Guest Commentary: Was the ASUCD Used by the Nishi Developers?

Nishi-Forum-11Did Students Endorse A Project That Is Good For Profits But Bad For Students?

By Skylar Johnson

On June 7th, Davis voters will have the opportunity to vote on Measure A regarding  development of the 43-acre Nishi property that is now ag land sandwiched between I-80 and the railroad tracks on the south side of campus. If approved by voters, the Nishi property could be developed into 440 rental units and 210 for-sale condos, as well as 325,000 square feet of office/R&D space and 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail space.

This project is supported by almost all the local politicians, real estate developers, and business groups in Davis who claim it will provide sorely needed economic stimulus and rental housing in Davis of the type that will be desired by and suitable for students. This massive development project is being opposed by an underfunded, small coalition of progressive Davis voters who claim the project is illegally avoiding normal affordable housing requirements and is actually building luxury-type student apartments affordable only to upper income students.

The No on Nishi campaign also claims there are numerous financial give-aways from the City to the developers and that the project will result in traffic grid-lock through downtown Davis and the University on Old Davis Rd. They also allege the project is green-washed and not nearly as sustainable as represented, or should be, and that the air quality of the development will be the worst in the region because the site sits in a bowl crammed between the elevated grid-locked I-80 freeway and the railroad tracks.

BACKROOM SHENANIGANS WERE USED BY ASUCD TO ENDORSE THIS PROJECT

In addition to asking how this project’s features really benefit students, this article questions the wisdom and the rushed, almost secretive process by which this endorsement occurred to make it appear that the campus as a whole supported the project.

In reality, the ASUCD Senate urgently introduced and rapidly passed Senate Resolution #13 unanimously without any outreach to the student body.

While student input on such massive developments such as Nishi is crucial, but completely lacking in this case, it is also clear that there was not even any informed discussion addressing both the pros and cons of the development. Instead, the ASUCD only heard developer-driven talking-point arguments.  When asked to speak about the opposition to the project, there was no detailed information presented, but instead it was only stated “there are people who are no-growthers,” clearly aiming to characterize opponents as selfish NIMBYs.

Important questions were raised by Gender and Sexualities Commission Chair Ivon Garcia specifically regarding whether the development was going to be really affordable for students. This was met with a response of “not having a lot of that information” (Tommy, line xi Senate Meeting Minutes 2/4/16), but that the “development is geared for students” and they have been “keeping in mind the needs of the students” (Hiba, line viii Senate Meeting Minutes 2/4/16).

Let’s be clear, incredibly, the ASUCD Senate voted to endorse this project in early February, almost 2 full weeks before the final details of the project were worked out and approved by the City of Davis on 2/16/16. Has this ever happened before in the ASUCD? Unfortunately, it now appears that the rental units for the project will be completely priced out of range of all but the most well-to-do students.

It is apparent from the record that our Senate should have been more informed when this endorsement resolution was discussed and passed, It was clearly outside of the proper process for the Senate to urgently introduce and pass such a resolution for which they didn’t have adequate information. Because of this flawed process, I am also strongly against the ASUCD representing that the  student body as a whole supported this development so that now “Yes on A”  has featured this ASUCD endorsement prominently on their campaign literature, newspaper ads, and at public forums.

It appears the ASUCD has been used as a pawn by the developer to extract an endorsement of a project for which they did not have all of the necessary information and that that mostly benefits the developer with little to offer the student of average means.

THE TYPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDENTS REALLY NEED

If the developers truly were keeping student interests in mind, they would really take a look at the true economic needs of the student population.

As stated on the UC Davis website “Student Profile,” 63% of Fall 2014 undergraduates were awarded family income-based grants and scholarships. Additionally, 41% of 2014/2015 undergraduates were designated low income by the federal government. On a city-level, the most up-to-date information from the City of Davis Affordable Housing Program website estimates 46% of all Davis households experienced some level of excessive housing-cost burden, and of these, 71.5%  were very-low income households. Does this appear to be a demographic that will be well served by expensive Nishi units that are huge and high-priced? I certainly don’t think so!  I could never afford to live there.

And what is even more disturbing to me is that the Nishi development provides no affordable housing set-aside units which have been required in every other large development in Davis . The Nishi development will only be providing more housing for upper income students or renters  who already have home security. What is being provided for the average student of limited means who is struggling stay in school and buy books, let alone pay for housing?

Whether or not it was illegal for the City of Davis to exempt the developers from the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance  (currently under litigation), it is immoral to not responsibly serve the needs of all in our community. This development is showing the lack of city values in providing affordable housing by not investing in it. It furthers the commodification of the housing process and divides the markets by saying if you can afford it, you get it!  And if you can’t, too bad!

Furthermore, it is a joke to justify this by claiming the housing is “affordable by design,” as proponents of Measure A have claimed when I have questioned their lack of affordability. What does “affordable by design” actually mean, and who sets these standards?  The developers say 176 of the 440 total units (40%) are 850 square feet or smaller. But it is also true that 264 of the 440 units (60%) are greater than 1,100 sq. ft and going up to 1,600 sq. ft!  These apartments are larger than a lot of the houses in Davis.

And not only are these apartments large but they are going to be expensive! According to an independent study commissioned by the City of Davis, average rent for a 1,100 sq. ft, 2-bedroom, 2-bath apartment will be over $2,400/month. That’s hardly what I would call “affordable by design” for the average student.

You may refute this by saying, “But Nishi has promised to contribute $1 million dollars in donation to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund!”  Well whoopee!  If the developers were, instead, required to pay the full equivalent in-lieu fees, they would have to pay $11,550,000 ($75,000/unit x 154 units). I agree with the “No on Nishi” campaign that this is a blatant give-away to the developer. And even more so, because that donation to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund will only be paid proportionately when each of the parcels (residential AND commercial) are actually occupied. That means that no money will actually begin to be seen for at least five years and some may never materialize. Students deserve a better promise of affordable housing.

While this development does add much needed beds to the Davis housing stock to accommodate the growth in UCD’s student population, the University’s recent dramatic shift in emphasis in its draft Long-Range Development Plan proposes to provides 90% of new students and Staff with on-campus housing. Thus there is not the urgent need to take whatever a developer offers Davis. If the ASUCD endorses a project like this, they should demand a project that really fits our students’ needs. For instance, because the property is not on University land, there is simply no way to guarantee these units will go to students. For all we know these expensive units will fill up those commuting to Sacramento or the Bay Area every day. Great for the developer  who can charge Bay Area-like rents…not so good for students looking for affordable housing.

NISHI IS GREEN-WASHED AND NOT NEARLY AS SUSTAINABLE AS PROMISED

In terms of environmental sustainability, this development also falls short. The Environmental Impact Report, as required by California law, highlights “significant and unavoidable” air quality impacts even with mitigation. Its location is sandwiched between the freeway and railroad tracks which puts residents at high risk for poor air quality, especially from particulate air pollution from diesel trucks which is listed as one of California’s worst contaminants in terms of harmful health impacts. This makes it unsafe for residents according to Dr. Ton Cahill, who is Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at UC Davis and an acknowledged expert on San Joaquin Valley human health impacts from air pollution. I realize that the developer is touting an urban forest buffer designed to filter the air. But, this buffer is only going to be 50 ft wide and who knows how long it will take to establish the buffer or how much pollution it will actually filter from the air because there is no quantifiable data. It is a complete guess that this will remove any significant pollution for decades until the tree growth and canopy are fully established.

What is even more disturbing is that this Environmental Impact Report has no legal bearings– it is simply a disclosure document. It is up to the public to hold the developer accountable for its findings. Even with its purported sustainable technologies, there is no plan set in place to help educate residents on living sustainably and using its sustainable features. I think there is a high probability that this development will just turn into another West Village with unaffordable units and higher than projected energy and auto use, virtually destroying its intentions of being a zero net energy community.

In fact, the project’s Environmental Impact Report states that even with mitigation, the project will still produce over 24,000,000 lbs per year of greenhouse gases. This is hardly what I call a model of sustainability. And the developer has even managed to turn the large photovoltaic system planned for the site to his advantage. Originally it was stated that the solar energy output would be used to offset energy usage by students (like at West Villages) thus lowering student costs to live there. Now I find out that the developer is selling the solar electricity and pocketing the money so the student renters do not receive any of the benefit of the solar energy system.  What’s up with that?  Seems like it was a “bait and switch” to me.

We need to find housing solutions that meet the simple needs of average students and  not the wealthiest among us. I want to see responsible development that focuses on sustainability in social, economic, and environmental realms. I want Davis to be a model for change in California and the greater United States, as it has been with previous developments.  The Nishi project does not come close to meeting these goals but instead relies on slick advertising and paid student minions to spread its false gospel.

With this, I ask you to join me in voting No on Measure A to demand a more  fair and greener future for Davis.

Students can learn more at NoOnNishi.com and Facebook.com/NoOnNishiDavis/. The website has the hard data while the Facebook link is the more light-hearted discussion.

Author

Categories:

Breaking News City of Davis Land Use/Open Space

Tags:

95 comments

  1. I am perplexed why a student would oppose the building of new housing in Davis.  Does the author not understand that there is no do over here, no redesign, no later vote?  It’s this project or non-irrigated ag land. Pick one.

    1. Just go on campus and look – some people have even put up No on A signs even though they can’t vote. There are tons of students that oppose this. After having to deal with Katehi, you know a bad deal when we see it.

      1. Doesn’t explain why they would oppose the building of new housing in Davis.  I guess they support people living in Woodland, Dixon and Sacramento and commuting to school every day.

  2. Admittedly, I don’t know Skylar Johnson… but the writing style and major points of this article seem strangely familiar… almost as if Alan or Eileen may have ghost-written this. I’m not opposed to them doing so (if they did), but to use a student as your messenger would seem pretty basic to me.

    In fact, as I compare this article to the NO on Nishi propaganda, it appears that this article almost tracks exactly with the ballot arguments. Now why would a student do that?

    I was interested to read about the intrigue of potentially rushing to the vote at ASUCD, but then I also briefed through the actual minutes and realized that this article lifts quotes out of context. And one fact left our is that it was sitting ASUCD senators that wanted to hear the project on February 4th and encouraged the discussion then so that their views could be part of the City Council meeting record on February 11th.

    As someone involved in several community-based orgs, I can attest that this happens pretty often because we want to have a voice in the City Council hearings and the timeline is short.

    Anyway, take it for what it’s worth…

    1. In fact, as I compare this article to the NO on Nishi propaganda, it appears that this article almost tracks exactly with the ballot arguments. Now why would a student do that?

      In fact, as I compare the propaganda of DavisforNishiGateway’s posts below, it appears that those posts almost tracks exactly with the Yes on Nishi ballot arguments. Now why would a student do that?

        1. The Pugilist wrote:

          > Stick to the arguments or the facts as you put

          > them – they’re on your side.

          I know for a FACT that BOTH sides of the Measure A campaign have paid students…

        2. SOD:  please don’t criticize these Yes on A student workers.  They seem to be bright, hard working, and just doing their jobs with cheer and good spirit.  Working for some good cash, fun, and a resume line.  All good.

    2. Thinking the same thing Rob.  This does not sound like the original thoughts and opinions of a UCD student except those that are a mouthpiece … for the … people that come out against almost any type of housing growth and economic development that threatens to change their privileged lifestyle.  But then again, a lot of these students will certainly be out today at 5 PM at the Bernie Sanders rally (by the way folks, don’t plan to drive down Russel Blvd today after about 4 PM.) so it is apparent that UCD students don’t always support the politics that are in their best interests.

      [moderator] edited. Please review and adhere to the Vanguard Comment Policy, specifically:

      Pejorative references to any general class of people are strongly discouraged. The Editorial Board asks commenters to understand that general insults discourage the participation of others. They contribute to a negative tone and strongly suggest disrespect for the views of others. In some cases, general insults oversimplify the positions of others, which is detrimental to informed and respectful debate. General insults that are provocative are especially discouraged.

    3.  

      Admittedly, I don’t know Skylar Johnson… but the writing style and major points of this article seem strangely familiar…almost as if Alan or Eileen may have ghost-written this

      I would suggest that the similarity is because Ms. Johnson uses a writing technique employed both by Ms. Samitz and myself. It’s called “facts”.
       

       

      1. Alan wrote:

        > It’s called “facts”

        How do you (and Skylar) know for a “fact” that the two bedroom units will rent for $2,400/month?

        Is a “backroom shenanigan” now defined as any vote at UCD that does not have the blessing of the Gender and Sexualities Commission Chair?

  3. To ryankelley:

    Why are you an expert on whether develop will or won’t take place on this piece of land if Measure A doesn’t pass. Who are you? Please present your credentials. As for me, if Measure A loses, I see the possibility of the university buying and developing the Nishi land. It’s an appropriate site for U.C.D. with it proximity to the core campus, even as it’s an inappropriate site, with its massive traffic jam generating potential on Richards Blvd.

        1. But what about the “toxic soup” and the lack of affordable housing, and Skylar’s assertion that tenants should benefit financially from having solar energy systems installed?

    1. Jim, all of us are speculating when projecting what will happen after the votes are counted.

      For what it is worth, my personal speculation is that the 2020 renewal of Measure R/J comes into play if the Measure A vote ends up being a “No.”  I would expect the Nishi developer to put any redesign/reconfiguration of the Nishi site on hold until the outcome of that 2020 vote on the future of Measure R/J has been determined.  If the Davis voters decide not to renew Measure R/J then the developer will no longer have to go out to a vote of the Davis citizens in order to get approval.  They will find themselves in a situation similar to the one ConAgra faced vis-a-vis the Cannery, where all they need is 3 votes from the Council.  Killing the Measure R/J extension is, in my opinion, the next step for the Nishi developers if the Measure A vote is “No.”  Additionally, I believe they will have a lot of allies in that fight.

      JMHO

       

      1. Matt: so the sky will fall on the J/R era if poor Nishi goes  down ?  Now I’ve heard it all!

        John Whitcomb’s first project was Covell Village and we heard that the sky will fall and Davis will collapse refrain.  Same tune, same developers, different site.  Probably same result.  Voters say NO to a junky project and the town then redoubled its investments in the existing development and people who live here.

         

        Vote No on Nishi!

    1. Manipulation process? On what?

      Mike as you of all people are aware, I haven’t worked at the City of Davis for 12 months now, and I was moved to the side of the discussions as far back as April 2015. So I guess I couldn’t logistically be involved in whatever “manipulations” you are insinuating… but I suspect you know that.

      This really just tracks with all of the No campaign’s daily prestidigitation when it comes to facts, following the rules (like with sign placement), or sticking with issues instead of attacking people.

      This was demonstrated today by the magical removal of all of the comments I made on the ‘No on Nishi’ Facebook page this morning… all gone. Presto! Like magic. I suspect the comments were a little to close to the truth to let them stand on the page, you know dealing with facts and all… and we wouldn’t want to let those 250 people that liked the page see what I had to say.

      I guess this is also as good a time as any to send an open response to Colin Walsh who responded to one of my comments on Facebook before they were deleted… He said I should:

      1) Disclose my financial interest in the Nishi Development = As I have said several times (and was reported in the Vanguard), I am employed by Sierra Energy and garner a salary, but I reap no equity position if Nishi passes… already noted, so not a secret. And even if the measure doesn’t pass, I have plenty of things to work on for Sierra Energy (on a global level), so I am coming from the view of someone who probably has the simplest of motivations.

      2) I don’t live in Davis = Again, true. But I do work here. And if I had a place to live that adhered to sustainability principles of compact/dense development in walking distance of work and downtown, like the Nishi Gateway project, then I could live here!

      3) I can’t vote on Measure A = Yes, true. And this makes it all the more valuable to be engaged… because no business person that comes to Davis each day can vote, but we will all still pay the same taxes/fees for property, use, retail sales, hotel occupancy, and permits. So that is like the ultimate taxation without representation! Thanks for bring it up!

      (Of course I would have responded directly to Colin Walsh, but again, my Facebook post was removed from the No site and Colin didn’t leave me an email address… but I am sure that Mike Harrington or Alan Pryor will make sure he gets this!)

      SO… YES ON MEASURE A! 🙂

      1. There are several hard working youngsters working on the web site and FB pages.  Look at them:  no on over 25 could think of those crazy creative ways to take serious issues and poke fun at the other side!  No idea which one would edit.  Our policy is everyone has fun and facilitates the conversations!

        The Yes folks (young and old) are welcome at our election night party.  430 D St.  Hey, it’s a small town and let’s get along?   (Alan Pryor and Eileen were on the opposite side on the water project, and now we work together.  All good.)

        Rob:  working for Sierra Energy?? A major contractor and tenant with Nishi?  CONFLICTED.  You are IN THE MONEY if it passes.  Why’d this Colin guy have to out you on that? Should have been in your disclosures. Maybe I just missed it.

  4. We need to find housing solutions that meet the simple needs of average students and  not the wealthiest among us. I want to see responsible development that focuses on sustainability in social, economic, and environmental realms.

    Yes, we need to see UCD move to redevelop the Orchard Park site, build a lot more housing in West Village, and redevelop the Solano Park site.  Perhaps ASUCD should be pushing a lot harder for these options.

  5. This piece from the No side is once again misleading and full of erroneous statements. While the author of this piece has asserts that there is a conspiracy afoot, the truth of the matter is that Nishi was endorsed by ASUCD by adhering to the rules and undergoing the same process that any organization would undergo.

    The Nishi Campaign approached ASUCD to submit a resolution for their support for Nishi. This is a procedure any organization can initiate. We then presented to the External Affairs Committee which approved our resolution unanimously after a question and answer session with some of our campaign staff members. After this committee had approved our resolution, we were approached by the Vice President of ASUCD, Gareth Smythe, who told us that we could make our resolution urgent and have it go before ASUCD sooner instead of having to go through the Environmental Policy and Planning Commission of ASUCD first (really second of three possible bodies in this process). This was done precisely because Mr. Smythe wanted students had a voice and so that ASUCD could signal their support or opposition to the resolution before the City Council made the decision to put Nishi on the ballot in June or not. What’s more, the Senate voted whether or not to hear our resolution, and they voted yes.  This allowed ASUCD, who represents the students, to offer their input. There is no reasonable or plausible way to claim that there was no “student input.” We went through a vetting committee and were heard by the elected student representatives. I don’t know what the author of this piece wants. A campus-wide plebiscite?

    What’s more the process was neither “rushed” nor “almost secretive.” We presented to the External Affairs Committee and then presented to ASUCD following procedure. These were public forums. If the author didn’t bother to attend them, that doesn’t mean the process was anything but transparent. In fact, I would argue that is precisely why representative government exists–because the entire student body can’t be expected to go to every public meeting of ASUCD and its subcommittees.

    The author of this piece also erroneously claims “that there was no detailed information” presented regarding the project’s opposition. If the author had bothered to look at the meeting’s minutes, however, they would have seen that our campaign did bring up the concerns about traffic and air quality which were circulating in this comments section at the time. After presenting the concerns, we talked about the improvements to Richards which were identified in the EIR as well as the substantial mitigation measures the project is undertaking with regards to air quality. We also discussed the project’s affordability while mentioning the $1 million dollars the project will contribute to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund in addition to features that make Nishi more affordable; these include its energy efficient design to reduce utility bills and the fact that students can live car-free by easily biking and walking to downtown or campus.

    The author says that they are against ASUCD representing the student body. Unfortunately, that is precisely why ASUCD was formed, and is the underpinning of representative democracy. Just because you disagree with the result doesn’t give you the right to impugn the process. The fact of the matter is that the Nishi Campaign followed the rules and went through the correct process of receiving the endorsement of ASUCD–in an 11-1-0 vote. There is no conspiracy here, despite the theory that is being posited in this article.

    Along with the usual litany of misleading and erroneous claims the opposition likes to throw out, the author claims that Nishi has “little to offer the student of average means.” I don’t know what defines a student of average means, but the fact is that students will be able to split a double at Nishi for $450 per month. That is affordable to the vast majority of students. Given that there is a 0.2% vacancy rate–one of the lowest in the nation–Nishi helps alleviate the already strained rental housing market in Davis which is set to experience even more pressure as UC Davis adds more students and employees for which it cannot provide enough housing. Nishi also creates more than 1500 jobs across the knowledge and skills spectra. These are good things for students.

    1. We also discussed the project’s affordability while mentioning the $1 million dollars the project will contribute to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund

      DavisforNishiGateway claimed that the $1,000,000 donation to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund was mentioned to the ASUCD when they met on February 4th. However, that $1,000,000 figure was not even discussed at Council until February 16 at Council, 12 days after this exchange supposedly took place at ASUCD.

      Unless DavisforNishiGateway is a time-traveler, this is a misrepresentaion of what was said at the meeting.

      1. Mr. Pryor – Do you live downtown in the core or near core area?

        I think the “failed extortion of affordable housing dollars from the developer” argument is a proxy platform for your general no-growth group membership.

        First, the developer has agreed to contribute more money to roadway and infrastructure improvements that will drastically improve bicycle and pedestrian safety through the Richards corridor.  Why do you ignore that trade-off of community benefit?

        Second, primarily because of the No-Grower group you appear to have membership in, and the other group that tends to elect politicians that do things like kill RDA to give away more money to their teacher union benefactors, there is no way to actually build any truly affordable housing in this city other than to just increase the supply of housing… something that Nishi does.  I think you must know this.

    2. How unsurprising:  attack the poor student who had the spine to stand up and offer insight into the gross manipulation of ASUCD

      How normal for the privileged super rich families behind Covell Village and now Nishi

       

      1. Hi Mike… I feel like today we can just have a back and forth exchange, since you seem to be slinging some really outlandish ones today.

        I question the article’s actual author (which I will note, none of the No campaign have denied, yet). This is not an attack on Skylar. But it does question who is behind the comments. If these are Skylar’s original thoughts (and again, she has not claimed them to be), she can easily come on and state so.

        Ghost-writing is not new… You should know this first hand, right Mike? Like you did for your ‘expert witnesses’ when you sued the city over water rates? Ring a bell? 🙂

        1. Odin, These weren’t original thoughts.  The writing is straight out of No on A literature.  She seems to have worked her way through a set of talking points and likely had someone from the campaign edit it for her.

        2. My god, are all the Yes folks (mean)?  Where do you think all the Yes people get their info?  Your saying all the Yes folks did extensive research, attended forums, were involved in the planning process and all us No folks just got our info off No literature?  Think before you type next time and give credit to this student who didn’t know she was wasting her time posting an article on here .

      2. Michael

        attack the poor student who had the spine to stand up and offer insight”

        I did not see any attack on the student unless you consider an accusation of lack of originality as an attack. There was a refutation of the accuracy and validity of the comments and the interpretation that Skylar expressed concerning the process. However, the “attack” was not on the individual student but rather on the ideas being expressed. I believe that this is fair game in an open conversation.