For years, one of the most common refrains from Davis residents opposing new housing development has been a call for infill. Don’t build on farmland, they say—build inside the city. Build where it makes sense. Build on existing urbanized land instead of paving over precious open space.
Well, last Tuesday, the Davis City Council did exactly that—or at least took the first step. In a 5-0 vote, they approved a staff recommendation to explore redeveloping the city’s Corporation Yard on Fifth Street, right in the middle of town. It’s an eight-acre site—publicly owned—that has long been flagged as an ideal infill opportunity.
And yet, if you listened to public comment that night, you’d think the city was proposing to tear down Central Park or clear-cut the Arboretum. Person after person came forward to raise objections, not even to a housing project, but merely to the idea of studying whether the site could be repurposed for housing.
It was a revealing moment, exposing what those of us following this debate have long suspected: for some, “build infill” is just a convenient talking point—a way to say no without sounding like you’re just anti-housing. But when push comes to shove, even infill is too much.
The Corporation Yard is not some charming historic structure or critical community gathering space. It’s a work yard—a city operations hub—filled with trucks, maintenance equipment, and modular structures. And it’s taking up eight acres in the heart of the city, adjacent to Davis Manor, community gardens, and local businesses.
City Manager Mike Webb laid it out clearly: the yard’s current location is not operationally necessary. It’s there because it’s always been there. But it could be moved—potentially to the city’s old landfill and wastewater site off Pole Line Road, a far less central location that already hosts paintball and go-kart facilities.
The payoff? That central site could be transformed into housing. A preliminary study from 2019 suggested up to 240 units could fit there. With today’s increasing density allowances and need for affordable housing, staff believe the number could rise to 560 units.
Think about that: 500-plus homes, in the middle of town, walking distance to parks, businesses, schools, and transit. This is what infill looks like. This is what opponents of sprawl always claim to support.
Of course, there are legitimate issues to study—environmental contamination from the site’s industrial use, and from the proposed new location on the former landfill. That’s why the city is starting with a feasibility study and environmental review. No one is breaking ground tomorrow.
But that’s not what most of the opposition focused on. Instead, the rhetoric shifted quickly toward general resistance—raising cost concerns, worrying about employee safety at the new location, and claiming the move was too big, too risky, too much.
Commenters warned of PFAS contamination at the old landfill—a fair point, and one that city staff acknowledged would be part of the environmental review. Others pivoted to budget constraints, painting the move as unaffordable.
But here’s the thing—these same voices rarely have cost concerns when blocking housing elsewhere. They warn of legal fights when it’s affordable housing projects but seem unbothered by the cost of ongoing housing shortages or the litigation risk of failing to meet state housing mandates.
The reality is, there’s always an excuse. If it’s not farmland loss, it’s neighborhood character. If it’s not neighborhood character, it’s parking. And if it’s not parking, well then it’s suddenly about PFAS and worker safety.
What’s being proposed is not a wild scheme. It’s the kind of smart, thoughtful, long-range planning Davis needs—identifying city-owned land in a prime location and studying whether it can be better used for housing.
No one is saying move the corp yard tomorrow. The council’s vote simply allows staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a feasibility study and start environmental testing. The preliminary cost? Between $50,000 and $75,000—a small investment given the scale of the opportunity.
That study will provide answers to the environmental concerns. It will give the city a clearer sense of costs and potential, including the ability to access state housing grants that favor infill on brownfield sites. It will let Davis residents have an informed conversation about whether this project is right for the community.
And make no mistake—this is a rare opportunity. Eight acres of city-owned land in the center of town don’t come around often. Councilmember Josh Chapman asked the right question: is the investment worth it? City Manager Webb was unequivocal—yes, because knowledge is power.
This conversation is bigger than the Corporation Yard. It’s about what Davis really wants to be—and whether we’re serious about addressing our housing crisis.
For years, this community has been adept at finding reasons not to build—slow growth policies, Measure J votes, endless design review battles. Meanwhile, housing prices have skyrocketed, renters are squeezed, and our workforce—including teachers, city employees, and service workers—struggles to find a place to live.
Now, we have a site where nearly all the traditional arguments against development don’t apply. No farmland loss. No sprawl. No traffic nightmare on the edge of town. Just smart infill, using land we already own, in a location that supports walkability, biking, and transit.
If we can’t even have the conversation about that—if we shut it down at the study phase—what does that say about us?
The truth is, this moment is a test. It’s a test of whether Davis is serious about infill, or whether “infill” has just become the latest convenient excuse to block housing.
As one public commenter put it bluntly: “This is your shot. Go for it.”
The council took the first step last week. Now the community needs to decide—are we ready to meet this moment, or will we once again find a reason to say no?
“For years, one of the most common refrains from Davis residents opposing new housing development has been a call for infill. Build on existing urbanized land instead of paving over precious open space.”
Yeah, but many of those who said that are the majority who live out in Davis suburbs that are unlikely to be “infilled” for decades, if ever. It’s easy to prefer infill when you are on the edge of town and don’t want the next plot of farmland to be urbanized and destroy your sunrise/sunset view of the hills/mountains, but you know your neighborhood will still be single family houses. So of course, as with everything, they dump the idea of infill on those of us who always get screwed by the suburban idealists: The Center of Town, District 3.
“The reality is, there’s always an excuse. If it’s not farmland loss, it’s neighborhood character. If it’s not neighborhood character, it’s parking. And if it’s not parking, well then it’s suddenly about PFAS and worker safety.”
Those aren’t excuses, they are actual concerns. And you didn’t mention the shadow over Duke’s south-side houses, since this is on the south side of Duke, the sun side. While when at 240 density, the plans were to taper upward to the south, with 560 density, is tapering even possible, or will we have a wall along Duke’s backyard’s.
Why is the City always pooping on Duke Drive. Today, residents are adjacent to the Respite Center and many have loud complainst and issues with the effects of the visible homeless. And now, in the future, Duke is planned to in the shadows from a development now planned to be *more than twice as dense* as previously proposed!!!
“Meanwhile, housing prices have skyrocketed, renters are squeezed, and our workforce—including teachers, city employees, and service workers—struggles to find a place to live.”
So you are using that as a reason to build here — a project that is half-a-lifetime away? Pfffft! And as for today, the vacancy rate in Davis has gone up in each of the last two years, and is nearing the healthy balance number of 5%. What more do you want, a doubling of the sales tax so those of us above a certain income level subsidize the rent for those below a certain income level? I’d say a rising vacancy rate is pretty good.
“No traffic nightmare on the edge of town.”
No, instead a traffic nightmare in the center of town.
“whether Davis is serious about infill, or whether “infill” has just become the latest convenient excuse to block housing.”
As I said, Davis suburbanites in Districts 1,2,4,5 are serious about infill in District 3.
““No traffic nightmare on the edge of town.”
No, instead a traffic nightmare in the center of town.”
And here we’ve been told that adding more housing, more people and more cars will mean less traffic.
Should have added “perceived “ as a modifier there
I know one argument regards the blocking of sunlight for neighbors north of the proposed development. Any potential study would need to address the height of any construction. On the other hand the potential relocation of the Respite Center would likely be welcomed by the neighbors.
I’m an advocate for infill done well.
“Any potential study would need to address the height of any construction.”
We already were shown plans years ago. Since the new state policies are “F the cities and F the current residents” and the density numbers have doubled, I no longer trust the system and have gone from believing in compromise to fighting all projects. The housing advocates have gone too far, so they have a new enemy in me. I used to be reasonable, but THEY no longer are. So F ’em.
“On the other hand the potential relocation of the Respite Center would likely be welcomed by the neighbors.”
Yeah, NEXT MONTH, or FOUR YEARS AGO, not in 30-40 years which is the timeline of this project. That was really a rim-shot of a comment, jeeeeeez!
“I’m an advocate for infill done well.”
Do you live anywhere near this project, or out in the ‘never-to-be-infilled’ rich burbs? In our neighborhood, we support those most effected by potential proposals because they are ones who are going to affected, and we know we could be next. Those who ‘support infill’ while not affected can ‘talk to the hand’.
Oh my!
my short and rather neutral comments drew a multiple paragraph response. Alan, I am quite familiar with the neighborhood near the Corporation Yard and have friends on M, Duke and L Streets. I’m not sure how I elicited such an angry response, but I have now been reminded how profane and visceral comments on DV can become. I can only hope your dissatisfaction with my thoughts are simply a projection of some deeper issue. I will now excuse myself, as the butler at my 50 year old Slide Hill mansion is bringing around my polo pony for a quick jaunt before the cocktail hour.
JC, I appreciate your humor to my ‘angry’ response. The responsemotion was directed more toward the extremist housing advocates in Davis than your response specifics. I do stand by the timeline difference on the Respite Center, but maybe you were saying that with some tongue ‘n cheek knowing how difficult it is going to be to have that thing pried away from the yard. Profane and Visceral and I go back to the 1960’s when we in grade school.
“I can only hope your dissatisfaction with my thoughts are simply a projection of some deeper issue.”
A projection of my profound mental instability I’d imagine.
I would only imagine your “projection” to be ideological, political or community minded. “F- the cities” remark is profane. Big boys would spell the whole word. I’m aware the time line for moving the respite center is currently in limbo. Let me know if you want to continue to engage or insult I can certainly DM.
I was getting worried that there wouldn’t be a NIMBY-blaming article today, so I’m glad that I ultimately wasn’t disappointed.
Although I’m “Mr. No Growth” personified, I wouldn’t complain about housing on the PG&E site, and I don’t understand why anyone would. But someone would have to pay for a relocation, and it probably wouldn’t be cost-effective if the “new homeowners” had to pay that cost. (Which I doubt would be the case.)
I’d suggest relocating the “future homeowners” (non-residents), instead. It’s a lot easier to move people (especially those who don’t even live in a given town), then it is to move infrastructure.
But I also don’t object to the site on Pole Line Road (former skilled nursing facility) or the 96-housing single family housing units planned on the site of the old Chiles Ranch. (Would suggest not talking about what happened there some 50 years or so, though.)
But ultimately, I don’t buy into the argument that there’s a housing shortage in the first place. Plus, there’s practical limitations regarding infill, even if you buy-into the fake “housing shortage” argument.
Much of the commentary has been about the suitability of the proposed relocation site. There are legitimate issues with that site. The city might want to have a plan B.
Implementing this project will require considerable community outreach in a neighborhood that is very skeptical given recent history. Given the costs, it is likely that affordable housing on this site would require federal or state subsidies, which likely won’t be forthcoming. My guess is that those costs will be the problem, not the opposition of people who happen to live elsewhere in town.
This is a great location and an obvious site for residential development.
It’s worth noting that the current neighborhood contains some of the only truly affordable housing in the city. Anything that might lead to gentrification should be avoided.
There are some issues. This is a commercial district with businesses that make a lot of noise. We just spent the whole morning barely able to carry on a conversation because of ongoing work at the PG&E site, and that is a constant thing here. Tire stores and auto shops make lots of noise and emit fumes of various types. Parking along 5th Street is already tight, so onsite parking for new residential development will be necessary.
Extremely high density is not necessary here. 260 units on 8 acres would probably entail 3-story buildings. That would be most compatible with the existing neighborhood.
It’s a narrow site, so parking and traffic flow will be somewhat limiting for the layout of housing.
Going to the higher density option would almost certainly require 4 stories or more, which would likely cast a long shadow over the existing houses to the north.
I’m not sure if the Earth has tilted on its axis, but I am mostly agreeing with DS’s comments here and recently. Good points above, all.
“Implementing this project will require considerable community outreach in a neighborhood that is very skeptical given recent history.”
I’m not sure that with the State mandates, the City attitude, and the rabid-righteousness of the extremist housing advocates in this town that anyone would even outreach to neighborhoods anymore. Besides the words: “bend over”. Or a fake process that ends up in the same two words for appearances sake.
“Tire stores and auto shops make lots of noise and emit fumes of various types.”
I remember when Kaya Yoga was over the tire shop sometimes they’d be working on a running car downstairs on the fumes would leak through the tape-sealed doors and gas us. Good times
I too mostly agree with Don’s thoughtful comments.
Plan B could be the City land between the Yolo County Landfill and the City Wastewater Treatment Facility … the BrightNight parcel … on Road 29.
Pretty far out there . . . more gas to burn
David Greenwald said … “This conversation is bigger than the Corporation Yard. It’s about what Davis really wants to be.”
David, does Davis know what it wants to be. The Council is conspicuously silent on that, City staff are conspicuously silent as well. The Chamber and Downtown Davis are mute on the subject. And anyone who goes to the City’s General Plan only finds crickets. Davis is a Spanish galleon with no rudder and now sails being tossed about on the open seas.
Regarding what Davis really wants to be, anyone who feels motivated to venture forth with their personal opinion will be welcomed and listened to.
By whom, would they be “welcomed and listened to”?
Matt also asks: “David, does Davis know what it wants to be.”
Personally, I think it wants to be what it is. But there’s some who want it to be something else (and keep trying to make it that way).
Welcomed by me.
I agree with you that lots of folks in Davis “want it to be what it is.” The question I have based on that answer is “what is what it is?” Or said another way, “What is Davis currently?”
Another related question is, “What was Davis 25 years ago?”
I can relate to 45 years ago. I transferred down from Northern California as a sophomore. I loved the small town environment in a central California town. Graduated, married and stayed. Could have raised my family in Vacaville, Elk Grove or Woodland, but chose the slow growing, anti – sprawl ethnic in Davis to raise a family,
Matt asks: The question I have based on that answer is “what is what it is?”
Seems to me that there’s a song from the 1970s who sing about “what it is – what it is -what it is”. Or maybe that’s a Dr. Seuss book, not sure.
Matt asks: “Or said another way, “What is Davis currently?”
It’s a medium-sized college town / bedroom community for Sacramento, with medium-priced housing. (A little less than the state average.)
Matt asks: “Another related question is, “What was Davis 25 years ago?”
About the same as it is now, though without The Cannery and some infill (primarily for students). Oh, and the population is older, just as it is throughout California and the U.S. To which I’d say, “don’t be afraid of change”.
Ron O said “ It’s a medium-sized college town / bedroom community for Sacramento, with medium-priced housing. (A little less than the state average.)”
25 years ago Davis fit the description you have provided, but a lot has happened in those 25 years. Davis has squandered any claim to being a college town. 25 years ago Davis residents and businesses were very actively creating intellectual capital and/or creating products and services from intellectual capital that was spawned by UCD graduates. That is no longer the case. Most of the researchers and professors who historically created intellectual capital at UCD have retired, often choosing to enjoy their retirement in place. The professors and researchers who replaced them at UCD have chosen not to live in Davis. Similarly, many of the intellectual capital-centric businesses that were in Davis 25 years ago have moved on to other communities. The City’s reported business population has nose dived. Arguably Davis has morphed into that same bedroom community with a food court at its center.
I guess we have different definitions of a “college town”. But that’s not the only way I described Davis.
To me, it was always/largely a suburb of Sacramento. But with a UC adjacent to it.
Davis was, and is – a great town (for the valley, at least).
And 25 years ago, there weren’t some of the businesses (such as DMG Mori) along 2nd Street, no Target, no Residence Inn, no new hotel on Chiles Road, etc.
I don’t recall a lot of businesses leaving Davis, other than some retail (and establishments that will now be replaced by housing, such as Davis ACE housewares, Hibberts, etc.).
I don’t know where (new) professors are choosing to live – but they certainly have the income to choose Davis, if they so desire.
I just got back from University Mall (Trader Joe’s) on Russell. Looks like it’s coming-along pretty nicely/quickly, and includes some new buildings in what used to be the parking lot. I’m thankful it didn’t try to include student housing onsite (and Trader Joe’s is already populated with student shoppers, for the most part).
For me a college town the measure able marker is an economy built around intellectual capital creation by the residents and employees of the town. 25 years ago Davis had Agraquest and Z World and Monsanto/Calgene and Schilling Robotics and Digital Technology Laboratory (DTL) are examples of businesses that formed around the intellectual capital of Davis residents educated at UCD. Agraquest, Z World, and Monsanto are all gone. Schilling has been acquired by FMC and DTL has merged into DTL/Mori. Those are the big losses of intellectual capital-centric businesses. Unfortunately tThere are lots of less high-profile ones. The City of Davis and UCD don’t work collaboratively to increase the intellectual capital activity in Davis. The annual jobs report from the US Census Bureau shows a stagnant jobs profile over those 25 years with the only jobs growth areas being in hospitality (servicing the increased number of hotel beds and the increased number of coffee houses) and hospital services at Sutter Davis.
Davis no longer gets its economic vitality from intellectual capital creation. Downtown has lost much of its economic diversity and is predominantly a food court.
Bottom-line by abandoning its core strength of intellectual capital creation, and by doing absolutely nothing to build the job base within the city, Davis has abdicated its claim to be a college town.
But what I REALLY don’t understand is why some people want to purposefully-attract “poor” people to Davis. In other words, doesn’t Davis ALREADY offer a significant portion of Affordable (or affordable) housing in relation to its size, already?
And isn’t a lot of the population ALREADY comprised of UCD students – who also (generally) don’t have a lot of money?
What is the income of people that would qualify for affordable housing in Davis?
Well, if the local jobs don’t offer enough, then why would they need to move to Davis in the first place?
There are places where income is more closely-matched to housing prices.
But the market in general (in “relatively” more-expensive locales) is usually dominated by those who already have cash/equity. And increasingly, that’s going to be millennials.
I think the real question is how many people are trying to buy a house in such markets with NO equity.
So to more-specifically answer your question, the answer is that many people need NO income to buy a house in Davis. (Such as many of those moving from the Bay Area.)
That’s not the correct answer to my question and the correct answer to my question will answer yours. (BTW, there is state law as to what percentage of a given project must be affordable and also how many overall affordable units must be built).
It’s absolutely a correct answer.
Zero income, for many people.
The fact that you don’t like the answer doesn’t make it incorrect.