DAVIS, Calif. — As the City of Davis moves forward with its long-awaited General Plan Update, city staff are urging elected officials to adopt a land use strategy that not only accommodates future housing demand but also addresses declining school enrollment, greenhouse gas emissions, fiscal sustainability and the realities of today’s construction market.
A staff report scheduled for discussion at the July 7 City Council meeting outlines the major policy questions shaping the Davis 2050 General Plan Update and signals that the city may need to plan for significantly more housing than previous growth projections alone would suggest.
The General Plan, first adopted in 2001, serves as the city’s blueprint for growth over the next two decades and beyond. City staff describe the current update as a comprehensive effort that will guide development while balancing housing, economic development, infrastructure, climate goals and quality of life.
According to the report, “The GPU will be a comprehensive update to the General Plan, which will serve as the City’s blueprint for future development in the city and will contain goals, policies, and implementation activities to guide the community through the next 20+ years. It builds on community strengths and assets, while tackling new and emerging challenges.”
Staff recommend that the City Council receive an update on the planning process, which has included more than a year of public engagement involving residents, commissions, community workshops, surveys and stakeholder meetings. A preferred land use map is expected to be presented later this year, followed by development of the General Plan’s policy elements in 2027.
At the heart of the discussion is the city’s future growth strategy.
The report notes that land use decisions remain “the most foundational” element of any general plan because they determine where housing, businesses, public facilities and open space will be located.
Quoting the California General Plan Guidelines, the report states, “The most fundamental decisions in planning begin with land use: what to put where?” It continues, “At its best, the land use element will reflect the community’s vision, promote thoughtful, equitable and accessible distribution of different land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial agricultural and open space and align well with other general plan elements.”
The report argues that Davis’ existing General Plan reflects priorities established decades ago, including maintaining slow growth and limiting buildout to fewer than 64,000 residents.
According to staff, the 2001 plan “contains policies focusing limited investment in Downtown, neighborhood centers and multifamily areas along arterials,” but also includes policies “about preservation of the ‘small, university oriented’ community.”
The report further notes that Policy LU 1.1 encouraged the city to work with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments “to ensure that, ‘the fair share numbers issued for RHNA reflect the City’s desire for slow growth’,” while also seeking “to maintain buildout under 64,000 residents.”
Staff suggest those assumptions no longer reflect the city’s present circumstances or state housing obligations.
One of the central questions before the city is how much housing should actually be planned.
The report reviews three major sources used to estimate future housing demand: projections from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), California Department of Finance population forecasts and future Regional Housing Needs Allocations from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
According to the report, SACOG expects Davis “to grow less rapidly than either Yolo County as a whole or Sacramento County” and projects the city will add approximately 4,300 housing units and 2,200 jobs by 2050.
The Department of Finance, however, paints a different picture.
Staff write that DOF projections are “less policy-driven and more market-driven than SACOG” and estimate Yolo County’s population will grow by more than 50 percent between 2020 and 2050.
The report concludes, “The DOF projections suggest that Yolo County’s potential long-term growth may be more robust than indicated by the SACOG projections. By extension, Davis’ underlying demand for residential growth may also be more robust than indicated by the SACOG projections.”
The city’s obligations under state housing law represent perhaps the strongest argument for planning additional housing.
The report explains that HCD determines regional housing needs while SACOG distributes those requirements among jurisdictions.
The report states, “Housing Element law requires local governments to be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs reflected by the RHNA can be accommodated.”
It adds, “While land use planning is fundamentally a local issue, the availability of housing is a matter of statewide importance.”
Looking ahead, staff anticipate future housing allocations will continue increasing.
The report notes that Davis received an allocation of 2,075 housing units during the current Housing Element cycle, roughly double previous allocations.
Because future RHNA numbers are expected to grow, staff recommend that the city prepare now.
According to the report, “Early indicators from SACOG are that the RHNA numbers will increase.”
Staff therefore recommend planning “for a minimum of what was assigned in 2021 for each of the cycles.”
The report continues, “Staff recommends that the city plan for a minimum of 6,225 additional units beyond the previously assigned 6th Cycle RHNA’s 2,075 units.”
Staff note that recommendation could be reduced to 4,150 units if the City Council chooses not to plan for the third Housing Element cycle covered by the General Plan.
The report also acknowledges that planning for housing does not necessarily mean the housing will actually be built.
Construction costs remain one of the greatest uncertainties facing future development.
Staff write, “Residential development feasibility, in particular multifamily feasibility, is currently impacted by high construction and financing costs, making it difficult to achieve competitive financial returns and get projects started.”
The report notes that labor costs, building materials and financing expenses have risen dramatically while rents have not increased enough to offset those costs.
Although higher allowable densities improve financial feasibility, they are not a guarantee.
According to the report, “Increasing allowable height and density increases the theoretical development potential of a site, but it does not guarantee that housing will be built.”
The report points to the Downtown Specific Plan as an example.
Although buildings up to seven stories are permitted, “the City has not seen applications for more than five stories.”
Similarly, “UC Davis stayed at five stories or less with their new construction.”
Another major issue raised in the report concerns the future of the Davis Joint Unified School District.
Declining enrollment has become one of the community’s most pressing concerns, and staff recognize that housing policy may influence whether enrollment stabilizes.
According to the report, “The school district needs approximately 8,600 students (district wide) to operate efficiently.”
Instead, “the total student yield for Davis is closer to 6,000 students and continues to decline.”
The report attributes the decline to an aging population, lower birth rates and rising housing costs that make it difficult for younger families to remain in Davis.
Staff suggest that expanding housing opportunities could increase enrollment but acknowledge that different housing types produce very different numbers of students.
According to the report, a new single-family home generates approximately 0.44 students, while townhomes average 0.12 students and multifamily apartments only about 0.05 students per unit.
Climate policy also plays a significant role in the General Plan Update.
Transportation remains the city’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and staff argue that land use decisions can reduce driving by locating housing, employment and services closer together.
The report states, “Placing different land uses in close proximity to one another has been shown in recent environmental impact reports as an important way to reduce VMT.”
Staff also note that Davis has historically prohibited certain commercial uses, forcing residents to drive elsewhere.
“The result has been the loss of employment, shopping and services to surrounding cities, loss of retail sales and causing an increase in VMT as people drive to those locations.”
According to the report, “Designing a land use plan with the flexibility to accommodate those uses can lower VMT in the community.”
Beyond housing and transportation, the report discusses floodplain constraints, utility capacity and infrastructure financing.
Staff note that portions of land surrounding Davis lie within flood-prone areas, requiring careful planning before development occurs. They also state that additional technical studies will determine whether water, sewer and treatment systems can support future growth and what improvements may be necessary.
The report also emphasizes the importance of fiscal sustainability.
According to staff, different land uses generate different fiscal outcomes.
“Lodging, restaurant, retail and office uses typically generate significantly more revenue than they do expenses,” while residential development is “more often a fiscal wash.”
The report concludes that planning for both housing and employment opportunities will improve the city’s long-term financial outlook.
“To help plan for a fiscally sustainable future, the City may plan for enough housing units to handle the estimated need, while also encouraging enough non-residential land uses.”
The report adds, “While it is impossible to know exactly what those numbers would be, planning for a balanced future is good planning.”
Staff conclude that the General Plan Update must balance ambitious community goals with practical implementation.
According to the report, “The factors that staff outlines in this report all have to be taken into consideration concurrently to develop a plan that is realistic, while still meeting the community’s goals and objectives.”
The report concludes, “Providing enough land for housing to meet the City’s future housing needs while simultaneously providing land use opportunities for job growth over the next 20-30 years will have to happen both within and outside of the current city limits.”
Staff expect to return with a preferred land use plan for City Council consideration later this fall.
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.
