On Tuesday night, there in the back of the room were three representatives from UC Davis, watching and taking notes. They said nothing during the meeting and when the consent item was over, they got up and walked out of the room.
A week before they might have seen the faces of many students staying late into the night. They would have heard the anguish and apprehension in their voices. They would have heard the words, “I am preparing for homelessness” come out of the mouth of one student and that specter raised by several others.
Maybe if Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter would have heard those cries for help, his response to the city wouldn’t have been “our response remains unchanged.”
Then again, maybe he’s got his feet half out the door and we will have to wait for the new chancellor this fall to expect leadership.
The story raised by Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee is telling. He told of the conversation he had with representatives from Dinerstein, who he said were perfectly happy to go up to eight stories if the city were willing. On the other hand, UC Davis is tearing down two-story buildings to build three-story buildings.
As Brett Lee explained to his colleagues, “I think that UC Davis is making an effort to increase on-campus housing, they’ve talked about tearing down some two-story complexes and turning them into three-story and four stories – predominantly three stories – and they’ve also talked about taking rooms and, instead of two people in the room, tripling them up.”
He said, “I just find it noteworthy that for an existing place that they plan to tear down and then rebuild, I find it somewhat surprising that they would tear down a two-story complex and replace it with a three-story complex.” He added that “with a great shortage of on-campus housing it seems a lost opportunity.”
Many in the community chimed in that Orchard Park would be a great place to densify.
As Mayor Robb Davis put it, “What we ask for (in the December letter) is we ask for an understanding for why greater density, greater height in particular, are not possible. But we also said, if they’re not, please help us understand your business model.”
He said the council wants to “deepen our understanding of the constraints faced by the university and the opportunities.” The mayor said, “My disappointment is that we’re no closer to understanding some of the reasons why than we were previously.”
Orchard Park becomes as much a symbol for the incoherent UC Davis housing policy as any. The fact of the matter is, there is nothing particularly unique about Davis’ story. Davis is a relatively small college town, impacted greatly by scarcity of rental housing and rapidly increasing enrollments.
But it seems, for whatever reason, UC Davis is unwilling to rise up to the challenge.
The fact is the problems of Davis are not unique. But with UC Davis taking on just 28 percent of the student population with housing, the situation is magnified.
Similar problems in San Luis Obispo have occurred with a scarcity of student housing, growth in rentals, and strict growth control policies. The difference is Cal Poly is doing far more to resolve their problem than is UC Davis.
Cal Poly’s Master Plan, for instance, calls for more dorms “with a goal of housing 65 percent of all students. Thirty-eight percent of Cal Poly students currently live on campus.”
UC Davis has so far only paid lip service to housing. But it is just lip service.
Greg Rowe’s calculations show we actually fall further behind under the current LRDP.
Mr. Rowe in a memo in February warns Bob Segar and Marge Dickinson of UC Davis: “Readers of the draft LRDP may erroneously infer that the goal of increasing the percentage of UCD students living on campus from 29% now to 40% in 2027-28 will reduce the number of UCD students living in the City of Davis.”
As he pointed out in his public comment, the LRDP “is going to do absolutely nothing to address (the housing needs), all they’re going to do is house 90 percent of the incoming students.
“UC is proposing to simply tread water and do nothing for additional housing between the 20-21 academic year and the end of the LRDP in 2027-28,” he said. “That’s just simply unacceptable.”
But it is a great deal worse than that. The current situation has students frantic for housing – worried about 13 percent annual rental increases, taking on multiple jobs, and month-long searches for housing.
And UC Davis’ response is to do nothing to change the situation – and in fact, make it worse.
Taking on 90 percent of student growth leaves another 600 to 700 new students without housing on campus. That may not sound like much but that is larger than the amount of beds at Sterling (540).
They reason that there is a 10 percent residual of students who live outside of the area – but they may be conflating preference for necessity in that assessment.
When they pledge to go up to 40 percent, that is simply a function of eating up the 90 percent of enrollment growth. At the same time, it leaves the university 4000 beds short of what the city has asked for.
Citizens have pointed out the availability of UC Davis land, but the reality is this is not even an availability issue – it is a poor management of existing housing land that is a bigger issue. Why go to only three stories when you are 4000 beds short in your projections?
Last summer I toured Poly Canyon Village to see what the realm of the possible was at the time. They house 2700 students on 30 acres – two-thirds the size of the vacant Nishi parcel. It seems that Cal Poly is far more serious about student housing than UC Davis is.
The question that remains is why? Why won’t UC Davis commit to building a facility to house 4000 to 5000 students and take the pressure off both the students and the community?
For those who argue this isn’t the job of universities – from the data we have, UC Davis really appears to be alone in this neglect.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,
Great article. UCD is not building enough high density housing. A good example is the wasted opportunity that UCD is planning which is to replace Orchard Park with low density student housing. Orchard Park is going to be demolished soon, yet UCD is proposing to under-utilize that important footprint of land, which is a perfect location to go much higher density, rather than the paltry 3 floors that UCD is proposing. This problem was pointed out by several of our City Council members just this past week at the Tuesday City Council meeting. So while all the other UC’s go higher to provide the most on-campus housing they can on-campus stepping-up to provide the most housing that they can for their students, UCD continues to underachieve and to shun sustainable planning.
On-campus housing is the solution and the best way to provide sustainable student housing because it can be dedicated long term for the stunts which also controls the costs long term. The UC Regents and all the other UC’s have figured this out and are building the highest density and the most student housing on-campus housing they can, except UCD which is the largest UC campus with 5,300 acres and has the worst history in the UC system of providing on-campus housing.
UCD continues to drag-its-heels and is trying to get way with the lowest density proposals which in turn provides the least amount of student housing that they can get away with. Plus, they want to go at a snails pace. However, they have art centers and new museums being built very quickly. UCD’s priorities are completely out-of-line because they certainly are not providing nearly enough of the housing needs for their students. Even the UCD students have been demanding for more on-campus housing.
UCD clearly needs new leadership since the current post Katehi administration of Interim Chancellor Hexter is obviously trying to continue that past era’s irresponsible plan to avoid building student housing and, instead continue trying to push UCD’s housing needs off the campus to Davis and surrounding communities. This is not sustainable planning. Furthermore, UCD’s inaction and lack of caring about the housing needs of the students is a shameful disservice to the UCD students. The ultimate hypocrisy is that while UCD claims to embrace “sustainable planning”, it instead is practicing “unsustainable planning” when it comes to student housing by not building the needed on-campus housing and causing major impacts on the students, Davis, surrounding cities, and the environment.
Davis is not building enough high-density housing. A good example is a wasted opportunity that Davis just approved which is to replace the Families First site with medium density housing. Families First is going to be demolished soon, yet Davis is proposing to under-utilize that important footprint of land, which is a perfect location to go much higher (7-8 floors), rather than the paltry 3-4 floors that Davis approved. So while most other cities provide appropriate housing for residents, Davis continues to underachieve and shun sustainable planning.
Mark,
7-8 floors high density housing in the City cannot work well surrounded by 1 and 2 story housing, and the other issue is the impacts of traffic, parking etc.
These much higher densities work well on campus because there are plenty of options where these higher densities can be located without the impacts that would be imposed in the City near existing residential.
Perhaps… but Sterling is far from being ‘surrounded’ by one and/or two story housing… we can grow “up”, or grow “out”… many are opposed to “growing out”, so, it’s time to grow up.
At LEAST 4-5 stories…
Eileen:
My comment was intended as humor…
Since you took it seriously, Sterling is surrounded by commercial properties with apartments across the street to the North (which should be redeveloped at some point in the not too distant future). It actually would be a good location for much taller and denser construction, if the City was truly interested in sustainable planning and in providing appropriate housing opportunities for all residents.
And, it was an industrial property, and could have potentially been re-used as such (or for a similar purpose), perhaps generating revenue for the city. Or, the existing facility could have been re-used, to provide a home for another social services organization (assuming the asking price reflected the actual value as zoned and constructed).
There are often missed “opportunity costs”, whenever a property is rezoned. There are also consequences resulting from ever-increasing density.
No, it was zoned for that purpose but was never used that way so claiming ‘re-use’ is false.
The new approved use will generate considerably more revenue for the City than anything that has come before. My guess is the City will receive more revenue from the property in the first year than the total revenues since it was annexed. Don’t allow the facts get in the way of your story, though.
It was on the market and nobody wanted it. If you think that would have been a better use, you should have purchased it. You didn’t.
Yep, and even more so when a property sits vacant for years.
Yep, and even more so when your neighbors don’t have an appropriate place to live.
If true, then you’re arguing over semantics. O.K. – it “could have been used “as zoned” (or perhaps a closely related pursuit).
Maybe. But doesn’t address the point regarding opportunity costs. (Something I’d think you might be interested in, given your self-proclaimed interest regarding the city’s finances.)
We don’t know what the asking price was. I doubt that “nobody wanted it”.
See comment above, regarding asking price.
My “neighbors” (by definition) have an appropriate place to live. However, I realize that UCD is unilaterally making plans to increase enrollment, without taking responsibility for that decision and the resulting impact on its own students (let alone the city as a whole).
Sure, Ron, the owners could have offered to ‘give it away,’ but then their Board of Directors would have been ignoring their fiduciary responsibility and opening themselves up to legal action. As I said before, you could have purchased the property…
Really? So you don’t count those who are crammed too many into too small space as your neighbors? How about those living on the street in our community? Perhaps that is why you don’t see any value in providing them with opportunities for appropriate housing since you apparently don’t view them as being worthy as your neighbors. No surprise. I imagine you wouldn’t want any of ‘those kind’ living near you, they might bring down your property values, right?
Who said anything about “giving it away”? (I am not personally in a position to purchase a property.)
My immediate neighbors do not meet that definition. Ultimately, “everyone” is our neighbor. Even those starving to death (or otherwise suffering) in other countries.
What an ignorant, inaccurate, and hateful thing to say. And, has nothing to do with rezoning the property for what is essentially a student dormitory which is better-suited for a campus location, and destroying an existing facility (built by an organization funded by taxpayers) that could have been re-used. If you’re actually concerned with “those kind” (as you call them), perhaps you should have been advocating for re-use of the facility, as is.
Mark,
Your accusations and hyperbola are really “over the top”. Your unfair and very inflammatory comments are so not on topic as you, again, attack anyone posting who does not agree with you.
So please calm down, because you are getting pretty intense with your accusations when others don’t agree with you. This is supposed to be a discussion. Not a “rank-out” session particularly when you revert to attacking those who have a different opinion than you. Your demeanor is very antagonistic and that is not appropriate nor helpful for the intent of this discussion.
Eileen:
As with before, I am very calm.
I was not the one who said:
I wouldn’t say that because it is not true. Some of my neighbors do not have appropriate places to live, and that is due in large part to you, Ron and all of your friends who do not want to build more housing in Davis. Our responsibility is to meet the needs of all of the residents of our community, not just the ones that you happen to like.
Did you read the words that you wrote about the Interim Chancellor? And you deign to call me ‘antagonistic?’
There are a few points of clarification that need to be made here:
1. Economies of scale work differently on campus because the land is free. On a site like Sterling or Lincoln 40, more units means prices go down (but not linearly, as I’ll explain). This is because land costs are being divided over a greater number of units. This starts to be mitigated by construction costs when the building has to switch from a wooden frame to something costlier–usually above 4 stories. But you can still see benefits going above four. On campus the land cost efficiency part of that equation is taken out–the U.C. already owns the land. So going above four stories will increase the cost. That said, I think it’s worth it. At the very least, it should be at four.
2. That didn’t happen here because a very small group of students fought tooth and nail against higher density. Why? I have absolutely no idea. Folks concerned about/committed to making UC Davis build more need to realize this and adapt accordingly.
Matt Palm,
As you say, UCD owns the land so that is the first major parameter, which actually greatly reduces the cost of building housing on-campus. Added to the option like all the other UC’s are doing, of using public-private-partnerships where the university does not even use its own capital funding, going more vertical is a non-issue. UCD’s free land is the asset that makes all of this high density on-campus housing possible, just like it is happening on other campuses like UC Irvine and UC San Diego.
When asking companies who build higher density they are clear that five stories and more are when it is the best economy of scale and any increase in cost is returned because of the multiplication out of the number of units as you go up.
So everyone needs to make clear to UCD that their low density proposals are not sustainable planning and not enough. UCD needs to go higher, like all the other UC’s are.
Yep, which is why we should be looking at 5+ stories in Davis. Greater housing efficiency. You might even call it ‘logical.’
Mark,
I have already covered this topic multiple times and you continue to ignore my response. But let me try again. Higher densities like 5 stories or higher work well on the campus due to the many options of sites on the enormous UCD campus where these high densities are compatible. However these much higher densities do not work as well in the City due the the traffic impacts and incompatibilities of the surrounding one and two story residential neighborhoods in the City.
Yes, you have, and you have been wrong every time you did so. It is the height of arrogance to demand something of your neighbor that you are unwilling to do yourself. If building taller and denser makes sense on campus, then it does equally well in town. Your claiming otherwise is complete nonsense, and disrespectful to the community and the region.
There are already four story apartments about 1000 feet away from the site of the proposed development.
Again, I have no idea which “neighbors” you’re referring to. If it’s students, then I would think that “caring folks” like you would have the most interest in encouraging student housing on campus, where it’s safer (e.g., no commute through town), and less-impactful on the town. If it’s permanently-homeless individuals (who generally aren’t students), then I would think that you’d be most interested in saving a facility such as the former Families First facility.
You’ve expressed no interest in either of those goals, and have instead launched derision and attacks on those who have worked toward those goals.
The Sterling project will provide a number of affordable housing units, including a specified number of units for very low income residents.
It is the height of arrogance to create a need (for more student housing), and then demand something of your neighbor that you are unwilling to do yourself.
That is true. (However, I also recall that you have significant reservations regarding the Affordable Housing program.)
Regardless, the site will no longer provide a combination facility/home for those who need special services, of some type. (Again, just one of the “opportunity costs”, resulting from the decision to create a student dormitory-type structure off-campus.)
Do you think that a social services facility (open to non-students) will now be located on campus, to “make up” for the loss? Or, perhaps an industrial/commercial space on campus, with revenues going to the city?
Or, do you think it’s more likely that UCD is playing its usual “waiting game”, and will perhaps point to structures such as Sterling as a justification to not increase housing on campus?
I would think that those who are most interested in providing more student housing would be “leading the charge” to encourage UCD to do more. Strangely, that doesn’t seem to be the case, so far. Perhaps that will change.
Hasn’t for quite some time now… if ever… there are serious questions about that… unless “special services” include child abuse…
What “loss”? Do you truly believe that FF effectively provided social/special services? If so, you neglect the record. And, FF was inconsistent with Industrial zoning, as would any new use for social/special services. Properly, if “re-zoning” is the issue, the site should be razed and an Industrial use sited there.
Perhaps it’s time to admit that “re-zoning” is not “the issue”? I think it’s time to be honest about what the ‘true issues’ people have.
No one is arguing that Families First didn’t mismanage their mission. (Is that really your point?) Does that mean that all social service organizations would, as well? (Seems to me that you’ve repeatedly argued for providing services/homes for permanently homeless individuals, for example.)
That is one of the options I mentioned, which will no longer be possible as a result of the decision made. I’d ask what your point is, but it seems that you don’t have one.
I agree with that, but probably not in the manner you’re suggesting.
For those who are truly concerned about the needs of students, I’d suggest they have a choice at this point. They can either continue trying to force the issue upon the city (with the resulting push-back), or they can join with those who advocate the best overall location for student housing (as they’ve been repeatedly invited to do).
Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that I know which choice some of those individuals will continue to make.
I will soon have to sign off for a period of time. Other things to take care of.
Or they can advocate for UCD to build more housing on campus, and for more rental housing to be built in the city.
Yes, you are correct that you are likely to continue to oppose private rental housing developments.
Well, you lost an opportunity to advocate for a more traditional apartment complex (which would appeal to more than just students), at the former Families First site. (Despite what some falsely state, Sterling will appeal almost exclusively to students who could have been accommodated on campus.)
Hmm. Let’s see, I can either engage in a detailed discussion regarding that statement, or just simply call it an outright lie. (I think I’ll choose the latter choice, in the interest of time/efficiency.)
The young adults that I know have lived in rental housing that was designed primarily for students. That’s what the Davis apartment rental market is comprised of. It is not necessary to build a “more traditional apartment complex” on that site. Groups of young adults live together in housing like Sterling, whether they happen to be UCD students, community college students, or part of the Davis workforce. It is actually a fallacy that this development is going to exclusively be occupied by UCD students. It is the master leased apartments around town that create that particular problem, and our Council needs to hold UCD to their apparent promise to stop using the master leases.
Which apartment development projects have you supported? I could be wrong. It’s a “lie” if I know I’m wrong and say it anyway. Happy to retract the statement if you can identify the rental housing projects you’ve publicly supported.
Ron:
I find your call here a little ironic. First, of all, even as a Families First site, it was an underutilized site in terms of the amount of people served on a site of its size. Second, it provided no benefit to the community – no taxes, no housing. In fact, as we now know, it was a net drain on city resources. When the scandal first hit, we learned just how many calls for service the site was generating.
So then in a city that lacks tax revenue and housing – it’s too biggest needs, you are calling for a continued use of a large plot of land to go to neither.
And ironic, because while you have railed against the University because it provides no taxes to the city, the crate uses provided no taxes to the city either.
I will take it that you concede the Industrial designation is a non-issue. The current re-zone approval is reversible. Yet, you say, “which will no longer be possible as a result of the decision made.” Patently untrue if folk could make a cogent argument for a reversal.
Of course not… you know that (or should)… please don’t try to be ‘cute’ or ‘bait’.
Gee, pretty sure that there is no such thing as “permanently homeless” (whatever you mean by that -profiling?) so can’t see how I ever made such an ‘argument’ that way… particularly for this site…
The existing facilities would need major renovations for such a use, Rancho Yolo would be even more outraged (but if they’re reading, you are the one apparently advocating for such repurposing of the site… unless you’re playing a clumsy rhetorical game), and I see no agency/organization on the horizon that would be in a position to fund the renovation/operation/maintenance of that particular site.
What do you think is the “manner” I’m ‘suggesting’? You’re probably wrong… stick with the issues about need for housing, student or otherwise, and where you feel it should be located, stop throwing up spurious justifications.
[self-moderated]
Howard:
My apologies. I just don’t have time to respond to nonsense.
I am most interested in providing rental housing for young adults. I don’t really care whether they are students or not.
Unfortunately, you’ve also pretty much previously acknowledged that you don’t care about much else, regarding city planning.
You clearly have not followed the many growth and development discussions I’ve participated in on the Vanguard over the last ten years.
David (to me):
Perhaps. But, a use such as that which occurred previously is quite intensive, requiring a large number of employees, etc. It probably is not practical to ensure high-density, in such a situation. And, it is a waste to destroy attractive, relatively new buildings (built by a taxpayer-funded organization).
Just wondering – do you have any plans to photograph the existing buildings, as well as their destruction?
The facility absolutely provided housing to those who lived there, and could have done so for others in need. Also, to clarify, you’re stating that “taxes” and “housing” are the only benefits that a social services organization (for example), can provide? In fact, didn’t Families First provide other services on the site (such as education)?
No argument there.
Well, it certainly could have provided more revenue as industrial/commercial, right? And, students can be housed on campus, right?
The “crate”?
OK, Ron, although I might be banished from the VG for this, your quote,
You hit a raw nerve/memory there! A few years back, I was walking to go pick up my car @ Goodyear, so was walking on the bike/ped path in front of FF… I heard yelling/crying and saw a guy ~ 25 years old, 240 lbs, literally sitting on a teenager (prone), and the kid was bleeding from nose and mouth… there was another guy and gal there, standing next. The teenager’s hands were being held behind his back
I asked if there was a problem (scene did not ‘look right’, duh)… they said no, he was just a ‘client’ (from FF) and he had ‘run off’ (maybe 50 feet from the site) and they were ‘dealing with it’… they identified themselves as FF “counselors”… I asked if Police had been called, and they said ‘not necessary, we have it under control’. Because I couldn’t ‘grok’ what was going on, I walked on about 50 feet, and I called PD… when they responded about 3 minutes later (I stayed at a distance, trying to figure out if I wanted to get in a more serious verbal and potentially physical altercation [3:1, and both guys had at least 50 lbs advantage… probably could have stood my own with the girl]), then I ‘moved on’… so, unless you have direct, personal knowledge of FF’s ‘achievements’, value to the community, please cut the ‘education’, ‘social services’ crap out of your self-righteous arguments/opinions about the FF ‘history’ @ the Sterling site and bogus zoning based on that.
I go with personal experience, over theory.
[NOT self-moderated!]
Apology to all, but one… should have counted to a thousand on that one, but that kind of physical abuse to a minor, is not something one forgets… guess I’m looking at it a similar way a Holocaust survivor descendent would if someone opined “didn’t they teach job skills to some of the internees?”
Let’s see, I can engage in a reasoned, lengthy discussion again (even though I have lots of other things to do today), or simply call this a “misleading statement”. (I think I’ll choose the latter choice. It should be noted that you deleted the word “almost” exclusively.)
Please cite any apartment complex (other than the student-oriented megadorms) that I have opposed.
My statement is not misleading, Ron. Students dominate the rental housing market in Davis, obviously — it’s a campus of 30,000 in a town of 65,000. So, duh. But young adults who rent here — I’ve been acquainted with a lot of them over the years — live in those apartments. It’s what’s available.
You might do best to stop asserting that I am misleading or that I am lying.
The most recent housing proposal that I am aware of your position on was Nishi. On that, you repeatedly called for the site to be sold to the university to be developed exclusively for students. (http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/04/nishi-gateway-serious-problems/#comment-312096)
So you actually opposed a housing proposal that would have had options for others, preferring that it be stictly for UCD students.
What was your position on The Cannery?
Again, I’m signing off soon. No time to argue against never-ending nonsense, today.
My main point remains. Those who are actually interested in student housing would probably find a more productive path forward, by focusing on UCD at this point. (Or, they can continue to argue and fight with neighbors, as more proposals in the city arise.)
I think I know which choice some will continue to make.
Absolutely nothing wrong with trying to get UCD to move from 90/40 to 100/50, although there is no evidence they will budge on that. Absolutely valid to press them to discontinue the master leases, to provide a timeline for that, and to provide a timeline for the housing construction they’ve promised.
But more proposals WILL arise in the city because more housing is needed in town as well as on campus. To cite UCD exclusively as the focus for housing, and oppose housing development in town, is harmful to those trying to rent in the current market. It’s not a binary choice of UCD or private rental housing. Both are needed. The higher-density each project is, the faster it helps mitigate the demand and reduce the shortage.
Don:
Again, there are consequences that result from “planning via vacancy rate”, especially when the need is driven primarily be UCD. I’ve pointed out some of those consequences (with just one example) in the thread, above.
When a site is converted to house almost exclusively students, the ability to address “other needs” that the city has is impacted. Unlike student housing, those needs cannot be addressed by UCD. In addition, advocating student housing far from campus has other impacts on the city, including financial (and non-financial) impacts (such as the subsequent need to commute “through town” to reach campus, which of course could have been avoided).
And again, the local vacancy rate is driven primarily by UCD. The need for student housing is driven completely by UCD.
In the meantime, I realize that you and others will continue your advocacy. But, I’m pretty sure that it will continue to be met with resistance, due to the consequences of that approach. (Not just from me.)
Have a good afternoon.
CCute.
Bit of a change in tone from, “In fact, didn’t Families First provide other services on the site (such as education)?”
Whatever…