CCVC
FUTURES FORUM
Meeting
April 27, 2001
Freedom Center,
Camarillo Airport
Minutes
Elton Hall called the meeting to order and reviewed the agenda for the day. Cheryl Shearer went over the ground rules for Futures Forum meetings. She introduced Philip Westin and asked him to review the topics for the day. Phil indicated that we would look at the status of the facilities master plan and focus on some basic questions, such as how programs should be centered (e.g., on all sites or focused at a single location, the Camarillo Airport site, etc.). He announced that the current facilities plan, required by the state, has been filed. This plan, like previous state-required facilities master plans, did not have the input the plan under development is receiving. As agreed in Futures Forum, the plan that had to be filed followed the “old track” for facilities plans; the plan under development is on the “new track” which involves wide input and discussion. Phil introduced Marlene Imirzian, A.I.A., President of Marlene Imirzian and Associates Architects, responsible for developing the facilities master plan.
Marlene Imirzian indicated that she would recap her presentation of two months ago, since many people present today were not at that previous meeting. She noted that there are numerous changes afoot at the state level, and CCVC will need to look closely at these changes and the guidelines available, so that CCVC can identify those facilities that are most likely to be funded by the state.
Phil reminded Futures Forum that bond issues now require only 55% of the votes to pass, though other requirements apply. Such issues are state dated, so that the earliest time we could vote on a CCVC bond issue would be next March or the following November. If we sought a bond issue, we have to specify exactly what the funds would be used for. So we need to consider what facilities we would seek without a bond issue, and what we would do should we go for a bond.
Marlene said that she would review a number of topics. The CCVC strategic planning and master planning are different. The facility master plans will be for each site and for the Camarillo Airport property. To develop these plans, we have had to evaluate existing sites and programs, develop a list of unmet needs and strategies for meeting them, create an overall program focus by site where appropriate, generate enrollment projections, and understand funding priorities.
We have looked at the existing condition analysis (location, buildings, parking, open space, landmarks, signage, pedestrian and vehicular traffic), campus capacity, needs over the next 15 years, and we are developing design plans (new building zones, parking, etc.). The existing sites consist of three colleges, the DSC and the Camarillo Airport property. Marlene noted that she was using technical terms when she referred to centers and sites. A center is a state chancellor approved location; a site is anywhere a location offers classes or engages in activities and includes both rented and leased sites. The proposed Conejo Center is, in this view, a site, not a center. The population projections and other analyses will tell us which college first goes to the state with an application for a center. Currently the state allows a district to file only one center application in any five-year increment; and plans must be filed every five years. If each of the colleges intend to create an official center, that will take 15 years.
Eva Conrad asked what the advantages of applying for a center might be. Marlene said that a center can request facilities funding while a site cannot.
Marlene quickly reviewed the acreage for each college: Oxnard College has about 118 acres, Moorpark College about 144 acres, and Ventura College 103 acres, though Larry Calderón said that the Ventura College acreage probably does not include 71 Day Road (the old District Office), which it now should. These acreages need to be modified, because of specialty programs (Moorpark’s EATM program, Ventura’s agriculture program) that take up a lot of land, and such programs affect the maximum enrollments possible at each location.
Analyses show that Oxnard College is enrolling a relative small percentage of its area population, in part because many of its residents attend Ventura College. Both Ventura College and Moorpark College draw relative high percentages of their area populations. These numbers suggest that over the next 15 years, OC will rework its curriculum offerings to draw more heavily on its population. Without such change, we can expect Oxnard College to grow more slowly than Ventura College and Moorpark College, but with requisite curriculum modifications, Oxnard College could be expected to grow more rapidly than the other two colleges. These figures do not reflect Census 2000 data, because that was not yet available at the time of the development of these projections.
Enrollment projections for the next 15 years see an overall growth FTES from 10,000 to 16,000. By 2015, Ventura College is expected to grow 15%, Moorpark College 50%, and Oxnard College 87% (all figures rounded off). These figures are important, because they must be included in facilities requests. Since Oxnard College’s projected growth is so large, it will have to be reviewed in a few years to make sure that that the program growth and focus is such that the college remains on track for meeting this ambitious target. Though the state chancellor’s office sees that CCVC will grow 36%, we are actually projecting 45% growth. Such a target is feasible, but the colleges will have to determine whether they wish to fulfill this great potential. In five years, all such plans and projections have to be reviewed with an eye toward reallocating and reprojecting targets. If such targets are not met incrementally, applications for new buildings will get into trouble at the state level, and a college may not be able to apply for a facility that it expected to be able to apply for. CCVC is not intending to add a college in the next 15 years, so all projections are in terms of the present three colleges; CCVC is planning, however, for each college to have a center by 2015.
Larry asked what the difference between a center and a college is. Marlene replied that a college will build out many facilities—including complexes such as P.E. and athletics—and a center will not. Shifting from a center to a college is very expensive. Adding a center usually means that there will not be another college in the area.
Dennis Cabral asked what enrollment projections are used in applying for funding for a building. Marlene said that the projections used are those that project FTES at the time a building is scheduled to on line—which is usually about 7 years after the building is applied for. Marlene noted that a state chancellor’s approved center requires a certain acreage, though the state is becoming more flexible on that, and that a site like the proposed Conejo Center, a partnership with a K12 district, will never qualify as a official center. The term ‘center’ has a technical meeting here, as noted previously. But because so many centers are now urban-based, the old acreage rules have been almost suspended, and so there is at present more flexibility in getting a center than the rules suggest. Currently, the three major growth areas in Ventura County are Moorpark, Port Hueneme, and Santa Paula.
Funding for facilities now includes state funding, collaborative projects, and bond funding. State funding requires project proposals and involves funding for planning and then funding for the actual project. Many criteria apply, and at present first priority projects are health and safety ones, followed by those based on capacity load ratios, then those having to do with replacing or added to existing facilities.
Collaborative projects involve some new ideas. The state is looking at increasing sharing of state funding with other funding, including the college itself, another school district, or some private entities. In this approach, projects have to have a separate source of funding that includes a permanent local match. The state will fund 50% of the project, but each local partner must supply at least 20% of the matching funding. This approach is not yet law, but looks like it will be, and it is important to recognize that the chancellor’s office is using these regulations now, even though they are not yet in code. This approach is designed to take care of facilities beyond what bond funding will cover. Local match is not required of all projects at this time, but the state is gearing up for this new option. Even though not yet code, we have to consider it because strategic planning cannot be based on the assumption that future funding will remain what it is now. One discussion at the state level revolves around the idea that at some time in the future, all capital funding may involve collaborative funding.
Pat Kistler asked about technologically based projects, and Marlene noted that such projects cannot easily be put through on the traditional application procedures, but with this new approach, technological projects may actually be favored.
Marlene turned to the Camarillo Airport site. The major problem is access, in part because the City of Camarillo is not warm to the idea of a direct Las Posas or Pleasant Valley access to the site. So the problem is now is that visitors approach the site by going through the Airport to the back of the site. The fire station being developed next to the CCVC property will require direct access to Las Posas, but that will be a dedicated access not available to anyone else. So CCVC will have to figure out how to fund access, perhaps through leasing part of the land and using that money to develop direct access. The Camarillo Airport CCVC site is 42½ acres. Las Posas will be widened, but that will not cut into the site. Pleasant Valley will double in width, but the loss from the site will be negligible. There are plans to demolish the current Cowan Center and build a new conference center there, probably requiring additional parking. CCVC is looking at trading parking use for access, but those discussions have not resulted in a resolution at this time. A CCVC conference center at the site would be used for the DSC, a public safety service center, perhaps another Golden Tee, some commercial users, in addition to the sheriff’s academy, the fire academy and the warehouse. Commercial construction might involve commercial construction of the DSC with a buy back provision. Current thinking is that CCVC should use the frontage areas on Las Posas and Pleasant Valley, with the back property open for lease. Current thinking devotes 16+ acres for CCVC, 12½ acres for the police/fire academies, and 11.7 acres for commercial and other development.
After a break and some time to ruminate over this report, Marlene asked Futures Forum participants whether there should be an overall focus for the use of the Camarillo Airport site. If so, what should it be? She asked that issues of money—either outlay or intake—be ignored at the moment. Rather we should think about the educational value and focus of the site. She asked each table to formulate ideas for a report back to the whole group.
Table 1: Pat reported for this table. Suggestions included
Jaime Casillas reported that Iowa has developed a virtual college, and such a program might be centered at the Camarillo Airport site. It would serve students at large for all three colleges.
Table 2: Ron Dyste reported for this table. Its suggestions included
This table noted that Missing from the strategic plan is the possibility of an educational center.
Table 3: Eloy Oakley reported for this table. This table focused on what OC could do at the site:
OC is thinking of the possibility of moving its public safety programs entirely to the Camarillo Airport site.
Table 6: Gary Johnson reported for this table. Suggestions included
Gary noted that we have gradually taken over possession of this property and suggested that if we are free to do so, we might look at trading the property for a better location. The table thought of new programs that CCVC does not at present have or have only in a minimally developed state. CSUCI does not seem to developing anything in agriculture, yet, given the nature of the county, CCVC might want to expand into this area.
Marlene asked for elaboration. Gary noted that the SOAR initiatives are trying to preserve open, agricultural space, which of course will continue to be a struggle. Given its impetus, however, CCVC might wish to look at appropriate agricultural programs, in part because agriculture will remain in the county and yet could change fairly significantly in the coming years. Marlene wondered if this site might be a demonstration site. Gary said that all such issues would need to be thought out, but that using the site as a farm was not his table’s intention.
Vic placed CCVC possibilities within the context of CSUCI, and pointed to both a high tech training center or college center and also agriculture. High tech, however, has to be the best, or it will fail. And it must not just be educational; it must also serve as a resource for citizens and for staff who want to learn.
Table 4: Floyd Martin reported for this table. The table focused on a training center for CCVC’s own employees, as well as certification and credential programs. Its suggestions included
Both of these programs would utilize credit courses and colleges would share in FTES.
Marlene asked for additional comments regarding the possibility of joining with the Camarillo Library. Pat said that Camarillo has money but no site. Diane Moore expressed doubt that a civic library could also serve the functions of a faculty-oriented resource library. Pat wondered whether a partnership might join the two functions.
Dennis suggested adding the development of the Pacific Rim to the list of possible Airport uses.
Marlene also asked for additional comments regarding agriculture. Romero Sanchez said that agricultural change might be a focus, coupled with agricultural development, which now involves a variety of high tech activities that require significant training. Jeannie Bailey added that there are many supporting functions to agriculture that could be supplied—certification, sanitation, worker management, etc. Dennis reminded the group that agriculture is increasingly high tech. Gary noted that such program development is probably larger than an individual college can handle. He also pointed to the ongoing development of the harbor which serves agricultural needs even into the San Joaquin Valley, and harbor and port developments may also require a response that is larger than any single college can provide. Jaime reported that enrollment is low in Ventura College’s agriculture program because studies have shown that students interested in agriculture come to Ventura College for general education and move directly to schools like California State University, San Luis Obispo.
Marlene suggested that if agriculture is to be a significant new program, CCVC would need not only the educational component but also an actually farming site. At Marlene’s request, Ron recapped Ventura College’s current agriculture program. There is a demand for training in foremanship and things like that, but large universities made their name on agricultural research stations and programs. Ventura College has shifted its attention into land use in the county, both by looking at what is happening to the land and to the population. As a consequence, the program has moved toward horticulture. The college has made no major commitment yet, but its discussions in this area are exciting. Dennis said that he has seen in the Midwest how the application of technology to agriculture is a growing need that is not readily met, and Bob Renger reported that VC is already working in this area. Bob sketched out the model being looked at, working with GIS and biology as well as agriculture, but noted that a full proposal is not ready at this time. When it is, Ventura College will share it with everyone.
Marlene asked about distance learning. Ron said that Ventura College recognizes that distance learning is a high priority, but that it has not focused on distance learning in general yet. Bob noted that Ventura has 6 totally online courses. Anthony Tricoli said that Oxnard College is currently developing a distance learning program, though it is not clear at this time that a Camarillo Center location is necessary for this program. Patti Ross reported that Moorpark College has a variety of distance learning activities, including distance learning associated with the health sciences institutes. She reminded people of the California Virtual College at Rio Hondo and its regional centers that can partner with colleges. She also pointed to the training center located at De Anza. Elton said that Moorpark College has mechanisms in place to make courses online and encourages teachers to see if it works for them and their disciplines. Bob said that the largest problem with distance education is not the technology but the pedagogy involved. In addition, it is necessary to meet a number of requirements, including those of the American Disabilities Act, which is perhaps the most difficult of all requirements to comply with in distance education courses. Distance education providers are making progress in bringing their materials into compliance. Bob also indicated that intellectual property rights is a large area of concern. Patti said that distance education is not just putting course notes online. To move to distance education for a course requires rethinking the whole course. Marlene wondered if the discussion suggests that CCVC needs a center for just this kind of faculty training.
After lunch, Marlene observed that there seem to be common themes from the various tables, suggesting priorities in the participants’ thinking. One is a high tech focus, itself not detailed at this time. A second is conference center/training, though it is not clear whether this means a conference center/training facility for the community or for exclusively internal use. Some tables suggested that the center would be for CCVC employees and students, but could also be shared with the community. Another is a distance learning/training center. Bob pointed to several models available, and wondered whether on site training might be more economical. Traveling for such training might be a different burden for employees and for students. Jaime said that having such a center at the Camarillo Airport site does not mean that the center is independent of the colleges; rather, the colleges could collaborate in such a center and divide the responsibilities and FTES and the programs. Marlene suggested that the idea of a conference/training center could encompass all these ideas.
Marlene then asked for the two best ideas from each table. Several people pointed to the library idea, and Marlene indicated that the additional Camarillo library could simply be a potential tenant, not a joint facility. As such it would be revenue generating. The concept of a contract training center was picked from Table 2, and some liked the idea of a regional health center, but others thought that idea should be elaborated before Futures Forum can decide if its participants approve the idea. Referring to Table 3, Marlene noted that expanding the public safety components would probably replace the proposed golf driving range. Public safety programs require a lot of land. Jaime said that there is a great resistance in Camarillo to coming across the freeway to do anything, and our plans should remember that. Anthony said that the land use agreement involves offering education on the site. Cheryl liked the idea of a Camarillo Airport location for a print shop (from Table 6). Joan Beem wondered about a basic skills center that could specialize in communication in English, including wellness support services. Ron noted that some kind of language acquisition center in light of Pacific Rim interest. Romero suggested from Table 5 that a language acquisition center could include helping people learn Spanish, could work on accent reduction, and a variety of other language acquisition skills. Discussion also focused on a wellness center. Carmen Guerrero-Calderón suggested that all the items in Table 4 had been covered in the priorities set out.
The meeting concluded with a plus/delta on the day. A plus refers to something a participant especially appreciated, and a delta refers to something that was missing or could have been done better.
Deltas included conflicts with the May Futures Forum meeting, the need for a large screen for projected data and diagrams, the poor acoustics of the Freedom Center, continuing concern with access to the CCVC Camarillo Airport site, the need for more follow-up discussions regarding planning and projections for the Camarillo Airport site, the need for clarification of requirements for Camarillo Airport site ownership, and the need for time to get Futures Forum participants “up to speed” on what has been done in the previous meetings.
Pluses included the “great job” done by Marlene, the improved set up and acoustics (still imperfect) in the Freedom Center, the reminders and previews of the next meeting, the provocative discussions, and the improved attendance and representation from locations.
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Next meeting:
Friday, May 18,
2001
Ventura Room,
Cowan Center, Camarillo Airport