In the last several weeks as the time rolls closer to the drop-dead date for putting Nishi on the ballot in June, the applicants have come forward with several commitments to dealing with critical areas of Nishi. They have agreed, “No project on the site until connection to UC Davis campus is approved through UC Davis Long Range Development Plan, environmental review, and agreement with City Council and UC Davis.”
They have allowed for no occupancy until Richards/I-80 interchange improvements are complete. And they have committed to “Net fiscal positive with or without hotel. (This) could include make-whole provision for UC leases, Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District, Community Facilities District, positive negotiations with Yolo County or other.”
Yesterday there was a comment that pointed out that it seems unlikely that UC Davis will raise its number of internal housing units to a substantial number and therefore, by implication, sites such as Nishi may have to house a lot of the additional students.
Right now, the project calls for 650 residential units of both apartments and condominiums. The breakdown is 440 rental, 210 for sale. They are estimating it would provide about 1500 beds for students.
However, one of the concerns about the location of the project is the air quality issue. As Planning Commissioner Cheryl Essex articulated, “I wonder about that residential component more than anything. We need more residential – because if we don’t have more residential close to campus… then people are driving on Interstate 80 and creating more pollution as they come to town.”
But she was concerned that tree planting, as a mitigation measure, “is not something that’s going to work right away, so the outdoor air quality may take some time to improve. It may never improve – it’s not a proven mitigation measure.”
She noted that this solution might be possible if they delayed for-sale housing until the tree mitigation is proven effective. The logic is that people renting the units are less likely to live there for a long enough period of time to be exposed to enough harmful particulate matter to have health impacts.
That line of thinking got me to, in turn, ponder – would the project still be viable if the number of for-sale units were reduced further? What if, instead of 210 for-sale units, we had 105? What if we had zero?
Hold that thought and consider this.
In the baseline features, the developer notes that an “additional 20 percent residential units may be added..” That would be another 130 and they are proposing doing that with no additional parking.
Right now the plan calls for 1732 surface and structured vehicle parking spaces – a 10 percent reduction from the original plan that called for 1925.
But, as the developers point out themselves in a communication this week, “People living here may not need a car, reducing our carbon footprint.”
At times, the Vanguard has proposed a zero-car development. Right now, they are planning 1700 spaces in a development that will house 1500 people. Of course, a number of those spaces likely will be there to serve the R&D (Research and Development) and retail sectors rather than housing.
At times, we have proposed a constrained model of scarcity to deal with lack of parking and circulation issues. An increasing number of students do not have cars and, therefore, having a place to live next to campus can induce those students without cars to move to a place where they can get anywhere they need on foot or by bike.
A limited number of parking spaces can be allotted by purchasing an expensive parking permit. And car sharing devices such as Zipcars can be deployed to allow residents easy access to a vehicle the few times they actually need one.
What about for the commercial portion? Make it so that the vehicular traffic for the commercial sector goes through the university. It would be no different than those who are already going through the south end of campus – they simply enter Nishi through the underpass here just as they would to go to Mondavi, the Hyatt, or the UC Davis Conference Center. This would be like an extension of campus.
The argument I often get is, well, what about the non-students who want to rent at Nishi? After all, we cannot legally constrain who rents the apartments.
True, we cannot legally constrain who rents the apartments. But if you are my age, in your early 40s, are you going to move your family into a small apartment next to campus with limited parking and vehicular access, in close proximity to 1500 students? Probably not.
If you are a young professional about 25, still single, and working at Nishi in the R&D sector, then maybe that is more enticing. Bottom line is that I don’t have a problem with the concept that Nishi won’t just be for students, because other people need housing too. However, Nishi will be a constrained living situation that most likely will be more compatible with student living than the lifestyle of older adults.
What I think is very doable here is to further constrict vehicular traffic into Nishi, especially from the Richards side. Bring the commercial traffic through campus. Reduce the number of parking places at least in half and have them mainly to serve the commercial component. We would then have limited and paid parking for residential. Increase residential units up closer to 1000, reduce or eliminate the for-sale housing component.
If we do that, we may be able to eliminate the need to wait for the Richards Corridor changes to be complete because we can reduce the impact on Richards to less than significant impacts. We reduce the concerns about the particulate matter, knowing that most people are going to be living in Nishi for four years or less. And we cut into the housing problem on campus to a much greater extent by offering 2000 to 3000 beds, rather than 1500 beds.
Does this pencil out for the project? Someone else will have to assess that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m in agreement with hpierce on this: Nishi access from Olive Drive should be for bikes, pedestrians and emergency vehicles only. No convenience car traffic.
P.S. The conceptual image at the top of this article shows “UC Davis” painted on the Richards bridge. This is exactly the message we don’t want to send: “This way to UC Davis.” We want to train motorists to take the Old Davis Road exit and enter campus that way, not via Richards.
Jim: That’s not Richards, that’s the new underpass proposed from Nishi to UC Davis
Oops! It looks so much like the proposed Richards improvements that I mistook it for same.
Yes… but is also not a “complete street”… just like Richards… to duplicate the Richards tunnel (designed for Model T’s), no concept of allowing for bicycles on the street, etc., is very poor planning/design… the new access IN NO WAY needs to be 3-4 lane, but the graphic shows a pretty inadequate design…
The protected side lanes are for bikes AND pedestrians, right? Why would there also need to be room for bikes on the street lanes in this case?
i’m with you frankly, it looks like it has bikes on one side, peds on the other, accommodates buses, how is it not complete?
I know from talking to the developer at one of the ‘open’ houses and from the DV that Nishi was always projected to have housing, but it seems housing has eclipsed the ‘innovation’ park/R and D aspect of the development more recently. Can anyone provide a timeline of how the housing has grown on this site as the discussion has occurred if this is true?
Well, guess it is how you define “always”, and “housing”… the current proposal is Nishi 2.X (and X is a steadily increasing number)… Nishi 1.0 had no MF or SF housing, as I recall (had a hotel/conference facility, if memory serves)… many years ago, right after Nishi was annexed to Yolo County, about the time Davis Commons was getting its approvals…
Development of Nishi will displace “homeless” folk, who camp along the old creek-bed… was that addressed in the EIR? Are there provisions in the project to ‘house’ them?
I think Tia has room in her large yard.
Uncool… just don’t grasp if your comment was meant to snark me, Tia, or both… unfair, big time if meant for Tia… for me, fair, but still uncool…
Come on hpierce, a little snark can’t hurt.
I was actually making a point though, that it is generally easier to care for the homeless if they are not in your neighborhood and yard.
SODA asked . . . “Can anyone provide a timeline of how the housing has grown on this site as the discussion has occurred if this is true?”
SODA, the following link https://davisvanguard.org/2015/11/nishi-developer-sees-project-as-providing-a-revenue-stream-for-davis/comment-page-1/#comment-296566 will take you to a November comment on that subject.
The short answer is that a January 2014 presentation to City Council by the Nishi Gateway team in conjunction with City staff very clearly showed 1,200 units of housing with 1,000 square feet per unit. If you click on the link below it will take you to a graphic from that presentation.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/06-Nishi-Property-Presentations.jpg
In March 2008 the Housing Element Steering Committee included Nishi with UCD Access only as #17 of its 37 assessed sites with a recommendation of 460-1000 units of housing. Nishi with Olive Drive Access only was #25 of the 37 sites with the same recommendation of 460-1000 units of housing. The whole Housing Element Steering Committee report can be accessed at http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20080422/Packet/06A-Housing-Element-Update-Steering-Committee-Report.pdf
THanks Matt. Maybe it was just at the time Nishi began to come forward this time, we and Rob White were talking Innovation Parks big time (?remember that?) and I lumped Nishi into that more than I should have. I miss Rob White and his comments and his informing us. I have seen nothing for the public from his replacement; has anyone?
Nope, just crickets
I have a feeling she is tied up in the basement somewhere with a gag in her mouth. Need to control that messaging from city hall!
i think more public officials should engage here, i think after the initial trial by fire, they end up earning a lot of respect.
If you eliminate the CIO position as part of the Nishi deal, the project becomes net fiscal positive. If you shut down the economic development group and eliminate their operating budget, that’s almost equivalent fiscally to building the Nishi hotel. Just saying.
True, but there are several other positions I would prioritize ahead of those given what we need to do in this town.
If the City cut all of these crony positions then, … Oh wait, that would make sense, and they can’t make sense or they would have to actually do their jobs, like fix the streets and stop jabbering about silly issues and bad planning.
It’s tough when the Org chart looks like the Family tree, but then the city has been paying “consultants” and now they are doubling down on them to try and supplement Staff reports, why?
When people on here argue for lower Staff Salaries, I begin to think they cannot do their jobs because of layoffs and lack of training, one of the first things to cut back in a recession. Yet they give each new Manager a raise? For what?
I think it is unpalatable to spend millions to drive to this field just because it is beside the UC campus. If you want, take the plans and overlay them on the Solano and “community gardens” across from the Hilton on campus. Make the Nishi field a community garden, or the “Wolk Memorial Sports Complex”? Problem Solved, except the Millions in tax money you think Davis will make on this?
Try not to spend Millions on roads just to get to it, like the Cannery.
In my view Nishi is a logical spot to put UC-focused development, and that’s going to require improved access from campus, so the new undercrossing seems appropriate to me. I don’t see Nishi/Solano Park as either/or, but rather both/and.
If the little photo is the plan, they are planning wrongly. That is the problem about Davis. They react and do not build for the future, only to alleviate current problems.
Then they are behind before they ever get it built. Thank you for your perspective. I don’t think they can see another way to do it.
what’s wrong with the photo?
FWIW, my remark pertained to a RR undercrossing, but not necessarily like the one pictured.
Well said Jim.
interesting most of the comments focused on the photos rather than the argument put forth by the vanguard which seems to be – expand residential, make it more heavily rental, reduce cars? question is can the developer swing that and will the community support it?
I’m not supporting anything that doesn’t bring in decent revenue.
It will bring in decent revenue to the candidates for City Council that are promoting this incomplete mess for the June ballot.
“Right now, they are planning 1700 spaces in a development that will house 1500 people. Of course, a number of those spaces likely will be there to serve the R&D (Research and Development) and retail sectors rather than housing.”
“a number of those spaces”
There will be approximately 1,000 employees at buildout. The commercial uses all require parking based on the type of business and the number of square feet.
The project was under-parked when it had 1,925 spaces.
Good luck leasing the commercial space if there is no place for the employees and customers to park.
“They have agreed, “No project on the site until connection to UC Davis campus is approved through UC Davis Long Range Development Plan, environmental review, and agreement with City Council and UC Davis.”
As I posted on a previous article, this language in the baseline project features does NOT guarantee that the UCD connection will be built. This guarantees UCD commitment, NOT construction. There are multiple failure points downstream of UCD commitment that could derail the UCD connection. In addition, UCD is not even in control. The Regents will determine if it actually gets built.
In my cynical opinion, the language in the baseline project features is deliberately misleading. The City Council’s feet need to be held to the fire to insure that they adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation that there be no occupancy until the connection to Old Davis Road leading to UC Davis is completed.
I will be disappointed if we get the same fuzzy language from the CC. The big talk about the requirement for the UCD connection needs to be backed up with legally-binding language that has zero wiggle-room.
Now let us examine the arguments in the comments:
It needs more housing, less parking, no car access from Richards, less parking will cause the commercial to fail. It will displace the homeless.The underpass is a bait and switch. And so it goes.
For me the interesting question is can it pass a Measure R vote? It could be that with so many different ideas more than 50% of the voters will be unhappy with some aspect of the project. This of course calls into question whether anything can ever pass a Measure R vote.
This is the reason I’m wondering why the project is being rushed toward a vote with so many questions unanswered. Voters need to understand how a project will affect their lives in order to support it. If they’re confused about it, they’ll vote no. And right now very few people know enough detail about what’s being proposed to get anywhere near comfortable with it.