Davis, CA — In a unanimous vote this week, the Davis City Council approved staff recommendations to begin a feasibility study on the potential relocation of the city’s corporation yard at 1717 Fifth Street, a move that could clear the way for a major infill housing project in the heart of the city.
City Manager Mike Webb presented the item, providing historical context and laying out the next steps. The current corp yard — which has long served as the city’s operational hub — occupies over eight acres adjacent to Davis Manor, the community gardens, and several local businesses.
Webb noted the site’s prime location and its long-standing identification as a potential infill housing site, going back to the city’s 2008 Housing Element update. “It’s really ideally situated for creating some housing infill and some density,” he said. “It’s central to the city, it’s central to services, transit, and a whole variety of park facilities and so forth that are within easy walk and bike ride and transit distance.”
The council’s action authorizes staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to study relocating the corp yard to the city’s former landfill and wastewater treatment site off Pole Line Road — land that now hosts a go-kart track, paintball facility, and other uses. Staff also recommended — and council approved — preliminary environmental sampling at the existing Fifth Street site to assess potential contamination from decades of industrial use.
Webb emphasized that the corporation yard’s current location is not operationally necessary and that relocating it could unlock significant housing potential. “In short, the answer is no,” Webb said, when asked if the corp yard must remain at Fifth Street. “It just has been historically… but the facility could operate in any number of locations.”
A preliminary 2019 study suggested the site could accommodate 240 housing units. Webb told the council that updated density expectations could support as many as 560 units, especially given evolving land-use patterns favoring higher-density developments.
“There’s a pretty wide range of potential — from 240 to 560,” Webb said, adding that “today’s lens” and Davis’ growing need for affordable housing make the site especially promising.
Environmental and Cost Concerns Surface
While the council expressed enthusiasm about exploring the site’s potential, the discussion also reflected community concerns, particularly about environmental risks tied to the proposed relocation site.
Longtime resident Nancy Price urged the council to include PFAS (forever chemical) contamination testing in the RFP, warning that the landfill site’s history could pose risks if disturbed. “Building there, excavating there, will certainly disrupt the cap,” Price said. “This issue of PFAS contamination of surface and groundwater is very important.”
Webb acknowledged those concerns and said environmental analysis — including potential PFAS testing — would be part of the feasibility study. “That’s part of the look too,” he assured council members and the public.
Councilmember Linda Deos echoed the concern but emphasized the study is a first step. “I think it goes without saying that before we would move a corp yard to a place with our employees and folks that we would make sure that it’s a safe place they’re going to,” she said. “But I think we’re putting the cart before the horse. Let’s start with the first step.”
Other public commenters, including Eileen Samitz and Susan Rainier, criticized the landfill site as a potential corp yard location, citing health, safety, and environmental risks. Samitz called the project “enormous” and costly, especially given the city’s budget constraints, while Rainier warned about legal liability from potentially exposing city workers to hazardous conditions.
Ron Glick, however, praised the city for finally prioritizing the site for redevelopment. “This property is your shot to do something great for this community,” he said, encouraging the council to move forward.
Connor Gorman advocated for keeping any future housing development public and affordable. “I support using the city’s assets and property to benefit the community, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable,” Gorman said. “I would favor building public housing at this location.”
Councilmember Josh Chapman questioned the projected costs of the environmental assessment. Webb responded that preliminary estimates are between $50,000 and $75,000, covering a Phase 1 environmental assessment. Any contract exceeding $50,000 would return to council for approval.
When asked if the investment was worth it, Webb responded firmly. “From my perspective, yes. It’s an investment that would pay dividends, irrespective of whether or not the city ultimately decides to move forward… At least then there’s knowledge.”
The council also discussed potential for state housing grants favoring infill development on brownfield sites, adding another incentive for thoroughly studying the Fifth Street property’s redevelopment potential.
The RFP will also explore the viability of relocating portable structures currently in use at the corp yard, which Webb noted could reduce overall relocation costs.
Vice Mayor Bapu Vaitla closed the discussion by reflecting on the scale of the opportunity: “There are other properties, including the property behind Design House, but the focus of the report tonight was just specifically the corp yard property,” he said. “There are city assets the council has expressed real interest in advancing.”
The council voted 5-0 to move forward with both the feasibility study for relocation and the preliminary environmental testing at the Fifth Street site.
The decision marks a major step in what could become one of the most significant infill housing projects in Davis — an opportunity to transform a centrally located industrial site into desperately needed housing.
“This is your shot,” Glick told the council. “Go for it.”
Actually someone burst the bubble yesterday pointing out that construction there would likely require prevailing rate wages.
There maybe a way to build there but just like West Village prevailing wage laws will likely make housing costs uneconomical.
“It’s central to the city, it’s central to services, transit, and a whole variety of park facilities and so forth that are within easy walk and bike ride and transit distance.”
And like the Respite Center, would be in close proximity to two liquor outlets !!!
So now we don’t want housing near liquor stores?
No, we don’t want a place that is meant to house the ‘houseless’, who have a 37% (at least) rate of substance abuse and no place to go at night (despite the city’s promises five years ago for a night center not in District 3) in close proximity to liquor outlets.
Retain or expand the community gardens.
Three stories maximum height.
Main entrance on 5th Street needs to be a signalled intersection.
100% residential. No retail, no commercial.
Assume each housing unit will have a car and plan accordingly for parking.
Maximize shading of parking areas by trees. Goal of 100% parking shading is desirable.
“Retain or expand the community gardens.”
Let’s hope so.
“Three stories maximum height.”
I would suggest tapering high towards Fifth and down towards Duke after an appropriate shadow-study, but of course the developer will want brutalist painted blocks and I’m not sure anyone cares about neighbors anymore in the current Scott Wiener environment.
“Main entrance on 5th Street needs to be a signalled intersection.”
We need a signal at J Street as well — like it was 50-plus years ago.
“100% residential. No retail, no commercial.”
Yes indeed.
“Assume each housing unit will have a car and plan accordingly for parking.”
Yes, but . . . Modern thinking is to plan that no one will have a car, and no one will visit residents in a car. And then Duke Drive and most of Davis Manor will be wall-to-wall cars.
“Maximize shading of parking areas by trees. Goal of 100% parking shading is desirable.”
Yes, but . . . Modern thinking is that those pesky trees block the solar panels and prevent more efficient shade cover with solar-panel-covered roofs.
Did I mention that “Modern Thinking” is nutz?
“We need a signal at J Street as well”
That needs to happen now due to the number of collisions at that intersection.
“A preliminary 2019 study suggested the site could accommodate 240 housing units. Webb told the council that updated density expectations could support as many as 560 units”
There was no number given on how many stories buildings would be to accommodate 560 units.
Although DG didn’t quote my comments before Council (as usual), I pointed out that first Duke drive residents get a directly-adjacent Respite Center to take-one-for-the-team for the entire City of Davis, and will then be rewarded by having the sunlight blocked for all houses on the south side of Duke by having a wall of housing on their south (sun side).
Of course, if they can get past the environmental cleanup, building a new corporate yard, line up funding, mitigate the neighborhood effects, and line up a new sun in the sky on the north — say in 30 years, at least that means the Respite Center may get moved by 2055.
“building a new corporate yard, line up funding”
I was wondering about that too. How much to build a whole new corporate yard?
KO say: “How much to build a whole new corporate yard?”
Can you say “another sales tax increase” ?
Sure. I knew you could.
Was there any discussion at the meeting about how you go about building a on a closed landfill site? I’m assuming that they’d have to excavate all the buried trash (along with all the overburden) and relocate it, but I’ve never run into a project like that, so I’m curious as to how it works.
I think every aspect of this proposal is going to be much more expensive than people might think. There’s a major hub for the city’s storm drain system right in front of the property on 5th Street. I believe there’s an important water supply line just along the south property line. Reconfiguration of traffic on 5th and L would be complicated. The new site has major pollution issues, more than likely, and mitigation will be very costly. My guess is the outcome of this initial evaluation will yield a price tag that delays it for years. And then the debate about exactly what to build and how to finance it will be endless.