January 15, 2001

Memorandum

To: Campus Planning Committee

From: Ruben Armiñana, President

Subject: Notes from the November 28, 2000 Campus Planning Committee Meeting

Master Plan Revision for Student Housing Growth

Deborah DuVall briefed the committee on the current needs related to student housing on campus including a recommendation from the Student Housing Growth Task Force that the campus expedite a new student housing addition that would accommodate at least 900 students. The profile that has been developed over recent months concerning enrollment growth issues anticipates that there will be a growth of 1200 from the current level of freshmen by the year 2005, of which 80% (960) will require housing on campus. Additionally, there is currently 180 students in triple accommodations. This represents a need for 1140 new accommodations. It has also become apparent that the continuing students can no longer find housing in the off-campus community and want to remain on campus in their second and third years. Many of the 900 residents currently housed in Sauvignon Village want to renew their contracts for their second year but will receive a letter shortly telling them that they will not be able to do so. The task force warns that the lack of housing will directly influence enrollment growth and so puts forth the recommendation for another complex similar to Sauvignon Village. The current approved Master Plan contains a complex for 400 beds in what is currently Parking Lot D. This site is not large enough to house more than that number. Therefore, the committee was asked to consider a revision to the Master Plan that would site a larger complex at a different site.

Bruce Walker presented an alternative site plan for the committeeÕs consideration. The proposed site is in the southeast corner of the campus in what is currently planned for an expansion of Parking Lot F and a soccer stadium. The proposed plan relocates the soccer stadium north of the new housing site. The proposed housing site plan calls for a complex of 450 two-bedroom apartments at 1,000 square feet each. The project also includes the addition of 900 parking spaces for residents, some road modifications to the southeastern campus entrance and a community building with a swimming pool. The proposed Master Plan revision includes retaining the parking in Lot D.

Student representative Scott McClintock emphasized the difficulties being experienced by students in finding off-campus housing and the high costs of anything that can be found. He warned the committee of the trauma that would be experienced by students who were going to be receiving a letter telling them that they could not renew their housing contract and had only a few months to find new housing. He asked the committee about alternatives that could be presented to those students.

Philip McGough stated that faculty discussion was taking place around the subject of affordable housing and the need for faculty input into the type of housing in future housing developments in order to create a variety of housing styles. The committee discussed methods for keeping the costs down by giving students multiple contract options and the methods for involving faculty in the detail of the housing complex design as it goes forward.

President Arminana stated that he considered this a housing crisis for the campus student population and that he was committed to moving a housing development project as expeditiously as possible.

The motion was put before the committee to approve a Master Plan revision to include a new site for a housing growth project as presented by Bruce Walker. The committee approved the proposal unanimously.

Master Plan Revision for a Public Safety Building and a Parking/Information Cottage

Laurence Furukawa-Schlereth asked the committee to consider a new Master Plan site for a Public Safety Building and a small building to supply parking and information services. He explained the organizational changes and efficiencies taking place in the department that would further define the services supplied by these two entities and pointed out that their current locations were temporary and scheduled to be removed with the completion of the Salazar renovation and the demolition of the temporary facilities. Additionally, the small information booth at the front of the campus could not be occupied year-round in inclement weather.

Bruce Walker presented a minor Master Plan revision with a proposed site for a small 3,000 square foot building to house the Public Safety department adjacent to the Central Plant on the intersection of Redwood Circle and Vine. The proposal included a small 150 square foot building for the Parking Information function on Redwood just south of Person Theatre.

The committee approved this proposed minor Master Plan Revision unanimously.

Signage at Vine Street Entrance

Laurence Furukawa-Schlereth reminded the committee that last year they had approved Phase I of the Signage Improvement project based on a recommendation from a Task Force with student, faculty and staff representation. As part of that phase of the project, the building identification signs, the parking lot signs and the street identification signs were replaced. The second phase of the Signage Improvement project was to be the campus entrance signs and some interior directional signs. He explained that, although this stage of the project has not yet begun, part of the Sauvignon Village project includes an entrance sign at the Vine street entrance. Bruce Walker presented the sign designed by the Sauvignon project architect for committee approval with the understanding that it could influence the design of other entrances.

Several committee members expressed concern that the design as presented did not allow for good pedestrian and bicycle circulation on both sides of the Vine street entrance. Consensus was that this was an important part of the design and should be incorporated into the design through proper consultation with public safety and the transportation advisory committee.

Richard Gale stated that he had been approached by faculty who were not happy with the design of the building identification sign and preferred the old redwood signs, such as the one at the South Sequoia entrance. He felt it was important to present any sign changes to the campus community in such as way as to gather consultation before changes were made.

Laurence Furukawa-Schlereth pointed out that the first phase of signage conducted extensive consultation before the building identification signs were changed, including pilot signs so that there could be a campus viewing.

Richard Gale ask that we continue consultation during the second phase as well.

The motion was put to the committee that they approve the entrance sign to Sauvignon Village with improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The committee approved unanimously.

CPC Minutes 2000-2001
Updated 2008-01-17
AFD.WebContact@Sonoma.edu