Facilities Master Plan Notes
Friday, February 27th, 2009
Outline of Discussion: Review of facilities planning to date
I. Planning Process and timeline
II. Linking EMP to the FMP
III. Existing Analysis at each site
IV. Development Options- select preferred options
I.
TimelineA. Jan- Review Options
B. Feb- Select Preferred options
C. March- Develop Master Plan Recommendations
II.
Education Plan drives the facilities master plan- use weekly student contact hours to
forecast space needs
A. District wide, capacity load ratio indicates adequate space, although 2014 forecast
shows inadequate lecture space
III.
Analysis of sites
A. Del Norte Recommendations
1. Recommend replacing temporary buildings
2. Flow of students back and forth from high school is an issue, create buffer
3. Lab space is inadequate- expand science labs
4. Create student gathering areas
5. Construct new bookstore
6. Increase visibility to community
7. Preliminary Preferred Option:
1. Smaller parking lot located near W. Washington
2. Developed Entrance increasing visibility
3. Two new buildings north of current campus utilizing forested area,
incorporating creek, including green area in front
4. Expanding existing parking lot to create more of an arrival, also
allowing pick-up drop-off area
5. Parking area south of current campus where temporary building are
currently located
8. Discussion
1. Series of covered walkways could be developed to lead you through
outdoor spaces and connect buildings on campus
2. Expense, timeframe and funding are next steps after facilities master
plan is developed
3. New buildings will incorporate creek into their design
B. Mendocino Recommendations
1. Improved visibility at entrance
2. Bring Wood-working program to campus
3. Developing student housing/conference center
4. Preliminary Preferred Option
1. Woodworking program located in south-east portion of campus at end
of the parking lot
2. Student housing/conference center shifted to the west to take
advantage of views
3. smaller parking lots created north and south of student housing on
western edge of campus
4. Complete vehicular loop encircling campus
5. Discussion
1. Land to the south of the current campus is owned by district, land to
the north would have to be acquired
2. Woodworking building needs a prominent location
3. Programs housed in portable buildings need to be incorporated into
new buildings
4. Makes sense to move woodworking program to campus because it is a
premier program and should be located near support services. Also,
current site is very limited in space. There is no meeting space or office
space.
5. If woodworking program is moved to campus, discussion will occur
regarding utilization of current location
6. Preferred option seems to cover a lot of useful ground with asphalt. Is
this totally necessary? Covered walkways that encourage people to
walk to locations would be more aesthetically pleasing and would
preserve the campuses natural appeal
7. Perhaps if we moved 3 pseudo dorms to southern end of campus
vs. western, we could eliminate the access road. Southern
location is elevated and would allow better views from dorms.
8. Security and lock-down issues have not been addressed. That level of
planning would be incorporated into next steps
C. Eureka Campus Recommendations
1. Replace portable buildings with permanent facilities
2. Re-purpose and seismically upgrade vacated buildings
1. As part of funding for new buildings, we are required to vacate old
buildings. This is a challenge here at CR because we don’t want to
demolish old buildings
3. Renovate existing facilities
4. Cluster related programs
5. Create flexible interdisciplinary space
6. Develop student gathering areas
7. Discussion
1. Current buildings are arranged to accommodate seismic precautions
2. From a planning point of view, it is hard to determine planning patterns
on Eureka Campus. Navigating campus is difficult. The Creative Arts
building is remote.
3. According to state calculations, CR Eureka campus has adequate
space, although projections show instruction space will be inadequate
by 2014
4. MSE, Old library, Forum and Admin will all be vacated following
construction of replacements
5. New driveway will facilitate pick-up/drop-off in front of new admin bldg
6. Probably the biggest question of the master plan is what the vacated
buildings will be after they are replaced
7. Student services admin building is moving forward
8. Current student union building will remain and be for college use
9. Admin and Forum are tentatively designated as college use
10. Old library and MSE are tentatively designated as non-college use
11. Non-college use space is not reported to state on space inventory, but
those buildings will require renovation, which requires capital
investment
12. New academic building will be located west of easement, north of
admin, south of union (open mall area)
13. Flow is important when considering location of proposed academic
building
14. Two buildings vs. one will allow better flow. Current mall is not really
functional and is under utilized. A smaller outdoor area may actually
get more use.
15. As we determine best location of two proposed academic buildings, old
library seems to become less and less useful. The old library is also
the most difficult to renovate. Old library blocks most efficient and
logical location of one of the proposed new academic buildings
16. With so little buildable space on campus, does keeping the old library
male sense? Removing the old library opens up a lot of development
potential
17. Roof line of old library could remain, but become a covered outdoor
area. View from proposed outdoor space where old library is located
would be spectacular.
18. HSU is home to a lot of small outdoor areas which are heavily utilized
19. Configuration of proposed academic buildings would provide a wind
block and would allow southern exposure to the sun
20. The pre-condition for approval of proposed buildings was our
guarantee that we would not demolish the five existing buildings. We
have to help the coastal commission understand that by saving the
current student union, we need to re-consider the position of not
removing any of the existing buildings. We are not destroying the
current campus. Some of the savings generated from not building the
new student union could potentially be used to update the existing
buildings. Are we an institution with an educational mission or a
custodian of old vacant buildings?
21. The green space north of dorms does have some development
potential
22. The new academic buildings will have equal square footage of
buildings being replaced
23. Should we consider moving Creative Arts nearer to the rest of the
campus? Perhaps creative arts could be moved to MSE building. The
current creative arts building would be an ideal location for non-college
use.
24. Could we keep the façade of the old library while using the space for
something else, possibly an outdoor covered amphitheatre dedicated
to Dr. Portugal? Should we dedicate a façade to Dr. Portugal?
25. Area behind dorms could be parking, but area west of union should be
saved for outdoor space. East of new admin building should be saved
for building because it is a valuable building area. Stable areas should
be saved for buildings.
26. MSE building can be retrofitted? The buildings can be retrofitted to be
usable, although it is costly, but even retrofitted buildings would not
stand up to a major seismic event, they would simply allow occupants
to survive. The cost of retrofitting is less than the $48 million we will
receive for the new buildings. The 50% point includes both
modernization and stabilization. There was more modernization than
stabilization which took the costs over 50%. At some point the state
chancellors office realized they could harden the buildings and
continue on, or build new buildings designed to survive. When the
event occurs, none of the existing buildings can be re-occupied again,
ever, even after hardening. Had we not received the $48 million and
gone ahead with the retrofitting, we would only have given occupants a
higher likelihood of surviving a seismic event. Although occupants
would be more likely to survive, they wouldn’t have had buildings to
return to the next day following the event.
27. The creative arts building is under stabilized area. Once we move MSE
to new building, Creative arts can remain in current building until funds
to retrofit MSE building become available. We build new buildings,
stabilize old buildings, move Creative arts to MSE building, move
academy to creative arts building (or other use).
28. If we are going to move creative arts to MSE building, why not just
move creative arts to new academic building and leave MSE where it
is? Retrofitting MSE building is a long term project. It makes more
sense to move MSE to the new stable academic building and leave
creative arts in their stable building where they are now, until a time
when the MSE building can be retrofitted.
29. In deciding not to build new union, we saved $10 million. We can $4
million of that money to retrofit the old union and add a culinary center.
That’s a good decision.
30. Where is the teaching center space? We expand the kitchen and
make a 25 station culinary arts program, we create a satellite job
market on campus in the union, and we move bookstore to the forum
and expand the union for student use. The expanded union would also
include space for training and adjunct services.
31. Preliminary Preferred Option
1. Move ahead with proposed admin building
2. Move ahead with new driveway and pick-up drop off
3. Locate academic buildings in mall area, vacate MSE and Forum
Admin buildings for now
4. Explore option of removing old library and re-purposing space
as a covered outdoor area
5. Retrofit and expand union with savings from not building new
union
6. Consider moving Creative arts to old MSE building after funding
is available for retrofitting.