A Community-based Model for Sustainability, Infill, and Economic Development

photo showing the nishi gateway park

Nishi-where-is

by Tim Ruff

The proposed Nishi Gateway Innovation Park is a walkable live-work community located between the UC Davis Mondavi Center, the Arboretum, Downtown Davis, and the Davis Bike Loop. Nishi Gateway will create over 1,500 local jobs, provide a link for UC Davis technology transfer to local businesses, and provide housing for students, seniors & working families close to downtown. Yes on Measure A will also provide several significant circulation and safety improvements including a new road to campus, a new Richards interchange, and funding for city services and Davis schools – without raising taxes.

Many people ask: What was the process that enabled the project to get the unanimous support of the Davis City Council and a 5-0 vote to place the Nishi Gateway project on the June 7 ballot as Measure A?

It began eight years ago, when the City’s Housing Element Steering Committee determined that Nishi was one of the top infill sites in the City. But the main catalyst can be traced to two ideas that emerged simultaneously. First, in 2011, the UC Davis Chancellor put out a request for innovation centers proposals throughout California. Second, the City adopted the recommendations of the innovation park task force that named the Nishi site as the City’s top priority for economic development.

Next, a broad coalition from the Davis community and region came together and submitted the Nishi project to the State of California’s Strategic Growth Council for a sustainability grant award. This grant request from the City, with UCD and Yolo County as partners, ultimately led to recognition by the Strategic Growth Council as California’s top-rated project for sustainable design and innovation.  That application was supported by diverse community leaders and organizations including Chancellor Linda Katehi, Vice Chancellor John Meyer, UCD Urban Land Use and Transportation Center, the UCD Center for Regional Change, Yolo County Supervisors Don Saylor and Jim Provenza, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) , Yolo-Solano Air Quality Control Board, Unitrans, Davis Chamber of Commerce, Davis Downtown Business Association, and the Local Government Commission among others.

The June 2014 press release on the Strategic Growth Council award underscores the significance of the project as the City’s application won the highest score of the 66 applications submitted from across California. In announcing the award, the State of California Strategic Growth Council then underscored, “The City, in collaboration with UC Davis and Yolo County, is embarking on a community-based planning process for Nishi… as a walkable/bikeable, mixed-use district including university-related research park development complemented by high density urban housing and integrated into the UC Davis campus and downtown.”

In February 2016, after placing the project on the ballot, the City, together with the campus, submitted an application for the State of California EPIC Challenge Grant: Accelerating the Deployment of Advanced Energy Communities. With Nishi’s Baseline Project Features including 4.9mw of solar power, buildings 30% more efficient that current codes, LEED neighborhood design and buildings, and 80% bike ridership, the project will place our community at the forefront of sustainable strategies to combat climate change in California and beyond.

Nishi Gateway is the result of eight years of creative thinking to deliver a project that is designed for Davis and an exemplary model for sustainable infill development and community collaboration. By voting Yes on Measure A, this community based plan delivers on the needs of the city and helps support a vibrant Davis Downtown.

Tim Ruff, is General Partner of the Nishi property.  He is a 33-year resident of Davis and UCD graduate. You can reach him at tim.ruff@outlook.com.  

Author

Categories:

Breaking News City of Davis Elections Land Use/Open Space

Tags:

62 comments

  1. Gridlock.

    Gifting of over $11.5 million in community affordable housing funds to two very rich developer families.

    Toxic air trapped between the nearby elevated RR tracks and the I-80 freeway.

    Destruction of scores of local family owned businesses on West Olive Drive

    Undefined mitigation land … Probably will be junk land in the county with no chance of development or being good habitat land.

    Clear violations of the Measure R process requirements.

    It could have been so much better … Vote NO on Nishi and make them come back with a much better project

    1. Some of these are outright falsehoods.

      There is no gifting of money or funds to the developers.  This is a falsehood, a lie the Harrington is repeating over and over.

      He’s making assumptions about the destruction of businesses on Olive Drive, toxic air, etc.  He is painting a picture that this land is undevelop-able and, frankly, unfarm-able.  It can be assumed that Harrington doesn’t truly believe that a “much better project” or any project is possible.

       

      1. He is painting a picture that this land is undevelop-able and, frankly, unarm-able.

        Ya think?!  LOL  That is Harrington’s modus operandi…

  2. I remain uncertain about my vote but would offer these thoughts.

    The largely historic presentation offered by Mr. Ruff in the current posting is much more likely to be seen favorably by me than are the hyperbolic, emotive expressions in the previous release. If there are those that are in disagreement with the details as presented, it would be good if they could see their way to presenting their version in a non emotive form so that those of us who prefer objective decision making would have the opportunity to make an information rather than emotion driven decision.

     

  3. Michael

    Destruction of scores of local family owned businesses on West Olive Drive “

    In the interests of factual information, two questions :

    1. “Scores” – can you provide either names or the actual number of businesses so affected ?

    2. What mitigation has been offered to these businesses ?

     

  4. Tia: I suggest you bike  over to West Olive and see the businesses. All will be gone

    Relocation benefits?  So far as I know, only a rough boot in the rear.

    We have heard from several of the businesses about joining the case or funding it.  Stay tuned

      1. I know Cafe Italia will have to move but that has nothing to do with West Olive and Nishi.  If anything the increased traffic and closer local of thousands of residents will help businesses on West Olive.

      2. Even if all the West Olive businesses have to move I really don’t have a problem with that, that area is now an eyesore and if it gets rejuvenated that’s for the good.

        1. BP

          Even if all the West Olive businesses have to move I really don’t have a problem with that, that area is now an eyesore and if it gets rejuvenated that’s for the good.”

          So is it your position that your aesthetic values are more important than the businesses that will be displaced by this project ?  What if I don’t happen to like the style of buildings chosen by the developers for Nishi ?  Would my considering it an “eyesore” ( as I do so far the construction on the Cannery) should it be torn down because I don’t like the appearance ? Is that really your idea of the greater good ?

    1. Ditto.  Why will they be gone?

      This is an interesting argument coming from you given the number of businesses that have left and are planning to leave because of the lack of suitable property and high rents.   Correct me if I am wrong, but you benefit from high rents as a landlord… so maybe there is a bit of conflict of interest here opposing growth.

      1. the number of businesses that have left and are planning to leave because of the lack of suitable property and high rents.

        So I know everyone repeats this mantra over and over and over but exactly how many businesses have actually left because of the lack of suitable property and high rents. And then tell me how the proposed high rise, high-rent R&D/office buildings at Nishi will change that.

        1. Last year, 13 businesses were created from the research being conducted at UC Davis. Nine of them had to leave Davis due to lack of space. By creating R&D space which has been identified as a top priority by both the City of Davis as well as by UC Davis, Nishi will help create options for companies looking to stay in Davis to be in close proximity to UC Davis as well as to expand the supply of available space. One of the fundamental principles of economics is that if you can’t reduce demand (which in this case seems quite evident given the growth in population and entrepreneurship in the region), that the only other way to reduce equilibrium price is to increase the available supply. Although it seems that there are people such as you who have complained about the City not owning the R&D space, one of the great benefits of the developers assuming the entirety of the associated infrastructure costs as well as the risk is that if, as you allege, the prices are too high, the market system will ensure that the space will not be rented until the price approaches the market equilibrium.

      2. Frankly

        This is an interesting argument coming from you given the number of businesses that have left and are planning to leave because of the lack of suitable property and high rents.”

        So you do not make a distinction between a business that chooses to leave voluntarily because they see another location as more advantageous and one that is forced out of its current location ?

    2. Michael

      I was there on the day of the forum and am not even sure that there are “scores” of businesses there. That is why I asked you to clarify your assertion.

      Relocation benefits?  So far as I know…..”

      Yes, but have you enquired ? I know that there are some developers in town who are more proactive in helping to address the issue of relocation benefits and some who are less so. Since you are legally involved in this situation, I thought perhaps you had looked into the issue.

       

       

  5. From my discussions with the developer there are approximately 30 businesses on West Olive Drive and only 2 businesses potentially affected- both of which have been part of the outreach process over the years.  I know that 3rd Space has been renting month to month and has known for some time that this would be coming.

  6. This article brings up a good point that Nishi is really an infill project.   So then, for those that don’t like peripheral development and claim that we can satisfy all our housing and business needs with infill, assuming they don’t accept a label of being a NIMBY or a no-growther, they should be strong supporters of Nishi.

    1. This article brings up a good point that Nishi is really an infill project.

      Just because the developer claims a project is infill does not make it so. The developer has already been told by their LEED consultant that the The US Green Building Council will NOT certify it as a “Neighborhood Development” because it does not meet their criteria for an infill project.

      You do not normally seem to be the gullible type, Frankly. So I am surprised you seem to believe everything a salesperson(Ruff) tells you about their product (Nishi) without getting a bit of documentation to support his claims.

      BTW, I am selling my pig. It talks and can fly and is named “Free Enterprise“. All I have to do to pretty it up is put on its lipstick. I don’t have any proof that it can fly or talk but are you interested in buying?

      1. Just because the developer claims a project is infill does not make it so. The developer has already been told by their LEED consultant that the The US Green Building Council will NOT certify it as a “Neighborhood Development” because it does not meet their criteria for an infill project.”

        What law says we have to go by the US Green Building Council’s definition of infill?
        Definition of infill: “Buildings constructed to occupy the space between existing ones.” or “The use of vacant land and property within a built-up area for further construction or development.”

        1. To Alan: Did you read the second part of the definition, to wit “The use of vacant land and property within a built-up area for further construction or development.”?  So you haven’t proved your point at all, but rather tried unsuccessfully to deflect mine.

        2. Anon: It’s classified as prime farm land by Yolo County. The 46 acre parcel is very farm-able. It’s planted in alfalfa right now if I’m not mistaken.

      2. Nishi is located a stone’s throw (seriously, I bet if you have a good arm you could probably make it) from downtown, and will create a graded undercrossing access point to UC Davis’ south campus. To me, downtown Davis (especially around the intersection of 1st and E street) would qualify as a “built-up area”, and given the fact that over 80% of trips made from Nishi to downtown and UC Davis are estimated to be by walking or biking, it seems like a rather uncharitable view to declare it definitively “not infill.” The land on which Nishi will be located is currently underutilized, and has by identified by the City of Davis, UC Davis, Yolo County, state agencies, along with many other entities as an award-winning proposal precisely because its location allows it to be a natural extension and nexus between the downtown core area and UC Davis. If this isn’t infill in your opinion, maybe you should rethink your criteria.

        1. … and will create a graded undercrossing access point to UC Davis’ south campus.

          No, not FACTUAL.  It may propose to, or intend to, but that would need to be approved by UC and UPRR… the latter may be laborious, but is probably a given if the Arboretum Drive at-grade crossing is eliminated.  UC, not so much…

          Everyone is entitled to their opinion/belief… but not to their own “facts”.

          In my opinion, Nishi is indeed “infill”…surrounded by “developed property”… I-80 is developed, SR -113 is developed, West Olive Drive is developed, UCD and UPRRis developed.  What is in question is the definition of “infill”… a definition that, it appears, is more a matter of opinion than”fact”.

    2. they should be strong supporters of Nishi.”

      So should they not take any other aspects of the project into account in making their decision ?  The walk back on LEED certification should not matter to them ?  If they are concerned about the health aspects of living in this space, they should just ignore that ? How about if they do not feel that the traffic mitigation is insufficient ? The way that I see this is that there are good reasons for supporting the project and there are good reasons for objecting to it.

      And issue of what label one “must accept” based on a reasoned consideration of the pros and cons is nothing more than a school yard taunt and I sincerely doubt that anyone thoughtful is going to be impacted by this lack of reasoning.

      1. Hi Tia,

        I think it is important to clarify some of the accusations that have been bandied about concerning Nishi’s environmental credentials (I would like to add that Nishi was ranked #1 in California for sustainability goals, something which we are all quite proud of, and have worked hard to live up to).

        To begin, Nishi is going to exceed the City of Davis’ and Cal Green Tier 1 building standards by more than 30%. This is not required, but it is one of the many great features that Nishi has voluntarily undertaken because this is a quality project being developed by people who have won numerous awards in recognition of their commitment to environmental sustainability.

        Secondly, there is not nor has not been any sort of walk-back with regards to LEED certification. Although some people seem to be misinformed, Nishi’s commitment to exceeding the Cal Green Tier 1 standards will put the project essentially in the same stratus as LEED Gold. Furthermore, as stipulated in ballot language, the project is required to (and will enthusiastically) pursue LEED certification. There is no doubt for anyone who is aware of the project’s details and design that Nishi will be certified highly by LEED in recognition of the significant commitment Nishi has made to ensuring it is in the vanguard of sustainable projects. For example, this will be the first project in the history of the city of Davis to exceed the Beyond Platinum Bicycle Action Plan. What’s more, it will generate nearly 80% of the estimated energy consumption through on-site solar production. (Some people have raised a ruckus over this, but the fact of the matter is that the project has been exploring ways to finance this innovative and bold commitment to sustainability by looking at partnering with green-tech solar companies. I can elaborate more on this if you wish, but rest assured there is no nefarious plot. Unfortunately, it comes down to much more boring accounting considerations)

        With regard to traffic, Nishi will be investing tens of millions of private dollars into traffic solutions, and the second point of access it will create to the university is an important step to creating long-term fixes to the situation at Richards. One of the most exciting results of a successful passing of Nishi this June is that it will allow the UniTrans buses to bypass the Richards tunnel. We have had multiple conversations with the UniTrans folks, and they expressed a strong interest the possibility of creating more routes and said they were excited about what the new access point Nishi will create can do to improve their service.

        I hope this was helpful. I apologize for the length. I had not time to write a short post.

  7. Perhaps, instead of the businesses, primarily lessees, it would be instructive to find out who actually owns the properties… that seems like what a ‘reporter’ would do… believe that would be very instructive.

    Lots of spaghetti being thrown to see what “sticks” to the walls…

    Mr H is, at best, fabricating… if Nishi has only bike/ped/EVA access, what possible reason would there be to have existing businesses fail? Need to relocate?

    Interesting that Mr H brings up relocation costs… and says “… So far as I know, only a rough boot in the rear.”  Even non-attorneys, much more, an advocate of litigation who is an attorney, understands the State/Federal rules (and Constitutions) about “takings”.  More spaghetti.

    Am thinking Mr H is acting like “progressives'” Donald Trump.

    BTW, unless Nishi ONLY has motor vehicle access to UCD (yeah, said this before, often), I’ll be voting NO and encouraging others to do the same.

    1. “it would be instructive to find out who actually owns the properties” hpierce

      I believe it’s all owned by Streng … one of Whitcombe’s partners on the Covell Village property.

      1. I can’t tell if you are referring to Nishi or something else.  Nishi: “While Tim Ruff has been project manager for the Nishi project, the ownership of the Nishi property is equally divided among Mr. Ruff, John Whitcombe, Ray and Della Thompson and Joe and Karen Ogando.”

        1. Was referring to the existing West Olive Drive “warehouses.”

          I thought the question was related to the discussion about all the businesses being dislocated by redevelopment.

          1. Sorry, the way I read the comments on the back end it’s hard to follow the string sometimes.

        2. David wrote:

          > the ownership of the Nishi property is equally divided among

          > Mr. Ruff, John Whitcombe, Ray and Della Thompson and

          > Joe and Karen Ogando.

          Does anyone know if Ray Thompson is still alive?

          Ray was building homes in Davis with Stanley Davis over 50 years ag0 (when John Whitcombe was an undergrad at UCD and Tim Ruff was a little kid)…

           

  8. ryankelly states about Mike Harrington’s post:

    He’s making assumptions about the destruction of businesses on Olive Drive,

    Actually, the EIR prepared for the project is quite specific that all of the businesses to the south of Olive Dr and east of Nishi are planned for redevelopment:

    On September 10, 2015, the City of Davis (City) released for public review the draft environmental impact
    report (Draft EIR) for the proposed Nishi Gateway Project (project). The project includes two major
    components on adjacent properties that are, together, known as the Nishi Gateway Project: annexation and
    development of a site located between University of California at Davis (UC Davis) and Interstate 80 (I-80),
    known as the Nishi site, and rezoning and potential redevelopment of property between Richards Boulevard and the Nishi Site, known as the West Olive Drive area.” (Emphasis Added)

    Further, a number of businesses in these low slung warehouse-type buildings have been told they will be going on month to month leases when their current long-term leases expire. Perhaps  ryankelly could explain why zoning code changes for West Olive are analyzed in the EIR and the terms of leases are being arbitrarily shortened if the whole West Olive Dr. is not going to be redeveloped.

    ryankelly also states

    There is no gifting of money or funds to the developers.  This is a falsehood, a lie the Harrington is repeating over and over.

    The City explicitly is rebating more than one third of the developer’s traffic impact fees back to the developer. Of the approximate $4,775,464 of roadway impact fees to be paid to the City by the developer, only about about $3,000,000 will actually be paid because the developer will receive a credit of up to $1,775,462 for “construction of the Olive Drive and Richards Boulevard Intersection improvements and the bridge over the Putah Creek Parkway”. In other words, the developer is being paid $1,775,462 for widening Olive Dr. and putting in the bridge to the Nishi property from Olive Dr which improvements are only needed as a direct result of the project itself. This rebate to allow the developer to put in road improvements and a bridge at City cost for which the developer should be paying anyway is just another huge give-away to the developer by the City.

    And the unavoidable fact is that the City has exempted Nishi from the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (legally or illegally) which  means that the developer is not required to put in 154 units of affordable housing OR alternately pay $11,550,000 of in-lieu fees.

    Also, as part of the original Pre-Development Agreement executed by the City with the developer in November of 2012, the City was to be given free of charge the 22 acres on which the R&D buildings were to be built.

    B. The Developer and City desire to develop the Property as a mixed-use development with a residential component and a research/business park component….The Developer has proposed to the City that in furtherance of the overall development of the Property, as a term of the proposed Development Agreement, Developer would convey approximately twenty-two acres of the Property to the City for development of the research/business park component of the Proposed Development (emphasis added)…”

    Thus, the City was to receive this 22 acres of land at no cost as an inducement for the City to equally share in the pre-development costs of the project. This commitment has not been carried through to the anticipated final Development Agreement, which now reads that the City has a “right of first refusal to purchase” (emphasis added) any or all office/R&D parcels for a period of eighteen months from completion of backbone infrastructure and recordation of Final Map, whichever is later.”

    So the original agreement was for the developer to convey the 22 acres of land to the City without any further costs which has somehow morphed into an agreement where the City would end up paying to purchase the land instead. Raw land costs of similar 22 acres of entitled prime commercial real estate (but without infrastructure) could range from a rock-bottom minimum of $100,000 to $300,000 per acre. Thus, giving up potential ownership of this no-cost 22 acres of commercially-zoned land represents an additional net give-away to the developer by the City of about $2,200,000 to $6,600,000.

    So we have a give-away of $1.7 million in traffic impact fees, the give-away of 154 units of affordable housing or the equivalent of $11.5 million in in-lieu fees, and the give-away of the City’s right to the free 22 acres of land worth millions more. Yet ryankelly is accusing Harrington  repeating “lies over and over” when he alleges the City is giving it away.

    I understand ryankelley obviously has an uncontrollable knee-jerk reaction any time Mike Harrington makes a statement and probably can’t stop his public rants. But we would all be better served if ryankeely actually read the project documentation so he knows even a little of what he is even talking about before he accuses others of lying…a little saying about a pot calling a kettle black comes to mind.

    1. If you had listened objectively and carefully to the City Council meeting about traffic impacts of Nishi, the City Council conceded there were many traffic problems at Richards and environs that existed long before Nishi was proposed.  The City Council felt strongly that the developer should not be necessarily saddled with all the costs of improving that stretch of roadway.  So your claim of a traffic impact fee giveaway is bogus.

      The court will decide if you are correct about in-lieu fees, but my guess is you will be incorrect in your interpretation of the affordable housing ordinance.

      1. The City Council felt strongly that the developer should not be necessarily saddled with all the costs of improving that stretch of roadway.  So your claim of a traffic impact fee giveaway is bogus.

        Anon – Do you even read my posts before replying? Go back over the exact text from the Development Agreement (as I directly quoted above) and you’ll see that the the developer will receive a credit/refund/rebate from his traffic impact fees of up to $1,775,462, in part, for “the bridge over the Putah Creek Parkway”. The only reason to put in the bridge over the Putah Creek Parkway is to access Ruff’s property for the project. So the City is paying for it. I call that a give-away that the City did not have to make. You can spin it anyway you like but it comes out of the City’s pocket and back into Ruff’s pocket.

        1. Alan wrote in one post:

          > So we have a give-away of $1.7 million in traffic impact fees

          Then writes in another post:

          > the developer will receive a credit/refund/rebate from his traffic impact

          > fees of up to $1,775,462, in part, for “the bridge over the Putah Creek Parkway”.

          Getting “up to” a $1.7mm credit for building a $1.7mm bridge is a lot different from a “give-away”?

          If I owned you $170 and built you a $170 deck in your back yard would you be “giving away” the $170 if you ended up with a deck?

          P.S. Last time I was at the Farmers Market I noticed that almost two years after a small fire did about $170 of damage to the deck that the city has still not replaced it (after spending over 20x that amount on fencing and demolition).  My guess is that having the developer build the bridge over Putah Creek will SAVE taxpayers about $2 million (and get the bridge built 5 years sooner)…

          http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/transformed-central-park-oak-deck-to-rise-again/

    2. Mike Harrington’s allegation: “Gifting of over $11.5 million in community affordable housing funds to two very rich developer families.”

      This is a falsehood.  There is no money being given or gifted to the developer from the City’s affordable housing funds.  It is a lie that he repeats and Alan tries to defend.

      Again Mike Harrington: “Destruction of scores of local family owned businesses on West Olive Drive.”

      Per David’s comment above, 2 out of 30 businesses will be affected who have known for sometime that this is coming. One, 3rd Space – a performance space –  is already on a month to month lease.

      Mike Harrington: “It could have been so much better.”

      This may or may not be true, but I have trouble believing that he would support any development on Nishi, regardless of changes to the development agreement.

  9. Mike posted:

    > Destruction of scores of local family owned businesses on West Olive Drive

    Then Alan posted:

    > rezoning and POTENTIAL redevelopment of property between Richards

    > Boulevard and the Nishi Site, known as the West Olive Drive area.

    P.S. don’t you need to destroy “at least” forty (40) business before you can say “Destruction of “scores” of local family owned businesses”?  Are there even 40 business on the west side of Olive?

  10. Alan Pryor: “Anon – Do you even read my posts before replying? Go back over the exact text from the Development Agreement (as I directly quoted above) and you’ll see that the the developer will receive a credit/refund/rebate from his traffic impact fees of up to $1,775,462, in part, for “the bridge over the Putah Creek Parkway”. The only reason to put in the bridge over the Putah Creek Parkway is to access Ruff’s property for the project. So the City is paying for it. I call that a give-away that the City did not have to make. You can spin it anyway you like but it comes out of the City’s pocket and back into Ruff’s pocket.

    The problem with your reasoning is that it does not take into account the ENTIRE DEAL THAT WAS NEGOTIATED.  To tease out one item in a comprehensive agreement is not reasonable – the DA has to be taken in its totality.  A section of a Nov. 27, 2012 staff report adds context to my point:

    “Developer to grant city the approximately 22 acres shown as research/business park land.

    City clerkDeveloper and City agree to identify backbone infrastructure to the property including access to Olive Drive in addition to possible access points to UCD, I-80, or both. Backbone infrastructure will include utilities and primary roadways.

    Costs for infrastructure will be shared equally…”

    1. Anon

      The problem with your reasoning is that it does not take into account the ENTIRE DEAL THAT WAS NEGOTIATED.  To tease out one item in a comprehensive agreement is not reasonable “

      I do not agree with this point of view. It is entirely possible for there to be a single item that for any given individual is a deal breaker. One example would be if one truly believed that this space should be reserved for business and industrial purposes only because of excessive health risks to individuals living on the location. If this were one’s genuine belief, then the rest of the arguments in favor are not going to outweigh this concern.

      Again, there are legitimate arguments for and against this project. While I think it is important to consider all of the pros and cons of a proposal, it is not necessary to weigh them equally and at the end of the day, there may be a single sticking point for some thoughtful voters.

      1. One item can be a deal breaker for that individual, but it is not correct or ethically right to accuse the city of a giveaway.  That is the point I am trying to make and Alan Pryor has failed to respond to.

  11. I call BS on this cynical propaganda.

    “A Community-based Model”
    Only if you view Davis as a Potterville run by Whitcombe and his crew.

    “for Sustainability,”
    The project was green-washed, and many of the sustainability activists have turned against it.

    “Infill,”
    It’s prime class 1 farm land between the City and the freeway that’s been in farming for well over a century. The project is pure peripheral development and not infill.

    “and Economic Development”
    The “economic development” component is a farce – and the minimal amount of tax revenue that will be generated by the project will be offset by the revenue-negative residential component. The claimed revenue is nothing but a developer kick-back and an accounting trick.

    1. “Infill,”
      It’s prime class 1 farm land between the City and the freeway that’s been in farming for well over a century. The project is pure peripheral development and not infill.

      The parcel was created by the reconfiguration of I-80. With the annexation from Solano to Yolo County, hemmed in by the university, the freeway, and Solano County, it has no growth potential in any direction. It is functionally infill, and it is reasonable to call it infill. I have argued vigorously on the Vanguard over many years for the preservation of prime ag land where it makes sense to conserve it. It makes no sense here.
      Your constant harping on Whitcombe is beginning to sound like a personal vendetta.

      1. Funny Don.  I think I have before said that I considered you a farmland preservation extremist… subsequently distilled down to a prime farmland preservation extremist.

        I don’t think your views have changed, yet CalAg is calling you a developer’s friend.

    2. “The claimed revenue is nothing but a developer kick-back and an accounting trick.”

      See my earlier post to Tia – this is where I think opponents are not being reasonable nor ethical.  I have no problem with folks disapproving of the project for one reason or another.  But when unfounded accusations fly around, then I have a problem.

  12. My stalker is back!

    “harping … beginning to sound like a personal vendetta”

    And you’re beginning to sound like Tandem is one of your customers. Hoping for some business from Nishi?

    “It is functionally infill”

    No. It is functionally farm land. Has been for decades. I’ll post an alert when they harvest their next crop.

    “I have argued vigorously …”

    It makes no sense ….. to you.

    1. Tandem is not a customer, nor do I expect any business from Nishi.
      Also, it is utterly ridiculous to call me a stalker. I replied to your comment. Believe it or not, that’s how blogs work.
      There are serious limitations to farming the Nishi site.

    2. For the record – I am not against infill development or development of peripheral farm land. What I am against is dumb projects. And I’m really against dumb projects wrapped in a smokescreen of dishonest platitudes about the process and the outcome.

      Brett Lee had the analysis right until he dropped the ball.

      Nishi will have major impacts on the Richards corridor and and the EIR traffic study indicates that the situation will get worse even with the planned improvements in traffic infrastructure. Weighing both cost/benefit and risk/reward, in my opinion the project’s minimal positive outcomes with respect to economic development and student housing are simply not worth the traffic impacts.

      1. The congestion at Richards is primarily caused by the nearly 10,000 staff (about 2/3) and students (3000+) who commute in to campus every day. Nishi would provide some housing. If we fail to build housing for students in town, and wait for the university to provide all the housing for the increased enrollment they have announced, the traffic gridlock at Richards will certainly get worse. They are adding 1000 students next year and will only house about 300 of them on campus. So those new enrollees will be living in town, or commuting in. We need the housing Nishi will provide, along with the other infill housing such as Sterling, as soon as possible. Obviously, UCD also needs to provide more housing.

        1. Nishi will be part of the problem … not part of the solution.

          It’s a bad project – being cynically driven by the ecosystem around Whitcombe/Tandem – that is using the very serious issues of student housing, economic development, and sustainability to try and leverage entitlements on a compromised site at the expense of the Richards corridor and the City’s affordable housing program.

        2. Don Shor said . . . “They are adding 1000 students next year and will only house about 300 of them on campus.”

          Don, are your numbers right in your statement above?  Shouldn’t you replace the 300 with a zero so it reads, “They are adding 1000 students next year and will not house a single one of them on campus.”

          1. Not really, but my statement was also not accurate. Some will be on campus.

            Student housing

            The campus is committed to continuing to guarantee the availability of housing to new freshman and transfer students

            Emily Galindo, executive director of Student Housing and associate vice chancellor for Student Affairs, said the housing office is taking a number of steps to accommodate 300 more students in the residence halls (for a total capacity of 5,672), and elsewhere in the community.

            Triples — In a move that proved popular in previous years, more rooms in newer residence halls will be converted to accommodate three students.
            Master leases — For transfer students, the campus is also in discussions with property managers to master-lease more apartment units in the community.

            https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/campus-prepares-large-influx-students-2016-17

        3. Fair enough Don.  I hadn’t considered the conversion of existing double rooms into triples.  I should have though.  We are seeing that happening in many of the apartments throughout the city.  I suspect our population is a bit more than 70,000 (up from 65,622 in the 2010 US Census) when you consider the “densification” of the 11,000 apartment units throughout Davis, coupled with the “densification” of single family residences when they convert to student mini-dorms.

      2. To CalAg: I don’t agree with your opinion for many reasons.  However, I respect your right to have a different viewpoint than mine, and willingness to state exactly what you see as the problems.

        For me, Nishi represents one part of a bigger picture – the beginning of a synergistic push to bring dispersed innovation to Davis.  At the 40,000 foot level, if this city fails to welcome projects like Nishi and MRIC to develop here, it is guaranteed tech businesses and developers of innovation parks will go elsewhere, just as DIC did – it went right up the road to Woodland.  Then Davis will end up with many of the impacts of innovation parks close by and none of the benefits of new jobs, more business for the downtown and peripheral sites, and tax revenue gains.

        1. Bingo.

          And when the innovation parks go to Woodland, all that traffic driving to and from UCD will cause Davis impacts that we receive zero dollars in tax revenue to help mitigate.

        2. Anon: What is the evidence that the DIC effort will actually reappear in Woodland? Has an application be filed? Who’s involved? I know the location and I don’t personally think it’s a viable site.

          This has the smell of political rhetoric intended to manipulate the public. Psuedo-evidence that if you don’t get in line on Nishi and/or MRIC, bad things might happen. I’m a little amused that the mere rumor that Woodland might try to compete has Davis people all hot and bothered. If Davis is vulnerable to Woodland, then we’re not nearly as desirable to the technology sector as we keep telling ourselves.

          I also don’t buy the idea that there will be significant impacts on Davis from R&D development in other jurisdictions. The impacts on traffic, housing, and infrastructure will be negligible. Maybe some new traffic at Hutchison Drive, but that’s UCD, not Davis.

          On the topic of bigger picture, the amount of R&D space at Nishi is insufficient to be a game changer.

Leave a Comment