Redwoods Community College District
Meeting of the EMPC and FMPC
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Board Room: 2:00pm-4:00pm
Present:
Allen Keppner, Keith Snow-Flamer, Tim Flanagan, Melissa Green, David Bazard, Mike Wells, David
Holper, Joe Hash, Jason Leppaluoto, Justine Shaw, Paul Agpawa, Martha Davis, Jim Sylvia, Pat
Girczyc, Michael Thomas, Carol Mathews (Del Norte-phone), David Maki, Stephen McCollum,
Deborah Shepley (internet), Fred Sturner (internet), Arturo Levenfeld, Ray Kingsbury, Mike Mendoza,
Geisce Ly
Others Present:
Karen Nelson, Roxanne Metz, Paul DeMark, Wayne Nadon, Jeff Marsee, George Truett, Michael
Viera (CCBT-phone)
Not Present:
Maggie White, Toni Sartori, Chris Gaines, Paul Kinsey, Michael Bailey, Matt Malkus, Lance
Courtney, Julie Hatoff (CCBT-phone), Bill Studt
1. Approval of Minutes for November 6, 2008 and December 10, 2008
a. Minutes reviewed and approved
2. Review Process and Schedule
a. Deborah reviews the gnat chart which reviews the FMP process and schedule
b. Input will be vetted from the whole college district after a preferred option is selected.
3. Discuss Long Range Space Forecast
a. The long range space forecast for all campuses will be discussed with the plan options
b. Important to note that the Ed Plan drives the Facilities plan recommendations (FTES,
WSCH, and Enrollment forecasts)
c. WSCH = weekly student contact hours
d. Capacity Load Ratio: 100% = Assignable space is equal to head count, enrollment and
WSCH. Over 100% = extra space. CR District is currently over 100%, but 2014 ratio
shows that district doesn’t have enough lecture space to meet forecasted needs
4. Review and Evaluate Options: Del Norte, Mendocino and Eureka
Del Norte:
a. Highest priorities are replacing portable buildings with permanent facilities and
continuing work on science lab project
b. Other Priorities:
1. Develop new student gathering areas on campus
2. Construct a new book store
3. Improve visibility of campus within the community
4. Develop outdoor spaces
c. Areas for development are current location of portable buildings and the stretch of land
up to Washington blvd including forested area
1
d. Plans to expand northward would have to include considerations for watershed area and
examine stability of forested area
Mendocino:
a. Highest priorities are to increase visibility and connection to community, consider
bringing woodworking program to campus, and to consider development of student
housing
b. Development could possibly include a conference center that would take advantage of
the campus’s lovely location
c. Development to the north should be considered since southern space is restricted due to
the probability that an access to that area from Highway 1 isn’t likely
d. Northern development would include acquiring land north of the current campus and
south of Ocean View Drive, allowing increased visibility to the community. The land is
currently separated into 3-4 lots, with 3-4 different owners. Our ability to expand the
campus into this area obviously depends on weather or not we are able to reach an
agreement with the current owners
e. Proposed building north of current campus could include student housing or conference
center
f. When evaluating options for the location of the woodworking center, consider the
probable noise it will generate as well as the need for access to allow material deliveries
g. The facilities master plan group would welcome the recommendations of the consulting
team regarding development of land south of the current campus, which the district
already owns. The southern end of the campus increases slightly in elevation, and a
student housing building there would offer exceptional views of the natural beauty
surrounding the campus.
Eureka:
a. Total square footage on campus meets forecasted need determined by the capacity load
ratio.
b. Planning priorities include:
1. replacing portable buildings with permanent facilities
2. examining, re-purposing, and seismically upgrading vacated buildings
3. upgrading other buildings in need of renovation
4. cluster related programs to create flexible, interdisciplinary spaces
5. develop student gathering spaces to create more of a campus feel
c. Building 20 (Current Student Union) was proposed for demolition because the location
that it occupies is stable enough to accept the proposed academic building. The student
union would be re-constructed to the right of the new student services building. If the
current student union building is not demolished, structural issues will have to be
addressed.
d. By identifying another location for the academic building and renovating and repurposing the current student union, we could turn the bookstore into a student lounge,
expand the kitchen to become a teaching culinary center, create a conference center
setting, and re-locate the bookstore to another setting, possibly the Forum building.
Trenching revealed that ½ of the area immediately adjacent and west of the current
student union building is not seismically stable enough to accept the proposed academic
building.
e. Because our 90 day window in which we can accept or reject the bid to move forward
with the new student union is close to terminating, and because ½ of the area west of
2
the current student union is unable to accept the academic building, the Facilities Master
Planning group needs to choose one of two options:
1. Do we use the stable portion of the property west of the current student union
and break the academic building into two components, one housing the
administrative forum and the other the 10 & 12 buildings, which would protrude
slightly into the mall south of the student union? (and save $10 million)
2. Proceed with the new student union building
f. The facilities planning committee may also consider renovating four of the five
buildings scheduled to be vacated and demolishing the fifth. The demolished building
would allow space for an outdoor covered plaza where student could actively gather.
This proposal would avoid creating a bottleneck of buildings on a large spread out
campus.
1. Seismically renovated buildings are not comparable to new construction. By
renovating the current buildings, we are only assuring that inhabitants would
survive a seismic event, not the building itself. A new modern building, on the
other hand, would allow inhabitants to survive and for classes and business to
resume following a seismic event.
g. Consensus is reached that we will save the current student union
h. Next steps will be to investigate possibility of an “L” shaped or split academic building
located on stable half of property west of current union and partially south of student
union in the mall area
5. Confirm Date for Next Meeting
a. Facilities Master Planning Committee and consultants will meet February 11th, 2 P.M. Boardroom
3