Illustrative northeast-quadrant land-use concept shows large transport costs; commissioners urge density and infill alternatives

Community Development staff presented an illustrative land-use/mobility exercise for the general-plan update that the City Council had requested to show the relationship between land use, road requirements and multimodal infrastructure.

Staff framing and key takeaways Sheri Mezer emphasized that the map was an illustrative, made-up exercise "in no way the land use plan that would be considered for adoption" and that the goal was to show how transportation needs grow with new peripheral development. Consultants translated the hypothetical land-use map into a circulation network that would require roughly 30 miles of new collector/arterial streets and close to 50 miles of bicycle facilities, plus new intersections and signalization. Staff presented rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates (program-level), including an illustrative per-unit transportation capital cost that ranged into tens of thousands of dollars per unit (figures intended as a planning-level example, not a final budget).

Commissioner reactions and policy trade-offs Commissioners expressed strong concern about the example's assumptions. Key points: - Density vs. sprawl: Several commissioners argued the city should examine infill and higher-density alternatives rather than large low-density peripheral expansion because higher densities make transit and active modes more viable and lower per-unit transport costs. - Right-of-way and feasibility: Consultants told the commission that dedicated bus-only lanes and certain transit investments would be infeasible in many corridors without major property impacts (condemnation or significant widening) because existing rights-of-way are too narrow. - Safety and design: Commissioners urged protected bike lanes, separated pedestrian facilities and designs that make crossings of wide arterials safe; they noted that simply adding painted bike lanes or more frequent buses is unlikely to change travel behavior without protected infrastructure and closer trip distances.

Fiscal and planning implications The illustrative scenario highlighted large upfront capital costs for new roads and long-term maintenance burdens. Commissioners and staff agreed that the general-plan process should explore multiple scenarios (infill/density vs. expansion) with clearer fiscal modeling, and that regional and local tools (jobs-housing balance, partnerships with UC Davis and other employers) should be considered to reduce long commuter trips.

Next steps and process Staff noted that the general-plan update will include multi-commission briefings and more detailed scenarios; the commission asked staff to bring options that prioritize shorter trip distances and fiscal feasibility. The illustration was presented as an educational input to inform the general-plan dialogue rather than a proposed policy.