DAVIS, Calif. — Over the past 17 years, the City of Davis has issued building permits for just 805 single-family homes, a figure that underscores the limited pace of traditional housing construction in the city and raises new questions about whether Davis is producing enough housing to meet long-term demand.
The figure comes from the city’s Housing Element Annual Progress Report for calendar year 2025, which was prepared for the Davis City Council and must be submitted annually to the state’s housing agencies under California law.
According to the report, Davis issued permits for a total of 2,818 residential units between 2009 and 2025. Of those units, 805 were single-family detached or attached homes, representing 28.6 percent of all housing produced during that period.
Multi-family rental housing accounted for the largest share of new units over the same time period, totaling 1,596 units, or 56.6 percent of all housing produced. Accessory dwelling units, commonly known as ADUs, accounted for 262 units, while multi-family ownership housing such as condominiums totaled 155 units.
City policy has long sought a different balance. A housing resolution adopted by the City Council established general targets for the mix of housing types, with a goal that 40 to 60 percent of new housing consist of single-family homes, 10 to 25 percent consist of multi-family ownership housing, and 30 to 40 percent consist of rental housing.
Actual production over the past 17 years has diverged significantly from those targets. Single-family housing has remained well below the lower end of the city’s target range, while multi-family ownership housing has also remained below policy goals. At the same time, rental housing, including apartments and ADUs, has exceeded the target share.
The report shows that housing production slowed considerably in 2025 compared with recent years. Building permits were issued for 75 residential units during the year, a significant drop from 151 units permitted in 2024 and 384 units permitted in 2023.
Of the 75 units permitted in 2025, 31 were single-family homes, 42 were accessory dwelling units, and two were multi-family rental units added to an existing mixed-use building. No multi-family ownership units were permitted during the year.
The report notes that the single-family permits issued in 2025 were largely associated with construction within the Bretton Woods and Chiles Ranch subdivisions. The accessory dwelling units were primarily located on existing residential lots across the city.
The city also reported that the number of ADU permits has steadily increased in recent years. Permits were issued for 20 ADUs in 2021, 17 in 2022, 23 in 2023, 39 in 2024, and 42 in 2025.
While ADUs now account for a growing share of housing permits, the report states that the affordability of these units remains uncertain. During the Housing Element update process, city staff determined that many ADUs constructed in recent years were rented at higher prices than previously assumed, leading the city to implement a periodic study to better determine how ADUs should be counted toward housing affordability requirements.
Affordable housing production remained limited in 2025. Of the 75 housing units permitted during the year, only two units were deed-restricted affordable housing units. Those units consisted of a single-family home and an attached ADU developed on a site that had previously been owned by the Yolo County Housing Authority.
The report also examines Davis’ progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, the state-mandated housing targets assigned to cities across California.
Under the current housing cycle, which runs from 2021 through 2029, Davis must plan for a total of 2,075 housing units across multiple income categories. Those targets include 290 extremely low-income units, 290 very low-income units, 350 low-income units, 340 moderate-income units, and 805 above-moderate-income units.
As of the end of 2025, the city had issued permits for 963 units during the current RHNA cycle. However, most of those units fall into the moderate- and above-moderate-income categories.
According to the report, the city still needs to permit hundreds of additional units in the lower-income categories in order to meet its state housing obligations. Specifically, the city must permit an additional 262 extremely low-income units, 290 very low-income units, and 348 low-income units before the end of the current housing cycle in 2029.
The report indicates that Davis has identified sites that are appropriately zoned to accommodate the full RHNA allocation, but actual construction depends on whether projects move forward through the development and financing process.
City officials note that several large housing projects remain in various stages of approval and construction.
Among the projects currently pending entitlement approval are The Nest Apartments, a proposed 148-unit development; the Promenade project at Nishi, proposed to include 700 units; the Willowgrove project, proposed to include 1,250 units; and the Village Farms project, proposed to include 1,800 units.
Together, those projects account for nearly 3,900 potential housing units.
Additional housing projects have already received entitlements but have not yet begun construction. Those projects include developments such as the Leonardo project on Da Vinci Court, the Palomino Place subdivision, and several downtown mixed-use projects, among others. In total, these entitled projects represent approximately 1,285 housing units that have been approved but have not yet been built.
The report also identifies projects that are currently under construction, including the Bretton Woods subdivision and the Bretton Woods University Retirement Center.
The city notes that construction timelines for larger apartment developments can be unpredictable because of financing conditions, labor availability, and construction costs. Projects often come online in large increments when entire developments are completed at once.
The report states that housing production during the early years of the current housing cycle has been affected by high interest rates, increased construction costs, and an uncertain labor pool, factors that have slowed the pace at which some projects have moved forward.
Despite those challenges, the city reports that it has continued to implement policies intended to facilitate housing development, including rezoning sites to accommodate lower-income housing, updating development standards for accessory dwelling units, adopting a Downtown Davis Specific Plan, and updating the city’s affordable housing ordinance.
The Downtown Davis Specific Plan, approved in December 2022, envisions up to 1,000 new residential units within the downtown area through the year 2040, including housing integrated with commercial development and expanded public spaces.
City staff also reported that the General Plan update process began in 2024 and continued through 2025 with community workshops, background studies, and public engagement efforts intended to help shape the city’s long-term development framework.
Overall, the report describes a housing landscape in which new construction has occurred in uneven cycles, with periods of higher production driven by large multi-family projects and other periods marked by slower activity.
Over the longer term, however, the data in the report show that Davis has added relatively few single-family homes compared with the overall number of housing units constructed in the city since 2009.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To 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.
In 17 years total production of 2818 of housing units with 27,805 total units in the city is an annualized growth rate of .6% well under the city’s 1% growth rate target.
Single family detached home construction of 805 homes over the same period works out to .4% annualized growth rate of the 12,018 single family homes.
Of the total number of homes in Davis 27,805, the 805 single family homes works out to .17%.
Winters has grown at a 1.4% annualized rate since year 2000.
For comparison Davis has grown at an annual rate of .8% since the year 2000.
Since the year 2000, Woodland has grown its housing stock at almost .8% annualized.
For Dixon the growth rate has been about 1.5% annualized since the year 2000.
West Sac has grown at an annualized rate of 2.6% since the year 2000.
The 805 figure represents both detached and attached single family homes.
“well under the city’s 1% growth rate target”
The 1% is not a growth rate target but a growth rate cap.
The 1 % city cap was adopted because the state had a 1% minimum growth rate requirement. The cap was set to meet the minimum. But the city has not complied with the state mandate and certainly with a 17 year rate of .17% we have been drastically under producing single family homes and out of compliance for well over a decade with a .6% overall housing production rate.
Additionally .17/.6 means that in the last 17 years only 28.3% of our new housing were single family residences. So for you who decry single family housing I ask is building 1/4 of our houses as SFR’s too much?
Ron, not a requirement.
”Residential Growth Caps: Some local governments in California (e.g., Davis) have used a 1% annual residential growth rate target or cap. Some officials have interpreted this as a local response to state-level housing pressures, though this is often not a strict, universal state-mandated minimum.”
Also… from the internet … “As of early 2026, the city of Davis, CA, has approximately 27,805 total housing units, with an, overall growth rate of 0.8% since 2000.”
Ron Glick said earlier: “For comparison Davis has grown at an annual rate of .8% since the year 2000.”
Perhaps someone can take a deeper dive into the 1% cap. Its been many years since it was adopted and apparently people have different recollections.
“The City shall strive to maintain an average annual rate of residential growth of approximately one percent of the existing housing stock.”
1% was never a “goal”, and the state itself hasn’t been growing at that rate for years (much to the chagrin of the YIMBYs, the business interests which back them, and their politician friends).
If Davis had been growing at 1%, it would have vastly EXCEEDED the state’s growth rate at this point.
1.6 kids (nationwide). Good luck with that, growth monkeys. :-)
At this point, the “best” you can hope for is poaching people from other places – like the school district does.
AI Overview
Based on local records and historical accounts of Davis, California, the city has a long history of slow-growth policies rather than a single, city-wide 1% growth cap adopted solely in 2006.
1% Growth Policy Context: References to a “1% growth policy” or “1% city cap” exist, often described as a growth rate cap intended to manage residential development
In fact David wrote this in an article:
“Let us use the city of Davis as a baseline. The city of Davis is considered a slow growth community. We have a growth cap of 1 percent per year.”
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/07/view-assessing-uc-davis-impact-community/
“Just” 805.
The Cannery itself was a massive addition to the city.
“whether Davis is producing enough housing to meet long-term demand.”
There is no way to measure that, since there’s too many variables. Also, demand itself is impacted by price. As prices rise, demand falls – that’s how it works. And that’s the reason that there’d be no “demand” for an overpriced house.
As supply is constrained, prices rise. That’s what’s happening in Davis. Demand has always been high and over the last 20 years has exceeded supply. And there’s good ways to measure these effects. Professional economists such as myself have been doing this for decades.
One “problem” with such a simple statement is that local “supply” isn’t limited to Davis. The Davis housing market “competes” with Spring Lake in particular. And unless you have some way to make housing prices “the same” everywhere, those with less money are going to primarily focus on Woodland (or pre-existing houses in Davis – which are actually the best deal).
I have a master’s degree in accounting, and a master’s degree in MIS – and am perfectly able to understand economic theory myself. I don’t need you to tell me that you’re a “professional” (as if I can’t understand economic theory).
Again, demand itself is reduced when prices are higher than what the market will support.
You seem to be stating that prices “should be” the same everywhere. That has never, ever occurred (even WITHIN a given city – including Davis).
Interesting article, which prompts a lot of questions:
“A housing resolution adopted by the City Council established general targets for the mix of housing types”
Question 1 — When was that resolution enacted?
“As of the end of 2025, the city had issued permits for 963 units during the current RHNA cycle. However, most of those units fall into the moderate- and above-moderate-income categories.”
Question 2 — Don’t jump around in your data. Specifically, of the 963 only 114 were single-family homes. Of those 114 what were the numbers of moderate- and above-moderate-income category homes?
“The report indicates that Davis has identified sites that are appropriately zoned to accommodate the full RHNA allocation, but actual construction depends on whether projects move forward through the development and financing process.”
Question 3 — Aren’t the realities of actual construction volume out of the control of both the City and the State?
“The City notes that construction timelines for larger apartment developments can be unpredictable because of financing conditions, labor availability, and construction costs.”
Question 4 — What is the State doing about reducing the unpedictability of these very real market forces?
“Despite those challenges, the city reports that it has continued to implement policies intended to facilitate housing development.”
Observation 1 and Questions 5 and 6 — When a developer considers making housing more affordable by splitting large lots in half and building two smaller houses on the smaller lots rather than one house on the larger lot, the City doubles the entitlement costs (reported to be approximately $60,000 per lot) because its policy is to charge entitlements by the lot. Isn’t that City policy a clear disincentive to producing affordable housing? When is the City Council going to fix that policy and remove that disincentive?
Observations 2 and 3 and Questions 7 and 8 — Nowhere in this article do you discuss how many jobs were added to Davis at the same time that 2,818 housing units were added to the city. US Census reports show that 2,333 jobs were added during that same period … so more housing added than jobs added. Of the 2,333, almost half of them (1,049) were support service jobs added when Sutter Davis expanded its facility. Another 744 were in the Educational Services sector … teachers and support staff at DJUSD primarily. Another 250 were support services jobs in the new hotels. Almost all of those jobs are moderately paid … so moderately paid that affording to purchase one of the 805 new SFRs is a pipe dream. So, here’s the $64,000 question … given the reality of the jobs increases, is the addition of 805 in line with the internal Davis resident demand for housing? And, were the 805 houses intended to be unaffordable for the majority of the Davis workforce?
Matt
On the jobs, we have 17,000 workers who commute into Davis, many (most?) of whom would prefer to live in town. The demand for interdistrict school transfers supports this premise. So we need to be building beyond just the addition of jobs–we need to serve also those coming to town.
I don’t disagree with you Richard. We clearly need affordably priced market rate homes. My point to David was/is that in all likelihood none of the 114 SFRs recorded in this RHNA cycle qualify as affordable for the vast majority of your 17,000 inbound commuters, some of which aren’t coming to jobs in the City Limits, but rather to jobs on the UCD campus.
Bottom-line, developers have shirked their responsibility to build affordable SFRs. And the Village Farms proposal is more of the same. There is absolutely no SFR affordability commitment by the developers in the Baseline Features portion of the ballot. In fact there is minimal firm commitment by the developer for the 100% income-restricted apartments in the Baseline Features. Village Farms is highly unlikely to cause any reduction in your 17,000.
When the megadorms in the city were approved, one of the “justifications” was that it would free-up housing that the students were currently living in. Or, that “young professionals” would live in the megadorms themselves (which of course, no one believed).
Most households probably consist of more than one worker (more than one income), but they don’t usually work at the same location as each other.
In any case, here’s the pricing for new housing in Davis (with no yards and no street parking that I’ve seen):
$825,600, detached, 1472 square feet.
https://www.centurycommunities.com/find-your-new-home/california/northern-california-metro/davis/harvest-glen/?utm_source=google_local&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=harvest-glen_gmb_ccs&utm_content=california
$795,000, attached, 1,724 – 1,760 square feet (with a long/nightmarish shared driveway). (Also, good luck trying to make a left turn out of that driveway onto Pole Line Road. Hopefully, without trapping their own neighbors behind them – who only need to make a right turn.)
https://foutshomes.com/pole-line-terrace/pole-line-terrace-site-and-floor-plans/
From Davis Wiki:
Measure L was a 1986 Davis ballot initiative sponsored by Citizens for the General Plan. A “yes” vote meant that the voter wanted the city to slow its growth as much as possible. Measure L was a non-binding “advisory” initiative designed to symbolically solidify the general will of the Davis populace. The measure passed on June 3 with about 56% voter support.
According to Mike Fitch in his book Growing Pains, Measure L contained three guiding principles:
• Davis should grow as slowly as it legally could;
• Future growth should be concentrated on lands already within the city limits and additional annexations should be discouraged; and
• The county should not approve development on the periphery of Davis unless the city gives its stamp of approval by ruling it consistent with the Davis General Plan. Measure L included several findings, including the beliefs that “the prime agricultural land surrounding Davis is a resource of local, state and national importance” and “the growth of Davis is an issue best determined by Davis citizens without outside pressure or influence.”
Here is some context provided in the current General Plan:
1973 General Plan adopted with an anticipated population of 50,000 by the year 1990.
June 1982 General Plan text amended to reflect revised goal of 50,000 in the year 2000.
February 1984 General Plan adopted, anticipating a population of 50,000 in the urban area by the year 2000.
June 1986 City of Davis voters approve Measure L, an advisory measure to “grow as slow as legally possible.”
June 1987 South Davis Specific Plan approved, allowing 1,800 residential units.
November 1986 Pass-through agreement among City, Redevelopment Agency, and Yolo County. Agreement requires Agency to pass through a portion of its property tax revenues to Yolo County. The Agency may stop payments if the County approves urban development within the City’s planning area, but only if the City maintains an average population growth rate of 1.78 percent per year.
December 1987 General Plan adopted, accommodating a population of 75,000 in the Davis Planning Area by 2010 and 27,390 total units within the City of Davis, for an approximate city population of 65,500.
February 1989 South Davis Specific Plan amended to be consistent with the General Plan, including a reduction to 1,510 residential units.
1989-1994 Several Development Agreements approved, including Mace Ranch, Woodbridge, Evergreen, and Wildhorse.
May 1995 Voters ratify the Wildhorse Development Agreement.
May 2001 Council adopts General Plan Update, reducing potential urban growth sites on the periphery and focusing growth inward to accommodate population increases and housing needs.