The Nishi Property is one of the more tantalizing properties in the city – its close proximity to both the university and the Davis Downtown has made it the subject of numerous plans, ranging from the current Innovation Hub idea to high-density housing.
Indeed, the Davis City Council has given some preliminary approval for a Nishi mixed-use innovation district which would include some high-rise and mid-rise apartment units, as well as a technology park.
But there are several drawbacks to the current proposal and, indeed, most proposals for that site. The site is bounded on one side by train tracks, which would produce the need for a costly grade-separated crossing to get to the university. It hugs the freeway on its south side.
And, currently, the only access point would be Richards Blvd., which is already heavily congested.
Moreover, any proposal that would add the site to the city for development would require a Measure R vote, which might be problematic, given existing concerns over access.
At the same time, the university is in need of additional housing and is looking to take the existing Solano Park, just on the other side of the railroad tracks, and densify the housing to utilize their limited lands.
Discussions on the Vanguard over the last few months in part have focused on the need for student housing. Right now, the university, despite the addition of West Village, provides a relatively low amount of student housing on campus, compared to other major universities in the state.
The result of that shortage has led to very low vacancy rates, soaring rental rates, students living in neighboring communities and commuting, as well as the use of single-family homes as rental units for students.
Recently we have heard of the possibility being floated that the university and city might swap the two properties.
There are some good reasons for that. First, nestling student housing into Nishi would could avoid a Measure R vote if the land were merely transferred to the university.
Second, the site could easily host some high-density student housing on its 44 acres.
Third, by making it university rather than a city development, the issue of access onto Olive Drive could be negated. The university would simply have to build a below-grade crossing for bikes and vehicles which would then have ready access to the freeway. Students would be able to walk or bike onto the university and easily into the Davis Downtown – giving a boost to the downtown district.
Concerns about disenfranchised students could be dealt with a later point, when the city could work with the county and university to eventually annex the land along with West Village.
In the meantime, student housing would be in close proximity to both the university and city, reducing the impact of cars on city streets.
The city would then be able to fully utilize Solano Park as a technology park, making use of the close proximity of both the university and Davis Downtown to host university spin-offs and become part of the university’s vision for a technology and information hub in the area.
The current plan for Nishi would only have space for about 110,000 square feet of park at three levels. Solano Park, as indicated, is under-utilized right now as low-density student housing, and the university is looking to increase its density.
The land swap would mean that the university could utilize high-density housing on the Nishi site, and the city could utilize the Solano Park site with far better access to town.
It would avoid the pitfalls of the access issues onto Nishi, it would provide the university with ample student housing, and it would give the city a clear foothold to explore its vision of technology and a business park.
In short, it could be a win-win situation, but the proposal would require approval from the University of California Board of Trustees, and it would need approval from the landowners of Nishi and the Davis City Council.
Clearly, there are some downsides to this.
First, it would still require expensive below-grade access to the university from Nishi. However, probably any development there would have that requirement.
Second, while it would avoid the uncertainty of the Measure R vote, it would also sidestep the need to gain community support for the project.
Third, the high-density housing would be clearly visible from the freeway and, if done poorly, could be an eyesore as the first impression travelers and visitors have of the university and city.
Nevertheless, if done properly it could help solve the student housing problem while giving the city of Davis a better location to develop a smaller scale business park, that would clearly be a good starting point for business startups that move from the university but are not ready for the larger business park locations in the city.
The question, as with all of these proposals, is where does the public stand on this possibility?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Who owns the Nishi property?
Tim Ruff and Norcal Land I believe
“Concerns about disenfranchised students could be dealt with a later point, when the city could work with the county and university to eventually annex the land along with West Village.”
If you wait until later it will never get annexed.
“Solano Park, as indicated, is under-utilized right now as low-density student housing, and the university is looking to increase its density.”
Lots of students with families and children live in Solano Park. increasing density for children is unhealthy. Children need room to play and exercise.
Better talk to the university then, that’s their plan right now.
The property owners, City and University are coming up with a development plan for the land at Nishi. It seems that we ought to see what they come up with before trying to reinvent the wheel.
The Solano Park site comprises maybe 20 acres, and that’s if you include what’s left of the gardens on the southwest side. That’s not enough room for the kind of tech park that’s envisioned by the 493-acre CCV proposal.
Access to Solano Park is okay for residential, but it’s not good for commercial. The 2 available routes from I-80 are both tortuous; either 1/3 mile via First Street (and who wants that traffic to increase?) or 1 mile via Old Davis Road (1 traffic circle, 1 stop light, plus a stop sign or two).
I’m thinking that the site is best suited for its current use as married student housing (or whatever it’s called these days).
P.S. An editing suggestion: UC’s board of trustees is called the Regents of the University of California.
“Recently we have heard of the possibility being floated that the university and city might swap the two properties.”
I don’t quite understand what the city has to trade. Is Solano Park not on-campus, married student housing?
What kind of city approval has been given for Nishi development?
It’s fascinating how problematic votes hang over every potential idea for economic development for our fair city (and we argue about whether we have an anti-business reputation!). This project “would require a Measure R vote, which might be problematic, given existing concerns over access.”
My own view is that the Measure R Threat will dissolve in due time, once residents start expressing concerns about the unintended consequences of J and R votes and treats of votes–the driving out of families, the collapsing of our K-12 school population, the inability to pay our city’s bills, etc.
“Better talk to the university then, that’s their plan right now.”
As history has demonstrated such an idea is the sound of one hand clapping and the continued disenfranchisement of the student population.
[quote]Recently we have heard of the possibility being floated that the university and city might swap the two properties.[/quote]
Sigh. Being floated by whom?
Mr. Toad
[quote]If you wait until later it will never get annexed.[/quote]
Why do you believe this to be the case ? “Never” is a very absolute word.
@Jim Frame: Technically, you’re right that “Regents of the University of California” is the correct name, but most people say “UC Regents” or “Board of Regents” for short. Even the Regents’ website on at regents.universityofcalifornia.edu has “Board of Regents” on the webpage headers.
I prefer to use “Board of Regents” to emphasize that they are a board, and not a bunch of single actors, legally speaking. In fact, Regent Richard C. Blum got in hot water a few years back when the accreditors accused him of acting alone on some issues without vetting things through the full board.
For an issue like a land swap such as this, the Regents might rubber stamp the deal. On the other hand, it just occurred to me that UC Davis is a “land grant” university as part of the federal program. I’m not sure if the federal government attached any “strings” or requirements to how the land might be used in the future after the federal government granted control to the state. UC Davis is actually still part of the federal land grant program and receives money annually, I’m told, from the federal government on that basis. Reports have to be filed on a regular basis.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Lots of students with families and children live in Solano Park. increasing density for children is unhealthy. Children need room to play and exercise.”[/i]
Toad, I could be wrong, but I believe it is UCD’s plan to take the current Solano Park housing out of service in 2015 or 2016 and raze the structures and clear the land. What will go on that land is subject to some uncertainty and debate. If the City’s Innovation Park efforts stall and no space is available in Davis for technology transfer start-up companies, then UCD will probably devote the whole Solano Park area to an Innovation Hub and direct all its married student housing to other places on the campus, such as the currently being renovated and expanded Orchard Park complex south of Russell.
Bottom-line, in the next 24 to 36 months the historical use of the Solano Park land will become just that . . . historical.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Sigh. Being floated by whom?”[/i]
I have no idea Don. David’s article today was a surprise to me, but when looking at the idea objectively it is easy sto see why both the University and the Nishi owners would see this as an idea with potential.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”[b]The Solano Park site comprises maybe 20 acres[/b], and that’s if you include what’s left of the gardens on the southwest side. That’s not enough room for the kind of tech park that’s envisioned by the 493-acre CCV proposal.
Access to Solano Park is okay for residential, but it’s not good for commercial. The 2 available routes from I-80 are both tortuous; either 1/3 mile via First Street (and who wants that traffic to increase?) or 1 mile via Old Davis Road (1 traffic circle, 1 stop light, plus a stop sign or two).
I’m thinking that the site is best suited for its current use as married student housing (or whatever it’s called these days).”[/i]
20 acres is about half of Nishi’s 44 acres. My understanding is that the current owners of Nishi want to use about half of Nishi for housing, and have not settled on what the best use of the remaining half is. Therefore, a swap of Nishi for Solano Park from the perspective of the current Nishi owners would be a swap of “about 20 acres of housing potential” for “about 20 acres of housing potential” In addition, the current owners of Nishi would be shedding the access and measure R headaches in exchange for the non-housing portion of Nishi’s 44 acres.
Question to Don Shor.
Don, I would think you would absolutely love this idea. If the swap went through, Ruff and Norcal Land could cover the Solano Park site with multi-story student apartments.
What say you?
Don Shor said . . .
“Sigh. Being floated by whom?”
Thought I saw David near Community Park a couple days ago, talking to a distinguished looking gentleman on a bicycle with small Arizona plates. My guess is that it gets a large number of anonymous tips from this guy. Someday, I hope, he’ll ask his name so readers will be able to evaluate he credibility of Vanguard secret rumors.
On the other hand, it may have been Frankly or Mr.Toad I saw with him. I get those three confused all the time.
Who owns the Solano Park parcel?
“…I believe it is UCD’s plan to take the current Solano Park housing out of service in 2015 or 2016…”
So, what’s UCD’s plan for replacement and expanded married student housing?
One other thought.
I have never understood why UCD prefers an underpass for the access between campus and Nishi. What makes much more sense to me would be a structure that goes over the UP railroad tracks. The graphic below shows a possible location for such an overpass, which would be integrated into a multi-story parking structure that also sits over and spans the UP tracks. The parking structure would provide parking for both the Nishi side and the Campus/Downtown side. Imagine going up the upramp of the F Street Garage. At the top of the ramp you turn left to go into the parking space area. The garage I envision would do exactly the same thing, but also continue the ramp straight for those vehicles that are going over to the Nishi side where there would be a second left hand turn into the parking area of the structure just before a second ramp that goes down into the Nishi property’s road infrastructure. If you were starting from the Nishi side to exit to Campus/Downtown, you would go up the ramp, pass the right hand turn into the south side of the parking structure, cross over the railroad on the elevated roadway, pass the right hand turn into the north side of the parking structure, then descend the ramp onto the newly relocated Old Davis Road.
One of the key advantages of such a solution is that all the parking footprint of the structure would be above the UP tracks and not consume any of the valuable 20 acres of Solano Park or any of the valuable 44 acres of Nishi. Some extra money could be put into the architecture of the exterior of the parking structure so that it looks both attractive and consistent visually with the existing Mondavi/Hyatt complex.
In addition, electric-powered transit could be made available between Downtown and the parking structure so that it would be a significant resource for employee parking outside the Downtown core.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/NishiAccessfromUCDCampusandDowntown_zps604ce4fc.jpg[/IMG]
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”So, what’s UCD’s plan for replacement and expanded married student housing?”[/i]
I believe, but do not know, that the plans are that the renovation/expansion of Orchard Park from what I believe is currently about 400 units into 800 units is part of the plan, and the rest of the plan is the continuing build-out of West Village.
I re-empahsize that my belief is not knowledge. Perhaps David might be able to interview John Meyer or Bob Segar or Mary Hayakawa to better understand the University’s current thoughts on this subject.
I’d be OK with the land swap. But if it came to a measure R vote, I’d also be in favor of a business park at Nishi. Whichever is more feasible. This does not raise the same open space concerns for me as Mace does.
Still curious about how Solano Park, which appears outside the city limits gets annexed into Davis and developed. No vote required?
[quote] What makes much more sense to me would be a structure that goes over the UP railroad tracks.[/quote]
I’m not sure how workable that is. Given the required clearance over the tracks, the landing on the north side would probably have to be similar to the one at Mace Boulevard, which is about 1,000 feet from the centerline of the railroad. That would put it pretty close to Lake Spafford.
Build a high rise apartment or dorm building at Nishi. Then hook up zip lines between Mrak and Nishi. Downhill both ways with easy access. We can all fly across campus like Peter Pan as we think about our Christmas dreams for the planners of Davis.
Davis has a long history of failing to incorporate student housing into the city. When Aggie Village was built primarily for faculty reaching an agreement allowing the residents to vote was easy. Yet when it comes to student housing it never gets done and until the community seriously starts making democracy a priority it never will.
Jim, I went to Google Earth and checked out the Mace Boulevard overpass and the distance from peak elevation to underpass elevation on the south side is about 400 feet. its a bit longer on the north side because there is no incentive to get down to grade before the traffic signal at 2nd and Mace.
Also using Google Earth, the F Street parking structure gets to the second level in about 200 feet, maybe less, as does the G Street parking structure. The Mondavi parking structure’s internal ramps are about 310 feet. The new Hutchinson Drive parking structure’s are closer to 250 feet.
If you extend the current Hyatt Place service area parking lot’s northern boundary east until it intersects with the eastern edge of the Old Davis Road right of way, and then drop a perpendicular to the railroad track right of way, Google Earth says that distance is abut 320 feet which should be sufficient to accommodate the kind of up/down ramp that I’m describing.
The City, property owners and UCD are currently working on a development plan for Nishi. Whatever they come up with the sort of speculation that David presents here might only come to pass if the citizens of Davis block that plan. In that case the University has the ability to do land deals and get around the City. My guess is that there will be a plan B in case plan A is blocked by the usual suspects or if they feel that they don’t want an annexation fight with the City that would make the University look bad skirting the will of the electorate after losing a measure R vote they will buy it or do a land swap without the involvement of the city. I think the Nimby’s are like Al Gore in Florida on this one. The University is holding all the cards and there is no way Nishi won’t be developed to the satisfaction of the University.
[quote]The City, property owners and UCD are currently working on a development plan for Nishi.[/quote]
Precisely. And in the absence of any information as to where this rumor came from or to whose advantage this discussion is, I see no point in belaboring it. I’m interested in what the property owner, City of Davis, and UCD propose.
[quote]about 320 feet which should be sufficient to accommodate the kind of up/down ramp that I’m describing[/quote]
There are more considerations involved than a straight line ramp from Point A to Point B. ADA is one, and as I recall that’s what pushed the north side of the Mace Boulevard out so far. Another is the fact that for through traffic you can’t go from zero slope to maximum slope without a transition curve, so you’d need a vertical curve at both top and bottom of the ramp, each of which would extend the horizontal distance.
The Pole Line Road overcrossing did it in about 800 feet, but I’m thinking that the grade differential between the railroad and the adjacent land is less there than at Solano Park.
Aren’t John Whtitcombe and his son Joe Whitcombe partners on the Nishi property? Also, wasn’t it Joe Whitcombe who led the charge of opposing the renewal of Measure J (now Measure R) election a few years ago?
I guess what I am not understanding is why would we want to circumvent a Measure J /R vote in a decision that significantly impacts the city and its residents?
Jim, in my brainstorm conceptualization the garage would be served by an elevator at each end, which should eliminate the ADA considerations with respect to the slope of the ramp.
I’m out of my depth when you say “for through traffic you can’t go from zero slope to maximum slope without a transition curve, so you’d need a vertical curve at both top and bottom of the ramp, each of which would extend the horizontal distance.” Can you help me on that with a more expansive explanation? Where is there that kind of curve in the F Street, G Street, Mondavi or Hutchinson Drive parking structures?
Your expert insight is greatly appreciated.
I don’t think they use them in parking structures, but it sounds like we’re talking about two very different visions for access. Is your thought that a parking structure crossing would be ancillary to a primary road entrance at Olive Drive?
My vision is actually three access points. The one with the very least traffic would be the current Olive Drive access point., which would be primarily for emergency access. The overpass described in the posts herein would be the primary access directly from the UCD campus. The third access point would be on the north side of I-80 just west of the current bicycle underpass abutment. That access point would have a westbound ingress to Nishi and a westbound outgress (is there such a word) onto I-80. The current westbound Richards exit from I-80 would be restructured into a configuration similar to the eastbound I-80 exit onto I-5.
In addition to those three motor vehicle access points, the current bicycle underpass on the south side of Nishi under I-80 would continue to service tha site, as would the current bicycle underpass on the north side of Nishi under the UP main line to the back side of the Whole Foods parking lot.
A total of five access points.
After doing web searches, I was surprised to discover that it’s a misnomer to interpret “land grant college” as meaning that land was donated by the federal government in order for colleges to be built on that same land. Actually, land was given so that it could be sold in order to raise money to establish colleges. So I doubt there are any restrictions on selling or swapping land upon which UC Davis sits arising from the requirements of the Morrill Acts.
[quote] The overpass described in the posts herein would be the primary access directly from the UCD campus.[/quote]
Students would have to ascend to the top of a parking structure and go back down to go to and from campus? That doesn’t sound very practical to me, both from a volume standpoint (hundreds of people in cars, on bikes and on foot, coming and going all day long) as well as from a user-acceptability perspective. I think that’s why UCD has envisioned a standard roadway going under the railroad.
[quote]The third access point would be on the north side of I-80 just west of the current bicycle underpass abutment. That access point would have a westbound ingress to Nishi and a westbound outgress (is there such a word) onto I-80.[/quote]
I wonder if that would comply with Caltrans specs. The west end of the Richards Boulevard westbound on ramp is just about at the bike undercrossing, which would complicate merging.
P.S. “Egress” is probably preferred over “outgress.”
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”I wonder if that would comply with Caltrans specs. The west end of the Richards Boulevard westbound on ramp is just about at the bike undercrossing, which would complicate merging.”[/i]
Good question Jim. When I first kicked the idea of the access point from the north side of I-80 just west of the bicycle underpass abutment here in the Vanguard, Tim Ruff contacted me to understand my idea better. Tim then took my idea to his traffic engineer who created a conceptual layout. His e-mail back to Tim said the following, which is certainly not definitive regarding CalTrans, but as he noted in his last paragraph this alignment should be a big plus for CalTrans.
[i]”I’ve attached a conceptual layout along I-80. The sheets lay out from left to right. The new lanes are in red, but I have also accounted for a minimum 6′ separation between I-80 and the collector-distributor (C-D) road. It is kind of hard to see based on the 1″ = 150′ scale (plus or minus). But, this should give you an idea. I set the Nishi off-ramp about a 1/4 mile from the Richards on-ramp The on-ramp for the project is also about a 1/4 mile prior to it joining I-80. The nice thing is that a lane is added as part of the WB on-ramp. So we can do the same thing and add the lane directly from the C-D road.
The on and off-ramps at Richards would require some modification as the C-D road will be separated from the mainline by a barrier. Right now, underneath the structure at the edge of shoulder, there is a side slope up to the bridge abutment. If we have to move the C-D road further from the freeway I believe this could be done by cutting back the side slope and replacing it with retaining wall.
Finally, Ken and I talked about the schematic. He had a conversation sometime ago with Bob Coleman who used to be the Deputy Director at District 4 in the Bay Area. Bob had told him that Caltrans is typically concerned with traffic backing-up on the mainline and that changes to the freeway that won;t affect the mainline is something they usually will be open to. The caveat is that the staffing at Caltrans is different (Bob was Dept Director back in the 80’s and I think part of the 90’s). If Bob’s comments still are valid (and hold true for other districts like District 3 in Marysville) I would think that this concept is possible.
Adding a C-D road eliminates the merge / diverge of both loop ramps with main line traffic. That would seem like a big plus for Caltrans.”[/i]
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”Students would have to ascend to the top of a parking structure and go back down to go to and from campus? That doesn’t sound very practical to me, both from a volume standpoint (hundreds of people in cars, on bikes and on foot, coming and going all day long) as well as from a user-acceptability perspective. I think that’s why UCD has envisioned a standard roadway going under the railroad.”[/i]
No the students wouldn’t have to ascend to the top of the structure. I envision a walking path alongside the ramped roadway. If that walkway ramp was too steep for ADA compliance, then the elevators would address the ADA issues. For the student pedestrians on a walkway that is alongside the roadway, the solution would be the same if the ramps were going over the tracks as it would be if the ramps were going under the tracks. The only difference would be the sequence of the ups and downs . . . if going over the sequence for a walker would be first up and then down, and if going under the sequence would be first down and then up.
Davis’ paradigm of the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
[quote] The only difference would be the sequence of the ups and downs[/quote]
Not the only difference; another pertains to the grade differentials between solutions. In order to go over the tracks, a clearance from top rail to bottom of structure of 23’4″ has to be maintained per federal regulations. When you account for the thickness of the structure and the difference between top rail and adjacent ground, you end up with an overcrossing surface that’s roughly 29 feet above adjacent ground. Going under the tracks involves a difference between undercrossing surface and adjacent ground of roughly 14 feet. So an overcrossing would require users to ascend 15 feet farther than would an undercrossing. That’s a big difference.
Jim, it is my understanding that UP has a strong aversion to underpasses because of vibration issues. It would be very interesting to measure the distance from track grade to the bicycle path grade of the bike tunnel behind Whole Foods. The in-tunnel height of an automobile tunnel would be taller than a bicycle tunnel, but I assumen the structural thickness of the distance from the track grade to the roof of the tunnel would be the same regardless of what kind of vehicles go through the tunnel. The tunnel from roadbed to roof will have to be tall enough to accommodate tractor trailer rigs, which are in the 13′ to 13′ 6″ range. Add a foot of clearance and the thickness of the railbed to tunnel roof, and you are much closer to 20′ than the roughly 14′ you reference in your post above.
One of the advantages I see in the over route rather than the under route is that the air space over the 50 foot wide UP right of way becomes available for multi levels of parking. Since parking is clearly going to be needed for both Nishi and whatever goes into the razed Solano Park footprint, minimizing the amount of ground that such a structure consumes makes a lot of sense. In addition, the parking structure I have described can simultaneously serve the parking needs of both sides of the railroad tracks.
JMHO. Thanks for the really good feedback.
[quote]It would be very interesting to measure the distance from track grade to the bicycle path grade of the bike tunnel behind Whole Foods. [/quote]
It’s right around 12 feet.
I uploaded a sketch of the dimensions I used in roughing out my earlier numbers. It’s available here:
http://members.dcn.org/jhframe/Nishi RR Xing Sketch.jpg
I may be a foot or two short on the distance from top rail to top of tunnel in the sketch.
I’ll try to embed the image below, but I don’t know if it’ll work; I’ve not been successful at doing so in the past.
[img]http://members.dcn.org/jhframe/Nishi RR Xing Sketch.jpg[/img]
Hmmm…still not image embed. If anyone cares to let me know how to do that, I’d be interested in learning.
email it to me at donshor@gmail.com and I’ll do it.
[quote]the air space over the 50 foot wide UP right of way[/quote]
I believe the ROW is 100 feet in that area. It’s wider in some places, but I don’t think it goes below 100 feet in Yolo County.
If the right of way is 100 feet then so much the better. I pulled up Google Earth and measured the distance from the edge of the rail bed to the edge of the rail bed, which was 44 feet and then added 3 feet to each side to get 50 feet, but that was just speculation on my part.
Jim’s image:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/NishiRRXingSketch.jpg[/img]
Testing again:
[img]http://members.dcn.org/jhframe/GurleyTransit.jpg[/img]
Okay, I think I’ve figured it out: no spaces in the filenames allowed.
Jim, in all our back and forth about the possibilities of my idea of a combined overpass/parking structure, one thing may have gotten lost is the fact that your explanations of why an underpass works have been exceedingly solid. It certainly sounds like getting vehicular access between Nishi and the UCD campus is a reality that can be successfully acomplished.
Thanks for all your input. I hope all the other readers of this thread have enjoyed the discussion.
Matt
I feel as though I must be missing something. As I’ve read through this a couple of times now, I don’t see how we’re getting significantly more housing out of it. Higher-density housing on Solano Park, vs. high-density housing on Nishi?
I don’t think a well-crafted proposal for Nishi is likely to be a problem for a Measure R vote. The university is going to increase the density on Solano Park anyway. So I’m just not seeing the gain for anyone here. I guess I’d need better numbers to understand why someone is floating this proposal, and obviously the opinion of the Nishi property owner is the main question.