A recent email from Eileen Samitz put out information that was blatantly inaccurate. In addition to other more subjective claims, Ms. Samitz writes: “The deceptive and inadequate student only “affordable housing” proposal would be run and managed by the landlords. So unlike standard practice, with there is State or Federal oversight of affordable housing programs, the Nishi 2.0 landlord would get to make the selection of which get to be considered for the student ‘affordable housing.'”
What she writes is simply a falsehood. The city of Davis has its own Affordable Housing program, with an office that you can call or email.
Nishi’s affordable housing is no different than any other in the city. They have an annual review and can take it over if the landlords do not comply with the provisions. Moreover, even for standard or traditional affordable housing, the city itself is the compliance agency, not the state or the federal government.
The Nishi affordable housing program is governed by the Development Agreement.
At the very bottom of Page 59 of the Development Agreement, it is titled, “Reporting for Affordable Beds.”
Here the city lays it out: “Developer will provide an annual report to the City of Davis demonstrating compliance with this program.”
There are also claims that in case the landlords fail to find suitable tenants to qualify for affordable housing, they can rent the affordable units at market rate.
It is important that people read these agreements as they lay out the conditions of approval.
Here on page 60 of the agreement it clearly states: “In the event that Developer fails to lease all of the Affordable Beds in any year, after diligent efforts, Developer will pay the City of Davis’ 
Housing Fund an amount equivalent to the difference between the total annual market rent and the rent for the Affordable Bed for each bed that is not rented to an Extremely Low or Very-Low Income student, as applicable for that year, and may lease those beds at market rate.”
So the answer here is yes – they can rent at market rate, but not as a benefit to the developer, as they will then have to pay the city the difference in the rent which would go into the affordable housing fund.
But, more than that, there are provisions that if the developer fails to fully rent the required number of beds for two consecutive years, the city in effect can take over the affordable housing project.
In the regulatory agreement: “The required number of Affordable Beds shall be maintained and rented in the Nishi Multifamily Units in perpetuity and shall be implemented through a Regulatory Agreement and Restrictive Covenants…”
The idea that the city has allowed the developers some sort of benefit here is completely false. The idea that there is state or federal oversight into local affordable housing is also false.
The irony is that both Nishi and Lincoln40 are on the cutting edge of providing affordable housing to students. Those who argue that this project is a benefit to developers are losing sight of the fact that, under normal conditions, students would not even being able to rent affordable housing.
Eileen Samitz makes the argument again, “On top of that only students being allowed access to the 15% ‘affordable’ beds. Meanwhile, the City’s long-term ordinance has required 35% affordable housing in multi-family housing for years.”
As we pointed out previously, why can’t Nishi get to 35 percent? For fun, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to what it would cost.
Part of the problem here is that the affordable component, as it is set up, has to be internally and privately subsidized. That means that market rate renters are basically subsidizing the 
reduction in costs.
I calculated, based on the difference between the market rate units and affordable units, that to get to 35 percent it would cost the property owners about $1.8 million annually. In this case, it is not a matter of building the units – the units will be built regardless, it is a matter of recouping the difference between market and affordable units on an ongoing basis.
Back in February, The council asked Aaron Latta, who has emerged as one of the leaders in the student housing fight, for his perspective and the student perspective on the Nishi affordable proposal.
He said, “At the bottom line, any level of affordability for students is a good thing. This is the second project that exists that has it.”
He pointed out, “Every single one of these numbers are people, but if we don’t get this project passed, it’s that many more people without an affordable place to live.”
Mr. Latta said that the affordable housing plan for Nishi was “beyond my expectations” and he was “amazed by the affordable housing plan for Lincoln40.”
The reason the students aren’t complaining about 15 versus 35 percent is that they know, without this project, they would get no affordable housing.
As a Cal Works eligibility worker pointed out, the panelist who is a single mother and living at Solano Park has limited options for attending UC Davis. The family can either live in Solano Park – under apparently intolerable conditions, provided that they are accepted – or they can live outside of Davis, commute, and incur even greater transportation and childcare costs.
There are thus very limited options for students who need affordable housing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Hello readers – We are in the middle of one of the most interesting and exciting election years in recent history. The Vanguard is bringing the election coverage like no one else. And we’ve brought on some additional help just to make sure we cover everything. We need to raise $1000 this month to help cover the bills. It’s a small campaign, but necessary. If you support our work – please donate a little bit to help us out.
To donate, hit this link: https://www.gofundme.com/may-vanguard-fundraiser
There are no housing subsidies planned at Nishi. The owners/developers are simply making less money from 15% of the residents.
There will be parking subsidies at Nishi if the majority of residents are paying part of the cost of the parking spots only used by a minority.
Thinking ahead the city can make sure that we carve out part of the Nishi site to store the bike share bikes that Todd likes that I predict will get even less use in Davis than they get in China:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-02/stunning-photos-chinas-haunting-bike-graveyards
> The owners/developers are simply making less money from 15% of the residents.
And that’s not being paid by the other 85%?
I have believed that the reason students were not included in “Affordable Housing” was that it was all but impossible to tell what a younger student’s “income” was since it is difficult to know how much they are really being subsidized by their family (relative to another student’s income / family subsidy).
I don’t understand how the programs at Nishi or Lincoln40 get around that.
Can anyone explain that?
Here is the HUD standard: “For a student to be determined eligible for low-income housing, she must demonstrate her independence from parents. The student is required to be of legal contract age under state law and have established a separate household from her parents for at least one year prior to submitting a housing application. The student also cannot be claimed as a dependent on IRS income tax returns and she must obtain a certification of how much financial assistance is provided by a parent, even if there is none provided. Any financial aid provided from the institution of higher education or private sources will be used to calculate income unless the student is over the age of 23 and has a dependent child.”
Here is the development agreement:
Full-time students who have not been claimed as an income tax dependent by any individual for the tax year immediately preceding application to the program may qualify by verifying financial independence and by demonstrating that the full-time student’s income does not exceed Very-Low Income or Extremely Low Income for a single person household, as applicable to the Affordable Bed for Yolo County.
i. Verifying Financially Independent Status: Financially independent full-time students must be able to demonstrate that they are not claimed as a dependent on anyone else’s tax return and show financial self-sufficient status by means of verifying documentation such as tax returns and W-2s, and additional information to demonstrate financial independence.
ii. Verifying Low Income Status: The full-time student or non-student must document his or her income by means of verifying documentation such as tax returns, W-2s, FAFSA documentation, bank statements, etc. “Income” shall be defined as set forth in 25 Cal. Code Regs §6914. Developer shall be responsible for developing written procedures for verification of income status consistent with the Fair Housing Laws, this Affordable Housing Plan and the Regulatory Agreement to be recorded against the Nishi Multifamily Units…
No one seems to care that Samitz just made stuff up? Or they’ve come to expect her to be dishonest?
In the People’s Republic of Davis, everyone is entitled to their own facts.
I just heard about this article since, like so many others I know, I have stopped reading the Vanguard for many reasons including its lack of objectivity and fairness in discussion. Also, I emailed David a while ago explaining that he was not on my email list and he was not to be using my emails, even if they are forwarded to him by someone. He can always call me and ask for clarification if he does not understand something.
On this issue the point I made is not inaccurate. First, as I said, the Nishi “affordable housing program” is not being overseen by a state or federal agency, as most are and where there is very rigid accountability of assuring the housing units are going to the people who qualify. In the case of Nishi, if the landlords can not find a student that qualifies, then the “bed” goes for market rate the difference in rent goes to the City’s affordable housing fund. This is not a “regular” policy in standard affordable housing. Second, affordable housing projects are not supposed to limited to students only. This issue has been raise all along. Third, the City is pretty overwhelmed as it is, and has had its difficulties with trying to do affordable housing oversight as well. For instance, there was the scandal in south Davis where in El Macero II project in the late 1990’s where the affordable homes wound up being sold to the developer’s relatives. Also, the many Wildhorse Ranch affordable homes that should have had limited equity conditions to help build an affordable housing fund when sold by owners, and instead were sold with massive windfalls going to the first owners. Fourth, I find it ironic that of all people, that David you would be arguing against more affordable housing with the reduction of affordable housing from 35% to 15%. You are one of the people who have benefited by the former 35% policy.
So, I am signing off and, like so many others, I not really interested in posting on the Vanguard because of the rancor and lack of fairness or respect in the discussion.
And I would ask David that you please respect other people’s communications, and if you have a question about something I have communicated to others that you may hear about, instead of writing an article about it, please contact me by phone or email for any clarifications.
One the issue of emails, once you hit send, you basically lose control over their content and they are in effect in the public realm and fair game. There is nothing proprietary or privileged about the communication. That’s especially true if you are putting inaccurate information out there – and both the email and this response are inaccurate.
The irony of her post is Eileen cites the Wildhorse Ranch affordable housing scandal. In that case, the city failed to insure that affordable houses remained affordable in perpetuity. Did the state or federal government step in to oversee it or sanction city employees when they profited from the scandal? No. Nothing happened. The state and federal government do not oversee local affordable projects, the city does. There is no difference between how this program is administered and how other affordable programs are administered in this city. It is unfortunate that Eileen doesn’t want to engage here, because I would ask her to offer some sort of proof on this point. I cited the development agreement, she’s not cited anything in support of her view.
On 35%, that’s a political issue, but again I would point out that most of the city’s affordable housing was funded under RDA or as land dedication sites. DACHA was a standalone project, it was not funded under the city’s 35% affordable housing policy. Students would be ineligible for housing under most traditional programs. And private financing to 35% would be prohibitive in cost.
Interesting that Eileen tells David “not to be using my emails” it must be nice when she can make stuff up and only sent it to people who believe it and never call her out on it (it must be an email list of out of touch people since anyone who has spent any time in the El Macero Estates area of South East Davis North of El Macero knows that it probably has 35% of the homes “worth over $1 million” but is not even close to having 35% “affordable” homes apartments and condos)…
Actually it was Simmons Estates (scandal)… but facts don’t matter… (north of El Macero, sw corner of El Macero Estates…) we’re seeing ‘false facts’ a lot… here, statewide and nationally… and some of the ‘false facts’ are denials of true facts… it is what it is… or, what is pretended to be…
Why am I thinking Lewis Caroll and Alice?
David:
I disagree with your assertion that emails not sent to you or the Vanguard are in “fair game”. How would you like it, if your personal emails were being unexpectedly publicly broadcast?
Per Eileen’s comment above, she has already asked you (privately, and now publically) to not publish emails (or sections thereof) that are not sent to you or the Vanguard. She has invited you to contact her directly, if you “mysteriously” come across one that causes you concern. Why didn’t you do so, before attempting to discredit her publicly (and without her advance knowledge), regarding an issue that she has already explained?
I saw this article yesterday, and noticed that there were already nasty, personal comments being made. (Before there was even a response, from Eileen.) Fortunately, these have since been removed. But, your article encouraged these types of comments in the first place. Is this really what you want to encourage?
Is the Vanguard so short of original ideas that it has to resort to this?
“How would you like it, if your personal emails were being unexpectedly publicly broadcast?”
That wasn’t a personal email. But I operate under the assumption whether it is sending out over 2000 Vanguard emails or sending out other emails that I have no control over them once I send it out. So I always make sure not to send something I wouldn’t want everyone to know about it.
“She has invited you to contact her directly, if you “mysteriously” come across one that causes you concern. Why didn’t you do so, before attempting to discredit her publicly (and without her advance knowledge), regarding an issue that she has already explained?”
Why would I do that? She didn’t ask me if her email was accurate before she sent it out probably to 1000 people or so, there are inaccuracies floating in the community and my article addrssed them.
“Fortunately, these have since been removed. But, your article encouraged these types of comments in the first place. Is this really what you want to encourage?”
No that’s why we removed the comments that were inappropriate.
“Is the Vanguard so short of original ideas that it has to resort to this? ”
Is there a policy discussion you would like to have regarding the facts here? That was the purpose of posting this article.
It seems pretty clear that the purpose of your article was to attack Eileen. My concern is the lack of journalistic integrity regarding your article.
It is interesting that when people don’t want the truth and like the “alternative facts” that often accuse the people telling the truth of “attacking” the person making stuff up…
Apparently I attacked her by correcting her inaccurate comments
Other than stating that her email is inaccurate – which I believe is correct and you haven’t disputed – I fail to see anything that attacks her. There is certainly no personal attack in there, other than mentioning her by name.
Actually, I’m not seeing anything that’s inaccurate regarding the quoted sections from Eileen. She has explained that.
Taking someone else’s email (that was not addressed to you), and claiming that it’s “blatantly inaccurate” and featuring it as an article is a personal attack.
Really you don’t see any inaccuracies?
Let’s look at this again.
“The deceptive and inadequate student only “affordable housing” proposal would be run and managed by the landlords. So unlike standard practice, with there is State or Federal oversight of affordable housing programs, the Nishi 2.0 landlord would get to make the selection of which get to be considered for the student ‘affordable housing.’”
So what’s inaccurate?
1. There is no State or Federal oversight of “standard” affordable housing programs. She presented no evidence to the contrary.
2. The Nishi 2.0 landlord is managing the affordable housing but is audited by the city like any other project.
When she was called on it, she sidetracked slightly by stating, ” the City is pretty overwhelmed as it is, and has had its difficulties with trying to do affordable housing oversight as well.” That’s quite a bit different from what she said originally. It’s also not accurate either, but not what she initially said.
3. The statement “the Nishi 2.0 landlord would get to make the selection of which get to be considered for the student ‘affordable housing.’”” Implies something that is not true, what qualifies as an affordable housing is regulated by three factors: (1) the development agreement, (2) Fair Housing allocations which determine the rent, (3) Annual Audits.
None of what she said is accurate and her explanation didn’t address any of this.
I get that she’s butt-hurt to be called out on this, but if you are going to send out an email to hundreds of voters, you should expect to be held accountable for your inaccuracies.
Your stating that the State and Federal government just “hand out” funds for Affordable housing, with no oversight at that level? Really? And, that it’s suddenly up to Eileen to “disprove that” in an article in which you hijacked a email, and perhaps doesn’t want to (or have time to) spend all day unwillingly arguing on the Vanguard?
Again, not seeing where that conflicts with what Eileen stated. Not sure that the point of her original email was to explain all factors that comprise Affordable housing programs.
I don’t know that she’s “butt-hurt”, as this entire article reflects more on the Vanguard’s reporting, than it does on Eileen.
“Your stating that the State and Federal government just “hand out” funds for Affordable housing, with no oversight? Really? And, that it’s suddenly up to Eileen to “disprove that” in a article in which you hijacked a email, and perhaps doesn’t want to (or have time to) spend all day unwillingly arguing on the Vanguard?”
If the state/ feds have oversight, you should be able to prove it. What I was told is that the local jurisdiction oversees local affordable housing and it makes sense because neither the state nor the feds have the resources to go into each community and monitor individual housing units.
“Again, not seeing where that conflicts with what Eileen stated”
Her statement implied that the landlord had complete control over who got into affordable housing. That’s not accurate. There are rules and a compliance mechanism.
David: Again, you’re moving well-beyond what Eileen actually stated. And, I seriously doubt that there is no state and federal oversight of Affordable housing programs, e.g., in which they provide funding.
I could take the time to confirm this, but I’m not particularly interested in debating this topic with you. Perhaps something you should do, if you’re attempting to “disprove” it. (And, perhaps something you should do, before alleging that someone is engaging in “blatant inaccuracies”.)
I’m more concerned that you’re hijacking an email, and misrepresenting it. It is not the same as willingly engaging on the Vanguard (via submitted articles/comments).
You keep saying you seriously doubt it – have you talked to anyone? Looked it up? Your serious doubts are not evidence. I’ve spoken to people to who do this for a living who have told me that the local city is the enforcement agency for affordable housing.
David: You’re the one making an allegation, using a hijacked email from an unwilling participant.
Suggest that YOU look it up, before alleging that someone is engaging in “blatant inaccuracies”. I have yet to see a federal or state agency which doesn’t audit programs in which they provide funding. (And, that includes compliance audits.)
You keep using the word hijack. That implies that we illegally obtained the email. It’s not like we hacked her account and leaked it to wikileaks to post on the internet. She sent it to 1000 people or so and it was in the public domain. People forward it. It’s fair game.
“Suggest that YOU look it up, before alleging that someone is engaging in “blatant inaccuracies”. I have yet to see a federal or state agency which doesn’t audit programs in which they provide funding.”
I did my homework, I gave you the answer I got. You haven’t. Neither did Eileen before sending it out.
You sure like to use the word “imply”, when making allegations.
One definition of “hijack” is to “take over something, and use it for a different purpose”. (Just confirmed that, online. But, cannot provide a link to it for some reason.)
Regarding federal and state oversight, you’re again making an allegation against a person in which you haven’t done your homework, and are attempting to engage unwilling participants on the Vanguard. Not my idea of journalistic integrity.
A lack of willingness, interest (or time) to research and/or comment on the Vanguard is not an “admission” or acknowledgement of a point.
I talked to several affordable sites and asked them who oversaw their activities, and was told by them, the city. They would know.
I can pretty much assure you that they would NOT necessarily know what state and federal agencies do, to monitor programs in which they provide funding. And, that includes compliance with regulations.
Look up the responsibilities of the federal OIGs, for example. (And/or, perhaps the state auditor.)
a political email sent to hundreds ain’t private
Yep…
Hi Ron – it seems pretty odd that you would be attempting to debate David without having researched the facts. I did a quick google search after reading your exchange and found it interesting that for New Harmony, the city used $7 million in RDA money (which they administer) and then $1.7 million in Federal HOME funds – but the city received it, which puts the city as the overseer of the affordable housing project. It seems like very little effort on your part would have yielded a better understanding than you currently have.
Craig:
You’re making assumptions that because the city received the funding, then the agencies that actually provide the funding turn over all responsibilities to ensure compliance to the city. And, that federal and state agencies perform no subsequent audits to ensure compliance. (That almost sounds like a recipe for potential corruption.)
It seems that you’re jumping to a conclusion, without an understanding of how state and federal agencies monitor programs in which they provide funding.
I have not looked up the specific responsibilities in this case, but again – David is making the allegation, here. And, he’s asking the wrong folks to confirm.
If I were to research this, I’d probably start by looking at the responsibilities of the agencies that provide funding.
I simply don’t understand how you can continue to argue without facts. Pretty everything you’ve written on this subject has been an assumption and not based on research or evidence.
Here you go – not difficult to find. Would you like me to post a lot more examples, or will this do?
“The auditors recommended that HUD take back any HOME funds unspent by the city or used for ineligible purposes.”
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/03/federal_audit_finds_jersey_city_bungled_affordable.html
I suspect that’s a bit different than overseeing local affordable housing, but I’m glad you finally did a little legwork. The article doesn’t state it, but one has to wonder if someone filed a complaint to trigger the HUD investigation.
Craig: That was an example of a local (city-administered) affordable housing program.
Again, David is the one who should research this (and from a correct/accurate source), before attacking a portion of a hijacked email.
Perhaps kind of ironic, that David is actually the one who is incorrect on this. Sort of backfired on him.
Not sure you’re really contradicting the point. Are you saying that the city should always accept federal grants for housing so if they mess up, they can be audited by HUD? yes, I’m being absurd. I think you should go back to what she said in her email. Is HUD monitoring and overseeing New Harmony to make sure that each unit is rented according to specifications or is the city doing that and HUD simply coming with an audit if a complaint is filed? Again, simply posting the article isn’t very helpful because it doesn’t give us real insight. David claims to have talked with affordable housing sites who say that the city rather than the state or feds are the enforcement mechanism. It may be that there are layers here, but that gets back to the question posed – is Nishi really that much different than most affordable housing sites in Davis that don’t have federal grants involved? I don’t know. I’m not expert. But neither are you.
I’m out of this conversation.
I lied. One more question, what happens if someone files a complaint against Nishi with Fair Housing?
Craig: I provided an example of federal oversight of a local Affordable housing program in which the government provided funds, which you (and David) incorrectly suggested did not occur.
Yes – I would call that a contradiction, from what you and David stated.
“which you incorrectly suggested was not in place.”
I said nothing of the sort.
This guy won’t let you leave
I have not heard that the Federal Government is providing funds to the Nishi developers. If this is the case why are we talking about properties on the East Coast that use government funds?
Again, what part of “my understanding” was incorrect? And, what was the point of your post?
Would you feel better if I posted additional examples of federal oversight of (traditional) local Affordable housing programs?
Regarding “leaving” the conversation, I’m not stopping you from doing so, if you choose. I had no intention of engaging in Affordable housing, in the first place. I was more concerned about the methods and incorrect information that David was putting out, based upon a section of a hijacked email from an unwilling participant.
“A recent email from […] put out information that was blatantly inaccurate.”
I haven’t read any of the comments above, so please accept my apologies if what I am saying here repeats something that has already been said. I also have not seen, received, or read the e-mail in question.
With that said, (1) the David’s sentence above is personal opinion, not fact. (2) the information presented in the e-mail is (more than likely) personal opinion, not fact, (3) the inclusion of the e-mail author’s name affects the tone of the article … and not for the good, (4) the article comes across as a political polemic rather than as a journalistic communication, and (5) I suspect (but do not know) that the e-mail was clearly labeled as political by its author.
In my personal opinion this article is not one of the Vanguard’s finer moments. In my personal opinion this article is symptomatic of the political polarization that is pervasive in our community, and the detrimental effect that polarization has had on the Vanguard.
I agree, but would suggest that the polarization is partially caused and encouraged by the Vanguard.
I thought Ron was bad when he often posts he does not have time to take a minute to look in to something (but somehow he has the time to post over ten times on a single topic) but for Matt (who has the time to create complex financial posts to say “I also have not seen, received, or read the e-mail in question” and “I haven’t read any of the comments above” then post about the email and comments is not one of his finer moments…
How can anyone say “David’s sentence above is personal opinion, not fact.” without reading the e-mail?
Ken: Regarding my participation, this is what occurs when one allows oneself to get dragged into this nonsense, by those who put out misinformation and then challenge others to disprove it. In other words, David has (partially) achieved his goal. (Congratulations, on that.)
Ron you are up to 15 posts on this topic and (despite the link to a project in NJ that has nothing to do with Nishi) it looks like you still can’t post anything David wrote that is incorrect.
P.S. I don’t think David’s “goal” was getting you to post 15 times or to get Matt to post about something he could not be bothered to read…
Here’s #16, since you can apparently count, but cannot read what David claimed:
That is “blatantly incorrect”. And, somehow wasn’t clear enough to you, despite 15 comments.
Recently, you also challenged me about something that was repeatedly/already clarified in an article, as well.
Should we try for 17 comments, regarding the same topic? 🙂
True. Single full time students do not qualify for programs overseen by state or federal agencies.
The ones funded by and being overseen by a state or federal agency are not limited to students only…yes, that’s true.
This fraud happened 20 years ago with for sale cheap houses, different staff, different council, not similar to lower cost bed rentals for students. She can ask Mike Harrington about it – it was discovered while he was on the Council, under his watch.
Federal or State oversight? Is she referring to the Section 8 housing program? Single students do not qualify for that program, but even so, landlords still make the decision who they will rent to. I think Eileen doesn’t understand how it works to be poor and trying to find housing when there is very little housing for anyone at any price. I have students living out of their cars and spending the night in my building. A bed near campus where they can walk to class will be such a relief.
Or, on campus – where the rent for entire developments could theoretically be controlled/influenced by UCD (instead of a relative “handful” of beds). And, wouldn’t require a half-baked proposal with questionable air quality, 700 parking spaces, and probable negative fiscal impacts to the city. (Not to mention a lack of an innovation center component, to help offset costs.)
If Nishi passes without an innovation center component, watch for the Vanguard and others to aggressively push for one, far from downtown and UCD (with housing). (Actually, that campaign has already started.)
We’ve been pushing for one for nearly five years now. Regardless of Nishi. Did you ever read the Studio 30 report on the Dispersed Innovation Strategy?
You’ll be pushing even harder, if Nishi passes without an innovation center component.
As another commenter once said (regarding a similar subject), accommodating one problem in a poorly thought-out manner can create a “cascading series of (subsequent) problems”.
There aren’t any other sites like Nishi (e.g., close to UCD, downtown, etc.).
If a developer is simply trying to avoid costs (e.g., regarding air quality testing, and an adequate EIR), that’s not sufficient justification to support a less-than-ideal (current) proposal. This is a permanent, major decision ultimately impacting all of Davis. (Not just the current student housing challenges, created solely and unilaterally by UCD.)
In any case, it’s not likely that it would be built anytime soon, regardless of the election outcome.
Fail to see how the passage of Nishi marks any sort of change in this regard
If there’s no innovation center component at Nishi, that will “justify” the push for one elsewhere. (And, might even create a bigger need for one, due to the probably negative fiscal impacts of a housing-only development at Nishi.)
I’m failing to see why an “Aggie Square” or World Food Center can’t be pursued there jointly, with UCD. (Instead of building these proposals in Sacramento.) Access to the site could remain as currently proposed, through UCD.
And, if air quality was actually tested on the site (and appropriately analyzed) as recommended long ago, perhaps it could include housing. (Not sure exactly when that recommendation was first made, but I think it was about 3 years ago, from what I’ve heard.)
“If there’s no innovation center component at Nishi, that will “justify” the push for one elsewhere.”
The need for an innovation center at MRIC or the NW Quadrant was predicated on the need for 200 acres. Nishi is considerably smaller and the Studio 30 report, while pushing for R&D at Nishi, did not anticipate that it would satisfy the need for innovation space.
“I’m failing to see why an “Aggie Square” or World Food Center can’t be pursued there jointly, with UCD. (Instead of building these in Sacramento.)”
Because UCD grew tired of waiting for Davis to overcome its land use squabbles.
From the Studio 30 report on why Davis needs to pursue an innovation center not just Nishi:
“The current isolated and dispersed sites that are available and appropriately zoned are not adequate in terms of size, location, or configuration (and related constraints) to address the emerging market need of an Innovation Center… Studio 30 estimates Davis could absorb up to 10 percent or around 100,000 square feet of the 1-1.5 million industrial/ office square footage absorbed annually in the Sacramento region. Because of this Studio 30 estimates Davis needs at least 200 acres for business development and expansion over a 20 +/- year time horizon.”
This is central to understanding why developing Nishi was not going to be sufficient even through they saw it as “the best opportunity for the close-in/ incubator.” It didn’t have the space to address the need for larger businesses: “Though not sufficient to meet needs of midsized businesses it could serve as a catalyst for establishment of early phase companies and promote downtown business development.”
Your comments are uninformed by this analysis and thus you are miscalculating
Well, that’s not stopping them from supporting a housing-only development at Nishi, is it? (Despite the concerns of its own air quality expert.) Your argument makes no sense.
Foist the costs and impacts on Davis, and the benefits elsewhere. And, you’re supporting that approach.
They aren’t relying on Nishi for their innovation/ R&D needs. They will take the housing project if it passes. There is a difference.
So, you know for a fact that an innovation center component with ties to UCD is not feasible at Nishi? And, that it’s better-located in Sacramento?
Even you have previously acknowledged that the current proposal is not your ideal choice.
And again, sites such as Nishi are not in abundance, to say the least.
I never said it wasn’t feasible. What I said, is that UCD has moved on from it. The same way the developers of the Davis Innovation Center moved on from Davis to go to Woodland.
By the way, the Studio 30 report was created prior to the plans for “innovation centers” were made in surrounding cities, such as Woodland, Dixon, and the Sacramento area. Therefore, it’s not going to address the market demand that is being siphoned away, by these other nearby locations.
Perhaps a reason that we witnessed the demise of MRIC (unless it includes housing, of course).
The one thing that Davis still has (at the moment) is a medium-sized site that is adjacent to UCD and downtown (Nishi). What a shame, to sacrifice that site in a less-than-ideal manner. All to address the “crisis” that our neighbor (UCD) unilaterally created, while simultaneously transferring the potential benefits to other cities.
Two things…
First, the Studio 30 report discusses in detail regional options
Second, when Nishi was anticipated, neither Area 52 or University Research Park were in the picture. As I have pointed out to you before, those two sites and investment opportunities mitigate the loss of Nishi in 2016. If you were so-concerned about having the mid-size site adjacent to UCD, you should have jumped on Nishi 1.0.
Again, Nishi does not have to be limited to what Area 52 or URC are doing. Nor does it have to be the same size as the Nishi 1.0 proposal.
We have some examples (e.g., something like Aggie Square, or the World Food Center) which might be a good fit at Nishi. I recall that you once noted a development at another university, which you suggested as a good fit for a location such as Nishi.
Access for an innovation-center type proposal with ties to UCD could potentially remain as currently proposed, thereby eliminating one of the concerns regarding Nishi 1.0. The proposal could still include housing, if air quality is appropriately analyzed and objectively/adequately determined to be safe.
With the potential negative fiscal impacts of the current Nishi proposal, that could easily put the city “further in the hole”, while simultaneously being forced to compete with other nearby cities for the same businesses.
A “cascading series of problems”.
At this point either one of two things are going to happen. Either Nishi passes and becomes housing, or it fails and lies fallow for the next twenty years, perhaps longer. Any idea of an innovation park there at this point is foolhardy. You should have supported the original project.
You have no basis for making that statement. We heard the same type of arguments regarding Nishi 1.0. And yet, 2 years later – here’s Nishi 2.0 (attempting to use the same EIR, I believe).
Developers are not known for letting properties remain idle for long periods in hot markets, if there’s potential money to be made. Who knows – maybe they could even make more, with a better/expanded proposal, instead of a modified one (that’s a lesser version of the one that already lost) and was rushed onto the ballot.
Two words: Covell Village.
Ron, You 5:03 post…
Well, even if David doesn’t, I do… Nishi 2.0 isn’t… it’s Nishi 3.0… Nishi 1.0 had commercial, housing, a hotel/mini-conference center… access only to W Olive… the property had just been annexed to the County (had been in Solano County)…
I KNOW, because I was part of processing that application… and commenting, on behalf of the City to the LAFCO application for County annexation… 20+ years ago. It is in the City files!
The CEQA document was approved, it even had a provisional TM (it had not been annexed to the City… it had serious flaws from an engineering/traffic perspective… this is not the first time I have pointed this out in the last 3 years… on this forum…
BTW… same owners of Nishi 1.0 as Nishi 3.0, basically… some party interests may have changed, but substantively, same… so, in this case,
“Developers are not known for letting properties remain idle for long periods in hot markets, if there’s potential money to be made.” is untrue…
Howard: You’re describing an earlier annexation process, apparently along with an error in the CEQA (or TM?) document. For a proposal that didn’t even go before voters (and I assume wasn’t required to, at that time).
It’s 2 years since the last proposal. Now, we have a lesser proposal, apparently trying to use the same EIR (with whatever amendment is being used).
The development is not likely to be built anytime soon, even if voters approve it. From what I understand, there is no binding agreement for access through UCD, or underneath the railroad tracks. (Let alone building that access.) Not to mention the legal challenges that the proposal faces.
I do believe that there’s potential for a development that will better-serve the entire city. (Perhaps starting with the recommended air quality study, this time.)
Again, there’s only one site like Nishi. It’s a shame to squander the opportunity, on a less-than-ideal proposal.
I don’t view the failed Covell Village development site in the same way as the Nishi site. Unlike the failed Covell Village development site, Nishi does have some significant advantages for development of some type (e.g., proximity to UCD and downtown, difficult-to-work location for farming).
The Covell Village proposal was a massive, sprawling development. Exactly the type of development that would occur, in the absence of Measure R. Perhaps the developer realizes that it doesn’t have much chance of approval (but I’m sure that they’re not totally giving up). I’m ready for that to rear its ugly head, again.
I’ve forgotten – does the same developer own both sites? (Whitcombe?)
“The development is not likely to be built anytime soon, even if voters approve it. From what I understand, there is no binding agreement for access through UCD, or underneath the railroad tracks. (Let alone building that access.) Not to mention the legal challenges that the proposal faces.”
The legal issue will likely slow it down.
On the agreement, I am told that this will not be an issue. The developers are going to pay for it, UC Davis wants student housing next to campus and are supportive of this project.
If you look at the last Nishi lawsuit, it took about 14 months to resolve and there was no real incentive to move it forward.
Well, as long as you’re “being told” that there’s no problem with access to UCD, then that sounds “rock-solid” to me. I recall (from the MOU?) that UCD wants to be reimbursed for providing access. Is that still the case? If so, has an amount been determined?
And, no word regarding access underneath the railroad tracks?
How much will that access cost? And, does the developer have funding lined up to build it, along with the rest of the infrastructure? Has the infrastructure plan even been settled (e.g., the route of sewer, water, electrical, etc.?
Wondering what will happen (legally), if one or both of those organizations fails to provide access. Would the developer then sue the city, to provide access to Olive? (From what I understand, legal challenges can be made regarding “landlocked” properties.)
Yeah, I’m “sure” it would be built soon! 🙂 (Assuming the legal challenges are overcome.)
Is my sarcasm sufficiently on display?
Included in the MOU:
* Nishi will be responsible for the construction, maintenance and operation of the undercrossing improvements, necessary connectivity improvements and to mitigate traffic impacts on campus.
* UC Davis to retain approval authority over proposed improvements to connect the Project to the campus.
* Nishi to fund construction, maintenance (including long term maintenance costs) and operations, of the new Nishi connection improvements.
* University to be appropriately compensated for use of its land.
Also, how are police/fire going to access the site (assuming it’s not necessarily an emergency)? Are they traveling through campus, or has that (also) not been settled?
And, what about potential legal challenges, if one (or both) of the organizations involved ultimately refuse to provide access at some point? Again, there’s no binding agreements (and I haven’t even seen a response, regarding access underneath the railroad tracks).
If access is refused (or revoked at some point), might the developer then sue the city, to provide access through Olive? Again, I understand that there are potential legal issues regarding properties that are essentially landlocked.
Emergency vehicles will have access from Olive Drive as well as campus.
Ron… your 7:17 post…
It is not yours, nor the community’s to “squander” or not… unless you believe that your property belongs to the ‘community’… then, I’ll listen..
And as to your posit…
No errors (just a bad call… everything completely legal)… please consider removal of your head from…
Thanks, Don. I knew that, but was wondering how police/fire might choose to respond and how much extra time it would take them to gain access, if they go the long way around (vs. having to deal with some type of barrier on Olive).
Of course, some folks believe that police/fire services won’t add anything other than “negligible” costs, even if access is difficult. (Despite the warnings previously issued by one or more of the corresponding department chiefs, from what I recall with Nishi 1.0.) And, that was for a proposal in which access would have been freely provided, via Olive.
Of course, police/fire would (also) not have any access through UCD, if an access road is ultimately denied.
Still wondering what will happen (legally), if one or both of the impacted organizations (UCD, or the railroad) fails to agree (or subsequently revokes) normal/vehicular access through UCD. Would the developer then sue the city, to provide access to Olive? (From what I understand, legal challenges can be made regarding “landlocked” properties.)
Howard: I never said that the property was mine (and you know that, already). The insult included in your comment should be immediately removed, by the moderator.
[edted]
Cities (and in this case voters, directly) have opportunities to weigh in on development proposals (and changes to existing zoning and plans), which impact the city. Some folks seem to object to this concept [edited]
Ron – with boundary drop, the first responder is probably going to be a campus fire engine, rather than a city one. Remember the project cannot be built without university access, that is in the BPFs.
David: Regarding “boundary drop”, has that agreement been formalized for the parties involved (Nishi developers, UCD, and the city)? Has UCD agreed to provide such services, at no cost to the city?
If not, then that’s another hurdle. And, does not relieve the city of providing such services (or account for the challenges of accessing the site).
[edited]
I let Don moderate, so take it up with him. I’m not going to getting into the specifics of who did what. In general, keep it on topic and off each other.
As for your substantive question, the boundary is a pre-existing agreement for shared support from fire independent of Nishi. closest responder takes the call regardless of which side of the boundary the location originates.
[edited]
Regarding boundary drop, I asked specifically if that was worked out regarding Nishi. If possible, please direct me to the agreement.
And, I noticed that you still haven’t responded to my inquiry regarding legal options that the developer might have (to force access upon Olive), if UCD or the railroad does not agree to (or revokes) access.
As I tried to explain on boundary drop – it doesn’t require it to be worked out for a specific site. It is an existing/ ongoing agreement.
Here is an article on it: https://davisvanguard.org/2013/01/council-goes-forward-with-boundary-drop-changes-to-response-time-puts-staffing-questions-off/
I don’t know the answer to legal options if UCD does not agree. I suspect that’s their right to do. But I don’t know. Hence my lack of answer.
Thanks, but your referenced article doesn’t seem to describe any finalized agreement. I’m wondering which agencies (UCD, or the city’s) would primarily respond to calls from Nishi, and if this has been agreed to. Seems difficult to believe that an organization (UCD) that wants to be “reimbursed” for use of their land (by Nishi) would agree to be the primary agency to respond. Has their input even been sought, regarding that? Is there some type of plan, or do they just “play it by ear”, regarding whoever happens to be in the vicinity (for police and fire)?
Regardless, perhaps the more important question (regarding legal options to force access upon the city, for an approved development) remain unanswered/unknown. (Pretty much what I suspected.)