Pinnacle One: H. Arias, K. Pruett

Absent: Administration: J. Davis, N. Malone; Faculty: N. Barakat, B. Guertin; Classified: L. De Silva,

L. Payne, B. Sotelo; Students: T. Bardwell, H. Betros, K. Garcia, A. Navarro-Rodrigues, Y. Talavera;

Co-Chair: N. Carson

Meeting called to order at 2:00 p.m. Quorum present. This is a special open campus meeting to provide updates on Propositions A & AA facilities planning.

UPDATES OF PROPOSITIONS A & AA Dr. Ann Tomlinson

Dr. Tomlinson distributed a chart outlining the ‘work in progress by quarter’ from Prop A funding, along with an update for implementation of the facilities plan. All the schematics for the projects along with a number of reports are available on the facilities website. The college has 3 sets of storyboards depicting the work stages for Prop A/AA. Discussion followed on rotating the sets so that students and more people are aware of the progress. The library and art gallery in the Fine Arts building were mentioned as locations. Additional copies could be made at Kinko’s or through Community Services.

UPDATES Ken Pruett, Pinnacle One

The CORE group has been meeting weekly following the project priorities agreed to at the July retreat. At that time, the priorities were developed line by line with funds identified. A copy of those priorities and costs was distributed. A number of projects are beginning to move into the design development phase. A road map for the project schedule was distributed and discussed. Some other colleges are at the same developmental phase. Depending upon the project, the phases take 5 to 9 months. What to expect during the stages was discussed. The transition from the schematic to design phase has been smooth. At some point there will be renderings and architectural floor plans outlining the footprint of the building and adjacencies. The users group involvement is very important during these phases since it configures how and how much space is used while meeting state requirements. Pinnacle One would like to ask for a sign-off from each users group at the schematic stage.

CONSENSUS: To ask each users group to sign off the schematic plans and provide space for comments.

K. Pruett agreed that cost estimates for individual line items would be available with the schematics.

Discussion followed on who would sign off for individual buildings. A sign off by everyone in the users group would provide acknowledgement that the signer had been part of the process whether they agreed to or not with the final plan. It was noted that the sign off needs to be time based with a 2-week review.

Discussion followed on who should be involved in the sign-offs. It was decided that only the users groups can make the decision of who can sign off. However, last minute input is discouraged. CPC wants to know the decision by the next meeting. The building users groups can submit the sign-off list in writing at the December 4 meeting.

· G. Mendoza – asked that technology staff be involved with technology related decisions. The level of classroom decides the level of technology. Our IT personnel will meet with architects.

· F. Ma expressed concern on what technology is in the classrooms. L. Spink noted the 3-levels of classrooms establish technology levels and all classrooms have technology capability. Level III has the highest.

It was noted that faculty may not be on campus when the schematics are available for approval. It was advised that the faculty be notified in advance of the upcoming approvals. B. Lemon stated that the pending timelines could be distributed through the campus mail if it’s before the holidays.

K. Pruett outlined what to expect at the various stages: schematic, design development, 50% construction documents, and 100% construction documents. Building details will begin to show during the 50% construction document phase along with an intense cost analysis. Contractors will begin to look at the construction documents in the 50% construction document phase. There is no authorized approval process in the construction documents other than approval of furniture and equipment. At a later time, the users group can look at 5 pre-qualified furniture vendors. W. Hollis asked the president to look into ergonomic furniture, which has been available to the college in the past. Dr. Spink would like to select 3 to 4 model desks and color schemes for use on campus unless there is specialized use such as in chemistry or music.

Classified staff have participated in the various users groups. Students have not been assigned to the users groups however T. Munasinghe noted their input is informal. M. Wood noted it’s good if student’s input can be included. It was stated that The Steinberg Group has 2 LAHC student interns helping. There was a request to post the users groups on the web site. Multiple faculty are involved in more than one building

L. Rosas stated that the campuses were disappointed that the idea of internships in the construction phases had fallen by the way side. L. Spink noted that the Board wanted jobs available to students in the construction projects.

K. Pruett indicated there would be a consistent architectural theme throughout the campus and that ‘zones’ would be created, i.e., northeast, art, athletic. R. Oakes asked who give the final approval on the exterior of the buildings. L. Rosas said that the design would go to a sub-committee at the Board.

An on-campus planning retreat is tentatively scheduled for 1/15/04. Currently $7.9 million has been spent of Prop A funds (including painting costs). $4.2 million in interest has accrued.

K. Pruett noted that the ‘adds’ on the budget prioritization document were for a keyless entry system, a build out of the science museum, and allowing for 8 lanes on the athletic track so that the college can host athletic events. He noted that the’ adds’ could reduce some funding for the last Prop AA projects. L. Spink noted these were not really adds, but in one case an oversight because the astronomy building was scheduled to be demolished and then the decision was changed to allow the building to remain; and when it was decided to not turn the athletic field, it was realized there were only 6 lanes on the track. It did not make sense to build something below size.

L. McKenzie stated the college may want to consider putting the power lines underground. Cost is $1,000 per linear foot. DWP does the work. It was agreed that trade offs in the budget may be needed in the future. In following the 30-year master plan, the student union will be incorporated into the cafeteria. However the cafeteria will not be constructed until 2010.

Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m.