DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

July 10, 2001

 

Attending:  John Simpson, Tom Vani, David Kliger, Lan Dyson, Ron Suduiko, Roger Anderson, Ed Houghton, John Hay, Susan Gillman, George Brown, Wlad Godzich, Meredith Michaels, Frank Talamantes, Barbara Brogan, Cathy Sandeen,

 

Absent:   Steve Kang, Marty Chemers, Larry Merkley, Bob Meister, Francisco Hernandez, Lynda Goff, Leslie Sunell

 

Staff and Guests: Linda Kittle, Beau Willis, Galen Jarvinen, Frank Zwart, Laurie McCann, Charlie Eadie

 

 

Growth and Stewardship Task Force Briefing

 

The purpose of the briefing was to highlight some issues that have been identified thus far by the Growth and Stewardship Task Force.  The task force has been asked to lead development of a new physical master plan for the main campus’ 2000 acres.  The task force recommendations and final report are targeted for June 2002 and will:

1)  consider functionality and capacity needs of the campus in the context of the 1988 LRDP, 2) consider major land use questions and the opportunities and risks they present, and 3) recommend a realistic timetable for physical growth.  To date, the task force has met three times; meeting agendas and notes are posted on the PAC web site, http://planning.ucsc.edu/pac/gstf.htm.  To aid the work of the task force, the architectural and planning firm Sasaki Associates, Inc. has been retained.

 

One of the drivers for this planning effort is the need to develop new housing for our students, faculty, and staff.  The 1988 LRDP designates several areas in the “north campus” area for colleges and graduate student housing as well as inclusion area development.  Charlie Eadie, director of campus and community planning, summarized the north campus planning issues with PAC.

 

In the discussion that followed, a number of points were raised.

  • Since the focus of many of the initial north campus planning studies underway involve environmental, circulation, and housing capacity issues, it is possible to make progress within the Growth and Stewardship Task Force in parallel with the current long-range academic and academic support planning process.  While these two major planning processes can proceed somewhat independently in the near-term, more detailed information about the future facilities needs of academic programs, student services and other academic support services, housing, etc., will need to be compiled as physical master planning becomes more specific.
  • The infrastructure cost associated with opening up the “north campus” is not yet known (because such cost analyses need to be based upon specific development scenarios rather than simply the application of standard costing formulas).  However, it is anticipated that the extension of roads, utilities, etc., will involve non-trivial costs.  Given these costs, the Task Force is also looking at in-fill alternatives (on already-developed campus lands).

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  PAC members are encouraged to keep apprised of the Task Force progress by periodically reviewing the materials posted on their web site, http://planning.ucsc.edu/pac/gstf.htm, and to attend task force meetings as guests. 

 

 

 

Member Items/Announcements

 

·       Budget Update.  Meredith Michaels provided members with a brief update on the status of the 2001-02 State budget.  The conference committee changes to the governor’s May revision include funding reductions intended to help build a more prudent reserve for contingency, but also includes funding for a number of additional items (e.g., one-time funding for the Silicon Valley Center).  While the budget does not include full funding for the partnership agreement (between UC and the governor), it does include funding for additional enrollment growth and for the buy-out of summer enrollments at UCB, UCLA, and UCSB.

  

In the discussion that followed, a number of points were raised.

    • It was noted that UCOP has just released the capital planning enrollment targets for each of the UC campuses through 2007-08.  These targets show that funding for an additional 7,100 FTE will be requested for 2002-03 (of which 500 FTE will be requested for Santa Cruz).  In addition, a funding request for the buyout of summer enrollments at the remaining UC campuses (3,225 FTE of which 315 FTE is for Santa Cruz) is planned.  There was a brief discussion about the implications of the somewhat aggressive growth targets at the other UC campuses relative to UCSC (Santa Cruz is scheduled to grow at about 500 students per year; other campus growth increments are as high as 1,300).

 

Next steps.

 

  • Follow-up:  PAC members are encouraged to keep apprised of the status of the UC budget by visiting the following web sites: