Before Assistant Vice Chancellor Bob Segar could present his update on Tuesday night, the cat was out of the bag. UC Davis sent out a release noting that they had updated the 2017 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and removed housing “from Russell Field while preserving capacity to accommodate 90% of enrollment growth in campus housing and 40% of the Davis-based students in campus housing.”

The plan continues to provide capacity to accommodate an additional 6,200 students, as well as an additional 475 faculty and staff in campus housing.

Russell Fields had become the focal point of community push-back. A group that formed in opposition to the proposal that was placed into the LRDP last spring is Friends of Russell Blvd. Fields.

They issued a statement late Tuesday, indicating appreciation for UC Davis’ “decision to not build on Toomey, Howard, or Russell Fields and to instead build housing elsewhere on campus.”

In the statement, they indicate, “UC Davis has come to understand that the IM fields on Russell Blvd. are greatly valued by the broad community. The fields are an important heritage shared by both the City and campus worthy of saving in their current lively and much loved state. We look forward to many more years of rugby, frisbee, lacrosse, soccer, dog walking, Picnic Day, Special Olympics, golf, and all of the many other activities on these gracious level playing fields. We hope this is the first step in building an ongoing win-win collaboration joining the City of Davis, UC Davis, students and city residents.”

They continue, “Going forward it is imperative that this progress of saving Russell Field is not undone by creating a storm water detention basin that would severely restrict or prohibit current uses of the field.”

However, there are points of opposition in the LRDP that remain.

During his presentation, Bob Segar indicated that “the overriding issue of community concern is housing.” The projected student enrollment by 2027 is 39,000. He called that number “a snapshot of the future that says, ‘what if we grew to that size, what does it take?’”

“We are withdrawing all housing proposals from the Russell Field area as a part of this plan,” he indicated. That statement drew applause from the audience.

One of the points he made is that the plan is really a redevelopment plan where they are taking existing low-density housing, tearing it down to build higher density housing. The map shows there are about five key areas where the university is building additional housing.

At Orchard Park, the plan calls for 900 additional students. At Cuarto, about 300 additional students. At Segundo about 800 additional students. At Tercero about 700 additional students. And at Solano Park, about 500 additional students at the apartments and 600 at Solano field.

Mr. Segar indicated that only at West Village are they actually proposing to build on open fields now. The West Village plan calls for an additional 2250 in students with another 475 units for faculty and staff.

Bob Segar also addressed some other controversial issues. He indicated that the current plan retains capacity to address 90 percent of enrollment growth projected in the draft plan. “That is a much more ambitious housing target than the campus has ever projected before,” he said, with almost 7000 students being added in the next decade to bring the campus population to 39,000 by 2027.

Sixty-two hundred of those new students would be housed on campus if the university adheres to the plan. “The result would be 40 percent of the student housing for the total student enrollment at the Davis campus compared to an on-campus housing today of about 29 percent.”

The city document calls for the number to be 100 percent of all new growth and 50 percent of all students to be housed on campus.

Colin Walsh, representing Friends of Russell Blvd. Fields, states to the Vanguard, as indicated above, “Friends of Russell Blvd. Fields appreciates UCD’s decision to not build on Toomey, Howard, or Russell Fields and to instead build housing elsewhere on campus. He continues, “The preservation of the Toomey, Howard and Russell Fields is a huge victory for the people of Davis.

The statement continues, “We are however disappointed to learn the campus continues to resist building student housing on par with most other UC Campuses. The proposed ‘40% of the Davis-based students’ to be housed on campus pales in comparison to the 50% most other UCs are striving for.

“There is a backlog of on-campus housing need that has not been provided yet by UCD, significantly impacting the Davis community,” Mr. Walsh said. “Even Interim Chancellor Hexter recently admitted to the UC Regents that UC Davis has ‘completely saturated’ the Davis housing market, leading to extremely low vacancy rates. Davis is the largest UC at 5,300 acres and unquestionably has room for both the Russell Blvd. fields and more student housing.”

Bob Segar explained where their figures come from. He said that their data shows that only 90 percent of all students live either on campus or in the Davis community. “So if that holds and about 10 percent live outside of Davis for whatever reason they choose, we are essentially housing our enrollment growth on campus in this plan.”

Critics contend that this is a false argument. The 10 percent is not necessarily a fixed number and represents the capacity of housing that is not currently addressed by campus and community supplies, or represents the unaffordability and unavailability of housing on the campus and in the Davis market.

Mr. Segar stated, “This on-campus housing goal also assumes that the university would no longer be relying on master leases of apartment buildings in the city which would return those properties to the open market.”

The university previously had leased part or all of some apartments in town as they waited for the construction of new housing. This was a point of concern raised by the city, concerned that the master lease system cost the city property tax revenue.

The intent now is to “vacate those master leases and return those properties to the market,” he said.

Mr. Segar also clarified the approach they would take toward the Nishi property. He indicated their past participation in the Nishi planning process, which also included a location for a roadway and bikeway campus connection.

“The draft LRDP will analyze the Nishi project as a component of the expected cumulative growth, because it would be deemed to be a foreseeable project because of the city approval,” he said. This would “preserve the opportunity for a roadway, bikeway and open space connection between the Nishi property and the campus.”

This was, again, something that the city asked for.

In sum, the current draft of the LRDP accommodated community-expressed concerns about the development of the Russell Fields and addressed concerns by the subcommittee about the master leases and the Nishi connection.

Robb Davis, in his comments, noted his desire to see a housing project at Nishi – obviously, that will be a controversial item for the community as the project was narrowly rejected in June, and this LRDP keeps that door open for a potential campus connection.

By the end of the discussion, council members restated many points made by the public, which included the desire for a binding stipulation that no building of any kind would happen on the Russell Blvd. fields, and that the university densify its new housing as much as possible, pointing out that providing housing for 100 percent of new students still leaves Davis with virtually a non-existent vacancy rate.

Council also expressed the need to make the council subcommittee a permanent liason to the LRDP process, and for the city to seek future collaborative agreements with the university.

The review period begins on January 4 and runs to February 3. There is a scoping meeting scheduled for January 25.

—David M. Greenwald reporting