DAVIS, Calif. — A new community survey conducted as part of the Davis 2050 General Plan Update suggests that many engaged Davis residents are more open to increased housing density, mixed-use development and carefully planned growth than has often characterized the city’s land-use debates, while continuing to emphasize preservation of neighborhood character, agricultural land and open space.
The findings do not represent a scientific poll of Davis residents. The City of Davis notes that the survey was conducted online as an opt-in questionnaire, meaning participants self-selected to respond. Still, with more than 200 participants weighing in on a wide range of planning questions, the survey offers an important snapshot of the priorities of residents actively engaged in shaping the city’s next General Plan.
Conducted between April 30 and May 28, the survey asked participants to evaluate three conceptual land-use scenarios addressing downtown development, housing, employment, neighborhood centers, transit corridors and potential future growth outside current city limits. A total of 216 responses were received, with city staff emphasizing that the results should be viewed as insight into community perspectives rather than statistically representative findings.
Perhaps the clearest message throughout the survey is that respondents consistently preferred integrated, mixed-use communities over traditional single-purpose development.
When asked what kinds of development should be prioritized along neighborhood centers and transit corridors such as Fifth Street, nearly three-quarters of respondents—74 percent—selected mixed-use projects combining housing, jobs, retail and services. Only 10 percent preferred housing alone, 5 percent selected jobs alone and just 2 percent favored retail by itself.
The pattern repeated throughout nearly every major land-use question.
Asked how neighborhood shopping centers should redevelop if they are rebuilt, 54 percent favored projects combining housing, jobs and open space, while another 27 percent preferred housing and jobs together. Very few respondents supported redevelopment devoted exclusively to housing or employment.
The survey also found broad support for increasing housing opportunities throughout Davis.
Rather than concentrating additional housing in only a handful of neighborhoods, respondents most frequently supported modest increases across the city. Thirty-five percent favored allowing modest housing increases throughout existing residential neighborhoods, compared with just 15 percent who preferred concentrating growth in a select few areas. Only 5 percent supported maintaining the existing General Plan without changes.
Open-ended responses suggested many residents view Davis’ housing shortage as requiring multiple strategies simultaneously, including infill development, redevelopment of existing sites, transit-oriented housing, faith-based properties, school sites and, in some cases, carefully planned annexation.
The survey likewise suggests Davis residents may be more comfortable with taller buildings than previous political debates have sometimes implied.
For neighborhood centers, four-story buildings received the strongest support, with 63 percent selecting that option. Support gradually declined as height increased, although 43 percent also indicated support for five- to six-story buildings and one-quarter said seven- to eight-story buildings could be appropriate in some locations.
Support for additional height increased noticeably along transit corridors.
Fifty-three percent supported five- to six-story buildings along major corridors, while 38 percent accepted seven- to eight-story structures, indicating respondents viewed transit corridors as more appropriate locations for higher-density housing than traditional residential neighborhoods.
Downtown redevelopment also received considerable support.
Asked how to make Downtown Davis more vibrant, respondents most frequently selected a combination of expanding downtown boundaries while simultaneously allowing greater building heights and densities within downtown. Forty-seven percent chose both approaches, while another 39 percent supported increasing allowable heights and densities within the existing downtown footprint.
Only 5 percent favored leaving the Downtown Specific Plan unchanged.
Open-ended comments reflected both enthusiasm and caution. Many respondents supported additional housing and mixed-use development downtown while simultaneously expressing concerns about parking availability, vacant storefronts, cleanliness and preserving the community character that distinguishes downtown Davis.
Housing production also appeared to outweigh concerns about preserving mandatory commercial space in some redevelopment areas.
Forty-five percent of respondents said housing projects along transit corridors and neighborhood centers should be allowed to proceed without required commercial space if doing so makes housing financially feasible. Thirty-five percent preferred retaining both housing and commercial uses, suggesting many respondents favor flexibility while still valuing neighborhood-serving retail where appropriate.
The survey also explored future employment opportunities.
Respondents expressed the strongest support for retail and services, office space for small businesses, research and development facilities and health care uses. Rather than favoring large office parks or industrial development, many respondents emphasized locally owned businesses, innovation, arts, entertainment and community-oriented commercial activity.
Research and development, particularly businesses connected to UC Davis, emerged repeatedly in both the multiple-choice responses and open-ended comments.
Participants also indicated broad support for intensifying existing employment areas before relying on outward expansion. Nearly half favored increasing allowable intensity across all existing job locations, while about one-third also supported annexing new employment areas outside city limits if necessary.
Several respondents requested clearer explanations of technical planning terminology, noting that concepts such as floor-area ratio were unfamiliar to many residents.
Although Davis has historically been divided over peripheral development, the survey suggests respondents did not reject future growth outside city limits outright.
Instead, they emphasized how such development should occur if it ultimately becomes necessary.
When asked what future development outside city limits should include, respondents overwhelmingly preferred complete communities rather than isolated housing tracts or employment centers. Forty-six percent selected mixed communities including housing, jobs and community amenities. Twenty percent favored agricultural and habitat preservation, while only 2 percent preferred housing alone and another 2 percent selected jobs alone.
Similarly, respondents strongly favored thoughtful design principles if new neighborhoods are eventually constructed beyond current city boundaries.
The highest priorities included a variety of housing types, multimodal transportation infrastructure, street trees, walkable blocks and neighborhood-serving amenities. Many respondents also emphasized connected greenbelts, bike infrastructure, affordable housing, climate-responsive design and preserving agricultural buffers.
Housing preferences outside city limits similarly reflected a desire for diversity rather than conventional suburban development.
The most popular choices included missing-middle housing such as duplexes and townhomes, affordable housing for teachers, seniors and lower-income residents, mixed-use housing and multifamily apartments. Traditional single-family housing ranked considerably lower.
The survey also examined public attitudes toward growth management.
Respondents generally supported establishing an urban limit line to guide future growth, with nearly two-thirds agreeing or strongly agreeing with the concept. However, support became noticeably more mixed when participants evaluated the specific proposed urban limit line map.
While only about one in 10 respondents expressed outright opposition, many selected neutral or “other,” often explaining that they lacked sufficient information or could not clearly interpret the proposed map before offering an opinion.
Numerous comments requested additional public education before final decisions are made.
The demographic information accompanying the survey indicates that 91 percent of respondents live in Davis. Homeowners represented nearly two-thirds of participants, renters comprised approximately one-third, and residents age 65 or older formed the largest age group at 25 percent.
City staff emphasize that because participation was voluntary, the demographic composition of respondents should not be interpreted as reflecting the overall Davis population.
Taken together, the survey suggests that among residents actively participating in the General Plan process, there is growing acceptance of higher-density housing, mixed-use neighborhoods and transit-oriented development, provided those changes occur within a framework that maintains Davis’ environmental values, neighborhood character and commitment to thoughtful planning.
Rather than choosing between growth and preservation, respondents repeatedly favored strategies that integrate housing, employment, transportation, parks, public spaces and environmental protections into complete communities—a direction that may significantly influence the next phase of the Davis 2050 General Plan update.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
