Core Land Use Principles Under Seige in Yolo County

By David GreenwaldFebruary 5, 200760 comments

The County General Plan update process is finally starting to generate needed attention (and frankly needed alarm by progressives and environmentalists and even some non-progressives and non-environmentalists who seek to protect pass through agreements and agricultural land).

The stakes here are high as the proposal for a 2,100 unit development in the northwest quadrant would be tantamount to circumventing the City of Davis’ voter-approved Measure J which allows the voters to determine and manage peripheral growth. This project is larger than Covell Village by 15%. Many in this city support the idea of senior housing and might be willing to look at renegotiating the pass-through agreement between the City and County, especially in light of the amount of services provided by the county to city residents and the lack of revenue to the county. However, I think most in Davis would be strongly opposed to any process that circumvents Measure J and the city’s elected governance.

Further as we look at the graphic, it is questionable how much value a senior development would be in the northwest quadrant, as it clearly illustrates the level of isolation that development would have in its distance from downtown and other core areas of Davis.

There have been several very important letters to the Davis Enterprise warning us about the dangers that the proposals contained in the proposed Yolo County General Plan present to our established principles of land use.

Marianne Muller Ferrendelli of Woodland writes:

Yolo County teeters on the edge of a precipice. Our agricultural heritage is being threatened, and an agrarian community is facing extinction.

Another proposal for a large-scale housing development leapfrogging onto agricultural lands is in the works; another proposal that will change the face of Yolo County, one that will make us eerily resemble the communities of Elk Grove, Galt, Roseville and Lodi. These communities once made up of open space and family farms now are crowded and facing crime and congestion problems.

Developers Lux Taylor and Mike Guttridge, well known for their shopping centers and massive housing developments throughout the once farm-covered regions surrounding Sacramento, have submitted pre-applications for a 1,200-home subdivision in the rolling vineyards of the Dunnigan Hills. [Their political consultant and chief spokesperson is former Yolo County Supervisor Betsy Marchand]

The narrow county roads and bridges surrounding their proposed plan will be overloaded with the commuter traffic such a development will require. Imagine the number of cars forced to use the three narrow roads leading to the development, combined with the tractors, harvesters and trucks hauling livestock, grain and tomatoes from the farms and ranches bordering their new community, larger in scale than Wildwings, the largest leap into previously rural lands in our county’s history.

Where are the environmental impact reports? How can the water demands be met, and how will the underwater aquifers handle such massive demands? How will the lives of farmers and ranchers in the region be affected? How will sewage and waste be safely handled in an area known to flood during our rainy seasons; are we to hope that farms downstream remain safe from possible contamination? What will be the impact to plant and animal habitats?

County residents, please be aware that the plans are in the works. Our county supervisors will be considering updating Yolo County’s General Plan to allow this development to proceed. Changing the county General Plan and allowing a development of this magnitude in an area so highly valued for agricultural production will open the door to development after development. Our county’s growth must be located in areas with existing infrastructure, away from prime agricultural land.

If this is the type of proposal to which you are opposed, please take a stand. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain and the Yolo County Farm Bureau have announced strong opposition to this development. Let your voice be heard. Contact your supervisor. Make a difference for our county.

David Suder of Davis wrote:

In December, the Yolo County Planning Commission voted to recommend a Preferred Land Use Alternative for the county’s general plan. Davis residents would be well advised to review the document (available at the url given below).

The recommended alternative includes “city edge” residential development in only one community for the entire 25-year planning period. That community is Davis. The recommendation reads “Add 2,100 new units in the northwest quadrant, generally located west of State Route 113 and north of Covell Boulevard.” For all other cities in Yolo County, the recommendation is “no new development.”

This recommendation, if adopted, would represent a significant change in direction for Yolo County planning. The December 19 Planning Commission Staff report mentions several residential development proposals “located at the edge of Davis or Woodland, which would place them into the city-edge growth model – a model the County has in the past generally sought to avoid.”

City planning should be done at the city level. Davis has just begun the process of updating the Housing Element of our general plan, a process that is expected to take more than a year. That is how our city should decide how, when and where we should grow.

The Yolo Planning Commission’s recommendation for “city edge” residential growth in one specific area of Davis – and nowhere else in the county – seems inappropriate. Would-be northwest quadrant developers (or their representatives) will undoubtedly cite the Planning Commission’s recommendation as they attempt to influence the Davis general plan update process.

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the Planning Commission’s recommendation on Tuesday, February 6 at 1:30. One would hope that we can count on Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson to vigorously oppose the adoption of any County plan or policy that would attempt to direct the type and pattern of growth in or around Davis.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation is available here.

A proposal by developer Mike Gill has been called by Yolo County District 3 Supervisor Matt Rexroad one of the most egregious schemes of the General Plan update process for its timing and scope.

Gill owns property on the southwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection of State Route 113 and County Road 25A, about one mile south of Woodland.

In a letter to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, Gill wrote that he is interested in building parcels on the land designated for commercial, as well as high density housing use.

“My intention for the development is to construct several ‘Big Box’ stores, a shopping center, restaurants, a gas station and high density housing,” he wrote.

The irony at this point is that the most outspoken people on these points have not been some of the noted progressive slow-growth champions, but rather the Republicans on Board Duane Chamberlin and Matt Rexroad. Rexroad told me on multiple occasions that Oeste Ranch and growth in general on the periphery of Davis is a Davis City Council issue not a County Supervisor issue. Hopefully the Davis Supervisors will step up tomorrow and put this issue to rest once and for all.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

60 comments

  1. we would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments. in fact,m the county would be better off with the growth happening in the cores of existing cities, than in creating new cities out in the county, with attendant new infrastructure needs.

  2. we would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments. in fact,m the county would be better off with the growth happening in the cores of existing cities, than in creating new cities out in the county, with attendant new infrastructure needs.

  3. we would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments. in fact,m the county would be better off with the growth happening in the cores of existing cities, than in creating new cities out in the county, with attendant new infrastructure needs.

  4. we would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments. in fact,m the county would be better off with the growth happening in the cores of existing cities, than in creating new cities out in the county, with attendant new infrastructure needs.

  9. Just for argument’s sake,if you accept the premise that population growth will occur in Yolo, that infill cannot fully meet these demands and that our current cities, like Davis, are hitting a wall with regard to the limit of their carrying capacity in infrastructure, road, water, wastewater treatment, traffic, then halting growth at the city’s edges and creating a new community development centered around an outlying small-town that has good freeway access perhaps should be given a fair hearing. Of course, this would mean MAJOR loss to the developers who have invested in land speculation on our borders.
    This would certainly upset the status quo of political power in Yolo, something that Rexroad may be taking into consideration with his political pronouncements.

    The County trying to supercede Davis’ control of its periphery through the pass-through agreement
    sounds more like political theater than a plan. Our pass-through agreement is a political third-rail, touching it can be lethal.

  10. Just for argument’s sake,if you accept the premise that population growth will occur in Yolo, that infill cannot fully meet these demands and that our current cities, like Davis, are hitting a wall with regard to the limit of their carrying capacity in infrastructure, road, water, wastewater treatment, traffic, then halting growth at the city’s edges and creating a new community development centered around an outlying small-town that has good freeway access perhaps should be given a fair hearing. Of course, this would mean MAJOR loss to the developers who have invested in land speculation on our borders.
    This would certainly upset the status quo of political power in Yolo, something that Rexroad may be taking into consideration with his political pronouncements.

    The County trying to supercede Davis’ control of its periphery through the pass-through agreement
    sounds more like political theater than a plan. Our pass-through agreement is a political third-rail, touching it can be lethal.

  11. Just for argument’s sake,if you accept the premise that population growth will occur in Yolo, that infill cannot fully meet these demands and that our current cities, like Davis, are hitting a wall with regard to the limit of their carrying capacity in infrastructure, road, water, wastewater treatment, traffic, then halting growth at the city’s edges and creating a new community development centered around an outlying small-town that has good freeway access perhaps should be given a fair hearing. Of course, this would mean MAJOR loss to the developers who have invested in land speculation on our borders.
    This would certainly upset the status quo of political power in Yolo, something that Rexroad may be taking into consideration with his political pronouncements.

    The County trying to supercede Davis’ control of its periphery through the pass-through agreement
    sounds more like political theater than a plan. Our pass-through agreement is a political third-rail, touching it can be lethal.

  12. Just for argument’s sake,if you accept the premise that population growth will occur in Yolo, that infill cannot fully meet these demands and that our current cities, like Davis, are hitting a wall with regard to the limit of their carrying capacity in infrastructure, road, water, wastewater treatment, traffic, then halting growth at the city’s edges and creating a new community development centered around an outlying small-town that has good freeway access perhaps should be given a fair hearing. Of course, this would mean MAJOR loss to the developers who have invested in land speculation on our borders.
    This would certainly upset the status quo of political power in Yolo, something that Rexroad may be taking into consideration with his political pronouncements.

    The County trying to supercede Davis’ control of its periphery through the pass-through agreement
    sounds more like political theater than a plan. Our pass-through agreement is a political third-rail, touching it can be lethal.

  13. well, i don’t really accept the premise that infill cannot meet the demands of growth, if there were the political will to allow it to happen. nor do i agree that davis is anywhere near hitting its infrastructure’s carrying capacity (at least in terms of traffic; water and waste i am less clear on).

    our downtown has a lower skyline than 1890s woodland, for goodness’ sake. build the downtown up four stories with housing on the top 2 or 3 floors, and the city could accomodate a whole lot more people (and might even end up with a decent downtown night life that didn’t shut down at 10pm).

    foisting off the county’s growth on small valley towns so that they can become new commuter exurbs is a poor model of development, especially given gas prices as peak oil sets in. but i guess it isn’t sprawl if it happens in someone else’s backyard. how this passes as the sole acid test for progressivism utterly escapes me.

  14. well, i don’t really accept the premise that infill cannot meet the demands of growth, if there were the political will to allow it to happen. nor do i agree that davis is anywhere near hitting its infrastructure’s carrying capacity (at least in terms of traffic; water and waste i am less clear on).

    our downtown has a lower skyline than 1890s woodland, for goodness’ sake. build the downtown up four stories with housing on the top 2 or 3 floors, and the city could accomodate a whole lot more people (and might even end up with a decent downtown night life that didn’t shut down at 10pm).

    foisting off the county’s growth on small valley towns so that they can become new commuter exurbs is a poor model of development, especially given gas prices as peak oil sets in. but i guess it isn’t sprawl if it happens in someone else’s backyard. how this passes as the sole acid test for progressivism utterly escapes me.

  15. well, i don’t really accept the premise that infill cannot meet the demands of growth, if there were the political will to allow it to happen. nor do i agree that davis is anywhere near hitting its infrastructure’s carrying capacity (at least in terms of traffic; water and waste i am less clear on).

    our downtown has a lower skyline than 1890s woodland, for goodness’ sake. build the downtown up four stories with housing on the top 2 or 3 floors, and the city could accomodate a whole lot more people (and might even end up with a decent downtown night life that didn’t shut down at 10pm).

    foisting off the county’s growth on small valley towns so that they can become new commuter exurbs is a poor model of development, especially given gas prices as peak oil sets in. but i guess it isn’t sprawl if it happens in someone else’s backyard. how this passes as the sole acid test for progressivism utterly escapes me.

  16. well, i don’t really accept the premise that infill cannot meet the demands of growth, if there were the political will to allow it to happen. nor do i agree that davis is anywhere near hitting its infrastructure’s carrying capacity (at least in terms of traffic; water and waste i am less clear on).

    our downtown has a lower skyline than 1890s woodland, for goodness’ sake. build the downtown up four stories with housing on the top 2 or 3 floors, and the city could accomodate a whole lot more people (and might even end up with a decent downtown night life that didn’t shut down at 10pm).

    foisting off the county’s growth on small valley towns so that they can become new commuter exurbs is a poor model of development, especially given gas prices as peak oil sets in. but i guess it isn’t sprawl if it happens in someone else’s backyard. how this passes as the sole acid test for progressivism utterly escapes me.

  17. “We would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments.”

    Wu,

    Do you favor the 3rd & B Visioning Process proposals?

    I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on the idea. My commission, Historical Resources Mgmt, reviewed the Draft EIR recently. What strikes me is this: that there really isn’t much of a desire among the general public for this kind of change. Sure, the few land owners in that neighborhood would like to see the project go forward. But most people I’ve spoken with seem to dislike the idea.

  18. “We would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments.”

    Wu,

    Do you favor the 3rd & B Visioning Process proposals?

    I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on the idea. My commission, Historical Resources Mgmt, reviewed the Draft EIR recently. What strikes me is this: that there really isn’t much of a desire among the general public for this kind of change. Sure, the few land owners in that neighborhood would like to see the project go forward. But most people I’ve spoken with seem to dislike the idea.

  19. “We would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments.”

    Wu,

    Do you favor the 3rd & B Visioning Process proposals?

    I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on the idea. My commission, Historical Resources Mgmt, reviewed the Draft EIR recently. What strikes me is this: that there really isn’t much of a desire among the general public for this kind of change. Sure, the few land owners in that neighborhood would like to see the project go forward. But most people I’ve spoken with seem to dislike the idea.

  20. “We would be far better off growing up and increasing density in downtown davis than these peripheral low-density developments.”

    Wu,

    Do you favor the 3rd & B Visioning Process proposals?

    I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on the idea. My commission, Historical Resources Mgmt, reviewed the Draft EIR recently. What strikes me is this: that there really isn’t much of a desire among the general public for this kind of change. Sure, the few land owners in that neighborhood would like to see the project go forward. But most people I’ve spoken with seem to dislike the idea.

  21. Rich,

    Wu ming has hit the nail on the head. People are generally resistant to change and only consider the negative, rather than the positive.

    With so much throw-away architectrure and development in downtown Davis, we ought to be ecstatic about 3-4 story buildings coming into our downtown, providing more ground-floor retail and other amenities if the market can support it.

    The red herring of traffic congestion always amuses. For a town that is supposed to be the most bicycle-friendly in the nation and environmentally conscious, cries of traffic congestion are disingenuous at best. If you’re not driving your car everywhere, then traffic congestion shouldn’t be bothersome. The reality is, the tradeoffs of a vibrant downtown far outweigh any “traffic congestion” complaints. When are we going to get past all the traffic congestion complaints.

    But I revert to my original point: people are afraid of change and assume it’s bad. One question though for the change-averse: Which of the new mixed-use buildings (4th & F, 2nd & G, etc., 4th & C) should Davis have not approved? Those are the building prototypes that if constructed on a larger scale, could transform downtown. They are assets to downtown.

  22. Rich,

    Wu ming has hit the nail on the head. People are generally resistant to change and only consider the negative, rather than the positive.

    With so much throw-away architectrure and development in downtown Davis, we ought to be ecstatic about 3-4 story buildings coming into our downtown, providing more ground-floor retail and other amenities if the market can support it.

    The red herring of traffic congestion always amuses. For a town that is supposed to be the most bicycle-friendly in the nation and environmentally conscious, cries of traffic congestion are disingenuous at best. If you’re not driving your car everywhere, then traffic congestion shouldn’t be bothersome. The reality is, the tradeoffs of a vibrant downtown far outweigh any “traffic congestion” complaints. When are we going to get past all the traffic congestion complaints.

    But I revert to my original point: people are afraid of change and assume it’s bad. One question though for the change-averse: Which of the new mixed-use buildings (4th & F, 2nd & G, etc., 4th & C) should Davis have not approved? Those are the building prototypes that if constructed on a larger scale, could transform downtown. They are assets to downtown.

  23. Rich,

    Wu ming has hit the nail on the head. People are generally resistant to change and only consider the negative, rather than the positive.

    With so much throw-away architectrure and development in downtown Davis, we ought to be ecstatic about 3-4 story buildings coming into our downtown, providing more ground-floor retail and other amenities if the market can support it.

    The red herring of traffic congestion always amuses. For a town that is supposed to be the most bicycle-friendly in the nation and environmentally conscious, cries of traffic congestion are disingenuous at best. If you’re not driving your car everywhere, then traffic congestion shouldn’t be bothersome. The reality is, the tradeoffs of a vibrant downtown far outweigh any “traffic congestion” complaints. When are we going to get past all the traffic congestion complaints.

    But I revert to my original point: people are afraid of change and assume it’s bad. One question though for the change-averse: Which of the new mixed-use buildings (4th & F, 2nd & G, etc., 4th & C) should Davis have not approved? Those are the building prototypes that if constructed on a larger scale, could transform downtown. They are assets to downtown.

  24. Rich,

    Wu ming has hit the nail on the head. People are generally resistant to change and only consider the negative, rather than the positive.

    With so much throw-away architectrure and development in downtown Davis, we ought to be ecstatic about 3-4 story buildings coming into our downtown, providing more ground-floor retail and other amenities if the market can support it.

    The red herring of traffic congestion always amuses. For a town that is supposed to be the most bicycle-friendly in the nation and environmentally conscious, cries of traffic congestion are disingenuous at best. If you’re not driving your car everywhere, then traffic congestion shouldn’t be bothersome. The reality is, the tradeoffs of a vibrant downtown far outweigh any “traffic congestion” complaints. When are we going to get past all the traffic congestion complaints.

    But I revert to my original point: people are afraid of change and assume it’s bad. One question though for the change-averse: Which of the new mixed-use buildings (4th & F, 2nd & G, etc., 4th & C) should Davis have not approved? Those are the building prototypes that if constructed on a larger scale, could transform downtown. They are assets to downtown.

  29. Note: I’m just kidding about 4th & C. That’s where the Davis Community Church is located. It happens to be one of my favorite buildings in the core area. You likely meant 3rd & C, where Crepeville is located.

  30. Note: I’m just kidding about 4th & C. That’s where the Davis Community Church is located. It happens to be one of my favorite buildings in the core area. You likely meant 3rd & C, where Crepeville is located.

  31. Note: I’m just kidding about 4th & C. That’s where the Davis Community Church is located. It happens to be one of my favorite buildings in the core area. You likely meant 3rd & C, where Crepeville is located.

  32. Note: I’m just kidding about 4th & C. That’s where the Davis Community Church is located. It happens to be one of my favorite buildings in the core area. You likely meant 3rd & C, where Crepeville is located.

  37. Brian: Unfortunately that is the one of the drawbacks to blogger. I keep telling them every time they ask about new features that they need to get an edit feature for comments, it’s a giant pain.

  38. Brian: Unfortunately that is the one of the drawbacks to blogger. I keep telling them every time they ask about new features that they need to get an edit feature for comments, it’s a giant pain.

  39. Brian: Unfortunately that is the one of the drawbacks to blogger. I keep telling them every time they ask about new features that they need to get an edit feature for comments, it’s a giant pain.

  40. Brian: Unfortunately that is the one of the drawbacks to blogger. I keep telling them every time they ask about new features that they need to get an edit feature for comments, it’s a giant pain.

  41. rifkin,

    yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis. as brian said, most of thre downtown architecture is tragically ugly and without any real historical value (the old brick buildings aside), so replacing it with higher density buildings would be a step forward.

    as for what brian said about traffic and a general dearth of vision, i totally agree. for a town like davis to claim that it is incapable of making a small city downtown function with a medium level of population density is pathetic, given the sorts of interesting things that we used to try to do here.

  42. rifkin,

    yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis. as brian said, most of thre downtown architecture is tragically ugly and without any real historical value (the old brick buildings aside), so replacing it with higher density buildings would be a step forward.

    as for what brian said about traffic and a general dearth of vision, i totally agree. for a town like davis to claim that it is incapable of making a small city downtown function with a medium level of population density is pathetic, given the sorts of interesting things that we used to try to do here.

  43. rifkin,

    yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis. as brian said, most of thre downtown architecture is tragically ugly and without any real historical value (the old brick buildings aside), so replacing it with higher density buildings would be a step forward.

    as for what brian said about traffic and a general dearth of vision, i totally agree. for a town like davis to claim that it is incapable of making a small city downtown function with a medium level of population density is pathetic, given the sorts of interesting things that we used to try to do here.

  44. rifkin,

    yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis. as brian said, most of thre downtown architecture is tragically ugly and without any real historical value (the old brick buildings aside), so replacing it with higher density buildings would be a step forward.

    as for what brian said about traffic and a general dearth of vision, i totally agree. for a town like davis to claim that it is incapable of making a small city downtown function with a medium level of population density is pathetic, given the sorts of interesting things that we used to try to do here.

  45. “yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis.”

    FWIW, at the southwest corner of 5th and G, Chuck Roe and Mark Rutheiser are now building a 3 story project with ground floor retail and condo apartments above. That type of project, perhaps, is what you are advocating. Mark told me there is strong demand for the apartments. However, Chuck told me a few months ago that litigation insurance for construction on condo projects is very, very high. So high that it makes such projects uneconomical. The problem is, apparently, that some trial lawyers make a very good living by suing virutally every builder of residential condos. The insurance needs to be spread out over hundreds of units. They have only 8 units at 5th & G.

    Also, Rutheiser and Roe are about to propose another new condo project in downtown Davis (at 4th and G, just north of Jack in the Box). However, due to the litigation problem, it will be office condos, not residential.

  46. “yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis.”

    FWIW, at the southwest corner of 5th and G, Chuck Roe and Mark Rutheiser are now building a 3 story project with ground floor retail and condo apartments above. That type of project, perhaps, is what you are advocating. Mark told me there is strong demand for the apartments. However, Chuck told me a few months ago that litigation insurance for construction on condo projects is very, very high. So high that it makes such projects uneconomical. The problem is, apparently, that some trial lawyers make a very good living by suing virutally every builder of residential condos. The insurance needs to be spread out over hundreds of units. They have only 8 units at 5th & G.

    Also, Rutheiser and Roe are about to propose another new condo project in downtown Davis (at 4th and G, just north of Jack in the Box). However, due to the litigation problem, it will be office condos, not residential.

  47. “yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis.”

    FWIW, at the southwest corner of 5th and G, Chuck Roe and Mark Rutheiser are now building a 3 story project with ground floor retail and condo apartments above. That type of project, perhaps, is what you are advocating. Mark told me there is strong demand for the apartments. However, Chuck told me a few months ago that litigation insurance for construction on condo projects is very, very high. So high that it makes such projects uneconomical. The problem is, apparently, that some trial lawyers make a very good living by suing virutally every builder of residential condos. The insurance needs to be spread out over hundreds of units. They have only 8 units at 5th & G.

    Also, Rutheiser and Roe are about to propose another new condo project in downtown Davis (at 4th and G, just north of Jack in the Box). However, due to the litigation problem, it will be office condos, not residential.

  48. “yes, although i’d expand it to the entire downtown area, and encourage the construction of not only rental apartments but also those for purchase, with an eye to making it possible to both live and work in davis.”

    FWIW, at the southwest corner of 5th and G, Chuck Roe and Mark Rutheiser are now building a 3 story project with ground floor retail and condo apartments above. That type of project, perhaps, is what you are advocating. Mark told me there is strong demand for the apartments. However, Chuck told me a few months ago that litigation insurance for construction on condo projects is very, very high. So high that it makes such projects uneconomical. The problem is, apparently, that some trial lawyers make a very good living by suing virutally every builder of residential condos. The insurance needs to be spread out over hundreds of units. They have only 8 units at 5th & G.

    Also, Rutheiser and Roe are about to propose another new condo project in downtown Davis (at 4th and G, just north of Jack in the Box). However, due to the litigation problem, it will be office condos, not residential.

  49. BTW, Chuck is working hard to make sure that the old house at 4th & G is not destroyed. (It’s a nice house, built originally by the Grieve family, a pioneer Davis family.) Roe is willing to sell it for $1 to anyone who will move it to another lot in Davis, preferably one in an older neighborhood. Chuck will even kick in some cash (as much as demolition would cost) in order to help defray the moving expenses.

    So far, no one with a suitable property has pursued that house. However, he has had offers from individuals with rural locations outside of Davis.

  50. BTW, Chuck is working hard to make sure that the old house at 4th & G is not destroyed. (It’s a nice house, built originally by the Grieve family, a pioneer Davis family.) Roe is willing to sell it for $1 to anyone who will move it to another lot in Davis, preferably one in an older neighborhood. Chuck will even kick in some cash (as much as demolition would cost) in order to help defray the moving expenses.

    So far, no one with a suitable property has pursued that house. However, he has had offers from individuals with rural locations outside of Davis.

  51. BTW, Chuck is working hard to make sure that the old house at 4th & G is not destroyed. (It’s a nice house, built originally by the Grieve family, a pioneer Davis family.) Roe is willing to sell it for $1 to anyone who will move it to another lot in Davis, preferably one in an older neighborhood. Chuck will even kick in some cash (as much as demolition would cost) in order to help defray the moving expenses.

    So far, no one with a suitable property has pursued that house. However, he has had offers from individuals with rural locations outside of Davis.

  52. BTW, Chuck is working hard to make sure that the old house at 4th & G is not destroyed. (It’s a nice house, built originally by the Grieve family, a pioneer Davis family.) Roe is willing to sell it for $1 to anyone who will move it to another lot in Davis, preferably one in an older neighborhood. Chuck will even kick in some cash (as much as demolition would cost) in order to help defray the moving expenses.

    So far, no one with a suitable property has pursued that house. However, he has had offers from individuals with rural locations outside of Davis.

  53. oh, and i’m not sure that any blogging platform exists that allows you to edit comments. both scoop and soapblox have the same problem as blogger there (which is unfortunate for those of us who tend to make a lot of hunt-n-peck typos).

  54. oh, and i’m not sure that any blogging platform exists that allows you to edit comments. both scoop and soapblox have the same problem as blogger there (which is unfortunate for those of us who tend to make a lot of hunt-n-peck typos).

  55. oh, and i’m not sure that any blogging platform exists that allows you to edit comments. both scoop and soapblox have the same problem as blogger there (which is unfortunate for those of us who tend to make a lot of hunt-n-peck typos).

  56. oh, and i’m not sure that any blogging platform exists that allows you to edit comments. both scoop and soapblox have the same problem as blogger there (which is unfortunate for those of us who tend to make a lot of hunt-n-peck typos).

  57. that’s a lot better than knocking the old houses down. there’s so much more charcater in the old craftsman cottages than in all the 70s ranch houses in the world put together.

  58. that’s a lot better than knocking the old houses down. there’s so much more charcater in the old craftsman cottages than in all the 70s ranch houses in the world put together.

  59. that’s a lot better than knocking the old houses down. there’s so much more charcater in the old craftsman cottages than in all the 70s ranch houses in the world put together.

  60. that’s a lot better than knocking the old houses down. there’s so much more charcater in the old craftsman cottages than in all the 70s ranch houses in the world put together.

Leave a Comment