The Nishi property has long been a temptation to the city of Davis – nestled on the north side of Richards Blvd between I-80 and the railroad tracks, the project is enticingly close to the city.
However, within that temptation are pitfalls, particularly since the property is outside the current city limits and thus requires a Measure J vote. Traffic issues plague access on the Richards Blvd side, and access via UC Davis would require some sort of crossing above or beneath the railroad tracks.
The council tonight will consider whether to fund up to half of the costs to do predevelopment work for the Nishi project.
Back in October of 2010, the council approved actions “to maintain a steady supply of developable business park/industrial land. Immediate actions included initiating planning of the Nishi property as a mix of university-related research park development complemented by high density urban housing.”
The city is looking to work with UC Davis “to identify and explore options, viability and costs for circulation and access options that involve university property.”
Back in February, “The City and the campus jointly submitted an application for grant funds for the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program. The goal of the application was to secure funds for a process to develop alignment of goals and closely-coordinated planning between the City and the University for the Nishi property, adjacent UC Davis land, and both East and West Olive Drive. Although the grant application scored highly, it was not selected for funding.”
Staff reports, “While the university will undertake planning studies for this side of campus to inform an update of their long range development plan and will look for opportunities to coordinate with City on similar studies of adjacent, non-university properties, staff continues to meet with the property owner to explore ways to advance planning on the Nishi property with limited local resources.”
Staff is proposing a cost-sharing approach with the property owner for the predevelopment of the Nishi site – unlike what the city has taken with other Measure J projects, where the cost has been borne by the property owner.
“The recommended agreement calls for a 50:50 share of out-of-pocket predevelopment costs between the property owner and the city,” the report reads.
Remarkably staff reports, “If a mixed-use innovation district project is approved by the City Council and the voters, the city’s costs will be reimbursed by the property owner.”
That means that the city is left holding the bill if the project is shot down by the voters, like other Measure J votes.
The fiscal analysis of this indicates that the city would spend up to $350,000 for environmental planning and public outreach processes.
The city staff argues that funds would come from already-budgeted monies from the Downtown Area Revitalization Fund.
Staff writes, “The current budget includes an allocation for core area parking improvements that will not be expended this year. Staff anticipates that the City Council will evaluate options for core area parking with the 2013-14 budget, upon completion of the downtown parking task force effort, or as other opportunities arise.”
The deal would have to be negotiated. It would presumably include a stipulation that the developer “grant city the approximately 22 acres shown as research/business park land.” Moreover, there would be an agreement “to identify backbone infrastructure to the property including access to Olive Drive in addition to possible access points to UCD, I-80, or both. Backbone infrastructure will include utilities and primary roadways.”
The costs for infrastructure will be shared equally. The city and developer “will work together to explore financing alternatives, including alternatives for construction and maintenance of infrastructure” and “will work together with UCD in all planning efforts including negotiating access to UCD sewer, water, fiber optic, fire, and, if applicable, drainage services.”
If residential density is greater than 30 units per acres gross, there would be no affordable housing obligation or fees.
The city would allow agricultural land conservation to be determined. This could include in-lieu-of fees. Costs of agricultural conservation, and any other fees, assessments, etc. for agricultural preservation would be split evenly.
Staff writes, “We anticipate approximately $700,000 in shared predevelopment expenses, including $300,000 for the Environmental Impact Report and $100,000 in planning staff costs. Other shared costs would include the Measure R ballot process (approx.. $125,000) and legal expenses of drafting the Development Agreement (initially anticipated at $50,000).”
They continue: “As outlined in the agreement, if a project is approved by the City Council and the voters, the property owner would be required to repay the City for its share of predevelopment expenses. The funds would be repaid over eighteen months. Staff anticipates that this would provide the City with revenue to cover for its own efforts as property owner and developer, including engineering and marketing.”
“The recommended agreement is not without risk to the City,” staff notes. “We could be unable to reach agreement with the developer on land uses or terms of the development agreement.”
They continue: “Infrastructure costs could be higher than justified by the projected development. Even if the land-use applications are approved by the City Council, voters might reject the proposal.”
The agreement does, according to staff, allow either party to terminate the agreement without cause at any point during the process.
Staff argues, “This provision significantly limits the City’s risk and the ability to limit its cost exposure prior to significant expenditure milestones, such as prior to commencing CEQA contracting.”
Staff opines, “The tremendous opportunity to provide additional urban housing and innovation park opportunities adjacent to downtown and the campus justifies the risk of initiating the process.”
Vanguard Commentary
The Vanguard questions whether this is a viable parcel of land, given the current configuration of infrastructure and access issues that would present themselves, either as emptying further traffic on the already-congested Richards Blvd., or the infrastructure costs needed to create a below- or above- grade crossing to grant access beyond the railroad tracks and onto the southern end of the UC Davis campus.
The city is basically wagering $350,000 of finite and one-time resources that it can get a Measure J vote past the voters, which would be problematic given the above-mentioned issues.
Moreover, the Vanguard believes this sets a bad precedent, by helping a developer fund a favored project when previous developers have had to foot the entire bill.
If the developers really wish to develop this property, they should be willing and able to fund it themselves.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Who s the developer?
Agree David.
Assume all this has to happen before a vote not after if vote wins?
You focus on the downside but the upside would be a huge windfall of revenue for the city. Let’s see what they come up with.
Bounded by I-80 to the south, the university and railroad tracks to the north and the City to the east this property is more like infill than peripheral growth.
“but the upside would be a huge windfall of revenue for the city”
From what?
“Let’s see what they come up with. “
There’s a $350,000 cost to seeing what they come up with
“more like infill than peripheral growth. “
except that it’s cut off from the city as explained in the article.
So the CC is in the Christmas mode and giving away our money again?
Whitcomb can afford to do his own study.
What the hell has happened on this “new fresh breath of air” CC?
When Parlin tried their little 25 acre development, the city staff soaked them with high fees and costs. The CC did not give Parlin a dime as study money. Or Covell Village. Or Hunt Wesson.
What makes Nishi the favored child? Whitcomb’s money and authority over this CC?
i heard that whitcombe doesn’t want to do the project and the city is trying to entice him.
I think this is a very good idea. We set up road blocks, which really are not in the City’s best interest. This is a “breath of fresh air” in my opinion. It is imaginative and innovative. It could solve so many problems about the area – high crime, zero traffic circulation, unsafe routes for all forms of transportation, provide housing close to downtown, somewhat solve the isolation of Olive Drive, opportunity for industry-UC collaboration and on and on. I would suggest that UC’s development of the land directly across the tracks and the building of a peripheral road that could easily service the area are prompting a serious look at doing something with the area.
Mike has no imagination and his views are clouded by resentment.
A “mixed use innovation district” on Nishi is an excellent idea. It will require considerable coordination between UC, the city, and the property owner. I gather from this article that the funding source is the money that was set aside for parking improvements, funds which are not (sad to say) going to be spent any time soon on that intended purpose. And the property owner will repay them if the site is approved.
I don’t see why this is considered by David and others to be a hard sell for a Measure J vote. There is no natural opposition — no neighbors, no peripheral growth issue. If any project is likely to pass the voters, it is this one.
Can you add a link to a larger version of that map? I’d like to see the precise area under discussion.
I stole the map from the staff report and that’s as large as I could get it. I’ll try to get a better one.
Thanks
“I don’t see why this is considered by David and others to be a hard sell for a Measure J vote. There is no natural opposition — no neighbors, no peripheral growth issue. If any project is likely to pass the voters, it is this one.”
Don: It’s an interesting point. Then again, I was surprised by the opposition to Measure P given the size, the remoteness of the development, and a relatively small impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
My view on Nishi is cemented by trying to get into the downtown around 9 am from the westbound I-80 exit. Go down Olive Drive, you end up having to wait through several cycles of traffic lights.
So dumping more traffic onto that intersection is a problem. I’m surprised you haven’t had the same issue, although where the eastbound dumps onto Richards is far enough south that it avoids a lot of the log jam.
I think everyone in South Davis who has to travel there for work is going to have concerns about traffic.
Now perhaps they can do the UC Davis only route – that seems a strange development scheme as it would cut off the development to vehicular traffic from Davis not to mention cost a lot for the crossing.
You could be right, but that’s where I see the problem.
[quote]”to identify backbone infrastructure to the property including access to Olive Drive in addition to possible access points to UCD, I-80, or both. Backbone infrastructure will include utilities and primary roadways.”[/quote]
David, Access and circulation would have to be addressed in the plans. See above.
“David, Access and circulation would have to be addressed in the plans. See above.”
Understood, but this agreement would put $350K of city money before we even determine whether it’s viable. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
The other thing is I heard that we don’t have money now for the Hotel-Conference center, and the owners don’t have enough to fund this without city money. So that’s actual revenue to the city whereas this project isn’t going to yield tax revenue. I don’t get the thinking here.
This may well be the only way that the project moves forward, and if in the end it is determined that development is not feasible, then we will know that we have to look elsewhere. Either way it sounds like a sound investment.
i fail to understand how this is a “sound investment” when we are taking money potentially from a more viable project that will result in city revenue and put it into a risky one that will not.
I get the thinking here:
1)This project has been a formal top priority of the City Council and Davis Downtown for at least 2 years.
2)This project has been a formal joint priority of Davis Downtown / Chamber / YCVB since August. Here’s the formal position:
•Entitle the Nishi/Solano Park/Gateway/downtown area as a mixed-use, innovation district that would provide space for start-ups and tech businesses, as well as much-needed high-density housing, both of which would be in, or in close proximity to, UC Davis and downtown so residents and workers could walk and bike seamlessly between the two.
3)The joint business community position explains the project benefits. It meets demand for jobs and high-density housing. A further benefit is the anticipated boost to the local economy, the downtown economy in particular. All these benefits achieved without sprawl, i.e. this is an underutilized, already disturbed site, hemmed in by I80 and the RR tracks.
Yes, there are still plenty of details to be fleshed out. Davis Downtown, for one, will continue to monitor the process and provide input as needed.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown Co-Prez
GI “[i]i fail to understand how this is a “sound investment” when we are taking money potentially from a more viable project…[/i]”
And what ‘more viable’ do you have in mind?
the hotel conference center apparently
Isn’t there a lot of RDA money sitting unused at the moment?
The project that generates the most revenue for the City is not necessarily the project that generates the most benefit to the community. City revenue and community benefit are two different things albeit with a lot of overlap.
-Michael Bisch
Same old, same old. What to do with Nishi, if anything, has to involve the developer paying for the RR undercrossing.
Nishi cannot open unrestricted traffic out to the east along Olive Drive. To do so would destroy the viability of the diamond intersection at Olive and Richards.
This thing has been studied to death, and here the staff comes back at us with a request to use hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money to do it all again?
If Whitcomb wants to do that project, he can easily fund it.
“more like infill than peripheral growth. ”
“except that it’s cut off from the city as explained in the article.”
If ever there was a more artificial cartographic boundary that dismisses the geographical reality of a local parcel in the name of preservation I have no idea where it could be. This parcel is bounded by I-80. Preserving it will not preserve the rural character of the area.
and developing it won’t improve the quality of the area
Here are some additional images (expand by clicking on them):
[img]images/stories/Nishi-1.jpg[/img] ([url]images/stories/Nishi-1.jpg[/url])
[img]images/stories/Nishi-2.png[/img] ([url]images/stories/Nishi-2.jpg[/url])
“and developing it won’t improve the quality of the area” -GI
I’m fairly confident this view is not shared by a majority in the community.
-Michael Bisch
“I’m fairly confident this view is not shared by a majority in the community. “
Isn’t that an open question? I mean, again we’ve done no polling. The public has not been informed of traffic and other impacts.
“Isn’t that an open question? I mean, again we’ve done no polling.”
Heaven forbid we make a decision based on an analysis of the facts instead of checking which way the wind is blowing.
We don’t know what the impacts are yet. That’s what the EIR is for. Many fundamental project details haven’t been decided either. Yet you, David, are advocating for halting the development of this information.
-Michael Bisch
True Michael, but we would have to pay $350,000 for a project that we might never do and that the voters might never approve of. If the developer would pay for these, then I might be more willing to agree.
Mark: It requires a Measure J/ R vote. Which way the wind is blowing has to be a consideration – particularly when you are talking $350K.
Measure R. I wonder if there were no measure R if the owner would be more willing to pay all the costs.
Obviously staff have a mostly green light from at least 3 CC members to move this far. (Who’s paying for the most recent study? If the City, then it’s yet another giveaway to a town elite.)
They have to do the underpass, and they cannot open the west end of Olive Drive to general traffic.
Now, one way for planning staff to keep themselves employed is to continue to recommend studies paid by developers or the public on areas that have already been studied to death.
It’s like the surfacewater projects: staff who get the jobs are the onws recommending that the jobs are needed. It’s a total conflict of interest, and this is exactly what is happening right now with this one.
Mr. DT: if you were a consultant for the Chamber of Commerce, and you where the one recommending that the Chamber fund a project, and you were the one who would get to do it, would you consider that a sweet deal?
Now, being the good conservator I know you are, doesn’t it piss you off, just a little, to see staff operating that way? You know it happened with the surface water project, to the tune of many millions. Nishi is another one.
It’s sort of like the national Republicans: they sure hate that national debt, but by God, if it’s borrowing to fund their buddies and contributors, then let’s borrow more!
conservative
David: the direction of the wind will ultimately be determined by the proposed project and someone needs to spend the money to determine if any project is feasible, let alone put something together for us to vote on. We already know that this is a high priority site as Michael pointed out. Doing another poll now is unnecessary unless of course you are intent on blocking any project. If we are serious about economic development we need to start acting instead of standing around with our finger in the air.
“Measure R. I wonder if there were no measure R if the owner would be more willing to pay all the costs. “
The answer I was told was yes. On the other hand, we would have two projects that the majority in the community did not want and probably would be vacant or half built right now. I believe Rich Rifkin has said that the Covell People are thankful.
Mark: If RDA still existed I would be more willing to gamble $350,000 away. Right now, I’m not. I don’t understand why the hotel conference center has gone by the wayside. That would be a more pressing need. I suspect in a year or so, we will have found a replacement for RDA and we might be on better ground to roll the dice.
Thanks for the additional images.
Ok, so now that I can see the area a little better, let me see if I understand correctly. If this area were developed, the proposed hotel/conference center would no longer be possible, because the innovation center covers the same area. People who live in the Olive Drive area would be moved (where? this is mostly low income housing, correct?). And the innovation park would somehow be functional with a big old train track running right through it?
(It might sound like I am against the idea, but truly, I am just trying to see if I’ve got this right, then I can think about it some more).
It’s not a location issue so much as a funding issue. Or so I was told this morning.
davisite4, the hotel/conference facility is not on the Nishi property and is not impacted by the action being taken by the Council tonight. And east Olive Drive is not part of the Nishi property either.
-Michael Bisch
Not on the Nishi property, yes. But is the whole colored area being considered for the innovation park (the three purple areas + the yellow area)? Or just the lightest purple (lilac, I guess)? That’s what made me think that the Olive Drive area and the future hotel/conference area were affected. If those other areas are not part of the plan, then why are they highlighted on the map? Again, just trying to underestand.
It looks to me like the map colors simply designate areas for identification purposes, not necessarily to indicate inclusion in the development plan under consideration. For example, both the Nishi (southeast of the RR) and the Jury (NW of the RR) parcels are shown in the same color to indicate that they’re neither city nor UCD land, but that doesn’t mean that the Jury parcel is being considered for development as part of the Nishi project.
(It might be, but its access issues are different from those of Nishi. I don’t believe that the at-grade railroad crossing that connects the two parcels would be continued in any future development project for safety reasons, so it seems to me that the parcels would be regarded as non-contiguous for development purposes.)
.
Hmm. I just took another look at the larger pictures that David added on the previous page. Look at the second picture. The proposed Research Park *would* go through a part of the dark purple and yellow areas, not just the lilac area. So, I think that might affect the area for the proposed hotel/conference center, and perhaps less likely, residential Olive Drive areas.
[quote]I think that might affect the area for the proposed hotel/conference center, and perhaps less likely, residential Olive Drive areas.[/quote]
The curvy line at the northeast end of the proposed development is the old north fork of Putah Creek. The only improvements southwest of that boundary is the bike path; all other existing development, including the hotel/conference area, Richards Boulevard and all of East Olive Drive, is northeast of the creek channel. The big white buildings are Rocknasium et al.
If vehicle access to Nishi from West Olive Drive comes to pass, it’d probably take out some of the existing buildings along Olive Drive out to Richards Boulevard due to widening, but the hotel/conference center looks like it wouldn’t be affected.
.
Ok, I see what you mean. Thanks. I was confused by the different scales of the maps.