DRAFT

Provost Advisory Council Notes

December 11, 2001

Attending: John Simpson, Cathy Sandeen, Leslie Sunell, George Brown, Lan Dyson, Lynda Goff, Tom Vani, Marty Chemers, Ed Houghton, Ron Suduiko, Meredith Michaels, Steve Kang, George Blumenthal, Bob Meister, Susan Gillman, Barbara Brogan, Frank Talamantes, David Kliger

Absent: Larry Merkley, Robert Miller, Wlad Godzich, Francisco Hernandez

Guests: Charlie Eadie, Laurie McCann, Paul Prokop

Staff: Beau Willis, Galen Jarvinen, Mary-Beth Harhen

Preliminary Results of the Growth & Stewardship Capacity Analysis

Vice Provost George Brown noted that the Growth & Stewardship Task Force has been meeting since May 2001 to develop a new physical master plan for the campus. The effort has been divided into four phases: (i) Identify the campus’ program requirements, (ii) undertake a capacity analysis of campus lands (particularly within existing campus “infill” areas and on the “north campus”) to accommodate those program requirements, (iii) develop and discuss a number of alternative scenarios, and (iv) decide preferred alternatives and document. The program requirements are informed by the campus’ current long-range (10 year) academic and academic support planning effort as well as specific analyses concerning the needs for housing, childcare, and recreation. As the planning moves into the 'alternatives' phase, planners will bring together the capacity requirements with program considerations, e.g., cluster graduate student housing in anticipation of the later construction of a graduate college.

Campus Planner Charlie Eadie outlined the G&S Task Force analysis process, reviewed the capacity maps, and made the following observations:

The capacity analysis was organized via three scenarios: (A) develop the north campus within the 1988 LRDP land use designations, (B) intensify the existing campus within the 1988 LRDP land use designations, and (C) redefine the 1988 LRDP land use designations in the north campus. These scenarios were depicted graphically for PAC.
In doing their capacity analysis, the consultants considered a number of determinants that included factors such as environmental conditions (e.g., slope, hydrology, etc.). The intersection of the constraints imposed by these factors help inform the capacity for development of campus lands.
Some initial sketches (designated scenarios A1, C1, C2, and C3) were reviewed to illustrate the types of development that might occur in the “north campus”; areas within the existing campus being studied for the potential of more intensive “infill” development (designated scenario B) were also reviewed.
The Task Force has a lot of work to complete in order to articulate fully the program requirements. The G&S program document started out as a compilation of the inventory of needs articulated by the 1988 LRDP supplemented by newer analyses of housing, recreation, and parking needs. The analysis of instructional and research needs based upon the campus’ long-range planning process as anticipating (and making provision for) I&R needs over the next several decades (e.g., research institutions, professional schools, etc.) must be incorporated into the G&S planning.
Other issues such as accommodating initiatives since the 1988 LRDP (e.g., an “events center”, preservation of the campus’ “historic district”), the financial feasibility of realizing campus housing goals, the environmental impacts of the various scenarios, traffic and circulation considerations of the scenarios, and development beyond 2010-11 are now being considered by the consultants and will be discussed within the Task Force.
Next steps for the G&S Task Force include a financial analysis of the scenarios that have been developed thus far, further articulation of the long-range academic requirements needed to inform the planning, and the development of specific land development scenarios that will inform a new campus physical master plan. The most recent timeline for the Task Force work reflects those next steps.

In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised:

It was noted that in scenarios C1, C2, and C3, the campus’ natural reserve would need to be reconsidered. Vice Provost Brown indicated that since the natural reserve is set aside for teaching and research, this reconsideration would need to occur as part of the campus’ academic planning. The Task Force is currently undertaking a review of the current academic uses of the natural reserve in order to inform this discussion.
PAC members asked that the Task Force identify venues where a substantial fraction of the campus community could gather for large events such as graduation, performances, etc. Planner Eadie indicated that OPERS is considering an events center that might accommodate up to 3,000 people. It was also noted that the potential of redesigning the Quarry seating was also under consideration.

Next steps.

Follow-up: As the G&S Task Force makes further progress in its work, additional reports will be brought to PAC.

Housing Issues

Housing has been an on-going topic of discussion within PAC and its subcommittees. Assistant Chancellor Sunell (chair of CWC) and Vice Chancellor Vani (chair of ACF) reviewed the CWC faculty and staff housing recommendations as well as the status of current and future housing development for students, faculty and staff.

Assistant Chancellor Sunell made the following observations, in addition to reviewing the recommendations in the report:

This year’s United Way report (Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 7, 2001) to the community highlighted housing affordability as one key quality of life indicators of concern to Santa Cruz.
There is a sense of urgency to the issue of housing in that it is affecting the campus’ ability to recruit and retain quality faculty and staff needed to carry out its mission, as well as attract/accommodate undergraduate and graduate students.

Vice Chancellor Vani also made the following observations:

Inclusion Area D will provide capacity for about 95 housing units; the campus is currently addressing a number of environmental issues associated with the site.
The campus is also considering a number of options for off-campus housing for faculty, staff, and students.

In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised:

The issue of setting priority for on-campus housing (e.g., who has priority for access to such housing, the balance between addressing the needs of faculty vs. staff, etc.) is a difficult one. In order to inform this discussion, CWC is undertaking an analysis of housing need among faculty and staff as well as looking into alternative ways of addressing that need (e.g., University-sponsored financing options for faculty and staff). The Senate Faculty Welfare Committee is also reviewing these issues.

Next steps.

Follow-up: The issue of housing should remain one that PAC considers, especially in its review of the G&S Task Force recommendations.

Information Updates

· Silicon Valley Center planning report was deferred until the January 22, 2002 meeting.

· CP/EVC Simpson noted that nearly all of the long-range plans submitted by principal officers were now posted on the campus’ Long-Range Planning Process website and he encouraged PAC members to review those plans.