One of the more curious issues in the Nishi debate is the notion that the Nishi project underutilizes its space. Matt Williams, for example, in a column on the Vanguard, acknowledges, “We have a serious housing problem in Davis.” He argues, “The Nishi developers proposing 2,200 student beds when they could be proposing between 5,200 and 7,000 student beds (leaving 3,000 students without available housing/shelter) is a massive waste of an opportunity.”
From his view, he writes, “5,200 less people driving to Davis. Problem appropriately mitigated… 2,200 less people driving to Davis. Problem sub-optimally mitigated.”
In yesterday’s column, I suggested that Matt Williams is allowing the perfect to endanger the good, and he responded that this is more like allowing the quest for the good to endanger the mediocre.
To bolster his evidence, he cites statements from all five of the councilmembers who at various times have acknowledged less than full satisfaction with the current Nishi proposal.
For example, Lucas Frerichs stated, “I think still I think Nishi 1.0 was superior in many ways particularly vis-a-vis smart growth principles, higher density, mixed use, both residential commercial and R&D spaces, nearly 30,0000 square feet previously proposed, the mixture of rental and for-sale housing.”
Robb Davis said, “I liked Nishi 1.0 better because it was a broader project that met more community needs.”
There is no disputing that, from a number of aspects, the Measure A version of Nishi was preferable to the Measure J version of Nishi. I will also point out that neither iteration were my preferred project. As I have published numerous times here, I would have preferred the UC Davis Village version of the project, akin to the USC Village. There, high density student housing was joined by large square footage of retail space on a property that at 15 acres is about one-third of the size of Nishi.
Matt Williams and others are absolutely correct to argue that we could have had a project that did more.
The problem with that argument is you can always argue that a project can be better, more denser, or do more. But to make that argument is to ignore a lot of reality. The first reality is 
that after the last Nishi project lost narrowly at the polls, the developers had to decide what to do next. No one had put a project back on the ballot but also no project had come as close as the Nishi one to passing.
In order to get it on the ballot, they would incur significant additional costs. That made them risk averse. They attempted to figure out what went wrong and fix it.
They made the decision, for example, to avoid the traffic debate by putting all of the access on the UC Davis side rather than through Olive Drive. The result of that dictated changes to the project. It meant that they did not believe a commercial project would be viable. They also eliminated the for-sale housing that might dictate the need for Olive Drive access.
They added an affordable component, the lack of which was a huge contributor to the downfall of the 2016 Measure J.
Finally, to address air quality concerns, they eliminated long-term residency that would have occurred in the for-sale homes as well as the commercial component. That meant that any exposure to air quality problems would be short-term.
Should they have made it more dense? Possibly. But while it is true that they might have been able to complete the additional study quickly, six months is probably optimistic for getting an EIR done and the analysis ready. Realistically, they were looking at having to have the EIR done and the project ready by July. I think that would have been pretty tight to then get it on the ballot for November. That says nothing of the additional cost to do that.
In the end, I do not, however, believe the timeline and the cost should have driven this process.
The bigger issue is community need and I don’t necessarily agree with Matt Williams that we needed 5000 to 7000 beds at Nishi at this time. I would argue that the addition of at least 2200 beds is far more important than fighting for an additional 3000 to 5000 on top of that. It is a basic math issue.
We have a severe housing crisis, but one of the things I have supported in this process is a mixed approach to solving that housing. Part of that solution is housing on campus. The university has stepped up over the last two years. First they would not commit to a specific number of beds, then it was 6200, then 8500, now it is over 9000 new beds.
In short, while the community continues to push for 50 percent housing on campus, the university is committing to 48 percent.
Our view has been we need an additional 10,000 beds to get the university to the place where it needs to be. For awhile it looked like a lot of those beds were going to have to be off campus. At the time when the university was committing to 6200 beds, it looked like the city would have to provide about 3800 of them just to keep up with increased enrollment. Between Sterling, Lincoln40, Plaza 2555, and Nishi – it appeared there were going to be just over 4000 beds.
In other words, with Nishi and the rest of the new student housing, we would barely reach the 10,000 mark. And 10,000 itself was no magic number. It barely accounted for new enrollment growth.
However, with the university agreeing to go to 9000 rather than 6200 new beds, we are now looking at 13,000 rather than 10,000 new beds. That is enough to accommodate enrollment growth over the next decade and possibly get us to the goal of 5 percent vacancy.
So to Matt’s argument that 2200 is good but 5000 to 7000 is better – that is no longer as clear. We would be talking about 16,000 to 18,000 beds. Over the next ten years, that’s probably more than we need.
One point on which I have strongly disagreed with the slow-growth side of the aisle is the city being willing to build beds has not alleviated the pressure on the university to build on-campus housing. If anything, it has put the city in a far stronger position to demand that the university build more housing on campus because the campus can no longer tell the city it’s being hypocritical.
However, with 16,000 to 18,000 new beds, it seems likely that the university would probably not expand their housing beyond the initial 5000 beds they are immediately planning to build in 2020.
On the other hand, we still do need the 2200 beds. Nishi provides us with the possibility of alleviating the tight rental market and filling the immediate needs of affordable student housing – housing that is currently lacking anywhere in the local market.
However, the marginal benefit of going from 2200 to 5000 or even 7000 is neither worth the delay nor the risk. We are much better off with the certainty of 2200 than holding out hope that, if we vote down Nishi, the developer comes back for a third time, and with a more dense project. If anything, a third bite is likely to produce less not more.
That is the final point I will make here. There are those who believe that the Measure R process results in better projects than without it. The reality is that five councilmembers all agree that Nishi, as voted down in 2016, was the better project. And not only them, but Matt Williams and Colin Walsh – opponents of the current proposal – both appear to agree with that view.
That means the Measure R process has not led to a better project, but rather a worse project. What it has produced is planning a project they think can pass rather than a project that is ideal for the needs of the community.
What the voters have to decide is whether some housing at Nishi is better than no housing at Nishi. While it is speculation that a no vote would result in ultimately no housing there, it is a wing and a prayer to home that a no vote will result in a better project. It certainly didn’t this time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Seems like some folks will ultimately use the unique challenges of the site/proposal (e.g., regarding access, air quality, and fiscal concerns) and failure to address those concerns to attack Measure R and its supporters.
If there’s no innovation center component to help offset costs at Nishi, then look for a subsequent, aggressive campaign to put one elsewhere (away from UCD and downtown). (And folks, that subsequent proposal will include housing, since that’s where the money is – for developers.)
Didn’t attack Measure R which I continue to support. But there are strengths and weaknesses of any measure, and in the case of Nishi at least, the result of the Measure R process is a project that all sides acknowledge to be less good than the previous version that was voted down.
I don’t see an aggressive campaign to support an innovation center at this time. If anything, MRIC seems to be fading into oblivion, davis Innovation is off the table and UCD which had been looking at Solano County has clearly focused on Sacramento. My prediction, there will be no major innovation centers in Davis in the next decade.
Well, if it’s “less good”, send it packing! (For now, at least.)
The reason that it’s inferior is likely due to the developer’s desire to salvage what they can in the quickest manner possible, and at the lowest possible cost (e.g., by using the same EIR, with whatever modifications they believe is required). If it loses again, then that strategy will ultimately cost them even more money.
The land has been empty for a long time (even before Measure R came into effect). There’s reasons for that.
It’s only “less good” in the sense that it doesn’t directly make revenue for the city. Removing the direct access from Richards made the commercial component impossible. I suspect that any commercial development proposal for Nishi would fail due to the traffic arguments. Opponents are still trying to use traffic as an argument against the current project.
Nishi will provide much-needed housing in a convenient location with lots of trees and attractive landscaping. It will be a very nice place for students to live.
Why less good send it packing? It still fills critical needs. This the classic the perfect is the enemy of the good type of analysis.
Frankly, I don’t believe the predictions that development interests won’t pursue an innovation center component (with housing), elsewhere. (Away from downtown, and UCD.)
Assuming that Nishi creates additional fiscal challenges for the city, then that would also “justify” pursuit of an innovation center, elsewhere. (It will ultimately depend upon who is elected to the council, as well.)
Just the other day, David noted that UCD “doesn’t want” traffic from a commercial component to travel through UCD land. (Presumably, the same land that they want to be reimbursed for, under the current proposal.) Not sure why they’re “o.k.” with 700 parking spaces, under the current proposal. (But then again, no access agreement has been formalized – with UCD or the railroad.)
The bottom line is, does the city continue to accept the negative impacts of UCD’s plans, when UCD itself isn’t willing to exhibit greater flexibility and contributions (to accommodate its own needs)?
There are two sites identified that have or had proposals. One is off the table. The other, MRIC, is on hold. Hopefully that landowner will move on it, or perhaps sell the land or turn the development over to someone else.
The city has sufficient fiscal challenges to merit pursuit of a coherent economic development strategy regardless of the impact of any specific housing development proposal. The current conditions justify (no quote marks needed) pursuit of at least one innovation center elsewhere.
…
Yes. The city grows when UCD grows.
The first problem with your comment is you’re not looking at the current situation. There were two potential innovation park developers, both have essentially pulled out. So where’s the developer interest going to come from?
The second is you continue to buy into the negative impacts of Nishi – that’s just an accounting sleight of hand at best.
And again, a joint UCD/commercial component could be created, which has close ties to UCD. (Something like the World Food Center, or Aggie Village – which is being pursued in Sacramento, instead of Davis.)
Or, perhaps David’s idea – of a USC-type village.
First step (for any proposal which includes housing) is to actually perform the recommended air quality study.
In general, proposals must be examined to determine their impacts on the entire city, including the creation of other needs which RESULT from the proposal. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, regarding city planning. Otherwise, we’ll have a “cascading series of crises”.
What you’re missing is that investors can get a better return and more certainty elsewhere. THat includes UCD.
Any proposal will likely follow the recommendations of the business park task force, which built on a process that began in about 2010 to identify sites for peripheral sites and was broadened to a review of overall economic development. If the developers want to try to put housing into those, they will likely find significant opposition. The real concern is whether any viable projects can go forward at all at this point. There was real momentum for two business parks a couple of years ago, but that has faded. Measure R is one of the major impediments to getting economic development done on the edge of town. So an unfortunate side effect of Measure R, which IMO was mainly directed at housing growth, has been the stifling of commercial development that could help the city’s finances. If any modification of Measure R were to be proposed, my suggestion would be that it focus on that aspect.
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/commissions-and-committees/innovation-park-task-force/background-and-reference-documents
David Greenwald said . . . “The bigger issue is community needs and I don’t necessarily agree with Matt Williams that we needed 5000 to 7000 beds at Nishi at this time. I would argue that the addition of at least 2200 beds is far more important than fighting for an additional 3000 to 5000 on top of that. It is a basic math issue.”
Democracy is a beautiful thing. Everyone can have their personal opinion and vote that personal opinion.
My opinion is that David’s point above is extremely short-sighted. Setting aside what the current apartment beds deficit is in the City (Don Shor has often stated that it is no less than 10,000 beds. I have agreed with that number in the past and continue to wholeheartedly agree with it now), one only needs to look at the recent history of UC Davis enrollment (accessible at http://budget.ucdavis.edu/data-reports/data-tables-dashboard.html under the Student Summary Reports menu choice. The following are the annual increases over the past six academic years
2012-13… 654
2013-14… 748
2014-15 1,284
2015-16 1,107
2016-17. 1,243
2017-18… 957
Bottom-line, assuming that enrollment trend continues, whatever the current “need” for beds is, it will be 1,000 beds more next year, 2,000 beds more in two years, 3,000 beds more in three years, 4,000 beds more in four years,and 5,000 beds more in five years.
Don’t disagree… but there is also the non-student factor(s)… so 1000 beds/year is on the low side of needs…
Agreed Howard. I was being conservative.
BTW, apologies to Ken A. for the specificity of the source UCD numbers. They are that specific in the source UCD website.
Matt I like specific “real” numbers (like “UCD has 957 more students this year than last year”) I am bothered by people that pretend to have ESP and use specific “made up” numbers (like “UCD will add 1,237 students in the 2028-29 school year)…
Fair enough Ken. I agree with you in principle.
I want to be short-sighted.
I want housing construction to start now.
The people in this town want to control every little aspect of housing development.
They want to tell the university how much housing to build, where to build it, how tall the buildings should be.
They don’t want UC to build housing on play fields because it will change their view.
They want to control which bedroom doors have locks.
They want to control the number of showers per capita.
They want to make sure there are water meters for each resident.
They want to densify, but not in their neighborhoods.
They want to control the number of parking spaces students can have.
They want the builders to provide very high percentages of affordable housing.
They want housing to make money for the city.
I have been debating the need for more rental housing in Davis on the Vanguard for over a decade. Early discussions were about the likelihood of UCD actually fulfilling its enrollment projections. The economy was flat. University matriculation was outdated due to distance learning. Don’t take those growth projections seriously. Yes, that is what we were told a decade ago on the Vanguard.
Well, UCD is really good at one thing: adding students. They have met, probably surpassed, their enrollment projections.
They have torn down buildings, replaced them, fuddled this and that, finally made some promises that we need to hold them to.
But in all of that time, that whole decade of debate about the need for more rental housing, what has happened?
Almost. No. Rental. Housing. Has. Been. Built. In. Town.
Why? The number of developers willing to run the gauntlet of where/when/viewscapes/showers/water meters/bedroom locks/densify/build higher/reduce parking/make-it-pay-for-itself-in-perpetuity is pretty small. We do have a couple of hometown builders willing to go through the process, but I’d bet their tolerance for this process is not unlimited. Development by committee is not very practical. They have come up with a proposal that meets community needs, is responsive to traffic concerns. It will provide much needed housing.
So I want to be short-sighted: I want to get the ball rolling on Nishi so that we can get closer to that 10,000-bed need we have right now. We need to stop talking everything to death and get moving on providing housing now.
Your first bullet points capture a part of something I have believed for a long time… thank you!
For some reason (I don’t speculate why) many feel that they want to control what other folk do, how they behave, and want everyone to agree with their views… and, in some cases, ‘or else’ (not persuation, based on rational arguments). You see that in some ‘fundamentalists’ on the religious right, but you also see that in secular/atheist/agnostic ‘fundamentalists’ who focus on housing and growth.
Regarding your list, you forgot to add:
“They want to ensure that developments don’t put the city further into a fiscal hole”.
“They want to ensure that developments don’t cause gridlock.”
“They want to ensure that developments don’t overwhelm existing single-family neighborhoods, or compromise existing commercial activities, downtown.”
“They want to ensure that UCD’s plans are not continuously displacing those of the city.”
“They” might ultimately be the only ones looking out for the city, as a whole. (By the way, you’re overlooking some developments, including Affordable ones.)
Like Howard I don’t know “why” but it seems that extremists on both the right and left are the ones who want to control people. I have never met a self described “moderate” who cars if someone builds an apartment in a field, gets married to someone of the same sex or orders his kid a Coke at McDonalds. It is rare that any of these self describes moderates will EVER attend any kind of meeting where extremists go to virtue signal and often yell at other people as they try and block development, try and block people of the same sex from getting married or try to block the ability of a kid to get a Coke with a happy meal (or try to add a poisonous substance to the municipal water supply)…
At the end of the day, politics is the art of the possible. I think a 5000 to 7000 bed development is not possible in the current political climate. If someone were to ask my advice, I would recommend against pursuing such an arrangement.
Maybe we can vote on something like this for Nishi 4.0:
https://www.cruisecritic.com/photos/ships/coral-princess-278/member-5/66963/
– O-W. Kenobi
– D. Greenwald
– M. Williams
– D. Shor
– G. Patton
– L. Guenther (in a Downtown Plan Advisory Committee thread)
– Yoda
Does Yoda contradict Obi-Wan? I would say he does not because the younger Jedi Master is talking about analysis, and the older about action. In between there are lots of gradations and nuances: George’s is about the extreme risk of waiting just one more week, and Matt’s is using less strong language. Unfortunately David and Don under-deliver in this situation, which is made more clear when we look at what Larry said.
Nishi 1.0 failed (in part) because we could not imagine a commercial project that did not have automobile-access directly onto its property, or solve anything significantly with public transportation (or, you know, bicycles).
But going back over a year I’ve proposed – first in the Davis Vanguard and more recently directly to the City Council – peripheral parking connected directly to I-80, combined with a regional bus stop and a 24/7 self-driving shuttle – a similar parking idea was even more recently proposed by one of the Downtown Plan paid consultants, “intercept parking” that would relieve traffic stress through and north of the tunnel. A self-driving shuttle is now operating in San Ramon and UC Davis is trying to fund one for trips from campus to the Davis Depot.
Nishi 2.0 is challenged mostly on air quality issues, with one side saying it will be unhealthy, and the other that it will be mitigated with trees (that I think will help), interior filtration (based on technology that does not yet exist and ignoring dynamic real-world usage), short-residency (ignoring risks a person’s taken before and will likely have to after living here). But about this, consider three of the most significant transport things in our City: 1) I-80, which we would never allow if it was proposed now; 2) Fare-free parking, which is so far being reduced on new projects whereas it’s a struggle to do the same to any existing parking (as if the space was always parking), and 3) Our plateau’d rate of bicycle modal share, symbolized by an anti-egalitarian anachronism, that’s sadly our brand. (It’s like if Davis was known for being the “Capital of Reproductive Rights” and our town symbol was a chastity belt): We’re in denial, extreme denial, of how these things dull and slow our progress.
Measure R did not have an educational component that would address its risks.Nishi 1.0 had the same or worse air quality problems as 2.0, but many people were mostly concerned with their own convenience in using Richards, because they obviously they are not traffic, only others are traffic, and 2.0 will still have some traffic issues (all the trips not to campus, convenient when every apartment on average has a car that fits its occupants, and free parking on the other end).In sum, if both Nishi 1.0 and 2.0 fail it will be because of failed leadership (creativity, will, persuasion, wisdom) in transport policy, non-scientifically-supported belief in cures, and narcissism. A robust, mixed-use Nishi 3.0 could happen if we solve the access (as above), cover I-80 while reducing its transport intensity. We can do this much better long-term project, starting now, but voting against 2.0 and then pushing hard in the short term for some kind of housing for all the people sleeping in cars or sofas, because it’s a serious emergency that Nishi 2.0 won’t fix for a few years (construction) or at least a few years longer (because of challenges in providing the required interior air quality.)
DO… or do not.
Made me laugh. Overall, your post is thoughtful (and bypasses the usual back-and-forth political attacks that usually occur on here). Actually, you have never engaged in a negative manner, from what I recall.
If you adopt the cognitive behavioral approach of avoiding binary and absolute terms, the discussion can be more productive. ‘Good/bad’ and ‘perfect’, removed from the debate, can help us more readily address whether the project meets current goals and planning objectives.
Don: If you read the post again, you’ll see that the referenced quote was attributed to General Patton (not you). However, one might note some similarities regarding the Nishi arguments.
A different quote was attributed to you.
The whole thing does make more sense that way.
Regarding Nishi 2.0 and “the perfect…”, consider the possibility to build higher density there, later on. It would seem to be way more complicated than at least planning for it now. In this case the adequate/good/whatever IS the enemy of better.
To be clear I meant to build the 2.0 version and try to add more later to the same site (and likely footprint of the buildings).
D. Greenwald:
This (also) makes me laugh, in consideration of the series of articles and comments from Matt (as well as the references to the analysis performed by the other FBC commissioner, and the external consultant that was used for the first version of Nishi).
Yeah, they must have all been in on the “sleight of hand”. 🙂 Despite the fact that there was no basis, for the city’s “75% allocation”, across-the-board.
I have no idea why you think repeating the same arguments (which have repeatedly been addressed) causes them to suddenly have credibility. This is why the Vanguard is ultimately a black hole, regarding wasting time and energy. You and Don are among the worst culprits of this technique.
Are you like not paying attention to the fact that Matt and I have disagreed on this point?
I also think you’re conflating actual costs with cost allocations for existing costs. In real terms, Nishi is not going to produce an on-paper deficit for the city.
I missed this one earlier…
In response to Ron
“They want to ensure that developments don’t put the city further into a fiscal hole”.
Or prevent the city from utilizing economic development to grow revenue
“They want to ensure that developments don’t cause gridlock.”
But cause commuters to have to drive into town which causes… gridlock
“They want to ensure that developments don’t overwhelm existing single-family neighborhoods, or compromise existing commercial activities, downtown.”
Or force students to crowd 10 to a house that overwhelms existing single-family neighborhoods
“They want to ensure that UCD’s plans are not continuously displacing those of the city.”
But again cause students to flood into single families homes, again displacing those in the city
“They” might ultimately be the only ones looking out for the city, as a whole.
Or the ones who will destroy the city in order to save it
The black hole, continuing to engage in repetitive, false choices and baseless assumptions. And ultimately, facilitating troll-like comments from others.
Oh, well.
A) I am not short-sighted. And I don’t want our City to be. If we keep approving projects that are mediocre, we will have a mediocre City. I don’t want a mediocre City.
B) I’ve done a lot of math in my life, but I am unfamiliar with the ‘basic math’ that says 2,200 beds is ’worth fighting for’, but 5,200 beds is not.
C) A timeline is driving this project. I’m just not sure where that timeline is coming from. The Nishi site has been unchanged for decades, but suddenly we’re in a hurry.
“I’m just not sure where that timeline is coming from.”
August is when the students return.
Each of the next ten years there will be more students than the year before.
Clearly you don’t care but there it is in case anyone does.
Actually, I care a lot. And there have been two Augusts since the previous vote with approximately the same number of new students the current proposal will house. I just don’t believe that making a mistake justifies making a second mistake.
It is up to the voters now. If the Nishi project passes and if I am elected to City Council I will do my best to make it the best project possible. There are a lot of good aspects to the current proposal and housing students is one them.
I’ll put it like this – Larry.
First, I would say that there is a proposal on the table. IF that proposal is defeated, there is not guarantee that there will be another proposal on the table.
Second, in terms of timeline, I understand you have your own home, but many people don’t and some are being forced to sleep in the library or their cars. It seems like we might have a bit more urgency to get additional housing if we look at it through their eyes, rather than yours on this issue. I say that respectfully, but I think the broader answer is that there are a of different timelines that are being driven by electoral structure – again a reason to question whether Measure R’s process results in a better outcome for the community.
And I ask, respectfully, that you refrain from telling me how I see things through my eyes. If you disagree with me, well and good, but attaching motives to my arguments without knowlege of those motives is, in my opinion, not valid or constructive.