On Saturday the Vanguard published UC Davis’ latest response to the Yolo County resolution asking them, among other things, to go to a 100-50 plan – with 50 percent of all students provided with the opportunity for housing on campus.
But, once again, while the campus is willing to look for ways to increase the current housing plan, they will not commit to it. Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter states in his letter, “UC Davis continues to move aggressively to supply new housing for our students.”
My question remains that I am still at a loss as to why UC Davis cannot simply go to 50 percent and try to figure out how to get there – rather than stay at 40 percent and figure out ways to increase their housing without triggering a new EIR.
Robb Davis posted on Saturday that “the City Manager and I have already met with the incoming Chancellor.”
He said, “We reiterated the position that the City Council has taken and asked for the same information we have requested in the past: a better understanding of 1) the financial issues related to housing, 2) the challenges of achieving greater density, and 3) why the EIR is not including a higher density alternative. We continue to make the position of the City Council known at each opportunity.”
On the surface, the UC Davis position doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. It would seem easier to commit to 50 percent, plan for 50 percent, and then downscale if you cannot reach that number.
In April, Interim Chancellor Hexter in a letter responding to the city wrote that “the single most critical factor for assuring that all 6200 beds are completed in a timely manner is the approval of 
the LRDP in March 2018 as called for in our current schedule. Delay in the LRDP approval will result in a delay of the EIR for the 1600-1800 beds at West Village that is included in the draft LRDP and draft LRDP documents. In turn, that would result in delayed delivery of future campus housing projects.”
As Eileen Samitz points out in response, “We have been told more than once by UCD reps, that UCD can add to the EIR and that (is) why they need to do it now instead of running out the clock, which is what they appear to be doing.”
She points out that “they have been asked to add the 50/100 plan for more than a year, and their response is, ‘we are looking into it.’ So if anyone is delaying an adequate plan for the delivery of future housing projects, it is UCD. UCD needs to stop with the stalling and add the 50/100 plan to the Draft EIR analysis now.”
As we have pointed out on several occasions, the current plan has several flaws. Even an on-time delivery of the 1800 or so beds at West Village puts the delivery well after the students will arrive on campus, which means that in the next five years, the already-serious crunch of housing will actually get a good deal worse.
The second problem is more global, and that is that the housing shortfall of 3900 units between the 40 and 50 percent plans cannot be made up by the city.
Those who have suggested that students can simply find housing in surrounding communities and commute in should recognize that, first of all, it is not clear that the surrounding communities have that kind of capacity to accommodate 3900 students, and such a commute will cause increased traffic congestion, GHG emissions and parking shortages.
Traffic studies have consistently shown that students who live on or near campus bike or take the bus to campus, freeing up roads and parking. Students who live out of town drive to campus. That puts a strain not only on students but on infrastructure.
One of the reasons that traffic congestion has increased in Davis in the last several years has been the increase of students, faculty and staff commuting into town from outside of Davis.
Again, it seems UC Davis is doing this backwards. Their approach seems to be that they will stick to the 40 percent on-campus housing commitment and try to increase it on the margins through efficiency and density. Whereas what they should do is go up to 50 percent and, if they fall short of that goal, they fall short of that goal.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
UCD’s position is indeed perplexing. I was particularly puzzled by the recent statement by a UCD administrator that the university does not want to “warehouse” students. This could be inferred as a criticism of the taller and higher density student apartment structures being constructed at other UC campuses and universities elsewhere in the country.
However, online I watched the presentation to the Board of Regents last November by administrators at UC Irvine (UCI), during which they described the new high-rise (about 8 floors) student apartments on that campus. The apartments have been enthusiastically embraced by both students and their parents. And, UCI has managed to do so with lower monthly rental rates than in the surrounding Orange County area. The UCI approach is far from constituting a “warehousing” of students.
UCI has embarked upon a program to further expand student housing with a second phase that will offer comprehensive student services, such that the students will virtually never need to leave campus to meet basic needs. UCI gave an excellent update on this next phase at the January 2017 Regents meeting. I’ve also recently learned that USC started building an entirely new student-faculty village several years ago, which was slated to open this year. From the exhibits, it appears that the buildings are at least 6 stories high and have commercial services on the first floor. The new project appears to be largely funded by alumni contributions. Since UCD seems to have done a great job raising funds in recent years, reaching an endowment over $1 billion, there would seem to no reason why the campus could not pursue a new fundraising effort solely dedicated to student housing.
In reference to “warehousing” students, that is already happening in Davis and increasingly elsewhere in nearby cities. Because UCD has for so many years refused to construct on-campus housing on pace with enrollment growth, the university has created a ready-made market for investor driven conversions of single-family homes to neighborhood “mini-dorms.” In some instances, these mini-dorms house far more than one student per bedroom. This is a “warehousing” problem that was well documented in City of Davis staff reports accompanying last year’s adoption of the rental property ordinance. The student housing survey that accompanied one of the staff reports provided detailed evidence of the substandard conditions in which many students live. Wouldn’t it be far better for UCD to expeditiously build high quality, well managed on-campus apartments?
“The new project appears to be largely funded by alumni contributions.”
As a UCD grad. I had for years been in the habit of donating generously. But actions, activities and plans matter. I stopped donating based on three factors: 1. the pepper spray incident and subsequent prolonged skirmishes between between then Chancellor Katehi and Janet Napolitano 2. the policy by which qualified California students were being turned away in order to admit out of state less qualified students who would be paying more 3. UCD’s lack of an adequate housing policy.
I do not know if other UCD grads are selective donors, but issues matter to me and I will support my preferred policies accordingly.
David,
UCD’s inaction goes well beyond perplexing at this point. As UCD’s continues stalling and resistance to adding the needed “50/100” plan to their UCD LRDP Draft EIR analysis, seems to more and more clear that this is a delay tactic to try to run-out-the-clock on the UCD LRDP EIR. But UCD needs to stop deflecting their housing needs off campus and implement the sustainable planning they like to preach, but are not practicing themselves.
The new data from a recent Sac Bee article at http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article160029439.html demonstrates that, rather then finding real solutions, UCD just continues to exacerbate the situation.
The Sac Bee article reveals that UCD is opting to “cash-in” on international students more than any other UC this year by accepting more non-resident students than any other UC in the system in fall 2017 at 27%. So, despite the lack of adequate on-campus student housing and all the concerns raised about this, UCD has opted to admit 8,415 international students, at a 60.4% admission rate for international students who applied, while the admission rate for California resident students who applied to UCD was 35.9% which totaled 18,480.
The most important issue here is that these 8,415 non-resident students are not mandatory, but part of the self-directed “UCD 2020 Initiative” concept which is that UCD wants to bring in massive number of non-resident students to charge them more than triple tuition. However, the campus is already over-crowded and the current student population is complaining loudly that they cannot get into the classes they need to graduate in four years. This backs up the whole UCD system, causing even more over-crowding which spills over to the need for even more housing needs for the student and then also causing the students more unnecessary expenses for both the additional tuition and rent they must pay to stay longer to graduate.
So UCD’s lack of logical planning is resulting in multiplying out the problems that UCD is causing since the most obvious one is that problem is that UCD will not have the on-campus housing needed for this enormous avalanche of new students. Add this to the fact that UCD is already over-crowded and UCD does not have the infrastructure in place needed to accommodate so many more students. So, all of these over-ambitious actions by UCD are causing major impacts on their already massive population of students and the surrounding cities including Davis due to UCD’s poor planning. So, what has UCD now done? They have admitted many more students, including more non-resident than ever before, to exacerbate the problems they have already created for their students and surrounding cities. Plus, they continue stalling to add the “50/100” plan to their on-going UCD LRDP Draft EIR analysis to even attempt to help with the solutions needed.
Yet, UCD does not have the needed on-campus housing in place, but worse yet, UCD is not planning to have nearly enough housing for the 41,000 new students UCD has invited for this fall in 2017, more than ever before. Keep in mind that Davis city population is only around 67,000 total. What if the vast majority of these students invited, if not all, agree to come to UCD? Where would the live? Particularly, since UCD has now closed Webster Hall plus Orchard Park, closed for four years, will be closed for at least two more years?
Basically, UCD’s planning is minimizing, rather than maximizing the number of beds on these on-campus site to be re-developed. The three-floor Webster Hall is only adding one more floor to become just four floors. Meanwhile, a private apartment project near it in the Oxford Circle vicinity is densifying its project to five floors. Why isn’t UCD elevating Webster Hall to a five-floor density? Likewise, Orchard Park needs to be a minimum of five floors, yet UCD is trying to minimize the number of floors to only three or possibly four stories. UCD clearly is trying to continue to avoid providing the amount of needed on-campus housing for its self-directed massive student population growth and continuing to try to deflect their housing needs along with the associate costs to Davis and surrounding cities. Meanwhile UCD is the largest UC so it has has plenty of land with over 5,300 acres and resources having an enormous endowment fund of over $1 billion which is not all ear-tagged.
So, two initial observations and concerns are: 1) Since UCD was not even able to house last year’s student population. Where are the massive number of new students that UCD has granted admission and is adding supposed to live? Particularly given the major deficiency of on-campus housing to its already under-served student population? 2) Since the campus is already currently over-crowded, how is the campus supposed to accommodate the classroom space, faculty, and staff and other services for this significant increase in student population? This is not logical planning by UCD, instead it is simply a counter-productive lack of rational planning.
Since the campus is already overcrowded, it will be interesting to see how this new added problem plays out since UCD did not have enough on-campus housing for their students last year. Now they have basically added significantly more non-resident students to extract the triple tuition from them, even though UCD does not have the infrastructure needed to support this massive student population growth.
This is just another level of irresponsible behavior by UCD, UCD’s inaction to provide the needed on-campus housing simply hurts their students while also doing significant harm to surrounding community’s due to UCD’s lack of logical planning which actually would solve the student housing problems that UCD has caused due to years of negligence. The other UC’s are doing it, why can UCD which clearly expects its students to accomplish and excel? Well, UCD needs to practice what it preaches and accomplish what the other UC’s are accomplishing.
UCD’s lack of planning is a disservice to their students and is causing major impacts on Davis and other nearby cities who are also complaining about UCD’s negligence to plan and provide the needed on-campus housing for their own ambitious student population growth. Again, has what it needs of more than 5,300 acres and well over $1 billion in endowments (which is not all ear-tagged), which is far more than other public universities have. They need to also start a fund for student housing like other universities has successfully done.
UCD simply needs to stop stalling and start moving forward with the many solutions which have been recommended to them, starting with adding the “50/100” that three separate resolutions and a community petition have asked them to add to their UCD LRDP Draft EIR in progress now.
I think UCD rightly gets criticized for not providing sufficient housing. I’m not comfortable with criticizing them for either adding students or adding international students. Part of the problem is without out of state tuition, you end up having to increase tuition for the current students or cutting back on classes and program – neither are good.
David: I guess you haven’t been reading the articles describing state audit reports of UC that I’ve repeatedly posted on the Vanguard. Those reports dispute your conclusion, here.
I have read the articles discussing the state audits
David: Perhaps you haven’t been reading them carefully enough. Below are the first couple of paragraphs from one of the articles I posted. (Note the “direct rebuke” of the university’s assertions – which you’ve repeated above.)
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article68782827.html
David,
My point is that accepting this larger then ever volume of non-resident is an option that UCD chose to do, when the campus is already overcrowded as the students are frequently complaining about. So, while UCD does not have the on-campus housing nor does it have the other infrastructure needed like the classrooms, faculty, and staff to support all of their over-ambitious growth, UCD make matters even worse by opting to invite an even more massive number of non-resident students to exasperate the situation. On top of that, UCD continues to drag their heels on planning enough beds to solve the student housing problem that they have created.
Where we agree is that the campus needs to house a much higher percentage of students than they are and have committed to do.
Eileen, please don’t confuse admission rates with enrollment rates. UCD will eventually enroll a lower percentage of international students than UCLA, UCB, and UCI.
Davis led all UC campuses in admissions of international students in 2017.
“Stephen Handel, associate vice president for undergraduate admissions at the UC Office of the President, said the admissions goals are a local affair. “It’s the campuses’ call in determining where they want to create the mix,” he said.
Handel suggested that the yield rate – the probability of someone accepting an offer to attend – is probably lower at UC Davis for international applicants compared to other campuses, which is why UC Davis sends out more offers. The new data did not indicate how many students enrolled.”
But even if it’s true that Davis’s overall yield rate is lower, it might still very likely enroll a higher percentage of international students than the other UCs. 27% of Davis’s admits were international students, according to the Bee.
Some other important statistics (excerpted from http://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/factsheets/2017/fall-2017-admits-summary.pdf ):
The University admitted 69,972 California resident freshmen for fall 2017, a 13.2 percent increase (8,138 students in admitted students over fall 2015 and a 1.7 percent (1,206 students) decrease compared to fall 2016. [The Enterprise reported only the increase]. Last year, UC admitted a historically large number of California freshmen as part of its effort to grow total California resident enrollment by 5,000. This year, the University will be increasing total California resident enrollment by 2,500.
To accommodate the contraction in resident enrollment growth compared to last year, the admission rate for California resident freshmen decreased systemwide to 62.6 percent for fall 2017, down 4.9 percentage points from 2016.
The number of nonresident students admitted to the University increased by 1,546 students for fall 2017,a 4.5 percent increase. The admission rate for nonresident students increased to 60. 1 percent from 56.4 percent in fall 2016.
The admission of community college transfers increased this year by 3 .5 percent or 729 domestic students, primarily residents of California, over fall 2016. The overall admission rate for fall 2017 rose to 76.4 percent from 71.9 percent in fall 2016 as 24,685 out of 32,329 applicants were admitted.
David stated that where he and Eileen agree is that UCD should be providing a much higher percentage of students than the campus is now doing and is planning to do. I think the point Eileen is trying to make, however, is that UCD is already way behind in meeting the housing commitments it made in previous LRDPs and in the November 2002 report by the Board of Regents, Student Housing for the 21st Century, and so it should therefore greatly slow down admissions and/or halt growth in the total student population until the campus housing supply catches up. (The Regents’ report said UCD would house 38% of students on campus by 2012, but today it remains just 29%.)
Granted, the actual number of students who actually enroll this coming fall won’t approach the number offered admission, but I would contend that it is absolutely unconscionable for UCD to even offer admission to as many students as it has while on-campus is still so scarce. Regardless of any enrollment goals the Regents may set, UCD does have control over how many students it enrolls. All it needs to do is halt the ill-conceived 2020 Initiative.
And, while Webster and Emerson are being demolished and replaced, the amount of campus-provided housing will actually temporarily decrease until the new (and still not nearly tall enough replacements) are completed. While the student enrollment continues to expand, UCD can only bring itself to say that it will explore ways to capitalize on the region’s transportation resources (Yolo bus, Capitol Corridor train, etc.) to move members of the “UCD community” between the campus and lower cost housing areas. (This was a statement UCD reps made during their presentation to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in early March.)
A far better, sensible and more responsible approach would be for UCD to announce that the university will voluntarily cap enrollment until it has greatly increased the number of students living on campus. If they won’t do this, then perhaps the City Council should begin seriously considering litigation to legally UCD to cap enrollment growth whenever the percent of students housed on campus is likely to fall below a specified target, such as 50%. Litigation forced UC Santa Cruz to accept a court approved settlement agreement along these same lines. Since UCD seems to lack the integrity to do such a thing on its own, then perhaps Davis leadership needs to defend the health, safety and welfare of our city by initiating similar litigation. An ever expanding enrollment will do nothing more than increase the 63% of students who live in Davis and the 8% that live in other cities, not to mention the number who will be forced to live in their cars, etc.
Followed most, and generally agree… except the litigation part… ‘threat of’, maybe… actual: costly; protracted; and likely ineffective…
Take a few minutes to analyze what that would do to UCD’s revenues and budget and you will see why it will never happen.
(Don: Seems like this needs repeating – from above.)
Note the “direct rebuke” of the university’s assertions. Suggest reading the article for additional details.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article68782827.html
And then there’s (also) the article below, regarding a $175 million “reserve”:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article146660529.html
Undergraduate tuition brings in >$300 million per year to UCD. It’s the second-highest income source, just below state funding. They aren’t going to be cutting that source of revenue. Limiting enrollment is not going to happen.
http://budget.ucdavis.edu/budget-planning/assumptions.html#revenue
Don: I can’t predict exactly what UC, and UCD are going to do, to resolve the concerns that they are creating. Certainly, the state auditor and legislators have concerns. (As does the city of Davis and many of its residents, Yolo county supervisors, and the associated student organization, on campus.)
In any case, Davis will not (and can not) continue to blindly accommodate the costs and impacts of UCD’s plans.
Past behavior, economic realities, and UC priorities make it easy to predict probable outcomes. UC has a great deal of autonomy. The state auditor has no control over UC. The legislature only controls part of UC’s funding and legislators would be loath to reduce it, as that would adversely affect their constituents. City of Davis and Yolo supervisors have no control over what UC does. Housing for students is a low priority for UCD administrators. They recognize that they have a local political problem and have adjusted their rhetoric accordingly. They have not adjusted their policies and show little likelihood of doing so.
One way or another, Davis will. Probably by foisting those costs and impacts on surrounding communities.
Don: As long as people make assumptions and comments such as yours, then you’re probably right. (However, I’m not sure that the “rhetoric” you’ve cited is cutting it, anymore.) I sincerely doubt that there’s been this much concerted effort, in the past. (And, the intensive pursuit of International students is a relatively new phenomenon.)
I’m less certain of the assumptions you’re making, including other options that the city may have. (That’s all I’m going to say about that.)
But you’re right – UC does have some autonomy – perhaps too much. I wonder what will occur when the International student market inevitably “changes”. (I see from your link to the budget that UC planned to “stick it to them”, even more.)
And what has been the net result of all of that concerted effort in terms of UCD’s housing plans?
Yes. You want the city to sue them.
I’m not the cause of this problem, Ron. That’s just a ludicrous comment.
Don: As a side note, our governor did withhold $50 million from UC, in the wake of the audit. (Not sure what became of that.)
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Jerry-Brown-withholds-50M-from-UC-in-wake-of-11140273.php
I just noticed some missing words in my hurried post last night. The additional words are in bold font below.
Granted, the actual number of students who actually enroll this coming fall won’t approach the number offered admission, but I would contend that it is absolutely unconscionable for UCD to even offer admission to as many students as it has while on-campus housing is still so scarce. Regardless of any enrollment goals the Regents may set, UCD does have control over how many students it enrolls. All it needs to do is halt the ill-conceived 2020 Initiative.
A far better, sensible and more responsible approach would be for UCD to announce that the university will voluntarily cap enrollment until it has greatly increased the number of students living on campus. If they won’t do this, then perhaps the City Council should begin seriously considering litigation to legally require UCD to cap enrollment growth whenever the percent of students housed on campus is likely to fall below a specified target, such as 50%. Litigation forced UC Santa Cruz to accept a court approved settlement agreement along these same lines. Since UCD seems to lack the integrity to do such a thing on its own, then perhaps Davis leadership needs to defend the health, safety and welfare of our city by initiating similar litigation. An ever expanding enrollment will do nothing more than increase the 63% of students who live in Davis and the 8% that live in other cities, not to mention the number who will be forced to live in their cars, etc.
Despite your “predictions” (which have been going on for some time, now), the answer (at this point) is “we don’t know”. We do know that it’s apparently made some difference, regarding the earlier decision to increase housing to 90 percent of new students, and 40% of all students. And, it appears that UCD is starting to budge somewhat in a better direction, again.
You’re right – you’re not the cause of UC’s decisions (including the increased pursuit of International students). However, comments such as yours feed into and support the “rhetoric” from UCD, that you referred to. (A defeatist attitude, which may be welcomed with open arms, by UCD.)
I don’t think they’re actually budging. If they wanted to budget, all they would have to do is say, we’ll try to get to 50. They’ve never done that. I don’t think they’ve really changed since the beginning of the process. There is no way to truly leverage them.
David: I believe that UC Santa Cruz has been “leveraged”. (I’m sure that the “armchair attorneys” will start telling us why that can’t work here, as they’ve already begun doing.)
And they may be right
David: They may (or may not be), but I wouldn’t take their word for it. Even professionals cannot predict outcomes.
This has been obvious from the start, yet you have published how many articles repeating the same basic complaint? We have little or no influence over what the University is going to do, but we have a great deal of influence over what the City can do. If you really want the housing shortage addressed, work in the arena where you have influence.
Good discussion last night over whether or not the city should go to a 5 percent vacancy rate goal
“Planning via vacancy rate”, with no plan as to location of proposed complexes.
They have not done the general plan yetI have not done the general plan yet
Something else I learned last night vertical mixed use does not count against the 1% growth cap
Regarding the general plan update, you don’t need to tell me “twice”! 🙂
As I previously noted (but some have denied), there does appear to be an attempt to increase development/densify, perhaps without considering exactly what that entails. We’ve already lost an industrial site, which apparently had a conditional use for community services. (Families First.) (Strangely, the city is now facilitating the construction of a new homeless facility nearby, but without the infrastructure that Families First already had in place.)
It will be also be interesting to see how “intense” the city becomes (e.g., in terms of people moving about, via auto, bicycle, and walking), if density increases significantly.
Regarding “vertical mixed use”, it appears that developers are using this designation to “get around” the 1% cap, and Affordable housing requirements. Not sure if they’re also using it to bypass minimum parking requirements.
One thing that I strongly suspect: There is no “demand” for vertical mixed use, in terms of businesses occupying the bottom floor. The “demand” is for housing, which bypasses requirements imposed upon other types of housing.
If they redevelop downtown, it will probably be with vertical mixed use, but without RDA money, I’m not sure what will look like or when.
One thing for sure: If the city doesn’t find a way to address the conflict with UCD, the city will forever be a “pawn” regarding UCD’s plans.
Going forward, virtually all city planning will be focused on accommodating UCD’s plans and impacts.
I still wonder how long UC/ /UCD will be able to “milk” the International student market. I’ve read that other universities are also doing this (presumably providing competition to UC). How long before market demand is met, or other factors come into play (e.g., more competitive universities in home countries, changes in economies, exchange rates, etc.)? And again, Don’s link to UC’s budget (above) shows that UC is trying to squeeze even more money, from International students.
That is kind of the nature of the beast. There are upsides and downsides to it
Vertical mixed use has far more downs to it than ups if it does not count towards the 1% growth, as well as exempts developers from doing any affordable housing. The City needs to revisit this concept. It might have some application in the downtown to encourage more retail on the first floor, but it should not be something encouraged elsewhere. No wonder MRIC wanted to add 850 housing units. Not only would they get away with no affordable housing but none of the 850 units would have counted towards out 1% growth rate! What an enormous ripoff!
That would depend on when the California taxpayers or our overlords in Sacramento decide to pay for the system. IMO the way we pay for UC is exactly backwards.