an advisory services panel report university of california ... · joaquin valley (also known as the...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

University of CaliforniaMerced, California

Urban LandInstitute$

University of CaliforniaMerced, CaliforniaA Vision for a Sustainable Community

April 7–12, 2002An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance

the total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research thatanticipates emerging land use trends and issuesand proposes creative solutions based on thatresearch; provides advisory services; and pub-lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminateinformation on land use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 17,000 members and associates from 60 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of the landuse and development disciplines. Professionals rep-

resented include developers, builders, propertyowners, investors, architects, public officials, plan-ners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys,engineers, financiers, academics, students, andlibrarians. ULI relies heavily on the experience ofits members. It is through member involvementand information resources that ULI has been ableto set standards of excellence in developmentpractice. The Institute has long been recognizedas one of America’s most respected and widelyquoted sources of objective information on urbanplanning, growth, and development.

This Advisory Services panel report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2002 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

ULI Catalog Number: ASM049

Cover rendering by Christopher Grubbs.

Merced, California, April 7–12, 2002 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili-tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford-able housing, and asset management strategies,among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have con-tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-cally include several developers, a landscapearchitect, a planner, a market analyst, a financeexpert, and others with the niche expertiseneeded to address a given project. ULI teamsprovide a holistic look at development problems.Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-ber with previous panel experience.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day and a half of hour-longinterviews of typically 80 to 100 key communityrepresentatives; and a day and a half of formulat-ing recommendations. Many long nights of discus-sion precede the panel’s conclusions. On the finalday on site, the panel makes an oral presentationof its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. Atthe request of the sponsor, a written report isprepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-

holders in the project under consideration, partic-ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended to pro-vide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Project StaffRachelle L. LevittSenior Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services

Nancy Zivitz SussmanSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Jason BellPanel Coordinator

Michael PawlukiewiczDirector, Environment and Policy Education

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Libby HowlandManuscript Editor

James A. MulliganAssociate Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Diann Stanley-AustinDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


Both personally and on behalf of ULI–theUrban Land Institute, the panel membersand staff wish to express their deep appre-ciation for the support and cooperation of

the regents of the University of California in thispanel process. They also thank the following peo-ple, some for their encouragement, some for theirguidance, some for their hard work on the panel’sbehalf, and some for their hospitality:

Richard C. Atkinson, president, University ofCalifornia;

Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, chancellor, UC Merced;

Judith Hopkinson, regent, University of California;

Odessa Johnson, regent, University of California;

Joanne Kozberg, regent, University of California;

Jeffrey Seymour, regent, University of California;

Greenlaw “Fritz” Grupe Jr.;

Clifford Graves, vice chancellor for physical plan-ning, UC Merced;

James Erickson, vice chancellor for university ad-vancement, UC Merced;

Christopher Adams, campus planner, UC Merced;

Robert Badgley, campus infrastructure manager,UC Merced;

James Grant, director of communications, UCMerced;

Patti Istas, public information officer, UC Merced;

Pamela Moody, assistant to the vice chancellor,UC Merced;

Armik Allen, director of special events and pro-tocol, UC Merced;

Leigh Waltman, administrative assistant, UCMerced;

Robert Smith, UC development director, Countyof Merced;

Bill Cahill, assistant city manager, City of Merced;

Bob Carpenter, UC Committee/trustee, UCMerced;

Jim Cunningham, UC Committee/trustee, UCMerced;

Jack Collins, trustee, UC Merced;

Ralph Ochoa, trustee, UC Merced;

Joseph Levy, trustee, UC Merced;

George Kelley, trustee, UC Merced;

Paul Lo, trustee, UC Merced;

Dan Doody, Virginia Smith Trust;

Ken Robbins, Virginia Smith Trust;

Brian Haddix, California Environmental Protec-tion Agency;

Steve Johnson, Packard Foundation;

Jean Driscoll, Packard Foundation;

Tammeil Gilkerson, Greenlining Institute;

Arnie Sowell, State and Consumer ServicesAgency;

Mike Lynch, Office of Congressman Gary Condit;

DeeDee D’Adamo, Office of Congressman GaryCondit;

Richard Cummings, Great Valley Center;

Valerie Gordon, The Nature Conservancy;

Urla Garland, Sierra Club;

Kathleen Crookham, supervisor, Merced County;

Joe Rivero, supervisor, Merced County;

Tom Hawker, County Bank;

Tony Altfeld, city manager, City of Atwater;

Jesse Brown, Merced County Association of Governments;

Lou Martinez, Merced County Economic Develop-ment Corporation;

Don Bergman, Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce;

Nancy Slater, executive director, Merced CountyFarm Bureau;

Ben Duran, president, Merced College;

Acknowledgments


Sylvia Smith, assistant superintendent, MercedUnion High School District;

Larry Johnson, Merced College;

Joan Sortini, Merced Multicultural Arts Center;

Bob Taniguchi, Merced College;

Dan Pope, Pacific Gas and Electric Company;

Mike Salvadori, Century 21 Realty;

Mike Gallo, Joseph Gallo Farms;

Sharon Dicker;

Betty Hunt;

Curtis Riggs, VIA Adventures; and

Nina Zagaris, Merced County CourthouseMuseum.

The panel thanks also those people it interviewed—local residents, public officials, members of theuniversity community, private business leaders,and representatives of nongovernmental organi-zations and interest groups—for the informationand perspectives they provided on the subtletiesand complexities of this important project.


Contents

ULI Panel and Project Staff 8

Foreword: The Project, the Issues, and the Panel’s Assignment 9

Summary of Findings and Recommendations 17

Development Potential 19

Planning and Design 26

Development Strategies 39

Implementation Strategies 42

Conclusion 46

About the Panel 47


Panel ChairGadi Kaufmann, Managing Director and CEORobert Charles Lesser & Co.Rockville, Maryland

Panel MembersDouglas W. BetzSenior PartnerWoolpert LLCDayton, Ohio

Myron P. Curzan, CEOUniDevBethesda, Maryland

George de GuardiolaPresidentde Guardiola Development Inc.Jupiter, Florida

Robert J. GardnerManaging DirectorRobert Charles Lesser & Co.Los Angeles, California

John James GoldasichPresidentJ.J. Goldasich & AssociatesBoca Raton, Florida

Paula K. KonikoffConsultantNew York, New York

Bob KronewitterSenior ArchitectCivitasDenver, Colorado

James E. MeadowsPrincipalMeadows & AffiliatesSan Francisco, California

Steve NollPrincipal-in-ChargeDesign Workshop Inc.Stateline, Nevada

Nikolai J. SklaroffVice PresidentSalomon Smith BarneySan Francisco, California

ULI On-Site StaffMichael PawlukiewiczDirector, Environment and Policy Education

Jennifer CogginsSpecial Events Coordinator

ULI Panel and Project Staff


The project—development of a 2,000-acrecampus of the University of California atMerced in California’s San Joaquin Valleyand development of an adjacent 2,000-acre

planned community referred to as the UniversityCommunity—involves a number of significant fac-tors and issues:

• a world-class public university system;

• the largest intact vernal pool habitat area inCalifornia (vernal pools are temporary or sea-sonal wetlands that provide habitat for manyspecies);

• a highly productive agricultural region;

• an economically depressed region;

• a fast-growing region with an ethnically diversepopulation; and

• increasing pressures for change in the tradi-tional ways of life in the region.

The New CampusIn 1988, the Board of Regents of the Universityof California launched a search for a site for anew University of California campus in the SanJoaquin Valley (also known as the Central Valley).With a population currently at 3.5 million and ex-pected to be approximately 10 million by 2020, theSan Joaquin Valley is California’s fastest-growingregion. College students from this region, as theregents noted, are less than half as likely as theircounterparts in the rest of the state to attend theUniversity of California. One reason for this isthe lack of a University of California campus inthe region. Moreover, the region’s overall edu-cational level is low. For example, only 5 percentof Merced County’s high-school graduates go onto attend college.

A site for the new campus was selected in 1995.Owned by the Virginia Smith Trust (an educa-tional trust), the site is outside the city of Merced.The proposed campus would eventually serve25,000 students and it would be developed simul-taneously with a planned community—jointly de-veloped by the university and the Virginia SmithTrust—that would serve a population of approxi-mately 25,000 to 30,000.

Subsequent studies revealed that the location pro-posed for the campus was near the center of thelargest intact vernal pool complex in the state.According to scientists and planners, a campus on

Foreword: The Project, the Issues, and thePanel’s Assignment

Campuses of the Univer-sity of California.

San Diego

RiversideSanta Barbara Los Angeles

MercedSanta Cruz

San FranciscoBerkeley

Davis

Irvine

C E N T R A L R E G I O N

CA

LI

FO

RN

IA

CA

LI

FO

RN

IA


Hewlett Foundation awarded a gift of $2 millionto assist in managing the natural reserve.

The Study AreaThe UC Merced site includes 2,000 acres locatedapproximately six miles northeast of the city ofMerced, which is on State Route 99 roughly half-way between the Stockton/Modesto area andFresno. The UC site includes 200 acres owned byMerced County.

UC Site The UC site will have three major components: amain campus (910 acres), a campus land reserve(340 acres), and a campus natural reserve of ver-nal pool habitat (750 acres).

Main Campus. The main campus will incorporateall the program elements that the university canforesee being needed for a complete new campus,including student housing, faculty housing, acade-mic uses, recreation and athletic uses, research

the initially selected site would adversely affectthe vernal pools and perhaps stimulate growth inthe region that could affect areas that are evenmore environmentally sensitive.

In 2001, the university proposed to relocate thecampus about two miles to the southwest of theoriginal site, on the western margin of the vernalpool area and closer to prime agricultural land.In that the university wished to maintain itsvision of a planned community next to the cam-pus, the relocation of the campus required plan-ning changes in Merced County to accommodatethe new community on land that currently is be-ing used for grazing and row crops.

In March 2001, the Packard Foundation endorsedthe new approach and awarded a grant of morethan $11 million to assist the university in acquir-ing the land for the new campus and for an adjoin-ing natural reserve of more than 5,000 acres toprotect the vernal pool habitat. In May 2001, the

UC Merced vicinity andland planning map.

140

59

99

VirginiaSmithTrust

UCMerced

UniversityCommunity

LakeYosemite

Yosemite Avenue

Cam

pus

Park

way

Bellevue Road

Lake

G S

tree

t

Santa Fe Road

Key

City SpecificUrban Development Zone

City of Merced

Proposed Campus Parkway


facilities, student-support services, open space,parking, and the circulation system required toserve these uses.

Campus Land Reserve. To accommodate unknownfuture development needs, the university has setaside 340 adjoining acres for which is has no pre-sent need. The campus land reserve adjoins themain campus area to the east and north. While inreserve, this land will be fenced to control accessfrom the main campus and will continue to beavailable for grazing and as a buffer for the cam-pus natural reserve.

Campus Natural Reserve. The land that the univer-sity proposes to set aside as a campus natural re-serve includes vernal pool habitat and grasslandhabitat containing rare biological resources, un-usual landforms, and soils of geological interest.Maintained permanently in an undeveloped state,this 750-acre reserve would be dedicated to scien-tific research and education. The campus naturalreserve would be managed in a manner consistent

University community siteboundaries.

Fairfield Canal

Le Grand Canal

Rasca

l Cr eek

LakeYosemite

Bellevue Road

Golf

Roa

d

Lake

Roa

d

Dunn Road

MainCanal

Yosemite Avenue

Key

UniversityCommunity

UC MercedMain Campus

Campus Land Reserve

Campus Natural Reserve

Figure 1Campus Land Requirements*

Acres, IncludingCirculation

Main CampusAcademic Core 157Student Services 23Student Housing 250Faculty Housing 90Campus Support 56Athletics and Recreation 148Parking 147On-Campus Research 39Total Main Campus 910Campus Land Reserve 340Total Developed Land 1,250Campus Natural Reserve 750Total Acres 2,000

*As designated in the University of California’s long-rangedevelopment plan for the UC Merced campus.

with management practices in the University ofCalifornia’s Natural Reserve System (NRS). Itmay be proposed for inclusion in the NRS in or-der to make its valuable resources available to thelarger research community. (At present, there isno NRS site in the San Joaquin Valley.)

The Surrounding CommunityAgriculture is the economic mainstay of Mercedand most other communities in the San JoaquinValley. Unemployment rates in the region’s coun-ties typically range from about 12 percent to 17percent, with seasonal variations tied to agricul-tural harvests. Currently, the city of Merced

ranks top (331st out of 331) in unemploymentamong U.S. municipalities, according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics. On the other hand,Merced County is one of the richest centers ofagricultural production in the world. In 2000, itscrop revenues exceeded $1.5 billion.

The Panel’s AssignmentThe panel was asked to assess the effectivenessof the UC Merced long-range development plan(LRDP) in—and to make recommendations for—achieving the university’s vision and goals for thecampus and the associated University Commu-nity. The UC regents and the UC Merced chancel-lor have established the following vision and goalsfor the campus and the University Community:

1. Capture the wonder and majesty of the Uni-versity of California by

• providing a sense of place;

• making the substance, quality, and character ofthe university evident and pervasive;

• providing a setting that through its beauty andambience promotes a contemplative spirit andthe intellectual growth of students and faculty;and

• attracting top-quality faculty, staff, and students.

2. Embody principles and practices of the 21stcentury, including

• incorporating state-of-the-art technology forstudent-support services, faculty research andteaching, and administrative efficiency;

• integrating technology with Web and wirelessservices to enhance access to information andthe flexibility of information resources;

• providing easy access to global business, re-search, and information networks;

• developing throughout the Central Valley off-campus sites that offer an array of educationaland career development services for K-12students, college-age students, and youngprofessionals;


Figure 2Population, 1980–2010

1980 1990 2000 2005 2010

City 36,499 56,216 65,000 85,000 100,88010-Mile Radius – 112,947 122,462 130,080 –County 134,558 178,403 203,560 217,280 231,250

Source: UC Merced briefing book, April 2002.

Figure 3Race, 1999

City County(percent) (percent)

White 37.8% 40.6%Hispanic 41.4 45.4Black 6.0 3.6Asian and Pacific Islander 11.3 6.8American Indian 0.6 0.5Other 2.9 3.1


Figure 4Households, 1999

Number Personsof Households per Household

City 20,435 3.0610-Mile Radius 41,352 3.12County 63,815 3.25



• ensuring ease of interaction among faculty, staff,and students in a pedestrian-oriented, environ-mentally responsible campus; and

• promoting a sense of safety and security with-out physical fortifications.

3. Invite and welcome the young people of theCentral Valley and from throughout California by

• being accessible and welcoming to all;

• celebrating diversity, mutual understanding,and respect;

• providing support facilities and services thatare responsive to a diverse population;

• promoting knowledge and understanding of dif-fering cultures and global perspectives, in theclassroom as well as in extracurricular activi-ties; and

• highlighting drama, visual arts, and music asmechanisms that speak to all students.

4. Relate to the Central Valley setting by

• creating a campus architecture that responds toregional and local climate conditions and pro-motes maximum outdoor activity;

• using design principles, materials, colors, andshapes and forms in the campus buildings thatreflect and enhance the natural features of thevalley and foothills; and

• developing patterns of land use that respect theland, water, and natural resources of the site.

5. Remain sensitive to the environment andachieve a high level of resource conservation andenvironmental preservation by

• making the campus and community a model forenergy-efficiency and water management;

• developing to minimize the need and demandfor automobile use;

• featuring local and renewable resources when-ever feasible;

• building waste minimization and recycling intothe infrastructure;

• making education on sound environmental prac-tices part of the classroom and extracurricularmessage; and

• adopting environmental education as a designobjective.

Key IssuesEconomic DiversificationOver the past 50 years, UC campuses collectivelyhave had a major impact on the economies andgrowth of many regions in the state. They haveplayed an important role in growth patterns, eco-nomic development, and educational access inthe state.

A variety of the state’s key industries—such ascomputer technology, biotechnology, telecommu-nications, and aerospace—have made use of theintellectual capital and technology transfer af-forded by nearby UC campuses to come to matu-rity. The agriculturally oriented San Joaquin Val-ley does not have the kind of diversified industrialbase found in coastal California.

It is envisioned that the new Merced campus willplay an important long-term role in providingintellectual capital to launch new diversifiedindustries in the region.

Growth ManagementAccommodating the increase in population thatis anticipated over the next two decades willchallenge growth policies for every county andmunicipality in the San Joaquin Valley.

The region contains vital natural resources, in-cluding the seasonal wetlands that provide habi-tat for many of California’s native plant and wild-life species. As one of the world’s most productiveagricultural areas, the San Joaquin Valley con-tains much agricultural land that is worthy ofprotection from development.

The UC Merced project presents an opportu-nity for a creative, long-term planning effortthat provides for economic growth and popula-tion increase while preventing urban sprawl andconserving important natural resources andfarmland.


A Seamless BorderThe successful integration of the new campus withthe surrounding community and its ability to func-tion as part of that community are importantgoals for the university. UC Merced will dependon the community for services, supplies, and stu-

dents. However, the development of the campusand the growth that will come in its wake may bedisturbing to the Merced community.

The development challenge is to create a specialplace that appeals to students, faculty, staff, andthe community at large. This special place should

University Communityland use diagram.

Le Grand Canal

Rasca

l Creek

LakeYosemite

Park

Bellevue Road

Lake

Roa

d

MainCanal

Yosemite Avenue

Cardella Road

Key

Park and Open Space

Athletics and Recreation

Multifamily Residential

Faculty Housing

Student Housing

Single-Family Residential

Campus/Student Support

Academic/Campus

Commercial

Mixed Use

Parking

Roadway

Planning Area Boundary


benefit UC Merced and the University Commu-nity both economically and culturally.

The campus will attract new industries and spe-cial services that will increase demand for resi-dential development. The need to establish asuccessful university/community relationship pro-vides an opportunity to develop a setting that isinviting and affordable to current residents ofMerced while it also accommodates a new popu-lation associated with the university.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation The site of the proposed UC campus is in a transi-tion area between prime agricultural land onthe valley floor and the Sierra Nevada foothills.Two significant natural resources are present—wetlands (primarily vernal pools) and endangeredspecies (primarily the federally listed fairy shrimp).Also, possible migration corridors for the feder-ally listed San Joaquin kit fox cross areas nearthe site. These resources are protected undervarious federal and state environmental laws.

Construction of the UC campus and UniversityCommunity will eliminate approximately 100acres of wetlands and associated vernal poolhabitat, and thus require a permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act. In order to issue the permit,the Corps must determine that the site of the pro-posed campus and University Community repre-sents the least environmentally damaging practi-cable alternative (LEDPA). The LEDPA processinvolves an analysis of project alternatives thattakes into account “cost, logistics, and technology”in light of overall project purposes.

While the Corps administers the 404 program, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)oversees it and may veto permits issued by theCorps. The regional office of EPA can “elevate”its objections to the proposed issuance of a Corpspermit to headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Because this project may affect endangered spe-cies, the Corps must obtain a determination fromthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that theproposed campus and community will not jeopar-dize the continued existence of impacted species.

The initial concerns raised by the Corps andthe FWS convinced the university and MercedCounty to relocate the proposed campus site tothe southwest corner of the Virginia Smith Trustproperty and to relocate the University Commu-nity off the Virginia Smith Trust property to thesouth of the campus. These changes reduce theproject’s total impact on vernal pool habitat and

Top: The site of the futureUniversity Community iscurrently in agriculturaluse. Above: MercedCounty planning directorRobert E. Smith leads thepanel on a tour of vernalpool habitat areas. Left:Panelists Jim Goldasich(left) and Jim Meadowsconducting an interview.


transfer some of the impacts of the UniversityCommunity onto agricultural land.

The university and Merced County, with theassistance of the state of California, have estab-lished a regional conservation and mitigation pro-gram to protect natural resources in the vicinityof the UC campus and University Community.To date, approximately 25,000 acres of land con-taining sensitive habitat have been acquired forpreservation.


The University of California wants to builda great university at Merced in the SanJoaquin Valley. Although this undertakingof necessity will start small, the tone and

pattern of greatness should be set from thebeginning. UC Merced must be distinctive andintellectually prominent, and it must reflect theenvironment of the San Joaquin Valley. The cam-pus must be woven together with the UniversityCommunity (the planned-community componentof this project) and the San Joaquin Valley com-munity to make a seamless fabric of town andcampus connection.

The panel’s key findings and recommendations foraddressing this vision were arrived at after fivedays of tours, interviews, and analysis and theyare summarized here.

Master PlanningPlan the campus and the University Communityas a whole. Do not plan them individually. Thesetwo components should be connected with a north/south transportation corridor running from LakeYosemite to the southernmost border of the Uni-versity Community.

Have the campus embrace Lake Yosemite, whichshould be brought to life by improving the park,adding an open-air amphitheater, and designat-ing the lake as the northern terminus of the mas-ter plan.

Carefully plan the main north/south street thatconnects the campus and the University Commu-nity as a town center—the center of campus life,the place where people want to be because it isinteresting and fun. To enhance the town centerambience, relocate one of the irrigation canals tobring water down the middle of the main street.The main street should transition from campus-serving uses to community-serving uses as it goesfrom north to south.

To serve expected demand, plan for retail andother commercial development outside the towncenter as well. A well-designed and pedestrian-friendly shopping center at Bellevue and LakeRoad would be one good example. A researchand development park could also be planned forthis location.

Entry and ArrivalDesign and build an appropriate entry statementand create a sense of arrival for the campus. Cre-ate the campus’s identity—the destination thatwill define the place for generations to come. Cre-ate the icon on the campus—a place, structure,or feature that will be the campus’s trademark,the place to meet, the postcard photo scene ofthe campus.

On-Campus HousingFocus on campus housing early in the program.The potential housing shortage in the Mercedarea is such that the number of student housingunits should be double or triple what has beenproposed for early in the program. Student hous-ing should be built at a higher density than hasbeen proposed as well. Add a retail componentin the student housing area to give it the feel ofa small main street and to provide a gathering

Summary of Findings andRecommendations

Clifford W. Graves, vicechancellor for physicalplanning, UC Merced,briefs the panel on thefirst day.


portant. The UC Merced LRDP (long-range de-velopment plan) notes that sustainable practicescannot be viewed as expendable add-ons to thedevelopment of this campus. Sustainability mustbe a core value in the development from thevery start.

A great opportunity is involved. The world willbe watching how this campus uses sustainablepractices as it is developed and how those sustain-able practices improve its performance. The suc-cessful incorporation of sustainable features willstrongly enhance the reputation of UC Merced.The failure to develop sustainably will have thereverse effect.

University CommunityConsider the campus and the University Commu-nity as a single planning unit in planning for theoff-campus component. The need for both studenthousing and faculty housing is great, and sitesboth on and off campus will be needed.

For now there does not appear to be any advan-tage for the campus and the University Commu-nity to be annexed by the city of Merced. If thissituation changes, the annexation option remainsopen. The university should strive to maintaincontrol of most of the buildings—including housing—on the campus and in the University Community.

place. Provide rental housing for faculty and staffin the early phases as well, perhaps located ini-tially in the same area as student housing, to berelocated later as needs dictate. Start the de-velopment of for sale faculty housing as early asis practical.

SustainabilityIncorporate sustainability from the very begin-ning of the project. Given the environmental con-troversy that has troubled this project, this is im-

Above: UC Merced chan-cellor Carol Tomlinson-Keasey (left) discussesuniversity policies withpanelists George deGuardiola and PaulaKonikoff. Right: Panelchair Gadi Kaufmann(right) tours downtownMerced with panelistsNikolai Sklaroff (left) andJames Goldasich.


Development Potential

The city and county within which UC Mercedwill begin operations in the first decade ofthe 21st century are expected to experi-ence substantial socioeconomic changes.

The county’s long-established agricultural econ-omy will continue to be important with or with-out the presence of the proposed university.

Economy and HousingMerced County grew by 25,000 people in the1990s. According to a March 2000 county reportprepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS),Merced County University Community Plan, thecounty’s population will grow by 2,800 per yearfrom 2000 to 2010, reaching more than 231,000 by2010 from 203,000 in 2000. (This projection doesnot take into account the population impact of thenew university.) Contributing to this continuedgrowth are job relocations to the San Joaquin Val-ley, retail and service jobs that result from in-creases in population, and local demographics,including, for example, large family sizes . Mostof the expected population growth will be cap-tured by the city of Merced, which numbered65,000 in 2000.

Low-paying jobs and persistently weak job cre-ation challenge the valley region. The unem-ployment rate in the city of Merced is amongthe highest in the United States, ranging from12 to 17 percent. Fluctuations in unemploymentfollow the seasonality of agricultural employment.Low incomes reflect the nature of the agricul-tural economy.

A historically low level of housing permits makesmeeting the housing demands of a growing popu-lation difficult. Vacancies for both single-familyand multifamily housing are low and provide nocushion for the absorption of growth. Buildingpermits in the city reached 400 to 500 units peryear in the late 1990s, but in most years permits

are in the range of 200 to 300. A combination ofhigh impact fees and low market rents rendersthe construction of multifamily housing economi-cally infeasible.

According to the EPS report, the amount ofvacant and developable residential land in Mer-ced County is sufficient to meet the university’sfuture housing requirements. In the panel’s view,although the proposed University Communityprovides a development opportunity and has thepotential to accommodate the university’s housingneeds, meeting the university’s need for multi-family housing will require a special effort.

University’s Impact The new university will provide the impetus foreconomic, demographic, and cultural change in theregion. Its emphasis on technology is expected tobring in the kind of jobs now seen in Silicon Val-ley and the Sacramento area. The university’senrichment of the community’s cultural environ-ment will enhance the quality of life for allMerced residents.

The new university and the associated UniversityCommunity will potentially promote economic de-velopment and complement development in thenearby cities and county. While the proposed Uni-versity Community will meet basic local retail

Panelist Robert Gardnerat a panel interview.


needs and over time will evolve a town centeroffering restaurants and other retail amenities,specialty retailing, and services, the retail buyingpower within the University Community willmostly benefit the city of Merced, where a widerarray of community and regional retail opportuni-ties already exists.

Some 200 acres of commercial uses that will berequired by UC Merced–related growth will belocated outside the University Community. Thiscommercial growth, which will occur within Mer-ced County, represents an important economicdevelopment opportunity for the county. The suc-cessful development and spin-off of university-supported incubator businesses are another po-tential source of economic development in thegreater community. The potential for develop-ment generated by the university and UniversityCommunity is quantified in figure 5.

Land Use DemandHousing in the Initial YearsThe new university will generate a substantialand consistent demand for new housing through-out the development period (see figure 6). Oncethe university begins operating, the annual num-ber of building permits in the city of Merced willconsiderably outpace the modest levels recordedduring the 1990s.

During the first year of campus operations, 1,000new students and 400 faculty and staff members

will require housing. While as many as 20 percentof the students will commute from current hous-ing, the remaining 80 percent will require housingon campus or in the community. Current plans foron-campus housing call for providing 456 bedsin year one, with the flexibility to accommodatea total of 592, and an additional 400 beds inyear two when enrollment will reach 2,100. Theplanned number of beds appears to fall short ofpotential student demand. With nearly no vacan-cies, the local apartment market cannot be consid-ered a viable alternative for students.

The plans for on-campus housing in the initialyears of operation appear to fall short by 200 to300 beds for the first year and by progressivelymore beds in the following years. Housing short-ages could have unintended results. For example,the unavailability of housing may cause potentialstudents to decide to attend other schools. Theuniversity should consider adopting more ambi-tious on-campus housing plans to accommodatethe projected student enrollment.

Faculty and other university staff will number400 in the first year of operation. The fact that thecity of Merced’s best building permit years of the1990s saw only 400 to 500 units constructed sug-gests that the university may not be able to relyon the local building industry to respond ade-quately. The initial housing development plansprepared by the university do not accommodatefaculty or staff on campus. Because the localhomebuilding industry will likely not be able to

Figure 5Potential Development Generated by UC Merced and the University Community, by User and Location

UC Merced Campus University Community Other (Merced County)Retail Retail Commercial Retail Commercial

Housing Square Housing Square Square Housing Square SquareUnits Footage Units Footage Footage Units Footage Footage

Scenario 1: Indirect Employment Equals Campus EmploymentStudents 3,125 10,400 1,875 6,250 – 625 2,083 –Faculty/Staff 450 31,240 2,300 34,500 650,000 2,300 149,500Indirect Employment – – 2,300 34,500 650,000 2,300 149,500 2,000,000Other Residents – – 5,125 76,875 – – – –Total 3,575 41,640 11,600 152,125 1,300,000 5,225 301,083 2,000,000Scenario 2: Indirect Employment Is Twice Campus EmploymentStudents 3,125 10,400 1,875 6,250 – 625 2,083 –Faculty/Staff 450 31,240 2,300 34,500 650,000 2,300 149,500Indirect Employment – – 4,600 69,000 650,000 4,600 299,000 4,000,000Other Residents – – 5,125 76,875 – – – –Total 3,575 41,640 13,600 186,625 1,300,000 7,525 450,583 4,000,000

Sources: Economic & Planning Systems; and Robert Charles Lesser & Co.

Figure 6Housing Demand Projections

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Buildout

Demand SourcesEnrollment 1,000 2,100 2,900 4,200 5,500 25,000Campus EmploymentFaculty 80 140 220 300 400 1,420Staff 320 560 880 1,200 1,570 4,828Total Direct Employment 400 700 1,100 1,500 1,970 6,248

Indirect Employment 660 1,120 1,540 1,950 2,266 6,248Total Employment, Direct and Indirect 1,060 1,820 2,640 3,450 4,236 12,496Demand Potential (units)Student HousingOn-Campus Multifamily 650 1,365 1,885 2,730 3,57;5 12,500Off-Campus Multifamily 150 315 435 630 825 7,500Commuters 200 420 580 840 1,100 5,000Total Student Housing 1,000 2,100 2,900 4,200 5,500 25,000

Campus Employee HousingOn-Campus Faculty Housing1 26 45 70 96 128 454Off-Campus Multifamily Housing 206 353 511 666 815 2,386Off-Campus Single-Family Housing 617 1,058 1,532 1,998 2,445 7,157Total Campus Employee Housing 848 1,456 2,112 2,760 3,388 9,997

Housing in University Community (units)Multifamily Housing 243 432 619 824 1,021 4,261Single-Family Housing 617 1,058 1,532 1,998 2,445 7,157Total University Community Housing 860 1,490 2,151 2,822 3,467 11,418Annual Change 860 630 661 671 645 –Demand Potential (acres)Student HousingOn-Campus Multifamily2 8.1 17.1 23.6 34.1 44.7 156.3Off-Campus Multifamily2 1.9 3.9 5.4 7.9 10.3 93.8

Campus Employee HousingOn-Campus Faculty Housing3 4.3 7.5 11.7 16.0 21.3 75.7Off-Campus Multifamily Housing4 10.3 17;.6 25.5 33.3 40.8 119.3Off-Campus Single-Family Housing5 123.3 211.7 306.3 399.6 489.1 1,431.4

Housing in University Community (acres)Multifamily Housing 12.2 21.6 31.0 41.2 51.1 213.0Single-Family Housing 123.3 211.7 306.3 399.6 489.1 1,431.4Total University Community Housing 135.5 233.2 337.3 440.8 540.1 1,644.5Annual Change 135.5 97.8 104.0 103.5 99.4 –University-Generated Housing Demand in University Community6

Units 344 596 860 1,129 1,387 4,567Acres 54.2 93.3 134.9 176.3 216.1 657.8

1 Assuming 33 percent of faculty will be housed on campus.2 At 80 beds per acre.3 At six units per acre.4 At 20 units per acre.5 At five units per acre.6 Assuming the University Community will capture 40 percent of the housing demand generated by the university.Sources: Economic & Planning Systems; Sedway Group; and Robert Charles Lesser & Co.



meet the initial spike in housing demand, the uni-versity may need to include a much greater levelof early housing construction in its planning. Theemployees who will make the new campus opera-tional must be adequately housed.

Over the first five years, an estimated 1,100 hous-ing units for students (at four students per unit)and 2,000 units for faculty and staff will need tobe constructed. Indirect employment—the jobsand households that are created by the local eco-nomic activities of the university and the univer-sity’s students, faculty, and staff—will create ad-ditional housing demand. Indirect employmentwill begin to materialize in earnest in one to twoyears, reaching 660 jobs in just one year.

Housing at BuildoutThe UC Merced LRDP calls for 50 percent of stu-dents to be housed on campus. At this level, witha student enrollment of 25,000 at buildout, 12,500students would live on campus. Assuming a resi-dential suites arrangement (20 suites per acre andfour students per suite for a population density of80 students per acre), 156 acres will be needed forstudent housing on campus. The university’s pro-gramming for the campus identifies 250 acres forthis purpose, which certainly is adequate. Thisgives the university the flexibility to providemore on-campus housing should more studentsthan expected prefer campus living or shouldcommuters constitute a lower-than-expected per-centage of total enrollment.

The university’s programming for the campusallocates 90 acres for faculty housing. Assumingan average density of eight units per acre, 720faculty households could reside on campus, rep-resenting 51 percent of the total faculty. The uni-versity may want to consider allocating more landto accommodate more faculty households, asthis would create revenue opportunities for theuniversity and provide potential savings to fac-ulty members. This possibility is discussed fur-ther in the implementation strategies section ofthis report.

The plan for the 2,000-acre University Commu-nity earmarks more than 1,700 gross acres forresidential uses. In theory, this plan purportedlyprovides for all the residential demand generated

by the university—students preferring nearbyoff-campus accommodations, faculty not accommo-dated on campus, nonfaculty staff, and spin-offjobholders. However, the University Commu-nity falls just short of being able to house all UCMerced-generated demand. Projected demand atbuildout approaches 14,000 dwelling units. Assum-ing that faculty and staff demand is 75 percentsingle-family and 25 percent multifamily, and thataverage densities are five units per acre for sin-gle-family housing and 20 units per acre for multi-family housing, this level of demand requiresabout 2,000 gross acres.

But not all the UC Merced–generated housingdemand is likely to choose to locate in the adjoin-ing University Community. The panel assumesthat 40 percent of the UC Merced-generated de-mand will be met in the University Community.Given the complexity of household residentialdecision making and the likelihood of alternativechoices in the area, 40 percent seems a likely ex-pectation of capture. Accordingly, the universitywill generate demand for about 5,000 of the 11,600units proposed for development in the Univer-sity Community.

From a planning perspective, 1,000 new studentsgenerate demand on campus for 500 to 600 bedsor 125 to 200 multifamily units, and they areserved by 60 faculty members of which 20 can liveon campus. Each addition of 1,000 students gener-ates a total demand for 560 off-campus residentialunits requiring roughly 80 acres of land. The Uni-versity Community captures 40 percent of thisdemand—or 225 units and 32 acres.

The panel concludes that the university will haveto be an active participant in ensuring the avail-ability of adequate housing for students, faculty,and staff. It will have to plan extensively toensure that supplies and labor are secured andexisting in-town housing is located and rented.

Commercial UsesUC Merced will indirectly add jobs to the commu-nity (see figure 7). Communications firms andrestaurants, for example, will arrive or expand toserve university students and staff. The indirectemployment generated by the university willbring substantial economic benefits to the county.


The EPS (Economic & Planning Systems) reportof March 2000 suggests an indirect employmentimpact of 1.6 additional jobs in the county per uni-versity employee and an impact of about 1.0 ad-ditional jobs per employee as the university ap-proaches buildout. (The indirect employmentmultiplier of the university is actually higher thanthis when effects outside the county, where manyuniversity purchases of goods and services occur,are included in the calculation.) As the universitymatures and incubator R&D efforts begin toflourish, its indirect employment multiplier islikely to increase.

Total indirect employment is less than 1,000 inthe initial years of operation and reaches 6,200 atbuildout. Distributed among the industrial, office,and retail sectors, these jobs will use more than2.1 million square feet of space on nearly 200acres of land. In effect, each 1,000 students gen-erates 250 indirect jobs, creating demand for

eight acres of land and 85,000 square feet of com-mercial space.

The current plan designates 52 acres on the uni-versity campus for business park use and toprovide incubator business space for universityfaculty. With more than 125 acres needed to ac-commodate the industrial and office jobs indi-rectly generated by UC Merced, 52 acres—someof which is to be used for university incubators—will not be adequate to meet demand. Localjurisdictions will thus benefit from the commer-cial land demand generated by the university.They will also benefit from the jobs, many ofwhich can probably be filled with retrained, cur-rently low-skilled workers. These pending em-ployment opportunities should persuade localjurisdictions to continue and restructure theirjob-training programs.

The University Community does not currentlyhave a land use allocation for hospitality uses. As

Figure 7Commercial Demand Projectionss


UC Merced Employment 400 700 1,100 1,500 1,970 6,248Indirect ImpactsJobsIndustrial 46 78 107 136 158 460Office/R&D 209 355 488 617 717 2,728Retail 104 237 326 413 479 1,885Other 265 450 619 784 911 1,175Total Jobs 660 1,120 1,540 1,950 2,266 6,248

Building Square FootageIndustrial 41,315 70,110 96,401 122,066 141,815 413,630Office/R&D 73,141 124,118 170,662 216,098 251,061 954,931Retail 55,873 94,814 130,370 165,079 191,788 754,011Total Space 170,328 289,042 397,432 503,242 584,664 2,122,573

Land (acres)Industrial 3.8 6.4 8.9 11.2 13.0 38.0Office/R&D 6.7 11.4 15.7 19.8 23.1 87.7Retail 5.1 8.7 12.0 15.2 17.6 69.2Total Land 15.6 26.5 36.5 46.2 53.7 194.9

Sources: Economic & Planning Systems; and Robert Charles Lesser & Co.


the university and community mature, demandfor an economy hotel, such as Marriott’s Resi-dence Inn or Holiday Inn Express, will emerge.

Retail UsesThe retail demand generated by the on-campuspopulation—students, faculty and staff—will re-quire only 60,000 to 80,000 square feet of space.Restaurants (primarily fast food) and variousconvenience items and services will make up theon-campus retail mix. A campus retail area couldbecome a central meeting place and attract vari-ous student activities and services, including theuniversity bookstore.

The major source of demand for retail uses cur-rently programmed for the university develop-ment is the University Community. If there are10,000 to 11,000 dwelling units at the UniversityCommunity and 2.5 to 2.75 persons per household,the population at buildout will be about 25,000 to30,000. This population could support three neigh-borhood shopping centers of about ten acres each.

A typical neighborhood center anchored by asupermarket and drugstore and providing conve-nience retail goods and services covers ten acresand requires a population of about 10,000.

The first neighborhood shopping center shouldbe in place after the student enrollment reachesabout 5,000. This assumes that the UniversityCommunity will have about 10,000 residents atthat time.

Given the university’s location in relation toMerced, region-serving and big-box retailingwould be inappropriate at the University Com-munity, but this location offers opportunities forup to 150,000 square feet of upscale retail, includ-ing restaurants and some specialty stores (books,jewelry) that would evolve over time in responseto the size of the community, its demographics,and the distance to competing retailing locations.

This higher-quality retail could emerge in theform of a town center that would be able to cap-ture some of the retailing demands of the on-

Figure 8Retail Demand Projections


StudentsNumber 1,000 2,100 2,900 4,200 5,500 25,000Annual Spending1 $1,000,000 $2,100,000 $2,900,000 $4,200,000 $5,500,000 $25,000,000Retail Square Footage 3,333 7,000 9,667 14,000 18,333 83,333Campus EmployeesNumber 400 700 1,100 1,500 1,970 6,248Annual Spending2 $600,000 $1,050,000 $1,650,000 $2,250,000 $2,955,000 $9,372,000Retail Square Footage 2,000 3,500 5,500 7,500 9,950 31,240University CommunityPopulation 848 1,456 2,112 2,760 3,388 24,992Neighborhood Retail (square feet) 8,480 14,560 21,120 27,600 33,884 249,920Higher-Quality Retail (square feet) 4,240 7,280 10,560 13,800 16,942 124,960Total Retail Square Footage 12,720 21,840 31,680 41,400 50,826 374,880All Sources of DemandTotal Retail Square Footage 18,053 32,340 46,847 62,900 79,009 489,453Total Acreage 1.7 3.0 4.3 5.8 7.3 44.9

1 At $1,000 per student.2 At $1,500 per employee.Sources: Sedway Group; and Robert Charles Lesser & Co.


campus population as well as residents of the Uni-versity Community wanting an attractive, local-serving, pedestrian-oriented retailing environment.

Retail demand from both the campus and theUniversity Community adds up to about 500,000square feet of space. The proposed plan envisionsan excessive amount—716,000 square feet—ofretail space.

Implications of an AcceleratedEnrollment ScheduleThe current plan is to open the university with1,000 students and increase enrollment by 1,000students per year. Were the university to chooseto double its enrollment schedule—2,000 studentsin year one and 2,000 new students in each subse-quent year—more than 10,000 students would beenrolled after five years and the maximum enroll-ment would be attained between years 12 and 13.

The land use demands associated with a doublingof the enrollment schedule would be dramatic andwould require a sizable undertaking by anymaster-planned community. Residential demand—from students, faculty, and indirect employment—would amount to 1,100 acres after five years andrequire the construction of 1,000 to 1,600 housingunits per year. The initial neighborhood centerwould have to be phased in at the end of yeartwo, followed by the second neighborhood centerthree years later.


The preparations for the development of aMerced campus and an associated plannedcommunity have already encompassed a sig-nificant amount of high-quality planning and

design work. The panel has reviewed existingplans and offers some refinements to the campusplan and planning for related development areas.

The panel examines specific elements of the exist-ing plan and identifies key areas for protectionas the design is implemented. It makes a set ofrecommendations that will help ensure increasedaccessibility to and utility of the site, while im-proving environmental protection and enhancingsustainability.

Key Elements of the Current PlansMany hours and much expertise have been de-voted to planning an up-to-date and sustainableuniversity community for the Merced site. Manyof the design elements incorporated in the exist-ing plan for the campus are important to empha-size. These key elements include the following:

• Development is oriented to take advantage ofthe site’s environmental features. For example,the streets are oriented to make good use ofthe cool prevailing winds from the northwestacross the lake. For another example, land useplanning acknowledges the transition fromurban to rural uses at the eastern edge of thesite adjoining the reserve land.

• Campus densities are consistent with the goalof creating a pedestrian-oriented environment.As the influence of the campus grows, develop-ment densities in surrounding areas will be-come an issue. The county and city will have towork together to minimize sprawl and encour-age infill and redevelopment to accommodatethe growth that is surely coming.

• Uses are arranged to respect and be compatiblewith existing development.

• The street grid is arranged to be easily under-stood by first-time users and to offer high-quality views to the lake and easy access byfoot to the lake. Some improvements are pos-sible that may enable development to take ad-vantage of other significant viewsheds.

• The drainage and irrigation canals are inte-grated effectively into the plan so that theybecome aesthetic as well as functional (watersupply and flood protection) elements. (Thepanel suggests incorporating additional waterfeatures in the site design.)

• The need to drive is minimized and pedestrianaccess and travel are promoted. The plan’s goalof limiting vehicular traffic on the campus needsto be continually attended to and enforced.

• The concept of designing for sustainability isconsidered imperative for a 21st-century uni-versity. As development takes place, the uni-versity must ensure that sustainability is astrong element in the design of the buildings aswell as in the land plan.

• Heavy landscaping is planned and shade treesare used as a unifying element and a componentof sustainable design. The panel notes that soilconditions may make maintaining plant materi-als difficult. Proper plant selection, installation,and maintenance will be the key to the long-term health of the landscaping.

In the plan that was developed by the county’splanning consultant for the University Commu-nity property, the concept for the design of neigh-borhood cores is, the panel believes, effective. Thisconcept should be (strengthened and) included asa standard neighborhood precinct design govern-ing the development of the University Commu-nity property.

UC Merced constitutes a major commitment tobring investment in facilities and infrastructure,

Planning and Design


jobs, and new residents to the region and its de-velopment will strongly influence the future ofthe region. Local jurisdictions have an interest inseeing that development generated by the cam-pus moves south and west in a controlled manner.

LRDP ModificationsThe panel recommends the following modifica-tions to the current long-range development plan(LRDP) for the campus.

To Create a Sense of ArrivalFirst impressions of the campus will create animage of the quality of the campus for prospective

students, parents, faculty, and visitors. Elementsto create an image of high quality should be inplace from the first day of the university’s opera-tions. To help provide this image, the followingchanges should be made in the Phase 1 construc-tion plan:

• Relocate the main entrance to the corner ofBellevue Road and Lake Road. (And establishthis as the permanent main entrance to thecampus.)

• Relocate or substantially screen parking andtennis courts, so that automobiles do not domi-nate people’s first experience of the campus.

LakeYosemite

University of California at Merced

Main Campus

Dunn Road

Yosemite Avenue

G S

tree

t

Bellevue Road

Golf

Roa

d

Cam

pus

Park

way

UniversityCommunity

PotentialFuture

Development

ProposedPark

CampusLand

Reserve

Schematic regional plan.


• Assure a sense of visual connection betweenthe Phase 1 buildings and the to-be-developedportions of the campus as future phases aredeveloped.

To Improve the GatewayPeople will begin to form their first impressionsof UC Merced as they approach Merced on Route99, so signage on the highway will play a role. Im-pressions will become more formed at the inter-section of Route 99 and the Campus Parkway, andlandscaping and additional signage at this locationare important. The Campus Parkway should havelimited access and be well lighted and designedwith appropriate geometry. Obtrusive or commer-cial functions should be screened from view.

The campus gateway or primary entrance shouldbe exciting, simple, inviting, and well landscaped.Signs should be unpretentious and reflect thecharacter of both the campus and community. Thecampus’s native landscaping and canals should bevisible from the entrance, with buildings keptlow to reveal grassy plains in the background. Afeature—a building, a focal point, or an icon—should direct movement. Obvious signage shoulddirect people to the admissions office and visitorsparking and minimal signage should direct themto campus precincts.

To Strengthen the Main Street The LRDP identifies the campus main street asthe social heart of UC Merced, the primary meet-

ing place for students, faculty, and visitors. Manystudent-support services—for example the stu-dent center, social clubs, and student bookstore—will be located on the main street. The campusmain street will be developed in later phases ofthe UC Merced project, so there is time to care-fully explore the design possibilities. The panel’srecommendations for the campus main streetinclude the following:

• At the intersection of the campus main streetand the main campus road, erect an icon struc-ture or sculpture that is visible from the mainentrance.

• Modify the street’s orientation to take ad-vantage of views and provide access to LakeYosemite.

• Introduce a strong water element. Relocate anirrigation canal to run along the main street or,if that is not feasible, design a water featurethat looks like a canal. Include a strong inter-pretive element with the canal (or its look-alike) to celebrate the historic and economicimportance of irrigation and imported water tothe Merced region. The water element shouldnot be allowed to divide the two sides of themain street. Rather, its design should promoteinteraction across the street.

• Landscape the street with a dense tree canopyto make it resemble the city of Merced’s tree-lined boulevards.

• Explore opportunities for mixing uses—for ex-ample, putting housing or classrooms aboveground-floor student- and faculty-supportservices.

• Increase the allowable building height alongthe main street to promote a greater densityof activity.

• Locate recreational activity anchors at bothends of the street.

• Relocate some of the athletic fields away fromthe main street. Doing so will add to the appealof the academic core and the main street. Someof the fields can be relocated to importantnodes of pedestrian activity.

A parkway provides agraceful and memorableentrance to WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis,Missouri. The panel envi-sions a similar approachto the UC Merced campus.


To Integrate the Campus and the UniversityCommunityThe university seeks a seamless integration ofthe campus with the University Community tothe south. To achieve this important goal, anumber of land use planning and design stepsare recommended:

• Orient the campus main street to provide theopportunity for its unique character to continuesouth into the University Community.

• Locate the sports stadium and cultural and per-forming arts facilities south of the campus sothat they help form a community gatheringarea that will reinforce the integration of thetwo communities.

• Locate some campus-related uses—such as stu-dent-support services and academic-supportfacilities—in areas within the University Com-munity, thus contributing energy to those areasin the form of faculty and student activity.

• Lay out and design local roadways to favor theuse of an integrated system of public trans-portation and vehicles other than cars.

• Develop a unified street-lighting plan cover-ing fixture locations, materials, light color andspread, and so forth.

• Develop a way-finding system that is inte-grated and seamless.

• Prepare integrated access plans coveringpedestrian travel, bicycles, parking, servicevehicles, emergency vehicles, private vehicles,and public transportation.

• Respect connections—views and access—between the campus town center and theUniversity Community.

To Improve SecurityThe campus will be a 24-hour community. Street-scapes should be designed to maximize the num-ber of eyes on the street. The most heavily usedpedestrian spaces should be easily visible fromsurrounding structures and spaces. Exterior wallsshould be transparent and lighted from within orlighted with exterior lighting. Entrances to build-ings should be lighted so that they can become a

place of refuge. Lighting contrasts should be min-imized, spaces appropriately lighted, and darkskies preserved.

Entrances to the campus should be well lighted.Security measures including cameras should beused, but should not be too obvious. Obvious secu-rity measures signal that there is a security prob-lem, which can make potential applicants uneasy.

To Welcome Visitors Entrances to the campus should be inviting butnot visually pretentious or overpowering. Thereshould be simple, direct routes from originswithin the surrounding community to the campusentrances. The absence of traffic congestion is awelcoming feature. There should be a simple,direct route from the entrance to the visitorsparking areas in front of the admissions office andthe student center.

The campus development program should includefacilities for joint campus/community services andfunctions, such as educational, child-care, recre-ation, and cultural facilities.

The prevailing breezesfrom the lake, filteredthrough this shady groveof trees at Lake YosemiteRegional Park, will pro-vide natural air condition-ing for the heart of the UCMerced campus.

To support high levels of activity in the academiccore, ample open space—including plazas, parks,generous sidewalks, and planted areas undershade trees—should be provided. Grade changesshould be minimized and where the topographycauses problems these should be resolved to as-sure ease of accessibility for the disabled. Am-ple streetscape amenities—such as landscaping,shade trees, lighting, and street furniture—shouldbe provided.

In critical locations in the academic core, rela-tively mature trees should be planted to make animmediate impact. Appropriate climate controldevices—shades, windscreens or funnels, air con-ditioning, and heating—should be provided tomitigate extreme weather conditions in exteriorwaiting areas.

To Establish CharacterDesign guidelines should be drawn up to helpestablish the kind of campus character that willsupport the recruitment of students and faculty.Campus buildings should be designed by signa-ture architects using carefully constructed archi-tectural and open-space design guidelines. Insis-tence on design excellence as well as a consistentstreet grid, landscaping, and lighting should beused to help establish design continuity through-out the campus.

The development goal of sustainability makesdurability—300-year life spans—an importantdesign criterion. Buildings should be compact,efficient, and economical. Design and planningshould emphasize research, diversity, high tech-nology, and sustainability. The campus should bedeveloped in a compact fashion to conserve landand open space, lower the cost of infrastructure,and promote travel by foot and bicycle.

A brief look at some of the history of campusarchitecture can help define the issues. In 1200,Oxford, despite its status as one of the most pres-tigious universities in the world, was losing fac-ulty and students to Cambridge. Considerableresearch revealed the reason to be that Cam-bridge with its stone buildings was outclassingOxford with its brick buildings. Oxford changedto stone and the competition began.

In the United States, some of the early collegecampuses were designed by some of the country’sgreatest architects. Joseph-Jacques Ramée de-signed the first American unified campus at UnionCollege in Schenectady, New York. Thomas Jef-ferson designed the campus of the University ofVirginia. Charles Klauder designed the Univer-sity of Colorado, the University of Delaware, andFranklin and Marshall College. And Ralph AdamsCram, who is best known for his advocacy of col-legiate Gothic architecture, prepared the masterplans for Princeton and Rice Universities. Acrossthe country, campuses became icons for their com-munities and their states.

After World War II, colleges began to hire stararchitects to design individual buildings. The rela-tionship of buildings to each other and to the sitewas of secondary importance. The emphasis onindividual buildings led college presidents acrossthe country to build whatever they wanted when-ever they wanted. Campus design was in turmoil.

UC Merced should set the architectural tone forthe campus. The panel offers a number of ap-proaches from which the university might choose:

• Pick a style to which all buildings must adhere.There are very few examples of the successfuluse of this practice. As university programschange, building needs outgrow the styles. AtMiami of Ohio, for example, progressively big-ger buildings made continuation of the quaintredbrick Georgian architecture problematical.According to a study published in the Prince-ton Review, students consider the most archi-tecturally uniform campuses to be the ugliestcampuses, for example the State University ofNew York at Albany and the Rochester Insti-tute of Technology.

• Make each building a different style. Campuseswith eclectic architecture are frequently ratedugly too. Some Ivy League schools that haveconsistently selected signature architects arenotable exceptions. Wellesley College is argu-ably one of the most beautiful campuses in thecountry despite the adjacency of buildings de-signed over a period of 100 years by differentsignature architects.



• Use heavy landscaping to provide continuityto eclectic architecture. It is doubtful that de-sign controls can be used to create a successfuleclectic campus, but landscaping can be, as isdemonstrated at Bowdoin College, Indiana Uni-versity’s Bloomington campus, and Lehigh Uni-versity. At UC Santa Cruz, heavy forest makesit possible to unify eclectic architecture. Thelack of trees on the Merced campus, however,makes this solution unlikely.

• Allow a limited choice of materials for newconstruction. If limited to only red brick or pur-ple brick, for example, architects could designred building, purple buildings, or red and pur-ple buildings. This approach, which has beentaken by Grinnell College in Iowa and the Uni-versity of Missouri, achieves both variety and asense of continuity.

• Distinguish between standard and signaturebuildings. This approach involves selecting astandard set of materials for use throughoutthe campus, except in buildings designated in .the campus plan as signature buildings, wherenonstandard materials should be used. Signa-ture buildings might include the library, theadministration building, the student center, andthe performing arts center.

• Choose a different style for different precincts.This last approach requires dividing the cam-pus into precincts, which can be determined bylocation or function, and picking different stylesfor each. Buildings in each precinct are built inthat precinct’s style. Continuity is achievedwithin precincts and variety is achieved acrossthe campus.

To Provide the Right Kind of Performance SpacePeople commonly assume that performance spacecan be designed to meet community and campusneeds, but in reality state-of-the-art communityperformance facilities and university performancespace have quite different requirements—for lobbysize; for front-of-house seating areas, acoustics,and stage designs; and for back-of-house re-hearsal rooms, workshops, and storage areas.University performance space should be tailoredto meet student needs and community space tai-lored to meet professional needs. Furthermore, in

schemes to combine university and communityfacilities, scheduling and other conflicts occurover rehearsal spaces, scene shops, union require-ments, insurance, and move-in/move-out times.

UC Merced should have state-of-the-art facilitiesdesigned to the highest standards for student per-formances. Performances in these facilities will beopen to the public and the facilities will be avail-able for community-sponsored performances.

In the meantime, the San Joaquin Valley, whichis experiencing unprecedented growth, is under-served by performing arts facilities. The panelrecommends that appropriate parties undertaketo determine the best regional location(s) forup to three state-of-the-art performance artsfacilities—Sacramento, Merced, Fresno, or othercommunities.

To Connect the Campus with the Region The panel makes a number of recommendationsregarding the Campus Parkway and other trans-portation elements in the LRDP.

• Route the Campus Parkway directly to the cam-pus and limit access to the parkway and thecampus.

• Mark the intersection of the Campus Parkwaywith Route 99 in a unique and expressive way.

• In order to assure that the roadways and rights-of-way are kept in the best possible condition,vest the state of California or the universitywith control of the maintenance agreements forthe parkway and its entrances.

• Make the parkway rights-of-way wide enoughto create a parklike experience.

• Use traffic-calming techniques, such as mini-mum lane widths, for campus roads in general.

• Use upscale materials such as brick and stone.

• Do not overdesign roads for the automobile.

• In parking areas, avoid broad expanses ofasphalt and landscape generously to minimizetheir negative impacts.

• Create a clear street hierarchy to localize dri-ving and encourage walking and thus reduce


principle that governs the design and develop-ment of town centers is to create a sense of place.UC Merced has the opportunity to bring public,private, and university life together during itsdevelopment activity to deliver a vision of placethat will endure and evolve throughout the de-velopment of the university and the UniversityCommunity.

Town Center. The panel recommends developinga town center for UC Merced in several phases,as follows:

• Include minimal retail services in the Phase 1student housing development. No more than30,000 to 40,000 square feet will be required.These services can be located in mixed-usebuildings on an axis with Lake Yosemite, whichwould provide a preview of the future and per-manent location of the campus main street. Lo-cating retail adjacent to housing will foster thepedestrian orientation sought for the campus.

• Next, develop the campus main street as a loca-tion of permanent prominence that is visuallyand physically connected to Lake Yosemite. Inorder to create the necessary activity for thecampus main street, the university should lo-cate as many services as possible there. The

vehicle use throughout the campus and Univer-sity Community.

Other Planning and ProgramRecommendations The panel makes the following planning and pro-gram recommendations for elements not coveredin the LRDP.

To Create a Memorable Place All great towns or cities have a memorable placeor places, a town square, a fountain, buildings, aballpark, a public park, a place frequented by visi-tors and residents. Ghiardelli Square in SanFrancisco is a good example. University examplesinclude the Campanile at UC Berkeley, the UCLAquad, and the Stanford tower. Great places havein common the ability to assimilate a variety ofpeople of all ages for enjoyment and the cele-bration of life. A town center, the center of socialexpression for communities, can be a memo-rable place.

A town center becomes vibrant through assimila-tion. The broader the assimilation, the faster thetown center will become energized with stores,cafés, restaurants, and public life. The marketing

Campus land use diagram.

Bellevue Road

Park

way

Cam

pus

LakeYosemite

Lake YosemitePark Expansion

RealignedCanal

Main StreetTown Center

Key

Park and Open Space

Entertainment

Multifamily Residential

Faculty Housing

Student Housing

Single-Family Residential

Campus/Student Support

Academic

Commercial (Business/Retail)

Mixed Use

Irrigation Canals


campus bookstore, recreation facilities, studentunion, and other related services will benefitfrom this setting. Live/work opportunities forfaculty and staff will benefit from the adjacencyto services. The panel anticipates that between100,000 to 150,000 square feet of university-related retail and services may be developedalong the campus main street.

• Finally develop the town’s main street on thesouth side of Lake Yosemite Park. This mixed-use street would connect to the campus mainstreet with a signature pedestrian bridgeacross the relocated canal, a bridge that sym-bolically expresses the partnership of the uni-versity and the community. A number of uni-versity land uses—such as the performing artsbuilding, athletic facilities, hospitality facilities—should be located at this part of the town cen-ter. Together with the critical mass created bythe residents of the University Community,such uses would help to support 150,000 to200,000 square feet of retail, restaurants, andservices on the town’s main street. Nationalretailers such as Crate and Barrel, RestorationHardware, and the Gap find such locationsappealing. Art galleries, restaurants, cafés, andhome-furnishing stores would be drawn by the

maturing University Community and nearbyneighborhoods.

The panel recommends that all residential neigh-borhoods and districts be directly connected tothe town’s main street to encourage walking andcycling. Upon buildout, the town center shouldform a seamless and undifferentiated destinationfor the campus, the University Community, andthe Merced community. Private as well as univer-sity uses may flow from one area to the other andsupport each other to a large degree.

Three principal design and program elements—connection with Lake Yosemite, the inclusionof outdoor public areas, and the location of

Town center conceptdrawing.

Panelists Doug Betz (left),George de Guardiola, andSteve Noll (seated) pre-pare a concept for the UCMerced town center.


university-related uses north and south on themain street—will stimulate a wide variety ofactivities and thus help make a vibrant town cen-ter. The intersection of the university’s entranceroad and the north/south main street will serve asthe defining and unifying element for the univer-sity. Housing and other university uses should belocated near here, enhancing and perpetuatingthe vitality of the main street.

The land use plan must be flexible enough toaccommodate the wide variety of land uses thatwill be attracted to the town center. With time,the town center can be expected to attract, inaddition to university uses, prominent corporateheadquarters, signature mixed-use buildings, anda variety of housing types.

The retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses ini-tially attracted to the town center must be able toappeal to the general public. The university popu-lation alone will not be sufficient support for theseuses. The town center’s success in assimilatingthe community will serve as the platform for its

growth and identity. A true fusion of the univer-sity and community will eventually emerge.

Entertainment District. The panel envisions theemergence of a campus entertainment districtfeaturing sports events, performing arts, and soforth. This district would be designed to be a con-tinuation of the campus town center and to makea connection from the campus community to theUniversity Community. Rather than competingwith the city of Merced, such a district wouldbe designed to help maintain the high degree ofintegration between the campus and the valleycommunity.

Special Events. The market segment that willmost influence the ultimate success of the towncenter will be the population of greater Merced.As the university matures, the students, univer-sity employees, and residents of the UniversityCommunity will play a greater role in the towncenter’s continued success.

To attract the residents of greater Merced, thetown center will need attractive public spaces andpublic events. A simple outdoor stage and theatergreen (a place for lawn chairs and blankets) wouldbe a good start. Making available an outdoor per-formance venue for area schools and a venue forother civic events will enhance the university’simage and help create a true bond with the sur-rounding community. Annual signature eventswill emerge and become the source of great civicand community pride.

The university should forge an alliance with thecity of Merced and Merced County to host, pro-gram, and supervise special events. During theinitial years, these events must be free to thepublic. Special care needs to be given to the pro-gramming of the events. The panel recommends abroad variety, including festivals, concerts, carshows, and theater performances. Events shouldbe attractive to multigenerational audiences. Ifthe events become too focused on a young audi-ence or on seniors, the town center may bedeprived of large market segments.

To Provide Community Retail ServicesA neighborhood shopping center located at theentrance to the University Community should be

Two irrigation canals tra-verse the UC Merced site.These canals can provideopen-space amenity valueto the campus, as well asdevelopment opportunities.


developed during the second phase of develop-ment of the university and the University Com-munity. Only one of the three potential neighbor-hood shopping centers should be developed beforethe town center along the main street is well es-tablished, to avoid limiting its development poten-tial. A major food store, a drugstore, and othercommunity-serving stores will be in demand andthey will benefit from a location easily accessedby automobile. Good highway access is alsoneeded for the service vehicles on which suchstores depend.

The proposed center could be 150,000 to 200,000square feet. Its site plan, landscape plan, andarchitectural style must be compatible with devel-opment in the University Community.

To Develop a Successful Business ParkThe proposed business park will catalyze eco-nomic growth and provide stability for the uni-versity. Its location and its architecture shouldreflect the prominence of the park tenants andthe identity of the university. Development of thebusiness park will allow the university to create along-term relationship with industry and offerindustry a place of significance in the community.

The business park needs to be both highly acces-sible and prominently located. Corporate andR&D tenants must be near the main entrancewhere they can develop signature buildings thatbecome identified with the university. The initialsuccess of the business park will depend largelyon the university’s ability to forge relationshipswith potential tenants, and the ability to providea desirable location will play a major role in secur-ing these relationships.

The panel believes that the most desirable loca-tion for the business park is the southeast cornerof Lake and Bellevue Roads at the main entranceto the campus. Signature buildings that symbolizeUC Merced’s role as a center of research anddevelopment can be built at this entrance. Plan-ning should devote a great deal of attention tothis gateway that, if properly managed, will cre-ate a strong sense of vitality and stability.

The university will have to be proactive to attractthe initial tenants to the business park. UC Mer-

ced must create a business development groupwith a mission to attract targeted corporations toMerced. The quality-of-life elements of the uni-versity development plan will be important inattracting appropriate users to the business park.UC Merced must convey a strong willingness topartner with industry and to provide the researchneeded by the targeted tenants. These tenantsmay fall into three categories: corporate, researchand development, and incubator uses.

To Accommodate Housing DemandThe panel’s plan incorporates a mix of neighbor-hoods and districts. Residential neighborhoodsare spatially defined; they contain an identifiablecenter from which a minimum of 80 percent ofthe housing units can be reached in a five-minutewalk; they are usually at a medium to low density.Residential districts are single-use, high-densityareas that generally provide the most affordablehousing. Residential districts should be locatedadjacent to nonresidential areas.

The initial residential development within theUniversity Community should be a neighborhoodand a district. The neighborhood should have 400to 500 houses, including attached townhouses,small and medium alley houses, and larger houseson the edge of the neighborhood. The districtshould have 250 to 300 multifamily units, includ-ing live/work units and two- and three-storyapartment complexes.

The development of neighborhoods and districtswill have several benefits for UC Merced. A vari-ety of housing types within a neighborhood en-courages cyclical neighborhoods, or neighbor-hoods that allow for a natural move-up/move-downcycle without causing the displacement normallyassociated with changes in lifestyle or income.

The development of neighborhoods and dis-tricts containing a wide variety of housing typesalso allows for a broad range of housing inven-tory and price, for a level of affordability not nor-mally associated with development of this cal-iber. Affordable housing is not stigmatized andmarginalized in this arrangement, but rathermade available in the neighborhood or in the dis-trict adjacent to the most desirable attractions ofthe community.


The development of neighborhoods and districtsalso minimizes automobile use. Neighborhood res-idents can satisfy much of their daily travel de-mand by walking or making short car trips to theneighborhood square. Eventually, the neighbor-hood squares throughout the University Commu-nity may be connected to create a street networkfor walking, cycling, or transit. The residentsof the district will be able to walk to the towncenter, the business park, and many other activ-ity areas.

To Enhance the Usability of Lake Yosemite ParkLake Yosemite Park is an important amenity forMerced residents, its mature trees providing

refuge from the heat and its water providing rec-reational opportunities. Its accessibility to stu-dents and faculty will undoubtedly affect how thecurrent facility is used, which will require plan-ning attention and in particular the following rec-ommended steps:

• Begin immediate planning (by the county andUC Merced) for adding recreational uses—likethose currently found on the south shore—tothe west and north shores.

• Begin an aggressive tree-planting program onthe west and north shores as soon as planningand environmental review are complete. Planttrees as early as possible to give them adequatetime to mature.

• Include community playing fields for organizedsports in the expansion areas.

• Improve the existing park so that it can accom-modate outdoor special events that can attractcommunity residents to the lake and engagethem in the campus main street environment.

To Manage Growth to the South and WestWith the implementation of the first phase ofcampus development and the establishment of thenatural reserve northeast of the campus, an urbangrowth boundary will have been established forthe next several years. Therefore, the land be-tween the campus and the existing communitywill become the focus of development.

The city and county must continue to work to-gether to develop a planning framework for thisarea. Good planning will contribute much to theoverall quality of life in the community.

Environmental ImpactThe 2,000-acre UC Merced site is located inrangeland containing various surface-water andwetland resources adjacent to an artificial lake(Lake Yosemite). In an effort to provide insightinto the ability of the site—or site design—toenhance the local and regional environment, thepanel evaluated the currently proposed campuslocation as to its potential impacts on the siteand the regional natural system. The panel lookedat site conditions, examined existing reports, and

Above: Lake Yosemite asseen from the park’s pic-nic area. Right: Vernalpools in this part of Cali-fornia are often character-ized by large cobblestones.


interviewed individuals familiar with the siteand project.

The current location of the project was selectedafter an intensive review of several alternativesin light of the stated project purposes. The pro-ject’s environmental impact statement (EIS) con-tains an alternatives analysis of a number of sites.A review of alternatives was beyond the scope ofthe panel’s review. Its evaluation is based on areview of the current site plan and project limitswith respect to the integrity of natural systemsand the EIS.

Proposed Mitigation PlanThe proposed project will impact directly approxi-mately 108 acres of permanent and seasonal wet-lands, including vernal pools. The university andits consultants have developed a mitigation planthat is currently undergoing federal permitreview. The proposed plan includes the acquisi-tion and preservation of large amounts of landcontaining wetlands and vernal pool complexes aswell as the enhancement, restoration, and cre-ation of wetlands within the watershed. As thereview process proceeds, the details of the pro-posed mitigation plan are likely to be modifiedor refined.

The mitigation plan proposes a minimum 10:1ratio (acres of mitigation to acres of impact) forthe preservation and enhancement of existingwetlands. For restoration and creation, it pro-poses a 1:1 ratio. The use of reference wetlandsfor the comparison of values and functions is pro-posed to assure that the restored or created wet-lands provide comparable natural-system valuesand functions.

While wetland impacts should be avoided to thegreatest extent practicable, they are often anunavoidable part of a project of this size and com-plexity. In the panel’s view, the significant amountof long-term preservation of wetland values andfunctions proposed and the goal of the project toachieve “no net loss of wetland function” ade-quately protect regional and local natural sys-tems, especially in light of the important purposeof the project.

Additional habitat protection and wetland mitiga-tion measures potentially could be incorporatedinto the project design. Fill areas and open-spaceand recreation areas could be realigned, for exam-ple, and collocated with other campus use areas toavoid wetland areas.

Educational programs focusing on the site’s nat-ural systems could have a number of positive con-sequences. For example, areas of wetlands andassociated grasslands could be used to teachabout the fragility and ecological significance ofwetlands in general and vernal pools specifically.Designed to reach all students, such a programwould raise awareness and appreciation of theimportance of these areas and foster a protectionand management ethic among students.

This project sets aside regional conservationareas that can be used for involving advancedstudents and faculty in the intensive study of wet-lands and protected areas. Such research willreveal more about the intricacies of vernal poolecology and provide a base of understanding forthe protection, enhancement, restoration, and cre-ation of vernal pools. UC Merced proposes to be-come a “major research university for the 21st-century” and its involvement in vernal poolresearch should help it realize this vision.

The interaction of natural systems with urbandevelopment and with agriculture is an importantfield of study. UC Merced could establish researchgroups focused on the environment/agricultureinterface and the environment/urbanization inter-face. Their work on the development of methodsand procedures that can protect the natural com-munities found on site and in the region would begenerally transferable to other sensitive environ-mental areas and could increase basic knowledgeabout sustainable agriculture.

Additional Design Features and Plan ElementsIn the panel’s view, the university’s proposed proj-ect offers a significantly diverse and comprehen-sive element for avoiding and minimizing envi-ronmental impacts. The proposed developmentprovides a high degree of protection to the on-siteand regional environments. The panel, however,recommends the inclusion of some additional de-sign features and plan elements for environmental


techniques in order to better protect on-siteand off-site natural areas. These should includethe use of suitable barriers, careful sequencingand scheduling of construction, and long-termqualitative assessments of restored and en-hanced systems compared with native unal-tered systems.

• Incorporate the vernal pool complexes andthe regional conservation areas into the UCMerced curriculum as a basic course require-ment. Communicating an in-depth understand-ing of the significance and ecological contribu-tion of these important natural systems willpromote their protection in both the short andlong terms.

• Develop a research base at the university thatwill expand the understanding of vernal poolcomplexes; make this research a focal point forthe natural resources department.

• Develop an environmental studies program atthe university that is sensitive to the interfaceof the natural environment with agriculturaland urban elements. One goal of this programshould be to determine methods for protectingimportant natural systems while accommodat-ing productive agricultural activity andincreased urbanization.

protection. These include, but are not necessarilylimited to, the following:

• Establish a vernal pool scientific advisory groupand charge it with developing a specific pro-cess for vernal pool functional assessment. Thisshould be a rapid assessment method that is in-corporated into the long-term management pro-tocol of all wetlands protected because of theUC Merced project. Upon completion of the sci-ence complex on the main campus, house thisadvisory group in the natural resources building.

• Initiate development of the project with thegolf course area, inasmuch as it involves no per-mitting issues.

• Use alternative-fuel vehicles wherever possi-ble; include them in the campus vehicle fleet.

• Consider the feasibility of using alternativeconstruction and construction management

Merced County supervisorsKathleen M. Crookhamand Joe Rivero presenttheir views in a panelinterview.


total of 280,000 square feet, a central planttotaling 20,000 square feet, and housing andfood service for 600 students. The panel sug-gests that the planned initial amount of housingfor students be doubled so that 1,200 studentscould be accommodated. Any excess capacitycould be used for temporary housing for univer-sity staff and service employees.

• As soon as practicable after completion ofPhase 1, design and install an entry statementat the recommended main entry to the campus—Bellevue Road and the Campus Parkway.This element must be provided by then whetheror not the parkway has been extended by thattime. UC Merced’s long-term image—one thatreflects the importance of the university andthe splendor of its San Joaquin Valley setting—must be established early.

• Begin work early on the town center water ele-ment by realigning the Grand Canal tied toLake Yosemite, even though the achievementof a true town center may be several yearsaway. The canal will be a major feature of themain street in the core academic area.

• Build a signature performing arts center in theearly phases. Like the library, the performingarts center will be a landmark building on thecampus and an effective vehicle for engagingthe regional community beyond the campus.

• Build the initial athletic facility (up to 80,000square feet) early and locate it along the mainstreet. The facility will be used by students,faculty, staff, and the public together. It shouldprovide excellent physical fitness facilities as adraw for students and faculty.

• As soon as possible, initiate an aggressive out-reach program to attract occupants for thebusiness park. The best candidates will haveties to the mission of UC Merced—relating

The University of California’s goal for itscampus at Merced is to celebrate the tradi-tions and reputation of the University ofCalifornia system while developing a sus-

tainable, 21st-century university that serves theresidents of the San Joaquin Valley and theregion’s agricultural economy.

Realization of this goal will require the coopera-tion of many parties, including the university sys-tem, Merced County, the city of Merced, and thecommunity’s residents. Cooperation on the part ofthese parties entails a need for flexibility, a senseof the importance of building a legacy, a good dealof patience, economic responsibility, and a com-mitment to sustainable practices. If the local civicleaders who originally brought the campus toMerced can be reenergized and encouraged tobecome the guardian of these principles of cooper-ation, the development process can get off to agood start.

UC Merced will start small, but will do well toundertake to create a sense of place and project asense of substance from the very beginning. Thepanel recommends design modifications and otherenhancements to make the campus distinctive,reflect the environment of the San Joaquin Valley,and foster the integration of the university withits neighboring community. Here again the origi-nal local civic leadership can be recruited to helpnurture good relations between the communityand the university.

Development SequencingThe panel makes a number of phasing recommen-dations that will help the development project asense of place and sense of substance from theoutset, including the following:

• Increase the amount of student housing plannedfor the first phase. Current plans for the firstphase include three academic buildings with a

Development Strategies


especially to the university’s concern with agri-culture, the environment, and the business ofsustainability.

Utility ServicesThe goal of sustainability must be knit into thefabric of the university from the very beginning.This means that sustainability should be embed-ded in the infrastructure of the campus and theUniversity Community

Water Some of the long-term water needs of the campusshould be served by an on-site well system, if fea-sible. For the short term, the city of Merced canprovide water service to the campus and adjacentcommunity through the Bellevue line. As waterinfrastructure is designed, provision should bemade for using stormwater and recycling treatedwastewater (gray water) for irrigation.

WastewaterOver the long term, the university should seek toprovide innovative on-site treatment and reuseoptions for wastewater. For the short term, thecity of Merced can provide wastewater servicesthrough a 27-inch-diameter sewer line that ex-tends to the campus. The university, of course,should contract with the city for the services itneeds. The city can also receive development feesfrom developers for sewer service.

ElectricityCogeneration—the simultaneous production ofheat and power in a single thermodynamic process—will be the key to sustainability for the campusand for controlling energy costs. The existingpower grid needs to be brought to the campuswith the understanding that it will be the primarysource of power for only the first few years andthat it will be used for backup only over the longterm. The current Phase 1 plan calls for the useof a chiller plant, which may be suitable as an in-terim technology. But the long-term goal shouldbe to convert to cogeneration using fuel-cell tech-nology. Eventually, micro-cogeneration facilitiesmight become the most effective option for a sus-tainable outcome.

Telephone/Cable/InternetThe university’s credibility as a center of technol-ogy and sustainability necessitates having reliableand redundant sources for high-speed connectiv-ity for voice and data. Faculty and students willinsist on wireless connectivity throughout thedorms and academic buildings. The universitymust be on the technological edge to be a 21st-century technology leader. It may be useful toestablish a partnership with a telecom company toassure the best service and technology.

There are not—as there should be—two indepen-dent points of entry for fiber-optic service to thecommunity. This situation must be rectified. Thefiber-optic wiring of neighborhoods and homesthroughout and campus and the University Com-munity is imperative and should be planned anddesigned in initial construction.

Development EntityA number of options are available to UC Mercedfor the implementation of development and im-provements. They include the following:

• UC Merced is the master developer and buildsall improvements.

• UC Merced is the master developer but hiresthird-party builders.

Panelist Nikolai Sklaroffdirects an interview forthe implementationstrategies team.


• UC Merced is the master developer and hires afirm to be the owner’s representative in theday-to-day management of the process.

• UC Merced hires a master developer to take onthe responsibility of getting all the improve-ments built.

For all practical purposes, the development methodfor Phase 1 is set. UC Merced is acting as themaster developer and hiring planners, architects,and contractors to do the work required to openthe university on time. For future phases, the uni-versity needs to make decisions soon about whichmodel to follow and which development entitieswill be required.

If UC Merced prefers to continue to act as themaster developer, it will need to secure moreexpertise, including, perhaps, an owner’s repre-sentative to qualify, select, negotiate with, andsupervise contractors in multiple disciplines. Themajor advantages of this approach include contin-ued control and cost savings.

If UC Merced prefers to hire a master developer,it will retain policy approval power but must bewilling to cede control over daily decisions re-garding development. The major advantage ofthis approach is that an experienced, professional,multidisciplinary development firm is in charge ofoverseeing projects and managing the details.

Whichever model it selects, the university mustbe willing to empower the owner’s representativeor master developer. It should not seek to micro-manage by committee. The recruitment and re-tention of tenants and the management of rentalproperty require special expertise. The panel rec-ommends that UC Merced hire third-party prop-erty management and leasing professionals tocarry out these functions while the campus isbeing developed.


There are several important guidelines touse in the formulation of implementationstrategies. The university need not adoptall of these guidelines, but to the extent it

decides to reject them, it should understand theconsequences.

Guidelines for the DevelopmentProcessView Real Estate as a Long-Term OpportunityReal estate development grows and changes overthe long term. It cannot be seen as a snapshotfrozen in time. Continuing sponsorship and own-ership of real estate can have a very significantimpact on the cost of facilities as well as on therevenues that are received by the university.

Develop to Facilitate University ObjectivesDevelopment, ownership, and financing strate-gies should facilitate programmatic and revenueobjectives—and not drive them. In other words,the university must first decide on its goals andthen select the appropriate development optionsto implement them. Development decisions shouldnot be made before deciding goals, objectives, anddesired outcomes.

Own the LandOwning land for development provides a publicuniversity enormous financial advantages. Uni-versity ownership of land can eliminate entitle-ment fees and put the university in a position tonegotiate suitable impact payments based onwhat its real impact on the community will be.Accordingly, university land should not be sold-either to private or public developers. Nor shouldthe ownership of the land be subordinated to thefinancing of a facility by a third party.

Own the FacilitiesThe ownership of facilities offers significant finan-cial advantages to a university. It can obtain tax-

exempt financing in the range of 5 percent ascompared with an ordinary developer’s blendeddebt and equity capital structure at 10 percent ormore. In addition, a university can develop andown facilities without the payment of propertytaxes and can negotiate a suitable payment in lieuof taxes.

Think of Student Housing as an OpportunityThe construction of student housing by the uni-versity should be thought of as an opportunityand a revenue generator—not as a problem. Un-dergraduate student housing should provide ap-proximately $1,000 per bed in net revenue duringthe first year and more in subsequent years. Thus,housing 10,000 undergraduates should net $10million during the first year of occupancy.

Provide Affordable For Sale HousingAttractive owner-occupied housing can be devel-oped and sold with 100 percent financing and ata price equal to more than four times annual in-come. A young faculty family can thus afford abetter-than $160,000 house. Appropriate mecha-nisms can be put in place to keep that house asaffordable to the second- or third-generationhomeowners as it was to the first.

Provide Housing for All University EmployeesThe university must develop rental apartments tohouse its lower-paid staff, because private devel-opers will probably not be prepared to do so.Entities such as the Federal Home Loan BankBoard, Fannie Mae, and Community Reinvest-ment Act banks may provide very attractivefunding—including letters of credit, grants, andbelow-market debt capital—for such housing, giv-ing the university substantial advantages in itsdevelopment. The university can provide afford-able apartments at less than 60 percent of the costof new privately developed rental apartments.

Implementation Strategies


Develop R&D and Retail FacilitiesThe university can obtain tax-exempt financing(costing 5 to 6 percent rather than 10 to 12 per-cent) for building a reasonable amount of commer-cial space as well as campus main street retail.Furthermore, the university’s ability to provideattractive yet affordable housing can be an enor-mous advantage in attracting R&D firms.

Plan for the UnexpectedIn dealing with land assemblage and planning, theuniversity must program itself for success andplan for the unexpected. Had UCLA purchasedmore land adjacent to its campus when it wasbeginning to be developed, UCLA would be a farwealthier institution—with an endowment rival-ing Harvard’s—and would have had more flexibil-ity to grow and develop than it has currently.

Develop to Attract an Excellent FacultyUniversities face very difficult problems in seekingto hire the highest-quality faculty—particularly inscientific disciplines. However, UC Merced maybe able to make offers that many leading candi-dates cannot refuse. If the university is able tooffer the following conditions, it will have an ad-vantage in attracting excellent faculty:

• attractive and affordable housing;

• first-class research laboratories;

• incubator space, with seed money and venturecapital available;

• a flexible approach to intellectual property;

• lab schools starting with preschool child careand progressing through 12th grade; and

• first-class recreational and cultural facilities.

Speed Up the Growth in EnrollmentThe university should consider speeding up itsgrowth—at least until a level of 10,000 to 12,500students is attained. By accelerating the develop-ment of the campus and using other techniquesrecommended by the panel, the university cancreate a situation of “build it and they will come.”The additional revenue the university will obtainfrom a higher number of students and faculty

earlier will help ensure a more orderly develop-ment process.

Go Slow on AnnexationIt is premature to deal with the issue of annexa-tion. If the development techniques suggested inthis report are followed, there may be little or noreason for the university or the city to move to-ward annexation. Annexation will potentiallylimit the university’s flexibility without providingany offsetting benefits.

Purchase Municipal Services InitiallyIn the long term, the greater university commu-nity should have sufficient population to demand

Above: From the UCMerced campus on aclear day, one can see theSierra Nevadas across theSan Joaquin Valley. Left:Panelist Paula Konikoffreviews notes from thepanel interviews.


department possesses the equipment and expe-rience to deal with situations in multistory build-ings and urban areas, and the county’s does not.

Regardless of the service provider, the locationand projected size of the university communitymake necessary the construction, staffing, andequipping of a new fire- and emergency-servicessubstation. As such services are commonly pro-vided to campus communities by third parties, along-term contract with the city of Merced shouldprovide the city with sufficient financing to makeadequate fire and emergency services available tothe university community through all phases ofits growth.

With regard to police services, the city has moresworn police officers and vehicles than does thecounty—and they are responsible for a muchsmaller geographic area. The city thus is capableof a faster response time than is the county, acrucial factor in maintaining public safety. In theearly stages of development and growth, theuniversity community should be well servedwith police services by contracting with the cityof Merced.

Campus communities have police needs specific toa population of students. Once the appropriatecritical mass is achieved at UC Merced, the uni-versity may create its own police force. Alterna-tively, the university could reach an agreementwith the city for the development of this force.

Water and WastewaterIn the long term, some or all of the needed waterservices could be provided within the greater uni-versity community, but until that becomes eco-nomically practicable, potable water may be pur-chased from the city of Merced on a contractbasis. Providing wastewater services involvesdifferent costs and considerations, although theunderlying principle is the same. Initially, waste-water services may be purchased from the city ona contract basis, until on-site sewer treatment forsome or all of the greater university community’sneeds is a practicable alternative.

Alternatively, as with the police force, the univer-sity could enter into an agreement with the cityfor the long-term management and operation of

its own fire, police, and water and wastewaterservices, and sufficient fiscal ability to providethese services. However, at the outset these ser-vices should be purchased on a contract basisfrom the city of Merced, provided the city willmake these services available solely on a fee basisand not require the university to enter into anannexation agreement.

Implementation of Municipal Services Fire and PoliceThe city has a professional fire and emergency ser-vices staff, while the county’s fire department ismainly volunteer. More importantly, the city’s fire

Panelist Bob Kronewitter(left) discusses water andsewer infrastructure atthe proposed UC Mercedwith Brian Boxer of EIPAssociates, Sacramento.

Panelist Jim Meadowstakes the podium at thepanel’s presentation ofits findings.


water and waste treatment facilities. Until theuniversity community achieves the critical massto efficiently provide its own utility and infra-structure services, it should contract those ser-vices from the city of Merced. In the event thecity of Merced is not willing to provide services in the absence of an annexation agreement, thepanel recommends that the university seek theseservices elsewhere.


The goal for the campus at Merced is a uni-versity that celebrates the traditions andreputation of the University of Californiasystem; becomes a state-of-the-art, 21st-

century model for educational institutions; is sus-tainable; and reaches out to the residents of theSan Joaquin Valley to share the benefits of thenew campus and to strengthen the community.

Although the proposed configuration of thecampus will damage wetlands and vernal poolresources, the project’s long-term benefits—including the extensive conservation areasthat will be set aside and the economic and cul-tural impacts of the university on surroundingcommunities—are substantial and must be con-sidered. The panel has suggested the creationof a scientific advisory group and the establish-ment of a vernal pool study center at the newuniversity as further mitigating measures.

The success of UC Merced hinges on the ability ofstakeholders in the valley and in the university toretain their flexibility and to find the way throughcompromise. All must share a sense of building alegacy. They must practice patience. The buildingof a great university takes time and along theway many problems will have to be addressed.The university and the community must showeconomic responsibility by investing in sustain-able practices. These practices may be expensiveat first, but they will provide significant economic

benefit in the future. The Merced communitymust lead by example and set the pattern forfuture growth in the San Joaquin Valley. To dem-onstrate responsibility and leadership, the univer-sity and the community must:

• create a town center that is strong both eco-nomically and socially and that will attract peo-ple from all over the community;

• ensure that new development is compact, envi-ronmentally sensitive, and pedestrian friendly;

• plan for transportation choices, including walk-ing, cycling, and transit as well as driving;

• adopt good urban design practices; and

• be creative about accommodating parking.

The panel has put forth a main street/town centerconcept that will tie the campus and the UniversityCommunity together with a strong axis of attrac-tive and vibrant mixed uses. Development of theproposed town center will help blend the campusand the University Community in the seamlessfashion the university has been seeking.

Conclusion


Gadi KaufmannPanel ChairRockville, Maryland

Gadi Kaufmann specializes in strategic planning,transactional and negotiation services, and financ-ing strategies at the asset and the corporate lev-els (dealing with projects, portfolios, and compa-nies). His experience encompasses public andprivate sector work on many projects of all types,sizes, and locations.

Since joining Robert Charles Lesser & Co. in 1979,he has managed projects throughout the UnitedStates, Canada, and Mexico. His primary focus ismajor, multifaceted projects and portfolios of in-stitutional, corporate, and international clients.

He is a frequent speaker and author on a widerange of industry topics, and is the managing edi-tor of the firm’s advisory newsletter.

Kaufmann is a member of the Board of Trusteesof ULI–the Urban Land Institute, chair of ULI’sSenior Housing Council, and a member of theULI Program Committee.

Until 1998, he was an independent director of UDCHomes, a privately held, Arizona-based regionalhomebuilder with annual sales of $500 million, anda director of Evans Withycombe Residential, a$1.2 billion apartment REIT. Until June 1990, hewas a director of Lincoln N.C. Realty Fund, amortgage REIT.

Kaufmann is a member of the Young PresidentsOrganization, an international business organiza-tion for education and idea exchange, where hehas chaired the annual real estate industry round-table since 1997. He founded the Santa Monica Baychapter and served as its forum chairman from1998 to 1999. He has been forum chairman of theWashington Metro chapter since 2000.

Douglas W. BetzDayton, Ohio

Douglas Betz serves as a senior partner of Wool-pert LLP, a multifaceted national firm, where heis the principal-in-charge of the developer and pri-vate sector group. He is experienced in leadingmultidisciplinary teams of professionals and isresponsible for managing special projects thatinvolve planning expertise.

Betz’s responsibilities include directing a nationalpractice that focuses on the design of retailprojects and also includes theme parks, resorts,industrial/office parks, and correctional facilities.Among the retail clients served are Simon Prop-erties, the Rouse Company, the Taubman Com-pany, Urban Retail Properties, Trammell CrowCompany, Target, Circuit City, Kimco RealtyCorporation, Regency Realty, Best Buy, Sears,Steiner & Associates, and Cousins Properties.

Betz is a member of the Urban Land Instituteand has served on several advisory services pan-els and several project analysis teams. He is amember of the Community Retail Council and haswritten for Urban Land magazine.

He holds leadership positions at local and statelevels in the International Council of ShoppingCenters and the National Association of Indus-trial and Office Properties. He has been active inlobbying efforts on behalf of the real estate indus-try. He currently sits on the boards of a commu-nity performing arts organization and an educa-tional foundation.

Betz is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati,where he received a bachelor’s degree in urbanplanning and design. He has attended numerouscontinuing education courses at Harvard Univer-sity and the American Management Institute.

About the Panel


Myron P. CurzanBethesda, Maryland

Myron Curzan began his career as a legislativeassistant to Senator Robert F. Kennedy, for whomhe drafted legislation that provided tax incentivesfor corporations that create jobs and housing indepressed areas.

As an attorney with the firm of Arnold & Porter,he was involved in governmental, university, andnonprofit housing and other development. In thiscapacity, he managed the planning and construc-tion of approximately 300 employee-based hous-ing units and a machine shop on the Navajo reser-vation in Shiprock, New Mexico. The project wasrecognized by the White House as the most inno-vative ever undertaken on an Indian reservation.

With Arnold & Porter, Curzan established a realestate development company, MPC & Associates,that specialized in faculty, staff, and student hous-ing programs for universities and medical centers.He developed projects at the University of Cali-fornia, Irvine; Tulane; Dartmouth; Davidson; andColumbia.

With his current firm, UniDev, which specializesin planning and developing housing for univer-sities and university towns/cities, Curzan hasworked for the California State University (CSU)in planning and implementing a new campus inVentura County, for the town of Chapel Hill andthe University of North Carolina, and for the cityof College Park and the University of Maryland.

Curzan has been active on the boards of WETA,a Washington, D.C., PBS station; the RockyMountain Institute; and the George WashingtonUniversity.

He is a graduate magna cum laude of ColumbiaCollege and magna cum laude of Columbia LawSchool. He holds a master’s degree from Yale Uni-versity, where he was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow.

George de GuardiolaJupiter, Florida

George de Guardiola was born in Havana, Cuba,and raised in Miami, Florida. He attended Califor-

nia State University in Los Angeles, where he re-ceived a bachelor of arts degree in English andcontinued graduate work in American studies andsecondary-school teaching. He was an Englishteacher from 1972 to 1976 in East Los Angeles.

De Guardiola started working in real estate de-velopment in Palm Beach County, Florida. Hedeveloped the community of Wellington—thelargest master-planned community in Palm BeachCounty—as well as communities in Boynton Beachand Parkland. He was involved in the develop-ment of the PGA National and the Ibis Golf andCountry Club in northern Palm Beach County.

He is president of de Guardiola Development, afirm that concentrates in the acquisition and de-velopment of master-planned communities andtown centers in traditional main street settings.It is currently developing Abacoa Town Center, adevelopment in Jupiter, Florida, with more than400,000 square feet of retail and office space andmore than 1,000 multifamily units; and AbacoaBusiness Center, which includes more than 1 mil-lion square feet of office and flex space and 500apartments. The Abacoa community includes theHonors College of Florida Atlantic University aswell as Roger Dean Stadium, which is the springtraining headquarters of the St. Louis Cardinalsand the Montreal Expos and home of the JupiterHammerheads minor league baseball team.

De Guardiola has been a member of the PalmBeach County Economic Council, the CommunityDevelopers Council, and the Governor’s TaskForce on Urban Growth Patterns. In 1995, he wasthe recipient of the Northern Palm Beach CountyChamber of Commerce Business Leader of theYear award. In 1996, he received the Excellencein Enterprise award for outstanding businessleadership in Palm Beach County; in 1999, theHispanic Chamber’s Entrepreneur of the Yearaward; and in 2000, the Jupiter/Tequesta/JunoBeach Chamber of Commerce Entrepreneur ofthe Year award.

Robert J. GardnerLos Angeles, California

Robert J. Gardner is managing director at RobertCharles Lesser & Co., Los Angeles, heading all


residential, commercial, economic, and litigation-support assignments dealing with market evalua-tion, market positioning, economic base assess-ment, financial feasibility, and fiscal implicationsof real estate projects. He manages all public sec-tor engagements, covering market analysis, finan-cial feasibility, consumer research, and fiscal im-pact analysis. He has 28 years of experience, 16 ofthem with RCLCo.

Gardner manages urban infill development andeconomic development projects. He has con-ducted market research in downtown Los Ange-les for most of the new and adaptive use apart-ment developments. Gardner is currently BoeingRealty Corporation’s market consultant as itseeks a new orientation for its 200-acre land-holding at Long Beach Airport. He has providedmarket research and development services toCalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retire-ment System) for its R Street project in down-town Sacramento.

Gardner performed the market and financialfeasibility analyses for Riverfront Park, a 1,900-unit residential project west of Denver’s LowerDowntown (LoDo) and fronting a future regionalpark on the South Platte River that will be greaterdowntown Denver’s largest single residentialinfill development. Currently, he is preparingmarket, financial, and product programminganalyses for a contiguous project with 4 millionsquare feet of commercial space and 2,000 resi-dential units.

Gardner serves on the Board of Directors ofthe Los Angeles Headquarters Association andon the Steering Committee of the ExecutiveBoard of the ULI Los Angeles District Council.He has served on the Board of Directors of theLos Angeles chapter of the National Associa-tion of Industrial and Office Properties and wasan instructor in NAIOP’s course on industrialdevelopment.

Gardner has served on three ULI advisory pan-els. He is a regular speaker at real estate forumsthroughout California and has lectured on marketresearch and financial feasibility at UCLA exten-sion courses. He holds a master’s degree in city

and regional planning from UC Berkeley and abachelor’s degree in economics from UCLA.

John James GoldasichBoca Raton, Florida

John Goldasich has more than 30 years of environ-mental experience with government, electric util-ity, and consulting organizations. He has beeninvolved in sea grass evaluation and sea grassplantings; dredge-and-fill impact evaluation andmitigation; bathymetric and hydrographic sur-veys; water quality studies, environmental impactstudies (EIS), wastewater and industrial effluentstudies, wetland preservation studies, and wet-land mitigation plans; assignments involvingichthyology and aquatic and marine macrofaunalidentification and analysis; natural-system stud-ies; vegetative quality evaluations; tropical andsubtropical ecosystem analyses; and other areasof study relating to biotic community structureand natural system functions.

Goldasich has been involved in the permittingphase of many projects, and has frequently madepublic presentations relating to environmentallysignificant projects and natural-system issues. Heis experienced in the project management of envi-ronmental investigation projects, and has servedas an expert witness on wetland identification,environmental permitting, and habitat quality.

This is the second ULI advisory services panel inwhich Goldasich has participated. He taught sev-eral short courses on environmental permittingfor the Florida Chamber of Commerce and partic-ipated in an advanced permitting workshop forthe Florida Engineering Society. Goldasich helpedevaluate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineershydrogeomorphic wetland assessment techniquefor flats and depressions of Florida. He is experi-enced in underwater research and search-and-recovery techniques.

Goldasich received a master of science degree inenvironmental health sciences from the Univer-sity of Michigan in 1971 and a bachelor of sciencedegree in aquatic biology from Eastern MichiganUniversity in 1970.


Paula K. KonikoffNew York, New York

Paula K. Konikoff is an independent professionalreal estate consultant with 20 years of experiencein providing clients with advisory, valuation, andother real estate consulting services. Her practiceincludes designing and conducting due diligenceinvestigations on properties; conducting and eval-uating property appraisals; and advising privateand public institutions (both owners and lenders)on the acquisition, development, and disposition oftheir real estate holdings, as well as on their fitwithin a real estate portfolio.

Konikoff has been retained to provide such ser-vices for properties throughout the United Statesand abroad (from Hong Kong to the Czech Re-public). She provides a comprehensive analysisthat is particularly valuable for dealing with thegrowing number of investors and lenders whoseportfolio investments in real estate are increas-ingly evaluated on a national and global level.

Konikoff holds a law degree and an MAI designa-tion. Before she established her independent realestate advisory practice in 1993, Konikoff wasdirector of national real estate valuation servicesat KPMG. She joined KPMG in 1989 after havingserved as president of the Hudson Group, anational real estate consulting and appraisal firm.Previously, she had been an attorney in privatepractice at the Philadelphia law firm of Dilworth,Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman, where she worked inthe practices of real estate and corporate law.

Konikoff is an adjunct professor at New York Uni-versity, teaching graduate and undergraduatecourses on real estate finance, real estate markets,and real estate appraisal. She is an instructor forthe Appraisal Institute, where she conducts pro-grams on standards of appraisal practice and onprofessional appraisal ethical rules. In addition,she develops and presents real estate valuationseminars for continuing education credits forCPAs and attorneys. She has also served as anexpert witness in a variety of cases in which realestate valuation issues have come into dispute,including, for example, the bankruptcy of Livent,an owner of live-theater properties. She was re-

tained by the Securities and Exchange Commis-sion to testify regarding the value of developmentsin California that were funded in part by Mello-Roos bonds. She was also qualified by the courtas an expert in pension real estate portfolio in-vestments in JMB v. Cadillac Fairview.

Konikoff is a member of several committees of theAppraisal Institute and a member of other profes-sional organizations. She chairs the AppraisalInstitute’s Review and Counseling Committeeand the Grievance Committee, and is a member ofthe committee that reviews the work of apprais-ers seeking the MAI designation. She is a mem-ber of the Real Property Law Committee of theAssociation of the Bar of the City of New Yorkand is chair of its Program Subcommittee.

Konikoff earned a bachelor of science degree fromTemple University and a J.D. from Villanova Uni-versity School of Law. She is a frequent speakerand author on appraisal and other real propertyissues.

Bob KronewitterDenver, Colorado

Bob Kronewitter has been recognized for his ex-pertise in urban and campus planning since 1970.As campus architect for the Auraria Higher Edu-cation Center in Denver, he supervised the trans-formation of Auraria from a fragmented urban in-stitution into a true downtown campus for 33,000students. He was responsible for campus plan-ning and architectural, landscape, interior, andgraphic design.

As senior architect at Civitas, Kronewitter hasbeen involved with campus planning projectssince 1997 including: University of Colorado Boul-der, Regis University, University of SouthernColorado, Auraria Higher Education Center, Uni-versity of Colorado, Fitzsimons, Red Rocks Com-munity College, University of Denver, ColoradoChristian College, Southern Illinois University,Cornell University, and National RenewableEnergy Laboratories. He has designed residen-tial, office, retail, mass transit, park, and botanicgarden uses.


Kronewitter has received many honors and isknown as a guest lecturer worldwide. At theAmerican Institute of Architects he is in the Col-lege of Fellows, has served as a director and com-mittee chair, and was awarded for outstandingcommunity service. He has received city andstate awards for design excellence. Kronewitterhas a bachelor of architecture degree fromMiami University and master’s degrees fromWashington University, the University of NotreDame, and the University of Northern Colorado.He is a registered architect in Colorado, Texas,and California.

James E. MeadowsSan Francisco, California

James E. Meadows is a principal with Meadows& Affiliates, an association of experts in base con-version and real estate development. He has beenadvising clients on real estate matters—includingbase conversion, homebuilding company startups,and commercial real estate development issues—since 1990.

Meadows was the first executive director of thePresidio Trust, an executive federal agencyformed by Congress to preserve and enhance the1,000-acre Presidio of San Francisco as a nationalpark while achieving financial self-sufficiency bythe year 2013. The Presidio has taken a nationalleadership role in sustainability, historic preserva-tion, alternative energy development, and envi-ronmental remediation. In its first 36 months, thePresidio generated more than $25 million inannual rental revenues. Meadows was selectedDeveloper of the Year by the National Associa-tion of Installation Developers (NAID) in 1999.

He served as the first executive director of theLowry Redevelopment Authority, a redevelop-ment agency formed by the cities of Denver andAurora, Colorado. As such, he oversaw the rede-velopment of the 1,900-acre former Lowry AirForce Base into a mixed-use, master-plannedneighborhood including residential neighbor-hoods, a commercial town center, a college cam-pus for 10,000 students, and 800 acres of parksand recreation space. Lowry won the Installationof the Year award from NAID in 1997.

Meadows was senior vice president and head ofhomebuilding operations in California and Ari-zona for Castle & Cooke Homes, a division of DoleFoods. Before that he managed his own commer-cial building, homebuilding, and land developmentbusiness in Phoenix and San Diego. He hasworked for three national homebuilding, master-planned community, and land development com-panies in Denver, Phoenix, and Austin.

Meadows is president of the Board of Directors ofNAID, a member of Lambda Alpha, and a boardmember of the Coro Foundation of Northern Cali-fornia. He has served on a variety of panels re-lated to base closures in the San Francisco area,including a ULI advisory panel for TreasureIsland. He is a graduate of the U.S. Air ForceAcademy, is married, and has five children.

Steve NollStateline, Nevada

Steve Noll has been practicing landscape architec-ture since his graduation from California Poly-technic State University in San Luis Obispo. Hespent the first 14 years in San Francisco, wherehe developed awareness about what physical andsocial aspects are important for great outdoorspaces. This understanding is reflected in theprojects with which he has been involved nation-ally and internationally.

In 1997, he established a local office of DesignWorkshop in South Lake Tahoe, California. De-sign Workshop emphasizes balancing develop-ment with the environmental and social aspectsthat are important to design quality.

As principal-in-charge of the office, Noll has beeninvolved with several land planning and site de-sign projects that ultimately will reshape theircommunities. In addition, he is involved withmany community-based organizations for whichhe provides guidance in the areas of mixed-useplanning, recreation and design planning, multi-family design, affordable housing design, andresort design.

Noll is an outdoor enthusiast and enjoys a varietyof activities with his wife and two children.


Nikolai J. SklaroffSan Francisco, California

Nikolai Sklaroff is a vice president in SalomonSmith Barney’s San Francisco public financeoffice. Salomon Smith Barney is the nation’s top-ranked underwriter of tax-exempt bonds. Sklaroffhas specialized in public finance for 16 years, serv-ing as a financial adviser, a senior rating-agencyanalyst, and—currently—an investment banker.He now works primarily with California issuersand specializes in credit-engineering difficultcredits for development, redevelopment, and non-profit projects.

Current and recent clients include the CaliforniaState University Channel Islands (new campus),San Francisco State University (faculty and staffhousing), the Fine Arts Museums of San Fran-cisco (M.H. de Young Museum replacementfinancing), the California Academy of Sciences(replacement project financing), the Music Con-course Community Partnership (garage financ-ing), the San Diego State University Foundation(The Paseo, a mixed-use development), and theFruitvale Development Corporation (FruitvaleTransit Village).

Sklaroff joined Smith Barney from Moody’s In-vestors Service where he was a vice president/senior credit officer. As a member of Moody’s

Public Finance Rating Committee, he was in-volved in the final rating determination for abroad range of municipal financings. Sklaroffbegan working at Moody’s in 1989, followingseveral years as a financial adviser with PublicFinancial Management, a Philadelphia-basednational financial advisory firm.

Active in industry associations and a frequentspeaker on public finance issues, Sklaroff serveson the boards of the Association for Governmen-tal Leasing and Finance, the National MunicipalLeasing Association, and the San Francisco BayArea Municipal Forum.

Sklaroff received a bachelor of science degree ineconomics from the University of Pennsylvania’sWharton School and a bachelor of arts degree inpolitical science with a concentration in publicpolicy from its College of Arts and Sciences. Hereceived a master of arts degree in WesternEuropean economics and politics from the Uni-versity of Durham, University College, in Eng-land. He also studied public administration atColumbia University’s School of International andPublic Affairs.

an advisory services panel report university of california ... · joaquin valley (also known as the...

Documents