March 26, 2009
12 Noon, Room 1506
In attendance: See attached sheets
Project Status Update
Doug Horner reviewed status of all open/active projects currently under bid or in
construction. Highlights included:
IOB remains behind schedule after careful review of submitted schedule. Revised
date for occupance is January 2010, start of Spring Semester. Doug H. to
connect with Marcia C. relative to move issues. Social Science classes were
scheduled in IOB, Dale W. will move them out.
1900-bid came in under engineer’s budget.
PE Complex-discussion ensued regarding the change of these facilities. John K.
asked questions regarding the proposed changes.
2200-bids were to opened in the afternoon (addendum-they came in under
engineer’s budget also).
Lot J parking to be opened by Monday. Chevron to complete construction by
Saturday.
Kari M. asked for clarification regarding Lot G. closures. Doug H. indicated that
announcements would precede any closures, and no more than one-third of lot
would be closed at one point. Mobilization of full Lot G to occur over Spring Break
to complete as much work as possible.
Miscellaneous-Janice G. inquired regarding air-flow in 900. (addendum – there is
a broken fan in one of the units serving a class in B900 that must be fixed.)
Rumor Control
None
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
April 23, 2009
Pg. 2
Other Matters Initiated
A. Discussion of Campus Master Plan / Ed Plan
Predominant issue was whether appropriate decisions were being made relative
to office space, and bldg. 100. A larger forum was necessary, and the campus
community was recommended to be involved in changes to the bldg. 100 project,
or the construction of a new library. Since this was not in original plan, it was felt
this needed to be evaluated through a new Master/Educational Planning process.
Same was brought forth for the Proposed office bldgs. (see discussion below).
B. Marquee Sign Design
Phil Newsom of tBP was introduced as consultant for developing a proposal for
the placement of Campus Marquee. Phil to compile points discussed and bring
back proposal on potential sites, and designs for campus marquee. Discussion
ensued on both location, design style, and need for the marquee. Discussion
centered around two types of signs…1)location indicator sign chabot college
sign, and 2)information distribution sign; a traditional marquee. It was consensus
that both types of signs had value, and there was a need for both. Multiple signs
were the consensus preference. Location of marquee sign distributing campus
information should be at corner of Hesperian and Depot. Varied discussion about
different needs and locations for a campus name sign. Front of CSSC was most
popular, but entrances to Lot B, and Lot F also discussed. An arc sign was most
preferred. Doug H. asked that tBP be allowed to actually present option designs.
C. Instructional Office Modernizations
Doug H. distributed a list of questions he thought should be asked relative to the
proposed light office renovations under proposal. He felt that not enough
information had been elicited from end-users regarding this project. He asked
that committee members review these questions, and add or comment on them,
perhaps by next meeting before a decision was made on doing light renovations.
It had become apparent that the amount of money being committed on light
renovations of both 1500 and 2000, and perhaps on 1100 might not be money
well spent. Again the Master Plan originally developed had other plans for these
buildings, and Doug H. wanted to ensure the committee had a chance to evaluate
this, and that the College community at large perhaps needed to answer these
questions before a decision was made to expense these dollars in this manner.
Text follows:
Scope of Study
Faculty Offices Feasibility Study
Buildings 1100, 1500, 2000, 2600
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
April 23, 2009
Pg. 3
Background:
A Facilities Master Plan was produced in July 2005 by tBP Architecture. The plan
at that time, as it related to Faculty Offices, specified:
Construct a new Instructional Office Building
Demolish existing buildings 400, 700
Renovate existing building 1100*
Renovate existing building 2600
Replace existing building 1500 with a two-story office/lab building
Replace existing building 2000 with a one-story office building
* Alternate solution for building 1100 proposed removing building 1100 and
relocating those offices to the new IOB.
In the process of budgeting Measure B Bond dollars the following modifications
were made to the Master Plan:
Modernize existing buildings 1500 and 2000 instead of replacing them
In the latest round of campus budgeting, the modernizations of buildings 1100,
1500 and 2000 were modified in scope to be a light renovation including new
finishes, mechanical and electrical systems. The proposed scope did not include
modifying the existing partitions that would grow the office sizes from the existing
72 s.f. to the campus standard 100 s.f. The exception to being undersized is
B1100 where 10 existing offices range from 130 s.f. to 147 s.f.
Project Scope:
Before beginning on the modernization of faculty offices in buildings 1100,
1500, 2000 and 2600 we should analyze the following:
How many faculty offices did the campus have before Measure B Bond?
Was this quantity adequate for the campus need?
What was our Cap/Load for Offices prior to Measure B?
Now that we have demolished Buildings 400 and 700 and built the IOB:
What net change to quantity, square footage and cap/load has occurred with
Instructional Offices on campus?
What effect will retaining buildings 1100, 1500, 2000 and 2600 have on our
Cap/Loads?
Chabot College
Facilities and Sustainability Committee Minutes
April 23, 2009
Pg. 4
If we modernize the Instructional Offices in B1100, 1500, 2000 and 2600 will we
have too many offices on campus?
What net effect would occur if we modernized all of our current Instructional Office
Buildings but increased office sizes to comply with the campus standard?
What net effect would occur if offices in B1100 were downsized to comply with the
campus standard size?
With this research completed, the campus should provide input to the
following questions:
Will instructors be satisfied with renovated small offices instead of the larger
campus standard offices?
Is it in the long term interest of the campus to have varying sizes of offices.
Should our available budget be spread out thinly to do light renovation for multiple
buildings or should we pool that budget and build fewer new facilities?
Should we refocus on the master plan that called for new buildings 1500 and
2000?
Additional Questions:
Where are the IOB occupants coming from?
Where are the empty spaces that are created by moves into the IOB?
What are the best uses for these empty offices caused by the secondary effect of
moving into the IOB?
What empty space will be created by the move into the CSSC? What are the best
uses for this space?
End of Meeting
Chabot College