Measure H Update CITIZEN S BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (CBOC) JANUARY 11, 2016
Presentations PDA Day (August 2015, February 2016) 2030 Plan Steering Committee (Monthly from July 2015 through January 2016, ongoing) Department Chair Committee & Instructional Managers (SVP Mary Kay Rudolph) Petaluma Administrators (VP Jane Saldana-Talley) Faculty Senate (Senate President Robin Fautley) Classified Senate (Senate President Kathy Matthies) Student Services Council (VP Ricardo Navarette) Governing Board Foundation Board
Site and Building Walks Santa Rosa Campus Analy Baker Burbank Call Child Development Center Lark Lounibos Pioneer Petaluma Campus Shone Farm Southwest Center Public Safety Training Center
Start-Up Initiatives State Capital Outlay Process: Resubmittal of Final Project Plan (FPP) for the Science Project. $27.2M potential funding Basecamp: For internal distribution of information for the Steering Committee and subcommittees Measure H Website Construction: General Information about Measure H Vendor Information (RFPs, Sample Contracts, Forms) Citizens Bond Oversight Committee Presentations and Briefings Planning Documents
Sonoma County Junior College District From North to South: Public Safety Training Center (Windsor), Santa Rosa Junior College Campus (Santa Rosa), Southwest Center (Roseland), Santa Rosa), Shone Farm (Healdsburg), Petaluma Campus (Petaluma)
Facilities Master Planning Selection Committee One Board of Trustee Member Jordan Burns (2 nd interview, Rick Call) One Student Lauren Kershner Two Faculty Members Lenny Wagner and Joe Fassler Two Classified Staff Mike Garcia & Adrienne Leihy Two Management Staff Dr. Jane Saldana-Talley & Ricardo Navarrette (2 nd interview, Josh Adams) This shared governance model will be utilized in architectural selections moving forward.
Selection of Gensler/QKA team as the Facilities Master Planner The Master Planning Team will provide the following services: 1. Building Assessments: Review and supplement existing building assessment data 2. Demographic Trends & Current Space Utilization review & incorporate existing documentation: Strategic plan Educational master plan Student support plan Technology plan 5 year State Capital Outlay plan 3. Master Planning Services architectural & landscape planning based on the educational plan 4. Districtwide Standards create standards for the District *The Facilities Master Planner will not design individual projects and buildings
1. Facilities Condition Assessment The Master Planner (a team of architects and engineers) will review building and infrastructure systems, including: Utilities (underground and above ground) Structural Mechanical Electrical Roofing Building Envelope Goal is to coordinate replacement and repair of buildings with a maintenance schedule
Current Space Utilization and Demographic Trends 2. Current Space Utilization and Demographic Trends Consider existing space; determine whether size and amenities fit program growth Identify growth areas and validate existing programs (size and location) Existing programs can form the baseline for improvement Demographic trends in District service area How do these inputs encourage FTES growth or fit the State funding (IPP/FPP) requirements? Desired Outcome Identify service areas and/or programs that require facilities upgrades Heritage Buildings may require work behind the skin
2. County Demographics & Space Utilization Are there trends within the County that anticipate growth in a particular area? Is a program growing at a teaching site? Identify growing academic programs and opportunities Will a program benefit from a facility enhancement? Understand current space utilization Take advantage of State funding, if available Goal is to leverage local funds with State funds
EXAMPLE OF A SPACE CAPACITY SUMMARY (above): The SRJC snapshot shows (projected to completion of Science in 2021): Lecture 119.0% CAP load ratio (slightly high) Lab 75.2% CAP load ratio (lab space available) Office 148.3% CAP load ratio * This suggests funding available for Labs, if strategically presented
3. Facilities Master Plans (Architecture and Landscape) Facilities Master Plans: Long Term Comprehensive Vision for all teaching sites Include landscape opportunities Analysis should include all properties owned by District Identify land acquisition opportunities if needed. Goal: Comprehensive vision mapped to Measure H goals
EXAMPLE: ANALYSIS SITE CONDITIONS Pedestrian Access and View Corridors Landscape Opportunities Gateways and Vehicular Access Clarity of Circulation
EXAMPLE: ANALYSIS OF CAMPUS ORGANIZATION Organizing Spines Organizing Nodes Campus Core Quads and Courtyards
EXAMPLE: QUADS AND OPEN SPACE Formal Gathering and Geometry Informal Space supporting events Seating and Shade
Design Standards Design Standards can include: Building materials and equipment: style guide, colors, quality level Landscape elements: plantings, site furniture, materials Sustainability standards: energy, water, transportation Signage and wayfinding: interior and exterior signage on campus Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment: including new teaching methodologies IT: infrastructure and instructional Universal access design and ADA transition plan Goal is to create a set of standards for project specific architects to utilize and to simplify maintenance and operations of the institution
EXAMPLE OF A COLOR AND MATERIAL PALETTE
EXAMPLE OF LANDSCAPE AND TREE GUIDELINE
EXAMPLE OF LANDSCAPE SITE FURNITURE DESIGN GUIDELINE
EXAMPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY A GUIDELINE VISION AND GOALS
EXAMPLE OF A SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING FAMILY
EXAMPLE OF AN ACCESSIBILITY REPORT
Connecting the Educational Plan to the Facilities Master Plan The Facilities Master Plan should follow the Educational Master Plan. The Educational Plan should help determine: Which programs are growing and contracting? Which programs should be located at each site? What is the right size for each teaching site? Where is growth in the County? What are the demographic trends? What industries need training?
Educational Planning Facilities Planning
Bridging the EMP to the FMP Strategic Plan 2014 Master Plans: Educational Student Services Technology 2014 The Bridge: County & Demographic Data Educ. Prog. Information Other Considerations Early 2016 Other Considerations: State Funding (5 Year Capital Outlay Plan) Measure A Project List Building Assessments Community Investment and Outreach January to June 2016 Results: Facilities Master Plan District Standards Spring 2016 Spending & Implementation Plan Summer/Fall 2016
Bridging the EMP to the FMP Strategic Plan 2014 Master Plans: Educational Student Services Technology 2014 Today The Bridge: County & Demographic Data Educ. Prog. Information Other Considerations Early 2016 Other Considerations: State Funding (5 Year Capital Outlay Plan) Measure A Project List Building Assessments Community Investment and Outreach January to June 2016 Results: Facilities Master Plan District Standards Spring 2016 Spending & Implementation Plan Summer/Fall 2016
2015 2016 2017 2018 Preliminary Planning Schedule: Today Start Finish DRAFT FACILITIES PLAN DEVELOPEMENT SCHEDULE
2015 2016 2017 2018 Preliminary Planning Schedule: Today Start Finish DRAFT FIRST PROJECT OPPORTUNITY (OPEN IN 2018)
Measure H Update (Assessments) Facilities Master Planning Assessment DW waterproofing assessment meetings: QKA & Facilities DW MEP (Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing) assessment: QKA and Facilities DW comprehensive on-site review beginning January 4: QKA and Facilities Site level Civil Surveys: Gensler and Bruelje-Race Internal Data Assessment Fusion Database confirmation and update: Eric Mittlestead Functional space inventory on the ground confirmation: FPPS and Facilities Below ground infrastructure mapping: Landmark Systems/CSW and Facilities
Measure H Update (Steering Committee) 2030 Plan Steering Committee Committee Surveys complete: +/- 200 responses for 8 committees Gensler Team presentation: Site analysis of each teaching site (ongoing) Sustainability Workshop: January 29 Selection of first Measure H project Committee Opportunities Fixtures Fittings and Equipment (FFE) Signage, Wayfinding and Graphics Universal Access and Accessibility (ADA+) Sustainability Health and Safety Demonstration Classroom and Instructional Technology Landscape Architectural
Measure H Update (Project Delivery Methods) First Measure H project Burbank Theater 70+ year old heritage building on Measure A list Functionality and comfort challenges through out interior Community visibility and support Potential for additional fundraising Manageable logistics (swing space, clear program) Project Delivery Methods Design-Bid-Build: Lowest cost with schedule and quality risk Lease-Lease-Back: Davis Case in Fresno has raised concerns in GC community CM at Risk: No longer allowed CM Multi-Prime: Professional service procurement for CM, owner holds schedule and contract risk Design-Build: Schedule and quality risk is reduced, payment of stipend to unsuccessful DBE teams is recommended
Measure H Update (Burbank Theater) Burbank Theater Project Delivery Method: Design-Build Design Architect and Theater Consultant prepare Bridging Documents General Contractor and Architect of Record are on the same team (DBE) DBE is selected by best value a stipulated sum with enhancements DBE is responsible for final documentation, DSA approval and construction Higher quality and faster project delivery Minimum project size is $2.5M Familiar delivery method in the CA Community College system
Measure H Update (Burbank Theater) Burbank Theater Issues, Challenges and Opportunities Heritage Building and structural assessment findings California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Budget Development and scope agreements Fundraising Opportunities Community Impact and Support Restore and revitalize one of the oldest buildings on the SR campus
Measure H Update Questions?