October 2, 2001
Meeting Notes
Approved:
10/16/2001
Committee Members Present:
Dario Caloss
Suresh Diffenbaugh
Dave Dorfan
Jim Genes (for Steve Kang)
Ed
Houghton
Bill Hyder
Latrice
Jones
Dave Kliger
Tom Vani (Chair)
Committee Members Not Present:
Introduction:
· Meeting convened by Tom Vani, Chair
· Committee members discussed the ACF guest policy and concluded that after presentations are made by guests, they are welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting, but pursuant discussions are amongst members only.
· New student representative, Latrice Jones, SUA Chair, was introduced, as well as all members and guests.
Discussion of Notes from the
Previous Meetings:
· Notes for the August 3, 2001 meeting were not provided nor were they discussed.
Items for Action:
1.
Space Management Principles
Presenter: Meredith Michaels
· Suggestion was made that (at a later date), the principles documented/started years ago be revisited.
· Major questions/issues that need to be thought out in relation to space management:
Ø What is the process? How do we make decisions on how/when/where divisions move?
Ø Who do we look to move off-campus as a policy? Central administration vs. academic units? What are our priorities?
Ø Short-term vs. long-term considerations?
Ø Timing of moves needs to be considered for all affected units
Ø Understanding/agreement/buy-in needed with Senior Management. Who makes the ultimate decisions?
Ø Setting priorities: Which moves/plans are more important? I.e. 2nd/3rd order effects of other moves associated with primary move.
· A question was posed regarding whether we need to have the Chancellor/EVC present at meetings to hear discussions in order to make an informed decision. There was a split among committee members in favor or opposed to this idea; however, it was generally agreed that ACF needs feedback from the EVC regarding decisions he makes.
· In order to provide the Chancellor or EVC with information that was discussed at ACF meetings, a set of written recommendations that embodies both/all arguments will be circulated (with members) and provided to the Chancellor or EVC (decision maker). Alternatively, a majority opinion may be presented with a dissenting view.
· What are people’s views on priorities for moving off campus?
Ø Contact other Universities to see what their problems/successes were in moving units off-campus.
Ø “Distance from the students” principle (who is better suited for working off-campus?)
Ø Is there a long-term goal to have everyone on campus?
Ø Which units are self-contained where being off-campus would not detract from their ability to work?
Ø Look at a more comprehensive strategy? Such as: lease/purchase large block of space vs. a piecemeal approach.
Informational/Discussion/Report Items
2. Plans for the Student Center, Old Bookstore, Housing
Administration Building
Introduction: Meredith Michaels
Presenter: Gail Heit
Handouts: Housing Administration Building lay-out
Student Center Lay-out
Modified Supplemental Instruction Sheet
EOP/STARS Overview
·
Background of Spring discussions was provided.
·
New proposal for use of space:
Ø
Occupants of current Student Center would move into the
old Bookstore and Redwood Buildings
Ø
Student Academic Support Services (EOP/STARS and
programming space) would move into the Student Center
Ø
Housing Administration would move off-campus and into
former EOP space
Ø
The Housing Administration Building would be open for
campus use.
·
Is the Student Center space sufficient/excessive/short
for a fully functional Learning Center?
The response was that they hope to ultimately use the nearby
Multipurpose Room to expand into if/when a new Student Center is approved and
built.
·
Which units have the most dire need for space?
·
A sub-committee was formed (Bill Hyder, Dario Caloss,
Meredith Michaels, Latrice Jones) to review the uses for the release space and
analyze options/discussions. The
sub-committee is also to identify other issues, such as remuneration and
gather/present the necessary information to the committee.
Ø
A work plan will be sent via e-mail for member
comment. No response is equivalent to
being in agreement.
Ø
Work to be presented no later than the 11/6 ACF
meeting, since it is important to reach a decision quickly.
3. Plans for Administrative Space in Kerr Hall and Other Spaces
Introduction: Meredith Michaels
Presenter: Fran Owens
Handout: Pros/Cons to the Administrative Space Plan and Engineering Temp Space
· Decisions need to be made soon.
· The ultimate question will be: Who moves off campus?
· An overview of 2 options was presented.
· Major Issues: Should Engineering move into Kerr or off-campus? There is not enough room in Kerr for proposed occupants under one plan.
· If Engineering moved off-campus, possible options would include moving Computer Science faculty/graduate student and programs, plus some administrative staff (since they are more easily moved) and have shared space in Baskin for office hours, etc.
· The Texas Instruments building is ready to be used immediately and Engineering is happy to move there right away.
· Want to ask APC to consider the issue of whether it is acceptable for an academic unit to move off-campus.
4. Update to 2002-07 State-funded MCIP
Introduction: Meredith Michaels
Presenter: Fran Owens
Handout: Marked-Up 2002-07 MCIP
· Cost per square foot issues.
· Discussion of changes.
Ø Seismic Corrections, Phase III: Deferred one year. Project includes Classroom Unit I, Barn H, McHenry/Hahn Bridge, Sinsheimer Labs. Various issues, including delay of PSB, accessibility requirements and staging for the Police Dept. Looking at repackaging the project.
Ø Seismic Corrections, Phase II (not shown on table, since it was to be funded in 01-02): Project includes Thimann Lecture Hall, Stevenson College, Cookhouse and Hahn. Under discussions with UCOP and DOF to defer this project due to staging issues and higher costs at Stevenson. Likely that Hahn, Stevenson and Cookhouse will be deferred 2 years. Thimann may be deferred one year, but possibly 2. Also looking at repackaging this project.
Ø Both seismic projects are dependent on completion of Infill Apts, PSB, Emergency Response Center, as subsequent move-ins.
Ø Humanities and Social Sciences Facility (formerly the Academic Building): budget reduction of nearly $5M. Limited to construction cost of $220/ogsf.
Ø Arts Facilities Addition and Natural Sciences 6: Both show “P” phase starting in 2005-06, with the campus prioritizing them in the next 5-year program (this winter). Because of this, 2nd phase of McHenry shows funding in 2006-07 even through this will realistically be deferred one year (seismic and alterations).
Ø McHenry Capacity/Seismic Improvements: Despite our intentions above, UCOP wanted us to show the deferral, which leaves $22M open, plus savings from the Humanities Building and the ERC. To use up these amounts, “plug projects” were included: Alterations to Engineering, Phase 2 (smaller amount), Arts Facilities Addition was increased in size and moved forward one year, and Infrastructure Improvements were added.
Ø Natural Sciences 6: Originally submitted as one project (not phased), but campus was asked to reduce the bottom line for 2007-08 to $40-45M, which causes this project to be phased over 2 years. Will be worked out in upcoming 5-year plan.
· Handout of topics provided.
Next Scheduled Meeting:
· Tuesday, October 16, from 2:00 – 4:00 at 307 Kerr.
· The 2001-02 schedule will be the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays from 2:00 – 4:00 in 307 Kerr.