Sacramento, CA – A sweeping new regional plan released last week by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) offers a vision for how the six-county Sacramento region, including Yolo County and the City of Davis, will accommodate 580,000 new residents, 278,000 new homes, and 263,000 jobs by 2050.
The draft 2025 Blueprint, which outlines a 25-year plan for coordinated growth, transportation investment, and land use planning, is now open for public review and comment through August 8.
It arrives at a pivotal time for Davis, which continues to grapple with housing shortages, rising costs, and deepening questions about equity, access, and environmental responsibility.
The 2025 Blueprint is the latest update to the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Its goals build on the original 2004 Blueprint, which established smart growth principles like compact development, transportation choice, housing variety, and the conservation of open space.
Twenty years later, those same principles are now applied to a region facing even greater urgency to address housing affordability, climate resilience, and demographic shifts.
In releasing the plan, SACOG Board Chair Darren Suen, a councilmember from Elk Grove, noted the importance of regional collaboration. “We have to work together to build a region that works for both our existing and future residents,” he said. “The 2025 Blueprint is our playbook for how cities and counties will collaborate, and ultimately helps set up the region for success to attract more grants and investments.”
The Blueprint’s forecast assumes an average annual production of 9,300 new housing units across the region—more than most years have delivered over the past two decades. To meet the region’s projected population growth while achieving goals related to air quality, transportation efficiency, and social equity, the plan emphasizes infill development in “Centers and Corridors” and “Established Communities,” including downtowns, main streets, and older suburban neighborhoods.
According to SACOG’s modeling, approximately 67 percent of new housing growth is projected to occur in these infill areas, while 32 percent is projected in “Developing Communities,” or greenfield areas typically located on the urban edge.
For Davis, the implications are both straightforward and politically complex. The city is widely seen as a model for environmental stewardship and progressive planning, yet it has also struggled to accommodate growth.
Local policies, most notably Measure J/R/D, require voter approval for any significant expansion of the city’s boundaries for housing. In practice, this has made it extremely difficult to plan for or approve peripheral housing developments, even when they are designed in accordance with the region’s smart growth principles.
At the same time, Davis faces intensifying pressure to meet its state-mandated housing targets, particularly for affordable and moderate-income units. SACOG’s Blueprint does not override local land use authority, but it does underscore the gap between regional housing needs and the actual capacity being delivered in cities like Davis.
The city’s recent adoption of the Downtown Davis Specific Plan exemplifies some of the progress being made. The plan replaced outdated zoning rules with a new form-based code designed to encourage mixed-use and multifamily housing in the city center.
According to SACOG, this zoning reform has led to more than 1,000 units being proposed within the downtown core since adoption. Yet, few of those projects have advanced past the proposal stage, due in part to high construction costs, community resistance, and a lengthy, uncertain approval process.
Without deeper commitments to infrastructure investment and political support, even the most progressive zoning reforms risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
The Blueprint is equally focused on the broader demographic and economic trends reshaping the region. The population is aging, household sizes are shrinking, and demand is rising for smaller, more diverse housing types—duplexes, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, and compact apartments.
The Blueprint warns that without a significant shift away from traditional large-lot single-family homes, the region will face a widening gap between the housing stock that exists and the housing that residents actually need or can afford.
Compounding this challenge is the generational squeeze: Baby Boomers looking to downsize and younger generations like Gen Z forming new households will increasingly compete for the same limited pool of smaller, more affordable homes.
In Davis, where the cost of housing continues to outpace incomes and rental vacancy rates remain among the lowest in the state, these structural shifts are already being felt.
UC Davis, the report notes, is a major driver of population growth and housing demand in the city, but the supply of new housing—particularly affordable or workforce housing—has not kept pace. As a result, students, faculty, and local workers are increasingly pushed into surrounding communities or face rising rents and overcrowded conditions.
SACOG’s Blueprint recognizes this regional dynamic and calls for better integration of job centers, housing, and transportation infrastructure. It assumes that jurisdictions rich in housing, like Davis, will begin to attract more employment, while job-rich jurisdictions invest in more housing. That rebalancing, however, is still far from realized.
Transportation is another major pillar of the Blueprint. The plan calls for more than $40 billion in multi-modal transportation investments, including road maintenance, public transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. The intention is to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), cut greenhouse gas emissions, and give residents more options to get around.
But to make that possible, the region must also align housing and job growth in ways that reduce the distance people must travel. This is especially critical in a region where sprawl has historically driven long commutes and high emissions.
Davis, with its existing bike infrastructure and walkable downtown, is well-positioned to model low-VMT development. But again, its limited housing supply and resistance to new growth undermine its potential to fulfill that role at scale.
The Blueprint also promotes equity as a central goal, seeking to ensure that historically marginalized communities have access to housing, economic opportunity, and transportation.
It aligns with state goals under Senate Bill 375, which require reductions in per capita greenhouse gas emissions through land use and transportation planning. Yet achieving those goals will require local governments to overcome political inertia, outdated zoning codes, and the rising cost of development.
Davis’s reputation as a progressive city is increasingly at odds with its growth policies, which some critics argue functionally exclude lower-income residents and workers from the community.
The Blueprint challenges cities to confront these contradictions directly.
Programs like Green Means Go offer one model for turning vision into action. Through this initiative, SACOG has directed approximately $60 million to designated “Green Zones”—areas with high infill potential and low VMT—to support infrastructure and development.
Davis, with its downtown revitalization plans and established infrastructure, is eligible to compete for such funding. But it must be willing to make development feasible and predictable if it hopes to secure state and federal grants tied to readiness.
SACOG’s Blueprint is not a mandate, but a regional agreement about what kind of future the six-county area wants to build. The plan states that there is enough theoretical capacity in existing land use plans to accommodate the projected population growth—seven times more capacity, in fact, than what is needed.
The problem is not space; it is implementation. Without alignment between local action and regional goals, the vision of vibrant, equitable, climate-smart communities will remain out of reach.
The public has until August 8 to review and comment on the draft plan and environmental impact report.
The full plan is available for review at www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint. Comments can be submitted online or directly to SACOG by the August deadline.
“The city is widely seen as a model for environmental stewardship and progressive planning,”
I thought we were exclusionary bigots. Which is it?
Isn’t most of our ‘environmental stewardship’ in not paving over farmland?
““Developing Communities,” or greenfield areas”
Paving over farmland, by any other name.
“infill development in . . . older suburban neighborhoods.”
bye, bye historical neighborhoods . . . bye, bye
“At the same time, Davis faces intensifying pressure to meet its state-mandated housing targets,”
This pressure coming in the form of repetitive blogging :-|
“Yet, few of those projects have advanced past the proposal stage, due in part to high construction costs, community resistance, and a lengthy, uncertain approval process.”
There was a time that ‘community resistance’ made a difference. I don’t see that as having stopped any of these projects. What we did see was like community resistance to Hibbert’s going to five stories, and the Council response being: “f*ck you, community”. So seriously, you can drop the ‘community resistance’ BS.
“Without deeper commitments to infrastructure investment and political support, even the most progressive zoning reforms risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative.”
So we have a bunch of projects proposed, some of which didn’t pencil out and aren’t being built . . . you can’t ‘commit’ your way into making these work for the developer.
“Baby Boomers looking to downsize and younger generations like Gen Z forming new households will increasingly compete for the same limited pool of smaller, more affordable homes.”
Then why are housing prices dropping and many homes going through one or more price reductions before sellling?
“In Davis, where the cost of housing continues to outpace incomes and rental vacancy rates remain among the lowest in the state, these structural shifts are already being felt.”
The vacancy rate has been dropping the last couple of years. Where was your article about students camping out for units this year? I know houses that weren’t rented out even in the fall and had to drop rental prices by hundreds of dollars from previous years before getting bites. And if you want low vacancy rates – try Santa Cruz, or Santa Monica, or Berkeley.
” . . . calls for better integration of job centers, housing, and transportation infrastructure.”
Good luck with that when we all see where the money is going: Widening I-80.
“It assumes that jurisdictions rich in housing, like Davis, will begin to attract more employment,”
How have those assumptions gone in the past, Sparky? When you are a planning agency and you ass-ume . . . as the saying goes . . .
” The plan calls for more than $40 billion in multi-modal transportation investments, including road maintenance, public transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. ”
Fully funded $40 billion?
“This is especially critical in a region where sprawl has historically driven long commutes and high emissions.”
And yet SACOG allowed South Folsom. Do as as a plan, not as I do.
“Davis, with its existing bike infrastructure and walkable downtown, is well-positioned to model low-VMT development.”
Davis was innovative in bike infrastructure, but it hasn’t kept up and what we have now is not a source of pride, and neither does a crappy million-dollar blocked-off-from-cars block make Davis a model for low VMTs.
“But again, its limited housing supply and resistance to new growth undermine its potential to fulfill that role at scale.”
So expand the borders so people can commute further . . . which goes against an earlier stated goal. Maybe the better plan is fewer people and a more effective corona virus.
“Yet achieving those goals will require local governments to overcome . . . the rising cost of development.”
And how exactly do local governments deal with the rising cost of development – either massive subsidy or huge rent increases. Or lower the cost of development . . . how?
“Davis’s reputation as a progressive city is increasingly at odds with its growth policies,”
We’re progressive in other ways. That makes up for it.
“which some critics argue functionally exclude lower-income residents and workers from the community.”
But all critics argue that, only “some”.
“The Blueprint challenges cities to confront these contradictions directly.”
“Challenges” not “funds”.
“Green Means Go . . . SACOG has directed approximately $60 million . . . ”
Drop in the bucket. The Fairfield/Vacaville train station alone cost more than that . . .
“The problem is not space; it is implementation.”
The problem is we are still investing in widening I-80 instead of massive investment in the Capitol Corridor. It’s all easy and natural once you build you core regional transportation corridors on frequent/fast/electrified rail.
“…seven times more capacity, in fact, than what is needed.”
Then why make it harder than it has to be by demanding infill and additional density, things that are good in theory, but, harder to do than peripheral development?
“The city is widely seen as a model for environmental stewardship and progressive planning,…”
Anybody who sees it this way doesn’t understand what environmental stewardship and progressive planning mean.
Environmental stewardship in the case of Davis means that the perfect is the enemy of the good. And progressive planning means only approve things that aren’t going to happen like re-development of PG&E’s property on 5th and L. Or the Hibbert property without any parking. Or Nishi without access to Richards Blvd.
Amen on those examples
Davis used to be seen as a model, which included the first in nation building codes, bike paths and recycling programs. But several recent national articles have noted how Davis has fallen behind. Davis has also lost its vision of the forest for the trees. We too often “act locally” without “thinking globally.” Our excessive focus on preserving neighboring ag land (really just for the viewscape) is leading to destruction of ag land next to other communities that historically have not been as environmentally prudent in their planning, so on net we’re making things worse, not better. This article in the Atlantic Monthly illustrates how our excessive focus on preservation of historical areas (that aren’t really that historic) and ag land in the wrong places is making housing unaffordable for younger households and locking out those people from economic opportunity. Of course we have an uprising against the well off who have walled off their communities! https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic-social-mobility/681439/
Richard raises really good points.
“several recent national articles have noted how Davis has fallen behind”
It would be great to have the links to those articles. Hopefully Richard will post them.
“Our excessive focus on preserving neighboring ag land (really just for the viewscape) is leading to destruction of ag land next to other communities that historically have not been as environmentally prudent in their planning, so on net we’re making things worse, not better.”
I was with Richard on this point right up to his last nine words. Unless that “other” ag land is as productive in producing crops for seed and research and consumption, “things” are not worse. Given the soil quality and the productive use of those soils, “things” are marginally better by continuing the current use of those soils.
“making housing unaffordable for younger households and locking out those people from economic opportunity.”
That comment is a double whammy. First, the development proposals over the past two decades have been directed at two market segments. (1) students who can pay market rents, and student housing is excluded from the State Affordability formula calculations. (2) the almost exclusive building of large square footage single family homes that because of their size (times the $500+ per square footage that developers demand) are not affordable to young families.
Second, regarding economic opportunity, where is there economic opportunity in Davis? The year-by-year historical jobs reports show that Davis has not added any jobs over the past 25 years except (A) low paid hotel workers providing custodial services to the increased number of hotel rooms in Davis, and moderately paid hospital workers at Sutter Davis Medical Center. Neither of those groups are likely to reside in a household with the $231,000 annual household income needed in Davis to afford a $760,000 home. Young families WITHOUT children may have a combined household income of that level, thanks to their commitment to two full-time careers; however, one or both of those careers are likely to be not in Davis because of the dismal local economic opportunity.
Further, I have been told, but do not have a primary data source to confirm, that academic salaries on the UCD campus in Davis have been experiencing declining levels of pay from the historical levels of pay for the same job.
So, I ask, where is there economic opportunity in Davis?
Matt: “Second, regarding economic opportunity, where is there economic opportunity in Davis? The year-by-year historical jobs reports show that Davis has not added any jobs over the past 25 years ….”
The economic opportunity derives from our largest employer.
UC Davis is the economic engine. UCD enrollment growth over the last decade has averaged 1.2% per year. After the brief pandemic decline, enrollment has increased by 4 – 5% last year and this year.
UC is very competitive in the realm of university applications due to the campus reputations and specializations. UCD is one of the very popular campuses in the system. Applications have increased year by year. The only constraint is how many students UCD decides to accept from their very large pool of applicants.
UCD seems to maintain a ratio of about 21:1 students to faculty. So as the enrollment grows, so does the faculty. Those are relatively high-paid jobs.
Staff increases with enrollment growth as well.
For 2025:
Fulltime faculty, 3168
Staff, 14568.
As UCD grows, so does the demand for certain types of retail (heavily food-related). Spin-off businesses are always a benefit, but I can’t readily quantify that. I can say anecdotally that many of the ones that would naturally reside in Davis don’t do so because there’s no place in town for them, or they are ag-related and need ag land at or nearby their offices.
Don , I’m not sure where you get your numbers. You didn’t provide a link, but UCD’s most recent official “Common Data Set” was published on August 6, 2024 for the 2023-2024 academic year. It can be accessed at https://aggiedata.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk1841/files/media/documents/CDS_2023_2024_UCD_0.pdf
What it shows is 2,175 Faculty, of which only 1,683 are used to compute the Faculty to Student ratio of 21. It will be interesting to see a breakdown of the Sacramento campus portion and the Davis campus portion of those numbers. Your staff number is similarly inflated.
Your statement “As UCD grows, so does the demand for certain types of retail (heavily food-related)” needs a little context, specifically the previously published compilation of the annual housing costs for a $740,000 home of over $77,000 per year, which using the 30% standard equates to an annual household income of $231,000. What proportion of those retail (heavily food related) jobs have annual incomes of even half of that $231,000 amount? Further, what proportion of those jobs are full time? And finally, what proportion of those jobs are not filled by students.
What you have described is economic activity not economic opportunity.
“Don , I’m not sure where you get your numbers. You didn’t provide a link”
https://www.univstats.com/staffs/university-of-california-davis/
Thanks Don. Although there are substantial differences between UCD’s own “Common Data Set” report numbers and the ones your linked report provide, there is a lot of very helpful information on your linked site. Thanks again.
Looks like a Public Information Request is going to be needed to understand the differences.
Weighing in a bit late on this:
1) Ill point out that not everyting in regard to university growh is driven by the undergraduate student population. Our role as a research institution continually expands with funding and produces graduate students and just regular “analysists” and other “staff” jobs that have nothing to do with education and everything to do with serving the needs of the research being done.
As the country’s #5 best funded public research insttituion that ends up being a lot of “jobs”
2) regarding university spin-outs. More indeed ARE staying here these days because of the work I’m doing providing incubator space. GSEC calculated over 30 Million in city impact as a result of Inventopia. 43 companies who together have raise 136 million over the last 8 years.
That said, the biggest ones.. the ones that raise large amounts of money and skip straight over inventopia from day one… 100% of them end up in west sacramento where there is huge amounts of lab space, and not infrequently there is space built out as lab already. Davis has a double challenge in that a) there isnt a lot of commercial / lab space avaliable and 2) it is mostly held by two landlords, neigher of which is really eager to work with startup companies…not a good situation.
Working on these landlords and helping them finding a different model is one of the key things I need to fix in this ecosystem if its goign to have any real future. Landlords in other innovation ecosystems are very succdessful… so they will either need to “learn how to do life science” of we will need to recruit one from out of town who does.
With numbers like those, it seems that you should be single-handedly claiming credit for rescuing the city from it structural deficit. So problem solved, I guess. (Not sure why they needed to lend your company money twice, however.)
And yet somehow, the city is going broke – apparently as a result of all of the money you’re creating for them. (Sort of like the old saying, “the more you spend, the more you save”.)
From article: “The Blueprint warns that without a significant shift away from traditional large-lot single-family homes, the region will face a widening gap between the housing stock that exists and the housing that residents actually need or can afford.”
So what happens in that case, is that housing prices drop (or stop increasing) – which is happening RIGHT NOW. It’s simply a bunch of malarkey to suggest that a “cheap” housing market like the Sacramento region isn’t already “cheap”.
If you can’t afford a modest house in a place like the Sacramento region at some point in your life (assuming that’s your goal), there’s something wrong with YOU (e.g., your career choice); not the housing market. Granted, there isn’t a God-given right to be able to buy a home in your 20s or 30s, for example. You might *gasp* have to wait a little longer for the opportunity to pay property, parcel, and Mello Roos taxes (as well as insurance, maintenance costs, etc.). There is actually only one “forever owner” of ANY property, and that’s the entity you pay taxes to for the “privilege” of the illusion of ownership.
From article: “Compounding this challenge is the generational squeeze: Baby Boomers looking to downsize and younger generations like Gen Z forming new households will increasingly compete for the same limited pool of smaller, more affordable homes.”
Baby boomers aren’t downsizing. There is NO BIGGER WASTE OF MONEY than downsizing into a smaller house (to a location you didn’t want to move to in the first place). Also, you need MORE space indoors when you get older, not LESS space. Especially if you’re married or living with someone (and you’re both “suddenly” at home all the time).
Regarding the growth planned in this article, note how there’s no mention of whether or not residents actually want that, or where the growth is actually coming from (its origin). For the most part, it’s coming from those moving from those moving FROM more environmentally-responsible areas, along the coast.
RO: “Baby boomers aren’t downsizing. There is NO BIGGER WASTE OF MONEY than downsizing into a smaller house (to a location you didn’t want to move to in the first place). Also, you need MORE space indoors when you get older, not LESS space. Especially if you’re married or living with someone (and you’re both “suddenly” at home all the time)”
Thanks for pointing this out. From the insane comments on here sometimes, you’d think old people were required to sell their big houses and downsize “for the greater good”. Comrade.