 Hello everybody. Welcome to the Vanguard discussion on Nishi Gateway. I am David Greenwald the Executive Director of the Davis Vanguard. First of all I'd like to thank several of the people that have made this possible today. Thank you to Jeff Shaw from Davis Media Access who is going to actually be recording this for this afternoon. Thank you to Bob Fung and Liana Suiha and Tia Will and Cecilia, Eskemia Greenwald my wife. They are editorial board members and Alan Hirsch was somewhere there he is. So thank you to my board for coming out and helping to make this be a successful event. We are going to be doing forums and discussions on a monthly basis so I want to let you guys know we have the next two pretty much set up. The first one is February the 17th that is a Wednesday. It will be from 7 to 9 at the Davis City Council Chambers and the topic for that will be the future of growth in Davis. And then on March the 12th at the large room at Davis Community Church we will be hosting the City Council Candidates Forum. So all four of the announced candidates have agreed to participate and anyone else that enters the race in the next month and a half we will invite as well so hopefully we will have a lively showing for that. That is March the 12th that is also a Saturday 1 to 3 at the Davis Community Church. So I am going to lay out very briefly the plan of attack for today and also the ground rules as we are setting them up. So I am well let me just quickly introduce the participants. Council Member Brett Lee, City Staffer Catherine Hess and developer Tim Ruff. So Brett Lee will give a brief introduction with some of his thoughts. Tim Ruff is going to do a PowerPoint presentation roughly 30 minutes give or take. We will then have about an hour of Q&A. So in order to do the Q&A you need to fill out a card. We are kind of hoping to streamline that a little bit for those of you who are at the last event. The discussion went, the comments went a little long and the question and answer part went a little short. So that is a work in progress but we are going to try the cards. The other thing is we want to get your input. So we have a survey. We would like everybody who is not a City Council Member or a City Staffer to fill this out and please get it back to us by the end of the event and I will tabulate and post some of the comments on the Vanguard in the coming days. Finally I will make the pitch. The Vanguard is a non-profit so anyone who is able to help support us we have a donation form that you can fill out. I think I have covered the major ground rules and how we are, oh did I mention that after the Q&A session anyone who wants to we are going to walk next door to the actual site so people can see it on the ground. So with that I will introduce Brett Lee. Thank you for coming today. Thank you David. You actually if you are able to you might want to come a little bit closer because you're going to be watching a presentation on the screen so you don't be shy about moving up a row or two if there's some open seats. Rather than comment about the project at this point you know I'll let Tim go through the proposal and some of the details and you know afterwards at the question and answer period I might sort of interject some of my thoughts but what I thought I would do is just describe the process for those who aren't so familiar with what the process is for this. Basically the Council on Tuesday will discuss the project proponents proposal and at that point we will either decide to try to move forward to place it on the June ballot or not move forward and if we decide to try to move forward to have it on the June ballot two weeks later it will come back to Council with the specific wording of what the ballot measure would be. So it's sort of this two part thing where the Council would decide to place it on the ballot and if we do then ultimately it would be a community wide election and at this point we're targeting the June election and there's some base some assumptions in there. We're assuming that it will be acceptable to us on Tuesday and then it will ultimately be acceptable to us two weeks later when we actually see the very specific language. But the Council does not have the ability to approve this. The Council has the ability to place it on the ballot and the registered voters of Davis will ultimately decide. I think that's probably enough of an introduction other than I will say that the project proponent has been working fairly well with staff in the Council. I think there's been a pretty high level of cooperation there and so I am optimistic that there will be an acceptable project proposal. But at this time it's the specifics aren't there yet. So we'll find out more on Tuesday. Thank you. Tim. Good afternoon. David, thanks for setting us up and Brad for coming today. I want to get started first by just telling you who Nishi Gateway LLC is. It's a local partnership. It's myself and my wife, Cindy. We are both graduates of Nishi Davis. After we graduated we moved to Sacramento and my car got broken into and so we moved right back to Davis. We've been here ever since. So we raised our two kids to the Davis High School system and they were actually in the UC systems also. Ray and Della Thompson. Della's a Davis High School graduate. Ray Thompson. It was Stanley Davis Holmes, built much of East Davis and Evergreen subdivision. Della's also a UC Davis graduate. John and Judy Whitcomb. They're their fourth generation here in town now. And they're, you know, Davis, he was also a Davis High School graduate. John was. And then finally the O'Gando family from Winters. They've been in Winters for 60 years. And that they're an underground construction company for underground utilities. So that should come in handy, hopefully. Anyways, I wanted to kind of go through a history of the site and then get into some of the project specifics. So the first photo up here is, you see the Nishi property here, the old homestead. And there's Solano Park right there. And then this is the old Interstate 80, which once went under the railroad tracks onto campus where the old Davis Road intersection is now. So this was originally about 30 acres before they moved the highway. I don't know anyone have a guess of when this photo might have been taken. It looks like post World War Two, 1950s. Pretty close. Anyways, it looks like Solano Park was just under construction back then. So that obviously is getting up there in age. Next. This is a parcel map I saw was kind of interesting. It shows the Nishi property is basically five legal parcels are all kind of odd shaped parcels that were created with the movement of the interstate, the railroad coming through this parcel to here is where the old Interstate 80 used to go under the railroad tracks. This is old Davis Road. And that's about so about 10 acres of the site was actually the whole old highway, which I thought was kind of interesting. So it's not necessarily Greenfield, little Greenfield, little Brownfield, but they did reclaim that highway. And unfortunately, they removed the trestle and the under crossing I have checked and it's no longer there. This is actually, I don't know if you know, this site was actually approved for entitlements in 1997. It was a low density suburban office park. It had full entitlements back in 1997. And then when they're redoing the general plan, the council decided to put it into into measure J. There was a big going on at that time whether or not that property should go on measure J. I remember it pretty well as a planning commission meeting. And Bill Emlin was a planning director and the planning commissioner says, Bill, Bill, why do you keep demanding that Nishi stay in the general plan? And Bill Emlin said, Well, so we can plan for our future. And I said, Oh, good job, Bill. But Bill was shipped off to Solano County. And the property was placed in measure J. And it's in there now. So next, please. This is this is my clip notes for the EIR. This actually in this room with cool Davis, she gave me this card. It's this it's a typical Davis carbon footprint. And it shows where the biggest component is car fuel. And this is the typical carbon footprint for a Davis family. And obviously car fuel is the biggest contributor to our carbon footprint. So the smart growth concept basically there's fewer cars less traffic less greenhouse gas emissions and better air quality. So a lot of the EIR is focused on that on those in much greater detail. But I kind of use this as just a guide, as far as the smart location approach and what that means. Next also, this was from an article that I saw recently the Davis enterprise talking about how can we reduce climate change? And basically, there's 1% of people either nationally or globally. I'm not sure I can't remember. But 1% generally ride their bike or commute by bike. So they have a goal of 10% to actually reduce global warming. And the UC Davis travel study shows that 80% of people at this location would likely bike. And so really, it's you get a lot of bang for your buck here in this location. And if you don't develop this location, those trips don't just go away, they go somewhere else. It could be Dixon, it could be another part of town. And so basically, you're increasing greenhouse gas regionally, if you develop at a location where they typically maybe only get 1% of their commuters riding by bike. So I think that's the unique characteristic of this site. And the other thing to notice as you get further away from the core area and the campus, bike ridership does decrease. So even if there's other sites in the city, maybe further on the edge, you still don't get that built in benefit of being so close to where people want to be. The property after you know, since it's been a measure J back in 2008, the city commissioned housing elements during committee. It was a community based planning effort that basically ranked the sites for residential development. Anise came out as a green light site in that process. And it's been an eight year collaborative process since that date and included the studio 30 report, the innovation park task force reports and the genesis of the this planning effort for the past three years is actually a result of a request that was put up by the Chancellor for innovation parks. She put it out statewide. And the city submitted the niche property as a candidate. And that's what started this this three year process that we've been on in the intense planning efforts since that that that effort. Keep in mind at the end of this process that Brett mentioned, there is a measure J vote. So I think that is the ultimate in a community participation process. Everyone gets to vote everyone gets to to weigh on this project at the end. So it's been quite an effort. All these efforts down here have been multi multi year efforts, large committees, a lot of community input. And it's been it's kind of what's been driving the the process. When we first got started after that request from the Chancellor, the campus in the city and myself, we put out an RFP to get some consultants we hired Perkins and will Prakash Pinto was our planner in charge. He's now working for Maze Ranch. We put together these common goals for the city, the campus and ourselves and its strengthening connections, creating a new gateway to Davis, the synergy of all the cultural entertainment attractions that we have here in downtown recreational assets, synergy with downtown and basically just taking advantage of this of this unique location for pedestrians and bike ability and create a mixed use district is the last one. So these are common goals that have been we've been working on throughout this process between the three collaborative partners and they still exist. This is a slide from the campus. They made this presentation to the city approximately a year ago. And this is their their take on why it's a good time to collaborate on this project, a renewed interest in economic development, sustainable transportation, the shared benefits and the ability to coordinate with their long range development plan, which is which is now under process as we speak. These are just some features that Bob Seeger put on his slide that I don't have access to. Good job. Okay. As part of the Perkins and Will project, I like this map just because it shows that we did a 3D model of the entire city so that when we came and started populating it with buildings, we could see how how they would fit in with the existing densities and stuff with the campus and then the downtown there. So this property, this is actually where the Nishi homestead is they still live there. John and Mary Nishi. The freeway you saw obviously come right through here before. And that's their well. So they're used to have access to the well and their farming property, then they moved the freeway and they actually brought it right between their ag well, and right between their house. So I think that they would argue if you called it prime farmland after the freeway and the big freeway that separated their house and their ag well, but they're still there and they do actively farm on the other side of the freeway, the Nishi family. Through the Perkins and Will process, we started with 15 different plans of mixed use alternatives. And these are the three that I think that everyone that was involved with thought were the best. And it shows basically all of them have a campus connection in the same general location of the property about halfway down. And it just shows how you can arrange the different buildings on site. It included Toronto Park at this time just kind of some conceptual things with Perkins and Will. And I think the one that most people focused on was the one at the bottom of the Green Loop concept where we would have the Puda Creek Parkway come and then through the Nishi site back to campus and have this whole greenway system with the Arboretum and the Puda Creek Parkway and on site green space to create a green loop. This is one of my favorite, Mario views. Obviously the view from campus looking in the Nishi, the red area there is the proposed connection to campus where that would connect right up by the Arboretum. And you'll see this could be an entry into the Nishi property. If you see that little discoloration across the field, that's where that road used to go that I mentioned before. It shows up as a little bit discoloration because that's where they reclaim the highway and things don't grow quite as well there. But once again, this could be an entry or an exit to the Nishi property where people get on Interstate 80 by old Davis Road can avoid Richards altogether if they so choose. It's actually kind of a nice entry. If you think about it, you're going past some great assets, the Mondavi food and wine actually start pressing some buttons and they'll pop up. Easy Arboretum, there's Solano Park, not so fast. The Graduate School of Management, the Welcome Center and the Shrem Art Museum, which is now under construction, that's gonna be a fabulous facility. So anyways, driving to your condo, driving to work through old Davis Road, it's going to be quite an experience, I think. Next. So that ended that particular process with Perkins and Will that those concepts were presented to the city back around in 2014. And then at that time, we submitted for the Strategic Growth Council and we got awarded $600,000. It was actually the top ranked recipient in the state of California. It was a pretty robust competition throughout the state. And they awarded points based on ability or proxysm, proxysm to do assets so that you could reduce auto travel. And then the UL County was a co applicant, UC Davis was a supporter. And through that process, we didn't put an RFP with other consultants to start the EIR process. And the team ended up being a sent environmental, MIG, Davis Energy Group, Farron Peers and Cunningham Engineering, we're on the team going forward at this point to get into the actual EIR document. And doing the land plan, it's a there's a lot of trade offs when you do this. And so I call it achieving balance between food production, you know, solar energy and open spaces, you'll see here, these are all the trees that are on the site now when you go out to take a look that we're saving. So you don't want to put solar panels there. We do want to have rooftop gardens in addition to rooftop solar. We want to have edible landscaping. And so there's achieving a balance there. And with the site constraints is an important factor. The other one is jobs and housing balance. We know for a fact at this location that currently there's a housing in balance, you need housing here at the next to the campus with the student housing crisis and the vacancy rate. So we know in this particular proximity that there is a shortage of housing units, but we also want to achieve a job and housing balance on site between the uses that are actually on site, the residential, some for sale condos and the research and development. Finally, you know, there's also balances between traffic and land use. There have been some that said this should be all business park, but then then you really kind of blow out the traffic because this all business park creates the peak hour trips 80% of the site peak hour trips are from the research and development component. The lower peak hour trips in the last car use or more than the apartments in the housing. So there's a balance there also. And the last one was cost and feasibility, but we don't need a lot of details there. This is the site plan that kind of came out of that. After the achieving balance concept, we came out with a plan that had research and development along the freeway in the purple, the light yellow here, the four sale units, the darker yellow are rental units. Here's a connection to campus, a three street that comes through right there. And when that three street goes in, all of these research and development sites will be ready for design review applications and building permits. So we'll all go in simultaneously so that those are available. You'll see also there's 50% open space on this plan. Primarily we expanded, you'll see here that the Pooda Creek Parkway to incorporate some of the trees that were parallel to the path. The big open space park here as a signature oak tree and the other trees in that particular location that we preserved. And then down here, this is open space. The campus was really important to them so that when you're driving by, you can still see into campus and see the shrimp and see the Mandavi Center. So it also has some detention down there. But the overall programming is there's 210 condominium flats, five to six stories tall. Same height on the rental units. There's 410 rental units, I believe. And then 325,000 square feet of research and development space is the program development for the site. You'll see the solar on the surface parking lots. There's a parking structure centrally located here. And we have already agreed to a 10% reduction in the parking that's shown on this plan. So we are actually headed up with more bike racks than parking spaces. So this is a cross section. Excuse me for a second. This is a cross section through the property here showing this would be the railroad, this would be the interstate, and a cross section coming right across the residential and the research and development space. You can see here the complete street. This is the central spine street. And you got sidewalks and then walkways and then dedicated bikeways, parking, unit trans, and then the same on the other side. So you've got the complete street here, a nice white street, separate for pedestrians, separate for bikes. Plenty of width on sidewalks when you're coming out of buildings. And that feature runs throughout the entire site. So you can go from the Puttacreek Parkway on this bike system. Basically, you cross one intersection, go underneath the connection to the campus and be on the arboretum. So that kind of enforces once again the green loop that we've focused on as our primary circulation. And down below is also the cross section showing the railroad, the setback from the railroad where we have parking and other utility where trucks can come behind the rental units, interior courtyards here, which would be this interior courtyard. And then once again, there's the street that was detailed more above. And then also the parking structure would be a buffer between interstate 80, the research and development uses, and the residential further in. This is a screenshot from UC Davis's long range development plan that part of their outreach efforts right now. They've had a number of open houses and they've been reaching out to the community. This is their depictions once again showing the connection, the same connection that we have, the green loop system that they're studying in their EIR. So it's been a parallel process. We've done our EIR, we're complete, and we're going to final city council approval, then a vote of the people. The campus has a similar process. They're going out and getting the community input for the long range of element plan. They will do their EIR and then they'll get the regents approval. So the interface is actually, the timing is actually very well, and it through our three-year process with the campus, we realize that this parallel process would go and at the end it would all work together because we established this framework of where the connections are going to be, that green loop concept. And so we're both working on the same page there. And we actually have the same land planner too. The second effort that we did with our EIR, we're using MIG and that's the same land planner that the campus is using. This is the new connection to campus. It does look a bit like Richards, but it's not. Anyways, you can see Unitrans coming through here. Right now the double-decker Unitrans buses cannot get under the Richards under crossing. This would allow Unitrans to come through Nishi, a double-decker bus, and Bypass 1st Street and some of the traffic there. There's also pedestrians, separate pedestrians, separate bike path connection to campus. So we're basically doubling the capacity. Since you can't widen the Richards tunnel, we're basically building a new tunnel further about halfway down the site that has direct access to campus. Unitrans service will come through. And then the other important thing here that's often overlooked is Union Pacific Railroad. We do have an at-grade crossing. In fact, it's right outside the door here. And they have a big interest in getting rid of that because there's been some tragic accidents there. So they've been very cooperative with the concept of building a new underpass. Typically, they don't like them, but when you have an at-grade crossing, they become much more cooperative and we have their support. So that's important. This gets into some of the traffic and the infrastructure improvements that are being talked about. The last one you saw, the access to campus, there won't be any development on the site until that's done. There also won't be any development on the site until the Richards interchange improvements are done. The plan is here, which is working its way through the process now. The city staff, I think, has some preliminary engineering on this. And they're working with Caltrans. It would be to have a new signalized intersection back here so that you eliminate this weave when people get off the road. Now they get off too close to the tunnel and they need to weave over. This would put a new signalized intersection here. There is a new bike path and vision where you can go underneath the road there and just be completely separate from the Richards traffic for the most part. The other important thing is this median strip here. So this is going to bring order to the corridor. It's going to increase capacity, but it's also just going to increase safety dramatically, because right now you've got cars that can cross through here in every direction. So this will provide some order to make it safer for everybody in the corridor. Next, this is the actual intersection of Richards and Olive Drive. So we're sitting right here where the star is. We could have two turn lanes coming down Richards that will come onto two lanes onto onto West Olive and then down to two lanes onto Nishi. So the width there on Richards is already there on the south side of Olive Drive. The bus stop would be moved over here and we'd still have a full through lane that goes into downtown. So the lane going into downtown would remain there, but we'd have two lanes to bring traffic that wanted to go to campus and avoid the tunnel and avoid First Street. They can get to campus directly from Richards through the Nishi property. And that would include Unitrans service. We still just have one lane coming in from the highway. So right now there's one lane coming in from the highway. Go back one slide. Go back. Yeah, to ask questions, but needs to be able to go through one reverse. There'd be stacking here for people coming off the highway. That's that so you can get more cars stacked coming off the highway. They'd come to a signal. So there would be they'd have to stop before they can turn left or right to go into downtown. It will let you from South Davis come to an intersection and then there'd still be a lane going into downtown for you. Now get in just some of the the fiscal impacts of the property. The first one is that the project will generate an annual general fund surplus to a CFD facility that's set up specifically for that purpose to bring revenue to the city. There'll be no CFD for infrastructure improvements, just the CFD for the facilities to bring revenue. We have 325,000 square feet of research and development space, as I mentioned, adjacent to the campus. And then these numbers here come out of the EPS reports, the jobs and the output for the local economy. Those are huge numbers and huge benefits. And then also revenue for the Davis School District, as you're aware. On your property tax bill, there's four or five items on there for the Davis School District. And so each one of these parcels or units, depending on which measure it is, will be paying into the Joint Unified School District Fund. So it's hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for the school district. A couple other large economic drivers here is the first quote up here is from Joe Minnicozzi. He came to town to spoke and he said downtown development is the golden goose of urban economics. This is an extension of downtown. It will allow people that are living and working here to possibly leave their car in the structure and walk downtown so they don't take up downtown parking spaces. I think sales boosts and other revenue to downtown businesses will increase dramatically and help the overall bottom line for the city. And then also the driving concept here, when the Chancellor put out the request for the Innovation District is the quote from the Brookings Institute. It's the Innovation District clusters leading edge anchor institutions, which we already have in place, business incubators which are now growing in downtown Davis with Davis Roots and everything that's going on there, Jumpstart Davis, the activities picking up, mixed juice housing, office and retail which were provided on Nishi in a dynamic fashion and then access to 21st century urban amenities. And that once again would be the downtown, that would be the Arboretum, the Sram Art Museum and all the cultural assets that you see on campus. I would think it's going to be quite a dynamic and bring in a lot of revenue, especially downtown Davis business district. It's just like a business in a sense. It's a bunch of small businesses, but the district itself is something that we all cherish. And I think that they'll really benefit from this project. So from the Bay Area Council, they get into tech jobs. Tech jobs have outpaced other occupations by a ratio of 27 to 1 from 2001 to 2011. For each tech job, there's approximately 4.3 jobs created in other industries, services, dentists, school teachers. And the demand for high tech occupations will be considerably stronger than demand for other workers. So this is playing to really our strengths, our human capital, the tech transfer that's coming out of the campus, the research and development space that we're providing on site. And I grabbed these two images when I was playing around with PowerPoint. The one in the upper right of when I first saw it, I thought that might be the corporate headquarters for Skittles. But it's actually the Google campus in Ireland. And I don't know what they're doing, it looks like, but it says fostering and enabling innovation. I think one guy is doing an app and the other guy's doing an appetizer. But then over here, I thought everything was going wireless, but I guess I think that's the cloud. It's based here on Earth. And anyways, I don't really understand either what they're doing, but I think the millennials had it made if they're going to be able to work in the Google thing because it looks like it's a beanbag chair instead of an office chair. So anyway, lots of jobs, I think lots of benefits for that. Finally, into the residential component. We have 440 apartments, which will be geared towards students. That's 1,500 beds. Once again, those are located right next to the campus, in the connection to campus. There'll be 210 condos, condo flats, so six stories tall. Each one will be on a single level, averaging about 1,300 square feet. We'll have a number of units smaller than 1,000 square feet for studio or one bedrooms to help increase the affordability. People here, we're enabling people to live it out their car. We're not requiring them to live without a car, but we are enabling them with the energy features that we're proposing. The energy bills will be low, leading to more affordability, the smaller units. And finally, the big one, people will never necessarily have to commute. And that saves a lot of time. It makes everybody more productive. So just the location alone and the size of the units, I think would make this affordable living for the community. This is the connection from Alla Drive. Once again, right outside our window, how Alla Drive would come across Pooda Creek. And then it would attach to the existing Davis bike loop. We granted an easement to the city to put that bike loop in in the year 2000. It went underneath the railroad and then out to South Davis. So that bike loop is already in place. And we would hook into it to connect to the interior multi-use trail that would be part of the Green Loop. So once again, this is just steps away from the condominium units to get to downtown, to go to South Davis. A great location for that. And finally, on this portion of the presentation, we're going to read the EIR together when I'm done. But yeah. So anyways, these are obviously big images of our community that are important to us all within walking distance of our site. So I think that's kind of exciting once again, gets back to just the unique location that we're able to take advantage of here. And I'll pause for a moment. There are some sustainability slides, about four or five. But that would be the next. You can get into that briefly. Anyways, part of that grant that we got, a lot of it went to the EIR, but a lot of it went to the sustainability implementation plan. And it's quite a document. It's probably about the same size as the final EIR. And it gets into these topics. Go ahead. What we've done is we pulled these big ones out of here. We put them in the baseline project feature. So when the voters vote, they'll know, for instance, that they'll get 4.9 megawatts of solar power that creates enough energy to drive 85% of the energy use on site. The other ones are building standards of 30% above the Cal Green standards. And some of the meetings I've had with community groups, I've learned that, first of all, the state of California has very strict standards. And the city of Davis has stricter standards on top of that. So even with those standards, you're doing something that's very sustainable. We've gone beyond that with these other commitments. Just some of the general over-reaching goals there. The transportation demand, we'll be pricing, parking. We'll be charging students for parking to try to discourage peak hour trips. We can charge higher prices if someone's leaving at peak hour. Each of these structures and the residential components will have gates. So when people try to leave at peak hour, we can charge them so that we can monitor and meet a trip cap. That's another feature that we've committed to is just a trip cap. And that's how you would do that just by parking pricing. I know my son at UCLA, he moved in with a bunch of friends in a mini dorm right next to campus. And they would just say, you can have one car and we'll charge you $300 for another car. And so I know that strategy works because I was able to save them $200 by parking it on my driveway. Anyways, these are some of the energy requirements. As I mentioned, there is the rooftop solar. The building features 30% better than Title 24. And it talks about the therms that were being saved. And some of the other features there. The water low, you know, obviously the drought-resistant landscaping, low water use. This gets into, and this is an important one. This is the, you can see the amount of open space on this site. With the type of program that we got there, the number of units in the research and development space not lose sight of the fact that over 50% of the site is open space. These are private courtyards. These greens, this is a buffer from the freeway for air mitigation. But it's pretty incredible once again to have half the property dedicated to open space and still get all those uses there. So I like that exhibit. And I think the edible landscaping at 10% is very low. I don't know where the edible landscape contingent is, but I would certainly, I'd like to have 100% myself edible landscaping. Anyways, some of the other features of the open space and that's it for now. So I appreciate you taking the time to listen and be able to answer your questions. If you have cards that you haven't turned in, hold them up. And we will. David, while you're in it, I'm going to do an observation. Sure. Oh, they'll move back. So as David gathers those cards, I thought I would make a couple of general observations. As some of you know, I voted against the cannery and I voted against the cannery CFD. I have no concerns about voting yes or no for development, other than, you know, does it make sense for our community? So I'm not here just to plug the developer. I've been happy to vote against developer proposals in the past. What I can tell you when I've discussed this with some of my friends is that many of them just sort of instinctually are opposed to the notion of this relatively large development. What I try to explain to them as I evaluate this proposal is, is not something in isolation. So if David could pull up the very first slide of the presentation, if you're able to. Sorry about that. You know, so, I mean, a lot of times we really kind of shrink the lens that we use to evaluate something. For me, there are a couple of key factors. Davis has some affordability issues and we also have an extremely low apartment vacancy rate and a good proportion of the people living in our apartments are students on campus. And so I know that there's been this talk about, well, the university should house more people. I completely agree. The university is its own sovereign entity. The city, the citizens of Davis, the city council, we do not have the ability to force them to do that. We can work with them to do that. And that's what we're starting to do in terms of a long range plan. But we don't have the ability to wave magic wand and force them to build, you know, 2,000 apartment units next year type of thing. So if you look at this map, I'd be willing to go. And again, this is sort of echoing the conversations I've had with some of my friends. If we took a picture, just this picture, and we walked downtown, and we, you know, the enterprise used to have the person on the street, you know, where they'd ask the question and people respond to the question of the week. If we were to ask them, whose property is this? Is this the city's property or is this the university's property? My guess is close to half would say that they think it's the university's property. It's right there next to the Mon Dhabi. It's sort of, it's directly adjacent to the university. And so as I think about where would we as a city place 500 apartment units? Not just sort of just looking and going, wow, there's going to be some development here. Let's just say no because development is bad. Let's think about how do we address that less than 1% vacancy rate? So where would you place a 500 apartment unit, 500 unit apartment complex? If we think that's an important thing. And we can talk about whether we think that's important or not. But this is pretty compelling to me when we think about all the students that are currently commuting. And I see it. Sometimes I'll take the yellow bus to the airport, which is, I'll make a plug for that. It's a great way to get to Sacramento Airport. But there are so many students riding that bus who live in Woodland. And when I was a student, I didn't go to UC Davis, went to UC Berkeley, but it was great being able to walk to campus. There's something nice about the university experience where you can walk to class and hang out with your friends and walk home. And a lot of students because of the difficulty in finding a place in Davis are now living in Dixon or Woodland or things like that or commuting from Sacramento. Well, it's West Sacramento. And so when I look, I see this spot. I think, well, as places go, that's probably not too bad because I think Tim is right. A lot of those people will walk or bike to campus. They'll be eliminating current car trips that are currently creating traffic congestions. I'm not saying I'm for it. We'll see what the details are when it comes up for Council on Tuesday. But it is a compelling, it makes me think that this has some inbuilt advantages. And I'll just go there just because if you think about the proposal, we're talking about way over here. If you think about the farthest pay place in the city of Davis that you could build an apartment complex, that's over here. And so that's okay if people get angry at me because I'm holding the MACE innovation part to a slightly different standard. But here, apartment complex, lots of students, over here, I mean, it's dramatically different. So I just wanted to place them into context. So it's okay to say, I have real concerns about this notion of developing this open space. But in the broader context out of the community, if we think we want to add apartments and some additional housing, where would we think would be a better location than this? And there's one other piece and I'll be brief because I know you guys probably have a lot of questions and answers or questions. I've mentioned this to a couple of people. Imagine you'd finished your PhD somewhere, Ohio State. You'd get a tenure track faculty position on campus. So not a lecturer, not a postdoc, tenure track. You think, wow, this is awesome. I mean, for those of you, raise your hand if you're somewhat affiliated to the university or something, right? There's a few of you. The way you get the idea, these positions don't come up that often. So this would be like, wow, this is awesome. You go to Davis, you look around, and let's just say, I don't know what the current assistant professor rate is these days, but let's call it $100,000. It's like. Really? It depends on the department. If you're an engineering school or whether you're some other department. Where can you live if you didn't want to just run an apartment? Let's say you wanted to buy something. That's the best time to know. So Woodland, you know, I know a lot of faculty members who live in Woodland. And again, it's that same idea. My grandfather, let's see, where are we here? Yeah, so he used to ride his bike every morning to campus. That's nice, ride bike, ride over lunch, eat lunch, ride back to campus. That's a great way of life. And a lot of these people are not being able to share in that. And I think I would be very surprised if our community would not say, yeah, it'd be great to have junior faculty live in Davis. So I don't think it's any stretch. I mean, those, so what Tim said is these four sale units, the average size being 1,300 square feet in some average. So some will be much smaller. These are sort of in that sweet spot, a little on the high side, but in that sweet spot where a junior faculty member potentially could buy something. And so this catches my eye, it has my attention, and we'll see what the details are. There's some problems, but as he mentioned, we'll see what comes before us on Tuesday. This notion of a hard cap in terms of vehicles in and out, in terms of some of these other safeguards, I think they're on the right track. And what I would like to see on Tuesday is agreement that everything is clearly specified in plain language. So it's not some super legalistic document. So when you're voting, you're not sure exactly what you're voting on. What I'm looking for is something clean and simple. So if you vote yes or you vote no, you know exactly what you're voting on. And if it does pass, we know exactly what the developer is obligated to provide. So there's not a lot of wiggle room and sort of suddenly the attorney show up and you know. Anyway, I just thought I would try to put it in context in terms of how I'm evaluating it. Anyway, sure. Yeah, you can just direct the questions to me or him or. Or Catherine. We have Catherine Hess from the city who can answer city related questions. So I'm just, I've shuffled this deck a few times and we'll just go down the line. Will there be a train station? I think this one will be Tim's. It already is. I think on the Nishi site. Okay. You guys speak into the mic because of the recording. I think there's an existing train station that's sufficient. I mean, people that get there and they walk to campus actually walk through downtown. I think the merchants appreciate that. In the future, we do have a surface parking lot. Potentially, if there's a need for another station, I think it could be fit there, but it's certainly not in the current land plan. And I think financing and everything else is gonna be difficult. So we do have a wonderful asset that's within walking and biking distance from the site now. And so I think that that's the one that we're gonna stick with. And just a reminder, fill out those surveys. Those are very important, at least to me. I'm gonna just read this one through and then Tim can respond. I have heard that the Nishi project would be a joint venture between UCD and the city, a recent presentation of tax dollars versus development and it came out that UCD doesn't pay city taxes. One, who owns the land now? Two, how will the project affect city tax revenue with the university collaboration versus without it? And three, how would air quality for housing there near the freeway compare with the prevailed air quality in Davis? Okay. Can I have that card? This is not a joint venture with UC Davis. They're a collaborative partner. They have no interest in this property. It's owned by me and my partners, has been since 2005. So it's private property. If they decide to lease buildings on the site, we're gonna have a mechanism in place through a CFD services district that will pay for any loss of tax revenue for any public entity renting space on this property period. That once again, that's not for infrastructure. That's just for revenue to handle that should that occur. So basically that answers most of those questions. Air quality for housing compared with the prevailing, that's a good EIR question. There are prevailing winds. When traffic is really bad, I think is when the air quality is obviously worse, which is basically during rush hour. A lot of times out there, there's no traffic over the evenings and overnight. And when the prevailing winds from the south below during that time there, their quality would be pure. So it really depends on what time of day and what the traffic situation goes on the air quality. How was the 80% bike ridership arrived at? That came from a UC Davis travel study. They put out a study, I don't know if it's every year, but maybe every two years. You can find that at the UC Davis website. They have travel studies. They show what ridership is. And the further you get away from campus, they talk about how many freshmen ride, how many sophomores ride. And so it's really a good document. And so that's where that figure came from, their own travel study. Traffic coming from South Davis is already bad. What will the city do to improve it? Well, I think that gets to the Richards interchange slide that we talked about. There's plans in place to get that new bike path, to get the new Richards interchange done. It needs to be done once again before we build or occupy on site. Pull line road. This is will a pull line over crossing and be made into four lanes. My recollection is that the over crossing is wide enough that it could potentially accommodate four lanes. But at this point, the city's general plan, transportation element and capital improvement plans do not envision that sort of whitening. Thank you, Catherine. Well, anyone from South Davis have a say about the project. And this once again is the beauty about this project is everybody has a say. Everyone has an opinion in that opinion. Ultimately, it would be expressed in June. So it's an interesting question because the EIR, Rob Davis said the other day, I would appreciate it. He says, the answer to all your questions is probably in that EIR. It's just a lot of people don't want to read it. It's a big EIR. The final EIR then takes questions from the community members, a lot of the community members who have concerns over this project and then answers their questions. And the technical questions get answered by the consultants in a technical fashion. But if their opinions, in the final year EIR, they say, well, that's your opinion. We'll pass your opinion to the planning commission and the city council. And then I'll add further that also you'll get to express your opinion at the polls in June, hopefully. This is a question I've been hearing since 1986. What's the rush? John Yixi said it to me when I was on his front doorstep after I graduated. I had the same question that Brett said, who owns this land? And so I went and I knocked on John Yixi's door. So there really is no rush. We talked about the eight year collaborative process. This is relating to the Richard's tight diamond. If it's not done till 2020, what's the rush? But that's a big, huge infrastructure project. And really we need to get busy if we're gonna have that done by 2020. There's engineering that needs to be done. We gotta be talking with the railroad simultaneously for the crossing to campus. So really the timing is perfect. We can't start doing those things really until the voters tell us that they like this project. They think we're going in the right direction to go and start spending those kind of dollars. So that's a good question. Here's one for you, Catherine. Well, I'd be able to read it. Yeah, you can read that while I answer the next one. Okay. Yixi Davis has added 4,000 additional students in the last two years with no housing for those students. Is that one of the reasons Richard's traffic in first street traffic has exploded? Commuting students, I mean, I would think so. I mean, where are all the people coming from? Where are they going at the rush hour to Davis? I mean, I think they're going to campus. Why they don't go on Old Davis Road? I don't know. But I think once again, if you don't provide housing for students next to campus, there's gonna be more commuters. It goes back to that slide that I showed you that you have more commuters, more greenhouse gas emissions, more traffic. And so this is one of the ways to address that. And so you're absolutely right. They are growing. They're gonna continue to grow. You read articles in the paper pretty much every day about how they want to admit North California students, how they're trying to provide funds for more housing. So it is a big issue system-wide, but it's an even bigger issue here in Davis, I think. The mini dorms in the neighborhoods are, you know, it's not healthy for neighborhoods, I think, to have cars parked on lawns and things like that are a bunch of students in housing. That stock is probably better for families with kids. And so providing other opportunities for students to live closer to campus, I think is a good idea. Are you ready? Sure. So the question is Nishi Gateway claims to be exempt from affordable housing. Given the way it's currently designed, it does not appear to qualify since vertical mixed use requires the entire ground level to be entirely commercial and with uses not related to the residential above it. I don't have the exact wording of the affordable housing ordinance in front of me. I can pull it up. My understanding is that yes, vertical mixed use does include ground floor separate from the residential units. And there is, I would assume, an expectation that there will also be ground floor facilities related to the residential units, such as an office check-in access to the upper floors. But that's a technical question that I can get the answer to. Make sure that I have the chapter inverse for you. And then you get two and three. Well, if there's no affordable housing, how are they going to be able to afford it? Well, once again, that goes to the smaller unit sizes and people that can live without cars. I mean, that's a lot of students need cars. That's an average of about $6,000, $7,000 a year to own and maintain a car. City utility bills will be much lower. When we're building these energy efficient buildings, city utility bills are lower. They don't need to commute to campus, so they could be more productive. I mean, that's one of the most stressful times of the day, the commute to and from campus. If they're able not to commute, they could be more productive. And I think that's just a quality of life. So, I mean, there really is an effort here to make it affordable living for students. That's when you get back to the cost and the feasibility on my achieving balance is as you add cost, you decrease the ability to provide more affordable housing for students. And so, there's a big trade-off there. As you get into adding more solar, you get into other things that just cost money, ultimately that does boil down into rents for the students. And so, there's a balance that we need to play there also. And this is another, what's the rush card? Talking about the improvements to campus and Richards, and it's the same answer. This one's for coming on. Yes, please, please, come on up. So, I talked about, you know, well, I'm one of five council people, so I don't speak for the council. But I can tell you that one very real concern of mine was this idea that, oh, we would approve the project and the infrastructure wouldn't catch up to it, right? Like, the project gets approved. Oh, wait, we thought there was gonna be this connection to campus, so we thought there was gonna be this improved Richards corridor. What the developer has said, and again we'll see the specifics on Tuesday, is that no occupancy of the parcel until these infrastructure improvements have been made. So, if there's no access to campus, nobody can move in. If there's no improvements to the Richards corridor, which includes the Caltrans redoing the on and off ramps, nobody can move in. And so, that's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for that specificity, which literally, in one sentence, says exactly what I just said. So, that we're not caught in that position of, oh, well, we were promised all these things and suddenly everyone's there and then the already bad traffic at Richards and Olive is made even worse. And so, my understanding is that the developer is willing to put that language in there and that will be binding and it will be on the Measure J.R. language. So, it's not something a future council can go, oh, well, you know, we know you tried, so, but we'll let you move in anyway. No, if it's in the Measure J.R. language and people vote on it, nobody's able to change that other than the voters of Davis. Thank you for clarifying that, Brad. Catherine, the question actually relates to that too, so. Sure, okay. So, we've got a couple. One of them is, what is the deadline for final baseline features language? My understanding is that the 16th of February is the last date for the council to take action to put the project on the ballot. I don't know whether there is the ability for them to change baseline features after they decide to put the product, it should they decide to put the project on the ballot on the 16th. That may be an option, it's not an assumption that we're working under right now. And then another question is, can we please get projected financial statements for the 20 year build out of this project, showing quarterly net cash flows on which we can determine our expected present value for this project. The Finance and Budget Commission has had several conversations and is continuing its evaluation of the fiscal impacts of the project on the 8th, in order to make a recommendation to the council when it comes back on the 16th. Not likely quarterly projections, but they are looking at the construction phase and the completion phase. And I'd ask Tim to speak about the 20 year build out statement here. Can we get a brief annual cost number? A dollar in 20 years is only worth 33 cents. So I can't begin to tell whether this project is going to make a hundred million or lose a hundred million. So are you looking at impacts on the city or impacts for the development economics themselves? I'm looking at impacts for the city that therefore affect the taxpayers. Okay. What does this mean for the taxpayers due to the owners of the city? Okay, so the Finance and Budget Commission has been charged by the council to look at the projections over time. I don't believe they're anticipating an annual one, but they do want to make sure that they see how the trends come during the build out phase. Five years? I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to defer to the commission on that one. Measure J requires a full consideration. Correct. And I don't say you can give full consideration unless you have some estimate for the value of the project. So the financial information that you're asking for actually exists. There's Matt Williams who's right behind you is a member of the Finance and Budget Commission, and he, I'm guessing unless Matt surprises me, normally he has his laptop with him and has lots of Excel spreadsheets. It's a fairly comprehensive evaluation and it does take into account the discounted value of the money and interest rates and inflation rates and all of that potential increases in city labor costs based upon slight variations to inflation based upon just sort of general inflation rates versus what the city has experienced previously. So that level of detail does exist. And you're quite fortunate and that Matt is right there, right behind you. And I have one, but you can go. Where's yours, Don already? The Canary Project connectivity fell far short of the development agreement. What assurances will you give us that substantial changes won't be introduced after the project approval? I wanted to echo what Brett said. We are committed to completing both the interchange and the under crossing to campus before any occupancy on the site, period. So those will be done, there's no if ands and buts. They will also be in the baseline project features so that they can't be changed by a future council. They can only be changed by a future vote. So the power is with the people. That wasn't the case with Canary. The Canary didn't go to a vote of the people so they didn't even have baseline project features and the Canary was basically subject to agreement between developer and the council as far as I know. And what will happen to Olive Drive and the tenants there, I have a 30 year experience here. I mean, my property management based on Olive Drive. And so I have a 30 year relationship with a lot of these tenants, including the ones over here at 946. The widening would impact Red Run Burger and Third Space. Third Space was aware of that when they moved in, you know, the kind of short term lease, understanding that it was gonna be temporary because of the plans that were in place. Red Run, we've been discussing this with him. He's been aware of it for five years. He was in the room with the stakeholders groups that we've had, we've invited the tenants, we've invited the property owners. And I'm having ongoing conversations with him. He's a licensed business broker and a licensed real estate broker. So he's in the business of selling businesses, and so we are in discussions on some business points with Red Run. But those are the only two really for the road riding that would be impacted. So this is a question about, well, I'll just read it. A question for Brett Lee. Returning to your hypothetical scenario regarding a young family, faculty member moving to Davis and living at Nishi, it seems the likely next choice for the person to choose to have a child. Relating information about Tom Cahill's reported information that would, what would you say to this faculty member and his or her family when their child develops permanent lung damage due to the ultra fine, particulate, it doesn't say particulate pollution, permanently damaging the child's lungs? Who would be liable for knowing placing residences on the slot, which knowingly has air quality similar to Flint, Michigan, water pollution issues? Yeah, so that's a good question. So there was a discussion at, can't remember if it was the last, yeah, it wasn't the last council meeting, it was the last time we discussed Nishi, the Justice, whoa. This came up and there was a consultant there that estimated the additional risk for somebody living on site because of this. And what was interesting is there was just a little bit of a tug-of-war on the council, one person talking about how the risk was relatively small. I took it a different way. I think it's reasonable for the council to attempt to mitigate that additional risk. And I didn't mention it, but the applicant, the project proponent is aware of my desire for this. The research shows that trees are very beneficial, not only for noise reduction, but also the reduction of particulate pollution. And an interesting thing is we have kind of this, there's been actually on David's, the Vanguard, there was sort of discussion on this issue of particulate pollution. And we seem to have this sort of schizophrenic view of it. On one hand, we had the same people who were pounding the table about wood-burning fireplaces suddenly silent on this notion of locating a residential next to a freeway, which also has particulate pollution issues. The research has shown that particulate pollution particles are very, very, very harmful. They get into the deep lungs and they cause a lot of health issues. And the interesting thing about our council discussion talked about increased death rate. Well, there's also things short of death, for instance, asthma and just sort of general health and well-being and not be able to go jogging when you want to. I've talked to the applicant about this and he is in the process of looking into this idea of a forest buffer. The parcel is rather narrow, but it seems like as a baseline feature we could incorporate perhaps a 50 or 75 foot or 100 foot forest buffer between interstate 80 and the homes. There is also something going on in general, which is the quality of diesel fuel is improving and the quality of combustion for trucks and automobiles is also improving. So the amount of pollution per vehicle is going down. Having said that, now would be the time to do something like the forest buffer. The consultant who was there at the council meeting did have some additional knowledge about the types of trees that would be most effective in reducing particulate pollution. So I don't view it as a non-issue. I think it's an issue that we need to try to do on the front end because once we approve it, it kind of just goes and we don't get really a second bite of the apple. And I will comment about the cannery discussion. As I said earlier, I voted against the cannery along with Joe Carvosa, we both voted against it. There were some important, I was going to say details. There were some important components to that project which were left unagreed to. They were sort of, we will work it out. There was this push to have the project agreed to and we felt like we needed more time. And so there were some outstanding issues and the idea was we'll get to that. Just approve the project, we'll get to that. That was unacceptable and I think we're seeing some of the fallout now, especially when we are a year, two years later, we're still not even sure about the bicycle connectivity to that parcel. So with this, completely different. We're asking for all the details, well spelled out and should it be put on the ballot? People, as I say, the goal is that people know exactly what they're voting for and what's included and not included. And I see some fallout questions in the back. I'll let David figure out how he wants to do that. Can you write it down and we'll get to that. So it's sort of, so right now there are parcels that are next to roads. Well, we all currently know that automobile combustion creates carcinogens and particulate matter. And so any parcel in pretty much any locale that you build will have the issue of carcinogens and particulate pollution. And so in terms of liability, as long as the land is suitable for human habitation, as defined by both federal and state regulations, in terms of liability, there isn't a liability. It's just like, you know, David invited us here and if, I probably shouldn't say this, but if I get hit on my bike on the way home, yeah, but I think more deeply to your point is it is quite reasonable to have these concerns. Even if the risk as compared to some other things is relatively small, it's a known risk. And I think there are some simple things we can do to mitigate it, which also makes the parcel more attractive. And again, I'm 105 and we're not there yet, but just having a tree buffer, a forest buffer, just cuts down on the noise. It also just makes it, visually, just a much more enjoyable thing to walk your dog out there and not have to just stare at cars and trucks going by on the freeway. And the flip side is for the people going by on the freeway, they're not sort of just staring at a parking lot. Anyway, so. Because I want to get to the rest of the questions and then we have to walk them to her, so. Nice day for a field trip. As someone asked the Nishi family how they feel about the project next to their farm, well, I still represent the Nishi family on their transactions. I'm a land broker and developer. And I speak with them quite frequently actually. This year I've done some business for them. I'm their advisor for their properties. They have some spread around Yolo County. And so we joke about it. They say, why is Nishi's name still being, I said, you just can't get rid of it. There's no way the EIR says Nishi. I said, and he says, there's just no way. I'm trying to find another name when we come to marketing. Maybe it won't be Nishi. But he keeps bringing it up. And he goes, you know, we're gonna need some naming rights for that. And I said, well, I've already talked to your cousin about that, so. Anyways, they're conservative farming family and I think that. It's a rough sight. Yeah, yeah, that's true. So they would like to get, they didn't have a bit of an argument. If you told them it was prime farm ground with what they've been through with the highway and trying to get their equipment through there. They have a chocolate that plus there's other obstacles. They reclaim the highway there. And so that ground isn't very productive. And there's just other obstacles of people and trash and stuff that come on the property quite a bit. It's a tough piece to farm. But anyways, Nishi family is a great family. They're local, they've been there for a long time and they have six kids. And the six kids are the ones that inherited from their parents and they worked out the new bike path. The bike led with the city in the year 2000. They were very, very gracious to do that. Knowing that the benefits that I brought to the community. So I'm glad that the Nishi name is still on it and we joke about it quite a bit. So here are two questions that are pretty closely related. I'll read them both. How can the finance and budget commission evaluate? I'm not sure actually if that's what the handwritten says. But income to the city when share of county is not determined yet and very related. Is the tax sharing plan locked down yet? If not, the measure R, sorry, the R measures fiscal analysis just due to economics. So right now Nishi is not part of the city of Davis. And if we were to bring it into the city of Davis through the measure J, R vote, we would have to work out a tax sharing agreement with the county. And that's currently an issue that hasn't been resolved yet, what that tax share would be. And so these are great questions. And it's a very, very important issue because the financial analysis has been basically based on this notion of a 50-50 share. And there have been some variations to see how sensitive the tax sharing agreement, sorry. If that share changes, there's been a sensitivity analysis to look at as that changes from 50-50 to something other than 50-50, how sensitive that is to the revenue to the city. How sensitive revenue to the city is. Forgive my grammatical stumbles there. We have a council subcommittee that is supposed to be meeting with the county on February 3rd, Wednesday, conveniently the day after the council meeting. This is potentially a deal breaker on this project for me. The tax sharing agreement is not sufficient with the county. All the financial models fall apart. I mean, imagine if we got 10% instead of 50%. There is a way forward, though. And this is what my proposal will be. It may not be part of the baseline features in terms of what the tax sharing agreement is. But I would like to bind our council to have what that tax sharing agreement is by May 1st, so that when people are voting on it, when people are voting on this parcel, this is not, oh, we'll work it out later. So we probably won't be able to get to the point by February 16th, where we have something locked down in writing with the county. But we certainly need to have it by May 1st before the community votes on this. This is such a big issue. And it's not really in the control of the developer. It's not really between the developer and the city. It's really between the city and the county. We need to have this locked down. And we need to have it locked down before people vote on it. Sure. We now have a sense of Yolo County. And even if we're trading money to Yolo County, it serves our needs with law enforcement, criminal justice, public health, preservation of agri-cultures, and caring of government money. So I would also add that we're all residents of the state of California and residents of the United States. And I mean, I don't disagree with you. But it's very important that it's not just one site. It's our community as well. The goal is a fair allocation of the tax revenue. It's not that there is one good entity and one bad entity. As pointed out, the county does a lot of things. They take care of a lot of services that we make use of. So it's not as if there are some outside entity that doesn't provide. Sure. But the key here is that we need to know what that agreement is in order for us to be able to make an informed decision at the ballot. And so this is not something I would want to have to be worked out later. And I would think by May 1, I think that's doable. So one of them has got a pream. So speaking of important details, the option of increasing the number of apartments is left open. How does that relate to the requirements of Measure J R or to the EIR? So for those of you who haven't been following intimately the discussion, there has been the concept floated of allowing an additional 20% of the residential units. So that would increase the 650 to 780 residential units without requiring the proposal go back to the voters for another JR vote. First off, that was not analyzed in the EIR. So the EIR looked at 650 residential units period. Didn't include this additional, potential 20%. The question is whether something that says the project can change without going back to the voters is a discussion of Measure J R interpretation. And what the municipal code says is we've got these baseline project features and they can't be significantly altered, minimized, changed, I don't remember the exact words, without a vote of the people. And the question is, what's a significant change? So one perspective could be that, well, this is still a mixed-use innovation district. It's still a conversion from agriculture to an urban use. It's still a mix of residential, R&D, not changing the public spaces. Is this something that would justify returning to the voters? Same question came up about the proposal for a hotel. And the council is, I'm anticipating, going to have that discussion on Tuesday and provide direction that that's a direction they want to leave some flexibility in or that's a direction that they don't want to. So there is a council discussion on that one coming up. Katherine, the question is, how would that be CEQA that was not in the cumulative effect for FDIR? It's not in the cumulative effects. And if that kind of change were proposed, it would be obligated at that time to go through the full CEQA process. If a hotel were proposed and it did have that exemption from future Measure R vote, there would also be a requirement for market analysis. So CEQA would not be done at this time. It would be done at the time before anything could happen. But you're going to take the whole ballot like that. Is that the council's call? And then the second question is, the city loans the applicant $500,000 when they signed the pre-development agreement. In addition to being repaid, if the project proceeds, the city was given an option to be the developer of R&D portion of the project. My back of the envelope calculations, so OK. So this could be worth millions of dollars just optimizing, optioning these rights to others. Sorry. What's the city doing to maximize the value of their rights to these assets? Two points to that. First off, the city did have in the pre-development agreement, and there's still discussion about the city taking title to the R&D lands. There was also a piece of that which also said, and the city would cover half the infrastructure costs and half the cost of the agriculture mitigation. So it's not just everything gets done, and then the title comes to the city. And the council subcommittee that's looking at the development agreement has had some discussions about that, and will continue to, I believe. So we're going to take three more minutes to do this, and then we're going to go to the tour. So Tim, you want to try to go through the last few? Yeah. Yes. One is about the climate. Why it's not net zero and why it's net zero energy. Well, once again, that's the balancing act that we've had here is we actually measured the rooftop space, and we came up with a calculation on each one of these different uses of how much solar we could fit on top. And then also, we did it on the surface parking. And so that's where the 85% came up. You go to the Open Space Commission, and we talked to them about, well, can we put solar panels on the open space? And they said, absolutely not. They want the open space. The energy, you go to the commission for the energy commission, and they say, well, we want net zero energy. And so you've got good commissions, and they guard their turf very well. The Open Space Commission was interesting because they thought that the EIR shouldn't be equally weighted between the 15 different features in there. They said, open space needs to be more weighted. And one of their questions on the final ER is, how come open space isn't 30% of the EIR and the other thing's a little bit lower percentage? So once again, very good commissions, and that's all been part of this public process. That's been through the commissions, the staff listens to commissions, I go to the commission meetings. And so I think that's all those comments. It made the project better. Has it made it perfect? And a lot of people, maybe not. And once again, that's the beauty of Measure J is for those that feel like it hasn't met their level of excellence. So have times of their opinion can be held at the polls. And then a lot of questions about the additional housing as Catherine alluded to. I think that is gonna be a discussion at the next city council meeting. It is part of the baseline project features. And that's exactly what they're focusing in on. So I think that there'll be more information at that meeting. So she'll come. The question is where would they be located? That's the question. Let's just wait and wait for the city council to find out if that's even, what's that? They would be in the residential zone if it went forward. But would you go up? Correct. Can we add another floor? Correct. And so you need to know that now, not. This will, they were gonna go in the residential zone and it increased density. But I have a funny feeling that that one is going to go away. So this, the only about the widening of Olive Drive and the Richards Boulevard redesign, realistic timeline. I think those are all in the same general timeline as the improvements to the Richard Boulevard interchange. 2020, the improvements to Olive Drive and the Olive Drive Richards interchange would occur approximately the same side. They're all part of the corridor improvements that the city is planning out for the entire Richards corridor. So I think the timing would be, throughout the course of that project would be similar. And there's some low income housing questions and the pre-development agreement, it was exempt from low income housing. If you met certain densities and the reason being is just the extra cost involved with podium parking and increasing the densities and the other costs of the project. That was a good question, sir. We know you're exempt from the stack that willing to work with city council to make sure that temporary. I just told you that by the pre-development agreement and that's, that's. 10% would be more low to the, and if you did hit 10%, then by right you would be able to add density to the project which would address wanting to add additional. Okay, the answer is no. You're not willing to work with council to do that. Next question. Widening of Richards or Olive, Olive. Olive, yeah. 2018, 2019, 2020. The interchange of permits once again are 2020. So it would be along those timelines. If you guys wanna do the tour, we'll do the tour. Got a question about the timing of the Olive Drive Pewdie Creek Bridge and how that relates to the certificates of occupancy and the baseline features say that certificates of occupancy will not be issued for any buildings on the property until the UCD connection, the interchange improvements and the red connection to West Olive Drive have been completed. And in the financial issues, Monday the 8th at city council, me chambers, is when the finance and budget commission will be having its meeting. We're allowed to see as many of you there who have financial questions. It's a public meeting, public comment. We want the interaction. Okay, anyone who's interested in going to see the site itself, stick around. Everybody else, thank you for coming. Thanks.