MINUTES
Harbor College Planning Advisory Council
Regular Meeting
October 5, 2000
Administration Representatives:
Linda Spink, Luis Rosas, Leila Menzies, Rochelle Hudson, Nina Malone
Faculty Representatives:
Sally Fasteau, Jim Stanbery, Larry Heimgartner, Kate Campbell
Faculty AFT Representatives:
Rod Oakes, Wendy Hollis
Classified Representatives:
George Ealer, Amos Powell, Claudette Youins, Sholeh Khorooshi
Student Representatives:
Nicholas Webb, Andrea Hawley
Foundation:
Cherryl Liddle
Guests:
Sam Sandt, June Smith, Joshua Abarbanel
Dr. Spink called the meeting to order at 2:09 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 9/21/00
The Minutes of the 9/21/00 meeting were distributed and approved as presented.
2. PRIORITIZING FACILITIES NEEDS
This meeting was planned with a single item agenda for discussion and prioritizing the Harbor College facilities needs list. The list of 13 separate areas was distributed along with the agenda, and an aerial layout of the campus, prepared by the professional planners, marked to show the various projects. Mr. Ealer distributed the current campus map showing all existing facilities and their locations. Dr. Spink outlined the desired outcome of the meeting: to have all facilities proposals in rank order so that when the last round of discussion takes place, and the community is invited to participate, there will be a clear under-standing and agreement of our priorities.
A packet was distributed, from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, showing information gathered during a survey, cold calling community members in the LACCD service areas. PAC members were impressed with the large percentage (79%) of our community members indicating that they knew Los Angeles Harbor College was in their service area. This number was far beyond the percentages shown for any of our sister institutions.
Respondents in the Harbor College service area indicated that they would support:
a.) Construction of a new technology building for use in training students for high-tech jobs (28% extremely important, 42 % very important).
b.) Replacement of 50-year old portable classrooms with a new general classroom building to provide Harbor and LAUSD students access to high-tech classrooms (24% extremely important, 39% very important).
c.) A new Public Safety Institute to house the Fire, Technology, Nursing, Emergency Medical Technicians, Hazardous Materials Disposal and Emergency Preparedness programs under one roof (24% extremely important, 25% very important).
d.) Increased campus security by installing a state of the art security system (22% extremely important, 38% very important).
e.) Construction of a new student services center to provide centralized access to the financial aid office, bookstore and food services (19% extremely important, 26% very important).
f.) Renovation of the Liberal Arts Building to improve heating and ventilation and installation of air conditioning (16% extremely important, 39% very important).
g.) Increased safety at all outdoor playing fields by installing better lighting and expansion of soccer fields for student and community use (16% extremely important, 33% very important).
The priority list submitted for ranking included:
Project I.A. Modernization and Air conditioning of Liberal Arts, Business, Physics and Science Buildings, including upgrades of ceilings, carpets, and walls.
Project I.B. Air Conditioning of Student Services, Seahawk Center, Learning Resources Center, Drama/Speech, Fine Arts, General Classrooms, Cafeteria, and P.E. Buildings.
Project II. Construction of a Business Center to house Hospitality Programs, Community Services, Culinary Arts, a restaurant as well as community and college conference meeting rooms.
Project III. Construction of a new Student Services Center and Technology Center Renovation projects. This would enable all Student Services to be housed in one single area. Learning Assistance Center would then be able to relocate to the areas currently occupied by Student Services. Their current space would revert to Library use.
Project IV. Construction of a Technology Building and parking structure. This area would be expected to house Automotive Technology and Drafting. The parking structure would compensate for a reduction in parking space due to new construction.
Project V. New general classrooms and Public Safety building. Public Safety to include Administration of Justice programs.
Project VI. Athletic Facility Improvements and land acquisition. Expansion of P.E. building, new swimming pool, track renovation and a new softball field. This would improve our programs by creating regulation-sized facilities and allow for greater Title IX, gender equity opportunities.
Project VII. Theater/Speech Building Renovation.
Project VIII. Grounds and Roadways improvements, including lighting.
Project IX. New Child Development Center.
Project X. Cafeteria modernization.
Project XI. Modernization of the Nursing Building.
Project XII. New Facilities Plant. Landscaping.
Project XIII. Land Acquisition.
Members discussed the need to appeal to the public and referenced the information secured from the survey of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates. Another factor was consideration that the state would fund classrooms but not student services. The under-utilization of our classroom space was mentioned.
The Audubon Society has been interested in securing, improving and maintaining certain of the surrounding land with the College providing appropriate, related course work. Mr. Stanbery stated the need to be extremely sensitive to environmental issues so as not to have the local activists view our approach as having a negative impact on the area. Ms. Liddle stated her understanding that TOSCO had discussed donating land, directly across from their facilities on Anaheim Street, to the College. The land is identified as contaminated and would require cleaning to meet currently accepted standards. Dr. Spink is aware of the condition of the soils and stated that the environmental research completed by the College reflected that cleanup was feasible. The possibility of a future Nature Conservancy would be considered.
Members discussed the need to promote the entire plan to the public, rather than allowing the public to pick the most appealing need and then adopt it. If the College adopts the community’s view, we would show we embrace perceived community needs, such as a high-tech center and classrooms, and wellness facilities for all ages. The possibility of combining projects even more was considered. Discussion concluded with a call for the rankings.
Members ranked in priority order as follows:
Priority 1 Project I.A. and I.B., Modernization of classrooms in Liberal Arts, Business, Physics, Student Services, Seahawk Center, Learning Resources Center, Drama/Speech, Fine Arts, General Classrooms, Cafeteria and P.E. Buildings.
Priority 2 Project IV., Technology Building and parking structure
Priority 3 Project III., Student Services and LAC Center renovations
Priority 4 Project VII, Business Center, Restaurant, Theater and meeting rooms (Projects II. and VII. were combined.)
Priority 5 Project VI., Athletic Facility Improvements, P.E. Wellness Center
Priority 6 Project V., General Purpose Classroom Building and Public Safety Programs
Priority 7 Project XIII., Grounds and Roadways
Priority 8 Project XI., Nursing Building
Priority 9 Project IX., Child Development Center, Cafeteria modernization
All members indicated their satisfaction with the series of rankings. Dr. Spink explained that District planners will be given carte blanche to word smith for public appeal on the items prioritized.
The third meeting date, involving the professional planners, will be sent out to all members.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting will take place on Thursday, October 19, 2000, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in LRC 125.