Draft Report of the Space Committee

March 24, 1997

Table of Contents

Charge

Process

Policy Findings & Recommendations

Current Space Utilization
Master Plan and Relationship to Remodeling Projects
Use of Common Areas ("lounges")
Use of Basement Space
Classroom Remodeling Projects
Use of Outbuildings (Kifer, Geoduck, Driftwood House)
Open Office Concept
Student and Temporary Employee Work Areas
Rental Policy
Scheduling Practices
Governance Hours

Unit Findings & Recommendations

Academics

Scheduled Classrooms
Communications Building
Laboratory Buildings
Longhouse
Faculty Offices
Program Secretaries
Library and Media Services
Learning Resource Center
Graduate Programs
Academic Division Public Service Centers
Academic Deans
Provost

Student Affairs

Enrollment Services
Housing
Police Services
Recreation and Athletics
Student and Academic Support Services (SASS)
Counseling and Health Services
Student Activities & Organizations
Upward Bound
Vice President for Student Affairs

Finance and Administration

Bookstore
Food Services
Conference Services
Budget Office
Controllers Office
Computing and Communications
Copy Center
Facilities
Human Resources
Receiving and Mail Room
Space Management and Campus Planning
Vice President's Office

President's Office

College Advancement
Public Policy Institute
President & Administrative Staff

---

The space committee, consisting of Rino Balatbat (campus architect), John Cushing (academic dean), Llywelyn Graeme (student representative), Nancy McKinney (special assistant, finance & administration), Bill Zaugg (budget coordinator, student affairs), and Patti Zimmerman (space management), was charged by President Jane Jervis in March, 1996, to review the college's use of space and to make recommendations regarding long-range space planning. The work of the committee including (1) charge, (2) process, (3) policy findings, and (4) unit recommendations is summarized in the sections which follow.

Charge

The committee's charge (Appendix I) noted that the college was apparently reaching full utilization of existing buildings just as the prospect of an approximate 50% enrollment growth during the next 15 years was materializing. Given the expected state fiscal constraints, the president wanted to be confident that existing space was being utilized in the most appropriate and efficient way before requesting additional new buildings, and she wanted to have a long-term plan to guide remodeling of existing space.

The committee was specifically charged to:

1) Review existing space policies and recommend modifications;
2) Identify unique requirements for each building;
3) Produce a survey eliciting the needs of campus users;
4) Help campus groups to understand current space allocations, etc.;
5) Review unit needs, inter-unit relationships, and special factors;
6) Determine suitable space allocations and present these to units;
7) Make recommendations to the president and vice presidents.

The president requested that the committee attempt to complete its work by December 31, 1996.

Process

The committee first met on March 29, 1996, to begin considering the charge and drafting a survey instrument. A survey was developed (Appendix II) which, broadly speaking, asked campus units to report current space utilization, to identify current unmet needs, and to project future needs as a consequence of growth. The survey also specifically asked each unit to consider ways in which space could be shared with other units, to identify the benefits of possible relocation or collocation, to evaluate the feasibility of implementing "open area" office concepts, and to report on storage needs.

The survey was distributed on May 15, and units were requested to return their surveys by June 7. Surveys were sent to the following units [and contacts]:

Academics

Scheduled Classrooms [Patti Zimmerman]
Communications Building [Jacinta McCoy]
Lab I & II and Lab Annex [Walter Niemiec]
Longhouse [Tina Moomaw]
Faculty Offices [John Cushing]
Program Secretaries [Karen Wynkoop]
Library & Media Services [Bill Bruner]
Learning Resource Center [Masao Sugiyama]
MES Program [Richard Cellarius]
MPA Program [Carolyn Dobbs]
MIT Program [Michael Vavrus]
Evergreen Center for Educational Improvement [Magda Costantino]
Washington Center [Jeanine Elliot]
Labor Center [Helen Lee]
Academic Deans [John Cushing]
Provost's Office [Barbara Smith]

Student Affairs

Enrollment Services [Arnaldo Rodriguez]
Housing [Mike Segawa]
Police Services [Steve Huntsberry]
Recreation & Athletics [Pete Steilberg]
Student and Academic Support Services [Shannon Ellis]
Counseling & Health Services [David Schoen]
Student Activities & Organizations [Tom Mercado]
Upward Bound [Denny Hurtado]
Vice President's Office [Bill Zaugg]

Finance & Administration

Bookstore [Kristy Walker]
Conference Services [Donagene Ward]
Food Services [Nancy McKinney]
Budget Office [Steve Trotter]
Controller's Office [Wade Davis]
Computing & Communications [Jim Johnson]
Copy Center [Bill Gilbreath]
Facilities [Ken Jacob]
Human Resources [Jim LaCour]
Receiving & Mail [Kort Jungel]
Space Management/Campus Planning [Nancy McKinney]
Vice President's Office [Ruta Fanning]

President's Office

College Advancement [Sandie McKenzie]
Public Policy Institute [Roxanne Lieb]
President's Office [Lee Hoemann]

While individual units were working to complete their surveys, the committee considered general space issues in accord with the first part of its charge (reviewing space policies).

Many units did not meet the June 7 request date for returning surveys, so the committee was not able to begin reviewing these collectively until late summer. After reviewing the surveys returned by the units, the committee scheduled meetings with each unit to clarify the information provided and to explore possible changes in space assignments. After reviewing the surveys, the committee identified a series of key questions and asked for guidance from the president and vice presidents in a letter sent October 14 (Appendix III). The president and vice presidents concurred with the list of questions the committee had identified, but also recommended one additional question concerning whether units were located so as to give the best possible service to clients (especially students).

Meetings with the forty individual units who had completed surveys were carried out during the fall quarter. The committee met for two hours twice per week. In several cases these meetings jointly involved several units which the committee felt had similar needs or where the committee wished to explore potential collocations or relocations.

Following meetings with the individual unit contacts who had completed the surveys, the committee developed the general and specific recommendations below to take to the general community, the president, and vice presidents.

Policy Findings and Recommendations

In general, the committee found that space on campus is both efficiently and fully utilized. Based on the data we gathered, the committee does not believe that the anticipated growth to 5000 students by 2010 (see Appendix IV) can be accommodated within existing buildings, even with extensive remodeling. The most critical short-term space constraints in the face of growth are in offices (especially for faculty), student service areas, and information units (including both the library and computer services), but in the longer term, more classroom space (especially large classrooms and laboratories) will also be needed. Comparisons with other state institutions and against state standards show, for example, that both WWU's and our classrooms are already being utilized more fully than at the other 4-year schools and well above state standards:

TABLE 1: Institutional Capacity versus State Standards

[Source: HECB Draft Space Utilization Report, 1/9/97]

Utilization data show that the myth that classes at Evergreen are only scheduled on Tuesdays and Thursdays and only after lunch is just that -- A myth:

* All three charts based on classroom reservations made through Space Management and Scheduling. Part-time programs, evening graduate programs, and programs using space not centrally scheduled are excluded. Appendix V displays a room-by-room utilization report for scheduled classrooms during the most recent quarter.

Although Tuesdays and Thursdays remain the most popular days for classes, classroom utilization on other days is also generally high. Indeed, given that no classes at all are scheduled during governance hours (Mondays, 3-5pm and Wednesdays, 1-5pm), one should perhaps even be surprised to find as much utilization on those days as there is. The data also show that classes are common at all hours of the day (with the exception of the early morning). And except for Fridays, there are many different programs meeting every day as well.

This is not to say that classrooms are fully utilized at present. The comparisons with FEPG capacity standards in Table 1 not withstanding, Evergreen still has some ability to absorb additional enrollment even without remodeling or new construction. Some growth can be absorbed, for example, simply by natural migration of academic programs into less heavily used times and by using less heavily used rooms more intensively (see Appendix V). A few caveats are necessary, however:

1. Growth to the 5000 student level by 2010 will require additional classroom space of all kinds.

2. Additional specialized classroom space (especially science laboratories) will be required even sooner. It is worth noting that the same HECB report cited above also shows that based on laboratory space Evergreen is already operating at 83% above FEPG standards. The committee believes that the additional laboratory space required can be created within the current shells of Lab I and Lab II, but that this will first require creating additional general classroom space elsewhere so that rooms in the lab buildings which are currently being used as general classrooms (for instance, Lab I, 1047) can be converted to laboratories. Construction of Seminar Phase II will enable this conversion.

3. Some classrooms more easily accommodating 25-30 students and some accommodating 60 students will be needed. This too should be part of Seminar Phase II. It is not just a question of a net addition to the total classroom space: The issue concerns the size of the classrooms and is related both to changes in the curriculum and to the level of state support (student:faculty ratio). Construction of larger rooms may also release some existing small classrooms which could be converted to other uses while improving utilization of the remaining classrooms.

4. Some spaces now used as classrooms will be lost to specific relocations proposed below. Specifically, both CAB 108 and CAB 110 will probably eventually be lost as classrooms. Likewise, the functional integration of library, computing, and media services and the expansion of the library proper into the 3rd floor C-wing (see below) may also cause the loss of some classrooms. Classrooms lost (or expected to be lost) to these and other projects will need to be replaced as part of Seminar Phase II.

The committee also tried to locate underutilized space assigned to staff units, but could find only two areas in any building where assigned space currently appears to be significantly underutilized, either in terms of the percentage of time the space is in use or in terms of the area assigned to particular functions, namely parts of the CRC complex and the Facilities Office area in Lab II. A complete table showing the space actually assigned to each unit and the state standards for each unit's space requirements appears in Appendix VI.

Finally, the committee tried to locate already enclosed common areas on campus which are currently unused and readily convertible to additional office or classroom space. We concluded, however, that there are very few of these unless one is willing to begin making substantial inroads into breakout areas or open spaces such as lounges and the building lobbies. (This option is discussed in more detail below in connection with a specific question regarding "lounge" space.)

There are some options for recapturing wasted space (for example, in large corridors) or for enclosing additional space (for example, under existing building overhangs or on top of existing buildings). Most such proposals run counter to certain aspects of the current master plan, however:

One of the important architectural concepts of the original Master Plan was to include overhangs and covered walkways by and between buildings [Master Plan, page 4-8].

Building heights: Building heights in the campus plaza shall be limited to four stories, in keeping with the pedestrian scale and original design of the campus [Master Plan, page 4-11].

Weather protection: New construction should include in its design overhangs, breezeways, and covered walkways to facilitate ease of pedestrian movement in rainy weather [Master Plan, page 4-11].

These principles suggest that there are probably only limited opportunities for adding to existing buildings without violating current planning policies. In addition, the cost of the recent CAB and COM additions suggest that such projects may not even be less expensive than construction of new buildings. In the few cases where the committee feels enclosing additional space might be appropriate, however, this has been identified in specific proposals below.

The committee considered each of the specific questions identified in its October 14 report to the president and vice presidents, and responds as follows:

Should we locate people for unit efficiency (for example, based on proximity to closely related work units) or in accord with other goals such as diversity, inter-unit contact, and strengthening the sense of a college community?

The current campus master plan identifies the deliberate mixing of functions within spaces as a conscious goal of the initial college design:

One of the principal design concepts of this spatial arrangement [of the campus] was that the buildings should be arranged to encourage mixing of various segments of the campus community [Master Plan, page 4-5].

Elsewhere the master plan states:

One of the provisions for that objective [mixing of segments of the campus population] in architectural design was to contain a variety of spaces -- classroom, office, and lounge -- on each floor of a campus building. Each academic building also contains different types of academic programs, which also contributes to the mixing of the campus population [Master Plan, page 4-6].

These planning statements, as well as the current actual arrangement of functions in various campus buildings, make clear that the college in the past has given priority to encouraging random contacts among various campus users over mere inter-unit efficiency. In spite of this, the committee believes that one can draw a useful distinction between unit efficiency and inter-unit efficiency and that this distinction can be helpful in thinking about how to balance competing demands.

For example, unit efficiency would suggest that highly related functions within the current controller's office, including purchasing, payroll, accounting, and the cashier's office should not be geographically separated. But the goal of inter-unit mixing would suggest that these financial functions need not be physically located close to other less-connected functions within the finance and administration division.

In addition, the committee believes that the question of where particular units should be located and how the tradeoff should be made between the values of "efficiency" and inter-unit mixing ought to consider the quality of service to the client. So, for example, a major consideration in locating functions (such as registration and student accounting) which are often used at the same time by clients is that these should be close together physically, even if they are not close organizationally.

Within the sorts of constraints just outlined, the committee has attempted to maximize inter-unit mixing in our specific proposals for relocations in accord with the goals of the master plan. The committee believes in particular that regular contact between faculty and students (considered as one group) and college staff and administrative officers from non-academic areas (considered as another group) is highly desirable. One way to facilitate such contact is to include both instructional and administrative functions in every building. The committee also supports the continued mixing of different kinds of academic programs by locating faculty from various disciplines in adjacent offices, by relocating faculty offices frequently, and by the scheduling of classes from various curricular areas in common rooms. All of these have long traditions at Evergreen.

What common areas should be remodeled to create more assignable classroom or office space? How much lounge and break-out space is needed campus-wide?

The committee reviewed the inventory of common areas on campus. Besides the various small open spaces in all campus buildings, there are the three large "lobby" areas in the library building (1000, 2000, and 3000), library 4300, the open areas on the second and third floor of the CAB, and the portion of the steam plant which was formerly used as an indoor recreational area prior to construction of CRC Phase II. There is also a substantial amount of "excess" corridor space, particularly in the A-wing of the library building.

The master plan makes clear that one goal of the campus design was to create numerous spaces where people could meet informally. On the exterior of the buildings these take the form of plazas allowing a variety of public and private interactions. Examples of such spaces are (of course) Red Square, but also, the deck in the woods on the west side of the communications building and the small garden in the corner between the two wings of the seminar building. Inside the buildings, however, this same concept was applied:

The small lounges located in campus buildings also provide a more informal atmosphere where seminars or individuals can meet and converse. The areas contain couches and table lamps, and provide relief from the more formal atmosphere of offices and classrooms. These spaces are similar to the numerous outdoor plazas, and serve the same function [Master Plan, page 4-7].

The master plan also makes the continued provision of such spaces a part of the overall design concepts to guide campus growth:

Social Space: Formal and informal gathering places shall be provided at many locations around the campus, both indoors and outdoors, and be incorporated as a design criterion for future development [Master Plan, page 4-11].

The committee concludes that the term "lounges" (which is commonly used to refer to spaces such as Library 1600, 2100, and 3200, for example) is a misnomer. Both the conscious campus design and the actual pattern of use suggest that these spaces are in fact serving as informal classrooms and meeting places. The committee does not believe that many of these spaces can be eliminated without disrupting an important aspect of the functioning of our college community. There are one or two exceptions, however, and these are noted in specific proposals below. The committee recommends that as we reallocate space and construct new buildings or additions, we try to maintain the current level of interior break-out space.

The committee also thinks that somewhat greater use might be made of these small breakout spaces as an alternative to dedicated conference rooms within individual units, thus allowing some of that space to be reclaimed for offices. The Labor Center and the Washington Center already frequently use such breakout spaces in this way.

Other considerations apply with respect to the large open areas in the library building (the so-called "lobbies"). The 1000 lobby has not recently been much used as an informal breakout space (in part because over the years it has lost its original furniture.) But it does serve as a kind of miniature version of Red Square -- a pedestrian mall where people going from the enrollment services offices and the controllers offices on one side cross paths with those going to media services, central receiving, student services, classrooms, and faculty offices on the other side. There is a lot of diagonal traffic through this lobby, and it would not be easily possible to just replace it with corridors. And in spite of the new telephone registration system, there are still a few times during the year when this lobby is needed to handle overflow from the registrar's office.

The committee does think, however, that this space could be better utilized. For instance, it probably would be feasible to glass-in one or two of the 22' by 22' bays on the east side of the library 1000 lobby to create additional office space and/or to create one or two semi-enclosed breakout spaces in the windowed corners to compensate for breakout spaces lost elsewhere in the library building as a result of remodels. (Indeed, new furniture has already been ordered to restore the breakout function these areas once served.) Any projects in the library 1000 lobby should, however, preserve the natural light and open feeling which characterizes this space.

The library 2000 lobby serves a similar pedestrian mall function for the second floor and would be difficult to eliminate for the same reasons. Moreover, this space is regularly used for public presentations, as well as for the academic fair. Indeed, one probably should conceive of this space as a rainproof Red Square used for similar kinds of events. The committee does not think it makes sense to alter this space.

The upstairs portion of the 2000 lobby (the 3000 lobby) may be an opportunity, however: This area includes almost 4000 square feet of space and has windows on two walls. Unlike the first and second floor lobbies, there is minimal cross-traffic through this area already. And when the library proper ultimately requires the remainder of the 3rd floor C-wing for expansion of stacks and student study areas (see below), there will be no cross traffic. At that point, it might make sense to glass-in part or all of this area, converting it to assignable office space, classrooms, or other functions. This should be done in a reversible way, however, in case further library expansion towards the third floor A-wing is required in the future. It should also be done so as to preserve the natural lighting and current uses on the second floor. One regular use of this space which would be affected by this project is the academic fair, which at 5,000 students will have to be relocated in any case (probably to the gymnasium or to multiple sites within the library building). Many groups do, however, use the 3000 lobby as overflow and breakout space for events in the 2000 lobby. This would have to be considered in any such project. Perhaps the best use of this space might simply be to create more breakout areas to replace those lost in other projects or accommodate the expected growth in the number of students, staff, and faculty.

The committee also considered library 4300, currently the largest single classroom on campus. There is general agreement that this room is actually much larger than required for any current or projected classes, so from that standpoint it could be subdivided into some combination of smaller classrooms and office space. Other factors, however, argue against this:

• L4300 is also a social space which is frequently used by students (and others). Tom Mercado pointed out that with the gymnasium essentially unavailable for dances due to the need to protect its special floor, L4300 is really the only place for student dances.
• Although its kitchen (the college's original food services operation) has been stripped of most of its major appliances, L4300 still has a serving line and amenities to support campus events involving food, and it is often used in this way.
• L4300 has basic lighting and sound equipment to support public events, and it opens onto a fine outdoor space.
• As we undertake remodeling around the campus, it is very valuable to have a large space where a college function can be temporarily located during a major project. L4300 has already been used twice for that purpose: Once when the student advising center was experiencing air quality problems and once during the most recent computer services remodel. We expect it will be needed again.

For all of these reasons, the committee recommends against permanently subdividing and assigning L4300 or parts of it. We do believe, however, that if funds could be obtained to install a really good user-moveable partition system (such as the one at Tumwater High School), then this space would be much more useable as classroom space, perhaps allowing other classroom space to be converted to other purposes. We recommend this as a capital project funding priority.

The committee also considered the large open spaces on the CAB second and third floors as possible candidates for subdivision and/or permanently assigned space. The committee does not believe that either of these spaces should be so used, however. The CAB areas not only function as pedestrian malls and informal meeting spaces, but they are also increasingly taking on the role originally envisioned in the campus master plan:

One major example of a major pedestrian mall on campus secondary to Red Square is the College Activities Building (CAB). Contained within this building are food services, the bookstore, a bank [well, at least a cash machine], student offices, and other services. The second or main floor is set as an indoor street cafe with tables, chairs, couches, and formal plantings, providing a major indoor meeting place for members of the college community [Master Plan, page 4-6, italics added].

As enrollment grows and food services moves more and more towards a kind of Seattle Center food circus model, the committee expects that the "street cafe" function will be even more important to the CAB building and that no space can be taken on the second or third floor for other purposes.

Although the steam plant does have excess space since the construction of the gymnasium ended the use of this building as an indoor sports area, its location, noise level, HVAC issues, and adjacency to dangerous equipment caused the committee to conclude that this space cannot be used for any purpose other than storage. In that connection, the committee recommends that any excess space in the steam plant be used to free some of the storage space in the library basement now occupied by facilities and/or housing and/or to provide "drying out" space for recreation and athletics equipment.

Finally, the committee notes that particularly within the library building there is some corridor space which might be recaptured in major remodeling projects. One prominent example is the corridors on the library third floor, A-wing. If that area is ever remodeled (and this is proposed below), substantial space could be recovered from its six interlocking corridors.

What kind of policy should we have for the use of basement space? Since indoor air quality problems occurred, we have not planned for expanded classrooms or work units in the basement. Do we need to review or formalize this practice?

The committee explicitly considered the possibility of locating additional units or functions in the basement of the library. Air quality concerns make it unlikely that locating staff in the library basement will be acceptable in most cases. Exceptions to this general statement might be units whose staff are often out of their areas (such as, perhaps, Electronic Maintenance and Engineering), or units which have disruptive specialized equipment and/or have high volume ventilation needs (such as the Copy Center), or units needing frequent access to large quantities of materials which must be stored in the basement (such as Custodial Services).

In addition, there is a rapidly growing need for storage space among campus units throughout the college. Almost every unit indicated a greater need for storage in its survey response. The committee believes that in general it makes more sense to use the basement of the library for this purpose than for housing staff. Should it become necessary to use the basement for more than a very few staff activities (as opposed to storage), the committee believes that classrooms would be a better choice than offices, because students and faculty are rarely in any particular space for more than two hours at a time, in contrast to staff who might spend a full day in their offices.

Any move to use basement space for functions other than storage will require significant improvements in ventilation and lighting, and therefore will likely be expensive, another reason to be cautious.

Are there major remodels for classrooms and interior spaces to improve space utilization?

The committee believes that there are numerous remodels which could improve utilization of space in small ways. Some of these are specifically associated with unit relocations or collocations and are described below as we consider each unit's space needs. Others, however, are at the level of general policy direction and are considered here.

One major consideration has to do with the size of classrooms. The 22' by 22' grid of pillars in the library building led to classrooms which were well sized for seminars of twenty or fewer students. As class size has grown, however, these rooms have become too small for seminars (which now often have 25 or more students). We are using many rooms well above the 60% FEPG fullness standard, making it difficult to use some smaller classrooms efficiently.

In addition, we have a shortage of larger classrooms seating 50 to 65 students. The grid layout of the library building pillars makes it difficult to construct classrooms with unobstructed sightlines except in multiples of 22' by 22' bays. Unfortunately, the same factors that make one bay too small for 25 students make two bays too small for 50 students. In addition the grid layout tends to force large classrooms to be twice as long as they are wide, which either puts some students far in the back or forces other students to be looking down the room to one side of the blackboard at an extreme angle.

It would not appear that we can do much about this problem within the library building, but it should be a primary consideration in planning Seminar Phase II. That building should be constructed so as to fill the gap between small seminar rooms and larger classrooms. It should also be designed on a larger modular size than the library, with most of the initial classrooms comfortably seating 25 to 30 students and a few rooms seating approximately 60. Space might then be released in the library building for other purposes.

A second area in which the committee believes a change in policy direction makes sense is to trade some existing exterior classrooms for existing interior offices. There are six classrooms in the library building (L2116, L2119, L2218, L2219, L2220, L2221) which have windows. At the same time, there is a shortage of office space with windows in the library building. Given that students and faculty meeting in a class spend far less time in any particular room than most staff and given the increasing use of media tools in academic programs (which often requires a darkened room), swapping existing interior office space for windowed classroom space makes sense to the committee.

We therefore recommend that in planning remodeling projects (especially within the library building), we look carefully at this approach as a way of creating better office space for staff and faculty. (The committee does not recommend that all windowed classrooms be eliminated. We do recommend shifting the balance point, however.)

The space committee is not a DTF, but rather a standing group charged in the college's Policies and Procedures Manual with an ongoing responsibility for reviewing space needs and making recommendations regarding all campus remodeling projects [see P&P, Section IV-G-1(15)]. The committee expects that it will continue to review classroom and other interior space needs on an ongoing basis to consider projects which will improve space utilization.

Do the outbuildings (Kifer property, Geoduck house, Driftwood house, etc.) have a real use in meeting the college's space needs?

The committee discussed these spaces in some detail and was mindful of other discussions which have been held regarding these properties. At present, none of these properties seem to be suitable for programmatic use without extensive repairs and/or remodeling, and the use of each would pose on-going problems of maintenance, accessibility, and security.

Long-term, conversion of the Geoduck house site to either a marine studies laboratory or president's residence might make sense, but the current building would have to be razed and replaced with a suitable structure. Use of the site for a marine laboratory has some obvious advantages, but access, support, and security would be significant issues. Use of the site for construction of a new residence for the president presumes that the current residence could be sold for enough to cover the costs of constructing a new residence and that the probable political concerns could be overcome.

The Driftwood house is currently used as a weaving studio by Leisure Education. That function need not be located there (the academic weaving studio in Lab II could, for example, do double duty), but there is no other obvious use for this building without extensive remodeling. The site, however, does have the advantage of being close to the campus core and this will be even more so after Seminar Phase II is constructed. It might also be worth considering use of the site for expansion of parking at that time.

The Kifer property might be suitable for academic projects related to the organic farm or the WHAT project. These options are currently under study. Another option might be rental as housing, if for no other reason than to provide some security.

Overall, the committee does not see how any of these properties can materially contribute to solving the current campus space needs.

The "open office" concept is a controversial idea. What are the pros/cons of this concept? As we identify areas that could benefit from this concept, do we need guidelines for who will need private offices?

The term "open office concept" refers to an arrangement in which multiple people work in an area without floor-to-ceiling walls separating them. In some cases (such as the current admissions area) desks and workstations are simply arranged in a functional way within a large open room. In other cases (such as the student office area in the CAB) soft dividers or modular cubicles subdivide the floor area, but from approximately six feet to the ceiling, the space is left open. Units using this approach usually also have some enclosed rooms, either for private meetings or for disruptive equipment and storage.

The open office concept does allow more staff to work in a smaller area, thereby increasing the efficiency of space utilization. Typical modular work stations occupy approximately 80-100 square feet, versus the usual "standard" office of 120 square feet, and use very space-efficient workstations, so even allowing for walkways, open space, and some enclosed offices and meeting/equipment areas, a large unit will usually require less total space using an open office plan.

In addition, in most cases the open office concept is much less expensive to implement because it requires less construction. And it is flexible: As areas grow or shrink it is easy to adjust the total space used. Remodeling costs are lower (especially if interior walls must be extended to full height to comply with building codes). Standardization on modular workstations can also reduce the cost of furniture, and that furniture can easily be used in other open-office areas as needs change.

The open office concept can improve lighting and air quality: It allows more staff to take advantage of natural lighting and views through exterior windows since these resources are not monopolized by those fortunate enough to have offices on exterior walls. HVAC is generally easier to manage in a large space than in multiple small rooms.

In certain situations the open office concept also improves services to clients. It is easier for a person needing help from any of several people who could provide it to find someone who is available, and staff can readily see when they need to address a client when everyone else is busy. Staff also can more readily tell when other staff are free so that they can contact them without interrupting an ongoing task.

The committee explored in detail the potential for using the open office concept at Evergreen as a way of increasing the efficiency of space utilization. Every unit was asked whether the open office concept might work for them. Those areas already using this approach were generally pleased with it. In particular, the student office area in the CAB has worked very well because it has provided both a degree of isolation for student groups, and an opportunity for groups to bump into each other. Tom Mercado observed that student organizations have been engaged in a lot more cooperative ventures and coalition activities since the open office approach replaced the individual enclosed offices previously used by these groups. The admissions and registration offices are also currently operating well on the open office model. Finally, parts of the controllers office and parts of some academic areas (such as the library proper and computer services) currently use this concept.

The survey results also reveal, however, that virtually every unit which is not now using this approach did not think it would work well for them. The only significant exceptions were part-time faculty offices and program secretaries, where the dean believes that with suitable common conference rooms, the open office concept will work as well or better than the current arrangement.

The reasons for the general antipathy towards the open office concept are complex. In some cases, units raised what would appear to be valid reasons why this approach would not work for them even if it is generally a good idea. For example, in some units most staff members' work involves personal information or sensitive discussion. This would be true of the personnel office and the counseling center, for instance. In other cases, at least part of a unit's work involves noisy or otherwise disruptive equipment which needs to be separated from other staff in the unit. And in still other cases it seems clear that efficiency would suffer if one staff member's concentration were disrupted by another staff member's talking on the phone or with clients.

But the foregoing does not tell the whole story. Behind these practical concerns also lies a general sense that loss of private space is loss of individuality and respect. Among many staff the open office concept has acquired a pejorative connotation, satirized in a recent "Dilbert" cartoon strip by the term "Cubeville." Helen Lee of the Labor Center expressed these concerns most directly in her unit's survey response:

Having worked on two different occasions in the "open concept" work space and having experience representing workers all over state government in the same environment, I have the following comments:

A) Most often the people in a position to push this concept do not have to work in it (i.e. management).

B) It has the opposite effect on team building. I believe it generates a feeling of lack of privacy, in which workers tend to covet their cubicles and connect less with colleagues.

C) It has a demoralizing effect on workers, especially workers who have had privacy in their work space.

Even Helen, however, acknowledged that there are situations in which the open office concept may be appropriate. And others who have experience with the transition to the open office concept report that even those who are violently opposed to the idea beforehand often find they like it afterwards. Bill Zaugg and Tom Mercado both pointed out, for example, that student groups who swore before the CAB project that they could not function if they lost their individual offices now cannot imagine operating in any other environment than the CAB's open office area with its ready access to other student groups!

The committee believes that the open office concept works very well in those situations where several of the following conditions are met:

1. Most staff members are doing essentially the same kind of work.

2. The work involves contact with many clients with fairly similar needs.

3. Not much privacy is required while working with the clients.

4. There are significant opportunities for staff to help each other and/or reinforce each others work.

5. One staff member's work does not disrupt the work of others.

6. Although many staff have work areas, not all are in use at one time.

Those cases on the campus where the open office is currently working well share these kinds of characteristics, as do the specific cases below where the committee is proposing that the open office concept be adopted. The committee believes that all future remodeling projects or new construction should include evaluation of the open office concept as part of the design process and that this concept should be used where appropriate according to the criteria listed above. The committee notes, however, that in order for the open office concept to be widely adopted without damaging staff morale, affected staff need to be convinced that the approach makes sense and has benefits to them in their work. It is also important that there be leadership by example among the college's administration. The use of the open office concept in the common area outside the provost's and F&A vice president's offices is one such example.

What kind of policy or practice do we need for providing work areas for student and temporary employees?

Most units on campus make use of student or temporary employees. In their responses to the survey, however, several units (for example, college advancement) indicated that their student staff simply do not have the space in which to do the kind of work which is expected of them. Other units (for example, the computer center, the library proper, and the learning resource center) did not report this problem, presumably either because their student employees already have dedicated space or because they are working in client service situations where they do not need dedicated workspace.

Given the current shortage of space on campus, the committee does not think it will be possible to provide dedicated work areas for all student employees. Nor is this probably necessary. The committee therefore recommends that unit needs for student and temporary employee work space be evaluated on a case by case basis when determining the total space required by the unit. In some cases it will make sense to provide dedicated space for student or temporary employees, based on the work they do. In other cases it will not. In general the college will not be able to afford to dedicate work space to individual student employees. Such space will need to be shared among several student workers and it will need to be highly utilized to justify taking that space from other competing demands.

Do we need to review the current policy for rentals and provision of space to outside parties?

Currently the only significant long-term rentals of space to outside parties are to the Washington State Film Library and to the EF International School of Language. The former is actually more of a cooperative venture in which the college's film and video collection is jointly housed with that of the state library. So far this arrangement has been advantageous to the college and probably has not cost us any space which would not be required anyway, since our collection of these kinds of materials is both large and growing.

The issues concerning rental of space to the EF School are more complex. On the one hand the EF School has not been as closely connected to the college's academic program as one might have hoped. There is some contact between EF students and our students which benefits those Evergreen students studying languages and foreign cultures (and presumably the EF students as well), but not as much as one might wish for. And the EF School does occupy three offices, six classrooms (sometimes using others as well), and a storage cage in the seminar building. On the other hand, EF contributes significantly to the financial support of several campus units, most notably housing, food services, and facilities.

So long as the college needs revenues from EF to subsidize these operations, there will be real costs to displacing them from the space which they occupy. The committee is not in a position to determine whether these costs would be offset by the space regained. The committee does believe, however, that the college is no longer in a position (as it once was) to make additional long-term space rentals to others.

Can we improve space usage with different scheduling practices?

There are two aspects to this question. The first concerns whether alternative class scheduling regimes might allow more efficient use of classrooms, thus either releasing some classroom space which could be used for other purposes or reducing the need for construction of new classrooms as enrollment grows.

The committee believes that the current class scheduling regime is generally working well: Comparison of Evergreen's classroom utilization data with that of the other state schools (see Table 1, above) shows that the college's scheduled classroom use is exceeded by no other school and higher than all but one. And many aspects of the current scheduling regime which are unique to Evergreen (for example the lack of fixed hours when all classes begin and end) are tied to the structure of the curriculum and its pedagogy in important ways.

The committee does, however, recommend several changes in current practice:

1. Space Management and Scheduling needs better information about academic program cancellations and enrollment changes. Unless a faculty member happens to call, it may be weeks before they learn that a program is under-enrolled or has been canceled. The committee recommends that Space Management be given access to current program enrollment data to facilitate space assignment (and re-assignment), and that the curriculum dean notify Space Management when programs are canceled or downsized.

2. Classroom space could be more efficiently used if Space Management and Scheduling knew when an academic program was not going to be using space which they had reserved on an on-going basis. There are many good reasons why an academic program might not be using assigned classroom space during a given week (for example a field trip or a series of student presentations rather than the usual seminar schedule). But it would be efficient to be able to use such a program's space for other purposes when it is not needed. The committee recommends that faculty be encouraged to notify Space Management whenever they will not be using their assigned space and that program secretaries notify Space Management whenever they prepare travel authorities for academic programs.

3. There are persistent reports that academic programs sometimes request ongoing assignment of multiple kinds of space for a given time period (for example, a block of seminar rooms and a lecture hall during the same hours). Academically this is a good practice, because it allows programs to adjust the kind of class meetings to fit a given week's instructional needs. But this practice also means that space which could be used by others may not be available to Space Management and Scheduling. The committee does not think this practice is common, but recommends that Space Management collect additional data on the frequency of this practice and that appropriate policies be developed to balance individual programmatic flexibility against the overall institutional need to be as efficient as possible in using classroom space.

The second aspect of this question concerns the centralization of space scheduling. Currently general classroom space is scheduled centrally by Space Management and Scheduling, whereas specialized instructional space and some conference rooms are not. The committee believes that this division of labor is mostly working, but that some spaces (particularly in the COM building) might better be scheduled centrally during at least some hours, and that some conference rooms might also better be scheduled centrally rather than being scheduled solely by the unit which happens to "own" them.

Both of these issues should be explored on a case by case basis. The need to be sure that specialized spaces are fully utilized must be balanced by sensitivity to the particular needs of those who use them the most. The committee recommends that the use of space not centrally scheduled be measured regularly and that the assignment of conference rooms to individual units be carefully monitored so that such assignment is clearly justified by the nature of the unit's work and the frequency of use of the conference room. The committee also recommends that Space Management and Scheduling seek ways to encourage both building managers and units to share "their" space as much as possible with others when it is not in use.

What changes in governance hours might improve space efficiency?

The committee did not consider specific proposals regarding changes in governance hours. It is obvious that if governance hours were not reserved on Monday and Wednesday afternoons, then these would be popular class times, thus reducing pressure on classrooms during the rest of the week.

On the other hand it is equally obvious that it would be very difficult to involve students and faculty in campus governance meaningfully without some times during the week when nobody is in class.

The question of whether the college could function with fewer governance hours is not primarily a space question, and the committee felt that we were not the right group to address this issue. We do think that moving some of the governance hours from early Wednesday afternoon to late Friday afternoon should be seriously considered, however. This change would be beneficial to some instructional programs (those needing to meet three times a week, for example), since Friday afternoons are now lightly scheduled for classes. It would, however, exacerbate problems in scheduling science laboratories, the computer labs, and some other specialized spaces which are needed for large blocks of time, since it would reduce the number of afternoons with no governance hours from three (Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday) to only two (Tuesday and Thursday). Overall, the committee is not certain that changes in governance hours would be beneficial at this time. If this issue needs further consideration the committee recommends that a separate group with broad representation be charged specifically to look at campus governance and governance hours.

In addition to the committee's overall analysis of campus space utilization and its responses to the specific questions posed in the October 14 memorandum to the President and Vice Presidents, the committee reviewed the current section of the college's Policies and Procedures manual dealing with space scheduling, usage, and assignment [Section IV-G-1]. The committee did not find that any major changes are required in this document, but will recommend a series of minor (mostly cosmetic) changes in language so that the document conforms to current organizational structure and practice.

Unit Findings and Recommendations

The committee reviewed the particular space needs of each campus unit. These are discussed below and specific proposals for meeting each unit's space needs through the planning period are offered. These proposals are guided by the general considerations discussed above, including:

… Impact of expected growth in the size of the unit or the unit's clientele.
… FEPG (and other) standards regarding the space required by the unit
… Provisions of the college's Master Plan regarding space utilization.
… Air quality factors.
… Feasibility and likely cost of particular remodeling projects.
… Applicability of the open office concept.
… Scheduling practices.

The purpose of the committee's work was conceptual, so we have generally not developed detailed space layouts or remodeling plans for particular units, beyond simply determining that a given project appeared feasible given the considerations above. When (if) projects are actually funded the specific units affected will need to work with architects and design consultants to develop detailed designs which will meet their needs.

A time-line covering the committee's proposed projects through 2010 is attached (Appendix VII), showing the recommended sequencing of major projects. Conceptual floor plans showing each affected unit's current and proposed space assignments are presented in Appendix VIII.

The committee understands that any of the particular proposals below could be improved, but suggests that the overall set of unit recommendations needs to be seen as an interlocking whole. Although a particular proposal may not be optimal from the affected unit's perspective, the overall set of proposals represents the committee's best judgment about how to solve the multitude of space problems confronting the college as a whole. Altering the plan for one unit would usually affect the plans for other units. In some cases such an alteration could be catastrophic to the whole plan, just as removing one brick from a critical spot can cause an entire building to collapse. This does not mean that the committee's judgment has been infallible. We simply suggest that specific unit recommendations be viewed in the light of the overall plan.

Academics

Scheduled Classrooms. Based on state standards (Table I, column 2), the college will need approximately 62% more general classroom hours available when it reaches its planned size of 5000 FTE students in 2010. Based on current actual scheduling practice (Table I, column 1), the college will need approximately 45% more classroom hours available by this date. Current scheduled classroom space (excluding instructional space which is not centrally scheduled, such as science laboratories, art studios, computer labs, etc.) totals approximately 66,000 square feet. Assuming the college is unable to realize any further improvements in the efficiency of classroom utilization, somewhere between 30,000 and 41,000 additional square feet of general classroom space will therefore be required when the college reaches its planned enrollment in 2010.

Most of this need should be met as part of construction of Seminar Phase II, currently estimated at 60,000 square feet total (including faculty offices and other space not included in the classroom space estimate above). In addition to providing additional total classroom space through construction of Seminar Phase II, the following general classroom space projects are recommended:

1. Undertake a project as soon as possible to provide user-moveable partitions in L4300 to increase the flexibility of this space.

2. Consider relocation of the 4th floor gallery to an interior space adjacent to the current 2nd floor gallery, thereby improving access to the overall gallery complex and creating additional classroom space on the 4th floor of the library building.

3. Initiate a program within the library building of trading windowed classrooms for interior space as part of other remodeling projects described below, providing that at least some windowed classrooms are retained in the library building until Seminar Phase II is completed.

4. Renovate the lecture hall building to improve seating, lighting, HVAC, and technological capabilities. (This project is already part of the 1997-99 capital budget request.)

5. Include two or more rooms in Seminar Phase II which can replace the classroom functions of CAB 108 and 110, so that these areas can be used for other purposes. In the short-term, Cab 110 can be released as a classroom (to allow the Police Services project described below) and the loss made up by more intensive use of CRC 116 and 117 as classrooms.

Communications Building. The communications building is currently being remodeled to improve existing facilities and to create additional offices. Except for filling in the second floor of the addition to create the additional faculty offices that will be needed before Seminar Phase II comes on line, no other major projects are planned for this building until the proscenium theater project now scheduled for completion in 2005. The committee believes that the proscenium theater project will greatly enhance the academic program in the performing arts, as well as provide the college an important venue for productions serving the larger Olympia community, but that the final decision on this project must depend both on the evolution of the performing arts program and on tradeoffs with other space needs. If funds do not permit construction of both adequate classroom and office space and the proscenium theater, then the committee believes that the theater must take second place.

Lab I , Lab II, and Lab Annex. Most laboratory building projects required through the planning period have been previously identified. The committee notes the following specific projects to be completed during the planning period:

1. Renovate laboratory space as called for in the 1997-99 capital budget request to create additional large laboratory spaces for biology and smaller labs for student/faculty research projects.

2. As described in the current 10-year capital budget plan, also renovate the second and third floors of Lab II.

3. After Seminar Phase II has been completed, renovate the first floor of Lab I to create additional laboratory space.

4. Construct a greenhouse facility (possibly on the roof of Lab II) to support academic work in botany and plant physiology. (This project may be needed sooner than now contemplated as a result of recent faculty hires in environmental studies.)

5. Provide additional office space (probably using an open-office model) for 3.5 FTE additional science instructional technicians.

Longhouse. The major space issues identified in the Longhouse revolve around office space and storage. Little can be done to meet either of these needs within the existing building, given its form and function. Additional Longhouse staff can only be accommodated through sharing the two existing office/multi-purpose rooms. Storage (particularly for exhibit cases, gifts to the building, and Native art not currently being exhibited) should be provided in the basement of either the library or seminar buildings.

Faculty Offices. The same HECB report cited above in connection with classroom space also shows that Evergreen is already operating at 10% above FEPG standards for academic offices. Faculty office space will therefore be a major constraint on growth during the planning period. There are currently 182 assignable faculty offices, and 179 faculty (not including faculty not assigned to teaching). As enrollment grows, we can anticipate a growing need for additional faculty offices:

(The preceding chart does not take into account eight faculty offices being added as part the current communications building project. These should be sufficient to carry us through 1997-98, even if the college's growth request for the next biennium is funded.)

The committee also recommends that during the coming biennium we complete the second-floor office addition in the communications building to create an additional six faculty offices. Beyond that the committee proposes (below) to relocate both police services and health services/counseling from the first floor of the seminar building (for other reasons). These two projects will free enough space in the seminar building to relocate the part-time college faculty and program office there from the 3rd-floor library A-wing using an open office concept. The collective outcome of all of these efforts will be a net gain of ten to fifteen faculty offices. This may be just enough to see us through to the completion of Seminar Phase II.

Note that the committee is proposing that only full-time faculty in the regular curriculum and half-time faculty in the evening/weekend programs be provided individual office space. All other faculty (adjuncts and emeritus) will either share space or have no college office. The plan above contemplates retaining enclosed offices for full-time faculty, but moving to the open office concept for part-time faculty, including those in the evening/weekend half-time programs.

Program Secretaries. As the number of faculty increases, there will be a need for some additional program secretaries. If we want to maintain the current ratio of faculty to program secretaries, then we will need about 4.6 FTE additional program secretaries by 2010. Three of these should be housed in Seminar Phase II, since that is where most new faculty will be housed. The remaining 1.5 FTE can be accommodated within existing space in the communications building (the former program office, COM 301).

Growth in the number of program secretaries will therefore not create pressure on existing office space. In fact, academics has begun to employ the open office concept to reduce the number of individual offices assigned to program secretaries. They are now experimenting with two shared program offices (one in the library building and one in Lab II), and this appears to be working well.

During the next several years, the academic division expects gradually to consolidate program secretaries into shared offices in even fewer locations, each arranged to serve the faculty in a specific area. There will likely be one program office each in Lab I, Lab II, SEM I, the COM building, and the library building. Each of these will house at least two program secretaries and the equipment to support their work. In addition, one office will serve part-time programs, probably located in the first floor of the existing seminar building.

These six program offices will each support the faculty in their immediate areas. Consolidating program secretaries into these shared offices will release a few individual offices for faculty, but will also absorb some larger rooms which are now either used as faculty offices, common work areas, or classrooms. The net impact on the space used by the academic division should be nearly zero until Seminar Phase II is constructed.

Library & Media Services. The library proper and media services have developed a library master plan over the last couple of years under the direction of the library dean. This plan projects a combined need for up to 15,000 additional square feet in the library building over the next fifteen years, primarily for book stacks, media work areas, multimedia classroom space, and student study space. Although there will be some staff growth, particularly in media services, this will not generate much pressure on office space, in part because much of the library/media services group already operates using the open office concept. (The figure of 15,000 square feet is larger than specified by FEPG standards, but takes into account our library's extensive media operations which are not covered under these standards).

The committee believes that the most logical ways to provide the additional space required by the library and media services in the short run are the following (in the order in which they should be done):

1. Absorb the remainder of the 3rd floor library building C-wing, for a total of 4,787 additional square feet. This can be accomplished in stages as space is needed. In the process, two classrooms (L3402 & L3501), the learning resource center (L3407, L3407A, B ,& C), one large lounge (L3500), three academic offices (L3401, L3401A, and L3409), and six staff offices currently assigned to college advancement (L3403 through L3408) will be lost. We might be able to manage without one of the classrooms until Seminar Phase II is completed. And the LRC can probably be accommodated within an existing classroom elsewhere until the larger library/computer services project described below is completed. Conversion of the faculty and staff offices in the C-wing to library space will likely have to wait until Seminar Phase II is completed.

2. The college should reconsider whether electronic maintenance and engineering (EME) can be relocated to the library basement as proposed in some earlier capital project planning. The feasibility of this move will depend on how much time EME staff spend working in the area as opposed to working in the field and on whether adequate HVAC improvements can be made in the basement. The committee does not think EME's functionality would otherwise be significantly impaired by relocation to the basement, and the space EME currently occupies (1,725 square feet) will almost certainly be needed for expansion of media services as growth occurs in that area of the curriculum and in services to students. But before EME can be so relocated, we must also be certain that air quality concerns have been adequately addressed.

3. The college may need to explore termination of the current arrangement providing space to the Washington State Film Library. Following the recent media area remodel, WSFL occupies approximately 1500 square feet between the mail room and the new media classroom (L1316). Part of that space will probably be required to meet library/media services growth needs, but some may also be needed to handle growth in the mail-room and receiving functions. (Evergreen's media collection could be accommodated within a smaller space than is required for the WSFL operation, so there would be a net gain in space available for other purposes if we terminated the arrangement with WSFL. The college's arrangement with WSFL has other advantages, however, so this move needs careful consideration.)

The short-term changes described above could meet about half of the projected need for increased space in the library proper and media services. The remainder of this need could be met in two longer-term ways:

1) The library and computer services have been exploring the idea of closer coordination through creating an "Information Technology Wing" in the library building. Bill Bruner, library dean, described the rationale for this project as follows in e-mail to Rino Balatbat on July 25, 1996:

The present structures of the library, media services and computer services are based on old technology, where print information, media and computing were easily separable. Now, sounds, images and text are increasingly available from the same sources and can be manipulated into presentations using the same equipment that provides access to the raw data. It makes no sense for a student or faculty member to come to the library for text, to media services for sounds and images and then go to computer services to process the information. We could integrate these functions so students can find the information and process it at one location, where appropriate support is available.

The proposed project would break down the barriers between these two operations on the second floor of the library building and merge (or at least collocate) some of the activities which are now separated organizationally and spatially, but which are converging in terms of the technologies and in terms of the way in which users access and process information. This project would absorb the remaining classrooms and offices on the 2nd floor library building C-wing, to give approximately 2,000 square feet more to library/computer services operations (counting corridor space). It would also involve remodeling within the library proper to relocate administrative offices to the third floor, freeing space for student access areas on the second floor. Many details remain to be resolved about this project, but the committee supports this proposal from the dean of the library and the director of computer services for a major project to be scheduled overlapping construction of Seminar Phase II. In the long run it should both save space and improve services to students.

2) If additional space is required in the library proper after the projects above, the committee recommends expansion of the library building into the covered walkway area on the south side of the second-floor B-wing. The master plan does place a high value on building overhangs, but this particular covered walkway is very wide (22 feet), leaving adequate room for pedestrian traffic even after taking half the space (about 2,000 square feet) as an addition to the library. This space is extremely attractive as an addition to the library, because it fronts directly on the main open area on the second floor.

Beyond the 2010 planning horizon (or if the above alternatives do not yield the additional 15,000 square feet estimated to be needed), further expansion of the library/information technology center would have to be into the main library lobby (second and/or third floor) or into the first floor C-wing of the library building, displacing classrooms, faculty offices, and the student advising center. Neither of these appears to be a very good option. When the design is being finalized for Seminar Phase II, the college should carefully reevaluate the long-term space needs of the library, media services, and the computer center to determine whether the student advising center can remain in its current location or whether it will have to be relocated to Seminar Phase II.

Learning Resource Center.The learning resource center (LRC) has adequate space for the present, but will probably need additional space for tutoring students at some point. In the long-run it will almost certainly have to be relocated since it sits in the major expansion area for the library proper. The committee has not decided on the best alternative for relocation of the LRC, but thinks the following should be considered closer to the point in time:

1. Relocate the LRC to the first-floor library C-wing near student advising. There seems to be some overlap in the services students seek from these two areas, so collocation might make some sense.

2. Relocate the LRC within the new "Technology Wing" as part of that major remodel. Although not technology-based, the LRC has certain functional similarities to other activities which take place in the library. In addition, one aspect of the Technology Wing model might be to include some large spaces within the library proper which could function as classrooms or tutoring facilities at some times and as general study space at other times. This might be also be compatible with the LRC's space needs.

3. Relocate the LRC to the third-floor library A-wing after the part-time college faculty and program office moves to the first-floor of the existing seminar building. This could be accomplished as part of the major third- floor office remodel discussed below, and would be consistent with the master plan's goal of housing instructional and administrative functions in adjacent spaces.

4. Relocate the LRC to Seminar Phase II as part of that project.

Graduate Programs. In our surveys and interviews all three graduate directors (especially MIT) expressed concern about lack of adequate space for their administrative functions. They also expressed concern about lack of space for graduate student mailboxes, reference materials, work areas, etc., and for informal mingling of graduate students. The committee explored a range of possibilities for relocating one or more graduate programs. An argument might be made on programmatic grounds, for example, to relocate the MIT program close to the Evergreen Center for Educational Improvement. But this would separate that graduate program from all other academic programs, given the small number of faculty (currently one) on the second-floor library A-wing.

The committee also attempted to find a location on campus where all of the graduate programs could be housed together, but the total space needs of the three current programs exceeded the space available in any existing area or in any of the remodeling projects we considered.

After much consideration, the committee has therefore concluded that for the immediate future MES and MPA should remain in their current location on the third floor of Lab I and MIT should remain in its current location on the top floor of the seminar building. The MES/MPA space will require some remodeling to fully meet their needs, but there is adequate square footage available within the vicinity to accommodate such a remodel and the work is not major. MIT has somewhat more immediate needs for additional space, but it is hoped that these needs can be met by eventually relocating one or more of the staff from other units who are temporarily occupying space adjacent to MIT due to air quality concerns about the library building.

In the longer-term, relocation of all three graduate programs to Seminar Phase II should be part of the design considerations for that building. Collocation of the graduate programs would allow them to explore the possibility of sharing staff and functions if they wished to do so and would allow for a central contact point on campus for students interested in graduate programs. Relocation would also free some space in Lab I, an area of high demand for offices by faculty in the sciences and environmental studies. The committee is not certain that the graduate programs should all be moved to Seminar Phase II. We are merely saying that this option should be thoroughly explored during the design of Seminar Phase II.

Academic Public Service Programs (K-12, Wa. Center, & Labor Center). The three public service programs administered within the academic division are all currently located in the second-floor A-wing of the library building. These three groups are already cooperating, but could share space (and perhaps staff) even more efficiently and effectively if some remodeling were done in this area. These units specifically requested a common work area with the shared equipment (printer, FAX, VCR/monitor, easels, carts, etc.) needed to support their programs, common storage areas for printed materials and other program resources, and a common office area for temporary staff (grant project staff, visiting fellows, etc.) They also indicated an ability to share conference room space. All of these could be provided within the scope of a fairly small remodeling project on the second floor of the library A-wing.

These three units are highly dependent on external funding, so their growth (even in the state-funded portion of their operations) is not directly tied to enrollment growth. The K-12 Center is just starting up, so they expect to grow by several staff during the next decade. The Labor Center also expects to experience some growth in permanent staff during the planning period. The Washington Center does not expect to grow. Additional space for staff offices in this area might come from conversion of classrooms on the exterior wall of the second-floor library A-wing (L2116 and L2118), from releasing the one remaining faculty office in this area (L2107), and/or from moving upward bound (currently using L2113 through L2115) elsewhere (perhaps to housing). Interior office space through a remodel is also a possibility.

The committee believes that these three units are appropriately located now, but that a remodeling project to address their specific requests, improve the efficiency of space utilization, and provide space for additional staff is necessary in the next biennium or the biennium following. The Labor Center in particular is very short on space at present.

Academic Deans. The academic deans do not anticipate additional deans or support staff being added during the planning period. Changes in the faculty evaluation system and the creation of the five planning units, each with a faculty coordinator, have recently made it more likely that five deans and five support staff will be adequate even given a 50% growth in the number of faculty. A recent minor remodeling project in the deans area created an effective shared workroom and a large enough space for faculty hiring files and their processing.

Neither the deans nor the committee found compelling reasons to relocate the academic deans. There is no particular reason why the deans area needs to remain in its current location within the library building or even in this building at all, however. If it should turn out to be necessary to move the deans area to make some other part of the overall long-term space plan work, this could be done.

Provost. The space needs of the provost and her support staff are considered as part of a general discussion covering all three vice presidents and their immediate staff members in the section on the president's office (below).

Student Affairs

Enrollment Services. The committee concluded that enrollment services (admissions, financial aid, and registration) is now in its most appropriate location, that these functions need to remain close to several functions within the controller's office, and that the current space is well arranged for their needs. With growth, however, there will be a need for some additional working space for financial aid and admissions. The committee believes that the best way to accommodate this growth is to absorb the purchasing office function within the space currently occupied by the controllers office, then do a minor remodel of the vacated space to bring it within the enrollment services area. This project should also include a conference room to be shared by all the units in this wing of the library building, replacing a dedicated conference room now used by the controllers office.

Housing. The committee did not consider the question of how much student housing would be required to meet the enrollment growth plan, although clearly this growth will bring additional need for residences. Nor did the committee consider in detail plans for increasing social space within the housing complex. A housing DTF is now addressing these issues.

The committee did explore several possible relocations of other functions to the housing complex (for example, police services, health services, the EF School, and Upward Bound). Ultimately the committee is not recommending any of these specific moves at this time, but we do recommend that if (when) additional housing is constructed, the college should look closely at whether these or some other appropriate college functions might be collocated there.

The committee also explored whether library basement space now used by housing for storage could be freed by relocating housing storage (perhaps to the unused portion of the central utilities plant or to the shops area). The committee recommends that these options be explored in detail by the responsible administrators. Storage space in the library basement is increasingly at a premium, so it would be desirable to find a workable alternative to storing housing furnishings there.

Police Services. The committee found support for relocation of police services to a more central campus location. We considered the housing complex, the recreation center, and the CAB building. In the end the committee recommends relocating police services to the CAB 110 area, for the following reasons:

1. The CAB is the most central location on campus, allowing rapid response by officers to all parts of the campus, particularly to housing during evenings and weekends.

2. CAB tenants strongly support relocation of police services to the building so that it can be better protected during evenings and weekends.

3. There is an area on the south side of CAB 110 suitable for parking police vehicles which will enable easy access to all parts of the campus, but which will get the vehicles off Red Square except when actually in use.

4. The CAB 110 area has an existing small kitchen suitable for an officers' lunchroom and the rest of the space is open so it can be inexpensively remodeled into an open office (with some private areas for interrogation, meetings, and secure storage). The CAB 110 space is comparable in size to that currently occupied by police services, but by starting from scratch the space can be better configured to meet the unit's needs.

It is important to note that relocating police services to the CAB will require extensive discussion with students, who have so far not been consulted.

Recreation & Athletics. The committee believes that substantial gains in the efficiency of space use can be made within the CRC complex. Space already assigned to classroom use during the daytime is, in fact, utilized very little. The addition of the last phase of CRC left parts of the older complex isolated and difficult to use (for example, the old office area). Remodeling these could create some additional enclosed space at reasonable costs. The CRC also offers one of the best potentials for space sharing on campus, since much of the space is in large rooms and since recreational/athletic use occurs mostly during evening and weekend hours when other space needs are lowest.

The committee has three specific recommendations regarding the CRC:

1. The multi-use rooms (CRC 116, 117, and 316) should be made more suitable for general academic classes when not being used for dance classes and recreational purposes. This will involve more versatile floor protection and permanent assignment of tables and chairs to these rooms, along with ways to store these when the rooms are used for dance or recreational purposes. Given this small investment, these spaces can fill some of the current gap in large classrooms and replace space (such as CAB 110) which will be lost as a result of other projects.

2. Health services should be relocated to the CRC within existing space (see below).

3. The efficiency of storage should be improved through the addition of shelving in some areas (e.g. the tunnel between the CRC and the CAB). In addition, the recreation and athletic programs need space for drying out wet equipment. The committee suggests that they investigate the possible use of the open area of the CUP for this purpose.

The committee also recommends that a longer term study be made of ways in which the college could make better use of the covered pavilion and the gym. Both of these large spaces can be used for multiple functions, but currently involve considerable security or set-up costs when used. Perhaps there's a better way.

Student and Academic Support Services (SASS). Previous capital planning envisioned creating a part-time college complex on the first-floor library C-wing adjacent to SASS. It has become clear to the committee that a better plan is to locate the part-time college elsewhere (2nd floor of the current seminar building) and to collocate some other student services on the library first-floor adjacent to the current SASS operation. Specifically, the committee recommends:

1. Relocation of the counseling portion of counseling and health services to the SASS area (see below).

2. Possible relocation of the LRC adjacent to the SASS area (see above).

3. Relocation of the access services reading room from the 3rd floor of the library building A-wing to the SASS area.

4. Expansion of SASS proper to house the additional staff expected with enrollment growth.

There is adequate space within the area adjacent to SASS to accommodate these changes.

Counseling & Health Services. The committee recommends that the health services portion of counseling and health services be relocated from the seminar building to the CRC 108, 109, 112 area and that the counseling portion be relocated adjacent to the SASS area. The committee makes these recommendations for the following reasons:

1. Both health services and counseling are currently overcrowded. There is adequate space in the CRC and adjacent to SASS to house both of these functions if they are separated, and the relocations would free space which could be effectively used by other units.

2. Services to students would be improved by relocating health services to the CRC. Certain equipment for physical therapy already exists in the CRC which could enhance the services provided to health services' clients. There is also a natural overlap between some of the services provided by the current wellness center and health services. The CRC is a major site of campus injuries requiring health services attention, so collocation would improve response time. And campus residents would be better served if health services were located more conveniently to housing. Finally, emergency vehicle and handicapped access would both be improved if health services were located in the CRC.

3. Services to students would also be improved by collocating counseling near SASS. There are many referrals between these two units and students often seek similar or complementary services from both units. Both SASS and counseling also need multiple small rooms for private meetings and these could be shared in a collocation model.

4. There do not appear to be any serious functional drawbacks to physically separating health services and counseling. (The two would remain organizationally linked).

Student Activities and Organizations.The committee met with Tom Mercado, representatives of the S&A Board, and some CAB tenants. Other than relocating police services to the CAB building (see above) and some long-term changes in food services space (see below), the committee has no specific recommendations which would affect the CAB tenants. The committee notes that as enrollment grows it is likely that additional space will be needed for student organizations and KAOS (the latter already reports being cramped).

Upward Bound. The committee expects that Upward Bound will ultimately have to be relocated from the second floor of the A-wing of the library building in order to accommodate growth in the public service units. Upward Bound currently uses three offices in this area. Their work is largely independent of other campus units (although they report through SASS), so they could be located almost anywhere on campus, consistent with their programmatic requirements. One possibility which might be attractive would be collocation in the housing complex, where the participants live when the program is active. Another possibility would be relocation adjacent to the SASS area on the first-floor library C-wing.

Upward Bound also has some immediate storage needs which should be addressed as part of the current storage project in the basement of the library building. The current arrangement of storage space in the hallway and in the seminar building is not adequate.

Vice President's Office. The space needs of the vice president for student affairs and his support staff are considered as part of a general discussion covering all three vice presidents and their immediate staff members in the section on the president's office (below).

Finance & Administration

Bookstore. The bookstore was recently remodeled and the space is meeting the unit's needs. With growth in the number and size of academic programs, however, additional floor space will eventually be needed for sales of program books. Unless other goods are displaced from the sales floor, this will require expansion of the bookstore. One possibility would be expansion into the current conference services area if that unit relocates (see below).

The bookstore also has storage space in the basement of the CAB which is not very convenient. This space could perhaps be exchanged with space used by other CAB units.

Food Services. The existing kitchen space is adequate for the expected enrollment growth, but additional seating for peak periods will be required. A more pressing concern, however, is that much of the demand for food services has migrated from the first-floor main dining area ("The Greenery") to the 2nd-floor Deli and "mall" area. This has resulted in excess capacity in the original food services area combined with severe crowding in the area where most students now purchase and consume food.

Food services is considering several approaches to solving these problems. One of the more ambitious would be to enclose the patio on the SE corner of the 2nd-floor CAB to create additional space for tables and chairs, adopt a "Food Circus" model of multiple small food sales points on the CAB second floor mall, and close the downstairs kitchen and dining area except during conferences. This plan would also allow the current downstairs dining space to be used as classroom space during much of the year.

The committee did not evaluate food services plans in detail, because the constraints governing food services include business practices outside our purview and because, presumably, any major changes of the sort being considered would be funded outside of the regular capital budget.

Conference Services. Conference services is currently located adjacent to the bookstore on the 2nd floor of the CAB. The space is adequate for the work of the unit throughout the growth period. If the bookstore grows (or if food services requires additional space on the 2nd floor within the existing CAB envelope), however, it may be necessary to relocate conference services' offices.

Given the units with which Conference Services must work closely, it is desirable that they remain within the CAB. Among the possible alternatives are relocation to the first floor of the CAB (perhaps in part of CAB 108 following construction of Seminar Phase II, or in part of the Greenery dining area, faculty staff lounge, or remodeled back corridor space). These plans cannot be further developed without more study of the long-term needs of food services.

The most serious space problem for conference services, however, concerns other units' use of scheduled space and, indeed, the way in which classroom space is scheduled at Evergreen. The practice of booking classrooms for an entire quarter coupled with giving priority to academic programs means that it is very difficult for conference services to get access to space for one-time events during the regular academic year. (This is also a problem for the public service units who want to schedule events during the academic year.)

It is not obvious how this problem can be fully resolved so long as we maintain the current curriculum and enrollment. As a partial solution the committee recommends that a few classrooms not be scheduled on an on-going basis on Thursdays and Fridays so that a limited number of conferences and other one-time public service events can be scheduled during the regular academic year.

Construction of a college conference center would be a more comprehensive solution (and indeed, this was proposed by President Olander in the late eighties), but it is hard to see how this could be funded given the current fiscal constraints. The best alternative may be to overbuild Seminar Phase II slightly to allow some space to be withdrawn from the standard scheduling regime and dedicated to conferences and other one-time events.

Budget Office. The budget officer should probably be located near the president and vice presidents, and this should be considered as part of the administrative area project discussed under the president's office below.

Controllers Office. The committee believes that the controllers office is currently located in the most appropriate place. Students utilize many of the unit's services in conjunction with registration and records, staff utilize services in conjunction with the cashier's and payroll offices, etc. The unit has adequate floor space to meet projected growth and to absorb the purchasing function now located across the hall adjacent to enrollment services.

When purchasing is relocated, a conference room should be created to serve the needs of all the units in that wing of the library. This would release the space in the current conference room within the controllers office.

From time to time the controllers office also has a need to accommodate visiting auditors. If space within the area is not sufficient to meet this need, scheduled space could be used for this purpose.

A major space problem for the controllers office is the growing need for storage of records, especially for archival storage. While other units on campus also have this problem, it appears to be most acute in the controllers office. Additional basement storage space (or off-site storage) will be required during the planing period.

Computing & Communications. The major long-term direction of computing and communications was addressed above in connection with the library proper. Both of these units envision a "technology wing" approach to meeting common kinds of space needs as the lines between the information services provided by these two areas become increasingly blurred. Long-term, the library proper, media services, and the academic portions of computing and communications will expand to fill the B and C-wings on the first, second, and third floors of the library, except for the SASS area on the first floor and some classroom space.

The committee thinks that there will probably be adequate room within this envelope to include the administrative programming staff and systems support staff as well. The director of the unit indicates, however, that these units could be separated and located elsewhere if necessary, although they should not be farmed out to the individual client units. The long-term location of electronic maintenance and engineering was also considered above.

The computer center was extensively remodeled this past summer, so the space is well arranged to serve the needs of the unit's staff and users during the next five years, with one significant exception: There are not enough offices within the area for the current staff, so some staff are housed outside the area. If (as expected) the number of staff grows, this problem will become more acute.

Three faculty are still housed within the computing center. As additional faculty offices become available, these faculty will probably have to be relocated so that these offices can be used by computing and communications staff.

Copy Center. As the technologies for printing and copying continue to converge and as the campus network becomes increasingly capable of handling electronic "documents" of all sorts, the necessity for centralized copying and printing is likely to decline. Except for specialty printing (large formats, color, high volume, bound documents, etc.) most printing and duplicating will probably continue to migrate to satellite work areas close to users. In the long-term, e-mail and the web may also reduce the overall volume of printed documents although this has not yet happened.

The foregoing implies that all significant remodeling projects should consider appropriate space for equipment to meet users' printing and duplicating needs. This includes attention to HVAC, collating/work areas, and paper storage.

The existing copy center in the basement of the library is located appropriately (library building users do most of the specialty printing and duplication) and has adequate space to support the operation, even with growth, given the apparent trend towards greater local printing and more use of electronic messaging.

Facilities. The committee focused on the facilities administration area located on the first floor of LAB II. Most of the rest of the space used around the campus by the unit is either very specialized (e.g. the shops) or located in areas where alternative uses would be unlikely (for example the custodial areas in the basement). The committee believes that most parts of the facilities unit have suitable and adequate space for the growth period, with a few exceptions. The garage, for example, is too small for the fleet and the custodial lunchroom needs a sink.

The major issue concerns the facilities administrative office area, which is underutilized. The committee considered the ideas of relocating facilities administration elsewhere on campus (perhaps to a separate "services building" to be constructed at some time in the future) and of collocating another non-academic unit in the current facilities area, but was convinced by the broader principle of facilitating contact among units that facilities in particular should have regular and accidental contact with students and faculty.

The committee therefore proposes that the current facilities administration area of LAB II be extensively remodeled so that it can accommodate both the facilities administration and approximately six faculty offices, with a shared lounge and conference room. This will help address a growing problem of insufficient faculty office space within the lab science complex for faculty who teach in science and environmental studies programs.

Human Resources. The committee concluded that the area now occupied by this unit is too small, that other related functions (for instance, Jill Lowe's office) should be collocated, and that the unit is not located most conveniently for its clients.

The committee therefore recommends that HRS be moved to the second floor of the library building (in part of the space now occupied by classrooms L2218 through L2221) and that HRS's current space (L3238, L3239, L3240, and L3241) be converted to classroom space. In conjunction with relocating the vice president for student affairs and remodeling the 3200D entrance area on the third floor of the library building this could result in a net increase in useable space sufficient to allow Jill Lowe to be relocated to HRS with no net loss of classroom space.

HRS also has growing needs for storage. Some of this can be accommodated in the remodeling project just proposed, while some will need to be provided in the library basement.

Receiving & Mail. The current space, although remodeled fairly recently, does not meet the needs of the area. There is not enough space for incoming shipments, especially when these need to be off-gassed prior to delivery to units. There is also a problem with storage of materials to be disposed of through surplus property.

As noted above, the committee believes that eventually media services will probably need the remainder of the space now occupied by the Washington State Film Library. When that happens, part of WSFL's space could also be given to central receiving.

A quicker alternative might be to enclose part of the loading dock. This could be done fairly inexpensively and would also solve at least part of the storage problem for incoming and surplus materials.

The volume of mail also continues to grow, but the growing use of e-mail and the web may eventually reverse this trend. Changes in postal regulations may also reduce the volume of bulk mailing now being done through the campus mailroom. These factors, as well as changing needs for student deliveries, have led the mail operation to review current practices. This group and a housing student group are currently in the process of examining mail distribution alternatives which may affect future space needs. The committee therefore is not recommending any changes in the mail-handling area at this time, but looks forward to the results of these unit reviews.

Space Management & Campus Planning. For the last several years the space management [scheduling] office has moved around the campus, occupying vacant space which would otherwise be assigned as faculty offices. This has been a valuable way for the staff to get insight into how space in each building is actually being used. The campus planning (architect) position has, however, been located in the facilities administration area throughout this period.

Anticipated growth and consequent renewed emphasis on remodeling and efficient use of space may require the staff in these two areas to work more closely. So it may be desirable to collocate them in the facilities administration area following the remodeling project in the current facilities offices. On the other hand, the opportunity for those most closely involved in campus space planning to see first hand how others are using space is not to be lightly discarded.

Vice President's Office. The space needs of the vice president for finance and administration and her support staff are considered as part of a general discussion covering all three vice presidents and their immediate staff members in the section on the president's office (below).

top

President's Office

College Advancement. This unit has multiple functions which are currently housed in two areas. Most development, public relations, and alumni staff are housed on the third floor of the library A-wing, while graphics staff are housed on the third floor of the library C-wing. These areas will be affected somewhat differently during the planning period.

Although the development operation is not directly driven by enrollment growth, alumni affairs clearly is. Moreover, development activities at the college will likely continue to increase, regardless of enrollment growth. So both of these functions will need additional space if (as expected) they add staff. The director also believes that at least some staff members in the unit need to be located close to the president's office.

Graphics is located in an area which will eventually be absorbed into the library proper. So this group will have to be relocated elsewhere at some point. In some ways the work of graphics is quite separate from that of the rest of college advancement, so it might be feasible to relocate them at some distance from the other parts. And graphics is a relatively small group (four staff, plus student interns), so it might be fairly easy to find such a space for them. On the other hand locating the graphics staff away from the rest of college advancement might make managing and coordinating the unit's work more difficult.

Another alternative for solving some of the space problems of college advancement might be to collocate alumni affairs with other student support in or near the SASS area on the first floor library C-wing. This would have the same disadvantages as the separate location of graphics, but might also have some service advantages for students and alumni.

The committee has not reached a final conclusion about the best solution to the long-term needs of college advancement. The overall long-term needs of the unit will probably have to be one consideration in the third-floor library A-wing project discussed below under the president's office. This project can not take place until after seminar phase II is completed, however, and in the short term, growth in this unit's staff will have to be accommodated on an ad-hoc basis.

Public Policy Institute. The public policy institute is funded by the legislature to undertake specific projects. Its size therefore directly correlates with the extent of such projects, so its space needs are difficult to predict over the long term. The interim director feels, however, that the current space is likely to be adequate for the foreseeable future.

President's Office & Administrative Staff.The surveys received from the president's office and from each of the vice presidents' offices indicated that there is general interest in developing a design plan for a major remodel of the third-floor library A-wing area now used by all these areas. Among the specifics mentioned which need to be addressed are:

1. Expected growth in staff in the president's office related to affirmative action and civil rights.

2. More efficient arrangement of space for institutional research staff and other staff in the provost's office.

3. Better arrangement of space for entertaining visitors.

4. Better arrangement of offices for staff working on grants.

All three vice presidents also indicated that they need to be close to the president, and to each other, and that they need to have a small number of key staff located nearby.

The committee believes that a significant redesign of the third-floor library A-wing is the best way to address all of these concerns. That area now has considerable corridor space which could be reclaimed. A different layout based on an open office concept for support staff could extend the useful model which has been employed by the provost and vice president for finance and administration for several years. Some staff will need private offices (or at least private meeting areas), however, due to the confidential contacts they often must have with visitors. This project should also consider explicitly ways to solve the long-term space needs within college advancement.

It is important that this project not result in isolating the college administration from others on campus. One way to accomplish this would be to include classroom space and/or faculty offices adjacent to the remodeled area(s), as suggested in the draft layout included in Appendix VIII.

Project Summary & Timeline

The committee's major space projects are summarized in the timeline shown in Appendix VII, detailing the order in which we think these projects should be accomplished. Appendix VIII presents drawings showing each unit's current assigned space and proposed new space(s), respectively.

Appendices (intentionally omitted from some copies):

I -- Charge to DTF (March 14)

II -- Space Survey

III -- Letter to President and VPs re. Major Issues (October 14)

IV -- Growth Plan Through 2010

V -- Scheduled Classroom Utilization by Room

VI -- Summary of Space Utilization and Standards by Unit

VII -- Timeline for Remodeling Projects

VIII -- Building Floor Plans Showing Current & Proposed Use