Currently the university is planning to increase density on the West Village site. On its “Campus Tomorrow” page, UC Davis notes that in 2014-15 West Village accommodated about 2,000 people. They write, “The LRDP Draft Planning Scenario for West Village provides capacity for more residents than previous[ly] planned in the 2003 LRDP while accommodating an additional 1,125 students on a smaller footprint than previously planned.”
The new LRDP plan is providing capacity “for an additional 2,250 students in West Village, when compared to 2014-15 capacity.”
They write, “By agreement with the master-lease holder for West Village student apartments, the number of students living in existing West Village apartments may increase by 624 in 2016-17. This increase is accomplished through a ‘double-up’ where large bedrooms, previously leased as individual rooms, may be leased as shared bedrooms.”
They continue, “In addition to the double-up, the Plan also includes capacity for another 1,626 students.”
The university notes, “The Plan accommodates more students on less land while retaining a gracious greenbelt along Russell Boulevard, an agricultural buffer along the western edge and an 8-acre recreational complex along Hutchison Avenue. The more compact development pattern preserves more than 20 acres of agricultural land, previously included within the plans for West Village and designated for development in the 2003 LRDP.”
Opponents to developing land at the Russell fields note that UCD has some 5300 acres of land and they have suggested West Village as an area that could accommodate additional growth.
However, this may not be true. A reader points out that when UC Davis first began the West Campus discussion, there was major opposition from both the city residents and the campus community.
Those in West Davis were concerned with the increase in traffic and the loss of a vista.
Ultimately, there was an agreement reached in which the university agreed there would be no vehicular access onto Russell Boulevard, which was to help allay concerns about traffic impacts. What is less known, apparently, is that at the time UC Davis agreed not to develop further west.
On the map above, you can see the current plan adds about 20 acres of land that was previously planned for development in the 2003 LRDP, but UC Davis would not be able to develop further west without a new agreement.
In addition to the community concerns, the campus community was concerned greatly with the loss of the experimental fields. Again, as part of the agreement with faculty and research staff, UC Davis agreed to not consume more prime agricultural land for campus housing.
The Vanguard is seeking to locate settlement agreements that spell this out, but, needless to say, if accurate, UC Davis may be much more limited in its ability to accommodate additional housing than currently believed by many.
It would explain the focus on densification of existing sites rather than expansion of its housing footprint.
There are also practical limitations that the Vanguard has previously pointed out. UC Davis had planned to build out West Village much more rapidly. It handed over management of the West Village to a private company, which has failed to build out what they already planned for.
The Vanguard has previously noted that UC Davis has made promises over the last 30 years to increase their share of on-campus housing. They have gone so far as to have a signed MOU. And yet, despite those commitments, they have failed to deliver much more in the way of on-campus housing.
Proponents of UC Davis taking on more of their own share of student growth with housing have argued that pressure is the way to get UC Davis to fulfill its commitments.
But, as we have seen, while UC Davis has modified its plan, it is has not removed Russell Field from the development plan.
Again, we point to the comment by Ralph Hexter from this week. Acting Chancellor Ralph Hexter told the regents that residents pushed back at the development of housing on the athletic fields along Russell Boulevard. When they did so, the plan was revised, reducing the proposed housing Russell Fields.
In light of this view, the reality may be that UC Davis is much more limited in its ability to develop new land than we believe. While this is not the final answer, it certainly bears looking into.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
People in West Davis don’t own this land so they can’t expect it to never be developed on. Every bit helps, thousands more of faculty, staff and students can be housed there so UCD needs to go for it and turn a deaf ear to the neighbor’s complaints.
If I was unclear, the concerns ten years ago centered on the issue of loss of vista and traffic. UC Davis then reached a settlement agreement which among other things limited the western boundary of West Village.
They can EXPECT anything they want to… whether they get it or not is another matter, entirely… they may have expectations, but they have no entitlements…
Lets be clear, the current LRDP includes 400 beds in the Russell Fields neighborhood. of those 400 only 200 or a little over 3% of all new proposed housing is actually on Russell Field. The other 200 are being built at the site of the Cowell building and lot 14. There are many places these 200 beds can be located on campus that make more sense than Russell fields, and West Village is only one of the places that has been identified as a possibility.
Grok
I have not been following the details of housing location alternatives on campus closely. Would you mind stating specifically what the alternatives to West Village and the Russell playing fields are in your view ?
Gladly.
The list I will suggest below goes well beyond opportunities to relocate the 200 beds on Russell fields. If the University were to take up even just part of these suggestions it would allow them to house more than 50% of the UCD students and bring them in line with other UC campuses. The list is intended to suggest options for the campus.
The alternatives fall into 2 categories, sites that can be built taller/denser, and other appropriate sites.
Taller/Denser
Orchard Park, the green houses to the East of the Domes, Solano Park, the Environmental Horticulture facility, Regan Dorms, and the Cowell building are all planned for redevelopment as student housing in the new plan. All of these sites can be built taller than is currently proposed. I think Regan Dorms and the Cowell building with their central location on campus and set back from Russell could be built as tall as Sproul hall, but at least as tall as 5 stories. Solano Park including the current site of the Environmental Horticulture building are also prime spots for taller development because of the proximity to downtown and the core of campus.
Russell Park apartments – This area is not currently proposed for redevelopment. these 2 story apartments where built in the 80’s and could be redeveloped to be taller. They could have a floor added to them as the University is proposing to do in the Cuarto area, or it could be more completely redeveloped.
Other Appropriate Sites
Around the Aggie Stadium is a prime location for housing. Open fields to the north and West of the stadium are well suited for housing development. The green houses on Hutchinson could be moved (like the ones by the domes) allowing for more housing. Together this is more than 11 additional acres that can be used for housing. The 6 acre Dairy site across the street would also be an excellent location for its adjacency both to Tercero or to this new proposed stadium district housing. It has been proposed to move the Dairy from this site since at least the 1980’s
The parking lot on the corner of first street and Old Davis Road and possibly the adjacent one story buildings is another good location. The current location for the Center for Child and Family studies would need to be relocate to do this. Possibly into Solano Park where to be adjacent to family housing. This facility could also be built denser.
There is a 35 acre parcel immediately west of 113 and South of Hutchinson that would be a good extension of West Village (note this site is south of West Village and would not be subject to the rumored but unverified agreement mentioned in the article)
There are over 100 acres immediately south of the freeway on Old Davis Road that could also be used. I don’t want to suggest large dense housing over here for its distance from the campus, but this is an area that would be interesting to see new experimental energy efficient and green materials housing that could be built as student projects. This would also be an interesting place to allow tiny houses and trailers similar to the beloved and very successful trailer park at UC Santa Cruz. Proximity to the south fork of Putah Creek could be a big draw for some students.
Grok
Thanks for providing the details. It is clearly map time for me.
Those are near both the freeway and the railroad, so that area is off limits. Toxic soup, don’t ya know.
Alan,
I would be interested to hear Dr. Cahill’s opinions of the area, but there are significant differences in the size of the property and proximity to the freeway and railroad so it may be more workable. It may also be appropriate to do the appropriate air monitoring in advance of a decision to build there as should have been done at Nishi. In any case, it is an option worth exploring that could provide a special kind of housing district on campus.
Don, my understanding is the difference between the places you have labeled as “safe for housing?” and “to toxic for housing!” (not the way i would label it) is which side of the railroad berm they are on. Dr. Cahill was focused on the depressed area between the raised freeway and the berm that the Railroad is on. I for one would support the actual air monitoring suggested by Dr. Cahill be done before another development is proposed on Nishi, otherwise we just don’t really know.
The Nishi property is no wider than 300 yards at its widest point between the train berm and the raised freeway. The parcel I am suggesting is 600 yards wide. In any case, it is a fair point and I would certainly hope Dr. Cahill was consulted and appropriate testing was done before students where housed there.
the problem seems to be that the current plan goes through 2027, the world presumably will not end in 2027 and most likely there will be a need for more housing. i think mark west was right from this weekend, this lrdp just gets the foot in the door and russell fields will eventually e gone.
This is a misquote from the Davis Enterprise article. The enterprise specifically says
In fact the current September draft LRDP which removes some housing from Russell field and all housing from Howard field as compared with the previous May draft has relocated every bed to other areas on campus. There has been no decrease in student Housing as a result of preserving the Athletic fields along Russell Blvd.
What the article claims is not true, and not what Interim Chancellor Hextor told the Regents.
I left out a few words: should have been “reducing the proposed housing Russell Fields.” Thanks for the catch.
Thanks David. Understandable.
David wrote:
> Those in West Davis were concerned with
> the increase in traffic and the loss of a vista.
I have not heard of any plan to connect the West Village to West Davis to allow “traffic” to go to and from the area, did I miss something? There is a brick wall on the other side of Russell and I’m wondering if even one person gets up on a ladder to look south over the wall on on a regular basis and will lose their “vista”…
P.S. I wonder how many people that live behind “the wall” on Russell call others “racist” when they want to build a wall…
That was the original hope in 2005, but was altered through an agreement with the neighbors.
Confused about the doubling up. Is that for increased density or to save students’ money? These are expensive aprsassume rents will stay the same but be less/student?
West Village is being built on prime agricultural land, some of the very best in the region. Land that was donated to the University explicitly for the purpose of agricultural research, not for housing or classrooms.
Faculty and staff who live at West Village will add to the functional population of Davis. They will drive on our streets, use our infrastructure, shop in our stores and their children will attend our schools. What they won’t do is pay a penny in construction fees or property taxes to the City. Expansion of West Village means an expansion of the City’s costs of operation, maintenance, etc. but no new revenues to compensate. Just greater financial obligations for those of us who live in the City. The City will get larger, but we won’t count the additional people in our census so the ‘No’ crowd can claim that we didn’t grow.
If we are thinking about ‘smart’ growth, West Village is probably the stupidest way that we would choose to allow the City to expand.
Mark:
Yeah – we all know what a “great financial deal” additional housing is, for the city. Eventually creating the existing financial challenges, where costs rise faster than taxes collected. I know, I know . . . you apparently believe that future councils will act “responsibly” to control those costs (despite what history repeatedly tells us – in Davis and elsewhere throughout California). There’s still nothing permanent in place to prevent this from occurring again.
When housing is located on campus, the University pays for the cost of infrastructure, maintenance and services. (You know – the same costs that keep rising, despite the permanent restrictions on the rate of taxes collected as a result of Proposition 13.)
As you noted, those living on campus will still shop in the city, providing sales tax.
Financially (and otherwise), it’s a “better deal” to house students on campus.
I guess we’re destined to repeat this same argument again and again, since the “pro-development types” keep bringing it up.
Oh – and since you cited funding for schools, let’s not forget that apartment complexes (regardless of the number of units) in the city pay the same amount of school parcel taxes as a single-family dwelling.
Yeah – there’s some “big money” that the school district would miss out on, huh?
I’d suggest that the “financial incentive” is probably among your weakest arguments for massive new development in the city. (Especially since it eventually turns into a “financial loss” for the city.)
Ron wrote:
> let’s not forget that apartment complexes (regardless
> of the number of units) in the city pay the same amount
> of school parcel taxes as a single-family dwelling.
Only if they are on one “parcel” (have one APN)…
Many 100 unit apartments are on as many as ten separate parcels and I know of a 24 unit apartment in downtown Davis that has six separate APNs…
Again, Ron, the school district gets nothing from housing on campus. Not one penny. Even with the poor legal settlement that the District agreed to, they will still get more money from apartments in Davis than from those on campus.
Mark: “Again, Ron, the school district gets nothing from housing on campus. Not one penny.”
I understand that school districts receive (the majority?) of their funding based on enrollment numbers. Therefore, it seems that your statement is not true.
A more accurate way to state your argument is that in general, the school district will receive a small amount more for apartment complexes located in the city, vs. campus. However, I’m also not sure that (even this argument) is true, if the University engages in master leases or purchases of apartment complexes in the city, thereby entirely removing the complex from tax rolls.
We are discussion property taxes paid by development, Ron, not capitation fees coming from the State.
No matter what method of teaching is used, a positive number will always be greater than zero. Construction in the City (as opposed to on campus) is a better financial deal for both the City and the School District, despite your efforts at spin, Ron.
Mark:
We were comparing the impact on city finances for on-campus residential development, vs. development in the city.
Again, it’s not my “spin”. Unless you think that the city is not facing financial challenges under the current level of development, and that we should use the same “technique” to dig the hole deeper.
I guess it should no longer surprise me, regarding the “creative lengths” that development types will use to justify more and more development. Even when numbers are “staring us in the face”. (You know – the same numbers that you claim to be so concerned with.)
Ron is right. Parcel taxes are not the main funding source for the school its the ADA. the school gets ADA based on student attendance no matter where the student is coming from.
To say “the school district gets nothing from housing on campus” as MWest does is very misleading.
Ron, we have effectively been a ‘no to slow’ growth community for the better part of two decades. Our serious fiscal challenges have arisen during that same period of time. If you are going to argue that we should not continue with a failed approach, what obviously needs to change is the ‘no on everything’ attitude that you favor.
Mark:
I question your statement regarding a lack of growth for two decades.
Regardless, this also provides evidence that residential development does not pay for itself, over the long term. It generally takes awhile, for costs to exceed revenues collected.
Also – the “Ponzi scheme” (in which cities artificially depend on new development and one-time fees) came crashing down throughout the country, starting around 2008. That put a halt to a lot of development, and more clearly showed the results and dangers of relying upon (temporary) surpluses, from new developments.
How quickly we forget.
I never claimed that there hasn’t been any growth, so please stop twisting my words to support your script. I stated that we have been a ‘no/slow’ growth community. How that has manifested is through the irrational fear of new housing that you so readily exhibit.
The City knew in 1996 that we did not have sufficient revenues from our commercial and retail space to support our infrastructure costs, something that you might learn if you take the time to read the General Plan. As was described at the time, we needed to significantly increase our commercial and retail space in town if we wanted to be able to pay our bills. We mostly failed to address this problem, and what few advances we have made have been strenuously fought by the ‘No on Everything’ crowd. Why, because they claim that new commercial construction would induce ‘sprawl.’ The same reasoning was used to oppose the new water system, as well as every significant commercial development that has been proposed since. The most amazing part of the story however is that these same folks now say that we should encourage new housing on Campus, because that is not ‘sprawl,’ even though it has the same impact on the City’s functional population, the same loss of farmland, most of the same impacts on the City’s infrastructure, and the same negative impacts on the environment. More hypocrisy at its finest.
There goes Mark again rolling out the same tired “no on everything” script
“most of the same impacts on the City’s infrastructure” Flat out untrue. if the housing s built on campus it will be serviced by university roads, have green space maintained by the University, receive water through the University system, have University trash pick up that would take the trash to the university dump, University fire and police protection and and the waste water would flow to the University waste water treatment facility. Together quite significant costs.
So, growth on campus, particularly residential, will have less impact on City infrastructure, particularly roads, parks, greenbelts, etc.? Social services provided by the City and DJUSD? Really?
As far as revenue to the City for those impacts… nada.
The only way I see to your apparent logic, is to require UCD to not grow. Period. Good luck with that premise.
Yet, there are many who would ignore the City impacts resulting from growth on campus, and enfranchise the on-campus population to vote to increase City obligations without paying for them. Nice. [Pretty sure UCD residents are already entitled to vote in DJUSD matters, but again, with no assessments… not 100% positive, though]
Absolutely. Roads to serve campus developments, water, sewer, greenbelts, maintenance police, fire, etc., will be the responsibility of the campus.
Not sure of your point. Perhaps you’re suggesting that students will (also) use some of these services in the city. (Of course. But, they’ll also be paying sales tax, when purchasing goods and services at some of the local businesses.)
Not sure how you’re deriving that argument from my statements. (I’ll refrain from using the word “troll” again, if you’d like.)
Yes, Ron, we are all familiar with your oft stated position
and your lack of trust in other people.
No matter how bad of a ‘financial deal’ you think housing is for the City, it is still a much better deal than what the City gets when we allow the expansion of housing to occur within the Davis sphere, but outside the taxable boundaries. The small increment in sales taxes from those living on campus and shopping in Davis is completely insufficient to cover the added costs from their joining the functional population of the city (and does nothing for the schools).
Don’t let the facts get in the way of your story, Ron.
It’s not “my story”. The deficit that the city is facing (with the current level of development) tell the story, on its own.
Seems like you’re advocating for some “additional chapters” along the same storyline (with an “expanded” ending).
Mark wrote:
> The small increment in sales taxes from those
> living on campus and shopping in Davis is
> completely insufficient to cover the added costs
> from their joining the functional population
> of the city
The amount of sales taxes keeps getting smaller and smaller as younger people buy even more items on line (and the food they buy at Safeway and Westlake Market is not taxed). I’m still shopping locally for plants from Don and truck loads of mulch from the ACE rock yard but pretty much everything else we buy that we don’t eat comes to our door via Mail, UPS and FedEx…
South of Davis:
Students also frequent restaurants, etc.
Not sure how much “incremental” costs (and revenues) there are, when a student ventures out from the campus. Probably depends on the activity or purpose of their outing, and is likely not easy to measure, overall. I guess they would be “categorized” as visitors (which businesses often seem to encourage).
Mark
“If we are thinking about ‘smart’ growth, West Village is probably the stupidest way that we would choose to allow the City to expand.”
I am genuinely confused. Up until now, I thought you were claiming that the city and its citizens had no right to input on how the university used its land. Now you seem to be saying that “we would choose to allow the City to expand” by development in West Village. These two positions seem incongruent to me. Can you clarify?
Tell me something I don’t already know.
No input? When did I say that? What we don’t have is the right to dictate what the University does with its land, contrary to what you and many others have advocated.
I am not the one advocating for the expansion of West Village. I am calling out those of you who support the expansion of West Village while at the same time opposing new housing in Davis. West Village is one of the worst places that we, as a society, could choose to build housing in the region if our goal was to develop intelligently. I hope that statement is simple enough so as not to be misunderstood.
Of course West Village won’t be enough. Davis is behind on student housing, faculty housing, staff housing, senior housing and workforce housing. The irony is that as long as Davis opposes building housing the imbalance in supply and demand will keep prices high. As long as prices are higher than the cost of development the pressure for construction will not abate. The problem is that Davis residents want to upend the basics of economics instead of managing them. If not Russell, or 40 or sterling then where? If not densification than what? The answer is obvious, peripheral development, where we can plan and build what we need like normal communities do.
Misanthrop:
I personally have respect for your position and writing (even though I disagree).
But, I wanted to ask if you’ve also joined the effort to encourage the University to assume greater responsibility. (This wouldn’t require you to abandon your other advocacy.)
Misanthrop wrote:
> The irony is that as long as Davis opposes building housing
> the imbalance in supply and demand will keep prices high.
Most people that own and rent homes in Davis WANT to keep prices high…
“Most people that own and rent homes in Davis WANT to keep prices high”
Well they have done a good job of keeping them up in the stratosphere but there are other things they want too, good roads, parks, pools, infrastructure and public safety come to mind. You conveniently leave off the part about how restricting supply drives demand so blaming the capitalists for trying to profit from a market that is out of balance because we host a dynamic industry with seemingly insatiable demand with UCD is absurd. Until we have a housing market with a healthy balance of supply and demand we will also have all these ongoing conflicts over housing.
As for weighing in on UCD building more housing there is really no need for me to do so. UCD knows what it needs to do. Its actually the city that is pretending it can maintain its current boundaries and things will be okay.
Finally, the argument that housing in the city doesn’t pay for itself is questionable. Generally, under prop 13 housing is a marginal funding mechanism for public infrastructure but in Davis where prices are through the roof and we have parcel taxes for schools, parks, public safety and libraries its hard to see that building new housing in Davis isn’t an overall positive for the local public sector. Some keep saying that housing is a long term loser but I remain unconvinced.
This type of statement (which has also been put forward by other pro-development types) is inconsistent with a (genuine) concern regarding a “shortage” of housing.
Strange, how the “selfish no-growthers” (as others describe them) are leading the way (and have already had some impact on the University’s plans).
An impact but what is questionable is whether that impact is good or bad. I’m for UCD building more housing but I’m not going to try to dictate how and where they should go about doing it. In my mind that slows the process down. If it wasn’t for the people who sued UCD over West Village its likely there would be much more housing there already. I also disagree that UCD should build most of the housing and the city shouldn’t build hardly any because people living on campus can’t vote in the city, something I find undemocratic. Sequestering more students on campus while Measure R is in effect is an anti-democratic action that perpetuates the status quo. Some of the housing on campus types will admit it others will deny it is a goal but the reality is that its not much different than other voter suppression techniques used in other places to disenfranchise students.
Misanthrop:
Thank you for clarifying your position. Since you do support more housing on campus, I sincerely hope that you have already provided such input to the University. (As you know, they’ve been seeking input from the community.) Providing such input corresponds with most of your stated concerns.
Other than a request to save Russell Fields in its entirety, I’m not aware of anyone dictating how or where to construct student housing. However, it appears that some have researched this and provided some constructive suggestions (e.g., as noted by Grok, Eileen, and Edison, on various posts). Some have even posted information regarding a specific company (whose name eludes me), which apparently constructs high-rise housing at campuses throughout the country, at no cost to the host universities. (Such research and information also provides a valuable “side-effect”, in that it rebuts the “naysayers” (aka, “obstructionists”) who attempt to cast doubt on the feasibility of constructing more housing on campus.
Misanthrop:
Regarding the “disenfranchisement” of those living on campus, I understand that there’s nothing preventing such residents from voting on issues that are not directly related to the city. Since they would not be living in the city and are not directly impacted by (or responsible for the results of) such decisions, this doesn’t seem to be a major concern.
Not a concern for you but if enough housing were built in the city instead of on campus there could have been enough votes to pass Nishi or defeat the renewal of Measure R when it comes up. Its easy for you to say it isn’t a concern you are not one of the disenfranchised.
Grok: fabulous posts! How time consuming …. you in the hospital for something, and nothing else to do today?
One thing: many people I have met over the years who have lived in the UCD housing at 1st Street and C to D say that it was a big mistake to “buy” there with the 99 year lease. The appreciation of equity is restricted, and their down payments were lower, but they have no equity nest egg to pay for kids college later. So I would never, ever “invest” in a similar project, such as West Village. This restriction in the buildup of equity is the disaster for those “buyers.”
Grok has identified a number of campus sites that the university should seriously consider for student housing, along with faculty and staff housing. He’s also correct that UCD should start focusing on higher density, high rise housing to make more effective use of its land. Whether at West Village or elsewhere on campus, students/faculty/staff would be closer to lecture halls and offices than commuting from the further reaches of Davis. And as Hexter recently told the Regents, about 10% of current students commute from Sacramento, Winters, Woodland and beyond, so living in campus housing would obviously be much more convenient and impose less of a carbon footprint.
Some have commented today that housing on campus would provide the City of Davis with no property tax revenue. That would be true, of course, but UCD’s current strategy of executing “master leases” with apartment owners is already having a negative impact on Davis and Yolo County property tax revenue. Better to house students on campus and keep all of the apartment buildings within the city available for market rate rentals and thereby on the tax rolls.