Davis, CA – The Davis City Council took additional steps toward crafting a comprehensive economic development strategy. The meeting, held on Tuesday, focused on identifying the city’s economic direction amid challenges such as limited space for new businesses and the need for a cohesive identity.
The council overwhelmingly supported a hybrid approach to the development of the city’s economic strategy. This method combines immediate actionable steps with a long-term strategic framework. The hybrid model allows Davis to address current needs while laying the groundwork for future growth.
City Manager Mike Webb noted that this approach would enable the city to continue essential initiatives, such as process streamlining and business outreach, while developing a detailed economic plan.
Vice Mayor Donna Neville supported the hybrid approach as a starting point.
“My initial inclination is to a hybrid approach where we get started on some of the things I think we can do now, especially some of the downtown things we know we can do that are ready and waiting to happen while we develop a more comprehensive plan,” Neville said.
Councilmember Gloria Partida added, “I like this idea of this hybrid, let’s do something that we can do now and work on programs that will benefit us now because we have been coming out of COVID and waiting for this for such a long time that it feels like we need to move forward and get some things out there.”
In a move to streamline efforts, the council formed two subcommittees. The first will concentrate on retaining and supporting existing businesses, addressing the immediate needs and challenges faced by current enterprises. Councilmembers Gloria Partida and Linda Deos will lead this effort, focusing on nurturing the local economic landscape and ensuring viability.
The second subcommittee, comprising Councilmember Josh Chapman and Vice Mayor Donna Neville, will explore the city’s brand and identity, targeting future growth opportunities. This group aims to leverage Davis’s proximity to UC Davis and its strengths in sustainability and innovation to attract new businesses aligned with the city’s potential identity as a hub for sustainable innovation.
Throughout the meeting, councilmembers emphasized the importance of regional collaboration, particularly with organizations like Valley Vision and the Greater Sacramento Economic Council. Linda Deos stressed the need for Davis to maintain a strong presence in regional discussions to ensure the city is not overlooked in favor of neighboring areas.
Moreover, the council discussed the necessity of defining a cohesive identity for Davis, one that aligns with its unique characteristics and aspirations.
Mayor Bapu Vaitla highlighted sustainability as a potential focal point, suggesting that Davis could position itself as a leader in sustainable food, agriculture, and transportation systems.
“I think about the existing identity of Davis and our greatest asset, which is this our world-class university next door,” Vaitla said. “I think immediately about sustainability, I think about sustainable food and agriculture systems. I think about innovations and sustainable transportation, sustainable water systems, sustainable agriculture design building. That is where a lot of the research focus of the university is going in the economy as a whole.”
The session also addressed challenges such as limited zoning for new businesses and the political and economic uncertainty in the broader landscape. Councilmembers acknowledged the difficulties in expanding business opportunities in Davis, given past rejections of development measures and the city’s complex regulatory environment.
“We went through a DISC Measure J vote that failed,” Councilmember Chapman pointed out. “Then we went through a DISC-two and it failed. I think that’s part of that conversation… is when we’ve done some of these and put it to the voters, the community has voted them down and those were really based around economic development, the economic development task force—things that happened out of it.”
Linda Deos, the most recently-elected councilmember, noted, “I do like that we’re working with regional organization… because they’re already kind of doing some of this, it looks like doing some of the legwork for us in identifying what can work here.”
She added, “I just want to make sure we’re at the table with those organizations in that we’re not left behind saying, oh yeah, yeah, pat up, pat on the head. Thank you Davis. Just go away. Now that’s going to happen in West Sac. That’s going to happen in Woodland. I want to make sure that we’re there saying, oh no, no, no, no, it can happen here too.”
So, “it is important to me to engage in those regional efforts as to what’s happening here.”
Despite these challenges, the council’s proactive steps and collaborative spirit signal a commitment to fostering a vibrant economic future for Davis. By balancing immediate actions with strategic planning, the city aims to create a resilient economic ecosystem that supports both current businesses and future growth.
“I do think there’s somewhat more analysis that’s needed to really help us better understand which specific strategies or approaches are really going to work. And for me, I do want to know what is the actual deliverable we’re going to get from that strategy? What’s the timeline, what’s the cost? Who are the players that is going to really inform our decision making?” Vice Mayor Neville said.
She said, “There might be something really fantastic we’d love to do, and we realize it’s not feasible. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention we are in a very volatile landscape right now where we don’t know from day to day what is or isn’t going to change in terms of various federal funding streams and what might help us develop economic stability.”
As Davis moves forward, the council’s approach reflects a nuanced understanding of the city’s needs and potential, setting the stage for a dynamic and sustainable economic transformation.
Mayor Vaitla noted, “As Mike (Webb) said, we’re not going to turn down businesses that we want to be here, even if they’re a little bit outside of our identity. And that’s great, that’s great. We should think about steps that will help all businesses at the same time, one of the few kind of bold game changing things that we can do in the face of all these macroeconomic forces is to create an identity that carves this out as an attractive place for certain kinds of businesses to come and then develop the incentives that go along with that.”
The next steps will come out of the work of the two subcommittees as well as the ongoing General Plan update.
And yet, we’re constantly told that the city doesn’t have enough housing for the people who ALREADY work “here” (e.g., at UCD).
Ever notice how there’s never any discussion regarding “how” cities get themselves into fiscal challenges in the first place? Nor is there any discussion regarding how to prevent it from occurring again.
“I think about innovations and sustainable transportation”
Like Davis supporting the expansion of automobile transportation and sprawl by supporting the money for the I-80 Causeway expansion? That kind of thinking?
I seriously wonder, if Davis never hired Rob White or made any other previous attempts at attracting economic expansion, would there be any less economic activity in Davis then there is?
I’m not against the concept or doing our best . . . just saying, if we are going to not get what we got, don’t again do what we did.
At this point, the more important question is whether the current plans/ personnel will make a difference. I’m skeptical because the biggest barrier is still commercial space availability which is still highly dependent on land use decisions.
And if that’s the case, one has to ask how it is that Davis allowed so much of its EXISTING space to be used for residential.
And while you’re at it, as how much more money-sucking residential development would supposedly be needed on these commercial sites (or elsewhere), if there actually was demand for commercial development.
Again, none of this rings true, when they keep including housing developments on sites proposed for commercial. (This is not limited to Davis – the same thing happened in Woodland regarding the 1,600 housing units that are planned for the Woodland business park. The same one that “escaped” from Davis.)
The avaliable commercial space issue is very real, but it’s not something we need to solve before we begin.
There is a pipeline of startups to fill, and with the recent commercial real estate market, there is finally some vacancy. These startups are often less than 10 employees each, and the big ones that have raised over 10 million are less than 50 employees.
Inventopia has helped 43 companies who have raised over 130 million from outside investors by my most recent tally. Most of that money is being spent here in town, so not only do we have time to figure out the commercial space for where these companies end up, even if we don’t, just the economic activity of incubating them here is worth pursuing as it brings significant revenue onto the city already.
Probably worth repeating some underlying factors here…
Issue one, the city lacks tax revenue and leveraging the university is a consideration for helping to address that
Issue two, the city lacks housing for people that work at the university as well as in town
Issue three, other than the university, the city lacks jobs that people who do live in town need in order to afford to continue to live in town.
(Please note that issues two and three have combined to increase commuting traffic in and out of Davis).
Issue four, REGARDLESS of the job situation, the state is mandating Davis build more housing in a specified amount.
I put numbers on these, but they really are not in any particular order.
Probably worth responding to those three claims, as well:
1) How is it that the city finds itself in fiscal challenges in the first place? And what’s to prevent it from happening again?
2) If the city “lacks housing” for those working at UCD and in the city, how is it that the SAME PEOPLE who are concerned about that seek to create MORE demand for housing?
3) Overlaps some of #2, but who exactly are you talking about, in regard to “people who live in town”, but don’t work in town, and somehow can’t afford live in town despite already doing so?
4) The state is not mandating that ANY city actually build anything. The state’s efforts to force rezoning in an attempt to create more housing (in a state that’s not growing) are already failing in a spectacular manner. And, are running into increased resistance to boot (see today’s Chronicle, for example).
Also worth noting if you don’t address the four points concurrently, you risk making them worse.
The only thing you’re correct about is that there are 4 claims you made, not 3 as I stated. 🙂
You’re a smart guy, so it’s difficult for me to believe that you don’t acknowledge the conflicting nonsense you put forth.
I think the summary of David’s points is that we need enormous amounts of housing across the board for a variety of issues. I forget who, but I do recall one of the councilmembers making a statement to this fact as well.
The people we need housing for is the total of the workforce that is currently displaced AND any job growth we might see. In BOTH of these categories, the need is NOT for single family homes, but housing that is more affordable by design: apartments / condos / multi family.
There are going to be some people in our displaced worker total that don’t want to move here, sometimes because one household earner works here and the partner does elsewhere… so it is easier for them to just commute…. Let’s say that describes half of our inbound total…. It’s still 11,000 people… and village farms is 1800?
We need to be thinking VERY differently about housing and land use if we want to actually make a dent in our actual problem here.
As I wrote here in the vanguard several years ago now…. We need to be asking what it would mean to be a community of 120,000 people 50 years from now. We would be making decisions very differently if we understood our community’s needs over that timescale and magnitude.
And in any real policy discussion there are going to be overlapping and competing and sometimes even contradictory issues that need to be address and mitigated. That’s just a function of the real world. Things are rarely clean and tidy.
I have no idea where your assumptions are coming from. For one thing, young people (nationwide) aren’t having kids anywhere near replacement levels, at this point. So if Davis chooses a path of massive growth despite that fact, that means they’re coming from elsewhere, and that it is not happening “organically”.
Also, if your claim regarding 11,000 people (who currently live elsewhere, but would presumably move to Davis) is correct, what do you suppose would happen with the housing they currently live in? Wouldn’t it then be occupied by someone else, who might also need to commute?
And if Davis builds a massive amount of housing for those 11,000 people, wouldn’t some members of those new households then commute elsewhere? (And isn’t that part of the same “claimed problem” that massive building is “supposed to” address in the first place?)
And if Davis isn’t going to build the massive amount of housing you have in mind, wouldn’t adding more jobs exacerbate the so-called local housing crisis in the first place?
Maybe none of these problems actually exist, and some people just want the city to grow for their own sake/interests.
Just once, I’d like to see the growth advocates acknowledge the conflicting goals they claim would be solved via their advocacy.
David says: And in any real policy discussion there are going to be overlapping and competing and sometimes even contradictory issues that need to be address and mitigated.”
(No, what it proves is that you and others are trying the “throw spaghetti at the wall” in regard to fake problems in the first place. Problems (if you want to call them that) which would be exacerbated by your own advocacy.)
But here’s what I’d suggest, in regard to solving some of the problems:
Regarding those who live in Davis (but somehow can’t afford Davis, and therefore work elsewhere, I’d suggest that they “duke it out” on the causeway with those who work at UCD, but can’t afford Davis.
(Actually, the common theme seems to be that “no one can afford Davis”, despite some 70,000 people or so living there.)
In any case, the winners of the “Conflict on the Causeway” can then decide which aspect of their lives to “switch” with the others (e.g., switch jobs, houses, cars, and possibly spouses – depending upon where the spouse works).
Problem solved – you’re welcome.
Ron O
As I posted last week, the City needs to plan for the following, which fit together as puzzle pieces (there’s no single “silver bullet”):
1. Build mid market housing for a large portion of the 20,000 who now commute into Davis/UCD. Some have spouses, but many do not. Given Davis’ location, more likely than not the commute for those spouses will be shorter, or they may work at home many days a week. We need to plan for local needs until someone has empirical evidence, not idle speculation, that shows what we’re counterproductive.
2. Bring higher value businesses in that can attract the workers who now live in Davis and have higher salaries so that they can afford to live here. Davis keeps losing those businesses when they are about to emerge as a bigger employer, as Tim Keller points out repeatedly. Those businesses will have some mid-level employees, but not likely to be a large amount. We already have enough jobs in that category. (That they should be better paid is a national issue, not local.)
As for solving the City’s fiscal dilemma, the root of the problem is that current older residents don’t pay their fair share for services due to Prop 13. Two identical houses in neighborhood can have property tax bills that differ by several fold, yet the households generally use the same level of services. (I expect my 102 year old neighbor’s bill is a fraction of ours.)
So offer a viable solution to the fiscal dilemma. Other than attracting new businesses that generate sales and property taxes with little demand for city services and creating denser housing that produced more tax revenue per acre, I don’t see a viable alternative. It’s not so much about growth but rather reconfiguring what we have to be more tax efficient.
Richard, you’re putting forth undefined speculation as “fact”. Regarding your numbered claims:
1) Define “middle income” housing (define the actual price you’re referring to), as well as a detailed description, its feasibility, location, “who” this is for and where they’re currently living, and whether or not they want to move to more-expensive housing in Davis, etc. Also, let us know whether or not they have spouses/partners who work elsewhere.
2) Provide specifics regarding the people who live in Davis but work elsewhere, who would quit their jobs to work at an imaginary/future business in Davis. And whether or not they’d actually get hired, or whether or not their imaginary employer cares one bit about where their own employees live (and are just as likely to hire someone who doesn’t live in Davis).
Regarding fiscal challenges, tell us how the city is going to avoid making the same mistakes that created the problem (regardless of how much one-time fees they pursue from developments). Regarding property tax, it’s already rising more than the 2% allowed under Proposition 13, since property is reassessed when a change in ownership occurs. Not to mention the other taxes that Davis voters have approved.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to limit spending to match what’s already taken in by the city?
Forgot to mention (in regard to #1): Provide the salary levels (and positions) that these “missing middle” people occupy, as well as the income level of the entire household. (That should help you come up with a price tag for the “missing middle” housing that you claim is missing.)
I’m glad to see that the Council is planning to emphasize cultivating and recruiting businesses related to sustainability. Davis already has an advantage to highlighting that brand in the state, so we should lean into it. In the near term we should push for the easy wins that will build the perception of that brand for the public, such as bringing in restaurants and retail businesses that focus on sustainability (not franchises). And boost our transit network and enhance the bike lanes to be ready for e-bikes as another sustainability attribute. We also need to hold our new developments to the requirements in the Climate Action Plan. The Council should correct the oversight in the Downtown Plan of not including the sustainability guidelines in the Plan as GHG mitigation measures.
Regarding the “Climate Action Plan” nonsense, what do you think happens if there actually are a few people who move into more-expensive housing in Davis, from wherever they currently live?
Do you think that the new occupants of their (former) housing don’t commute, themselves?
Missing Middle Housing refers to a range of housing types that fall between single-family homes and large apartment buildings, offering a middle ground in terms of size, scale, and affordability. These housing types are often low- to mid-density and designed to fit within walkable neighborhoods.
Key Features of Missing Middle Housing:
• Types: Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, townhouses, courtyard apartments, and small multiplexes.
• Scale: Generally designed to blend seamlessly into neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.
• Affordability: Often more affordable than single-family homes due to shared land costs and smaller unit sizes.
• Walkability: Typically found in areas with access to public transit, shops, and services.
• Zoning Challenges: Often restricted by zoning laws that favor single-family homes, limiting their availability.
Why It Matters:
Missing Middle Housing is seen as a solution to the housing crisis, providing more diverse, attainable options for middle-income families, young professionals, and aging populations looking to downsize while staying in their communities.
Put a price tag on it, and then compare it to what’s available in surrounding communities.
For that matter, is the number of “moderately-paid” UCD staff actually increasing? And what happened to the staff housing that they were planning to build on campus?
And again, you can get a pretty decent Stanley Davis house in Davis for $700K. That sounds a lot like “missing middle” housing to me, especially in a two-earner household.
It’s just so easy to knock down illogical arguments.
Face it – some people want the city to grow (for their own reasons), and THEN search for ways to justify it. That’s all I see occurring on here, day-after-day.
The state is not growing, young people aren’t even having kids anywhere near replacement levels (nationwide). And yet, it’s apparently difficult for some to turn off the growth machine arguments – even when they make no sense whatsoever.
Assessing the pricing of “Missing Middle” housing in Davis, California, and its surrounding communities involves several factors, including current housing market trends, construction costs, and regulatory environments.
Current Housing Market in Davis:
• Median Home Price: As of the latest data, the median home price in Davis is approximately $740,000, reflecting a 9.5% increase from the previous year. 
Challenges in Developing Missing Middle Housing:
• Financial Feasibility: Studies indicate that constructing “Missing Middle” housing types, such as duplexes or fourplexes, is often not financially viable in many California markets, including areas like Davis. High construction costs, regulatory hurdles, and significant fees contribute to this challenge. 
• Development Fees: In certain jurisdictions, upfront fees for lot splits can range from $30,000 to $50,000, with total utility connection fees adding another $50,000 to $100,000, making small-scale housing projects less economically attractive. 
Comparison with Surrounding Communities:
• Regional Variations: While specific pricing data for “Missing Middle” housing in neighboring communities is limited, the financial challenges observed in Davis are prevalent throughout California. In many regions, constructing small-scale multifamily housing is not financially feasible under current market conditions. 
Conclusion:
Due to the financial and regulatory challenges, “Missing Middle” housing remains scarce in Davis and its surrounding areas. Addressing these issues would require policy reforms aimed at reducing development costs and easing regulatory barriers to make such housing types more feasible and affordable.
I’m still not seeing a price tag – how much “should” missing middle housing cost?
As far as reducing “regulatory barriers”, do those regulations exist for a reason?
And leaving aside (for a moment) UCD workers, what exactly is the implication if the “middle” is supposedly missing from any given community? Seems to me that Tiburon and Atherton do pretty well (and have a very slim “middle”). (I’m trying to reduce my personal “middle”, myself.)
The cost of Missing Middle Housing depends on various factors, including location, land costs, construction expenses, and local zoning regulations. However, we can estimate a price range by looking at cost per unit compared to single-family homes and large apartment complexes.
Estimating the Cost of Missing Middle Housing
1. Construction Costs per Square Foot
• Small multifamily housing (duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes) costs $250–$400 per square foot in many U.S. metro areas.
• A typical 1,200 sq. ft. unit would cost $300,000–$480,000 to build before land and permitting costs.
2. Land Costs & Development Fees
• Land costs vary by city. In high-cost areas (California, Washington, D.C., New York), land can add $100,000–$300,000 per unit.
• Cities like Davis, CA have high development impact fees ($50,000–$100,000 per unit).
3. Final Price Estimate (Per Unit in a Fourplex or Townhome Development)
• Affordable Markets: $250,000–$400,000 per unit
• Expensive Markets (California, New York): $450,000–$700,000 per unit
• Luxury or High-Demand Areas: $750,000+ per unit
Comparison to Other Housing Types (Davis, CA Example)
• Median Single-Family Home Price: $740,000
• Typical Condo/Townhome Price: $500,000–$650,000
• Projected “Missing Middle” Unit Price: $450,000–$650,000
Conclusion
In many areas, Missing Middle Housing should be priced between $350,000 and $650,000 per unit, making it more affordable than single-family homes but often still expensive due to regulatory and land cost challenges. In lower-cost regions, it could be available for $250,000–$400,000 per unit, making it a viable entry-level homeownership option. However, zoning restrictions and high fees often prevent these homes from being built at scale.
O.K. – so you’re stating that “missing middle” housing in Davis “should” cost between $450K-$650K, depending upon “type” of housing.
And that this isn’t feasible in the first place.
But this doesn’t actually discuss household salary, either,
I haven’t looked at the lower end of that range (e.g., condos/duplexes), but I do see Stanley Davis houses for around $700K.
But let me ask you the same question I already asked: What if some people can’t afford to live in a given town? Or, if they simply find what they’re looking for in a nearby town, instead?
Underlying my question is the REAL question I want to expose. In a capitalistic system should communities constantly try to “build their way (or deregulate) in order to pursue “affordability”? I say absolutely not. And that’s why I don’t try to change Tiburon, for example (which I’d surely prefer).
Again, I’m going to guess that about half of the current residents in Davis (other than students) were priced out of their original communities.
Those are interesting questions, but they are subjective and depend on individuals to make value judgments.
Well, they’re more than interesting – since some are trying to force communities to accept what they don’t want. (I’m not attempting to speak on “behalf” of a given community, however.)
The other thing that WILL happen (probably more so in a place like Davis) is that the boomers have a “date with destiny”, as they say. (Somehow, it doesn’t bother me to acknowledge that.)
And as that picks up steam, there’s going to be a lot more Stanley Davis (and other) houses coming on the market.
And their kids will inherit the proceeds, to boot.
Sometimes, patience is in order. That’s also the reason that some of the wiser kids these days move back in with their parents for awhile. (Which was always the case for some populations.)
But in the meantime, I don’t think that Davis is the best place to start out as a young adult, and perhaps never really was. There are other places where it makes more sense these days.
One point I would make is that a reason why you want to have things like starter homes, missing middle, and programs like down payment assistance is to give people buying into a market a chance to get a toehold, and then ramp up into the market.
Seems to me that there’s better places to start out, these days. Which don’t require that type of assistance, and which don’t require such a large percentage of income. (And which likely provide a better chance of future appreciation.)
Davis “used to be” a place like that; so did San Francisco for that matter. Not anymore – especially the latter location.
Things change (largely as a result of the pursuit of economic development).
Of course, San Francisco’s housing market has been dropping/flat for some time now, as a result of layoffs, etc. And the resulting population exodus. (Nothing to do with “building more housing”.)