Members of the Public Present: Katie Gelardi, Jennifer Heggie, Jeeram Rijal, Arturo Taboada, John Watkins

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Members of the Public Present: Katie Gelardi, Jennifer Heggie, Jeeram Rijal, Arturo Taboada, John Watkins"

Norman Bishop
5 years ago
Views:

1 Facilities Committee/Facilities Master Plan Advisory Working Group Minutes Meeting of March 19, 2018 Page 1 of 2 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Facilities Committee (FC) was called to order by Dr. Rueben Smith at Ocean Campus, Multi Use Building, Room 240 at 1:12 pm. FC Members/Alternates Present: Leilani Battiste (Member), Steven Brown (Co Chair, Member), Rebeca Chavez (Member), Alan D Souza (Alternate), Aaron Holmberg (Alternate), Wynd Kaufmyn (Alternate), Vicki Legion (Member), Geisce Ly (Member), Wendy Miller (Alternate), Madeline Mueller (Member), Maria Salazar Colon (Alternate), Rueben Smith (Chair, Member), Cherisa Yarkin (Member), Shawn Yee (Member) Staff Present: Yuen Chan, Marian Lam, Leslie Simon, Kris Whalen Members of the Public Present: Katie Gelardi, Jennifer Heggie, Jeeram Rijal, Arturo Taboada, John Watkins Presenters: Amy Jane Frater (tbp), Phil Newsom (tbp) 2. Approval of March 19, 2018 Agenda Motion to adopt agenda approved. (Brown/Ly) 3. Public Comment on Items Not on Agenda None. 4. Chancellor s Report None. 5. Vice Chancellor s Report a. Repair Updates Dr. Smith provided an update on the pigeon poop issue and noted that netting has been ordered for installation on both ends of MUB. He noted the items on this week s Board agenda is a contract for repair and overhaul of all three Rosenberg elevators and the Fort Mason lease extension. He is working on a lease extension for Gough Street and planning for the Airport lease expiring next year. The Fire Science program at the Airport may relocate to John Adams Center and there is discussion of moving Aviation to United. Discussion that occurred: i. Committee Member Mueller inquired on the status of other roof repairs. Dr. Smith noted there are several roofing issues across the District and there are plans to repair the Visual Arts, Batmale Hall, Rosenberg Library and Student Union roofs. ii. Committee Member Battiste inquired if the airport is signaling that they will not be renewing the lease. Dr. Smith responded that the Airport needs the land for their expansion project and will not be renewing the lease expiring June iii. Committee Alternate D Souza inquired about the timeline for the repair of the elevators. Dr. Smith noted that the elevator company Kone will pull together equipment and rebuild the controllers and an update will be posted to the Repairs Update page after Spring Break pending Board approval of their contract. 6. Old Business a. Gough Street Update Committee Chair Smith reported that the Task Force meeting did not occur as scheduled. He will schedule a meeting with the Task Force and share their recommendation with an update to the Committee via . In the meantime, a lease extension needs to be completed. Committee Member Legion requested to be added to the Task Force and Leslie Simon as well. Dr. Smith will include them at the next scheduled Task Force meeting.

2 Facilities Committee/Facilities Master Plan Advisory Working Group Minutes Meeting of March 19, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Discussion that occurred i. Committee Member Ly inquired what will happen when the lease expires in June. Committee Chair Smith responded that he has been in negotiations with CBRE and has a letter of intent ready to issue. He commented that he has a plan B relocation option for the Gough Street occupants. 7. New Business a. Cloud Hall Gallery Leslie Simon presented the Cloud Hall Gallery proposal approved by Works of Art to build two glass cases located in the Cloud Hall Third Floor lobby middle south entrance. The display exhibition would be a collaboration between the Groundswell program, Museum Studies, and the Architecture Department and involving Makersphere. The Cloud Hall Gallery concept was approved with the final design to be brought back to the Committee for final approval. (Brown/D Souza). Discussion that occurred: i. Committee Alternate D Souza inquired if the cases will be permanent and if the exhibitions will change. Leslie Simon responded that it would be permanent with the Architecture exhibits changing. The stairway pieces will have some permanent and some evolving work. ii. Committee Member Legion commended Leslie Simon s work and art contributions. iii. Committee Chair Smith inquired about the size of the cabinets. Leslie Simon responded that the cases could be 6 by 9. Committee Chair Smith would like Aaron Holmberg to review the proposed location for risk mitigation. iv. Committee Chair Smith inquired if purchasing cabinets have been considered. Leslie Simon responded that she has involved carpenter Frank Masterson and he has expressed interest in doing the work. Leslie Simon noted that Frank Masterson has reviewed the proposed design for proper anchorage and compliance with ADA. v. Committee Chair Smith propose for the Committee to approve this proposal in concept with the final design to come back to the Committee for final approval. b. Facilities Master Plan Draft Update Committee Chair Smith stated the purpose of this presentation was the Committee s desire to review what has been presented to the Board and based on the Chancellor s request for a reboot. Amy Jane Frater noted that the content is the same with some requested minor information and context changes. Phil Newsom and Amy Jane Frater of tbp Architecture presented an update of the Facilities Master Plan Draft to the Committee. Meeting notes for this agenda item prepared by tbp Architecture are attached in Appendix A. c. Approval of March 19, 2018 Minutes Motion for approval of minutes approved. (Brown/Yee) d. Committee Goals tabled. 8. Future Business a. Call for agenda items i. Breathe Healthy Committee Alternate Kaufmyn passed out handouts to the Committee. 9. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 3:03 PM

3 APPENDIX A MEETING NOTES tbp/architecture 1000 Burnett Ave. Suite 320 Concord, CA PROJECT City College of San Francisco Facilities Master Plan City College of San Francisco tbp Project No FMP Status Review for Reboot Facilities Committee Meeting Date: March 19, 2018 PRESENTERS Phil Newsom, tbp/architecture Amy Jane Frater, tbp/architecture Question about Parking from Jennifer Heggie prior to meeting - What is the source of the recommendation to consider full capacity at 85%? Jennifer recalls this figure from a tbp memo to the College regarding parking. Jennifer mentioned this figure to the residential developer of the Lower Balboa Reservoir. The developer indicated that 85% is too low in an urban environment. Phil Newsom noted that the recommendation came from Sandis in the Parking Analysis performed for the College. Further, the developer works on residential projects, which is very different from a community college. PURPOSE To review the project status and reboot the Facilities Master Plan project. Dr Smith indicated that the there are many questions from the College about the Facilities Master Plan What has been approved? Has anything been approved? The Facilities Committee last saw a presentation about the FMP on DR Rocha and Trustee Rizzo were present. There is now more information available about the enrollment projections. Some of the materials in today s presentation have been updated to better reflect the current conversations. DISCUSSION The Planning Team gave a powerpoint presentation. Process In the Facilities Master Plan process, the Needs and Options phases are done. The Recommendations phase should be based on an agreed-upon, approved Preferred Option site plan. There are no meeting minutes that reflect that this has been done. An approved Recommended site plan will include open space and circulation. The FMP will be consistent with the College s 2009 Sustainability Plan. The Recommended plan will be broken down to individual projects with cost estimates. This information is needed to develop a phasing strategy with 5- year, 10-year and long-range future phases. tbp/architecture 1777 Oakland Boulevard Walnut Creek CA ph:

4 Draft Chapters The draft Chapters including 1. Introduction, 2. Existing Physical Conditions and 3. Space Needs Analysis were prepared by tbp and submitted by the College to the Facilities Committee in July The chapters are posted on the website. Enrollment Projections The projections are used to evaluate the College s future needs for space..at the College s direction, the FMP will be based on the 2016 State Forecast of Enrollment and WSCH (Weekly Student Contact Hours). The College has identified 3 horizons for the FMP: 5 years (2020), 10 years (2026), and long-range future. Previously, the Facilities Committee asked about comparing the state s forecast with the College s plans to restore enrollment. Now the College has developed the Path to 32,000 by The state forecast is consistent with the College initiative for this period. We are trying to restore a normal growth rate; it is possible that the projection will change beyond what we predict today? The state forecast is updated annually, and CCSFs enrollment is going to change with aggressive efforts to achieve restoration. The FMP is a high-level plan. It will be years before individual projects are sized and designed. Updating the enrollment forecast and space needs analysis will be a continuing task. Vicky Legion asked, Can we see enrollment numbers in terms of headcount? The Enrollment column is the state s forecast of headcount, and WSCH is related to Full Time Equivalent Students. (FTES x 15 = WSCH). The College s plan is to increase the FTES per headcount. Capacity Load Ratios Cap loads ratios compare the space inventory (capacity) to enrollment and WSCH (load) in key space categories, according to state standards. The ratios at the Ocean Campus indicate that there are substantial excesses of space in lecture and lab, and there is a lack of space in office and AVTV Instructional Media. The ratios changed significantly from 2015 to 2016 because some updates were made to the Space Inventory. Cap load ratios do not indicate the quality of the space. Not all of our space is good space. Dr. Smith indicated that Kitchell, the new program managers, will be involved in a comprehensive update of the Space Inventory. The categories and measurements will be validated. The cap load ratios are for the Ocean Campus, the Centers have their own cap loads. The Space Inventory is not accurate for some lab spaces. Different lab types have different impacts on the cap load ratios. There are inaccuracies in CCSFs Space Inventory, but the SI for every community college has inaccuracies. However, it is the official submittal by CCSF to the State Chancellor s Office. Steven Brown indicated that Department Chairs need information about the inventory and utilization to comply with Administration direction to increase efficiency in class scheduling. Amy Jane Frater indicated that a Room Utilization Study and a Space Inventory update are important steps in the facilities implementation process, which is a more detailed level of planning. The FMP is a higher, less detailed level of planning. A utilization study and inventory update are not part of tbp s contract with CCSF for Facilities Master Planning services.

5 Planning Principles Educational Drivers Facilities planning should support the Educational Master Plan. Community & Technology The College community and technology are inextricably linked. The entire campus, including indoor & outdoor, should be developed as a learning environment. Consistent Quality The existing campus has a mix of modern and outdated facilities; future development should provide consistent quality throughout. Clusters for Synergy Cluster related programs and functions Align to State Standards Balance enrollment and facilities per state standards. Intuitive Wayfinding Provide a logical layout of programs and circulation, making it easier to get around the campus Transit & Bike Friendly Develop facilities to encourage the use of transit and bikes. Sustainability Conform the FMP to College s 2009 Sustainability Plan Facilities Condition Index The most recent Facilities Condition Assessment of all buildings at all CCSF locations was conducted in 2016 by the State Chancellor s Office. The Assessment includes the Facilities Condition Index, a comparison of the cost to repair a facility to like-new condition against the cost of replacement (Cost to Repair / Cost to Replace = FCI %). An FCI of 51 75% is an indicator to renovate; an FCI of is an indicator to remove or replace. The FCI diagram shows buildings that have been recommended for reprogramming/modernization or demolition. Science Hall has an FCI over 76%. The costs are calculated on the basis of its current configuration including Science labs, which is very expensive. The cost to renovate the facility as a classroom building would be lower. Visual Arts has an FCI over 76%. Previous comments have included debates about renovation or demolition. Cloud Hall has an FCI between 51-75%. Previous comments have included debates about renovation or demolition. Portables have been marked for removal, to be replaced by permanent space per the FMP goals. At various times, there has been discussion of removing the existing Central Shops & Shops Annex to create circulation to a new parking structure on the east side. The Horticulture Building has an FCI over 100%. However, no needs have been identified to change existing facilities for Horticulture instruction. The Facilities Condition Assessment document is in FUSION. It contains detailed checklist for every building feature and system. It is available in the Facilities Department. Campus Concept The campus concept shows the organizing principles for future development. Potential building sites are located where buildings may be demolished, or on existing open land. Primary campus gateways are located on Ocean and Phelan Avenues. Secondary gateway is at Judson Avenue. Emergency vehicle access is at Havelock.

6 Development on the Ocean Avenue edge relates to the pattern of development on the Ocean Avenue corridor. Connections across Phelan Avenue unite the east and west sides of the campus. The scale of development along Judson Avenue is appropriate to nearby development. The original circulation pattern was based on the north-south pathway over the hill. The FMP concept is to re-orient campus development around a pedestrian-friendly Cloud Walk, a circle that would extend across the east and west sides of Phelan Avenue. Steven Brown indicated that the College has documentation that Olmsted designed the campus; Timothy Pflueger designed Science Hall; and Timothy & Milton Pflueger designed several campus buildings. This would be significant new data to inform the FMP; he was asked to provide documentation. Neighborhood Concept The bubble diagram reflects the discussion about the Draft Preference diagrams. Core Services are support functions that are used frequently by most campus users, such as Student Development, Library, Cafeteria, Bookstore, etc. Locations need to be determined for Administration, Building & Grounds, Campus Police, Administrative Support Services, Custodial, Copy Center, Information Technology Services and Central Plant. Ocean Site Plan Development The group reviewed the history of the site plan development. o Sept Oct 2016, Options. The 2 Options diagrams were reviewed & approved by the Facilities Committee and discussed in the College/public workshops in. o Oct 16 Mar 17, Draft Preference. There were 3 or more diagrams labelled Draft Preference discussed by the Facilities Committee, College/public workshops, Board of Trustees & other College committees. o Mar 17 June 17, Five Year Construction Plan. At the College s direction, the 5YCP was based on the Draft Preference. o Jul 2017, Draft Recommendation. The College gave direction for this label to be used in the presentation to the Facilities Committee. However, tbp has found no indication in the minutes of the Facilities Committee that there was a Preferred Option that would be the basis for a recommended site plan. Draft Recommendation Diagrams Per Dr Smith s instruction, some minor updates were made to the drawing since it was last reviewed by the Facilities Committee on The main features of the image are: o Student Services Building - A formal front door to the campus is created at a new building to house all of student services. Provide underground parking. Conlan Hall and Smith/Statler Building are removed. o Old Student Union - The existing Student Union is repurposed, possibly for instruction. o East Parking Structure Replace the 600s, 700s bungalows with a multi-story parking structure with pedestrian links on the same level as the football field and track. o New Student Union/Culinary Arts Building Remove Cloud Hall. Construct a new Student Union to house student activities/government, cafeteria, bookstore and Culinary Arts instruction. Future building sites are located to the north and south inside of Cloud Walk.

7 o Batmale Hall - Renovate to house STEM instruction. o STEM Complex Relocate Science instruction from Science Hall to a new facility on the site of Creative Arts Building and Creative Arts Extension. o Central Plant Remove 100s, 200s bungalows, construct a new Central Plant on the site. The Central Plant has no users, noise, odors, etc. o Child Development Center Reconstruct the CDC at its original location, remove bungalows 212, 213. o Performing Arts Education Center and West Parking Structure Construct new facilities. Remove Creative Arts Building, Creative Arts Extension, Visual Arts Building. It is this diagram that the Committee is most interested in reviewing. There are new members of the Facilities Committee since the last presentation in July The Committee has also been asked to review the draft chapters. The google docs review process contains confusing guided questions, it is too laborious. The system is impractical and very annoying. Steven Brown indicated that he and Madeline Mueller looked at it together and gave up. The draft chapters and the Draft Preference diagram are confusing, what are we supposed to be commenting on? There has not been a process for meaningful input by the Facilities Committee. Phil Newsom and Amy Jane Frater indicated that tbp submitted the draft chapters to the College as a pdf, and requested that the College return 1 set of reconciled comments (meaning that the College agrees on directions for revisions.) The College set up the review website; tbp has not seen it. tbp further indicated that it is very unusual and not recommended to submit a draft FMP document without the FMP recommendations. Wendy Miller mentioned that it is important to note that the yellow shapes on the image show potential new buildings. They are symbolic and do not indicate specific footprint or building size. The only exception is the PAEC, which is already designed. Steven Brown mentioned that it is important to clarify the site plan in the context of a timeline. He recalls that a Trustee has asked if the plan can be accomplished in 25 years, or is it all pie-in-the-sky? Other potential issues may include: whether Science instruction remains in the existing Science Hall or relocates to a new building. Whether to renovate or remove Cloud Hall. Alan D Souza requested more information about space standards and how space needs are projected. Steven Brown asked, if the Space Inventory is inaccurate, what does that mean for the space needs analysis? NEXT STEPS Dr. Smith requested that the Committee member should study and comment on the two Options diagrams that were previously approved by the Committee. The comments will be used to identify issues for further discussion. He directed tbp to provide full-size drawings of each Option 1 and 2,with a revision on each image to show the footprint of the PAEC as designed Prepared by: Amy Jane Frater AICP, LEED AP tbp/architecture

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO. Facilities Master Plan Board Study Session May 3, 2018

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO. Facilities Master Plan Board Study Session May 3, 2018 CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO Facilities Master Plan Board Study Session May 3, 2018 STUDY SESSION FORMAT Goal: Establish preferred building element(s) Incorporate Planning Principles Review previously