August 27, 2009
12 Noon, Room 1506
In attendance: See sign-in sheet
Meeting Minutes: from May 28, 2009 were distributed. It was noted that the
report indicating that the committee favored the marquee sign with one column
was incorrect. The committee favored the two-column design.
Special Reports
A. Marquee-Horner distributed mock up of marquee. It was pointed out (see
minutes 5/28) that the two pier design had been preferred by the Facilities
committee.
B. Room Numbering-Discussion ensued regarding both room and building
numbering. It was agreed that IOB should be bldg. 400. CSSC should be
building 600/700. New PE complex will be re-numbered to 4000. Numerical
sequencing employed in classroom bldgs. remodels as standards (51-99 upper
stories) (01-50 on lower stories) will still be employed with odd and even sides of
the corridor when possible. Not enough numbers available in either the IOB or
the CSSC as there are more than 50 rooms on each floor. A proposal to use
Alpha (A-Z) numbering associated with rooms is currently being proposed.
Collins/Horner will bring back the number model for these buildings.
Project Status Update
Doug Horner reviewed status of all open/active projects currently under bid or in
construction…
IOB-Still on schedule for January ’10 move in. Questions surrounding occupancy
ensued. President has indicated desire to occupy a suite, along with Vice
President pending outcome of tBP Faculty Office study that Facilities Committee
initiated Spring ‘09. Discussion of this relative to Master Plan ensued. Some
consensus reached on need to re-evaluate the Master Plan soon.
CSSC-Still on schedule for January ’10 move in. Float days have been lost so
this project has no room for leeway, and will be tight.
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
Page 2
500/1900-Progressing forward Horner to supply to Wagoner verification on
availability for Spring.
2200-Under construction, still on time for 10/1 finish.
PE Complex-Still under Design.
4000-Still awaiting DSA approval.
Bleachers-phase 1completed and classes commence 8/29.
1200/1300-Architect selected, negotiations for contract in stalemate. Noyes
asked whether the selection should be re-visited. Horner responded that this
could potentially create longer delays in project, and said that negotiations should
be allowed to be completed before this decision is undertaken.
Rumor Control
Concerns raised regarding furniture and workstation accommodations in CSSC by
Linzmeyer, and Shimada. Shimada also supplied a letter from Kritscher from
Counseling expressing needs for ergogenic stations. Fouquet also indicated that
accommodations were part of the faculty contract, and had to be supplied if
requested for Health reasons. Horner to verify the specifications through
Dovetail.
Fouquet indicated that the wall on northwest corner of 2200 is temporary. Some
had expressed concerns regarding access to bathrooms. The wall will be gone
prior to opening of the building making these facilities accessible to campus.
(Wall removed on 9/8).
Other Matters Initiated
Bob Buell asked if the State furloughs were delaying our projects. Horner
affirmed this as to the reason behind the lateness of bldg. 4000, the Gym
bleachers, and the Athletic Soccer fields. This could be a problem for the campus
projects moving forward.
Bob Buell expressed concerns about the lack of planning in the Master Plan for a
Fire Tower. The Fire Tech program may be losing their tower over in San
Leandro, and need an alternate training site. He indicated a need to have this
evaluated sooner rather than later.
Cindy Hicks expressed concerns over who would have the final say in the
planning and selection of the final architect for the bldg. 100 project. Her
assessments are that the committee chose Steinberg, and she has concerns as
to whether this will be changed. Horner indicated that Steinberg was in the
minutes as the architect of choice.
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
Page 3
Dave Fouquet distributed a list of questions that he felt should be addressed
regarding the campus master facility plan as we move forward. Dave’s text is
attached:
Some Questions Surrounding the FMP
Chabot College Facilities Committee, 27 August, 2009 — Fouquet
0. For work beyond Measure B: Go out for a new bond, or do everything by
FPP?
1. Faculty Offices:
a) In the current economic climate, is there sufficient dollars for a full
renovation (as opposed to ‘renovation light’) of Buildings 1100, 1500 and
2000?
b) Note. Previous FMP’s called for a new two-story IOB (IOB West?) at or
near the site of Buildings 1500 or 2000 (The soon-to-open IOB can
accommodate about 2/3 of the current faculty.)
c) Note. Planning around the remaining faculty offices will have impact upon
the usage of the offices in IOB that are as yet unassigned. Offices in the
old buildings are 72 sf, which is smaller than the 100 sf campus standard;
renovation to campus standard would significantly reduce the number of
offices in those buildings.
2. Building 100
a) Renovate the old, or raze and build new?
b) Use of first floor in the next five years: How many walls to be knocked
down?
3. Building 200 (Is cap-loading a problem for office space?)
a) If it is closed down, what will be its ultimate fate? Where would the
mailroom go?
b) Were will the permanent offices of the college President and VP’s be
located? (Any new bldg. planned is an opportunity to answer this question.)
c) Note. President and VP’s in IOB has impact on Faculty Offices discussion.
4. Building 2300, Cafeteria and Student Center: Renovate, or raze and build
new?
5. Performing Arts Center (PAC) Improvements Not Covered by Measure B?
6. Replacement of Building 600: Lecture/Performance Hall
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
Page 4
a) Two needs could be accommodated with one facility doubling as a lecture
hall/performance hall with seating for 300-400.
b) Where would it go? Suggestions include footprint of current building 200,
or any of the old faculty office buildings whose function could move to a
new IOB-West. (Thus, this issue also ties to Question 1.) The lecture Hall
could also go in any new locally funded project.
7. Look at other facilities untouched by Measure B, starting with older buildings,
e.g., 1600, 2100, upstairs of 2200, etc.
Gerald Shimada distributed a paper that he authored regarding key board trays,
attached:
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
August 27, 2009
Chabot College Facilities Committee
Student Services Administrators
Computer Workstation Ergonomic Safety Equipment Request –
Adjustable/Articulating Keyboard Trays for CSSC
According to several governmental and private medicine computer workstation ergonomic
safety websites including the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and Medicinenet.com, serious injury can occur to high frequency
users of computer workstations if the set-ups are not adjustable to provide ergonomically
safe position of the chair, desk, keyboard, mouse and monitor.
This proposal requests adjustable or articulating keyboard trays to complete the
ergonomically safe equipment set-up for the computer workstations in the new
Community and Student Services Center as they were apparently not included in the
equipment programming for the project.
The following breakdown on the computer workstation equipment is described below:
1.
Adjustable desks mostly addresses the needs of shorter and taller people (below
5'2" or so and above 6'1" or so) to have a work surface that is the correct height for them
as the chair will not likely make up the difference between the desk height needed to work
and their personal height. People who are not below or above these heights will likely see
no added benefit to an adjustable desk as the chair can raise or lower to meet the desk
surface height. I’m not advocating the remove the adjustable desk height system however,
as it may have more significance than we realize in adjusting to the height of the
individual. It depends on the chairs and the height of the individual.
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
Page 5
2. Adjustable/Articulating keyboard trays allow for each workstation user to:
- Align their seat height with their desk height with the keyboard tray
- Adjust the tilt (negative is away from you, positive is toward you) – flat or negative
position for the keyboard is better than a positive tilt that a keyboard placed on top of a
flat desk will provide
- Adjust the depth (in and out length from the desk). This is important for different vision
level needs as well as arm length.
- Adjustable keyboard trays are needed for everyone to make their seat, monitor and
keyboard adjust to ergonomically safe positions. The chair, keyboard tray and monitor are
all part of an "ergonomic system" if you will, each requiring the input of the other piece of
equipment.
As the cost of even one employee’s worker’s compensation claim would exceed the total
cost of equipping this building with computer workstation keyboard trays, it seems a
prudent financial decision to procure these safety items with the capital bond funds.
Therefore, this request for adjustable keyboard trays is lodged on this Thursday, August
27, 2009 to the Chabot College Facilities Committee.
Below are some online references regarding the role of keyboard trays in providing
ergonomically safe computer workstation set-ups:

MedicineNet.com http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22781

Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/ =
http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/Ergonomics/compergo.htm#KEYBOARD
OSHA - http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html
Chabot College
Some Questions Surrounding the FMP
Chabot College Facilities Committee, 27 August, 2009 — Fouquet
0. For work beyond Measure B: Go out for a new bond, or do everything by FPP?
1. Faculty Offices:
a) In the current economic climate, is there sufficient dollars for a full renovation (as
opposed to ‘renovation light’) of Buildings 1100, 1500 and 2000?
b) Note. Previous FMP’s called for a new two-story IOB (IOB West?) at or near the
site of Buildings 1500 or 2000 (The soon-to-open IOB can accommodate about 2/3
of the current faculty.)
c) Note. Planning around the remaining faculty offices will have impact upon the
usage of the offices in IOB that are as yet unassigned. Offices in the old buildings
are 72 sf, which is smaller than the 100 sf campus standard; renovation to campus
standard would significantly reduce the number of offices in those buildings.
2. Building 100
a) Renovate the old, or raze and build new?
b) Use of first floor in the next five years: How many walls to be knocked down?
3. Building 200 (Is cap-loading a problem for office space?)
a) If it is closed down, what will be its ultimate fate? Where would the mailroom go?
b) Were will the permanent offices of the college President and VP’s be located?
(Any new bldg. planned is an opportunity to answer this question.)
c) Note. President and VP’s in IOB has impact on Faculty Offices discussion.
4. Building 2300, Cafeteria and Student Center: Renovate, or raze and build new?
5. Performing Arts Center (PAC) Improvements Not Covered by Measure B?
6. Replacement of Building 600: Lecture/Performance Hall
a) Two needs could be accommodated with one facility doubling as a lecture
hall/performance hall with seating for 300-400.
b) Where would it go? Suggestions include footprint of current building 200, or any
of the old faculty office buildings whose function could move to a new IOB-West.
(Thus, this issue also ties to Question 1.) The lecture Hall could also go in any new
locally funded project.
7. Look at other facilities untouched by Measure B, starting with older buildings, e.g.,
1600, 2100, upstairs of 2200, etc.
Chabot College