Councilmember Greenwald expressed concerns about going ahead with planning for the Nishi property prior to an agreement from the university to allow university access on the back side of the property. She sees the site as potentially ideal for a business development but is concerned with the traffic flow issues from Olive Drive onto Richards Blvd.
Councilmember Stephen Souza argued that we ought to at least consider the site. He cited the dire need, which everyone acknowledges, to re-work the Olive Drive/Gateway area. He says that this does not commit the city to going forward with anything, it only gives the city avenues to explore.
The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant could fund between $100,000 and $1 million for grants and incentives that reduce energy consumption, conserve water, improve air and water quality, and provide other community benefits.
The primary goal of the grant program is to develop and implement plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve the following objectives that include improving air and water quality, increasing housing affordability, increasing infill, compacting development, revitalizing urban and community center, protecting natural resources and agricultural lands, reducing automobile usage and fuel consumption, improving infrastructure systems, promoting water conservation and strengthening the economy.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson argued that Richards Blvd and Olive Drive are the gateway into Davis, and people are met with vacant lots and gas stations, which is not the most inviting point of entry.
Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza argued that while the city is not considering a lot of housing growth at this time, this is perhaps one of three or four opportunities they will have to consider a community-based development that has city and community goals rather than being developer-driven. They ought to at least consider the possibilities of doing something unique and innovative on the site.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Krovoza on this point. The council put Nishi on the fast-track list a few months ago. That is completely based on the developers wanting to go forward with a project for quite some time. Most of the proposals, and certainly the examination, has been based on a housing project.
Mr. Souza argued that the city had never really looked into the property and examined it, which is untrue since it was the subject of extensive discussion by the Housing Element Steering Committee.
However, the site is a Measure J/ R voting site. It seems unlikely that it could gain voter approval, and while the overall goals and objectives of the grant are worthy for consideration, inclusion of Nishi in the Grant Proposal has the potential to poison the entire project and goals for re-making this part of Davis.
There are very serious problems with developing that site, more so for housing than for a business park or some incubator site. If that is the intention of council, I would be far more amenable to studying the site. But it would require the university to approve access to the site through the university and onto Old Davis Drive as opposed to entering the city through Richards Blvd.
As a housing site, it would seem completely inappropriate. There seems to be a dream that we could create a site with biking and walking access to the city and only vehicular access through the university. o me that is completely unrealistic and will cause similar problems to ones that we are likely to see develop in West Village as residents are cut off from the rest of Davis and can only access the city by car through Hutchinson and La Rue.
In this case, Nishi seems inviting because of its close proximity to the University and downtown. As a business site that links up to the university, it could work. As a housing site it is a problem.
Richards Blvd is already impacted, and driving more vehicles through the Richards underpass and through the already congested intersection of Olive and Richards is problematic at best.
However, the staff report suggests the possibility of Nishi as a business park. The current “Business Park Land Study” identifies the Nishi property as a potential location for a business park, should a site external to the city be deemed needed and appropriate.
The overall project would seek to fix some of the circulation problems around this area of the city. One of the plans includies providing a pedestrian / bike connection at the grade, or as an under-crossing to traverse the railroad tracks at end of Hickory Lane, and to provide a direct access for east Olive Drive residents to the Core area. This has long been a safety concern, particularly for children attempting the cross the live railroad tracks.
In addition it would look to make improvements on the Richards Blvd/ Olive Drive intersection. “Improvements would be considered to: improve safety and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit; improve the predictability of vehicular movements approaching the intersection; and improve the corridor aesthetics as a gateway to the downtown area. Contributions to the improvements by adjacent developments, such as in-lieu fees, would be considered.”
In short, the overall grant is worth exploring. My concern is that by including Nishi (which will be a contentious issue if it is a housing development, and perhaps so even as a business park, depending on the plan), it may harm the overall prospects for getting the grant and dealing with the eastern side of Olive and the Richards Blvd intersection, which desperately need improvements. As Nishi will be, as I told council, a war, why not include proposals that the entire community can get behind?
I think the new council is underestimating the extent to which such a proposal will lead to more strife in the community during a time when we really do not need more housing. At this point, the council should have taken a housing option off the table and made it conditional on the university’s agreement to allow backside access. At least that would prevent the project from being almost dead-on-arrival, grant money or no grant money.
There is considerable time and energy that is used to go into the planning process and the city has scarce resources and an electorate not amenable to new housing developments at this point. The project sounds exciting, but it is fraught with pitfalls and traps. This council should be taking steps to avoid those traps early on.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The criteria for the [url]Sustainable Housing Communities Grant[/url] is specific: only regional consortia need apply.
“I think the new council is underestimating the extent to which such a proposal will lead to more strife in the community”
There are people who will oppose any development, but I don’t think this project would necessarily engender the level of rancor that other recent Measure J projects did. After all, there are basically no neighbors to be upset by it.
“during a time when we really do not need more housing…”
We need more rental housing.
“the council should have taken a housing option off the table”
We need more rental housing.
“and made it conditional on the university’s agreement”
Definitely.
“As a housing site, it would seem completely inappropriate.”
Perhaps to you. The Housing Element Steering Committee didn’t come to the same conclusion. It is a green light site, with the same concerns you expressed being fully considered by a citizens’ commission that reviewed all the potential housing sites. You disagree with it being a green light site, but if we are going to respect process then we proceed with planning for the green light sites (such as Nishi) and NOT with the yellow light sites (such as Wildhorse Ranch).
If the funds are there to help with the planning process, then kudos to the staff for finding them. Other expenses are borne by the developer, who I assume is aware of the outcome of both recent projects that have been brought before the voters.
Corrected address: [url]Sustainable Communities Planning Grants[/url]
Sigh. Apparently I’ve completely misunderstood how – after fifteen years online – to simply embed a link. Here is the ugly alternative for your readers to cut and paste:
http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/
If the ‘moderators’ have at some point made a conscious decision to disallow embedded links (wrongheaded though that decision is), at least advise your readers. Preferably in bold, large type on the front page.
I think I fixed it. Thanks, Neutral.
To embed a link, put [ url ] [ /url ] around it (without the spaces). The icon above the comment box that looks like a globe (round green one) creates the link. Paste in the exact URL you want.
I am not sure there are any perfect solutions here. The traffic at this intersection is already bad as noted. I would think its more appropriate as a business park but its really not very desirable for anything. Swanson makes a good point that this corridor does not present davis well. If there has to be some development here maybe one should start with the question–what makes the most sense? As it is this area is dangerous for bikers and pedestrians. I have biked through there a few times and always felt unsafe–especially near the freeway ramps where drivers often don’t look.
I fully agree with David’s assessment that to include Nishi as a residential housing site (it will NEVER pass a Measure R vote any time within the near or probably distant future), and without permission for access from UCD, will jeopardize this entire project. My hope is that City Staff will understand the wisdom of developing Nishi as a business park, which will probably not be nearly as controversial. Since Bob Wolcott seems to be the City Staff front man on this entire project, I am more hopeful that the right thing will be done.
Don: I was told that the housing steering committee only gave the Nishi site a green light if both the University would allow and developer could afford the creation of a “back-door” motor vehicle access at the University I-80 exit by the Mondavi Center. According to our planning director, the University has indicated that they are NOT interested in allowing this access.
I think it would be crazy to create more non-downtown destination traffic pouring onto the Richards interchange, or even through downtown. We need to save any Richards capacity for downtown destination traffic.
Staff said it would take them 40 to 60 hours of work just to write the grant. If they get it, they will spend many more hours studying a project at the Nishi which has a low likelihood of passing measure J without access behind the Mondavi center to vastly underused University I-80 interchange. Citizens of Davis are very sensitive to the traffic flow through the entire Richards interchange.
Staff and the community have so much that can be accomplished without spinning our wheels over a site that has no adequate access.
The Nishi site is a sensitive one as far as the University is concerned. It will have a huge visual impact on the Mondavi Center and the University’s entrance. When the University is ready to work with us on developing that site, they will allow proper access. That will be the time to cooperatively plan appropriate development there.
Also, as I said at the meeting, we don’t need to spend a week and a half of staff time writing a grant to improve the appearance of the Richard’s corrider. There are a few parcels along Richards that could be developed into beautiful projects. We even own some of them. Again, this doesn’t need a grant. I would prefer to see our staff just get on the phone and start talking to existing landowners about getting some projects going.
[i]”I was told that the housing steering committee only gave the Nishi site a green light if both the University would allow and developer could afford the creation of a “back-door” motor vehicle access at the University I-80 exit by the Mondavi Center. According to our planning director, the University has indicated that they are NOT interested in allowing this access.”[/i]
The developer told me that he wants to build motor vehicle access which goes around the Solano Park Apartments and then connects with A Street on campus, as you can see in this image:
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/S8uwSNzZ0AI/AAAAAAAAAag/ycHGyrWEgA8/s1600/nishi.bmp[/img]
I don’t know if they university has issued an opinion on this route. The developer’s hope is to build residential housing on the Nishi property. His belief is that there are couples without childre from say age 35 to 80 who want to live near UCD and live near downtown.
While I would not want to live next to I-80 or next to those railroad tracks, obviously anyone who chooses to buy a condo there is fine with that. I presume the developer can deal with safety problems (from the railroad); and while they cannot eliminate noise and pollution problems, I guess he will try to mitigate against them (with substantial sound walls and by orienting the buildings so they don’t let in so much smog).
The two problems for me with this idea are:
1. I don’t like having this section of Davis cut off the rest by the university. Even if it abuts W. Olive Drive, its access through campus makes it an exclave from the rest of Davis; and
2. I think from a planning perspective (as well as the City’s financial perspective) a better use for that site would be as an industrial park, with incubator industries started by technologies developed or patented at UCD. The property taxes from industrial uses are higher for the City of Davis than they are from purely residential uses.
If it were an industrial park, then the ingress/egress route proposed by the developer seem fine. But if it could be worked out (with UCD) so the route went past the Shearton hotel and the Mondavi Center, that would make more sense for an industrial park. People could get there from downtown by way of A Street. Or they could access it from I-80 at Old Davis Road.
Insofar as we have very little demand for housing now, it is not particularly good timing to be approving new housing. But that short-term situation should not be decisive in planning for this site. Eventually demand will suffice. And the developer does believe people want to live there.
I might have been inclined to think that the new Council would take some time to assess the state of the City across a wide domain of issues and concerns before assuming that we elected them to develop properties. How has the job become so narrowly defined so that if the Council is not developing some piece of property, they do not feel that they are leaders of the city? There are a lot of other issues in Davis that fall within the domain of our Council besides development.
Quality of life is not solely defined by development,and one man’s “blight” could be the other man’s “affordable housing.” Not everyone thinks Olive Drive is “blighted.”
“Staff said it would take them 40 to 60 hours of work just to write the grant.”
….more busy work for the planning and development staff who really have little to do these days to justify their paychecks.
After all that difficulty – thanks for the assist Don – the cite was wrong anyway. The grants are State pork as opposed to Federal.
CORRECTION: [i]”The developer told me that [b]he wants[b/] to build motor vehicle access which goes around the Solano Park Apartments and then connects with A Street on campus …”[/i]
I’ve been told “he wants” should be replaced with “he would consider” because “it’s a spot that could work.” I was further told that the university has not said it favors or does not favor this option.
CORRECTION: [i]”The developer’s [b]hope[/b] is to build residential housing on the Nishi property.”[/i]
I’ve since been told that the developer does not “hope” to build residential but wants to explore that as a possible option. The developer is trying to figure out if there are “uses on the property that the community can support and are those uses viable from a financing perspective?” He also is trying to learn if “the community interested in looking at alternatives to improve access and safety in the area? Does the community have an open mind?”
Rich, I hope you told the developer that this community DOES NOT have an open mind about development these days.
Just, I don’t speak for the community. I think many of my views are unpopular. I have an open mind about developing Nishi. (Heck, I grew up with the Nishi kids!*) I just doubt for the foreseeable future that there will be any new demand for housing in Davis; and, as noted above, I doubt housing is the best use for that site.
On the other hand, if the property owner believes there is demand and believes the transportation and safety issues can be managed, I won’t stand in his way. Ultimately, I think he should have the right to do what he wants on his own property, as long as he compensates any neighbors who are objectively harmed by his project — I don’t think any will be — and as long as the taxes and fees from his project cover any new costs to the City of Davis.
*Mitchell Nishi, though we were never close friends, was a classmate of mine and I played baseball with his older brother, Darrell Nishi. The Nishis were (and still are) an important farming family in the Davis area. The older members of the family lived in this region before WW2, and like all Japanese-Americans in California, they were effectively robbed of their property and sent to internment camps by Roosevelt’s Executive Order #9066.
In high school (probably in 1981, maybe 1982), Mitchell and I were assigned to debate the question of reparations at the State Capitol in Sacramento. (The US government had not yet settled the question.) I don’t recall why the debate was there.
Obviously he was in favor of them. And so was I. But since he had more passion on the “yes” side, I agreed to put forward a “no” argument for the purposes of debate.
The only thing I could come up with was that “the law was followed; and that the internment was a lawful act under EO 9066.” I tried to contrast that with a case where a police officer has no legal right to bash someone’s head in. So when he does, the victim of the bashing has just cause for reparation because the police officer’s act was illegal.
In the case of the internment, I tried to argue that the Constitution allowed what Roosevelt did. It gave the Executive extraordinary authority during a time of war; and the government acted legally and constitutionally. I didn’t really believe that; and maybe it showed, because Mitchell wwas declared the winner of the debate.
One other note on Mitch Nishi and language: as a youth, I had a number of friends whose ancestry was from the Orient. Like everyone else back then, I had always used the term Oriental for people whose families came from China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Most people from those countries used that term. Then one day, maybe in the 10th grade (around 1980), I remember Mitchell Nishi telling me he prefered the term Asian or Asian-American and that Oriental was as old fashioned amd misplaced as Negro was for blacks. So I stopped using Oriental (except for carpets).
As it happens, I have in recent years come to dislike the term Asian for a racial classification, mostly because Asia is so much larger than the Orient, and the term Asian is biased toward the people who look like they are Han Chinese or Japanese or Korean, etc. White people from Syria and Lebanon are in fact Asians. So are brown people from Pakistan and Nepal. And so are Kazakhs and Iranians. Asian is not a race at all (never mind that “race” is a very dubious construct). So if I have the chance, I use the term East-Asian to refer to people who formerly were called Orientals. I don’t use Oriental, only because some take offense at that term. I have no problem if anyone wants to call me Occidental or Boreal. But that’s just me.
Rich, just a note to thank you for the way you add information and references to these debates–but particularly for adding Davis history notes that really round out the discussions.