Critics will undoubtedly gripe that perhaps the Davis Community Action Network (DCAN) insights gathered from over 225 residents across 13 community conversations are not completely representative of the community. That’s always a concern, but what the DCAN gives us is a great jumping-off point for a General Plan update.
The key finding in the report is hardly shocking, as housing was a dominant concern in the community discussions. That jibes with the last several city pollings that also found housing and lack of affordability the top issue among the community.
The report, for example, found strong support for affordable but also diverse housing options.
Participants, for example, advocated for increasing affordable housing options to accommodate people of all ages, incomes, and household types.
They also support expanding missing middle housing, including townhomes, duplexes, and small multi-unit buildings. They further want to encourage alternative housing models, such as cooperatives, cohousing, and village-style developments.
However, at the same time, the report highlights barriers to these housing solutions, particularly developer resistance due to concerns over profitability and difficulties in obtaining financing for smaller, denser housing types.
The community’s stance seems clear: there is a need for bold leadership to guide the city in overcoming these challenges and ensuring a more inclusive housing market.
“Participants were clear: They want City leadership to provide a vision and plan for addressing housing deficits, which will better equip our community to address the impacts of climate change,” the report said.
I have a great deal of skepticism that such leadership will arise.
Without such vision, I am skeptical whether that can now translate into action. My biggest concern is that, when theory comes to practice, practical concerns such as traffic will dwarf concerns over housing and affordability.
We are seeing this already with the Village Farms proposal. I don’t agree with community sentiment here. For one thing, the state is clear that Davis is going to have to add significant housing in the 6th and 7th RHNA cycles. The city is pretty clear that infill alone will not suffice to meet those demands. And there really are no spots for housing that will not coincide with existing traffic patterns.
Moreover, I happen to believe that local housing could actually help to alleviate traffic concerns and that people and traffic analysis tend to overstate the impact of local developments on traffic—much of which is commuter rather than locally based.
Nevertheless, the report identifies a number of traffic concerns, even among people who favor housing.
First, participants expressed concern of increased congestion due to infill and higher density housing.
Participants supported increasing housing density but worried about the impact on already congested roads. Specific concerns were raised about the downtown area and major traffic corridors, where increased density could worsen bottlenecks.
Some participants emphasized the need for better traffic flow planning before approving large-scale development projects.
There is also neighborhood resistance to traffic impacts from growth. Some residents expressed concerns that infill development and mixed-use projects could increase car traffic in residential neighborhoods.
There were worries that new developments would not include adequate road and traffic mitigation strategies, leading to more cut-through traffic in existing neighborhoods.
Many participants supported expanding public transit, but concerns were raised about the feasibility of funding new bus routes, whether new transit services could reduce congestion, or if they would simply add more buses to crowded streets—and the impact of new bus stops on road infrastructure, with some participants worried that more stops could slow down traffic flow rather than improve it.
Participants see the need for safer and more efficient bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Davis has a strong biking culture, and participants emphasized the importance of protecting and expanding bike paths and greenbelts.
However, there were concerns that biking infrastructure improvements are not keeping pace with growth, making it less safe for cyclists and pedestrians in higher-traffic areas. Some residents suggested better separation between bike lanes and vehicle lanes to reduce conflicts.
Finally, solutions to this problem seem less defined. A critical finding: The report pointed out that traffic was frequently cited as a top concern, yet only 22 unique comments focused on improving circulation and traffic flow.
Some participants suggested investing in smarter traffic management systems, but there was no broad consensus on what specific policies or infrastructure improvements should be prioritized.
Finally, the report gives us some insight into Measure J (referred to as Measure J/R/D in the report)—there is very little support for outright ending Measure J, but a lot of support for modifications.
In fact, that was the majority view—keep Measure J, but with modifications.
Few participants explicitly supported repealing the measure—in fact, according to the report, only one person in the discussions stated outright that it should be removed.
However, many suggested amendments to make the process more flexible for specific types of projects.
- Proposed changes included:
- Allowing streamlined approvals for developments that meet or exceed certain affordability and sustainability criteria.
- Creating an integrated growth policy that balances density, infill, and measured expansion rather than relying solely on voter approvals for new housing.
Once again there were overall concerns expressed about housing supply and affordability.
Some participants worried that Measure J/R/D has contributed to the housing shortage by making it difficult to build on the city’s outskirts. Others pointed out that existing land use policies have not adequately supported infill development, meaning that restricting peripheral growth may further limit housing options.
Affordability was a central issue—some argued that keeping Measure J/R/D in its current form favors wealthier, long-time homeowners and prevents new, more affordable housing options from being built.
There remains support for infill and density first—although it is not clear to what extent people were informed about the shortage of available developable land for housing within the city limits (this is a complex topic, complicated by restrictions by RHNA about what parcels qualify for inclusion in future RHNA cycles).
Many participants wanted to see Davis prioritize infill development first, using density and mixed-use projects downtown before expanding outward.
They also favor alternative housing models—such as cohousing, cooperatives, and village-style communities—which were seen as potential middle-ground solutions that could fit within or work alongside Measure J/R/D’s framework.
Several participants expressed uncertainty about how long Measure J/R/D should remain in place and whether it should be revised in future General Plan updates. There was also interest in clearer criteria for what types of projects might qualify for voter exemptions or expedited approval.
While Measure J/R/D remains widely supported in principle, the Voices to Vision report indicates that many Davis residents see room for improvement. Instead of a full repeal, most discussion participants favored modifications that would allow for more flexibility in meeting the city’s housing and sustainability goals while maintaining public oversight on major growth decisions.
That’s generally where I come down as well.
Overall I believe that this is a good report that gives us a great starting point for creating a General Plan update. A lot of the topics—affordable housing, transportation, climate change, density, housing types and Measure J should be focal points for the upcoming discussions.
I was not a participant. If I was there would have been two votes for total repeal of measure J
I was wondering if that was you – evidently not.
I attended an earlier meeting at the church next to the Farmer’s market, in regard to the same type of issues (and probably the same group of people, for the most part).
In other words, this was the crowd who are concerned about issues such as Affordable housing, homelessness, etc.
During that meeting, I recall that Bapu tried to gauge/generate support for overturning Measure J – but even that crowd was not having it. (Out of a room of maybe 200 people, you could count on one hand how many people were in favor of overturning Measure J.)
One thing that the panel was in favor of was not building any more single-family houses. (If I’m not mistaken, it was Robb Davis? who specifically brought that up.)
“They want City leadership to provide a vision and plan for addressing housing deficits, which will better equip our community to address the impacts of climate change.”
What the participants want, and what builders can provide, don’t seem to overlap. No amount of “City leadership” will square that circle.
“What the participants want, and what builders can provide, don’t seem to overlap. No amount of “City leadership” will square that circle.”
Not entirely true. The City could provide leadership by creating development guidelines that spell out what the City wants, and then provide financial incentives (ie. reduced fees, quicker timelines) to those developers willing to follow. I don’t expect to see that happen in Davis, but it works just fine elsewhere.
I agree with Mark. Creating those development guidelines is pretty straightforward. However, it requires leadership, and Davis is short on that.