Key points:
- Davis city plan must address housing shortages, job mismatches, and climate change.
- City needs 2,000 new housing units to meet future needs at all income levels.
- Davis faces a critical mismatch between jobs and housing within city limits.
When Eric Yurkovich, a principal at Raimi + Associates, addressed the City of Davis during the first phase of its general plan update, he made clear that the choices ahead are both urgent and far-reaching.
The city’s plan, he said, must grapple with housing shortages, job and transportation mismatches, and the growing effects of climate change.
“During that process, it was identified that the city needed about 2000 new housing units to meet the needs of future housing within the city. That’s at all income levels, everything from very low income to moderate and above moderate income levels.”
Davis’s population surpassed 65,000 according to the 2020 Census, and the city has largely met state housing requirements through infill development.
But with nearly 97 percent of the city already built out and only a handful of vacant parcels remaining, it will be increasingly difficult to rely on infill alone.
That reality, Yurkovich said, means the city will need to get creative about how and where to meet future housing and job needs, even as the politically sensitive question of expanding beyond current boundaries remains unresolved.
That shift will not be easy in a community where most development beyond city limits must go before voters under Measure J, but it is unavoidable.
The land use and mobility element of the plan, which Yurkovich described as the “heart” of the general plan, will set the framework for how Davis organizes itself in the decades to come.
It will determine which parts of the city allow housing, which are reserved for jobs, which for amenities and open space, and which allow for a mix of uses.
These decisions, he said, “affect how we travel, the great places we have in our communities and how we foster different spaces in the sustainability of our community and our natural systems and ourselves.”
These factors will be especially critical because those decisions shape not just the physical map of Davis, but the community’s ability to remain inclusive and livable.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the housing market.
As Yurkovich noted, the city faces “an increased need for workforce and affordable housing” that cannot be met under current conditions. UC Davis adds another layer of pressure.
The university’s 2018 Long Range Development Plan projected capacity for an additional 2,500 students and 3,000 employees compared with 2023–24 enrollment. Even if the campus falls short of that growth by 2030, the squeeze on the local housing market will remain, and the city will be asked to shoulder the burden.
The reality is critical because without more housing, particularly at affordable levels, residents, students and workers alike will be priced out, forced into longer commutes, and driven to surrounding communities in search of shelter.
Jobs add another dimension to the imbalance. Only a fraction of Davis residents both live and work in the city.
According to Yurkovich, about 75 percent of jobs in Davis are filled by people who commute into the city, while roughly 85 percent of Davis residents leave the city each day for work. That mismatch means more vehicle miles traveled, more greenhouse gas emissions, and more strain on infrastructure.
“Part of what we’re going to be talking about in general plan process is matching our jobs and housing needs so we can better create a more balanced transportation system and match up those needs better through this process,” he said.
The state of California has little patience for cities that ignore these realities.
Through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the state requires each jurisdiction to plan for and zone sufficient housing across all income categories.
Failure to comply carries consequences. The Department of Housing and Community Development can revoke a city’s housing element certification, stripping access to state funding and exposing it to lawsuits.
Developers can invoke the so-called builder’s remedy, allowing them to bypass local zoning if their projects include affordable housing.
The attorney general has stepped in elsewhere to enforce state law, and Davis is no less vulnerable than any other city. Put simply, Davis can either plan for growth on its own terms through the general plan, or it can have growth imposed upon it by Sacramento and the courts.
Climate change overlays every piece of the conversation. Yurkovich pointed to the link between land use decisions, transportation systems, and the city’s climate footprint.
“These amenities really help to support everything from our walkable and sustainable neighborhoods to reducing our daily trips and making them be met through more active modes of travel. So we can walk or we can bike, or we can take the bus to those places. That really helps us to lower our contribution to greenhouse gases and our effects on climate change overall.”
Davis has long been known as a leader in bike infrastructure, but the city cannot rest on its laurels. A warming climate means more extreme heat days, heavier precipitation, and other hazards that will affect both the natural and built environment.
These impacts, he said, “are going to fall disproportionately on the most sensitive populations… many of the most sensitive populations are already burdened by higher environmental pollution, by pesticides, lower incomes, and higher housing costs.” A responsible general plan must ensure these burdens are not worsened and that equity remains central to the city’s climate policies.
The choices ahead go to the core of whether Davis can live up to its stated values.
“How we shape that land use helps us foster what we love about communities. So we want to create neighborhoods that are safe, fair, healthy. We want to create places where there are homes for people of different cultures, different income, low and different places in their lives,” Yurkovich said.
The path forward will demand political courage to approve housing, creativity in rethinking infill, and persistence in aligning jobs with housing. It will mean balancing growth with the protection of agricultural land and open space. And it will require acknowledging that failure to act carries risks far beyond local politics.
Davis has always taken pride in its agricultural roots, its university identity and its environmental conscience. The general plan update is an opportunity to bring those traditions into alignment with the city’s present challenges.
If Davis succeeds, it can remain a model of sustainability, inclusion and thoughtful planning. If it fails, it risks stagnation, worsening inequality, and loss of local control over growth.
The choice is ours, but the urgency could not be clearer.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. To learn make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
So again (since we go through this every single day), Davis will address the next round of RHNA targets the same way that most other cities will – by creating fake plans.
The same type of fake plans that aren’t working in regard to the current RHNA cycle:
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
And the reason they’re not working is because they’re not achievable (nor justified in any logical manner whatsoever). They’re made up with no basis in reality – like the bogeyman.
The state has a lot of suing to do in regard to just about every city in the state. Seems like they might need a half-dozen new attorney general positions, along with accompanying legal supporting staff.
The university’s 2018 Long Range Development Plan projected capacity for an additional 2,500 students and 3,000 employees compared with 2023–24 enrollment. Even if the campus falls short of that growth by 2030, the squeeze on the local housing market will remain, and the city will be asked to shoulder the burden.
So I asked this the other day (with no response), so I’ll ask again. How is it that in UCD has “capacity” for more employees than students? And has this “plan” been updated since 2018?
And how does the subsequent MOU (between the city and UCD) affect this?
And what happened to the staff housing that UCD was planning (in addition to the UCD development behind Davis Commons)?
And isn’t there a hiring freeze in place at UCD?
Ron O
I think that the consultant wasn’t up to date on UCD housing. UCD exceeded the targets in the MOU, both in housing additional enrollment and building 15,000 new beds: https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-case-studies/from-conflict-to-collaboration-how-davis-ca-built-a-partnership-with-uc-davis-to-address-housing-concerns/
“According to Yurkovich, about 75 percent of jobs in Davis are filled by people who commute into the city, while roughly 85 percent of Davis residents leave the city each day for work. That mismatch means more vehicle miles traveled, more greenhouse gas emissions, and more strain on infrastructure.”
Of all the arguments presented, this one takes the cake for the most-absurd.
The implication being that the people who “leave the city each day for work” (many of whom work at UCD itself) are going to abandon their stable careers to work in a totally-different field in the private sector (that doesn’t exist in the first place).
Either that, or the city is going to pursue more “economic development” which will then cause more commuters into the actual city, and/or a bigger demand for housing.
As far as the 75% who commute “into the city”, are they counting UCD employees? Or are they counting people who work at a coffee shop (and can just as easily work at a coffee shop in their OWN town?)
Also, I am absolutely certain that “85% of residents” are NOT leaving town for work (at UCD or anywhere else). How many retirees, students who don’t work elsewhere, or other non-workers are there in Davis?
How much did the city pay for this consultant, anyway? And did they take questions?
Ron O
As I state yesterday, Yurkovich was citing a source that doesn’t conform with out data sources. (How the Census Bureau could publish two conflicting numbers is unclear.) Here’s my reconciliation of the sources to arrive at a more accurate assessment of commuting and residents. About two-thirds of working Davis residents commute out of town, and two-thirds of those working in Davis commute into town.
Davis + UC Davis + El Macero
7/1/2023 76,448
Labor Force 35,273
% Unemployment
Davis
Employed/Living In 32,132
Employed Outside 27,024
Employed Inside 5,108
Employed/Living Out 16,030
Jobs Inside 21,137
UCD
Employed/Living In UCD 1,319
Employed Outside UCD 1,104
Employed in UCD 215
Employed Inside Davis 5,025
Employed/Living Out 6,414
Jobs Inside 11,439
Davis+UCD
Employed/Living In 33,451
Employed Outside 21,999
Employed Inside 10,133
Employed/Living Out 22,444
Jobs Inside 32,576
“About two-thirds of working Davis residents commute out of town, and two-thirds of those working in Davis commute into town.”
Perfect – non-existent problem “solved”. They cancel each other-out.
They don’t. In fact the opposite it’s a multiplier effect.
Ah – because one of those groups is larger than the other?
In any case (without looking at Richard’s breakdown), does any of this include UCD employees (outbound, or inbound)?
Seems to me that any ridiculous nonsense should start with that.
For sure, there’s going to be more outbound commuters even without counting those who work at UCD because Davis itself is not an employment hub. Never has been.
How many Davis residents, for example, work at state agencies in Sacramento?
How many work at UCD’s medical campus in Sacramento?
(Essentially none of those people are going to switch careers.)
No. You’re constraining your thinking too much housing and not enough to other impacts.
Sounds like there’s “not enough housing” in Sacramento (to accommodate their own workers), per the argument put forth.
Are you and Richard working on that “problem”?
In any case, my “solution” to the non-existent problem remains the same: Those commuting to the city itself should switch jobs (or houses/spouses) with those commuting out of the city.
The part regarding switching spouses only applies if the spouse is (also) living or working in the “wrong” city.
It’s interesting that you don’t seem to understand the paradigm
Paradigm: “A typical example of something, a model” (per Oxford Languages).
But just to be flexible, I’d provide the workers and their spouses at least 60 days to decide on residences, places of employment, and spouses so that no one is commuting anywhere.
As a side note, this might provide an excuse for those dissatisfied with any of the choices they made to get out of that situation, blame-free.
But I’d also make them sign an agreement stating that they won’t search for a new residence, job, or spouse in the future once they’ve made their decision. (At least, not without obtaining prior approval from the commuting committee.)
(Forgot to mention that the commuting committee has to be established first, to organize/direct all of this.)
Perhaps you should read a modest proposal and rethink your paradigm
The general plan will be a wonderful opportunity to take all the buzzwords on those easels at the meeting and put them in ChatGPT to spit out a plan. Your taxpayer dollars plus your own self-delusion at work.
Come on Alan don’t hold back
I do think you need to tell me that :-|
It needs to be pointed out that the statment that was made at that meeting ( and repeated here) that “we need 2000 housing units” is a figure taken entirely out of context.
That number was one that he said “came out of the housing element process…” which was a RHNA driven process, not one that tried to assess the actual demand for housing. It seems like he took the RHNA number and rounded up to get to that 2000 number.
So lets be careful about re-stating this number out of context because that particular number is a state derived MINIMUM… not a “target”, and not even a quantititavie assessment of demand.. which was how that number was represetned at the meting… its NOT that.
Stating that “we need 2000 more housing units” without providing context that it comes from a state derived RHNA minimum is something so out-of-context that it borders on mis-information.
The real number of what our local demand for housing is much closer to 10,000 additional units, just to make up for our CURRENT shortfall in housing – ( This is based on our migration data from the census and the university transportation surveys ) and THAT number assumes that only half of our displaced workforce would move here IF we produced housing they could afford)
That puts Davis’s (currently suppressed) target population ( assuming 2.9 humans per houshold – the CA average) at 97,000 people – which of course is an almost 50% growth target.
“growth” here being defined as “People currently working here during the day being able to stay here at night instead of driving to another city”. So its not really growth at all. Its just providing housing for people who are currently otherwise part of our daily population.
So lets start with that “real population” number of 97,000 that we need to acomodate and then keep in mind that the General plan is a PLANNING document, that is supposed to plan for FUTURE growth.
So then we need to not just try to figure out how to catch up to our current “real” population, but also plan for “true growth”
If we do that and then take a very modest 1% annual growth rate ( compounded) and apply it to that base of 97k over the span of the next 20 years for the general plan… you know where that gets us? 118k people by 2035… lets call it a clean 120k. 52k extra people – almost a doubling of our population.
In “housing unit” terms that means we need 18,000 additional housing units. Not “2,000”. or even the 1,800 proposed by village farms or the similar number propose by shriners.
This is the inconvenient truth of our planning situation. We cannot plan via vague concepts and platitudes. Planning is a form of engineering. It needs to be quantitative, it needs to be based on fact, and I dont think anyone in our city has come to grips with these particular facts. We are BADLY behind the growth curve and nobody is brave enough to say how truly behind that curve we are. To say “we have our work cut out for us” with regards to the general plan is a severe understantement.
And yet, even if not including UCD in the calculation – more people commute “out” of the city, then “in” to the city. Which means that folks like you should be advocating for housing in places where Davis residents actually do work (e.g., Sacramento).
Davis is not an employment center. Never has been; never will be. But if you and others “somehow” convince the city to pursue that, you’ll be responsible for more commuters “to” the city.
Now, if you want to count those commuting to UCD (from both Davis and beyond) – housing on the UCD campus itself is the “closest of all” to that particular employment center.
So you (and those like you) have your work cut out for you, in convincing both Sacramento and the UCD campus to build more housing for their respective workers. I do wish you the best regarding that effort. Some people have been advocating for that in regard to student housing, for years. (For the most part, the people behind that aren’t the “housing shortage people”, which is somewhat ironic.
RON, you apparently haven’t been listening.
This is exactly why we advocate for missing middle housing and NOT single family housing, why we have written articles like “housing not houses” etc.
We have been consistent on this point literally for years now.
Now, I entirely disagree that UCD “isnt a job center and never will be” thats absurd. Any collection of people generates jobs. On campus jobs are still jobs, they still need grocery clerks, and firefighters, and attorneys, and insurance brokers, and the multiplier effect goes on… and those inherrent service level jobs are the ones we have most displaced.
There is nothing we can do about the fact that we already built so much single family housing for outbound commuters. It was a mistake we should not repeat.
The Group “strong towns” showed that neighbrohoods like that need to be subsidized by the poorer, higher density mized-use neighborhoods in order to function. There really isnt anything in it for us as a city to build more neighborhoods that break us financially.
If we do build any single family homes there is going to HAVE to be a strong mello-roos district that pays for the maintenance of their own roads, electrical, sewer etc… and then guess what: And dream of these homes somehow being “affordable” by our workforce goes straight out the window.
This is why I’m trying to be so direct in calling out the hard math of these issues. There is a LOT of wishful thinking happening here on the topic of housing by a bunch of political science majors who dont know how to quantify things. Our problem is much worse than anyone is admitting, which also means nobody is taking it seriously enough.
Seems like you’re the one who “isn’t listening”, since I never said that UCD isn’t a job center. I said that Davis isn’t one.
You do realize that UCD and Davis are two entirely different entities, right? And that UCD is not even within Davis’ city limits (and is partially located in an entirely different county, as well).
No idea what “problem” you’re trying to solve, but it seems to me that (using your own logic) there isn’t enough housing in Sacramento, not Davis (in regard to outbound commuters). Or maybe on campus.
Also, what makes you think that there wouldn’t be Mello Roos for a dense development, as well?
Truth be told, it’s places like Spring Lake that have been accommodating a lot of families moving to the area. And there’s lots more of it to come – regardless of what Davis does. Including 1,600 additional housing units at the technology park that “moved” from Davis, and will be located adjacent to Highway 113 – an easy, direct commute to UCD.
“ No idea what “problem” you’re trying to solve”
That would seem to be the first step for you – understand what other people want…
Did it ever occur to some of you that maybe you also need to understand what other people want?
Did it ever occur to you how many times Ron has admitted not knowing something or understanding something and then proceeds to continue. We could all do a better job frankly of understanding each other, but the shear volume that comes from ROn should be a flag for you.
David: The “sheer volume” that comes from me pales in comparison to the “sheer volume” coming from you.
As far as what Tim “wants”, I believe it is partly driven by self-interest.
As far as what “you” want, I don’t know what underlies it. You have a nice, subsidized place to live yourself.
As far as what “I” want, it’s an end (or significant curtailing) of urban sprawl – which is not happening so far despite the leveling-off of the population.
Another thing I “don’t want” is density for the sake of density – it’s a quality of life issue. (Though I’m in a spot where I don’t think that will impact me personally, that much. So “density” is something I don’t want for others, in this case.) No one thrown under the bus, so to speak.
But yeah, the reason I state that I have “no idea” what problem Tim and you are trying to solve is because your arguments don’t match your stated goal.
That’s why I said that (given Tim and your concerns), you apparently should be arguing for more housing in Sacramento (for example) to accommodate Davis residents who work there.
So it’s not that I “don’t understand” – it’s that your arguments don’t make any sense. Which causes me to conclude that your arguments are not what you’re actually concerned about. But that you’re (also) afraid that your actual reasons won’t have any appeal to anyone.
“I never said that UCD isn’t a job center. I said that Davis isn’t one.”
Oh, there are NO jobs in Davis? Really? Even if it isnt a “large” jobs center, this response ( deliberately) misses the entire point, which is that the jobs we DO have in the service economy are filled by people who are priced out of our community. Thats a problem economically, ethically, environmentally etc. There is no getting around it in an intellectually honest way.
—–
You do realize that UCD and Davis are two entirely different entities, right? And that UCD is not even within Davis’ city limits (and is partially located in an entirely different county, as well).”
Speaking of intellectual honesty.. what do we call this.. a non sequiteur? A “distinction without difference? Im SO TIRED of this vapid argument.
—–
“it seems to me that (using your own logic) there isn’t enough housing in Sacramento, not Davis.”
Open your mind to the concept of “yes / AND”. ? Davis needs locally affordable housing for its workforce. Sacramento needs the same.
——
“Also, what makes you think that there wouldn’t be Mello Roos for a dense development, as well?”
Denser (especially mixed use) developments are net positive economically and tend to create significant revenue for the city. This makes the issue of mello-roos “mello-moot” for this kind of housing becaue it does, in fact, more than pay for itself. That is the entire point.
Tim – there is a group of people who do not seem to recognize that Davis/ UC Davis are part of the same ecosystem. And while it true they are autonomous in terms of governance, the reality is that there is no effective physical separation. Moreover, the largest employer of Davis residents is UC Davis and Davis is by far the largest home to UC Davis employees. Attempting to argue that they should not be treated as conjoined leads to weird outcomes.
Tim says: “Even if it isnt a “large” jobs center, this response ( deliberately) misses the entire point, which is that the jobs we DO have in the service economy are filled by people who are priced out of our community. Thats a problem economically, ethically, environmentally etc. There is no getting around it in an intellectually honest way.”
Those type of “flunkie” jobs are often filled by students, living in student housing. Those jobs are not a career, and they’re not sufficient to pay for housing anywhere (unless someone has a partner who also works). Nor are they going to be able to afford your “dense city” outside of the actual city. (I’ve worked in plenty of flunkie jobs myself, when I was younger.)
Tim says: “Speaking of intellectual honesty.. what do we call this.. a non sequiteur? A “distinction without difference? Im SO TIRED of this vapid argument.”
Is that right? Didn’t you just acknowledge that Davis itself is not a job center (except for “flunkie jobs”?) In any case, let us know when UCD starts consulting the city regarding its plans. (Also, let us know when UCD intends to follow-through on its plan to house its own workers – if that’s even needed at this point.)
Tim says: “Open your mind to the concept of “yes / AND”. ? Davis needs locally affordable housing for its workforce. Sacramento needs the same.”
And yet, the argument is that Davis residents seek work in places like Sacramento due to its “high pay” (compared to Davis).
But if you’re stating that a lot of workers (including in Sacramento) are “low-paid”, isn’t that a salary problem, more than a housing problem? Especially since Sacramento is one of the cheapest, most builder-friendly, sprawling hell-holes in the entire state? Did you see the other article today regarding Natomas?
This is also the problem with trying to build “cheap” housing in Davis. Other nearby communities will ALWAYS be cheaper than Davis. And since you’re referring to those with “flunkie jobs” (who in your mind aren’t students working at those jobs before they start their actual careers), that’s where those workers will live – in “flunkie towns”. :-)
Tim says: “Denser (especially mixed use) developments are net positive economically and tend to create significant revenue for the city. This makes the issue of mello-roos “mello-moot” for this kind of housing becaue it does, in fact, more than pay for itself. That is the entire point.”
I’d file this claim under “factually incorrect”.
““flunkie” jobs”
Charming.
Indeed. By the way, “flunkie town” is not to be confused with “funky town”. (Two different places.)
But “flunkie jobs” are only “flunkie” if someone tries to make a career out of them (and have no other support). They’re not really designed to function that way. That’s why I’m not working in a sandwich shop more than 45 years after the fact.
That’s why, for example, a job at a retail plant nursery is usually not a “flunkie” job. Those kind of jobs are great for students, retirees who like plants, etc. Or maybe someone looking to start their own retail nursery.
But if Sacramento isn’t already “cheap enough” for someone, it seems to me that the problem isn’t housing costs.
David says: “Tim – there is a group of people who do not seem to recognize that Davis/ UC Davis are part of the same ecosystem. And while it true they are autonomous in terms of governance, the reality is that there is no effective physical separation.”
There are lots of Davis residents working in state government, for example, who have no connection to UCD.
I never had any direct connection to UCD, myself. (I had an indirect one at first.)
To me, Davis was/is a semi-pleasant suburb of Sacramento. To some degree, I view UCD itself as “belonging” to the SACRAMENTO region – not the “Davis” region. (In fact, there’s no such thing as the “Davis region” outside of Davis – other than “North, North Davis”.
Perhaps that’s also the reason that UCD has a growing presence in Sacramento.
Hate to break it to folks on here, but Sacramento is the primary city in the region (not Davis). And outsiders view them as pretty much “one-and-the-same” in the first place, along with Elk Grove, Roseville, Folsom, etc.
Ron, none of your response is responsive to what I said.
“flunkie jobs”. Really???
What a disgusting, dismissive, inhuman response.
It’s hard to read your comment without feeling sadness and bewilderment that this is the way you regard other human beings. You are referring to the people who clean, cook, serve, repair, drive, and otherwise make our cities function. You dismissal of them as as “flunkies” reveals a level of arrogance and cruelty I wasn’t aware you were capable of.
Every one of us depends DAILY on the labor of people working these so-called “flunkie jobs.” They keep the lights on, the food coming, our streets clean, and our buildings safe. You dismiss them stating that they do not deserve a place in the community they serve, denying their dignity and ignoring the very real fact that our city wouldn’t function without them.
What a sad, and cruel sentiment. Is that really who you are?