Los Angeles Valley College
2015 ADDENDUM TO 2003 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee
September 30, 2015
 The LAVC Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was certified in 2003.
 EIR Addenda followed in 2006 and 2011.
 The EIR includes a mitigation measure, AQ-9,
which requires that LAVC:
“Construct a temporary fence around the perimeter
of the Child Development Center site to shield the
Center from fugitive dust emissions. The fence shall
have a minimum height of 8 feet and a solid or
impermeable surface.”
EIR Addendum of Mitigation Measure AQ-9
2
Request – Nos. 1 and 2
1. Approve the EIR 2015 Addendum to the 2003 Valley
College Facilities Master Plan EIR
2. Modify Mitigation Measure AQ-9 so it will continue
to provide fugitive dust protection to the Child
Development Center (CDC) while reducing
unintentional impacts to safety. The mitigation
measure, as amended, will be implemented as
shown on the “Amended” site plan contained within
the report.
Request Nos. 1 & 2 – EIR Addendum & Modify Mitigation Measure AQ-9
3
Child Development
Center
Child Development Center
4
Improvements to Original Mitigation Measure in 2003
EIR
 Modifying the 8-foot impermeable fence around the
CDC as described in the EIR will:
1. Improve the Fire Department’s ability to respond to emergencies;
2. Improve the Sherriff’s ability to visually observe and physically
access the site;
3. Eliminate concealed spaces;
4. Reduce obstructions to pedestrian traffic patterns;
5. Maintain existing ADA paths of travel; and
6. Eliminate potential code violation regarding exit discharge.
Request Nos. 1 & 2 – EIR Addendum & Modify Mitigation Measure AQ-9
5
Yellow dashed line – original
planned location of temporary
8-ft impermeable fence per
mitigation measure
Child
Development
Center
Valley Academic
&
Cultural Center
Red line – proposed locations of 8-ft
impermeable fences pursuant to EIR
Amendment
Change in Temporary Fence Location to Increase Safety
6
Proposed Measure to Improve Safety
 It is proposed that the impermeable fence be placed
only along the western side of the CDC and closer to
the source of the potential fugitive dust source.
 No fence is required to the north, east or south;
construction will only be on the west side of the CDC.
Proposed Alternative Mitigation Measure to Improve Safety
7
Request – No. 3
 Update the Facilities Master Plan to reflect the
following board-approved name changes:
1. Valley Academic and Cultural Center (Board
approved: March 2015)
2. Student Union (Board approved: March 2015)
3. Administration and Career Advancement (Board
approved: July 2015)
Request No. 3 – Update Master Plan to Reflect Approved Name Changes
8
2015 ADDENDUM TO THE LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGE 2003 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Addendum to the Los Angeles Valley College (“LAVC”) 2003 Facilities Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR) has been prepared pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) section 15164. The LAVC EIR was originally certified in 2003. There were Addendums to the EIR in 2006 and 2011. The EIR includes a mitigation measure, AQ‐9, which requires that LAVC “construct a temporary fence around the perimeter of the Child Development Center site to shield the Center from fugitive dust emissions. The fence shall have a minimum height of 8 feet and a solid or impermeable surface.” LAVC is moving forward with construction of the Valley Academic and Cultural Center (“VACC”) on the LAVC campus, and construction of the VACC triggers implementation of mitigation measure AQ‐9. Based on staff’s analysis, LAVC has determined that mitigation measure AQ‐9 should be revised to have the temporary fencing located closer to the VACC construction site for the following reasons: 1. Safety If an 8‐foot impermeable fence is constructed around the CDC as currently described in the EIR, it will pose a safety hazard for reasons including but not limited to: a. Per California Building Code, Section 1027 Exit Discharge: [B] 1027.5 Access to a public way. The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way. If an 8‐
foot impermeable fence is erected, a violation of this Code may be created. b. The Fire Department’s ability to fight fires at the CDC will be adversely impacted by the restricted access resulting from an 8‐foot impermeable fence surrounding the entire CDC. c. An 8‐foot impermeable fence will limit the Sherriff’s ability to visually observe and physically access the CDC. d. An 8‐foot impermeable fence creates concealed spaces which increases the likelihood of illegal activities near the CDC. e. Given the existing access routes to and from the CDC, an 8‐foot impermeable fence will obstruct pedestrian traffic on sidewalks at certain locations. f. Given the existing access routes to and from the CDC, an 8‐foot impermeable fence will obstruct designated ADA paths of travel at certain locations. 1 2. Changed Circumstances a. The 2003 EIR, and Mitigation Measure AQ‐9, was prepared before the CDC was constructed, and without full knowledge of where the source of fugitive dust might actually come from or without knowledge of what the CDC’s building configuration might ultimately be. The risk of fugitive dust from the VACC comes from the southwest side of the CDC. At the time the EIR was written, the CDC was envisioned to be a structure positioned in the center of the site, surrounded by a fenced playground. However, the CDC’s building configuration as was actually constructed has the building face near the property south and west property lines with the majority of the play areas either in the center of the site or on the westerly part of the site. As such, the building itself acts as an impermeable barrier separating the current proposed project from the play areas. Only one small patio area to the west of the site is not surrounded by the building structure. It is used infrequently. Therefore, the actual configuration of the CDC does not complement the existing language of mitigation measure AQ‐9. 3. The Modified Mitigation Measure is Just as Effective as the Old Mitigation Measure in Protecting The CDC Against Fugitive Dust To eliminate the safety concerns indicated above, it is proposed that the impermeable fence be placed only along the westerly side of the CDC which is the direction of the potential source of fugitive dust from the VACC project. There will not be any construction directly to the north, east, or south. This protects the small patio area on the west of the site. Other play areas within the facility are protected from fugitive dust by the building structure itself therefore nullifying the need for a temporary impermeable fence for those locations. To determine whether the revised mitigation measure would be as effective as the original mitigation measure in controlling fugitive dust impacts on the CDC, LAVC retained its consultant, ICF International (“ICF”), to evaluate whether the proposed revision to mitigation measure AQ‐9 would change the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. ICF’s analysis is included as Exhibit A to this Addendum. ICF has determined that the revision to the mitigation measure will not decrease the effectiveness of the mitigation measure AQ‐9. Project location This Addendum to the EIR relates to the LAVC campus – 5800 Fulton Ave, Valley Glen, CA 91401 Current Request LAVC seeks to modify mitigation measure AQ‐9 so that it will continue to provide fugitive dust protection to the CDC, while also reducing unintentional impacts to safety. The mitigation measure, as amended, will be implemented as shown on the “Amended” site plan contained within the ICF report. 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 Determination Consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees (“Board”) must determine whether the proposed changes to the EIR MMRP, specifically mitigation measure AQ‐9, trigger the need for a subsequent EIR. Under CEQA, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of a new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows and of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If any of the triggers set forth above occurs, the Board would be required to prepare a subsequent EIR, unless “only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation,” in which case a “supplement to an EIR” would suffice (see CEQA Guidelines, §15163). If there are no grounds for either a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR, then the District may prepare an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, explaining 3 why “some changes or additions” to the Subsequent EIR “are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Staff has concluded that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate document under CEQA for the request to modify mitigation measure AQ‐9 for the following reasons: a. The proposed modifications to mitigation measure AQ‐9 would not alter any of the conclusions of the EIR regarding the significance of environmental impacts. The proposed modification will not increase the number of facilities at LAVC, will not change approved student enrollment numbers, or change land use designations. Therefore, the impacts on the physical environment will be unchanged by this Addendum. b. The proposed modification to mitigation measure AQ‐9 will not decrease the effectiveness of the EIR MMRP because the mitigation measure modification will not increase the fugitive dust impacts that the CDC may be subject to. Exhibit A: ICF Memorandum re “2003 Los Angeles Valley College Facilities Master Plan EIR ‐ Change to Mitigation Measure AQ‐9.” Exhibit B: LAVC letter Re: “Temporary Fence around the Child Development Center per 2003 LAVC Facilities Master Plan.” 4 MEMORANDUM
To:
Lee Lisecki, Principal
From:
Keith Cooper
Senior Technical Specialist, Air Quality and Climate Change
Date:
June 23, 2015
Re:
2003 Los Angeles Valley College Facilities Master Plan EIR - Change to Mitigation Measure AQ-9
Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) is proposing to modify Mitigation Measure AQ-9 as presented in the 2003
Los Angeles Valley College Facilities Master Plan Final EIR. The original and modified mitigation measures are
provided below:
•
Original Mitigation Measure AQ-9: Construction of a temporary fence around the perimeter of the
Child Development Center site to shield the Center from fugitive dust emissions. The fence shall have a
minimum height of 8 feet and a solid or impermeable surface.
•
Modified Mitigation Measure AQ-9: Construction of a temporary fence along the Campus Drive
frontage of the Child Development Center site to shield the Center from fugitive dust emissions. The
fence shall have a minimum height of 8 feet and a solid or impermeable surface.
After reviewing the air quality analysis presented in the 2010 Update to the 2003 Los Angeles Valley College
Facilities Master Plan Final EIR Addendum and the LAVC provided architectural drawings (attached) that show
the locations of the Child Development Center, area of proposed construction activity, and proposed
temporary fence locations along the Campus Drive frontage of the Child Development Center and surrounding
the area of proposed construction activity, it is our determination that the proposed modification to Mitigation
Measure AQ-9 would have no negative effect on shielding the Child Development Center from nearby
construction activity fugitive dust emissions.
The proposed modification would have no effect on regional or local particulate matter (PM) emissions; and
furthermore, the temporary fence proposed to surround the actual area of proposed construction activity
would be more effective at controlling PM emissions that would occur.
It is reiterated that PM emissions occur as a result of demolition activity, ground disturbance activity, or tailpipe emissions. Since this proposed modification to Mitigation Measure AQ-9 would not affect the level of
demolition activity, ground disturbance activity (i.e., site grading or excavation activity), or tail-pipe emissions
(i.e., require additional construction equipment operation or haul truck activity), there would be no potential
for regional or local PM emissions to increase.
Also note that PM emissions are more effectively controlled at the emissions source than at a more-distant
sensitive receptor location. This is because: 1) PM concentrations decrease as distance from an emissions
source increase, and 2) any PM emissions reductions at the emissions source will lead to proportional
EXHIBIT A
Lee Lisecki, Principal
June 23, 2015
Page 2
decreases in PM concentrations as distance from the PM emissions sources increases. For example, a 20
percent reduction in PM emissions would lead to a 20 percent reduction in PM concentrations (assuming
identical climate conditions). As such, the temporary fence proposed to surround the actual area of proposed
construction activity would more effectively control PM emissions at the source, and therefore reduce PM
concentrations at all distances beyond the source, including the Child Development Center.
Attachment:
Los Angeles Valley College Architectural Drawings
EXHIBIT A
"2$POTUSVDUBUFNQPSBSZGFODFBSPVOEUIFQFSJNFUFSPGUIF
$IJME%FWFMPQNFOU$FOUFSTJUFUPTIJFMEUIF$FOUFSGSPNGVHJUJWF
EVTUFNJTTJPOT5IFGFODFTIBMMIBWFBNJOJNVNIFJHIUPGGFFUBOEB
TPMJEPSJNQFSNFBCMFTVSGBDF
h5"--$)"*/-*/,+0#4*5&1&3*.&5&3'&/$&8*5)7*4*0/4$3&&/'"#3*$
&".*/
"%""$$&44
("5&45:1
'&&5
BQQY
'&&5BQQY
"DDFTTUPQMBZZBSE
BSFBTUPCF
EFUFSNJOFE5:1
03*(
EXHIBIT A
h5"--$)"*/-*/,+0#4*5&1&3*.&5&3'&/$&8*5)7*4*0/4$3&&/'"#3*$
'&&5BQQY
"2$POTUSVDUBUFNQPSBSZGFODFBUUIFXFTUGBDJOHQMBZZBSEBMPOH
UIF$BNQVT%SJWFGSPOUBHFPGUIFBSPVOEUIFQFSJNFUFSPGUIF$IJME
%FWFMPQNFOU$FOUFSTJUFUPTIJFMEUIFPOFXFTUGBDJOHQMBZZBSEBUUIF
$FOUFSGSPNGVHJUJWFEVTUFNJTTJPOT5IFGFODFTIBMMIBWFBNJOJNVN
IFJHIUPGGFFUBOEBTPMJEPSJNQFSNFBCMFTVSGBDF
hUBMMQBJOUFEQMZ
CBSSJDBEFTCSBDFEGPS
XJOEMPBE
hBU$%$BQQYh
BU/&QSPKFDU
TJUFQFSJNFUFS
".&/%&%
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Los Angeles Community College District
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Bond-Funded IT Projects
Program Update
September 30, 2015
Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
1
Background Information
May 2015
•
The PMO halted new project work and focused its efforts on the development
of the College IT SEPs.
•
The PMO conducted an IT Needs Assessment with each of the IT Managers to
assess the “as-is” state of each of the Colleges.
•
Information was gathered from the IT Needs Assessment and communicated
to the Technology Planning & Policy Committee (TPPC) and the District
Administration Council (DAC).
•
The TPPC requested that the IT SEPs have alignment with the LACCD
Technology Strategic Plan Vision 2020 dated March 9, 2011.
June 2015
•
The PMO identified the projects that were District-wide among the Colleges
and provided those to the DAC and TPPC for review/approval.
•
The TPPC created a Task Force to establish priorities based on the College
Technology Implementation Plans.
•
The PMO IT Project Director conducted College Site Visits with each of the
VPs of Administration.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
2
Background Information
July 2015
•
The TPPC Task Force defined their list of priorities:
Priority
Description
1
All Colleges and ESC (Educational Services Center) Data Center (minimum one data center
that meets TIA 942 Level II Standard). The ESC Data Center will include the SIS and HR/FI
Hardware and all associated technology to secure the current and new SIS system.
2
10 Gig Firewall Deployment District-wide.
3
Wireless Access (Coverage for all Colleges with assessment to meet density (number of
users)).
4
Disaster Recover/Business Continuity (Additional Bandwidth to replicate critical data and/or
move services to another campus within the District).
5
District Wide AV Technology Enterprise System and servers and conversion to software
standard.
6
Building connection to Fiber Dual Fiber Connections to data center(s) or MDF.
7
CMMS Phase III ( Add Mobility to the CMMS ) enhanced interface to add handheld/tablet
mobile access.
8
Physical Security Systems access control, conversion of all colleges to Lenel and
installation in all building of Lenel hardware.
9
Remaining funds allocated to eligible college specific IT priorities as defined in college
technology plans.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
3
Background Information
July 2015
•
The PMO IT Project Director used the input received from the TPPC and DAC
to create the IT SEPs.
•
Each college and the ESC received a copy of the proposed IT SEPs with
priorities.
August 2015
•
Based on the priorities for each college and the ESC, the preliminary IT SEP
budget estimate exercise for each project has commenced.
–
Budget estimates are based on an balanced distribution of remaining funds.
Criteria included items such as:
•
•
•
•
•
Student enrollment
College geographical size
Number of buildings
Current IT infrastructure conditions
Etc.
September 2015
•
August budget estimate exercises (noted above) are still on-going.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
4
Funding Overview
As of August 2015
Remaining
Budget vs. Expended:
Total Budget
Expenditures (To-Date)
Remaining Balance
$127.8 M
$ 56.7 M
$ 71.1 M
Expended
55%
45%
All bond-funded IT projects will be managed, tracked and reported with the same rigor as all other
bond-funded initiatives and projects (Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommendation).
Remaining Funds Breakdown:
IT Projects
IT Program Mgmt.
Total
10%
Projects
$ 67.10 M
$ 4.0 M
$ 71.1 M
6%
PM
94%
The total estimated funds will be managed and disbursed upon Board approval of the above total.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
5
Strategic Execution Plans
City
Priority
1A
2A
2B
3A
4A
5A
5B
Project
Security System/Access Control
Data Center
Data Center – Servers
Wireless/Wi‐Fi
Fiber Build Out
Audio/Visual (A/V)
Utelogy Integration
Disaster Recovery – Business Continuity
Firewall Upgrade
East
Priority
1A
2A
3A
4A
5A
5B
Project
Emergency Notification System
Security Cameras
Data Center – Servers
Wireless / WiFi
Audio/Visual (A/V)
Utelogy Integration
Priority
1A
1B
2A
3A
ESC
Project
Data Center ‐ Servers
Data Storage
CMMS Phase 3
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
6
Strategic Execution Plans
Harbor
Priority
1A
1B
2A
3A
4A
4B
4C
Project
Campus Wide Security Upgrade (incl. bldg. interiors)
Access Control Integration of Existing Lenel buildings
Campus Wide Wi‐Fi Technology Refresh
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Data Center (physical construction w/power, cooling, connectivity, etc.)
Data Center – Servers
Fiber Build Out
Mission
Priority
1A
2A
2B
2C
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
Project
Physical Security
Data Center
Fire Suppression Upgrade
Data Storage
Campus Wide Wi‐Fi Technology Refresh
Wireless/Wi‐Fi
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Emergency Notification System
Utelogy Integration
IDF / MDFs
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
7
Strategic Execution Plans
Pierce
Priority
1A
2A
3A
4A
4B
5A
5B
Priority
1A
1B
1C
1D
2A
3A
3B
4A
Project
Campus Wide Security Upgrade (incl. bldg. interiors)
Wireless / Wi‐Fi
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Fiber Optic Streamlined Connectivity
Fiber Build Out
Crestron (or Utelogy) Smart Classrooms Integration
Upgrade of Smart Classrooms (LLC and CFS Bldg) and New Installs (90 units throughout NOM)
JitBit for IT to replace CMMS
Comprehensive Systems Assessment – Burwood Group
Southwest
Project
Emergency Notification System
Video Surveillance in All Buildings
Lenel Access Control in Non‐Bond Funded Buildings
Campus Wide Security Upgrade Phase 2 (Phase 1 = Cox Bldg)
Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity (DR / BC)
Campus Wide Wi‐Fi Technology Refresh
Fiber Optic Streamlined Connectivity
WiFi/Hardwired Refresh (2nd, 3rd and 4th Floors) (Phase 1 –
Cox Bldg)
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
8
Strategic Execution Plans
Trade Tech
Priority
1A
1B
2A
3A
4A
5A
5B
6A
Project
Door System Card Readers
Physical Security
Secondary Circuit to the Internet in the Data Center
Wireless / Wi‐Fi
Audio / Visual (A/V)
World Programming System Upgrade (Data Center)
Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity
Emergency Notification System
Valley
Priority Project
Campus‐Wide Security Upgrade (provide integration 1A
platform)
1B
Cameras: Integrate 123 Existing 1C
Emergency Mass Notification System
1D
Security Video Management System & Network Recorders
1E
Install Classroom Lockdown System
Data Center (upgrade power, cooling, and capacity)
2A
3A
3B
3C
4A
5A
5B
Wireless/Wi‐Fi
Firewall Upgrade from 1GB to 10GB
Cameras: Install 80 Smart Surveillance
Audio / Visual (A/V)
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
9
Strategic Execution Plans
West
Priority Project
Firewall Upgrade from 1GB to 10GB
1A
Fiber Optic Streamlined Connectivity
2A
3A
3B
4A
5A
5B
TLC: Primary Data Center
Data Center ‐ Servers
Campus Wide Wi‐Fi Technology Refresh
TLC 2: Missing IT Scope incl. video surveillance
Video Surveillance in Business Service Areas
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) In Existing Classrooms Building for tomorrow’s leaders
10
Summary
• The District’s needs are continuing to evolve and the IT Program is
being restructured.
• Each of the 9 College’s along with the ESC were visited and IT SEPs
created in collaboration with stakeholders to address the District’s
remaining IT requirements.
• Priorities were identified and proposed for the 9 colleges and the ESC.
Next Steps
• Develop each project’s scope of work, detailed budget, detailed
schedule and list of deliverables.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
11
Los Angeles Community College District
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES
PMO Annual Update
Facilities Master Planning and Oversight Committee
September 30, 2015
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
1
One Goal: Strong Program Finish
ON TIME
ON BUDGET
NO LITIGATION
June 2015
SEPs
Centralized Staffing Model
Streamlined Procurement
Quality & Risk
STEADY SUCCESSS
Project Execution
& Completion
Outreach
Performance
Accountability
Audits
Reporting
Safety
Continued
Process
Improvement &
Transparency
Innovation
Systems
Procedures
Processes
April 2013
April 2014
April 2015
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
2
BuildLACCD Financial Summary
A1
B2
C
Original Re‐Baseline Current Baseline Budget Budget
Budget October 2011 June 2014
June 2015
Colleges
E3
Budget Expended Remaining
June 2015 June 2015
$4.88 B $4.74 B
Satellites
$423.18 M $334.77 M $330.37 M $209.30 M
$121.07 M Central Services
$416.90 M $521.02 M $541.02 M $340.87 M $200.16 M Districtwide Initiatives
$374.09 M $371.62 M
$371.62 M $154.69 M $216.93 M $80.01 M $117.16 M
$117.16 M $109.64 M $7.52 M $17.11 M $14.64 M $14.64 M $ ‐
$ ‐
$6.19 B
$160.00 M $6.26 B $140.00 M $6.26 B $‐
$4.59 B Retire District Debt & Refinance
District Bond Contingency
Program Reserve
TOTAL
$4.75 B D
$3.75 B $997.91 M $ 14.64 M Variance Explanation(s) Columns A thru C Comparison
Program Reserve Contributions; Bond Interest, state, and other source funds; Funds transfer to East from Firestone; Funds transfer to Mission from 40J Energy
Satellites deferred, transferred to District Bond Contingency; Firestone transfer to East
District Bond Contingency transfer for 2013 40J accounts re‐baseline effort; Program Reserve transfer to 40J Legal
Reimbursement of 40J energy account funds to Mission (PV at East Campus)
District reimbursement to Bond for non‐
Bond eligible VDK expenses; Increase per District CFO to allow for arbitrage increase; District Bond Certificate of Participation (COP) Funds received from satellite deferment; Fund transfer for 40J re‐baseline effort
$140.00 M Funds transfer to 40J Legal
$1.67 B 1 Budget
Baseline as reported in the Master Budget Plan, Board Resolution BT6 in October 2011.
re-baseline conducted in concert with the Strategic Execution Plan effort.
3 Current Budget (June 2015) less funds expended as of June 2015.
Source: June 2015 Dashboard Report
2 Budget
• Continuous re-assessment of Estimate at Completion (EAC) values to
ensure a successful Program completion
̶
̶
Risk management program
with modelling bi-annually
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
Program Controls monthly cost/schedule review meetings
3
College-Level Financial Summary
College
A1
B2
C
Original Baseline Re‐Baseline Current Budget
Budget
Budget October 2011
June 2014
June 2015
D
Expended
June 2015
E3
Budget Remaining
June 2015
City
$588.32 M
$568.44 M
$568.44 M
$438.81 M
$129.63 M
East
$666.10 M
$664.82 M
$664.82 M
$547.31 M
$117.51 M
Harbor
$464.45 M
$449.24 M
$449.24 M
$379.08 M
$70.16 M
Mission
$450.49 M
$438.68 M
$438.68 M
$394.25 M
$44.43 M
Pierce
SW
Trade
$648.85 M
$418.12 M
$601.56 M
$627.76 M
$405.39 M
$582.29 M
$627.76 M
$405.39 M
$582.29 M
$433.49 M
$364.48 M
$422.45 M
$194.27 M
$40.91 M
$159.84 M
Valley
$630.44 M
$612.49 M
$612.49 M
$418.85 M
$193.64 M
Variance Explanation(s) Columns A thru C; As Required
Program Reserve & IT Coord. contributions
Program Reserve & IT Coord.; Funds transfer from Firestone
Program Reserve & IT Coord.
Program Reserve & IT Coord.; Funds transfer/reimbursement from 40J Energy account
Program Reserve & IT Coord.
Program Reserve & IT Coord.
Program Reserve & IT Coord.
Program Reserve & IT Coord.; Funds transfer from District Bond Contingency for retro commissioning services
Program Reserve & IT Coord.
$400.91 M
$353.40 M
$47.51 M
West
$414.46 M
$400.91 M
TOTAL
$4.88 B $4.74 B
$4.75 B $3.75 B $997.91 M 1 Budget Baseline as reported in the Master Budget Plan, Board Resolution BT6 in October 2011.
2 Budget re-baseline conducted in concert with the Strategic Execution Plan effort.
3 Current Budget (June 2015) less funds expended as of June 2015.
Source: June 2015 Dashboard Report
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
4
College Strategic Execution Plan Summary
June 2015
College
SEP Sub Projects Remaining*
Project Phase Status
Budget Remaining** City
21
$130.4 M
East
11
$111.3 M
Harbor
16
$63.2 M
Mission
15
$44.6 M
Pierce
37
$186.0 M
Southwest
11
$37.6 M
Trade
29
$132.4 M
Valley
20
$194.0 M
West
23
$57.5 M
TOTAL
183
$957.0 M
Construction
16%
Closeout
14%
Design
10%
Planning/
Prog.
53%
Procurement
7%
Project Type Breakdown
New
15%
Infra &
Other*
55%
Mod
36%
*Other includes demo, landscape/hardscape, parking, P.E.
fields, roadways/street, stormwater, etc.
*SEP does not include projects in completion and/or closeout.
**Budget remaining is current budget less expended.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
5
Procuring the Work
• $339 M in total procurements awarded from June 2014 – June
2015
• $208 M of new contracts awarded to date in 2015
– Construction: $197 M
– Design / Other Professional Services: $11
• Average major procurement tender time is 116 days
– 3.3% improvement from 120 days reported in April 2015
– 37.3% improvement from 185 day average pre-April 2013
• Zero protests filed in 2015
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
6
LSEDV Contract Award Breakdown
LSEDV : Local, Small, Emerging, Disabled Veterans
June 2015
LSEDV Non‐LSEDV Firms with Firms with LSEDV Task Task Firms
Orders
Orders
Contract Category
Total Firms
Staff Augmentation
178
124
34
15
Architecture/Engineering
18
7
5
7
Environmental
12
6
6
4
Inspector of Record
18
13
7
4
Laboratory of Record
9
5
5
4
Whole Bldg. Commissioning
11
3
2
5
Professional Services
246
158
59
39
Construction Companies 51
20
N/A
N/A
297
Total
Companies
178
LSEDV
Companies
60%
Task Orders
awarded to
LSEDV
Figures are not totaled under the “Total Companies” and “LSEDV Companies” to avoid
double-counting.
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
7
Internship Update & Accomplishments
Process
• Student outreach and internship participation at each campus
• Phase One: 11 interns completed internships with CPTs & PMO.
– Intern Discipline Breakdown:
27%
46%
Construction Management
Engineering
27%
Architecture
– $78,429 cost savings through use of H1-B grant
– 3 retained by the PMO upon internship completion
– 5 applied for full-time employment with AECOM
• Phase Two: 10 intern positions currently being filled with CPT &
PMO.
– $94,000 cost savings through use of H1-B grant
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
8
DSA Certification
June 2014 – June 2015
# of projects achieving DSA Closeout
57 Total Projects Closed
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Jun
Jul
Aug Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2014
21% Reduction in
Projects Closed
w/out Certification
Since 2014
Jan
Feb
Mar April May
Jun
2015
&
Closeout Bin Time
reduced by 50%
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
Since 2014
9
Safety Excellence
• Total Recordable Injury Rate (TRIR)
2013*
2014
2015**
7 Recordables
13 Recordables
3 Recordables
TRIR Goal: 3.8
TRIR Goal: 3.7
TRIR Goal: 3.2
TRIR Actual: 2.2
TRIR Actual: 3.66
TRIR Actual: 0.28
2014 Industry Average
NAICS: 3.8
2015 Industry Average
NAICS: 3.2
*Jul-Dec 2013 Data only
**Figures to-date
Industry Average Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”)
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
10
M&DR Program Savings
M&DR: Metering & Demand Response
OTHER HIGHLIGHTS
$750 K
Annual Cost
Savings
Estimated
 Ability to
adjust
operations
6 Colleges enrolled
in LADWP Pilot
Program
 Load
reduction for
demand
response
event
3 Colleges
enrollments
underway for SCE
Program
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
11
College Key Performance Indicator Review
June 2014 vs. June 2015
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
12
Internal & External Assessment
– External: KPMG Performance and Financial, State of California,
Vasquez
– Internal: CPT Quality, Voice of the Client
June 2014 - June 2015
Assessment Format
To-Date
2014 KPMG Performance Audit

2014 KPMG Financial Audit

CPT Quality Audit (9 Colleges)

Voice of the Client (2014, 2015)

Vasquez PMO Invoice (Ongoing, monthly)

State of California 2015 Dept. of Finance Audit
2015 KPMG Performance Audit
2015 KPMG Financial Audit
Building for tomorrow’s leaders

Underway
June 2015
Underway
September 2015
13
Continued Process Improvement & Transparency
June 2014 - June 2015
• New Website (www.buildlaccd.org)
• 10 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) created or refreshed
• Over 200 Bond Program forms reviewed and/or refreshed
• Over 125 (FMPOC, BOT, BSC and DCOC) presentations
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
14
Six Month Project Progress Outlook
September 2015 – March 2016
$266 M New contracts projected Sept – March 2016
20+
Project/Building Occupancies
15+
DSA Closeouts (estimated)
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
15
Program Savings & Cost Avoidance Success
• Over $70 million saved since April 2013
• Examples of savings and cost avoidance measures
– Procurement efficiencies
• Bundled procurements
• Electronic plans requirement
• Etc.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
IT upgrades and standardization
Professional services scope re-alignment to Program needs
Protest and change order procedure improvements
Master plan format revision and standardization
Legal claim vs. settlement amount savings
Funds recovery from contractors/sureties/A/E’s
Program file storage brought in-house (Firestone)
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
16
Feedback
Voice of the Client Report - July 2015
“Better job communicating down the organization; this is possible now that the
ONE Team structure is in place.”
SEP: “Lot’s of value. It’s clear, simple and can communicate the plan. The tool
is excellent.”
“The budget process brings rigor and definition. It is easy to analyze because
it is structured in a comprehensive manner. “
“The message is to gain support – not us vs. them. We’re in this together and
want a positive closeout”
“I really like the PMOs willingness to hear suggestions.”
“They are looking ahead and anticipating my needs.”
“Improvements continue with both the management of where we are and
where we need to go. There is clearly a path forward. The PMO identified
talented CPDs.”
Building for tomorrow’s leaders
17
Thank You
Building for tomorrow’s leaders