This year the focus has shifted back toward housing and land use. There have been a core of citizens that have argued that the solution to the city’s housing problem is for UC Davis to build more housing.
The argument has teeth – after all, the university has been steadily growing and yet has failed either to provide enough additional housing to cover the new students or to meet past obligations to increase the on-campus housing share.
This spring, as Davis voters were deciding what to do about a Nishi housing proposal that would have provided about 1500 additional beds, UC Davis announced that they had moved from a position where they would be adding housing but not enough to accommodate new growth, to a position where they will accommodate about 90 percent of enrollment growth with campus housing.
There are several questions that come from this announcement. First – what does this announcement look like? Second, will the university follow through with their commitment (and how can we be sure, given unfulfilled promises)? Third, even if they do follow through, what will the city need to do to accommodate existing and future demand?
We have a lot of newer information about just what this plan will look like. The university is planning to accommodate 90 percent of enrollment growth with campus housing. The plan provides capacity to accommodate about 6200 additional students by 2027-2028. That means there will be somewhere between 6900 and 7000 new students in the next ten years. That pushes the student enrollment at UC Davis to about 39,000.
Some people were dismissive of the plan, as it houses “just” 40 percent of all students on campus. That puts the plan in line with future promises made in the 1980s, 1990s and into the early 2000s. It certainly falls well short of Cal Poly’s commitment to house about 65 percent of its students on campus “as soon as possible.”
But if you look at UC schools, you see that 40 percent takes UC Davis from second to last in percentage of on-campus housing to below just Santa Cruz and Irvine and just ahead of Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Barbara. UC Davis would also be ahead of Berkeley, Merced, and Riverside.
That analysis, of course, ignores enrollment growth elsewhere and the likelihood of increased on-campus housing systemwide, but it puts things into perspective.
There will undoubtedly be people who will say that this is not enough, that UC Davis has a huge amount of land around it, that UC Davis needs to take a higher percentage of the new students and do more to house current students.
On the other hand, we should note that UC Davis has gone so far as to agree to MOUs to increase student housing on campus and failed to follow through. Forty percent of all students and 90 percent of new students is ambitious, but not impossible. Asking UC Davis to build more housing in ten years might be unrealistic.
The other new piece of information is that we now know that most of the housing will be non-residence hall housing. UC Davis is planning to build about 1550 more beds in residence halls, increasing the number from a surprisingly low 5500 up to 7050. Those figure to house freshmen students.
The big change is that the student apartments will go from 3900 students to 8550, or 2.19 times the current population housed in student apartments.
Still, the LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) does not solve all student housing problems in the city of Davis. Let us assume that UC Davis follows through on what it has committed to here – historically, there is reason to treat these promises with skepticism.
First, the city’s current situation is not good for student housing. We know there is a low vacancy rate, perhaps as low as 0.2 percent. That has forced a number of students to commute from out of town. It has also forced students to pack more tightly into homes, creating mini-dorms and nuisances for some neighbors.
As we know from the discussion last spring – rental rates are increasing, there are a core of landlords taking advantage of the situation, providing subpar housing, and there are other problems.
This plan by the university does not solve any of this. In fact, we can argue it makes it worse.
By our math, there are 39,000 projected students by 2027. The university plans to put about 15,600 on campus. But that still leaves about 23,400 to live in the city. In addition, that number is growing. While the campus is planning to house 6200 new students on campus, that means there will be as many as 800 more students needing housing off-campus.
Also the faculty housing plan is very limited. Right now the project is about 500 faculty and staff living on campus by 2027-28, but that means there will be about 1500 to 2000 new faculty and staff, coming to support the student enrollment growth, that will not be housed on campus.
Are we expecting those faculty and staff to live in Davis, or are we expecting them to live out of town and commute?
Last summer the Vanguard argued that, based on current needs and future growth, Davis itself (even if the campus follows through on their plan) is probably going to need somewhere between 3000 and 4000 additional beds – some of which are probably going to house faculty and staff and will need to look more like single family homes than apartments.
Nishi would have provided 1500 of those beds, but it was defeated and, as we reported yesterday, UC Davis is not planning on a connection to campus. There are varying interpretations on that, but that’s the current reality.
Proposed apartments like Sterling and Lincoln40 could provide between 1500 and 2000 new beds, so the problem is not overwhelming if the city is willing to consider a few more apartment complexes.
But there are those who believe UC Davis should house all of these new students and some of the needed capacity for current students. That seems far less likely, but that is likely to be the battle that plays out in the course of the next decade.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Are we expecting those faculty and staff to live in Davis or are we expecting them to live out of town and commute?
I suspect that the answer to this question is “yes”. Which means that we need, over the next 10 years to be addressing two important issues. The available housing in town…..and our available public transportation between adjacent communities.
We know that “most” people want to own their own home so we should “expect” that over time most of the faculty and staff that make enough to afford a home in town will live here and “expect” that over time most of the lower paid faculty and staff will buy a home somewhere like Woodland (where you can get a nice home for half as much as the cheapest home in Davis)…
Now David’s starting in on single-family houses, even though the Cannery is nowhere near complete, Chiles Ranch hasn’t even started, West Village faculty housing is imminent, etc.
And, the University’s plans are not complete, and they’re still in the process of conducting outreach meetings.
And, we’re already meeting SACOG growth requirements, and will have to address new requirements in a few short years (around 2021). (And, the city will not receive “credit” for anything built prior to establishment of new requirements.)
Oh well, I guess it’s going to be a relentless push, regardless of facts.
“Now David’s starting in on single-family houses, even though the Cannery is nowhere near complete, Chiles Ranch hasn’t even started, West Village faculty housing is imminent, etc.”
The math doesn’t add up to the additional need. The point of this article was to look at what UCD will provide and what the likely additional need will be just from UCD students and employees. Do you disagree with my math?
Suggest you re-read my statement above, before asking that question. One can always make numbers “add up”. However, the basis for those number is incomplete, and is based on assumptions.
The main reasons I responded is because you’re now including single-family housing, into the mix. (Without even “adding up the numbers” for units that are under construction or imminent.)
You didn’t really answer the question, Ron. The reason that I included single-family housing or faculty/ staff housing is that the LRDP only accounts for a quarter of the growth (I did not make a policy statement as to how they should be housed, only pointed out that they would not be housed on campus under the current plan). So where do they live?
David:
Again, if you’re going to include single-family housing in your argument, you should also include (“add up the numbers”) of single-family dwellings under construction or imminent (e.g., The Cannery, Chiles Ranch, West Village, etc.).
And again, the LRDP has not been finalized, and the University is conducting outreach meetings. (By the way, I understand that one spot that might accommodate more housing is the planned location of the new “cow barns”. Cows can be located elsewhere.)
And again, “Edison” and others have repeatedly provided information regarding at least one company that pays up-front costs for dense campus housing, and recoups those costs over time (via rent). And, there should be “economies of scale” for denser buildings (capturing more rent per plot of land).
Overall, the University’s plans are not dense enough. I understand that there’s still nothing over 4 stories (which is the limit of wood-frame construction).
“Again, if you’re going to include single-family housing in your argument, you should also include (“add up the numbers”) of single-family dwellings under construction or imminent (e.g., The Cannery, Chiles Ranch, West Village, etc.).”
Again, UC Davis is promising 500 units. The other two projects add up to about 600, which will not be exclusively or even predominantly faculty/ staff housing.
“And again, the LRDP has not been finalized, and the University is conducting outreach meetings. ”
Don’t you want pressure for them to add by me pointing out it’s insufficient? I don’t get it.
David: Not sure that we’re referring to the same thing.
Have you included numbers for The Cannery, Chiles Ranch, West Village, and any other new, single-family dwellings that are imminently planned, under construction, or unsold within the city or campus? (All of which can be occupied by faculty/staff.)
Sort of seems like you two are talking past each other. David, I think Ron is not answering your question because he is questioning the underlying assumption.
I too would like to know how many single family homes have been built in the last year or are already approved or in process.
David wrote:
> You didn’t really answer the question, Ron.
Then DT Davisite wrote:
> Sort of seems like you two are talking past each other.
> David, I think Ron is not answering your question
> because he is questioning the underlying assumption.
Maybe Ron doesn’t think David’s question is “valid”…
If people refuse to answer questions and just post “talking points” that support “their side” (like most politicians) the Blog will become a big waste of time…
Agree 100%.
It also demonstrates that the person refusing to answer the question is either dishonest, has a hidden agenda, or is boxed into a corner of having to admit he/she is wrong and just hope the question goes away so they can get back to their same arguments.
Or… they have been given food for thought that they need to process before responding.
I think it is rarely the last… especially for posters like Ron that always have copious and quick things to write.
“SouthofDavis” and “Frankly”:
I believe that I was the one who “asked a question”, first. (Which wasn’t answered.)
Regarding David’s question (“do I agree with the math”), I have confidence that he can perform calculations. Therefore, I didn’t double-check it.
I put forth a statement that David did not include other pertinent numbers, or other assumptions that he based his own numbers on. (Especially regarding single-family housing, which did not seem to be included in previous arguments.)
I think the information you want is here, but someone will have to add them up:
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/test-development-projects
One question I would ask is why Ron thinks those numbers are so pertinent. Unlike campus housing and student oriented apartments, it’s not clear that faculty will be moving into the units at Cannery (many of which are too expensive) or Chiles. We know the number at West Village, it’s in the chart posted at the top. If there are going to be 2000 more faculty and staff, it seems like a good question to ask – where are they going to live and right now, the answer is mostly not on campus. So then what?
“the Blog will become a big waste of time”
this is hilarious. I can’t even believe how much time people wast on this thing calling each other NIMBYs etc.
Because David has (now) introduced “single-family housing” as a “need”, despite the significant numbers of housing imminently planned or under construction.
Regarding affordability, not sure of your point. Are you stating that more housing in Davis “should” be affordable? If so, how do you propose accomplishing that?
Ron: What he said was: “Also the faculty housing plan is very limited”
You say David has introduced this, actually the university has introduced this by specifying their plan which appears to only provide 25-33 percent of new faculty and staff, if you you buy into the idea that they will be adding about 2000 new faculty staff in the next decade.
You seem to suggest we should just ignore this?
O.K. – perhaps I misunderstood what David’s point was. If he’s arguing that the University should do more for students, faculty, and staff, than I think we all agree. However, if he’s arguing that there isn’t “enough” single-family construction in the city, then he should also consider and present the number that have been recently built, under construction, or imminently planned. And, if it’s not sufficiently “affordable”, perhaps you or he could discuss what might be done to address that.
I’m “tagging out” of the conversation, for the moment.
I can’t speak for David, but speaking for myself, I didn’t see a specified path in there other than analyzing the current plan and whether it’s sufficient.
While UCD has basically rearranged the limited number of students beds that they are talking about adding, they need to add many more beds than this on-campus to accommodate their own self-directed and ambitious ” UCD 2020 Initiative” of expanding their student population so quickly.
Also, they need to focus on adding far more beds to house their ever increasing student population on-campus beyond their first year in freshman dorms, in housing like on-campus apartments for the 4-5 years that they attend UCD. So this means that UCD needs to either speed up building the on-campus housing to accommodate their students, or else dial back its over-aggressive rate of growth plan until they have the infrastructure needed in place. Instead UCD appears to continue to try to push off their housing needs onto our community and other cities. Furthermore, they UCD needs to make more efficient use of the land they are building on by building higher than four stories. Other universities are building far higher than 5 stories because it produces far more housing, and is much more efficient using less land, and is far more sustainable.
There is no mandate for former Chancellor Katehi’s accelerated “UCD 2020 Initiative” to continue at the accelerated pace that was originally proposed, which is clearly too fast. Even UCD’s own 2020 Initiative Task Force said that the infrastructure for this pace of growth needed to be in place first.
It is clear that this “2020 Initiative” at the UCD campus was trying to bring in more revenue , particularly by recruiting far more international and out-of-state students for the almost triple tuition. Well they should have started with building in the infrastructure needed like the on-campus housing first rather than putting the “cart-before-the horse” and then deflecting their housing shortage (which they are responsible for) and they can slow down or stop at any time to get caught-up with the on-campus housing, staffing, and facilities needed for the deluge of students they want to add. This lack of planning by UCD is unfair to their students, and unfair to our community.
Also, while downsizing the proposal to pave over Russell greenfields in the latest proposal appears to be a compromise, it makes far more sense to place the housing on any of well over 100+ acres of on-campus sites on or near the core campus that have been identified during the LRDP public input process. UCD has plenty of options of where to do this such has the very large parcel of land south of Hutchinson Drive and west of 113 and the current site of the cow barns (which are slated to be moved by UCD).
I get wanting to build more housing at UCD, but why would anyone argue to scale back how many students should be accepted?
Agree, denying students a college education is not the right answer for housing shortages.
Agreed. UCD should let students camp on campus if they cant provide enough housing to keep up with their enrollment increases. I wonder how many students could live in the Chancellors house?
That’s not where my comment was going
Because you can’t just add students and have everyone get the education they deserve. They need a place to live, they need classroom space, they need faculty, they need support staff. Those things are either not happening or not happening at a fast enough rate to keep up with enrollment. So, education suffers for all.
It makes a lot more sense to me when you point out that it is bigger failure than just a lack of student housing. It makes it really hard to understand why the University is building museums and concert halls instead of classrooms and dormitories.
You’re not asking enough question: is it being paid for through donations? Is it bringing in revenue?
“You’re not asking enough question: is it being paid for through donations? Is it bringing in revenue?”
I think it would be great if UCD had donations to build housing and class rooms, they have to find someway to pay for it if they are going to bring in more students. As to bringing in more revenue, I don’t think the University should be trying to generate revenue from student housing and class rooms.
Eileen wrote:
> for the almost triple tuition
It is not ALMOST triple is is MORE than triple the tuition (3.38x)
https://www.ucdavis.edu/admissions/cost/tuition-fees-non-residents
P.S. Eileen telling UCD all the things it “needs” to do will probably have as little effect is Frankly telling all the “NIMBYs” in town all the things they “need” to do…
South of Davis,
Thanks for this updated non-resident tuition being even more than 3X now.
And on your P.S., hey this blog is all about discussing the issues that our community is facing and offering potential solutions. So since the LRDP update process invited public input, that’s what I am doing. UCD wants to grow faster, so it needs to build the housing faster and provide the rest of the infrastructure faster to keep pace with their own growth. UCD needs to handle the increased student population they desire, or else the students will not get the education they want, and expect from UCD.
UCD has created a housing shortage that it is imposing on itself (and trying to impose on our City) at an accelerated pace, they just need to speed up building that on-campus housing being built which it will need long-term since it wants to grow.
Meanwhile, UCD can slow down the accelerated rate it is increased the non-resident students they are also trying to add on until they catch-up with providing the infrastructure that UCD’s own “UCD 2020 Initiative Task Force” said was needed first.
Eileen wrote:
> UCD has created a housing shortage
UCD has “added students” but the City of Davis has “created a housing shortage”. I personally know multiple developers that would start building more housing (to alleviate the shortage) in and/or around Davis if the city gave them the OK. Why blame just UCD for “creating the housing shortage”. If everyone that does not work at or attend UCD moved out of town Davis would no longer have a “housing shortage” (and would have a LOT of “For Rent” signs…
SOD, it just is not logical to say Davis has created the housing crisis. It would be fair to say that they have not responded to it by building more housing, but the housing crunch is clearly created by the UC bringing in more students than there is housing.
I don’t know Grok, part of me wonders of about the logic there. Let’s say a business does a major expansion bringing in a lot of new jobs, does the business have the obligation to house them or does the city? I don’t know the answer to this, but I don’t think the question is nearly as simple as being portrayed.
Eileen, Which students should UCD reject? Should they reduce the number of Freshman or just transfer students who are ready for the next step in their education, but may need/want non-dorm housing? Or should they reduce the number of graduate students? Do you really think that you should be arguing for denying education and opportunity for our children?
The large empty parcel south of Hutchinson is set aside for storm water retention, I believe – much like non-developable storm water retention sites situated across the City of Davis.
I’m sure that there are plans for the Dairy site, but I don’t know what they are – maybe more dorms or instructional facilities.
ryankelly,
I think what you are not addressing is the issue of capacity that UCD can handle for the number of students they have and are trying to add for these students to get a decent education. The students, faculty and staff have all been complaining about this. As things have been going, UCD’s graduation rate is only 55% in four years, and much of that is because they have so many super-seniors who could not get into classes they needed. Students are complaining of having to sit on floors in classrooms. None of this is fair to the UCD students.
Second, UCD can certainly consider dialing back on the much higher number of international and out-of state-students that thye are extracting the 3.38X (thank you SOD) more tuition from and accommodate California resident students first. UCD accepted 60% more non-resident students last year in 2015 including 35% additional international students and 25% more out-of-state students.
Is it fair to reduce the number of students and then deprive some of a college education because you don’t like being inconvenienced on land use issues? Because I know damn well you wouldn’t be saying boo about this if there weren’t a land use issue around the bend
Chamber Fan,
Wow. Pretty strong language. Regarding the subject of deprivation of education, you can ask UCD about how they really should not have been rejecting California resident students, while increasing the number of so many non-resident students to extract more tuition out of them.
By the way Chamber Fan, or are you a developer or work for UC/UCD? Or are you an advocate for profit in any way for development and/or UC/UCD? Just curious since your postings are very telling.
Not a developer and do not work for UCD. I am a member of the Chamber.
I don’t agree with UCD’s policies but support expanded higher education opportunities for all. I believe both the city and UCD should do our part to make college possible.
“I don’t agree with UCD’s policies but support expanded higher education opportunities for all. I believe both the city and UCD should do our part to make college possible.”
I agree. The city could let students camp in the park by City Hall and maybe a few other spots around town. Until UCD can get its act together and build enough housing.
Maybe UCD could use the council chamber as a lecture hall during the day too.
The City can pitch in, but no freebies. UCD should have to pay rent.
Not in agreement of tent cities for cities rather than the city building apartments
I agree having student living in tents is not ideal, but if the housing shortage people are describing is as bad as they say, then we have to do what we have to do. It would be very generous of the city to help UCD out in the short term by letting students stay in tents on city property for a few months while UCD caught up on building student housing.
Tent cities would be the end of Davis growth control policies.
This thread is interesting. Tent cities would certainly be a good way to apply pressure on the University to build housing, and provide affordable housing in the short term.
I wonder if space for camping were made available if any students would choose to use it.
What would we tell the students who, though more than qualified, didn’t get into UCD? That there are people in the City who just don’t want them to come until the University builds housing to accommodate them, because the people of Davis refuse to build more?
Not all contributions have equal value, Eileen. This solution will never be accepted, so why even suggest it. It is mean spirited. Even with no additional housing built, students do and can find housing outside of Davis and commute here by car. They do and can find single-family homes to live in with roommates or double up in apartments. They do and can pay higher rents in order to attend the college.
ryankelly,
What about the California State audit that exposed that a large percentage of the non-resident students were being admitted by UC using lower standards? If anything is unfair, it would be the university denying admission of well qualified California residents to instead admit an excess of non-residents students to extract the higher tuition from them.
And to reiterate the problem-cause and the problem-solution, it is UCD imposing the accelerated student population and it is UCD which needs to provide the housing on-campus for its own growth (which it has know was coming for many years) which is where the housing is closest and can be legally reserved for the UCD students.
And you need to dial back your personal insults “ryankelly” particularly if you won’t even post under your own name. If you going to throw out insults like this at me, I should be entitled to know who you are. So what about leveling the playing field by posting under your real name?
Now you are talking about the quality of admissions, in addition to make up of admissions…
I’m afraid that I find much of your ranting about UC Davis as mildly offensive and it is hard to ignore it completely, especially when I think that you state information that is incorrect. Then I feel prompted to respond. Please state what you feel I said that was a personal insult.
Eileen wrote:
> much of that is because they have so many super-seniors
> who could not get into classes they needed.
This is happening at public schools all over the state (and around the country). In an effort to make more and more money schools are not just letting in dumber rich kids from out of state they are making it harder for the in state kids to graduate in four years so they get 25% more tuition out of an increasing number of them.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Audit-shows-UC-admission-standards-relaxed-for-7215364.php
South of Davis,
It actually is worse then this. UCD has offered scholarships and grants for non-resident students in the past as well to compensate for the higher tuition. So I am not understanding how this was to help UCD financially when they would reverse the revenue objective?
In 2009 the US reached a peak of over 70% of high school graduates going on to attend college. Since then the numbers have declined and are in a downward trend.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/04/25/business/Fewer-High-School-Graduates-Go-to-College-1398380422362/Fewer-High-School-Graduates-Go-to-College-1398380422362-videoSixteenByNine600.png
But then there is this. The population of California has kept increasing.
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/ltg-uploads/2016/09/CaliforniaPopulationGrowth1900-2013.gif
Now, since 1965 when CSU Bakersfield was founded, there have only been three new public campuses launched:
CSU, San Marcos
CSU, Monterey Bay
CSU, Channel Islands
So, maybe there is no “mandate” but there certainly is a statistical, business, ethical and moral basis for increasing enrollment.
I think you should get some of that ethical and moral basis for supporting UCD growth. It would do well for your ongoing credibility in this topic.
You forgot about UC Merced, which is, I believe, under-enrolled. UCSC used to be under-enrolled also – not sure if it still is.
Here is the other image not displaying properly.
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/ltg-uploads/2016/09/CaliforniaPopulationGrowth1900-2013.gif
Frankly
As I just said, UCD needs to speed up providing the infrastructure that is needed to have the capacity to increase their student population, and consider dialing back on their accelerated increase of the non-residents students to “catch-up” with getting this infrastructure in place including on-campus hosing, staffing, and facilities.
Ok. Agree with this. Thanks
This statement and another by you above assumes that there is an accelerated increase of non-residents attending UCD. It demonstrates a bias or, minimally an assumption, that there was an rapid increase, but the admission rates for international students are fairly stable. There seem to be many Asian UCD students that might make it appear to you that non-residents are taking over, but most are California residents. You may look at Asian students as international students, but only 9.9% of all UCD undergraduate students are International students. 36.9% of students, excluding international students, are Asian/Pacific Islander. This may be the cause of your bitterness about the make up of the student body.
Undergraduate Student Profile – UCD
ryankelly,
So now you are trying to twist what I am saying into something completely incorrect on top of adding more insults. The point I was making was regarding non-resident students which includes international as well as out-of-state students. So please stop with the insulting racial tone that you are trying to spin this on. This is a pretty low tactic, so please just stop it. If you try this stunt again, I hope the moderator cuts you off because what you are implying is is total malarkey (I have a more accurate term, but trying to abide by the posting rules here).
Note that the pie chart that you posted conveniently does not include a breakdown out-of-state students. So here is UCD’s own data below. Here are this years fall 2016 UCD admit rates (i.e. students admitted by UCD relative to the number of applications submitted for that category): 63% out-of-state students, and 49% international students admitted, relative to 37% California resident students and this is just undergrads.
So that means that out of the total applicants for UCD, UCD admitted 13% out-of-state students, 23% international students and 64% California resident students. So 36% of the new undergrad applicants accepted this year at UCD are non-residents.
UC Davis Admissions 2016
2016 UC Davis Applications Admits Admit Rate SIR
California 49,304 18,589 37%
Out-of-State 5,655 3,623 63%
International 13,560 6,759 49%
Sorry but the cut and paste attempt for that table I posted got crammed together for some reason. Here they are again:
UC Davis Admissions 2016
2016 UC Davis Applications Admits Admit Rate SIR
California 49,304 18,589 37%
Out-of-State 5,655 3,623 63%
International 13,560 6,759 49%
I have seen this before. If UCD does what it should and reduce the out of state and international admissions it will just increase the in-state admissions to make up the difference. I would support that because it is needed.
So, I fail to see your point here that UCD is pursuing a growth strategy outside of the need. And you are not really making any sense here with respect to the student population and UCD growth.
Frankly,
So while UCD has a more than $1 BILLION dollar endowment fund (note that less than 100 universities in the nation have this much money) you are trying to tell me that UCD wants to bring in more than 3X the tuition, from the 36% non-residents it is accepting, yet UCD wants our community to provide the housing for all of this massive increase in student population, particularly of non-resident students?
Meanwhile, UCD has over 5,300 acres, the largest UC campus, yet UCD is providing the least amount of on-campus housing. Plus UCD has plenty of sites on, or near the core campus, that they can provide the housing on.
You are artfully ignoring my point.
Why do you care where the students come from if their numbers will be the same?
If UCD allows in fewer out of state and fewer foreign students, it is clear that there is enough demand for local California students to make up the difference in enrollment.
Are you going to make the case that the same number of students but with a higher percentage of California students is going to require less rental housing?
I certainly hope not.
I don’t think it works this way. Out-of-state and international students bring in money, whereas in-state students cost money (that is, their tuition does not cover the cost of being a student). At least, that is my understanding.
Eileen, You conveniently leave out the SIR (statement of intent to register) numbers, which represents the actual number of students who enroll at UCD. Offer of admission does not equal actual enrollment. The percentage number is the percentage of students offered admission for that category – not the percentage of the whole.
Your numbers also only reflect admission offered to Freshman and doesn’t include the several thousand students transferring from community college.
The University expects to enroll 9,100 new students (freshman and transfer) to UCD. We won’t know the actual number and the percentage of international / out of state students until a census has been run in a few weeks. Until then you’ll have to use the information from previous years.
You are off track. It is just shy of ugly. I am pointing out that who the University offers admission to has very little to do with the LRDP for UCD.
Don’t understand the logic of this. There job is to educate students, not worry about what the town of Davis wants. If we don’t want to build housing they will just drive through on their way in and out. How is it UCD’s problem other than you saying it is?
Ok Chamber Fan,
Just to clarify my question it includes, do you have any involvement with sale or purchase of real estate?
Chamber Fan,
No response…?
Sorry I sometimes have to work. No I don’t work in real estate.
Chamber Fan,
Really? So you have no connection or association with real estate or development or UC/UCD? This seems really odd given your very accusatory posting earlier towards me and your very pro-growth postings. Plus your constant advocacy for our community to financially subsidize and take on UCD’s self-motivated accelerated growth, and its own housing needs that UCD can, and needs to provide for itself. After all, UCD has more than 5,300 acres and a more than $1 BILLION dollar endowment fund! Also, lets not forget that much of UCD’s housing is needed for non-resident students.
But UCD instead, is prioritizing building a multi-million dollar new art center, and yet another new music recital center, and a new International Student Center, all under construction right now. But what about the on-campus housing needs that UCD is creating for itself, yet not prioritizing the need for their students?
UCD actions are not fair to the UCD students, nor fair to our community, nor fair to neighboring communities where the impacts are being felt.
What Eileen is complaining about: http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd-dedicates-new-pitzer-center/
And the International Center, which will consolidate services for International students and Study Abroad. This will free up retail space on 3rd Street where the Study Abroad office has been located. The building will also have desperately needed classrooms.
http://dcm.ucdavis.edu/projects/internationalcenter/
Frankly,
Quite the contrary, it is you avoiding the obvious issue. If UCD is pro-actively bringing in 36% more non-resident students, needing that much on-campus housing, on-top of the backlog of on-campus housing needed for California resident students. But UCD is trying to deflect that additional 36% on-campus housing need onto our community, and it does matter because of the impacts that UCD is trying to push off onto our community.
Plus, UCD has over 5,300 acres to provide the on-campus housing for their own self-directed and accelerated growth, and unlike most universities UCD has over $1 Billion dollars in their endowment fund… unlike our City.
Your facts are wrong – the percentage.
Are you really advocating now that we only should be providing housing for students who are California residents and not all students admitted to UC Davis? What about undocumented students, Eileen, the Dreamers. Should we exclude them too?
Ryan, are you talking about Dreamers who are CA residents or Dreamers coming to UCD from out of state? It seems like there is a difference between the two.
Eileen has said nothing to indicate that she is opposed to Dreamers who are CA residents attending UCD.
Ryan, are you opposed to Dreamers going to UCD?
How many out of state Dreamers do you estimate are attending UCD?
How many out of state or out of country students who are less qualified than CA students do you think UCD should accept?
How many Equally qualified students from out of state do you think UCD should accept?
Eileen is not clear. She seems to believe that stopping all out of state and international admission is a solution to housing issues in Davis. She implies that these students are unqualified and are using resources that should be only used to educate California students. She ignores the data that I’ve provided, then accuses me of not making an effort to provide data.
I am pointing out that profiles of students admitted to UCD is not a factor in evaluating the current LRDP.
Ryan, you seem to be missing the point that dreamers are California residents, and Eileen seems to be in favor of California residents. Are you trying to suggest there are Dreamers coming to UCD from out of state who are paying out of state tuition?
You understand that Dreamers are residents, but Eileen seems to take issue with students that she feels don’t belong at UCD. I asked if she included undocumented people. She never answered.
Frankly
“Why do you care where the students come from if their numbers will be the same?”
As far as total numbers, it may not make much difference. But I will provide one example in which that is not the case. My qualified son, who already had a place to live, was not accepted to UCD while students coming from other countries, and out of state gained acceptance. I am saved from “bitterness” by the fact that my son was accepted at Sac State into a program I think is a better fit for him. But the point remains the same, preferential treatment for out of state and out of country students does matter in terms of opportunity, and potentially in terms of housing if this has also been happening to other potential local students.
Ha! How many kids living in Davis after they graduate high school attend UCD and how many of those live with mommy/daddy while attending UCD?
I would say you can start doing that math on your fingers… might need to take a shoe off too.
Frankly
“How many kids living in Davis after they graduate high school attend UCD”
I have known quite a number who have applied here. The question of relevance here is how many, like my son, were not accepted specifically because a slot they could have taken went to an out of state or out of country student.
There are a number of reasons why an otherwise qualified candidate is not admitted to one of the campuses. Do you have evidence that your son was rejected from UCD in favor of an out of state or international student, or are you just making that assumption?
One thing that seems to be broken with a system that uses GPAs. I have friends that from out of state and their children graduated with higher GPAs than my kids, but clearly with a less rigorous curriculum. Tia hates competition but it seems to help in California where it drives more challenging K-12 studies that better prepare students for college. However, they don’t have the GPA to show for it and have fewer college choices.
That is broken.
This paragraph is making the wrong comparison. Rather than comparing UCDs housing goal as stated in the LRDP to existing housing on other campuses, it is more appropriate to compare UCD’s LRDP goal to the LRDP goals of other UCs.
UC Berkeley’s LRDP Strives to provide housing for at least 2 years for incoming freshman and for 3 years to incoming ladder faculty. It strives to increase available campus housing by 35% over what is currently offered by UCB. UCB seems to be the only campus that has housing goals as low as UCD.
UC Irvine’s LRDP projects providing over 50% of student housing
UC Riverside projects providing housing for over 50% of students
UC San Diego projects housing over 50% of students
UC Santa Barbara projects “House 100% of additional students (50 percent of total students on campus”
UC Merced plans on housing 50% of students
UC Santa Cruz: 50% of undergrads, 25% of grads, 25% of faculty, 3% of staff
UCLA Housing Plan Goals:
UCD Davis has the space and the resources to provide student housing on par with the other campuses. There is no excuse for UCD’s low ball 40% housing number in the LRDP.
All Davis would need to do to achieve the 50% goal is build taller housing on all of the sites they already propose to build on. They could even do that without building on Russell field.
These numbers need better vetting. For example, UCD leases off campus dorms and also have on-campus student housing leased and run by other companies. I want to know how those numbers are counted. If you look on the UCD housing website it says that these on-campus housing that is leased and run by others does not qualify for student aid. I suspect that the number of students truly covered by UCD is understated because UCD handles the housing differently than other campuses.
Another thing to note that almost all of those campuses you list are in much larger cities with a much greater inventory of housing in general. In fact if you measure the number of units of housing in those cities as a ratio to the number of enrolled students in those campuses, Davis stands out in a major way as having SIGNIFICANTLY less housing.
I agree Frankly. The UCs numbers are all over the place and very unclear and definetly need better vetting. The numbers I gave all came from other campuses LRDPs with the exception of UCLA which came from a housing report (no number was in the LRDP). I am sure UCLA houses the majority of their students off campus in UC owned housing – something similar to the Quarto area in Davis. The UCs do seem to included or not included different kinds of housing in their numbers at different times, and they rarely are clear about what they are doing.
I also agree that Davis stands out because the student population already makes up a much larger percentage of the community than it does in the other cities.
Maybe we should “Re-Think Davis”?
ryankelly,
Really. If you don’t agree on the percentage data that I posted, why did you not post the information on why you think my data is wrong? Perhaps you are consulting with others on this, since you don’t seem to have the reasons why now.
On your other postings, you are clearly throwing out anything to try to compensate for so many of your comments which are baseless. And you really need to stop trying to put a racial or ethnic “spin” on what I am saying. The subject is about non-resident students and the higher tuition that UCD is extracting from them, while UCD has not been providing enough on-campus housing, so please stop your desperate attempts to make it anything else.
Eileen, I gave you the statistics. See my post at 5:42 pm.
Here’s some interesting math, all based on UCD’s updated LRDP website. It states that there were 32,130 students on campus during 2014-15 (the plan’s base year), of which 29% lived on campus. That means 9,318 students lived on campus and 71% lived off-campus, or 22,812. Now, looking at the LRDP projections for the 2027-28 school year, it’s estimated that 40% of 39,000 students will live on campus, or 15,600. That means that 60%, or 23,400, are expected to live off campus—virtually identical to the number living off-campus during 2014-15. Despite the LRDP’s planned construction of new campus housing and renovation of existing housing, there will be virtually no reduction in the number of students living off-campus; i.e., no change in the number that go unhoused by UCD.
Plus, the plan makes no estimate of when the new housing will appear. This means enrollment will continue steadily increasing from 32,130 in 2014-2015 to 39,000 in 2027-28, but that growth could very well outpace housing construction. (UCD estimates fall 2016 enrollment at 35,700.) The net result would be more students looking for off-campus housing in our community and elsewhere during the interim. And, based on UCD’s past poor performance in providing housing in a timely fashion, there is legitimate reason to doubt whether the LRDP’s housing construction provisions will ever come to fruition. It’s also disappointing that the LRDP continues to focus totally on low-rise (3 – 4 story) student housing. It would be far more efficient from the standpoint of land use, energy conservation, transportation and sustainability for the LRDP to include provisions for high-rise apartment buildings on campus, thereby giving more students a short walk or bike ride to class. Other leading universities with similar budgetary constraints are doing this; why not UCD?
That’s correct. So now that we know what the university is willing to do and planning to do, the city needs to begin planning for the addition of a couple of thousand more beds in town to help house the 60% of students who will be living off campus. It is fine to continue to press for more housing on campus, but it is not realistic to plan for that. And it simply exacerbates the present and future housing shortage here when plans for housing are blocked. It harms the young adults who live and work here, increasing their costs of housing and/or commuting due to the critical shortage of apartments.
You know what the numbers are now. UC listened to the community and made some adjustments in placement, shifting the population and traffic from one side of campus to another. It’s clear they aren’t likely to make any further accommodations as to total numbers, no matter how much folks may want them to. They are moving forward with what they promised, and they aren’t promising anything more than that. So now the city knows what to expect and can plan accordingly.
Actually, Don I think that’s premature. This is still a draft LRDP and the University is having 3 meetings seeking public comment in the next couple of weeks. Why would we want to stop pressing the University to do whats right when they are still seeking public comment?
No need to stop pressing them. Just don’t keep obstructing projects in town that will add beds.
Thanks Don, will you join us at the LRDP meetings to submit input and ask the University to do more to build housing? I think it would mean a lot to have you there.
Good question, Grok!
I don’t generally do meetings; I seriously don’t know how any of you have time for all of that. I’ve got a business and a farm to run. But I’m happy to write letters.
Does this mean you both support Sterling now?
Don: Regarding Sterling, this isn’t some kind of a “trade”. I’m primarily interested in campus housing so that we DON’T have proposals such as Sterling.
You’re one of the loudest and most frequent voices on the Vanguard, regarding what the “city needs to do” to (further) accommodate renters (which include students). And yet, you don’t have time to go to meetings to provide (invited) input to the University? (In any case, I’m sure that letters will help.)
And here you’ve got Eileen and others, repeatedly inviting everyone (including you) to join the effort to put the majority of needed housing on the least-impactful location (the campus).
I’d suggest that it might actually be easier for someone with your degree of interest to put their efforts into convincing the University, vs. reluctant residents. But, like everything else on the Vanguard, “you can lead a horse to water, but . . .”
Again, given your interest, it’s not something that anyone should even need to suggest to you.
I can understand the time commitment issues, I have a business to run too. I can’t imagine how you have time to moderate the Vanguard.
I think it would be great for you to submit a letter tot he University. You know the topic extremely well and have a lot to offer. I am going to make a plug for you publishing it here after submitting it, but submitting it to the University is the most important part.
I haven’t advocated a position on Sterling because I haven’t done all the homework on it yet. I can say this much at this point. One of the things I look for on a project like that is, that it should be built to accommodate more than just students in the long run – will it have a use beyond its time as a popular place for students to live. As I understand it Sterling made an important step in that direction by not including 5 bedroom apartments which are less desirable outside of student share groups. I also don’t find it to be overly far from campus for biking. on the other side, it is a bummer to loose the Family First facility, and I need to focus on the height, density and traffic impacts around it more to form a real opinion. I just need to research it more before I would take a position on it either for or against.
Probably a better, more inviting way to say it. (My point was that the effort to increase housing on campus corresponds very closely with Don’s stated interests, regardless of decisions made by the city.)
“Plus, the plan makes no estimate of when the new housing will appear. This means enrollment will continue steadily increasing from 32,130 in 2014-2015 to 39,000 in 2027-28, but that growth could very well outpace housing construction. ”
I’m glad you posted this concern, because it is one of mine from the start.
Don has good points, but there’s another consideration. The LRDP is subject to CEQA because its approval by the Regents is a discretionary action subject to environmental review. An EIR typically has to consider a number of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. (In this case, the “project” is the LRDP itself). Reasonable scenarios the EIR could evaluate can and should include housing a higher percentage of students on campus. The environmental impacts of that alternative (transportation, air quality, sustainability, etc.) would then be evaluated and compared to the impacts of the proposed project.
The draft Sterling Apartments EIR has identified lower density student apartments on the former Families First site as one of several “Environmentally Superior” alternatives to the project as proposed. It will not be up to the City Council to determine whether to approve the project as proposed or to select one of the Environmentally Superior alternatives. In the same vein, the LRDP’s EIR could potentially identify more on-campus housing as an alternative to the LRDP as drafted. If the CEQA analysis for the LRDP were to determine that a project alternative that includes more on-campus housing has fewer environmental impacts than the project as proposed, the EIR would then identify that alternative as the “Environmentally Superior” alternative.
Based on my experience working more than 20 years on projects subject to CEQA, the only way the Regents could then go forward with the LRDP as proposed (rather than accepting the Environmentally Superior alternative) would be for the Regents to adopt findings explicitly stating why the Environmentally Superior alternative was not selected. That’s a pretty steep challenge. Not selecting the Environmentally Superior Alternative could open up the Regents EIR to protracted litigation, which is a decision the Regents would need to weigh carefully. The upcoming EIR scoping process will be the appropriate venue for those concerned about UCD’s housing plans (or lack thereof) to submit written comments suggesting that an increased density on-campus housing alternative be considered in the EIR.
Did you mean ‘now’ not ‘not’?
Thanks for catching the typo, Don. Yes, you are correct. It will now be up to the Council, as the lead CEQA agency, to determine whether to approve the project “as is” or select the environmentally superior alternative. Sorry for the confusion. When I was working I’d always put documents aside for a day and then proofread them before uploading. Guess I need to start doing that with Vanguard posts! Thanks again for the good catch.
So we seem to be heading toward two rather ironic possible outcomes.
1. Due to public pressure, more student housing, at higher density, will be developed immediately adjacent to a site which was rejected by the voters in part because it was too “toxic” for student housing.
2. City officials will be urged to consider that higher density at Sterling is less environmentally sound, while the regents will be urged to consider that higher density on campus is more environmentally sound.
It gets pretty easy to become cynical about this.
I am a progressive cynic on this.
Don, let me ask you this: do you think there are any sites anywhere that are unhealthful for humans to live in? And if so, what about the sites adjacent to those sites? And the sites adjacent to those sites? My point is that you can accept that some sites are unhealthy, while recognizing that at some point you are far enough away from the source of the harmful effects that the effects themselves are minimal. Now, we can argue about where that place is with respect to Nishi. You have cast doubt on whether Nishi itself would pose considerable risks. But surely you can see that someone can believe that there are risks there and that yet they dissipate once one is far enough away. Here geography contributes as well – being on the other side of the highway or the train tracks rather than between them. As for how far enough is far enough, we could do the air quality measurements if we liked, but you have said you don’t think we should do that. So, we are left with trying to draw conclusions from our existing knowledge. It is Dr. Cahill’s opinion, based on peer-reviewed research of similar sites, that the sites adjacent to Nishi would not pose a significant health risk.
In Yolo County, probably not, at least not with respect to air quality and particulate matter. I’m not familiar with any industrial sites that might be health issues.
It is literally absurd to state that the site on this map is that much safer, that the particle matter has dissipated sufficiently, to make it that much less risky than Nishi.
I was not aware that Dr. Cahill had given his approval for housing development on the site of the Environmental Horticulture Department.
Scale and context added:
Very well put Roberta.
Not at all. It is the playing of a broken record of a very bad NIMBY song.
“It gets pretty easy to become cynical about this.”
Rather than cynicism, for me this brings up a keener awareness of an appreciation for possible unintended consequences.