friendly cities in the Sacramento region.
As noted on page 38 of the March 3 staff report (Opportunity item O-10), feedback from tenants and real estate brokers consistently mentions the complex, unpredictable and time-consuming permitting processes our City has enacted- -which again is often related to the requirements of the municipal zoning code. These investment barriers have resulted in large portions of the office, flex and R&D space in Davis remaining underutilized because it is simply too difficult to get to a “Yes” answer from the City. This is not the fault of City staff, because they are simply making decisions within the constrictions of the regulatory framework in which they must operate.
The number of PD overlays in Davis greatly exceeds those of any other jurisdiction in the region, which again puts Davis at a competitive disadvantage. The City of Sacramento, with a population of 538,000 (more than 7.5 times greater than Davis), has no more than 25 PDs. In 2024, the City of Woodland adopted a single, unified zoning revision that completely eliminated PD overlays, and now relies solely on basic, uniform zoning.
Recommendation – Act Now to Clean Up the PD Problem
Davis has an opportunity to lessen current economic roadblocks by simplifying the development application process, but I contend this process can’t wait until the General Plan Update is completed. Consideration should be given to immediately eliminating ALL of the City’s PD districts and the restrictions they impose. As stated on page 41 of the City Council staff report (section T-8), “…regulatory friction must be resolved before business-attracting efforts can succeed, because firms in high-growth sectors will not invest in markets with high entitlement risk or unpredictable timelines.”
An Example of What is Wrong with the City’s Current PD and Permit Application Process
In 2024 the City received an application to establish a specialty veterinary surgical practice at 305 Mace Boulevard, within the business park approved in 2018 at the intersection of Mace and Alhambra Drive. The facility would occupy 4,800 square feet of a 16,200 square-foot building. To be clear, this was not going to be a typical veterinary clinic, but a specialized small animal surgical center that would carry out procedures not available at typical veterinary clinics. The applicant has for many years operated a mobile surgical business that performs surgeries in veterinary hospitals throughout Yolo County, and sought to establish a permanent, easily accessible location.
305 Mace Boulevard is within PD 5-18, which is an Industrial Administration and Research Zoning District. Planning staff denied the application because “…the PD 5-18 zoning of the site, which implements the Business Park designation and identifies the specific allowed uses, does not include veterinary or medical-related uses for the site.” Although the current General Plan allows medical offices in a business park, staff determined that the proposed specialty veterinary surgical facility did not qualify as a “medical office” within the context of the PD.
The applicant appealed the denial, which resulted in an incredulous Planning Commission overriding the staff’s determination. Unfortunately, the delay in reaching a final decision enabled another tenant to expand into the space desired by the veterinarian, who as of today still has still not secured a suitable location. This long and complex process left the applicant with a very negative impression of the development process in Davis. We can’t afford to let this happen again.
The observations and recommendations in this article are based on my more than eight years of experience reviewing many proposed development projects in my role as a City of Davis planning commissioner. I am also currently serving on the Planning Commission’s land use concepts committee for the General Plan Update. In this capacity I had an opportunity to receive a presentation on the economic development strategic plan before it was formally presented to City Council.
Davisite 
Leave a comment