General Meeting Information

Date: September 29, 2020
Time: 3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    3:00-3:05 Welcome and Introductions I Grey
    3:05-3:10 Review mission and membership I Grey

    Measure G update

    I/D  Grey

    Facilities Master Plan Update

    I/D Grey

    Review/approve notes

    A Grey

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Welcome and Introductions

    The team was welcomed to the group and members and invited guests introduced themselves.

     Review mission and membership

    The membership and mission were reviewed. A couple of edits were suggested to include adding guiding principles, similar to the PBT groups. It was also requested to update old language referring to the term “physical plant” and replace with facilities and operations.

     In a robust discussion, the membership of the group and in the time allowed for discussion of the item, concerns were raised by new members of the team and some visitors on the parity of the group with a strong feeling that there needed to be equal numbers of classified, faculty and students reps. Grey shared some observations that the committee is low profile compared to the PBTs and historically speaking this governance group did not attract as many volunteers and that past participation had been modest. The discussion overlapped with the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) Update, Facilities Master Plan subcommittee agenda item and questions were raised on the scope of the two committees.  The Facilities Master Plan subcommittee would report to the main Campus Facilities team (CF) who will take to the other governance groups.

     Based on consensus in chat, the members supported the request to adjust the main membership to three faculty and three student positions in line with the three classified reps. Grey asked that reps ensure that they disseminate information and gather feedback in a timely manner so that meetings are efficient and inclusive of each constituent groups’ point of view.

     Measure G Update

    The FMP document includes the district/central services/Foothill College and De Anza College. It is expected that the FMP will go to the Board as one document. There are a lot of things that have to be in place prior to end users’ participation so that there is a framework to capture the input. Large Bond programs generally do Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identify pools of consultants (e.g. civil engineers/mechanical engineers/ program managers (PM)/ construction management companies (CM)/accounting companies) who are qualified to work on FHDA properties. RFQs have missions and values included and FHDA follows the public contract code. RFQs are sent out publicly and the purchasing department and attorneys review responses related to diversity, local presence, etc. The district does not narrow the field of potential pools of companies.  Only qualified companies can respond to Requests for Proposals (RFP) on individual projects. All contracts will be brought to the Board of Trustees for approval.  A facilities condition assessment is also needed (walking the site and gathering the bare facts the state of the buildings/infrastructure) and a company has been identified and will be going to the November Board for approval. The facilities condition site assessment is approx. a 6-month process.

    The district is also working on refining the project lists from both campuses based on the decisions made at each campus. RFPs and RFQs can be found on the purchasing website under bid opportunities and are sometimes hundreds of pages long.  The Bonds have not been issued. It is anticipated that the first issuance will be Spring 2021.

     Facilities Master Plan sub-committee

    The Facilities Master Plan will be reviewed and actively worked on in within a sub-committee, the Facilities Master Plan Task Force.

     It was clarified the Facilities Master Plan Task Force sub-committee would be a large group with campus wide representation. This team would report through the Campus Facilities team (or equivalent under an updated shared governance structure) who would share with the greater governance constituent groups. The Facilities Master Plan is a high-level guiding document and not an in-depth detailed document. The FMP sub-committee will be an opportunity to participate in the high-level planning of the campus. There will be plenty of opportunity to be involved in the FMP. Once the FMP is finalized the more detailed work begins with the expectation of participation from a wide range of subject matter experts to bring the vision of the FMP into fruition.

    Two Creative Arts faculty members expressed their displeasure with lack of representation from the Creative Arts division regarding the decisions made about the Flint Center. They further shared that as the A-quad is listed in the current FMP a member/s from the Creative Arts department must be included as a voting member of any committee that discusses this area. There was a specific request from a number of attendees that end-users be invited to attend meetings if/when discussion arise affecting their departments. Volunteers from end user groups have been and will continue to be included in such discussions. The example given was students working with the architects during the remodel of the student space in the Campus Center to choose such specifics as paint color, carpeting and configurations. A second example was the renovation of the Corporation Yard where the end users compiled their wishes for the building and then prioritized to stay within the budget.  A positive result of the shelter in place is that on a recent campus visit it was viewed with a fresh eye and that many areas do need attention. The request for the team will be to look at the campus as a whole.

    Grey shared her concern about timelines and the amount of work entailed in the FMP update and suggested that for efficiency one member from each constituency group that serves on the committee liaise with their constituent members to disseminate information and gather feedback. Grey showed the membership from the last FMP. The request is to have stakeholders from different areas volunteer for the FMP subcommittee.

    No decision was made on the FMP subcommittee/task force so the item will be brought back to the next meeting for approval.

     Capital Projects needs list from College Council Meeting - May 24, 2018 De Anza Project List 2019

    Grey shared the process from when the college developed the capital projects needs list from 2018 taking it through shared governance and college council in 2018.  The list was approved but no funding source was identified. The list was based on the current facilities master plan which runs 2016 through 2021. The majority of the measure G fund is for infrastructure. Some of our infrastructure has not been touched for many years and needs updating. Some of the classrooms are hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

    The 2016-2021 FMP reflected the removal of the Flint center. The Flint Center did not serve our students and only a very few of them had ever been inside. The Flint Center was basically for the community as a whole. Also included in the 2016-2021 FMP was the A quad and the L quad. Both of those projects called for a new physical plant which is infrastructure items like boilers and chillers (HVAC) electrical, fire risers and other items. Some other areas in the FMP were softball, PE, swimming pool and furniture fixtures and equipment.

    The new FMP being worked on now, will be a completely new plan focusing on future needs of our students. Once this high-level plan is finalized work will begin on the details. The District has contracted with Gensler who assisted us with the 2016-2021 FMP. Gensler has come up with a timeline based on their past experiences working with the campus. Gensler will be assisting us with the new FMP.

    Facilities Master Plan Project Timeline

    In August we were in the prepare phase (working on schedules) and now we are in the analyze phase. This means we will be walking the campus with a consultant so they can re-familiarize themselves with the campus. The next step the college has to take is to set up the FMP Task Force/subcommittee. The first meeting will be in October, two meetings in November, and one meeting each month in December, January 2021 and February 2021. This will take us through the planning process.

     In Fall this year, there will be online surveys, student focus groups and plenty of opportunities for the whole campus to participate. It is important to note that some of our students have never set foot onto our campus. This will change our survey questions as we will not be able to ask them specifically about their experiences on the campus. The survey will most likely be created in a way that would ask them what they would like to see on campus. There will be a sustainability workshop, as there was the last time. In November, the progress of the facilities master plan will go to the Board and final approval is planned for April 2021.

     The dollar amount of close to $1 billion is a large sum of money but there are already funds identified for certain projects. One of which is housing with funding up to $200 million. The De Anza Event Center will also use some of this funding.  Part of the expenses covered by the bond funds will be items such as the environmental impact reports (EIR) and the campus condition assessment. The original quote for the campus condition assessment was $5M but has since been reduced to under $2M. There are many infrastructure items that will need to be made a priority. It was noticed that construction costs have been rising about 1% per month.  A part of the facilities condition assessment includes rough order of magnitude (ROM) which includes a cost estimate. FHDA specifically asked for escalation to be included so we can properly plan and also include local bay area pricing index.

    Review /approve notes

    There was a request to have the May 5, 2020 notes at the top of the agenda for the next meeting. The approval of the May 5, 2020 June 10, 2020 and June 17, 2020 notes would be the first item on the next agenda.

    From the Chat: From Carol Cini : June 10th and June 17th minutes look fine. Just requesting changes to May 5th minutes as follows:

    From Chat: Changes supported by voting members Zhang & Shively and visitor Holt.

     Requesting changes to May 5th minutes as follows

    “Hoang asked was there any conversation about housing at the Feb. 28th meeting. Grey said that meeting only focused on the De Anza Events Center, but shared that approximately $200,000,000 has been set aside by the District for housing. Mahato mentioned the Oaks Shopping Center may have plans for a mixed housing development. Cini asked for clarification of specifics about the Oaks plans, and Mahato noted that the Oaks plan includes affordable senior housing. Cini requested the calendar timeline of events for the bond spending process be shared with regard to Facilities, and Mahato indicated a calendar would be shared when available. Hoang asked if future Facilities Committee meetings would occur more often, and Grey said that they would, and Cini asked if the meetings would start in summer or in fall, and Grey said that they would start in the fall.”

     Original paragraph read: Hoang inquired about housing. Grey shared approximately $200,000,000 has been set aside by the District for housing. Mahato mentioned the Oaks Shopping Center may have plans for a mixed housing development. Hoang also had questions about the location of the Campus Facilities meeting documents on the website and asked about future meetings. Cini requested the calendar timeline of events for the Bond spending process be shared with regard to Facilities and Mahato indicated a calendar would be shared when available.

     Requesting changes to May 5th minutes as follows:

    “Cini supported the comments expressed by the students. Cini called for inclusion of other faculty and staff in the planning meetings, which Kolar supported. In addition, Cini asked for more notification of meetings, clear indication of document locations on the Campus Facilities Committee website and asked for documents to be emailed to committee members. Hoang also asked about document locations on the website. Cini requested an update on the EV charging stations striping. Grey indicated there is no contract work allowed on the campus due to Covid-19 and this work will be scheduled when it is safe and appropriate to do so.”

     Original paragraph read: Cini supported the comments expressed by the students, including Kolar’s call for inclusion of other faculty and staff in the planning meetings. In addition, Cini asked for more notification of meetings, clear indication of document location on the Campus Facilities Committee website and asked for documents to be emailed to committee members. Cini requested an update on the EV charging station striping. Grey indicated there is no contract work allowed on the campus due to Covid-19 and this work will be scheduled when it is safe and appropriate to do so.



     DaSilva, Manny

    Grey, Pam

    Roodbeen, Richard

    Shively, Tim

    Sullivan, Mary

    Zhang, Yuetong


    Chow, Karen

    Cini, Carol

    Gannon, Patrick

    Gibson, Pippa

    Gore, Sally

    Holt, Matthew

    Hughes, Julie

    Lockwood, Tina

    Mahato, Jennifer

    Mjelde, Elizabeth

    Pape, Mary

    Rodriguez, Eugene

    Shannakian, Dennis

    Smith, Daniel

    Wen, Chia

    Yi-Baker, Hyon-Chu


Documents and Links

Back to Top