By Alan Hirsch
Our Redwood Lane neighborhood just had a close call: a large but neglected home went on the market. We all feared it being turned into a 10 student Mini- Dorm which is now a dangerous trend in neighborhoods throughout Davis. Luckily it was fixed up and purchased by a family. It would have joined the mini-dorm across the street (the one with 4 cars in front and the light on at midnight in the tool shed where someone maybe living). Around the corner there is a camper on the street with a power cord running to it.
With a severe housing shortage in Davis, the conversion of homes to Mini-dorms threatens our family oriented neighborhoods: Well-maintained owner-occupied homes are being turned into “cash-cow” rentals that get minimum care. There is no incentive to pay for repairs or improvements when there are desperate students willing settle for even the most run down house—or even a tool shed—to live. And as our neighborhood has found out, there are severe limitations of what the city can do based on fair housing laws to protect neighborhoods. So as result both Neighborhoods and Students are being exploited.
And now the campus has announced that they are growing by an additional 9000 students and employees. Yes, we want UCD to build more housing but even if UCD could somehow find the over $1 billion in state funds to build housing for 100% of those new arrivals going forward, our city has to address the backlog of unmet housing need we have today. The only realistic solution is more new privately financed small condo-apartments and student-appropriate housing. And so we don’t increase traffic and parking problems in town, they should be close to campus AND downtown where students and UC employees can walk or bike to their destination.
The reality is the NISHI project is the ONLY site that fits this bill. The City, the University and landowner have worked 4 years together to make this project work. The landowner has agreed to invest over $23 million into road improvements, including a new railroad underpass to Campus to relieve pressure on Richards tunnel. And environmentalists, including many NO on A leaders, helped negotiate the highest environmental standards of any project in town: far above and beyond what the city was asking for. And all these improvements are locked in and must be done before the first student moves in.
But the real problem is Supply and Demand for student housing is just out-of-whack. Opponents of Nishi argue it needs to add subsidized section 8 housing to the mix. But the solution to lower rents for everyone is not a few section 8 subsidized apartments– which can’t even be rented to students or faculty. We simply need more small efficient units near campus to alleviate the pressure on our neighborhoods. The alternative is continuing to see more mini-dorms displacing families in town.
And as rents to up, it means it even more lucrative to convert homes to Mini-dorms — thus raises the purchase price of homes for family who want to move to Davis.
If we don’t fix the mismatch of housing supply and demand, we can look forward to more students and staff commuting from Woodland, West Sac and even further away: More traffic on freeways, more air pollution and greenhouse gases. An increased economic incentive to convert more homes to Mini-dorms. This is an existential crisis for family neighborhoods.
The world spins forward, UC is growing. But the opponents to Measure A offer no solution to the mini-dorm problem.
Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Nishi is the best thing going to address Mini-dorm problem and save our family oriented neighborhoods.
Nishi isn’t perfect, but it’s good. There should be a saying about that.
We paid an arm and both legs for our house in Davis, deciding to move back here to raise our kids nearly 15 years after graduating. We like Davis as it is, but something’s got to give, and college kids and new grads like we were need somewhere to live; it shouldn’t have to be stacked 3 to a room in SFR areas.
Well written article. The house next to mine used to be rented to just about anyone. A family of 3 boys and a mother moved in with their dogs. They were a disruptive lot, getting on the roof at night and trying to look into our girls’ bedroom windows. This family totally destroyed the home, ruining the walls and floors. The place went to wrack and ruin. Eventually the landlord wised up. The house was refurbished after this family vacated, and now the landlord only allows UCD grad students as renters. Thus far it has been so much better, but new families move in about every 2-3 years. We just get to know our neighbors and then they move. We also have other renters on our street, and it does increase the number of cars parked on the roadway, to the point where only one car can pass by at one time. Nishi will not totally fix this problem of converting homes into mini-dorms, but its a good start.
nameless wrote:
> Eventually the landlord wised up. The house was refurbished
> after this family vacated, and now the landlord only allows
> UCD grad students as renters.
Make sure you tell the landlord that owns the house next to you to also remain “nameless” when he is breaking the law only renting to one class of people. In California discriminating against students and families with kids is exactly the same as discriminating against people of color and the disabled.
It’s not discrimination if you create a product that appeals to a certain market
Good point about the law, but some laws suck and should be ignored or circumvented, as many clearly are. Oink!
To South of Davis: I don’t know what the landlord advertises for. All I know is that the folks who rented after this destructive family have all been associated with the University, and have been excellent tenants. Discrimination in housing is only forbidden if it involves a protected class. There are legal ways landlords can keep out destructive families, e.g. no pets, credit checks, higher security deposits, etc.
The problem I see from the NO side is that they think yelling and screaming and MAKING UCD build housing will produce the desired affect. UCD will do what they will do when they feel like it. It’s a real shame Orchard has sat there vacant for so long. I still think the prices at Nishi will be so high that we’ll see overcrowding there too to try and get the rent per person down. But every little bit helps I suppose. I do shutter at the pollution issues though in that location.
As for the “mini dorms” as you call them, when what you describe happens, it’s the landlord who is not taking responsibility. I have a rental, I do not allow overcrowding, I keep the rent affordable so it is not so tempting to sneak, it’s in the lease and I keep an eye on it. I have had some bad experiences like the family where the # of people was not the problem but how they treated the property. It’s not easy to judge people up front.
One of the problems is not necessarily over-crowding, but actually engineering the houses with multiple bedrooms with their own bathrooms. So you can end up with a seven bedroom hope that houses ten people and that produces noise and parking issues for the neighbors. And it’s in their economic incentive to do that.
This is from an Enterprise article from 2014:
A very succinct description of the problem. Thank you, Alan Hirsch.
This is clear and concise coverage of one of four main problems that Nishi helps solve.
1. Not enough student rental housing and the impacts from this.
2. Not enough good jobs for residents and the impacts from this.
3. Not enough commercial space for UCD tech transfer and the impacts from this.
4. Not enough tax revenue to fund essential and desired city services and then impacts from this.
For the “No” people to deserve respect, they would need to be working on alternatives to solve these problems and mitigate the impacts.
As a homeowner in Central Davis, Alan sums-up my feelings. Every time I see a “No on A” yard sign in Central Davis I wonder if their vote would be changed if the house next door to them was converted into a mini-dorm with 10+ unrelated people aged 18 -22 making all the noise and nuisance that 18 – 22 year olds are programmed by nature to make.
Widjet wrote:
> Every time I see a “No on A” yard sign in Central Davis
> I wonder if their vote would be changed if the house next
> door to them was converted into a mini-dorm with 10+
> unrelated people aged 18 -22
Many people in Davis plan to move to a condo in Midtown Sac or SF and convert their home in Davis in to a “min-dorm” once they retire, so they don’t care if “Central Davis” becomes a “Sophomore Dorm” as long as home values and rents stay high. Most young people would rather live in a nice new apartment near campus, but if Nishi does not get built it will make it easier for people to rent a beat up Streng Home (with the garage and living room converted in to bedrooms) to 10+ people for $5K a month…
I agree. But that is not what Nishi provides.
First of all, this is not a privately financed project. It is a publicly subsidized project because the City has waived in-lieu affordability fees to the tune of $11,550,000 and rebated $1,750,000 in traffic impact fees. These amounts almost exactly match the costs the developer will pay for the tunnels to the University and the bridge over the bike path to West Olive Dr. So of the $23,000,000 in infrastructure costs the developer is supposedly paying, the City is functionally putting up over half of that money! There has never ever been a give-away of that magnitude to any other developer in town.
And in terms of units that are “small …and student appropriate housing“, 60% of the apartments at Nishi will be OVER 1,100 sq, ft and 67% of the condos are OVER 1,150 sq. ft. An independent analysis paid for jointly by the developer and the City projected rents at $2.20/sq. ft. So the 1,100 sq. ft 2-bedroom, 2-bath apt will rent for over $2,400/month. So much for small size and affordability.
Let’s face it, this is luxury-sized and priced housing, pure and simple. It is designed for rich foreign and out of state students like at West Villages. Well, that is OK if that is what the voters decide. But I sure don’t think the City should be subsidizing multi-millionaire developers with monies that could otherwise repair our streets or go into our affordable housing trust fund. That isn’t free-enterprise. That is local cronyism in its worst form.
If you think the give-aways at the Cannery were excessive and left us with a unattractive project that is unaffordable to local buyers, that is what is coming at us in spades with the Nishi project.
Except you get to add in air quality 2 to 5 times worse than regional averages which makes it particularly unsuitable for living by children, expectant mothers, and seniors. And if you look at some of the glossy renderings and writings in the Nishi advertisements, families and seniors are exactly who they are targeting for their for-sale condos.
And don’t forget that the traffic though Richards will get far, far worse in spite of the flawed, thumb-on-the-scale traffic analysis the City and developer bought. Promoters of Nishi like to say thay all of the students living there will be able to walk and bike to school or downtown. Probably true. But almost all students in town currently either bike or take Unitrans to UCD so Nishi is not that unique in that way or a huge game-changer.
But what about the 1,600 people who are supposedly going to get jobs in the 325,000 sq ft of R&D space. Are they going to magically teleport in from out of town? Of course, not. They will be driving in and out multiple times a day further congesting pinch-pointed access roads that will be overwhelmed on day one of the project.
Alan wrote:
> Are they going to magically teleport in from out of town?
> Of course, not. They will be driving in and out multiple times
> a day
Do you really think that people will be driving in AND out MULTIPLE times a day? How many times per day do you think the typical worker will drive in AND out?
> further congesting pinch-pointed access roads that will be
> overwhelmed on day one of the project.
The current AAA cost per mile is over $0.60 so it will cost someone over $9K a year (~$750/month) to commute Elk Grove (assuming just one trip per work day, not “multiple”) so I’m pretty sure quite a few people will move to Davis and ride their bike to work (like I do).
But the fact remains that 80% of UC employees live elsewhere than in Davis – particularly lower income workers. What this City needs is not more jobs, we need affordable housing and Nishi doesn’t fit the bill with its oversized and over priced units
Alan wrote:
> But the fact remains that 80% of UC employees
> live elsewhere than in Davis
And with a <1% vacancy rate we need to build more apartments in town so a higher percentage of UCD employees can live in town and ride to work.
SouthofDavis: “And with a <1% vacancy rate we need to build more apartments in town so a higher percentage of UCD employees can live in town and ride to work.”
Some take public transit (e.g., Yolobus) already. (Depending upon the point or origin, it may be easier/quicker to get to campus from nearby communities, compared to some parts of Davis. Especially as density increases, or if the city’s borders expand.) They certainly get “more for their money”, in surrounding areas. I suspect that this is a motivating factor for many, regardless of any housing built in Davis.
Nishi will be renting at market rate ($1500-1800 per month). It can be split among four students. If you think that is too expensive, that is simply a reflection of the housing market reality in Davis. In any case, voting ‘no’ on Nishi doesn’t solve anything. It just lets the problems fester and grow.
Mr. Pryor continues to willfully sow confusion, make vague accusations, and mislead. Nishi is the product of eight years of planning between the property owners, the City, UC Davis, and hundreds of other stakeholders. If it is voted down, they are not going to go back to renegotiation. This is a complete fantasy and fallacy the opposition continues to cling to in order to justify their opposition. If there is always a possibility of negotiating a better deal, then it makes sense to keep demanding more and more. Let’s be real, this is it. It is time to decide. This project is the result of years of planning, studies, and consensus building while having to mindful of fiscal and political realities. As the Enterprise and hundreds of other Davis businesses, elected officials (it was unanimously endorsed by every sitting Councilmember), and residents who have endorsed this project understand, Nishi helps address some of the most pressing problems currently confronting Davis (student housing, generating organic revenue, creating jobs to capture the tech transfer from the university, and helping maintain the amenities that define the Davis quality of life, etc.). So far, the opposition has failed to propose any solutions beyond “raise taxes” and “cut costs.” I find this particularly ironic given their alleged concern for those living in Davis with lesser means. Raising property taxes and cutting city services hurts those with the least the most. But instead of attempting to address the deficiencies of their arguments, the opposition just continues to scream “No” ever louder and toss out increasingly outlandish accusations.
For example, people like Mr. Pryor have been reiterating the same claim about an affordable housing ‘give-away’ with zealous fervor for a while now even though Councilmember Robb Davis clearly explained why this is incorrect. Here’s the link for anyone looking for a refresher: https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/guest-commentary-city-not-violate-affordable-housing-requirements-nishi/ Nishi is exempt from the City’s Affordable Housing requirement as part of the municipal code because it is vertical mixed use in design. Here is the link to the City’s Municipal Code for those who are interested: http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=18-18_05-18_05_080&frames=off The developers are not being exempted from traffic impact fees; it was decided that this money would go towards building the bridge connecting Nishi to Olive Drive such that bicyclists traveling along the Davis Bike Loop will be able to remain completely separated from any motor vehicles. This was a decision by the City Council to prioritize an upgrade for the Davis Bike Loop in lieu of spending that money elsewhere. There is no give-away, but I suspect Mr. Pryor and the opposition already know that.
Mr. Pryor and others also continue to crow that “an independent analysis” shows rents to be $2400 per month, but have failed to acknowledge the fact that this analysis was done without any consultation with the property owners as to what they actually anticipated the rents to be. The truth is that the property owners expect the rental units to rent at market rate (they estimate between $1500 and $1800 per month). This can be split between four students because, as Mr. Pryor himself acknowledges, there is ample space. In fact, these apartments are going to be comparable in cost to housing on campus, but will be slightly larger.
Mr. Pryor and other members of the opposition do not seem to acknowledge the fact that Nishi will invest $23 million into improving Davis’ infrastructure (building another route to campus that will allow drivers to avoid Richards which will help ease congestion for those traveling from South Davis or I-80 towards downtown, expanding and improving the Davis Bike Loop, contributing $3 million to the redesign of Richards, and expanding and improving access to South Davis for UniTrans and emergency services all seem like improvements to Davis’ infrastructure to me, but somehow Mr. Pryor rejects this). Nishi will create desperately-needed student housing in a location where 80% of trips taken from the residential component will be by biking or walking (remember that UC Davis said an additional 9,000 students and staff will be added in the next five years). Nishi will also add $1 million dollars to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Without Nishi, the City will receive none of that money for infrastructure, will see rents go up even faster than they already are–5% annually, a staggering figure, and will receive no money for the Affordable Housing Fund. Maybe opponents of Nishi feel like they are fighting for affordability, but if they are successful, their actions will have the opposite effect.
Air quality will be mitigated to be less than significant as a result of the extensive efforts the property owners are legally required to fulfill in order for the project to be realized. These include planting a dense urban forest between I-80 and the property’s buildings, situating the residential units at the far end of the property from I-80, and installing state-of-the-art air filtration systems. There simply are no facts to support any of Mr. Pryor’s assertions, although he and other members of the opposition are happy to spread hysteria about a risk that just isn’t real.
Mr. Pryor’s statement that traffic at Richards will get worse is simply not supported by the facts or any demonstrable evidence of any kind. In fact, the experts at Fehr and Peers have concluded that with the extensive traffic mitigation the property owners are legally bound to complete before there can be any construction at Nishi as part of the project baseline features will reduce the traffic impacts to less than significant. What’s more, as the Davis Enterprise highlighted in their endorsement, Nishi will create a way for people traveling to campus to bypass the Richards tunnel which will help people traveling from South Davis going downtown avoid so much congestion.
One of the problems the Davis City Council is trying to address is the jobs imbalance that exists in Davis–specifically that there aren’t enough private-sector jobs in Davis that will the city to benefit from the research being conducted at the university. In fact, this was one of the main reasons why the City decided to look into creating innovation parks. Creating jobs that will be knowledge-based and leveraging the work being done at UC Davis provides options for people living in Davis who currently commute to work in Sacramento and the Bay Area because of the shortage of exactly these types of jobs. What’s more, these jobs will allow more people graduating from Davis to stay in Davis. I am unclear as to what Mr. Pryor envisions for Davis. No more jobs and no more people?
Nishi helps address some of the most pressing problems currently confronting Davis. The opposition has thus far just said ‘No.’
Alan wrote:
> So of the $23,000,000 in infrastructure costs the
> developer is supposedly paying, the City is functionally
> putting up over half of that money!
Why just include the in-lieu affordability fees and traffic impact fees (they are not required to pay) and add in the cost of a new school and a new fire station (that they are not required to build) and say the City is “functionally”putting up ALL the money?
If you do not rent a spare room in your home to a poor person (since the city does not require you do it) and you rent it to someone else is the city “functionally” paying for your food every month?
The title of this article is really so out of touch with reality, as is the articles content. It really is astonishing to think that the case Alan Hirsch is trying to make here is with UCD wanting to add 9,500 students this fall and at least 600 – 1,000 more per year that mini-dorms will “disappear” or more won’t emerge if Nishi is built. Nishi says it will house 1,500 students, but it is pretty obvious that 1,500 students out of probably 13,000 more students coming in the coming years is just a” drop in the bucket” of the housing that UCD is trying to get our community to build, and cover the costs for them. If UCD continues on its unreasonably accelerated path of adding more students without building the on-campus apartments that they have promised our City for almost three decades, even building Nishi will not help. added to that, oru community would be taking on a project which would cause long term damage and enormous costs to the City with a project that has health hazards to it residents.
And it is also astonishing that the author also does not even mention the obvious solution of recognizing that UCD needs to take responsibility for its own growth on campus. I understand now that Alan has a mini-dorm problem in his neighborhood, it makes more clear why he is advocating for a “put the problem there, at Richards Blvd. with the unrealistic hope that this might lessen the problem in his own neighborhood”. The truth is, we would not have a mini-dorm problem, nor should any neighborhood have the mini-dorm problem, if UCD did what they have promised to do in building the on-campus housing for their own students.
I just find the hypocrisy in this article from someone who claims to be an environmentalist hard to understand. The truth is the Nishi project is an enormous failure at being significantly “green” and Alan Hirsch himself stated that many times at public meetings. But for him to join in by backing a terribly flawed project that would cause so much damage and impacts to the City and costs to its residents, is really hard to believe.
So let’s revisit reality, which is even if Nishi was built, and would bring on all of its traffic, costs, and other impacts, which would be further damaging to our community environmentally, it would not satisfy the enormous housing needs of UCD, nor will it solve the housing shortage that UCD is causing our community for its own students and our workforce and families. This is because UCD needs to build the on-campus housing to support its own growth. It is unfair to its own students and unfair to our community, and neighboring communities, that UCD has been so grossly negligent and they need to be called out on it. Now is the time for this with a new UCD LRDP update and a new chancellor likely to be at UCD.
Plus, if Nishi were to be built, what about the air quality health hazards that its residents would be exposed to, as clarified many times by Dr. Cahill Ph.D. who is an expert in this area and a well-respected UCD atmospheric scientist? So much for the author being “environmentally conscientious” about the health, welfare, and safety of the potential Nishi residents.
What I can say is that this article just also exposes the lack of credibility of anything that Alan Hirsch comes us with, or advocates for or against, in the name of “protecting our environment” after this article by him.
Eileen wrote:
> I just find the hypocrisy in this article from someone who
> claims to be an environmentalist hard to understand.
> The truth is the Nishi project is an enormous failure
> at being significantly “green”
I’m wondering if Eileen will share with us the U.S. Green Building Council LEED rating for her home? I don’t know the LEED rating of the homes of any of the people opposed to Nishi but it sure would be hypocritical to oppose Nishi got not being “significantly green” when you live in a home that is not as “green” according to the U.S. Green Building Council.
South of Davis
“it sure would be hypocritical to oppose Nishi got not being “significantly green” when you live in a home that is not as “green” according to the U.S. Green Building Council.”
I do not consider this to be hypocritical at all unless her home was built very recently. We cannot hold someone whose home was built long before the current standards to the same requirements as new construction.
Tia wrote:
> We cannot hold someone whose home was built
> long before the current standards to the same
> requirements as new construction.
A home built years ago can still get “greener”. Do you know about the “Regreen” renovation program?
http://www.regreenprogram.org/
Anyone that tells others to build “green” homes who can’t be bothered to make their own home green is a hypocrite.
[moderator] Last warning. If you call any Vanguard participant a hypocrite, or continue in this line of comments, your comments will be removed without warning. If you have any concerns about this, you can contact me at donshor@gmail.com.
Any reason Eileen didn’t get a warning for calling the actual author of the article a hypocrite (and also calls to question if the author is really an “environmentalist”)?
Eileen
“if UCD did what they have promised to do in building the on-campus housing for their own students.”
“So let’s revisit reality”
I agree with you completely that UCD should keep its housing promises. And here is the question that I have for you. Let’s say that you become the mayor of Davis tomorrow. What specific steps are you going to take to “make” or even “encourage” UCD to manage its own housing problems ?
I realize that this question was not directed to me. But, I’d like to turn this around, and (generally) ask the following:
If UCD does not intend to fully house its students, how should the city respond (knowing that the University has not historically made much attempt to work with the city, regarding its plans)? Should we have a goal of say, 10% of the expected increase? Maybe 20%? Maybe 100%? Or, should we just “play it by ear”? Also, what about housing demand in general (not necessarily related to an increase in students)? And, how “large” is the actual/overall demand (beyond the projected increase in students, given current housing prices)? If there’s a “demand”, should the city always respond? Does anyone believe that there will be much agreement, regarding these questions?
Also, should we simply stick with SACOG requirements, which assures that each city is allocated its “fair share” of growth/development?
UC has a goal, if I recall, of housing 40% of their students. UCD agreed to a lower number in a memorandum with the city a number of years ago. Eileen has that info. I seem to recall they were shooting for about 25%.
That means the city and the surrounding region will need to house the other 60 – 75%.
SACOG numbers are meaningless and unenforceable.
Would you care to share your thoughts regarding how much of that 60-75% that Davis should commit to? (That’s what I was asking.) And, any response to my other questions?
Wow – you’re the second or third person who apparently thinks that SACOG requirements should be ignored.
I recognize that UCD needs to take responsibility for its own growth on campus. Wait a second … that doesn’t seem to have achieved anything.
It is not logical to say there is going to be a housing shortage but that we shouldn’t try to build more housing at Nishi to help address it simply because it will be “just a drop in the bucket.” That is not how responsible policy or decision-making works. If you acknowledge that Davis will need more housing, then you can’t suddenly decide that only housing projects of sufficient size are going to work. I understand that you are upset with UC Davis about increasing enrollment, but this is not the way to fight them. Instead, it accelerates the rate of mini-dorm conversions, raises rents even higher than they are, and continues to price out families or lesser or moderate means from living in Davis.
Simply saying that UC Davis should fulfill all the increased housing needs solves nothing. It is cathartic, maybe, but at the end of the day, UC Davis has made it clear that they will not be able to house all of the students coming. Nishi helps provide housing for these students so that they don’t commute from Woodland, West Sac, or Dixon. That is certainly more of an environmental sustainable alternative–especially since we know that 80% of the trips taken from the student housing will be by walking or biking.
Nishi adds up to $1.4 million to the city’s annual revenue, $4ook to DJUSD, $23 million in infrastructure investments, and millions more to fund entities such as Davis libraries, Los Rios Community College, etc. Nishi doesn’t bring costs, it brings revenue. Your assertion is simply not supported by facts.
It is a straw-man argument to claim that Mr. Hirsch says Nishi will make “mini-dorms disappear.” He never said that. That doesn’t take away from the fact that if you continue to add more students to Davis without providing enough housing, that this will result in more mini-dorm conversions.
Your claims about air quality concerns are simply not supported by facts or demonstrable evidence. The professional surveys and recommendations as part of the EIR concluded that air quality impacts will be mitigated to be less than significant. What’s more the level of risk on which you and the other opponents are fixating is being blown entirely out of proportion. The risk of being injured in a car accident while commuting (the exact situation Nishi helps avoid) is orders of magnitude greater than the likelihood of developing respiratory problems. This is not a rational criticism to make.
I am complemented by the long response Eileen wrote for my article. I obviously hit a nerve.
I would suggest her ad hominin attacks and use of emotionally laden words: i.e Accusing me of “hypocracy” and being “astonished” weaken her arguments. Ad Hominin attacks like this harm the ability of our community to reason together to find solutions in the future, win or lose June 7th.
RE: Nishi’s Environmental Design and Building Standards:
I do want to record for record the history of how we got to LEED and other environmental standards on this project. I, Prof Steve Wheeler and other, (including many of the signer of the No on A argument) meet togehter for over a year (Nishi Working Group) and pressed back on the Nishi development for many months pushing on traffic mitigation and Building standards. For example People don’t remember that the original plan has many acres of surface parking…and the developer dramatically reduced the number of spaces and agreed to invest in parking garage so there would be more green space. This was not cheap: it costs $50K a space for a garage vs $10K or less a space for surface lots.
He also agreed to cap the number of cars accessing Richards at Rush hour…as well as help improve the flow on Richards Blvd by funding part of the fix…real NET new money in the millions for the city despite what other say.
He also improved the building’s energy Efficiency: Part of this process was him hiring a consult to see if one of our group demands, Hi LEED Environmental standards for building and site design, were feasible. He hired Lynn Simon as Davis resident/ SF based Architect and someone on the International board of LEED advisory. He spent $25K on this effort–why? Maybe he’s a good guy and wanted to CoOp us environmentalist…or maybe hoped to buttress his argument LEED would not work? Does not make any difference. I must note he did this even though City staff was not supportive of locking in LEED requirements at the ballot. The results Simon came back with on LEED feasibility–i.e. that Platinum might be doable I think surprised the developer…but on other side–Lynn noted that some pre-requisite were not ironed out this early in the design stage and could not be for many months–i.e. if LEED was hard coded in otherwise this would be a total no-starter, not to to environmental reasons, but technical problem of the LEED regs (I.E. the old dry wash was considered a “wetland” by LEED standard so it might require millions extra spend for little environmental benefit. The result was locking in LEED this early might be a poison pill to kill the project for no good reason. This is where No folks and I split on endorsing the project. The noi folks began raising Air quality, affordability, inadequate mitigation funding as reasons to vote no…something our group was not negotiating for.
But the result of LEED process was Simon’s recommendation were were pretty much incorporated into the Baseline features on the ballot, i.e. locked in.
Unlike at the Cannery, I note.
I don’t believe there is any project in Davis who locked in an effort to strive to attain LEED-ND and LEED-buliding at the Highest Platinum Building standards to this extend. But maybe Nishi opponents know of one?
—-
Eileen’s other more fact-based arguments responding to my orginal piece I believe have been addressed in the comments by others.
Yes, I moved from “agnostic” on this project to endorsing it based on the above hi environmental improvements in its design and its dramatic reduction in parking and traffic impacts. For the NO folks, this was not enough. I honor, but disagree with their calculus on what is “good enough” for Davis.
For me, I don’t believe we should make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Particularly considering the housing needs of our students…and the conversion of homes to Mini-dorms that reduces the number of family who can live in Davis.
Alan Hirsch
“… do want to record for record the history of how we got to LEED and other environmental standards on this project. I, Prof Steve Wheeler and other, (including many of the signer of the No on A argument) meet togehter for over a year (Nishi Working Group) and pressed back on the Nishi development for many months pushing on traffic mitigation and Building standards.”
Thank you for all your hard work on the Nishi project… it is greatly appreciated.
1. Nishi is not offering to build enough units to make any difference in local rents, the vacancy rate, or “mini-dorms.” Isn’t that why this argument was put forth?
2. It is not the task for opponents to offer alternatives. Alternatives are supposed to have been weighed before signing a development agreement. If you want alternatives now, then you are conceding that you did not have sufficient information in going along with this particular proposal. If you want an alternative now, then you must vote no.
3. When the proponents concede that Nishi is not the best possible project, they have lost the argument.
4. If you truly believe people should vote Yes, then you should be making the argument that this project IS the best possible alternative.
5. All of this other chatter is just more of “the sky is falling”
Interesting logic here that building housing will not help solve the housing shortage.
A foolish and telling argument unless you are in support of several mega-sized apartment complexes being built. Every new rental unit increases the supply and takes pressure off the vacancy rate. The No people tend to make the argument that Davis should just focus on infill and smaller developments. I assume you are in that camp. So this argument from you is disingenuous to say the least.
Lead, follow or get out of the way. It is not the responsibility for anyone to accept the rants of perpetual critics of everything that never work to help solve problems in the city.
Who said that? It IS the best possible project. It isn’t a prefect project… because perfect projects do not exist.
Read what the No people write and there you will find all the “sky is falling” chatter.
“Nishi is not offering to build enough units to make any difference in local rents, the vacancy rate, or “mini-dorms.” Isn’t that why this argument was put forth?”
I think this is problematic. If you think about it – Nishi (1500), Sterling (750), Lincoln40 (650) are taking on about 3000 beds combined, that’s one-third of what we need in a 10 year period If UC Davis is willing to take on the same amount, we’ve knocked out two-thirds of the problem.
” astonishing to think that the case Alan Hirsch is trying to make here is with UCD wanting to add 9,500 students this fall and at least 600 – 1,000 more per year that mini-dorms will “disappear” or more won’t emerge if Nishi is built.”
UC Davis said they are taking on 9000 more over a ten year period.
“And it is also astonishing that the author also does not even mention the obvious solution of recognizing that UCD needs to take responsibility for its own growth on campus.”
UC Davis is part of the solution, but it’s not an obvious one because they aren’t taking on the full 9000.
“I just find the hypocrisy in this article from someone who claims to be an environmentalist hard to understand. ”
I’m baffled by this. You think it will be much greener for students and employees to commute from Woodland or West Sacramento, Elk Grove, Natomas? That’s the alternative here.
Puglist,
UCD announced not long ago, that they plan to admit 9,500 new students this fall. Then there are plenty more coming annually after that in the order of 600-1,000 per year. So Nishi is not going to solve the UCD housing problem that UCD is trying to deflect onto our community.
Regarding the environmental subject that you raise, I am baffled by how you are trying to compare an environmentally hazardous site for housing – to a commuting issue. Neither is good environmentally, but supporting a project which has been vehemently opposed by an expert ad UCD atmospheric scientist with expertise in this area because of the heath hazards, is not to be ignored.
The solution here in any case, is not to rush through such a flawed project with so many problems and impacts and costs to the City, just to convenience the developers. Nishi just adds to the City’s problems, it does not help.
I see what you’re saying – new students, not additional as in over and above the total admitted last year. As I said, elsewhere Nishi isn’t going to solve the housing problem, but in conjunction with Sterling and Lincoln40 could take on one third of the additional students.
Commuting is a leading cause of GHG emissions. I’ve read the Cahill stuff, given a four or five year exposure, I think the particulate matter exposure will have a minute at best impact on actual health.
The idea that this project is flawed to the point where its costs outweigh its benefits is overstated. The city need rental housing and jobs and this offers a little of each.
Eileen wrote:
> UCD announced not long ago, that they plan to admit
> 9,500 new students this fall.
Actually “The campus is marshaling its efforts and resources to accommodate 2016-17 enrollment growth of 1,100 new undergraduates beyond last fall’s entering class.”
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/campus-prepares-large-influx-students-2016-17
> Nishi is not going to solve the UCD housing problem
Would you support Nishi if we gave Tandem the OK to build 1,100 (or even 9,500) more beds to “solve the UCD housing problem”
Eileen, your case against Nishi has merit, for sure, but your numbers are way out of whack. I think your 9500 is the added increase in students, faculty and staff over the next 5 years. Also many times I have read the number of new students planning to be added to the whole UC system quoted, but these are not all UCD. There are numbers flying all over the place and it takes effort to keep them all straight, I know, but it does not serve your cause to seem to be exaggerating.
Don and Frankly,
The key is for the City to not be “led” by the nose to get duped into taking in a terrible project that will not solve the housing problem that UCD is creating for the City, but instead leads the City into a much bigger, and long-term problem of exacerbating the traffic at Richards and building a terrible project with serious health hazards AND bring on all of the enormous costs to our residents. Again, Nishi does not bring solutions, Nishi bring more problems to our City.
The university needs to build housing. You and I agree completely on that.
More private rental housing needs to be developed in the city. You and I disagree about that.
I don’t consider Nishi to be a terrible project. I think you and others are enormously overstating the issues of traffic and health hazards.
It provides some housing. That alone will not solve the housing shortage. Sterling adds some more. That alone will also not solve the housing shortage. But adding a couple of thousand beds by those projects will help.
South of Davis,
I would have been glad for any green features for my place to have, but it was built in the 70’s and I had no say on that since I was not even the original owner, and furthermore the City was not even tuned in on “green” planning back then. So that was a pretty cheap shot by you. But I can say that every upgrade I did on my place has been a more green alternative when possible.
Don,
I guess the most important part of where we don’t agree is on how important the many negatives are on Nishi. It is important for the voters to understand the many impacts and costs to them, and the community as a whole, and the health hazards that a nationwide, well-respected UCD expert has made clear is a serious problem. Dr. Cahill would not be putting this information out there, and publicly opposing any housing at Nishi, were he not certain of the severity of this problem.
So everyone has the right to do what they want with this information, but everyone has the right to hear it and decide if they want to ignore these warnings and accept the long-term costs and impacts that would come with Nishi. However, it would be yet other people who would suffer the consequences (who are not aware of the health hazard problem) if they become a resident at Nishi, if this project goes forward.
So moving forward with a bad decision, is NOT a good solution.
Eileen wrote:
> Dr. Cahill would not be putting this information out there,
> and publicly opposing any housing at Nishi,
Most young professionals spend more time at work than they do at home, so if it is “dangerous” to live at Nishi why wouldn’t is also be “dangerous” to work there?
Eileen
“the health hazards that a nationwide, well-respected UCD expert has made clear is a serious problem. Dr. Cahill would not be putting this information out there, and publicly opposing any housing at Nishi, were he not certain of the severity of this problem.”
While I have respect for your belief in his findings and great respect for Dr. Cahill, I believe that what he is not is as important as what he is in this respect. Dr. Cahill is not an epidemiologist, he is not a statistician, he is not a local ER doctor or pulmonary or women’s health specialist. Since I am the latter and have a special interest in public health, I sought help in researching this issue. I consulted with our Yolo County epidemiologist, two individuals much more savvy than I in statistical risk assessment who reviewed his findings and my own knowledge of patterns of respiratory illnesses amongst our pregnant population and came to the conclusion that what Dr. Cahill is describing is the worst case scenario for potential risk, not a certainty of the severity of an existing problem. These are two separate considerations and the severity of a known problem should not be confounded with the extrapolation of potential risk to our local situation.
Tia,
With all due respect, in order to analyze the data to be an expert in his field (which he is) Dr. Cahill would have to have statistical expertise and I would assume epidemiology expertise too, since this is precisely an area that he specializes in…the health impacts of various air quality conditions.
I am not certain how asking a local County epidemiologist would help because as Dr. Cahill mentioned, the Nishi property and where it is located is an exceptionally bad situation, creating the “perfect storm” of bad conditions causing terrible air quality, particularity long-term. So,I appreciate that you have looked into this but this subject is a specialty and you may chose to ignore or not accept his conclusions, but I think everyone needs to decide for themselves what they want to accept as factual and important considerations. I assume that you would have not problem living at Nishi or any of your family. But I certainly would not.
The firm hired to conduct the air quality report for the EIR professionally and meticulously collected and analyzed data from Nishi’s site. No one, including, PhD. Cahill, has been as thorough with respect to studying this particular site. This is important because air is a particularly fickle substance which is extremely site-specific and defies generalized models. The extensive mitigation measures undertaken by property owners will result in a less than significant impact. What’s more, one is orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident while commuting than from the respiratory problems for which you express concern. This not a sound basis for policy or decision making.
South of Davis,
The original concept of some R and D possibly working there was that the workers are indoors primarily and there a portion of the day, not all day and night. In that case the air quality indoors could be controlled to a certain extent with air filters. But residents living there and spending significant time outside there (such as recreating) then these exposures would be dangerous, particularly long-term to children, expectant mothers, and senior citizens.
“then these exposures would be dangerous”
I don’t think Cahill’s research supports that. As I understand it, Tia is correct, but also what you are doing is moving a minute risk assessment to a slight less but still very minute risk assessment. You probably incur more real risk when you cross a stress or even drive a car.
The math here needs to be explicated.
There 1 person in 4500 will over the course of an entire lifetime contract a certain form of cancer based on exposure to this. That’s over the course of their lifetime when overall one in ten people will contract respiratory cancer. Can you refute these figures Eileen, otherwise calling this dangerous is irresponsible.
Eileen
“I assume that you would have not problem living at Nishi or any of your family. But I certainly would not.”
This is correct. I currently live 1/2 block from the tracks on J street and within a 5 minute walk of the freeway. When I first bought in Davis just north of me was still ag land with all the factors mentioned by Rob White in his post of this date. I used to live in Southern California when the air quality was much worse than anything we are experiencing in Davis today. While, as you may know, I am a major proponent of health and wellness, I see the emissions from I – 80 as a much lower risk than many other conditions that we accept as normal every day.
As you said, it is everyone’s individual decision. I just prefer that when we are talking about expertise, people understand the difference between potential threat and existing problem and that was the differentiation not well spelled out in your post.
The Mini Dorm “Problem”
It took me a while to realize what was bothering me about the title of this article. It is the built in assumption that the existence of “mini dorms” is a “problem”. My response to this is that it is entirely a matter of perspective.
I live one house away from a “mini -dorm”, and two houses away from three student co -operatives. I have never perceived this as a problem. On the rare occasions when there has been noise late into the evening, the most affected individual, usually our next door neighbor has simply walked next door and asked them to quiet down a little, with which they have readily complied. I think that the tolerance for living close to students is highly variable. Which brings me to a related point.
There are some who post here who think the mini -dorms are a terrible problem from which we need relief, but are in favor of the full six story Trackside development as originally proposed, perhaps not realizing that the next door neighbors will face, in their very small one story homes most of the same problems in terms of noise, traffic, parking and congestion that they themselves dislike from the “mini – dorms”.
Part of the reason that I see Nishi as a good project is that it provides business space and living space without significantly affecting anyone’s current living arrangement. Yes, there may be some longer lines waiting to cross the Richards/ Olive Dr. intersection…..or not…..but from my view as someone very impacted by this intersection, the answer is relatively simple….go around or better yet, don’t take your car.
I tend to doubt that the tenants at a six-story Trackside development would hold a party on the roof of their abode, inviting their guests to throw their empty bottles onto the driveway below, as did the young gentlemen living next door. Same for the frequent loud parties filled with drunk students and bad music, the 2 am full-volume rock band rehearsal, the 3 am basketball games outside my bedroom window, the dilapidated school bus parked on the street (with an extension cord running across the sidewalk and into the house) or the kids who moved their living room – complete with a tv and stereo playing all night – onto their front lawn so they could fit another bed inside.
I would happily take a six-story upscale mixed-use building filled with good tenants next door in trade for the three mini-dorms that share our circle.
Wrong. I was in San Diego and saw drunk students at 2:00am throwing bottles from a sixth-floor balcony onto the street below trying to score a basket in a city garbage can. Most missed, some came dangerously close to hitting people.
But that won’t happen at Trackside. Oh, no.
Your logic seems to be that Davis is drowning, and UC Davis won’t put a big enough rock in the pond to keep Davis from drowning by standing on the rock, so putting in a small rock to stand on won’t help keep Davis’ nose above water, so just let Davis drown. The argument is devoid of both logic and common sense.
An expert with an agenda. Oh, experts don’t have political views, or oppose growth, or use their so-called expertise to make claims they can’t substantiate with logic?
When I see Cahill calling for the emergency evacuation of East Olive Drive, I’ll take him seriously.
Mr. Hirsch,
Thank you for writing about the housing situation in Davis. It seems that your article has created much debate within some of Davis’s citizens. While you bring up good points about the Nishi development, as a 21 year-old student who can take care of a house and maintain good relations with neighbors, I have a few disagreements and questions about some of the things you wrote.
First of all, how do you know that the structure in the back is a tool shed? Are you admitting to trespassing on someone’s property to prove a point? I think many of the commenters will agree with me in saying that we should focus on the facts and not on hyperboles, assumptions, or wild guesses.
Also, what is a mini-dorm? Is any rental house with students living in it a mini-dorm? That’s the impression I get from your article. If that’s the case, then where can students live if they do not want to live in an apartment or in student housing and not have their home labeled a mini-dorm? Or is there a ratio of students to room in a house that needs to be exceeded before a rental house is labeled a mini-dorm? I don’t want the house I’m living in to be labeled a mini-dorm just because students live in it; that sounds terrible. I rented a house and it’s going to be called a house not a mini-dorm.
Another assumption you make is that a homeowner or a family takes better care of a house than students. Your article creates this stereotype that students are incapable of keeping a house clean or staying quiet throughout their entire college career. Are homeowners more adept at maintaining a house? How about a family? Your stage in life, whether it be a student, commuting professional, or married and own a home does not predict how well you can take care of a house or be a good neighbor.
It is quite offensive to hear that someone believes myself and 2 other responsible college students are not worthy of renting a house. This is a college town and there will always be students. Students are an integral part of the Davis community. Students work at the many businesses throughout the city, they contribute to the local economy, and they add to the diversity of the city. Alienating students to a certain part of town or a certain type of dwelling is no different than segregation or apartheid. It is not true that students and other residents can’t get along.
As a whole, the city and the university must address the housing issue that is being debated. However, it is not fair for students, the population that the university serves, to be labeled as the problem that requires extra housing to be built so they can be kept apart from non-students. I’m not opposed to creating more housing for students. I’m opposed to the message being sent that students should not live in houses next to families; thus, housing away from families must be built for the students. Someone may counter my opinions by saying that the Nishi gateway will have apartments for seniors and young professionals. That is true, but the population being identified as “families” or the good residents that can live in houses are older than young professionals and definitely younger than seniors. These “families” will not be living in the Nishi gateway and will still be shielded from a portion of the student population once it’s built.