Chabot Facilities Committee
Minutes of August 11, 2005, noon
In attendance:
Robert Carlson, Steve DaPrato, Bruce Mayer, Ron Taylor, Jeannine Methe, Tim Steele,
Robert Curry, Melinda Matsudsa, Gordon Watt, Gene Groppetti, Graig Fernandez,
Stephanie O’Brien, Cindy Hicks, Marge Maloney, Tom Clark, Steven Piatetsky, Sally Jahnk,
Zahra Noorivaziri
The meeting began at 12:05pm
The minutes for July 14, 2005, were distributed.
Craig Fernandez (CF) handed out an update on the status of various projects. He had the following
to report
•
Doors and electrical work on Buildings 1100 and 1400 have DSA approval. Work is
expected to be scheduled over the Winter Break. Dr. Carlson suggested scheduling it
between Jan 1 and Jan 21st. Tim Steele (TS) suggested having a barricade built inside the
gallery if work extends into the semester.
•
The interior improvements to the PAC are out to bid. Only 1 bidder showed up to the job
walk-through
•
The draft athletic fields report shows a new baseball field taking up M&O areas. Steve
DePrato noted that while this might be great for the athletics programs, M&O wouldn’t be
happy. The current plan will need to be revised.
•
The concept of building a central plant is currently being studied. It may not affect the
timeline for other projects. Costs for this work are yet to be determined.
•
80 firms submitted statements of qualification for the large projects to come. The District is
still 3-4 weeks out from interviewing firms.
Coordination of Designs for the Student Access Center and the Instructional Office Building:
Dr. Carlson asked how the Access Center and the Instructional Office Building were going to be
designed and kept coherent. CF said it would be good to have two firms doing work to spread the
wealth of the design contracts. He noted that the Student Access center’s work would control all
landscape work. Dr. Carlson felt that because the Instruction Office building needs to be built and
designed first, its design would be like “the tail wagging the dog.” He expressed the importance for
the Student Access Center, the Instructional Office Building and the street frontage to present a
unified whole. CF said a design workshop could be held to coordinate the work. TS asked if one
design firm could do the design work and another handle the development of construction
documents. CF said there would be a meeting with Roy Stutzman and Stan Dobbs to iron out
these kinds of details.
CF also said the District will be looking into the relocation of faculty, staff and the Credit Union out
of Building 400. Dr. Carlson noted that they had reviewed this issued 1-1/2 years ago. At that time,
there were enough empty offices around the campus to relocate them into existing offices. Dr.
Taylor (RT) also noted that the process for evaluating available space had started.
Butler Building:
Dr, Carlson asked about the Butler Building and wondered how long it would still be needed. CF
said there is no timetable for its use on campus yet.
Classroom Technology:
Steven Piatetsky (SP)distributed a list of recommended technology for classrooms. TS asked
about the podium. Jeannine Methe (JM) said it would be possible to have the podium and the
controls in separate places in the classroom. Cindy Hicks (CH) noted that it will be important for
instructors to have training. Dr. Carlson said training is important and that with uniform standards
across campus and intuitive interfaces, the technology will be easy to use and learn. He also
emphasized that part of the purpose of the model classrooms is to see how usable the technology
is. SP said the suggested equipment will be programmable, and a can be monitored centrally for
problems. Tom Clark (TC) asked about the cost of ownership. JM said there is bond money
available to cover upgrades and replacements.
Stephanie O’Brian (SO), Dovetail Inc., presented plans based on the rooms previously chosen in
the Dean Meeting. She said that here layouts were based on lap-top standards similar to those
used at Cañada College and the College of San Mateo. She said that format is very compact and
streamlined. Student desks are 2x3 feet and no tablet/chairs are used. She said various solutions
are possible depending on the pedagogy of the instructor. Faculty will need time to try out various
configurations. She will have some products to review at the next meeting. She hopes to have all
furniture in the test classrooms donated.
JM wondered if this form of technology is chosen, if the college was headed in the right direction
with its current program of replacing staff/faculty computers. It might make more sense to issue
laptops in the next replacement cycle. Dr. Carlson also added that that there was a certain amount
of sticker shock with the cost of the touch panels. Others commented that it might be great to have
a laptop model, but there will need to be a budget built in for theft and damage. SP said he would
like to hear more about the standards for using laptops before the process gets too far.
RT asked if there would be time for a full year of testing the model classrooms. CH noted that it
would be difficult to use and evaluate the different spaces and compare products. Marge Maloney
(MM) observed that it might be a problem to prepare and learn to use different technology systems.
Bruce Meyer (BM) noted that at Cal Poly the classrooms just have a projector and a port to plug
into. Professors come to the classroom, plug in, and the system is ready to use. It is much cheaper
than what is being proposed. SO noted that people will adapt to whatever system is in place.
Dr. Carlson said the subcommittee would need to iron out how faculty will use the rooms, how the
rooms get broad use by different divisions, and how a good assessment method for evaluating
different systems can be developed. He also stated that he wanted the classrooms to have a high
degree of flexibility. Finally, he hopes to not wait on replacing furniture before each building is
completed. It would be good to start replacing old furniture soon.
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 P.M.
tts. 4/27/2005