UCSC
Long Range Development Plan
2005-2020
Public Workshop #1
Discussion Items
UCSC Inn and Conference Center
November 5, 2003
Below are comments/questions raised during the discussion session following the presentation
organized by topic. David McGregor of Cooper, Robertson & Partners (CRP), moderated the
discussion, notes recorded by Bill MacIntosh, CRP.
Land and Environment
Question:
How large an increase in building area for the campus is being considered in the
plan?
Response: David McGregor responded that the amount of additional building area for the
plan is not known at this time. Once an enrollment level has been selected in
March, and program assumptions identified for academic, research, housing, and
other areas, the amount of additional building area can be determined for the
2005-2020 timeframe of the LRDP.
Comment:
Noted the significance of sustainable design and the importance for sustainability
in the LRDP. UC Regents green building initiative noted. How can UCSC be an
example for the UC system of sustainable design? UCSC Green Building
Working Group and UCSC faculty can be a resource. Need to consider full life
cycle costs for buildings.
Response: Cooper, Robertson noted the LRDP would include a sustainability assessment, to
be done by Arup, a sub-consultant working with CRP. While building design is
not part of the LRDP scope, the approach to infrastructure, environment,
transportation and land use elements of the plan will reflect sustainable design
principles. Sustainability at the planning stage can decrease life cycle costs.
Question:
Will the LRDP draw from the original 1963 plan? The original intent and vision
of this set the groundwork for what makes the campus special today.
Response: David McGregor, Yes, the consultant team has looked at the plan and will
consider the original principles many, which continue to be carried forward. The
size of the original plan- at 27,000 students- would be hard to realize well today.
Question:
What has happened to plans to develop the north part of the campus?
Response: Charlie Eadie, director of UCSC Campus and Community Planning, the current
LRDP calls for development in parts of the north campus and the LRDP update
will most likely consider the land north of the existing development. UCSC is
also looking at regional sites to achieve educational opportunities.
Comment:
The significance was noted of the campus natural reserve and its academic
programs and research functions.
Comment:
Opportunities for creating a center of campus appear limited. The campus core is
largely over limestone caves, making construction very difficult. More
knowledge of geological conditions is needed.
Response: While no caves have been identified at the center of the campus, karst geologic
features do require careful building siting and design. The area north of the
existing developed campus has better soils for building, including schist bedrock.
Question:
Is there a plan for which inclusion area will be developed first?
Response: Charlie Eadie noted Inclusion Area D is currently being planned for development
of faculty/staff housing. There are no development plans for the other inclusion
areas.
Comment:
Concern that campus core will be too developed and lose its character.
Response: Alex Cooper, CRP, noted new academic space can’t be too far from the current
core for various reasons, e.g., travel distance for students during class change
however too much density is not desirable either.
Comment:
Need to look not just at the campus, but also at the place of the campus in the city,
and its integration.
Response: Alex Cooper noted this was a great observation. The LRDP will look at UCSC
in the context of its surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole.
Housing
Comment:
Consider housing fewer students on campus as the 50% of students who live offcampus enrich the life of the city. This integration of the university and Santa
Cruz is positive.
Comment:
The plan should consider an inter-faith center, considered in an earlier plan, but
not realized. The plan should also consider opportunities for intergenerational
housing - senior citizen and students - on university land. This mix can help
make housing more affordable for each group.
Comment:
Concern about the future of the role of the residential colleges. Will the focus on
academics within the colleges lessen?
Response: David McGregor, the residential college model will be reviewed and aspects will
most likely be carried forward in the plan.
Transportation
Comment:
Concern that Master Transportation Study (MTS) has been settled before the
campus plan is done.
Response: Gene Arner, director of city planning, responded that the MTS is a study, not a
plan. It will inform the city’s General Plan, which will be coordinated with
UCSC’s LRDP.
Comment:
Concern that MTS does not acknowledge West Side traffic problems. Current
congestion is a safety problem and diminishes quality of life for residents. MTS
has tabled alternative access plans. With campus surrounded on 3 sides by open
space and access only via the west side residential area, creative solutions need to
be considered.
Comment:
The plan should consider an option for no car access to the campus.
Comment:
Concern about the parking at the bottom of the campus. Students don’t
necessarily drive onto campus but many drive and park near the campus and take
the transit/shuttle onto campus. Need creative solution to parking problem.
A suggestion that students be able to buy a limited number of city residential
permits, to subsidize the cost of permits for local residents.
Comment:
Eastern access to campus should be studied as part of LRDP. Even though this is
a “third rail”, the LRDP is the type of study where this should be addressed.
Consider creative options: park and ride, shuttle, gondola. Consider using
Golden Gate Park as a model.
Comment:
Mass transit off campus has shortcomings for students. Waits are too long.
Options for bicycle shuttles are good but need to be expanded.
Comment:
Make it hard for cars to go on campus, easy for alternative modes of travel,
e.g., transit.
Infrastructure
Question:
Will the UCSC LRDP consider the effects of campus growth on city
infrastructure such as roads, water usage, power?
Response: Yes. Off-campus effects on transportation, utilities and infrastructure are
an important part of the planning scope.
Other
Comment:
Cowell Ranch activities, including the ranch, railway, kilns, have national
historical significance. The plan should include a diagram of these sites and
respect these sites.
Question:
What opportunities are there to provide informal insights and comments for the
LRDP process?
Response: The project will have a web site [www2.ucsc.edu/ppc/planning/lrdp-2005.html],
and comments can be sent by email to [lrdp-admin@ucsc.edu].
Written comments
Comment:
Protect views to and across the meadow
Comment:
Maintain the concept and goal of keeping development out of the meadows,
particularly the “great meadow”. Watch out for sink holes.
Comment:
Transportation planning for the University should not consider proposals for a
new road across the Pogonip. Doing so will inevitably start a political war
between the University and the city.