On Friday afternoon UC Davis released a plan showing it is seeking to build housing to provide more than 2,775 beds, for students with families as well as graduate and transfer students, to open by 2020.
At the same time, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors has a resolution on the agenda for Tuesday for the city of Davis to request that UC Davis accommodate 100 percent of new students with on-campus housing, along with a goal of housing 50 percent of all students on campus.
The university announced, “The Request for Proposals (RFP) released this week combines two student housing projects at Orchard Park and West Village to attract proposals from a pre-determined pool of eight developers. The developers, vetted by the UC Student Housing Initiative, are expected to deliver beds more quickly than the traditional RFP process.”
“Our goal is to provide students with affordable housing options that are close to the UC Davis core campus,” said Emily Galindo, executive director of UC Davis Student Housing.
The announcement comes as the Board of Supervisors are scheduled on Tuesday to vote on a resolution pushing UC Davis to provide on-campus housing for no less than 50 percent of all Davis-based students by 2027-28, and 100 percent of the enrollment growth between 2017 and 2027.
The measure is sponsored by Supervisor Jim Provenza and also has the support of at least Supervisor Matt Rexroad.
“(T)he ‘UC Housing for the 21st Century’ report set a 2012 system-wide housing construction goal of 42 percent; UCD was to house 38 percent of students on-campus by 2012 with a goal of 40 percent,” the resolution reads. However, “UCD’s student housing goals have not been met, with UCD accommodating only about 29 percent of Davis-based students during 2015-16. UCD’s on-campus housing construction has been primarily freshman dormitories, while offering a significantly inadequate number of on-campus apartments to accommodate students from sophomore year through graduation.”
The resolution makes five requests.
First, “The draft UCD LRDP should be revised to include capacity to accommodate a minimum of 50 percent of the UCD total student population in campus housing commensurate with UCD’s growth, no later than the 2027-2028 academic year and preferably well in advance of that date.”
Second, “The draft UCD LRDP should be revised to include capacity to accommodate 100 percent of campus enrollment growth including all new incoming students.”
Third, “To make more efficient and effective use of campus land and facilitate achievement of the university’s sustainability goals, the draft UCD Long Range Development Plan for the years 2017-2027 should be amended to increase the density of on-campus housing by increasing the height of new campus housing to a minimum height of five to six stories.”
Fourth, “The draft UCD Long Range Development Plan should include a timetable and milestones for production of both dormitories and on-campus apartments.”
Fifth, “In order for the project description of the draft 2017-2027 UCD Long Range Development Plan to be accurately described in the environmental documentation that will be prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended LRDP revisions described herein should be evaluated as an equal weight alternative to the proposed draft LRDP project.”
UC Davis, it would appear, pushed out their announcement on Friday afternoon in order to head off some of the force of the Board of Supervisor’s resolution.
While UC Davis has not committed to going beyond 90/40 (90 percent of new students and 40 percent of all students housed on campus), the RFP that they put out explicitly states, with regard to Orchard Park, “The Project does not impose a building height restriction.” It also notes, “Exceeding the target of 1,100 beds is encouraged, if financially feasible.”
With regard to West Village: “The Project does not impose a building height restriction. Exceeding the target of 1,875 beds is encouraged, if financially feasible.”
The RFP also has affordability components. For instance, for West Village, “The selected Developer will be required to provide a target of 1,875 beds of apartment-style housing at a starting rent not to exceed $750 per bed (single occupancy-1 bed per bedroom) and $600 per bed (double occupancy-2 beds per bedroom) in 2017 dollars.”
The project also notes, “Up to 30% of the bedrooms may have double occupancy. This means that up to 1,500 bedrooms may be constructed to reach the total desired target of 1,875 beds.”
For Orchard Park, “UC Davis’ goals for the Orchard Park Project are to maximize affordability, to enhance the quality of resident life, and to provide for exceptional facility design and operations.
“The selected Developer will be required to provide at least 200 two-bedroom apartments (400 beds) for UC Davis students with families at a starting rent of $1,000 per unit in 2017 dollars.”
The RFP adds, “The selected Developer will be allowed to build a target of 700 beds for single graduate students. The exact number of beds, apartment unit mix, number, height and massing of buildings, common facilities, parking provisions and all other design matters will be determined by a collaborative site planning design process beginning with the second phase of the RFP process.”
The press release notes, “The Orchard Park Project will provide 200 affordable two-bedroom apartment units to serve UC Davis students with families, replacing a like number of apartments on the site that closed in 2014. UC Davis also is seeking an additional 700 beds for single graduate students, but developers are strongly encouraged to submit proposals that exceed the target.”
They add, “The RFP identifies reduced on-site parking, taller buildings with no height limits and reduced site amenities as site planning options to increase density above the housing target. In total, this project will serve at least 900 students (plus family members), four times the number of students it had previously accommodated.”
For West Village, “The West Village Transfer Student Housing Project will provide a target of 1,875 beds of apartment-style student housing, most of which (approximately 1,000 beds) will be master leased back to UC Davis to serve transfer students and continuing undergraduate students. As with the Orchard Park Project, the RFP encourages the Developer to exceed the target of 1,875 beds if financially feasible.”
“Each project will help the University achieve our ambitious campus planning and sustainability goals,” said Bob Segar, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Campus Planning and Environmental Stewardship. “The projects will offer compact and connected housing with easy access to academic and student activities.”
According to the release, the developers may respond to either one or both projects. UC Davis aims to identify a developer or developers with whom to begin negotiations by mid-September, 2017.
“To get to this point, campus planners have consulted with students, Student Housing and Dining Services, and the Office of Graduate Studies on how best to provide affordable, comfortable housing for students with families,” the release states.
“We’re grateful to all who participated in the consultation and planning process and we’re looking forward to a development that expands housing opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students with families, as well as our transfer student population,” said Grant Rockwell, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Capital Planning and Real Estate.
The housing projects at Orchard Park and West Village are part of the goals of the draft campus 2017 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) for housing to increase by 6,200 students to a total of 15,600 students housed on campus.
The EIRs for both of these projects will be part of the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan’s EIR. UC Davis again warns, “Delays in the adoption of the LRDP and these project specific EIRs will result in delays of this new housing beyond the planned Fall 2020 occupancy date.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It is good to see this action from the university, particularly with an affordability component. However, it seems to me that the County’s resolution is still needed. If David’s analysis is right, the university has only left open the option of more dense/additional housing, not required or promised it. And the region needs that housing to be built, for environmental reasons among many others.
Just to point out this isn’t an analysis, I simply reported what the university said and the content of the resolution.
If I were opining here, I would have a good deal of skepticism about what the university has done here. For one thing, no one is going to bid a building height higher than the steel threshold. And there is no guarantee if the university gets a bid with more housing (which seems doubtful) that they won’t reduce housing elsewhere.
Yes, I realize that you weren’t opining in the article. I was opining based on what you’d reported. Something can be an analysis without being an opinion – the quotes that you choose to include, the way that you present them, the characterization of events that you give.
Now that you have opined, I can see why you would be skeptical. And if you’re right, this move seems all the more cynical: “UC Davis, it would appear, pushed out their announcement on Friday afternoon in order to head off some of the force of the Board of Supervisor’s resolution.”
Especially since UCD has apparently not even contacted one of the companies that builds high-rise, steel structures (American Campus Communities).
Totally unexplained.
And yet, I recall a recent article in the Vanguard, which stated that Sterling was quite willing to build a high-rise structure (even higher than their initial proposal).
I’m not sure what you point is
David: It seems pretty obvious, to me. If UCD isn’t even going to contact a company that builds high-rise structures on campuses throughout the country (and recoups the cost via rents), then yeah – UCD probably won’t receive such bids.
The usual “local yokel” developers may not be able to handle high-rise/steel projects. (Beyond their ability/expertise.)
Maybe but a RFP is a general call for bids, so it’s up to the company to place a bid, not the university to contact the company.
David:
What I am describing is the concept of larger companies – including American Campus Communities (ACC), which can, and has delivered on many higher density student housing 5 floors and taller (unlike local developers), which students have reviewed very positively for more than 100 projects nationwide – including projects in California.
The concept of UCD using a company specializing in student housing like ACC has been brought up by many (for over a year-and-a-half, at this point) as a solution for UCD’s on-campus housing needs like so many other California and nationwide campuses. UCD should be sending this RFP to companies specializing in student housing to see who can offer the 5-6 story or taller, higher density projects, rather than just to companies who can only offer 4 stories or less.
David: By the way, where is this RFP? Can we see it? Shouldn’t this be a public document, online?
Start here. https://studenthousingrfp.ucdavis.edu
David wrote: “but a RFP is a general call for bids, so it’s up to the company to place a bid, not the university to contact the company.”
But the article says, quoting the press release: ““The Request for Proposals (RFP) released this week combines two student housing projects at Orchard Park and West Village to attract proposals from a pre-determined pool of eight developers. The developers, vetted by the UC Student Housing Initiative, are expected to deliver beds more quickly than the traditional RFP process.”
That doesn’t sound like a “general call” to me, unless I am missing something.
Sorry, missed that part. Just goes back to my initial reaction that this wasn’t a true change
Yeah, that caught my eye right away. If one is inclined to be suspicious, one would wonder about the basis for choosing those eight.
According to the website that Don Shor linked to above, “The Developer will be selected from those Developers previously selected through the University’s Request for Information for the Development of Student Housing, dated November 15, 2016.”
That seems to indicate this is a two-step process. I wonder how broad the distribution of the Request for Information was? . . . and whether American Campus Communities (ACC) responded to that RFI?
I couldn’t find anything, Matt. Googling “Request for Information for the Development of Student Housing” didn’t turn up anything. The UC Student Housing Initiative is a UC-wide endeavor, apparently. That’s about all I could figure out.
Thanks for looking Roberta. Give the fact that ACC has built on other UC campus(es) it would be very strange if they didn’t respond to a UC-wide RFI. It would also be strange if they didn’t survive the initial cut and make the RFP list … if the RFP is also UC-wide.
I guess we will all have to stay tuned. Same Bat-Time, Same Bat-Channel.
UC Davis added 1100 new undergrads in 2016-17.