ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FACILITIES

April 7, 2003 Meeting Notes

Approved:  June 3, 2003

Committee Members Present:     

Daniel Barnett      Ed Houghton

George Brown                                      David Kliger

Martin Chemers                                    Steve Kang

Suresh Diffenbaugh                               Eion Lys

Lan Dyson                                            Meredith Michaels

Wlad Godzich                                      Fran Owens, Chaired

Francisco Hernandez                            Frank Zwart

Committee Members Not Present:     

Ben Friedlander      Tom Vani

Introduction

·        Meeting convened and chaired by Fran Owens on behalf of Tom Vani.

Discussion of Notes from Previous Meeting

·        As there was no discussion, the notes for the January 7 meeting were approved as written.

Consent Item

  1. Non-State Funded Major Capital Improvement Project

·        Automated Planet Finder Facility

ACF gave consent to the project.

Action Item

  1. 2004-09 State-funded Major Capital Improvement Program

Presenters:       Buddy Morris–Environmental Health and Safety Facility

Dean Kliger–Biomedical Facility and Environmental Sciences Facility

Dean Chemers–Social Sciences Facility

Fran Owens–Alternatives/Recommendation from CIP Subcommittee

 

Handouts:      Proposed 2004-2009 State-funded Capital Improvement Program, Plan 1 and Plan 2 dated 3/31/03                              

·        Committee needs to decide on project priority order and balance MCIP budget.  Still no letter from OP, but assuming same $184 M target as last year.

·        EH&S Facility

o       Added to MCIP this year, EH&S Facility would support research and teaching and meet community obligation for safety.  Environmental health and safety functions are essential to mitigate risks that have significant consequences but are difficult to quantify.

o       Existing facility for handling hazardous wastes designed in 1982.  Since then waste handling methods have improved and building codes and laws become more stringent.  There is inadequate space and the Sealand storage containers get hot inside, have porous floors, and lack lights.

o     Facility would be approximately 10,500 assignable square feet, including offices.  Sites proposed are EH&S trailer site or other Science Hill area site near the Thimann stockroom.

o       Altering Thimann stockroom building and putting EH&S staff in offices in Thimann was suggested.  This alternative should be priced, especially if there is an urgent need for a larger and safer hazardous waste handling facility.  Long-term plans are for Thimann to be an instructional lab building and since instructional labs generate waste, the stockroom building might be a good location for the EH&S Facility.

·        Biomedical Facility and Environmental Sciences Facility

o       Physical and Biological Sciences (PBS) Division has three emphases that it prefers to cluster:  environmental sciences (by Earth and Marine Sciences), biomedical (by Thimann and Sinsheimer), and technological (Natural Sciences 2 and Interdisciplinary Sciences).  Science Hill is beginning to run out of sites for additional buildings.

o       A Science Hill master planning study should be done.  School of Engineering would take part, as well as PBS.

o       The Natural Sciences 6 building that has been on the MCIP was originally planned for Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics.  However, since Physics and Astronomy recently moved into the new Interdisciplinary Sciences Building, it is not politically feasible to propose new space for them in the current MCIP.

o       PBS researched the biomedical and environmental sciences needs.  Although the needs are similar, PBS has put a higher priority on the Biomedical Building due to the type of facilities needed soon (including a vivarium).  Because Natural Sciences 6 was about 100,000 asf and the Biomedical Building and the Environmental Sciences Building total about this amount, PBS would also like the Environmental Sciences Building in the MCIP in order to meet the space needs of PBS.

·        Social Sciences Facility

o       Social Sciences is strapped for space, and is renting space in student housing for divisional administration and renting off-campus space for organized research units and activities.  Education is growing rapidly, and may become a school.

o       New space for Social Sciences programs would allow Economics to move out of 15,000 asf in the Engineering Building, in which it is to be housed temporarily, and Education to move out of the Humanities Building.  It would also get the Division out of needed student housing space.  Psychology and Anthropology would receive critically needed released space.

·        Alternatives/Recommendations from CIP Subcommittee

o       CIP Subcommittee recommended two plans.  Plan 1 would defer Silicon Valley Center (SVC) by one year and Plan 2 would defer SVC two years (the campus is not ready to submit a detailed scope and budget for SVC).  Because of the concern about not having the infrastructure to accommodate growth and the new buildings coming on line, the Subcommittee recommended keeping the Infrastructure Improvements project where it is in the existing five-year program.  The following priorities for new starts in the five-year window were recommended: 1) Infrastructure Improvements, 2) Biomedical Facility, 3) Environmental Health and Safety Facility, 4) Social Sciences Facility, 5) Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2, and 5) Environmental Sciences Building.

o       Costs have been refined from last year’s MCIP.  The budget for Alterations for Engineering Phase 3 is under review and the Infrastructure Improvements costs are a “plug” number until master-plan studies are completed.  The infrastructure needs may include improving fire suppression water system, storm water drainage, cooling water system, electricity, natural gas, and communications.  Once infrastructure needs and costs are identified, it will be determined what goes into each of the two phases of the project.

o       Plan 1 has a total $37 M less than the campus would be allowed with a $184 M target amount.  To use up the target, staff would balance the budget by moving forward some projects and deferring them again next year. 

·        Concern was expressed whether a stop-gap measure for EH&S waste handling is needed.  Procedural changes such as shipping wastes more frequently could help with waste handling.  The two proposed plans will allow the campus time to research the need for EH&S waste handling.

·        ACF recommended approval of Plans 1 and 2, and authorized staff to make adjustments necessary to balance the program.  ACF also recommended that a Space Evaluation Team (SET) be formed to review the need for interim measures for waste handling until the new proposed Environmental Health and Safety Facility comes on line.  The SET was asked to report back to ACF at the next meeting.

Next Scheduled Meeting