DavisRealEstateGuide.com

As of Sept 6, 2008

CENTRAL DAVIS

Price	DOM	Address & Street	Bd	Ba	Sq. Feet
$387,000	1	817 Anderson Rd	3	2	1,217 PENDING
$425,000	5	623 10th St	3	2	1305 SOLD @ $457,500
$519,000	2	826 Eureka	3	1	1438 SOLD @ $505,000
$459,900	140	435 G St #207	2	2	1171 PENDING
$499,000	60	325 E 8th St #4	3	2	1717 PENDING
$499,900	20	730 J St	3	1	1212 PENDING
$585,000	11	1212 Beech Ln	3	2	2014 PENDING
$599,000	8	519 Reed Dr	4	3	1900 PENDING
$519,000	110	633 Amherst	4	2	2216 PENDING
$599,000	68	1209 Pine Ln	4	2	1619 PENDING
$599,500	88	923 Miller Dr	3	3	1934 PENDING
$649,000	46	1019 Plum Ln	4	2	2968 PENDING
$665,000	35	1012 Fordham Dr	4	3	2184 PENDING
1,250,000	35	40 Parkside Dr	3	3	2754 PENDING
$685,000	41	1107 Maple	4	2	2594 SOLD @ $665,000
$425,000	56	736 B Street	1	1	800 SOLD @ $400,000
$515,000	13	725 Sycamore	4	3	1481 SOLD @ $500,000
$449,000	151	224 I Street	3	2	1680 PENDING

WEST DAVIS

Price	DOM	Address & Street	Bd	Ba	Sq. Feet
$219,000	14	3142 Woods Cir	1	1	865 PENDING
$315,000	21	3314 Victoria Pl	3	2	1192 PENDING
$519,500	22	2766 Eel	4	2	1640 SOLD @ $511,000
$799,000	9	1707 Van Damme Dr	5	3	2816 PENDING
$1,150,000	109	636 Jerome St	4	3	3067 PENDING
$250,000	66	1707 Olympic	2	1	800 PENDING
$385,000	3	3304 Victoria Pl	3	2	1257 PENDING
$419,500	22	2917 Tiber Ave	3	2	1392 PENDING
$599,000	93	1629 El Capitan	3	3	2021 SOLD @ $590,000
$719,000	16	622 Buchanan	4	3	2049 SOLD @ $690,000
$729,000	32	2432 Westernesses	4	2	2376 PENDING
$859,000	8	1736 Portola	4	3	2938 PENDING
$399,000	12	1838 Humboldt	3	2	1243 PENDING
$589,000	38	1843 White Sands	3	3	2013 SOLD @ $555,000
$699,600	52	1515 Magellan	4	3	2497 SOLD @ $670,000
$758,000	3	1911 Glenn	4	3	2457 SOLD @ $775,000
$849,000	61	1429 Yukon	5	3	3176 SOLD @ $810,000
$250,000	4	1707 Olympic	2	1	800 PENDING
$279,500	138	3215 Bermuda	2	2	1104 PENDING
$285,000	17	2417 Oakenshield	1	1	634 PENDING
$859,000	1736	1736 Portola	4	3	2938 PENDING
	7	2424 Bombadil	2	2	1236 SOLD @ $465,000
	1	3409 Breton	4	3	2157 SOLD @ $619,000

EAST DAVIS

Price	DOM	Address & Street	Bd	Ba	Sq.Feet
$296,000	60	720 M St	3	2	1112 PENDING
$299,000	143	1208 Snyder Dr	3	2	1130 PENDING
$350,000	108	610 Lessley Pl	3	2	1112 PENDING
$369,000	30	626 Lessley Pl	3	2	1112 PENDING
$375,000	85	1316 Fig Pl	3	1	1000 PENDING
$460,000	32	847 San Rafael	3	2	1350 PENDING
$475,000	7	3049 Bryant Pl	5	3	1976 PENDING
$519,000	84	2641 Lafayette	3	2	1426 PENDING
$549,000	46	2719 Montefrio	4	2	1733 PENDING
$959,000	6	2020 Arena Dr	5	3	3118 PENDING
$719,000	4	2924 Ponteverde	4	3	2475 SOLD @ $695,000
$345,000	4	1615 Poleline Rd	3	1	1000 PENDING
$375,000	179	1103 Entrada	2	1	1004 PENDING
$365,000	10	952 Cypress	3	2	1350 SOLD @ $375,000
$419,000	14	2719 Rondo Pl	3	2	1245 PENDING
$469,000	140	1201 Valerosa	3	2	1155 SOLD @ $440,000
$944,500	78	3810 Halcon	4	3	3049 PENDING
$325,000	10	2317 E. 8th	2	1	1034 SOLD @ $310,000
$410,000	36	1516 Drexel	3	2	1342 SOLD @ $410,000
$465,000	5	1311 Tulip	4	2	1428 SOLD @ $450,000
$629,000	128	3039 Carmelo	5	3	2461 SOLD @ $615,000
$479,000	72	1032 San Gallo	3	3	1584 SOLD @ $464,500
$539,900	12	4019 Vistosa	4	3	2040 PENDING
$643,900	11	1921 Alicante	4	2	2200 SOLD @ $635,000
$415,000	4	1333 Locust	3	1	1140 PENDING
$421,900	2	1329 Alder	3	2	1298 PENDING
$549,999	27	3736 Alegra	4	3	1775 PENDING
$478,000	104	1308 Locust	3	2	1023 PENDING
$432,000	5	1605 Pacific	3	2	1234 PENDING
$420,000	33	1007 Cabot	4	2	1428 PENDING
	10	2207 E. 8th	2	1	1034 PENDING

SOUTH DAVIS

Price	DOM	Address & Street	Bd	Ba	Sq. Feet
$289,900	13	2454 Halsey Cir	3	1	1100 PENDING
$437,500	48	339 Ensenada Dr	3	3	1505 SOLD @ $399,000
$614,000	33	1638 La Paloma Ct	4	3	1624 PENDING
$709,000	78	3622 Miwok Pl	5	3	2311 PENDING
$345,000	110	3010 Albany Ave	3	2	1062 PENDING
$450,000	7	3436 Laguna	3	3	2023 PENDING
$489,000	6	1010 San Tomas	3	2	1420 SOLD @ $489,000
$1,299,000	265	4516 Redbud	4	3	3732 PENDING
$387,000	27	4626 Cowell	3	3	1332 SOLD @ $365,000
$555,000	71	4325 Vista Way	4	2	2030 SOLD @ $555,000
$626,900	36	4031 Vista Way	5	3	2285 SOLD @ $610,000
$449,000	6	3220 Lillard	4	2	1800 SOLD @ $449,000
$497,000	2	1215 Evans	3	2	1504 SOLD @ $497,000
$569,000	10	4042 El Macero	3	2	1641 SOLD @ $564,000
$659,000	5	44151 S El Macero	4	3	2216 SOLD @ $659,000
$1,350,000	28	2514 Regatta	5	4	4094 SOLD @ $1,275,000
$407,500	154	327 Ensenada	3	3	1505 PENDING
$475,000	6	2718 Concord	3	2	1453 PENDING
$539,000	4	859 Donovan	3	2	1504 PENDING
$799,000	147	44590 S. El Macero	4	2	2594 PENDING
$879,000	68	4010 Pomo	4	3	2955 PENDING
$948,000	148	44579 N. El Macero	4	3	3161 PENDING
$1,150,000	122	27336 Par Cir.	3	2	3481 PENDING
$2,479,000	543	44164 Country Club	5	5	5424 PENDING
	58	5010 Glide Dr.	3	3	1285 SOLD @ $335,000
	83	4043 Vista Way	3	2	1641 SOLD @ $554,000

NORTH DAVIS

Price	DOM	Address & Street	Bd	Ba	Sq Feet
$229,000	28	909 Alvarado Ave #8	1	1	542 SOLD @ $260,000
$285,000	22	2123 Bella Casa	2	2	1120 PENDING
$330,000	7	2049 Alta Loma	3	2	1200 PENDING
$839,000	30	2406 Rodin Pl	4	3	3054 PENDING
$215,000	140	2830 Bidwell #1	2	1	800 PENDING
$674,500	12	538 Isla Pl	4	2	2025 PENDING
$204,900	129	1724 Fremont Ct	2	1	800 PENDING
$699,000	1	2939 Audubon	3	2	2040 PENDING
$405,000	96	2366 Roualt	2	2	1117 SOLD @ $405,000
$279,000	89	103 Luz Pl	2	2	1066 SOLD @ $270,000
$348,000	4	116 Huerta	2	1	900 SOLD @ $342,000
$415,000	13	3504 Wren	2	1	1221 SOLD @ $410,000
$670,000	137	815 Pamplona	4	3	2650 SOLD @ $662,500
$289,500	50	2171 Bella Casa	2	1	825 PENDING
$465,000	296	442 Grande	2	2	1818 PENDING
$319,000	33	2008 Alta Loma	3	1	1200 PENDING
$639,900	19	314 Hildalgo	4	2	2202 PENDING
	120	420 Alvarado	3	2	1200 SOLD @ $320,000
	37	107 Huerta	2	1	912 SOLD @ $325,000
	155	2324 Roualt	3	2	1235 SOLD @ $422,500
	186	200 Grande	4	2	1783 SOLD @ $489,500
	135	214 Faro	3	2	2093 SOLD @ $565,000
	99	2803 Bellows	5	3	2607 SOLD @ $699,000
	91	2620 Caravaggio	5	3	3100 SOLD @ $835,000
	51	2925 Bellows	6	6	4291 SOLD @ $1,125,000

Davis’ General Plan was written to guide the city through Dec. 31, 2010. Because of limited time, cost, and the need for more outreach, however, city staff members are recommending the update be delayed to 2013.

City Manager Bill Emlen and Community Development Director Katherine Hess don’t expect the delay to hinder city policy decisions, but will allow residents to more fully engage in the process.

‘Updating the General Plan isn’t required on any regular schedule,’ Hess said. ‘We’re still working through the current one, and it was adopted fairly recently. It doesn’t turn unreal at midnight.’

Many cities have a General Plan that hasn’t been updated in decades, Hess said, but Davis tends to update more frequently.

‘Because our policies are so specific as compared to other general plans, it does lend itself to the likelihood that it will have to be changed more frequently,’ Hess said.

But there are benefits to pushing back an update: It will give the city more time to educate the public, and it will allow Davis to align the General Plan with the Housing Element update, also due in 2013. The state-required Housing Element update was completed earlier this year.

The Housing Element determines where the city will meet its demands for housing and is updated every five years.

‘It’s generally expected to relate to decisions in the General Plan,’ Hess said.

Waiting three years to update the General Plan should not have an impact on the City Council’s policy-making decisions, especially since the city hasn’t changed its philosophies drastically since 2001, Emlen said.

‘I think the key with the General Plan is, they set out a vision, but they also have to have flexibility,’ he said. ‘I think so far our plans have worked that way pretty well. I don’t expect there will be a problem in the next few years if we do have to make some adjustments.’

Citizens’ plan Davis’ General Plan is a lengthy document that guides the City Council’s policy-making decisions. It outlines the philosophy of the city, explaining how Davis wants to look in the future, how and where it will grow, what the economic climate should be and the quality of life it aspires to have.

In 1994, the city convened 215 volunteers and assigned them to subcommittees to examine everything from culture, art and history to economic development, neighborhood preservation, technology, youth and education.

Eight years - and about $1 million - later, the City Council adopted the 2001 General Plan update.

It was meant to guide the city until Dec. 31, 2010, leaving Davis only about 18 months for an update and only $150,000 budgeted so far to do it.

Growth and planning have become the prism through which Davis politics are viewed, and the General Plan reflects that.

‘The way we use the land, today and in the future, is at the heart of the General Plan,’ the 2001 update reads. ‘Land use decisions affect all other aspects of the city including traffic, noise and air quality; opportunities for jobs, housing and businesses; community character and design and the need for public facilities and services of all types.’

Davis resident Jon Li, who worked on the 1987 and 2001 updates, said the General Plan should focus more on the city’s budget and less on land use.

‘The financing of the city is an enormous headache,’ he said. ‘That’s where the city and the City Council should be focusing their concerns, not on growth. Davis in particular with its obsession with the growth question ignores and neglects the rest of the city and skewers whatever discussion we’re trying to have.’

Too detailed?

The General Plan, which runs into the hundreds of pages, goes into great detail about how infill should be developed, how neighborhood shopping centers should be designed and how growth should be patterned, among other things.

Conversely, Bryan, Texas, near A&M University, has a one-page general plan. Li has presented the truncated document to the City Council for consideration.

‘I think the problem with the 2001 General Plan is it says way too much,’ Li said. ‘It’s not a policy statement, it’s a micromanagement tool. It’s intended for adding new lands in city limits and it’s intended for redevelopment. That’s what a general plan is for, the growth side.’

The elaborate detail included in Davis’ 2001 General Plan can sometimes hinder city staff members, as well, Hess said.

‘Sometimes the specifics get in the way because the specifics may not apply to the question you have,’ she said. ‘It’s also very long. If you were going to try to distill it to the top five messages, that would be hard.’

It also makes determining the value and appropriateness of a project or policy difficult, Hess said.

‘If you’ve got a lot of policies and (something under consideration) is consistent with 79 of them, and it’s not consistent with No. 80, is it still a good thing?’

But Davis resident Eileen Samitz, who also worked on the 2001 General Plan update, said the huge community effort should be respected.

‘The new update really needs to respect the citizen based 2001 update of the General Plan,’ she said. ‘The visions, the goals, the actions and the policies they were basically developed by over 200 people. It’s a reflection of what the citizens wanted.’

Emlen agreed.

‘I will say on behalf of the current plan, it was a very ambitious effort,’ Emlen said. ‘It acknowledges that a general plan is more than just land use. It’s a broader perspective. There was reasons behind it.’

But there is room for improvement, he said.

‘We have to go back and look at if there are contradictions that need to be cleaned up as well. Because I think there are.’

Student housing

Although a Davis General Plan update isn’t likely to have any policy U-turns, some new aspects could be added.

‘My guess is that there would be some tweaking of the policy documents,’ Hess said. ‘The question would be how much we revise the map.’

Samitz said she’d like to see the map that indicates future residential growth left alone. But she would also like to see strong language added encouraging UC Davis to provide more housing for its students near the core of campus.

‘This is affecting our ability to provide housing for our nonstudents,’ she said. ‘This is putting excessive pressure on the city. The city needs to start leaning on the university to take responsibility for its own growth, that is key, that is so important.’

It’s hard to determine how much change the General Plan would undergo, Hess said, because much more public input is needed before the process can begin.

The General Plan update could incorporate the work of the Climate Action Team ad hoc committee, which is researching ways to increase Davis’ sustainability and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The updated General Plan could also address the aging baby boomer population.

‘It’s a significant increase in the percent of the population that’s going to be seniors,’ Hess said. ‘How does that affect the ways we look at our land use? What facilities do we have to address that?’

And, the General Plan could incorporate more focus on the city budget, as Li would like to see, as well as language that encourages the university to build more housing, as Samitz wants. The public at large will likely want to see many things added to the plan, and that’s why the city needs to ensure that all voices are heard.

Refined process

The City Council is expected to discuss the General Plan - its direction, whether an update should be delayed, how the update should be handled - in late fall, Emlen said.

Emlen and Hess said they expect the process to be more streamlined and less expensive this time around, though it will ultimately be up to the public and the City Council.

‘We will try to do a refined process this time,’ Emlen said. ‘What we do know is we’re going to continue to explore bringing in as broad a spectrum of the community as possible, and that hasn’t always been easy. We’re certainly going to try new ways of doing that and make it a collaborative document for the whole community.’

- Reach Claire St. John at cstjohn@davisenterprise.net or (530) 747-8057. Comment on this story at www.davisenterprise.com

Roller coaster growth predicted in past plans

If one were to chart growth simply by looking at the expectations of past general plans, Davis has had a roller coaster ride.

The city’s first General Plan was adopted in 1958, and said the community was expected to grow slowly from 1958’s 7,735 residents up to 35,000 people by 1980.

But UC Davis grew on its own timetable, and in 1964, the General Plan was amended to reflect a student body population that could swell from about 12,000 students to 75,000 by 1985.

In 1969, Davis’ population was expected to boom to 90,000 people by 1990, but the General Plan said the city should have room for up to 110,000.

The 23,450 people living in Davis in 1970 were unnerved by the projected growth, and 110 people were appointed to redraft the 1974 General Plan. That General Plan determined that Davis would only grow to 50,000 people by 1990.

In 1977, the plan was again amended to say the city would only have 50,000 residents well into the 2000s.

By 1987, Davisites were ready to talk about compact growth, and a new General Plan was drawn up to address potential developments outside of city limits. The plan assumed that about 75,000 people would be residents of Davis by 2010, and about 9,700 new residential units would have to be built to accommodate them.

In 1986, Davis approved Measure L, which said Davis should grow as slow as legally possible.

In 1989, Davis approved the 600-acre Mace Ranch, and in 1996 it gave the okay to the 419-acre Wildhorse development. Between 1980 and 2000, the city’s population doubled, going from 36,640 people to 60,308, according to the U.S. Census.

Today, the population is estimated at 64,000.

The rapid growth led to several slow-growth measures, including the election of slow-growth City Council candidates. Once council members, they passed Measure L, which said the city should grow as slow as legally possible. They approved an ordinance that said the city would grow no more than 1 percent per year - which is still too fast, according to some. Measure J, which gives voters the final say on any development that proposes to change agriculturally zoned land to urban use, was also approved.

Measure J is up for renewal in 2010. If the General Plan update is pushed to 2013, the city and voters will have more opportunity to focus on Measure J. Measure J just might be a more powerful tool for controlling growth than the General Plan.

‘In 1990, the building started happening, and people started seeing all this land get developed on the outskirts, and by 1994, ‘95, people were saying ‘Davis is growing way too fast,” said Jon Li, who worked on the 1987 update and the 2001 update. ‘And those were long-time, conservative middle-class residents. By the time we got to 2000, a lot of people supported Measure J. It wasn’t just the no-growthers.’