Developer Tells Commission Nishi is Not a Mega-Dorm

On Monday night, the Social Services Commission was asked to offer a preliminary assessment of the Nishi affordable housing project.  Given the lack of a final project proposal, that was difficult and the consensus of the commission was that they wanted a chance to re-evaluate when the project gets finalized.

Staff, in the meantime, asked for feedback on a number of key questions: Is the proposed number of affordable beds acceptable?  Which is preferable: land dedication site or integrated affordable housing?  Do they prefer affordable beds or units?  Should each category (extremely low, very low and low) count for the same affordable housing credit?  And should the applicant waive or subsidize parking fees?

The commission was told by city staff that issues of air quality and the environmental concerns were outside of their purview, but Claire Goldstene, who was joined by others, indicated that she “believes that is the purview of the commission.”

We also got some other answers outside of the immediate purview of affordable housing.

Developer Tim Ruff told the commission: “We have a mega-housing crisis.  What you look, at what we are doing here in Davis – we can do it with mini-dorms or we can do it with other larger dorms.  I think the best location for a larger dorm-like project would be adjacent to campus.”

He said what is happening in some of the neighborhoods is that houses have at times ten students living in them.  “I think (moving) the students closer to campus would free up some of those neighborhood houses  and supply, which is a big issue in town.”

Later Mr. Ruff told the commission, in essence, this is not the mega-dorm design of other projects.  “We’re looking at two bedroom, one bath units,” he said.  “Four bedroom, two bath units.

“We’re not having a bathroom for every bedroom,” he explained.  “We’re not having five bedrooms behind every door.  These are pretty much average size units.”

Commissioner Donald Kalman asked why Mr. Ruff thought providing student housing was the right answer for Davis versus doing other types of housing.

Mr. Ruff responded, “It’s right adjacent to campus.”  He said, “We’re not necessarily restricting to students, but the fact that it’s right next to campus…  The students won’t need cars…  The idea’s to lure students closer to campus and get them out of some of these neighborhoods.”

He offered, “I think that will help loosen up…every percentage you can take off the vacancy rate – two percent, three percent, four percent – each step you go, you are going to put more tools in the hands of the tenant, so that when they come to the landlord they can ask for pretty much (what they need), they can negotiate.

“Right now, that’s not happening at all.  It’s the opposite.  The landlord has all the cards,” he said. “By increasing supply – and I just think this is a natural spot for students.”

The commission seemed to view this as having the potential for more than just student housing, but, given the proximity to campus, the design, the lack of access onto West Olive, Tim Ruff said, “For all intents and purposes it will draw students and (be) appropriate for students.”  He pointed out that they studied apartments around town and even further away, and they found that “some of these apartment complexes are 90 percent student.”

Commissioner Georgina Valencia applauded the developers for trying to find a way to provide students with affordable housing.  But she asked, “Have any other university towns done these kind of projects that are being proposed and used an affordable element in them?”  She said, “I think it’s a unique idea and a unique way to try to help the student population to offer this kind of housing.   I like the concept.”

A big issue that has come up is the fact that Nishi, like Lincoln40, only proposes about 11-12 percent affordable units.

Claire Goldstene said, “I would like to see the number of affordable units increase.”  She added, “The calculation of the number of units is based on the Lincoln40 discussion…  That troubles me because when the commission discussed that issue we recommended that that percentage be increased.  I certainly wouldn’t want Lincoln40’s proposal to become the model of what is an acceptable percentage of affordable units.”

This was a common question by the commission and they seemed eager to increase the number from about 11-12 percent.  Part of the question that the city is trying to get at is why they aren’t getting any projects anymore, and the commission has discussed a critical question as to whether 35 percent affordable is simply too high a requirement to actually get anything built.

The city has commissioned Andy Plescia to assess what a reasonable requirement would be.  One key point is that, 15 years ago, the city was getting projects that had 35 percent affordable, but in the last 15 years they have not.

The Vanguard learned that this consultant report will come out sometime in January and may help inform future discussions and direction.

Commission Chair Tracy Tomasky summarized the commission’s responses to the questions posed by city staff.  She reiterated: “It is important to recommend support for the project because we do not have all the details.”  She was concerned that “if it doesn’t come back to us and we talk about things that are important to us and the things we want to see put forward, I wouldn’t want that to be seen as we would approve the project if those conditions (are met) even if we didn’t see it.”

She added, “I also heard, we would favor not limiting (the affordable component) to students.”  She said, “That we do not use Lincoln40 as a rubber stamp model.”

She said on the issue of land dedication or immigration, “We would be in favor of integration whenever possible.”

She said, “The beds over units, while there was some mixed discussion on that – I think we would all agree that getting as close to 35 percent as possible is what we want unless there can be shown good cause.  We’re in a housing crisis and that’s the very nature of what we’re here to advocate for – is affordable housing.”

She saw as a positive “the variety of the bed-bath variation (which) could be more feasible for families.”

At this point it is unclear if this is going back to the Social Services Commission.  The project is on the fast track to get on the June ballot and the council would have to act by early February to do that and this project still needs to go to the Planning Commission.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

We Have One Week Left to Raise $1250 – Please Donate to the Vanguard



Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$
USD
Sign up for

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

11 Comments

  1. Keith O

    I said it’s a megadorm, no it’s not a megadorm, yes it is, no it’s not, you’re wrong, I’m right……..

    Who cares?

    It’s starting to sound very childish.

    1. David Greenwald

      Especially if I had actually said any of that. Obviously people care because that was what a number of public commenters talked about, spoke out against, and commissioner express concern about. I’m sorry, but the news is the news, and the biggest thing that came out of the meeting was an idea of what the unit configuration would look like.

  2. Ron

    At the recent finance and budget commission meeting, I recall that one of the commissioners asked if there was consideration of having the Nishi site remain within either the county, or as part of the campus.  The commissioner noted that there would essentially be no costs to the city under those options, but that the city would still receive sales tax (from students making purchases in town).

    I recall that the developer stated that this would be a political decision, and that he simply wanted to build a housing project (something to that effect).  (Implying that the jurisdiction didn’t really matter, to him.)

    There was no further explanation regarding the reason that the developer and UCD did not come to some type of agreement, after Nishi 1.0 failed.

    1. Ron

      Robb Davis also spoke at the finance and budget commission meeting, and said that the county has unreasonable expectations regarding tax-sharing (which needs to be worked out, if the city annexes the land).  He also noted that this could not be worked out in advance.  (That last statement was challenged, by at least one commissioner.)

      (In general, I am paraphrasing what was said at the meeting, based upon my recollection and notes.)

  3. Ron

    David:  “Explain what difference it makes from the city’s perspective?”

    Kind of surprised you would ask that, when the analysis you previously posted showed another megadorm losing money for the city in the long-term, on an ongoing, increasing and permanent basis.

    And with Nishi, there’s no longer a commercial component, to help offset those costs.

      1. Ron

        You’re the one who posted it.  The costs and “revenues” were never even defined.

        At the finance and budget commission meeting, I recall that one of the commissioners noted that the city might not even receive 18.6% of property taxes (and that it might be under 7%). (However, I didn’t fully hear this statement, so I cannot fully verify it.)

        1. Ron

          (The 18.6% figured was previously mentioned by Don, on the Vanguard. I don’t recall that figure being mentioned, at the meeting.)

          It would be great if the Vanguard reported/verified this type of information, though.

          By the way, there was no mention of having an external financial analysis of Nishi, this time.

  4. Ron

    Really, I should have posted the information above in reference to the finance and budget commission meeting (instead of here).  (Not sure if there was a separate article, regarding that.)

    However, I thought about it, after reading the statement above regarding the proximity of the site to UCD.  (That’s when I recalled the question regarding the potential for an agreement with the county and/or UCD.)

    Regarding tax sharing, I recall a discussion of a “25/75% split”, between the city and the county.  (However, I don’t know which party those figures apply to.)

    Again, all of the statements above are based upon my recollection (and notes that I took). It’s possible that it’s not 100% accurate. (But, I’d sure like to see some verification/discussion, regarding this subject.)

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for