|
|
1.0 Pre-Design
SECTION 1.0 PRE-DESIGN1.1 Planning Assistance | 1.1.62 How to Evaluate Buildings and Determine Retrofit Costs | | David Bell, PJHM Architects, Inc., and Young Nam and Daniel Traub, Thornton Tomasetti | August 2007 | | | This presentation reviews the timeline of seismic provision regulations and outlines the steps in the seismic mitigation program, including: assembling the team, creating the initial study, preparing the evaluation, and post evaluation issues.
| | 1.1.61 Working With Your Architect | | Dennis Dunston, HMC Architects | March 2007 | | | Required architectural services are explained including design documentation, cost estimating, scheduling, construction observation, and specialty consultants. Also explored are extended services of predesign, program and project management, and the selection process.
| | 1.1.60 Building And Leading The Facility Team | | Eric Hall, Eric Hall and Associates; Mamie Starr, San Joaquin County Office of Education | March 2007 | | | This description of building a facilities team includes information on consultants for program, funding, design, construction and closeout services. The roles and responsibilities of leadership are explained along with managing project contract provisions.
| | 1.1.59 Design Awards Case Studies | | Richard Nowicki, NTDSTICHLER Architecture; Alexis Persinger, Persinger Architects & Associates; Russell Watson, Sprotte + Watson Architecture & Planning; and James Watts, San Diego USD | February 2007 | | | This presentation provides an in-depth analysis of three projects selected by the Leroy F. Greene Design Awards Jury. The case studies are examples of current and innovative K-12 educational programs and design trends.
| | 1.1.58 What’s New At DSA | | Deborah Furlow, Jill Jones, Dan Levernier, Howard “Chip” Smith, and David Thorman, Division of the State Architect | February 2007 | | | This presentation focuses on the new and improved programs and processes at the Division of the State Architect, including staffing, satellite offices, collaborative process, project close out, and certification.
| | 1.1.57 Ride The High Performance Learning Curve, They Did The Work, Now Use Their Experience | | J. William Naish, San Diego Unified School District; Ying Wang, Los Angeles Unified School District; and John Zinner, Zinner Consultants | February 2007 | | | In this presentation, district representatives convey what works and doesn’t when starting a CHPS program.
| | 1.1.56 High Performance Schools are More Cost Effective than Ever | | Charles Eley, Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) | February 2007 | | | With the passage of the school bond bill in November 2006, high performance schools that meet the CHPS criteria can qualify for supplemental funding from the State Allocation Board. This presentation reviews the 2006 CHPS criteria, the formulas for supplemental funding, and the associated eligibility and administration requirements.
| | 1.1.55 Building Quality Project Team Relationships – The Fine Art of Herding Cats | | Greg Branch, CT Brayton & Sons, Inc.; Ronald Lebs, Sylvan Union School District; and Paul Speed, Sylvan Unified School District | February 2007 | | | Maintaining open lines of communication and developing quality working relationships are essential to the successful completion of a school construction project. This presentation includes some simple strategies aimed at strengthening team relationships and getting everyone focused on the same goals in an effort to minimize delays and keep costs under control.
| | 1.1.54 The High Performance Relocatable – Affordable, Green and a Great Learning Environment, Too | | Richard Flood, Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Mark Miller, MKThink; Rob Samish, Lionakis Beaumont Design Group, Inc.; and Gene Wheatley, Fremont USD | February 2007 | | | Creating attractive and affordable modular buildings is a growing trend in architecture that has huge applications for schools. This presentation highlights the efforts of the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) to raise the bar in this area with the new CHPS High Performance Relocatable Best Practices Manual. As stated on the CHPS website, the Manual “provides manufacturers, school districts and architects the tools and concepts necessary to specify, build and acquire high performance relocatable classrooms.”
| | 1.1.53 Building Agency Relationships | | Ron Kuehl, Neff Construction, Inc.; Lynne Murray, Corona-Norco Unified School District; and David Stevenson, Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District | February 2007 | | | It is a challenge to get your plans approved through all of the agencies that are required before you can construct your project. This presentation provides the tools and tricks of the trade to make the process as smooth and painless as possible.
| | 1.1.52 The State Agencies’ Top Tips for Getting Your Project Approved – An Overview | | Dave Hawke, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division; Lisa Jones, OPSC; Patricia Penn, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division; and Howard “Chip” Smith, DSA | February 2007 | | | This presentation focuses on helpful tips and pointers to assist the district in devising a winning strategy for a smoother, more successful project approval process.
| | 1.1.51 The State School Facility Program – A District’s Perspective | | Cathy Allen, Western Placer Unified School District, and Lindsay Keyes, Jack Schreder & Associates | February 2007 | | | This presentation provides an overview from the school district’s perspective on how to work the School Facility Program.
| | 1.1.50 School Construction 201 | | David Goldin, San Francisco USD; Mark Kelley, Miller, Brown & Dannis; Ronald Lebs, Sylvan Un. SD; William Savidge, West Contra Costa USD; and Dave Umstot, San Diego USD | February 2007 | | | This presentation provides advanced level training in such issues as budgeting and payment; selection of delivery method; scheduling; change orders and claim avoidance; management concepts; and preventative measures.
| | 1.1.49 School Construction 101 | | Greg Chapman, PCH Architects; Don Lussier, Corona-Norco USD; Mark Mardock, McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.; Steve Rogers, EDGE Development, Inc.; and Mike Sattley, Lake Elsinore USD | February 2007 | | | This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of the school construction process, including selecting the district team and consultants, design issues, bidding the construction phase, close out, and claims.
| | 1.1.48 National Review of Green Schools: Costs, Benefits, and Implications for Massachusetts | | Greg Kats | December 2005 | 72 pages | | As stated in its Executive Summary, this report "documents the financial costs and benefits of green schools compared to conventional schools, specifically with reference to Massachusetts." | | 1.1.47 Planning 101 | | Lettie Boggs, Colbi Technologies, Inc. | February 2006 | | | Topics in this presentation include needs assessment, master planning, assembling the team, planning for the bond campaign and communicating your plans with the public.
| | 1.1.46 Saving Money: Planning Tools For Cost Control Starting At The Beginning… Don’t Wait Until The Bids Come In! | | Dave Umstot, San Diego USD, and Lynne Cooper, WWCOT | February 2006 | | | Highlighted here are many aspects of planning that help to keep the costs down, including the types of consultants to hire for specific types of projects.
| | 1.1.45 Building Schools You Can Afford To Operate | | Guy Mehula and Bruce Kendall, Los Angeles USD | February 2006 | | | Various perspectives are shared on constraints districts face while planning educationally appropriate learning environments within capital and operational funding limits.
| | 1.1.44 Grant Funding Versus Construction Costs – Closing the Gap | | Todd Miller, Paul C. Miller Construction Co., Inc.; Anthony Espinoza, Calif. Construction Management; Godwin Osifeso and Julie Zimmerman, NTDSTICHLER Architecture | February 2006 | | | This presentation includes construction market cost issues and opportunities to enhance your project through agency and developer partnerships.
| | 1.1.43 The State Agencies' Top Tips for Getting Your Project Approved – An Overview of the State Agencies | | Dave Hawke, CDE/ School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | February 2006 | | | CDE, DSA, and OPSC join forces to provide information that will help make the project approval process smoother for districts. | | 1.1.42 The State School Facility Program – A District’s Perspective | | Janet Dixon, Riverside USD | February 2006 | | | This overview provides the school district with insight on how to work the School Facilities Program.
| | 1.1.41 School Construction 101/201 | | Ron Kuehl, Neff Construction, Inc.; Steve Worley, Tilden-Coil Constructors, Inc.; Julie Arthur, San Jacinto USD; Chris Taylor, HMC Architects; V-Anne Chernock, Tamalpais Un. HSD | February 2006 | | | Advanced level training is offered here in key issues affecting school construction, including budgeting and payment, scheduling, change orders and claim avoidance, management concepts and preventive measures.
| | 1.1.40 Why Didn’t We Do That? Or… | | David L. Goldin, San Francisco USD | October 2005 | | | This presentation outlines several elements of a successful school construction program, including having a current master plan, developing the project scope, getting the right project team, preparing for the bond oversight committee, board reporting basics, and managing the design phase. | | 1.1.39 Building a Successful Program/Project Team | | Ron Lebs, Sylvan School District | October 2005 | | | This presenation describes several variables in building a successful project team, including knowing the distict culture, establishing expectations, identifying roles and responsibilities, buildiing and managing the team, making wise decisions, communicating, and reporting. | | 1.1.38 Pre-construction Services | | Steve Worley, Tilden-Coil Constructors | October 2005 | | | This presentation provides an overview of the elements of the construction consultant's involvement, including design, budgeting, constuctibility, scheduling, multiple trade development, coordination with district's department directors, and bidding. | | 1.1.37 Selecting Your Construction Project Team | | Julie Arthur, San Jacinto USD | October 2005 | | | This form is designed to aid in the selection of a constrution project team, including identifying the necessary consultants, defining who they report to, and listing the benefit to districts of varying sizes. | | 1.1.36 Construction 101 – Preconstruction Services | | Steve Worley, Tilden-Coil Construction, Inc. | October 2005 | | | This preconstruction services handout includes a sample budget, a schedule, a category breakdown and a bid evaluation form.
| | 1.1.35 Difficult But Fabulous: A Workshop On Seismically Unsound Historic School Buildings | | Kent Brown, Sequoia Un. HSD; Paul Bunton, Bunton Clifford Associates; Jerry Johnson, Eureka City School District; Steve Newsom, LPA Inc.; and Lisa Ryker, WLC Architects; | February 2005 | 24 pages | | This presentation includes case studies on seismically unsound historic school buildings as well as funding alternatives, CEQA issues and suggestions for community involvement.
| | 1.1.34 Planning 201 | | Lettie Boggs, Colbi Technologies, Inc.; Douglas Yeoman, Parker and Covert, LLP; Mamie Starr, Lodi USD; and Rick Kramer, Kramer Project Development Co. | February 2005 | 18 pages | | Topics here include design and construction phases, temporary housing strategies, developing an implementation plan, state agency approvals, audit compliance, and managing time and budgets.
| | 1.1.33 Everyone's Talking About Small Schools | | Jim Watts, San Diego City Schools; Stacy Strand, HMC; Cheryl Seelos, Principal, Kearny Education Complex | February 2005 | 16 pages | | This study of the San Diego City Schools' publication “Redesigning Schools” reveals what matters and what works, especially at the high school level.
| | 1.1.32 Planning 101 | | Douglas Yeoman, Parker and Covert, LLP; Mamie Starr, Lodi USD; Lettie Boggs, Colbi Technologies, Inc. | February 2005 | 11 pages | | Topics covered in this presentation include needs assessment, master planning, assembling the team, planning the bond campaign, and communicating your plans with the public. | | 1.1.31 M & O in New Construction and Modernization | | Anthony Espinoza, CCM Inc.; Richard Duncan, DC Architects; and Todd Butcher, Val Verde USD | February 2005 | 32 pages | | This presentation illustrates the vital role that M & O can play in ensuring operational efficiency when planning for new construction and modernization.
| | 1.1.30 Integrating M & O In The Planning Process | | Tim Lopez and Kenn Young, Riverside County Office of Education | August 2004 | 8 pages | | This presentation provides reasons and ways that M & O should be integrated in the planning process. | | 1.1.29 Planning for Success, Considering All Options Known: Integrating Sustainable Design | | Panama Bartholomy, Division of the State Architect (DSA); Douglas McCord, DLR Architecture | August 2004 | 21 pages | | This presentation answers a variety of questions regarding sustainable design, such as what a sustainable school is, why sustainable schools are important, what the strategies and goals of sustainable building are, and how to find assistance with sustainable construction.
| | 1.1.28 Effective Project Planning | | Rick Mangini, Mangini Associates, Inc.; Gary Mekeel, Burton School District ; Nancy Meyers, CEFPI | August 2004 | 11 pages | | This presentation covers the benefits of building long-term relationships with the design team. It also includes design guidelines, costs, and funding options.
| | 1.1.27 Infusing Technology | | Mark Newton, Kitchell CEM | August 2004 | 9 pages | | This presentation outlines the benefits, challenges, and steps involved in infusing technology into the classroom. Elements in the process include vision, procurement, staffing, budgeting, evaluation, and maintenance.
| | 1.1.26 Elements of the Planning Process | | Steve Looper, Elk Grove USD; Dennis Dunston, HMC Architects; Nancy Meyers, CEFPI | August 2004 | 29 pages | | This outline describes the following elements of the facilities planning process: the educational plan; the facilities master plan; writing educational specifications; quality facilities and quality education; and assembling the team, including the selection of an architect, the DSA inspector, the construction/project manager, and the school district point person. | | 1.1.25 Preparation For Construction Or Modernization | | Brian Sullivan, Oceanside USD; John Groth, Groth Architects, Inc.; Cheryl Gaston, PinnacleOne | June 2004 | 10 pages | | This presentation outlines the necessary planning components for construction or modernization projects that include preparation, pre-construction, construction and post construction.
| | 1.1.24 Emerging Energy Conservation Technologies | | Gaylaird Christopher, AIA, Perkins and Will | February 2003 | 11 pages | | This presentation features Newport Coast Elementary School, the first school certified by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS). The K-6 campus is 43% better than Title 24 and was built within the State-allocated budget.
| | 1.1.23 Casting a New Light on Educational Facilities: A Lesson In Daylighting | | Neall Digert, Ph.D. MIES, Solatube International | November/December 2002 | CASH Register Article | | This article demonstrates how daylighting can produce energy savings and improve the learning environment for students and the work environment of teachers and staff.
| | 1.1.22 Do School Facilities Really Impact a Child’s Education? | | John B. Lyons, CEFPI | November 2001 | 6 pages | | This is a collection of studies that demonstrate how a school condition can affect student health and achievement.
| | 1.1.21 Construction 101 | | C.A.S.H./ACCM | May 2002 | 53 pages | | Construction 101 covers three phases of construction: Planning and Design, Pre-Construction, and Construction. It does not cover funding issues, CEQA, Design-Build or claims.
| | 1.1.20 Planning and Designing School Facilities for Year-Round Education | | Amy M. Yurko, AIA, DLR Group | February 2002 | 28 pages | | This Power Point presentation provides an overview of MTYRE, along with facility issues such as planning/design, building systems, maintenance and operations, campus and grounds, and associated expenses.
| | 1.1.19 87 Steps to A Successful Project | | Marsha Perry Park, Environmental Science Association; Marnie Rosenstein, Elk Grove Unified School District; Mike Morman, Natomas Unified School District | February 2002 | 15 pages | | This excellent outline covers all the components of a successful project, from selecting a design team to furniture and equipment.
| | 1.1.18 Programming and Design of Schools Within the Context of Community | | Anne Taylor, Ph.D., Hon. AIA | 2001 | link to Design Share website | | This website presents Professor Anne Taylor's employment of "the antecedent process of architectural programming to translate the best of educational practice into design criteria for architects and communities," inlcuding the School Zone model. The School Zone Institute design process combines the curricular and child development goals of education with the design elements of architecture. The prime focus of the School Zone model is that the physical setting of the learning environment makes a difference in and directly contributes to a child’s behavior and learning. The model expresses a system for learning, the context for learning, the content to be learned, and learning process.
| | 1.1.17 People, Places, Technology | | Glen Meeks, Glen Meeks Technology Group | March 2001 | 13 pages | | Mr. Meeks' design and implementation projects result in practical and highly useful implementation of technology for education organizations.
| | 1.1.16 Bright Schools Program | | California Energy Commission (CEC) | | Link to CEC website | | The California Energy Commission's Bright Schools Program offers specific services to help you become more energy wise, such as identifying cost-effective energy-efficient systems to meet your needs and providing design and implementation assistance. | | 1.1.15 ENERGY STAR: New Building Design to Achieve Energy Star | | Environmental Protection Agency | | Link to ENERGY STAR website | | ENERGY STAR is a mark of excellence in energy, financial, and environmental performance. The ENERGY STAR label is awarded to buildings that rank in the top 25 percent of their class nationwide for energy performance and have indoor environmental quality that meets or exceeds industry standards. With the ENERGY STAR label on your school buildings, you will be publicly demonstrating your district’s fiscal and environmental responsibility by achieving top energy performance in your new buildings.
| | 1.1.14 The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) | | | Link to CHPS website | | CHPS aims to facilitate and inspire the next generation of high performance schools: environments that are healthy, comfortable, well lit, energy efficient, and contain the amenities needed for a quality education. Essential high performance design issues include: daylight; superior indoor air quality; energy, water, and material efficiency; site selection; and commissioning. CHPS “Best Practices” manual can be downloaded for review purposes.
| | 1.1.13r Insurance Companies and Other Entities | | | | | Under “View Lists of Insurance Companies,” a listing of California Fidelity/Surety Companies is accessible. | | 1.1.13q Web Sites | | Sustainable Buildings Industry Council | | Link to Sustainable Buildings Industry Council website | | The Sustainable Buildings Industry Council is an independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance the design, affordability, energy performance, and environmental soundness of residential, institutional and commercial buildings.
| | 1.1.13p Web Sites | | California Department of Education/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | | Link to California Department of Education/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) website | | A state-level office that assists school districts and their communities in creating well-planned K-12 learning environments in safe, clean, and up-to-date schools. This site will offer links to other agencies or organizations that may be of assistance in planning an educational facility.
| | 1.1.13o Web Sites | | National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities | | Link to National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities website | | The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) "provides information on planning, designing, funding, building, improving, and maintaining safe, healthy high performance schools."
| | 1.1.13n Web Sites | | National Center for the 21st Century Schoolhouse | | Link to National Center for the 21st Century Schoolhouse | | The National Center for the 21st Century Schoolhouse "serves as a source of ideas on school design and educational programming for educators, policy makers, and design professionals. The National Center facilitates focused discussion of the interrelationships between educational programming and school design and disseminates the outcomes to interested parties." | | 1.1.13m Web Sites | | National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE) | | Link to National Association for Year-Round Education website | | As stated on the website, the National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE) "is a nationally recognized organization of teachers, administrators, and parents who are working to increase student achievement through its focus on time and learning."
| | 1.1.13l Web Sites | | Environmental Protection Agency Indoor Air Quality | | Link to Environmental Protection Agency Indoor Air Quality website | | This portion of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s website provides information about Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). | | 1.1.13k Web Sites | | Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) | | Link to Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment website | | OEHHA's overall mission is to protect and enhance public health and the environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.
| | 1.1.13j Web Sites | | Design Share Educational News | | Link to Design Share Educational News website | | The Design Share Educational News website provides an on-line library and journal of facility planning.
| | 1.1.13i C.A.S.H. Design Award Winners | | C.A.S.H. | | Link to C.A.S.H./AIACC Leroy F. Greene Design Award Winners | | This protion of the C.A.S.H. website lists the C.A.S.H./AIACC Leroy F. Greene Design Award winners from 1991-present.
| | 1.1.13h Websites | | Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | | Link to Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) website | | The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) assists school districts in assessment of school properties by ensuring that environmental conditions are expeditiously investigated, evaluated and, if necessary, remediated in order to protect public health and the environment.
| | 1.1.13g Web Sites | | California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) | | Link to California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) website | | The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) is the governing agency for the labor compliance program (LCP) required by AB 1506(Wesson/Statutes of 2002).
| | 1.1.13f Web Sites | | Council of Educational Facility Planners, International (CEFPI) | | Link to Council of Educational Facility Planners, International (CEFPI) website | | This page allows you to search through the archives of the CEFPI Journal, The Educational Facility Planner, from 1968 to the present.
| | 1.1.13e Web Sites | | California Interagency Working Group on Indoor Air Quality | | Link to California Interagency Working Group on Indoor Air Quality website | | The California Interagency Working Group on Indoor Air Quality is "an organization of representatives from State, Federal, local and non-governmental agencies with IAQ oversight or interests."
| | 1.1.13d Web Sites | | California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect (DSA) | | Link to California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect (DSA) website | | The Division of the State Architect (DSA) is responsible for review of plans and construction of publicly funded schools and essential services buildings. Check the website for current conference and workshop updates.
| | 1.1.13c Web Sites | | California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | | Link to California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) website | | The Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) is a state-level office which manages school construction, funding arrangements and maintenance of schools.
| | 1.1.13b Web Sites | | California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission | | Link to California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission website | | The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission is a resource for school officials to understand the debt issuance process.
| | 1.1.13a Web Sites | | California Air Resources Board | | Link to California Air Resources Board website | | California Air Resources Board
| | 1.1.12 Daylighting in Schools, Additional Analysis | | Cathy Higgins, New Buildings Institute, Inc. | February 2002 | 4 pages | | This study concludes that student achievement is improved significantly as a result of improved daylighting in schools. | | 1.1.11 Daylighting in Schools | | Heschong Mahone Group | 1999 | 5 pages | | This is a report submitted to The Pacific Gas and Electric Company on behalf of the California Board for Energy Efficiency Third Party Program by Heschong Mahone Group.
This study looks at the effect of daylighting on human performance. It includes a focus on skylighting as a way to isolate illumination effects from other qualities associated with daylighting from windows, such as view and ventilation. In this project, a statistically compelling connection was found between daylighting and student performance and between skylighting and retail sales. | | 1.1.10 Shifting Gears for Hardship | | Jim DiCamillo, WLC Architects | October 2000 | 4 pages | | Hardship is more than just a funding category; it is a state of existence and requires a unique design approach in order for your new construction project to be successful. The focus of this presenation is on cost saving measures, ranging from basic project conceptualization to detailed specifications. Learn how to avoid the potentially embarrassing pitfalls of a spartan budget allowance. | | 1.1.09 Resources for Green School Design | | US Green Building Council (USGBC) | | | | The US Green Building Council is the building industry’s only balanced, nonprofit, consensus coalition promoting the understanding, development, and accelerated implementation of green building policies, programs, technologies, standards and design practices. The USGBC has developed a self-assessing system designed for rating new and existing buildings called LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).
| | 1.1.08c - CDE Update - Wireless (Cellular) Facilities and Towers on School Sites | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | December 1998 | Link to CDE/School Facility Planning Division website | | The California Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division continuously publishes and distributes timely advisories on various school facilities topics.
This memo expands, clarifies and replaces the May 19, 1997 memo regarding procedures and applicable laws to be followed when wireless facilities and towers are being considered for placement on school sites. It contains revisions made to the 1996 Education Code and lists the new citations, with the former corresponding citations in parentheses. This memo also clarifies language in reference to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). | | 1.1.08b CDE Update - School Building, Health and Sanitation Code Requirements – Code Compliance Responsibility | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | August 1999 | 5 pages | | SFPD Advisory 99-02
The California Department of Education (CDE) frequently receives questions from the public concerning the number and condition of toilets and other health and safety issues at California public schools. This advisory includes information that has been put together in order to identify who is responsible for the enforcement of building codes and other codes that apply to health, sanitation, and safety on school sites. | | 1.1.08a CDE Update - SFPD Update 2003 | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | 2003 | Link to CDE/School Facilities Planning Division website | | CDE/SFPD continuously publishes and distributes timely advisories on various school facilities topics.
This update includes modification to existing CDE forms, nww 4.1.4/4.1.5, Commitment Forms for lead-based paint, EMG and Pipeline Policies, and AB 1008 and SB352. | | 1.1.07 AB 16, K-12 Project Approvals: Overview of California Department of Education Review | | Michael O’Neill, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | January 2003 | 9 pages | | The California Department of Education (CDE) School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) has a number of responsibilities, requirements and services under the State School Facility Program (SFP). This presentation describes those components under AB 16.
| | 1.1.06 To Build A Better School | | Little Hoover Commission | February 2000 | Link to Little Hoover Commission website | | The recommendations in this report would move California beyond the dichotomy between the State’s purse-string regulation and local control. The recommendations encourage policy-makers and local educators to create a process and a venue for designing, building and maintaining quality schools, and for training the staff needed to replicate that quality in hundreds of school districts throughout California.
| | 1.1.05 Prototype School Designs | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | | | | The OPSC web site features a database of Prototype School Designs. This database is a valuable resource of recently approved school plans, including site plans, floor plans, construction data, school and architect contract information and construction cost detail.
| | 1.1.04 America’s Schoolhouse Council | | | Link to American Schoolhouse Council website | | America’s Schoolhouse Council has teamed with San Diego State University to form the National Center for the 21st Century Schoolhouse. The purpose of the center will be to maintain a national database of accurate planning, construction and regulatory data. It will serve as a clearinghouse of ideas on school design and educational programming for educators, policy-makers and design professionals.
| | 1.1.03 CASBO Planning and Construction Manual | | 2001 | Link to CASBO website | | The Planning and Construction Manual has been put together as a result of presentations made at CASBO Conferences over the past three years. The intent of the manual is to provide a District with a resource document that discusses the planning process from recognizing a need through a Facilities Master Plan to constructing and occupying a new school.
| | 1.1.02 The Guide for Planning Educational Facilities | | CEFPI | 1991 | Link to CEFPI website | | Chapter Titles Include: Project Budget and Cost Control, The School Site, Developing a Master Plan, Educational Specifications, Spaces for Learning, Equipping the Facility, Financing the Capital Program, Renovation and more.
| | 1.1.01 Challenges and Opportunities of Building Schools in California | | Pamela T. Johnson, Montebello USD | November/December 2004 | CASH Register Article | | This article provides detailed excerpts on the roles of state and federal agencies in the school building process as presented at a recent CEFPI conference.
|
1.2 Legal Requirements | 1.2.36 Legal Issues and Liabilities Associated with Seismic Safety | | Terry Tao, Atkinson-Andelson-Loya-Ruud & Romo | August 2007 | | | This presentation discusses the criteria established by AB 300 for identification of potentially unsafe structures; the weaknesses and strengths of this criteria as protection against potential litigation; board member liability, including ways board members can protect themselves; circumstances in which a board is or isn’t liable and various Attorney General opinions; statutory indemnity; building examination under Education Code 17367; and required elements of and issues pertaining to the AB 300 report.
| | 1.2.35 Construction Oversight and Project Closeout and Certification | | Dan Levernier, DSA Regional Office, Manager and Gerald Freeman, DSA District Structural Engineer | June 2007 | | | This provides an overview of DSA oversight of pre-construction and construction as well as closeout and certification with the goal being for all projects to be DSA-certified.
| | 1.2.34 2007 Title 24 Structural Safety Code Changes and Policy Updates | | Howard “Chip” Smith, DSA District Structural Engineer | June 2007 | | | This presentation highlights the 2007 changes and code development process, the code adoption process with a summary for all building trades.
| | 1.2.33 2007 Title 24 Accessibility Code Updates and ADA Issues | | Aaron Noble, DSA Senior Architect | June 2007 | | | This overview of the changes to accessibility regulations includes special access, signs, parking, routes, ramps, fire protection, egress, and toilet facilities.
| | 1.2.32 CEQA After Marina | | Dwayne Mears, AICP, The Planning Center | May 2007 | | | This presentation discusses the dilemmas faced by districts after Marina and recommendations for coping with challenges such as site selection and acquiring the site from the developer. The presentation also discusses challenges specific to urban schools.
| | 1.2.31 Types, Risks, and Relative Costs of Ecological Mitigation | | Greg McGowan, LFR Inc. | May 2007 | | | Ecological mitigation strategies presented include avoidance by design, active and passive mitigation, on-site and off-site mitigation, mitigation banking and in lieu fees, risk management versus cost, and general recommendations.
| | 1.2.30 Developing Adequate Mitigation | | Gary Jakobs, EDAW, Inc. | May 2007 | | | This presentation covers when mitigation is needed, what a mitigation measure is, feasible mitigation, a sample mitigation structure, and offsite mitigation.
| | 1.2.29 The Marina Holding: Responsibility and Funding for Offsite Mitigation | | Jeremy Brust, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, and Janet Mueller, Miller, Brown & Dannis | May 2007 | | | Topics covered in this presentation include:
• The Marina Case
Facts
Legal and Procedural Background/Court of Appeal
• Legal Framework/Analysis
The role of CEQA in school site development
The relationship between school districts and other public agencies for payment of exactions, fees
• Coping Tactics for K-12 Districts
| | 1.2.28 Piggybacks and Public Works – Where The Rubber Meets The Road | | Patrick Kennedy, Glendale Unified School District (retired); Terry Tao, Atkinson-Andelson-Loya-Ruud & Romo; and Jack Vombaur, Collins & Aikman | February 2007 | | | This presentation discusses maintenance and operations procurement of contracts related to a facilities or maintenance department. Overviews of contract law, procurement, bidding, and facilities involvement with maintenance are also included.
| | 1.2.27 DTSC Update | | Sharon Fair and Rebecca Chou, DTSC | October 2006 | | | This presentation:
1. Describes the role and accomplishments of the DTSC School Division.:
2. Provides an update on the various steps in the DTSC process, including::
„X Step 1: Phase 1¡¦s:
„X Proposed new regulations:
„X Federal and State liability protections:
„X New/revised Phase 1 ASTM E1527-05 impacts to school districts:
„X Step 2: Preliminary Environmental Assessments (PEAs):
„X Contingent site approval/environmental hardship:
„X Partial site approval:
„X Step 3: Response Actions:
3. Provides resources for additional information.:
| | 1.2.26 CDE Update | | Kathleen Moore, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division | October 2006 | | | Among the current CDE issues covered in this presentation are: the 2006 State Budget and related legislation (SB 1131, Budget Trailer Bill, and SB 1133, CTA and O’Connell v. Schwarzenegger settlement), career technical education facilities in AB 127, and CDE power line setback exemption guidance.
| | 1.2.25 Top Ten Tips For Project Success With DSA | | Dan Levernier, DSA | June 2007 | | | This presentation outlines DSA’s ten tips for success at each of the following project phases: project development, DSA project submittal and approval, and project construction and close-out.
| | 1.2.24 DSA 101 | | Dan Levernier, DSA | June 2006 | | | This presentation outlines DSA’s organizational structure, its roles and responsibilities, the plan review process, DSA’s oversight of construction, close out, the project inspector program, the laboratory evaluations and acceptance (LEA) program, emergency operations, and record set policy change.
| | 1.2.23 The Principal of School Construction | | Arthur Revueltas and Pamela T. Johnson, Montebello Unified School District | August 2005 | CASH Register Article | | Some unknown challenges confronting a school principal involved in modernization or reconstruction of an existing school site are revealed here. This article provides some useful alternatives to be considered.
| | 1.2.22 Energy Code Changes | | Gary Flamm, California Energy Commission (CEC) | July 2005 | | | This presentation outlines the 2005 updates of the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for public schools including benefits, schedule, focus, and measure change summaries for nonresidential buildings and relocatables.
| | 1.2.21 Statutory Basis of Piggyback Contracts | | Patrick Gunn, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd and Romo | June 2005 | | | A complete legal basis for piggyback contracts is presented here. | | 1.2.20 Defining the Problems | | Tom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes; Bill Meehleis, Modular Buildings, Inc.; and Steve Crivelli, Meehleis Modular Buildings, Inc. | June 2005 | | | This presentation includes the legal history of modulars and piggyback contracts and includes a piggyback flowchart. | | 1.2.19 How to Negotiate Proposition 39 Requests for Reasonably Equivalent Facilities | | Janet Mueller, Miller, Brown and Dannis | April 2005 | 10 pages | | The basic requirements to secure reasonably equivalent school facilities is defined including operations and maintenance, timelines, financial and facility use agreement.
| | 1.2.17 I've Been Sued! 10 Things I Should Have Done | | Bill Lacher, Vanir Construction Management, and Ben Reyes, Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson | February 2005 | 14 pages | | Directed toward minimizing claims, this paper looks at project controls, cost management and overall management of the bidding and construction process.
| | 1.2.16 The Role of the County Office in Implementing Williams | | Cathy Allen, Placer County Office of Education; Nina Young, Orange County Office of Education; and Bill Cornelison, Lake County Office of Education | February 2005 | 7 pages | | This presentation outlines the responsibilities of the county superintendent in Williams implementation, as outlined by SB 550 (Vasconcellos). These responsibilities include reporting on the sufficiency of instructional materials and the condition of facilities, timelines, and funding.
| | 1.2.15 The Settlement and Issues C.A.S.H. Has with the Williams Lawsuit | | Duwayne Brooks, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | September 2004 | 6 pages | | This presentation outlines the responsibilities of the county superintendent with regard to Williams settlement implementation. These responsibilities include reporting requirements, school visitation requirements, and facility evaluation requirements.
| | 1.2.14 CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) Update | | Kathleen Moore and Fred Yeager, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | October 2004 | 18 pages | | Topics covered in this update include: class-size reduction legislation (SB 311), QZAB bonds, the Williams Settlement, School Accountability Report Card (SARC), Uniform Complaint Procedures, Emergency Facilities Needs, Concept 6 Phase-Out, AB 2485, and Electromagnetic Field Setback Exemption Policy (EMF).
| | 1.2.13 Charter Schools | | Ernest Silva, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | March 2004 | 2 pages | | This presentation describes the changes to charter school funding established by SB 15 (Chapter 587, Statutes of 1993)
| | 1.2.12 Charter Schools: Obligations and Opportunities | | Sherry Gongaware, Tracy Jt. USD; Dina Harris, Best Best and Krieger LLP; and Laura Knauss, Lionakis Beaumont Design Group | February 2003 | 21 pages | | School districts face a variety of issues from charter schools operating within their boundaries. Districts must be certain of their legal obligations toward charter school facilities. Additionally, opportunities exist for development of publicly sponsored charter schools. This presentation explores obligations under Proposition 39 and development of the Tracy Learning Center, a K-12 charter school.
| | 1.2.11 Understanding Labor Compliance Issues | | Marilyn Cleveland, Miller Brown & Dannis | July 2002 | 6 pages | | This outline defines labor compliance issues, such as prevailing wage, a labor compliance program, a project labor agreement, and a local labor preference.
| | 1.2.10 Facilities for Charter Schools | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | August 2002 | Link to CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) website | | These web pages provide information "to assist school districts and charter schools in seeking state facility funding assistance under AB 14 (Chapter 935, Statutes of 2002), which defines the manner of funds available."
| | 1.2.09 Pertinent Statutes Concerning Minimizing Risk Through Contract Closeout Procedures | | Barbara R. Gadbois, Esq., Gibbs, Giden, Locher & Turner, LLC | February 2002 | 21 pages | | This collection of pertinent statutes regarding closeout procedures includes: bonds, stop notices, withholding funds, notice of completion, liquidated damages and dispute resolution.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery.
| | 1.2.08 New Energy Conservation Regulations for School Construction Effective October 1, 2005 | | California Energy Commission (CEC) | June 2005 | | | The Energy Commission adopted the 2005 Standards on November 5, 2003, and the Building Standards Commission adopted them on July 21, 2004.
The new Standards become effective October 1, 2005 | | 1.2.07 New Developments In Public School Construction Law 2001 | | Marilyn J. Cleveland, Miller, Brown and Dannis | March 2001 | 9 pages | | This presentation outlines new developments in construction law, including district use of plans, capital feasibility fees, prevailing wages, leased school sites, hazardous material, pre-bid meeting, bid alternatives, bond surety, and stop work.
| | 1.2.06 Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs | | Bill Poland, Keenan & Associates | February 2000 | 7 pages | | This presentation provides an overview of insurance/risk management issues for construction projects, including the pros/cons and economics of “wrap up” programs.
| | 1.2.05 Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Update | | Hamid Saebfar, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | October 2004 | 9 pages | | This annual DTSC update includes time- and money-saving tips for environmental assessment.
| | 1.2.04 References in the Education Code | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | | Link to the CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) website | | These are references to a variety of topics found in the Education Code.
| | 1.2.03 DSA 101: What’s New And Different | | Dan Levernier, Division of the State Architect (DSA) | February 2006 | | | This section describes the new DSA Academy, "a training facility which will serve as a major learning resource for all parties involved in the planning, design, and construction of educational facilities." A link to the DSA Academy website is also provided.
| | 1.2.02 Office of Public School Construction | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | | | | As stated on its website, the OPSC, "as staff to the State Allocation Board (SAB), implements and administers the School Facility Program and other programs of the SAB."
| | 1.2.01 Title 5 – What Is It and What Do I Need to Know About It? | | Dave Hawke and Tom Payne, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | February 2005 | 19 pages | | This presentation discusses the intent of Title 5, the content of the regulations and the process CDE uses to make sure your site and plans comply with Title 5.
|
1.3 Long Range Facility Master Plans | 1.3.20 Comprehensive Planning Model to Maximize Money at the Ballot Box | | Thomas Clark, HMC Architects; Ariane Lehew, School Advisors; Brad Senden, Center for Community Opinion; and James Watts, San Diego USD | February 2007 | | | This presentation discusses how to integrate a facilities wish list with the capacity to issue bonds along with attractive yet realistic options to voters.
| | 1.3.19 Declining Enrollment – Evaluating Alternative School Facility Use | | Gregory Davis, Davis Demographics & Planning, and John Palmer, San Juan USD | February 2007 | | | This presentation highlights demographic trends and their implications for a district regarding future enrollment and the impact on facility use, including restructuring a district with declining enrollment and a community process for site closures.
| | 1.3.18 Urban School Solutions – A Case Study in Developing New Schools in High Density Urbanized Areas | | Tom Calhoun, DMJM Management; Louis Joseph, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division; and Guy Mehula, Los Angeles USD | February 2007 | | | Urban solutions require creative use of existing property; in some cases, districts can redevelop existing schools to provide more beneficial use of their property for new schools using multi-story redevelopment. The case study featured in this presentation goes beyond the AB 801 traditional addition and describes a high school development on an existing elementary school site with a replacement elementary school on an adult education site. Community engagement is a key factor for success in any urban environment.
| | 1.3.17 A Team Approach to a Successful Facilities Master Plan | | Wendel Tucker, Alvord Unified School District | July 2006 | | | This presentation describes the experiences of Alvord Unified School District staff in implementing a facilities master plan. According to the presentation, keys to the district’s success included vision, collaboration, coordination, and participation.
| | 1.3.16 What Does it All Mean and the Consultant’s Role | | Tom Cavanagh, School Advisors | July 2006 | | | This presentation outlines the components of a comprehensive facilities master plan and the participants in its preparation; provides a framework for success; and describes an implementation plan, including ways to avoid pitfalls.
| | 1.3.15 Financial Consideration | | Bruce Kerns, Stone & Youngberg | July 2006 | | | This presentation outlines considerations for financing your facilities master plan, including methods of identifying funding sources and critical factors affecting the timing of implementation and other potential challenges.
| | 1.3.14 The Demographer’s Role | | Ken Reynolds, SchoolWorks | July 2006 | | | This presentation describes the role of demographics in the facilities master plan process, including typical data sources, projection methodologies, short- and long-term projections, and long-term planning.
| | 1.3.13 Overview of the Facilities Master Plan Process | | Jordan Knighton, NTDStichler Architecture | July 2006 | | | This presentation outlines the primary components of the facilities master plan process, including:
• Evaluation of the educational program
• Analysis of existing facilities and needs
• Evaluation of demographics and trends
• Prioritization of current and future needs
• Analysis of available financing options
• Detailed plan for implementation
| | 1.3.12 What Doesn’t Kill You Will Make You Stronger: How To Make Program Adjustments Midstream | | Robert Ball, Woodland Joint USD; George Durnay, Vacaville USD; Mark Rosson, Capital Program Management | February 2006 | | | This presentation presents the experiences of school districts that have had to make program adjustments.
| | 1.3.11 Master Planning, Enrollment Projections, and Asset Management | | Kathy Tanner and Katy Wright, Sweetwater Union High School District | May 2005 | 16 pages | | The master plan process, demographic methodology, program costs, and asset management of district property are dealt with here.
| | 1.3.10 Enrollment Projections Methodologies | | Gregory H. Davis, Davis Demographics and Planning | October 2004 | 14 pages | | This presentation outlines enrollment factors, cohort survival pros and cons, alternative projections, projection requirements, and projection methodology, including birth rates, new developments and mobility.
| | 1.3.09 Demographics Enrollment Projections and New Construction Eligibility | | Gary Mekeel, Burton School District ; Nancy Baker, Corona-Norco USD; and Steve Adams, Clovis USD | October 2004 | 4 pages | | These three districts discuss demographics enrollment projection methodology, facility needs, revenue sources, eligibility, historic cohort projections, SFP, and YRE utilization.
| | 1.3.08 Building Commissioning | | Chad Dorgan, Farnsworth Group Inc.; Lisa Gelfand, AIA, Gelfand RNP Architects; and Alice Sung, AIA, VBN Architects | February 2003 | 29 pages | | This presentation outlines the key components, benefits, costs, and guidelines of the commissioning process, as well as the adoption/implementation process and why the commissioning process is essential for CHPS.
| | 1.3.07 Planning a New College or Center: Steps to Approval | | Allan Petersen and Associates, Educational and Facilities Planning | January 2003 | 4 pages | | This information can assist a district's identification of the scope of an integrated educational and facilities Master Plan. Included are topics such as demographics, projections, program needs, space and site requirements.
| | 1.3.06 Keep Your Job and Your Mind While Changing School Attendance Areas | | Gregory Davis, Davis Demographics and Planning | February 2002 | 11 pages | | A Chaffey Joint Union High School District case study is included in this discussion of political considerations, organizational and process issues, GIS utilization, projections transportation, public input, and media coverage.
| | 1.3.05 Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School | | National Trust for Historic Preservation | November 2000 | 12 pages | | This report promotes putting historic neighborhood schools on a level playing field with new schools. It would eliminate funding biases that favor new construction over renovation and maintenance.
| | 1.3.04 Blueprint For Growth | | Glen Ovard, Brigham Young University; Joel Kirschenstein, Sage Institute Inc.; Kelvin Lee, Dry Creek Elem. SD | February 1992 | | | This article recommends that school systems follow a master plan for facilities and discusses elements of such a plan. | | 1.3.03 Implementation Master Planning for Facilities Programs | | Bill Savidge, Fremont Union High School District; Lee Salin, HMC Architects; Amy Delson, HMC Architects; Jay Davison, Capital Program Management; Katy Bell, Vanir Construction Management | February 2000 | 22 pages | | This presentation focuses on implementing master planning for facilities programs. In addition to discussing the implementation process, the presentation focuses on forces shaping educational planning, including educational programming, demographics, scope definition, budgeting, scheduling, communications/public relations, and team structure. | | 1.3.02 An Overview of the Facilities Master Plan Process | | HMC Group | February 2000 | 12 pages | | This overview explains the purpose of the facilities master plan, delineates the facilities master plan process, and provides a suggested master plan outline.
| | 1.3.01 Education Specifications: Linking Design of School Facilities to Educational Program | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | 1997 | Must be purchased from the CDE website | | A facilities master plan should be a working document that defines and describes which facilities are needed to support the education program. A section of this document provides information on developing a facilities master plan.
This first publication in the series is designed to help school districts develop specifications based on a fundamental principle of modern architecture; that is, form follows function. The document includes a definition of specifications, suggested procedures, and a model format.
(120pp.) Item No. 1352 - $18.50
|
1.4 Site Selection | 1.4.49 Negotiating The Environment Approval Puzzle | | Charles Metzinger, Caroleen Toyama and Mary Worth; Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure | March 2007 | | | The use of an environmental consultant is explored including CEQA compliance, DTSC determination, geological and environmental hazards evaluation, pipeline and tank risk analysis.
| | 1.4.48 Site Selection | | Jim Bush, School Site Solutions, Inc. | March 2007 | | | When and why to hire a site selection consultant is explored along with costs and common problems.
| | 1.4.47 School Site Issues | | Jim Bush, School Site Solutions, Inc. | July 2006 | | | This presentation outlines various incentives for developing a facilities master plan; describes how to begin the facilities master plan process; and diagrams the site selection process.
| | 1.4.46 The Absolute Essentials: School Site Selection and Acquisition | | Mike Bailey, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District; Jeremy Brust, Atkinson-Andelson-Loya-Ruud & Romo; and Jerry Suich, Oxbridge Development, Inc. | February 2007 | | | This presentation provides an overview of the essential elements associated with school site selection and acquisition, including planning, negotiating purchase agreements, and the eminent domain process.
| | 1.4.45 Site Near A Pipeline and/or Power Lines – What Do You Do Now? | | John Gordon, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division; Michael O’Neill, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division, and Douglas Wolf, LFR, Inc. | February 2007 | | | This update includes the CDE/School Facilities Planning Division’s recommendations when considering new school sites near power lines and pipelines.
| | 1.4.44 The 99 Cent Solution: Understanding Risk Management Principles Can Save You Money | | Denise Clendening, The Planning Center, and Alice Grundman, Colton Joint Unified School District | February 2007 | | | This presentation provides factors to consider when determining how much cleanup is necessary at sites where contamination is detected.
| | 1.4.43 CGS’s Role in the School Site Approval Process | | Jennifer Thornburg, California Geological Survey | June 2006 | | | This presentation outlines CGS’s site approval process, including projects requiring a geologic hazard report, CGS review of geologic hazard reports, report requirements, final report and project approval, the responsibilities of the geotechnical engineer and geologist of record, seismic hazards, and completed reviews.
| | 1.4.42 Site Acquisition and Agency Approvals: Hoops, Hurdles and Milestones | | Alice Grundman, Colton USD; Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center; Denise Clendening, The Planning Center | February 2006 | | | This presentation provides a proactive approach to site acquisition, covering state agency requirements.
| | 1.4.41 Common CEQA Mistakes And How To Avoid Them | | Jeremy Brust, Atkinson-Andelson-Loya-Ruud and Romo | January 2006 | | | This presentation defines common CEQA mistakes, such as forgetting CEQA objectives; misuse of categorical exemptions; conclusions in Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations not supported by the evidence in the Initial Study (or in the Administrative Record); misunderstanding the "fair argument" standard; failure to heed the advice and comments of "responsible," "trustee," and other agencies; failure to send CEQA documents to the State Clearinghouse when there are state agencies involved; "segmenting" projects to avoid or minimize CEQA evaluation or review; inadequate range of alternatives; inadequate impact analysis, misuse of tiering; inadequate evaluations of cumulative impacts; failure to integrate other laws into the CEQA document; inadequate mitigation measures; and improper "deferral" of mitigation in Mitigated Negative Declaration. | | 1.4.40 Integrating CEQA into the Greater Planning Process | | Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center | January 2006 | | | This presentation outlines the layers of review to which public schools are subject in addition to CEQA. The presentation also covers issues regarding potential school sites, details about Title 5 standards, the DTSC determinations needed to obtain final CDE site approval, the DTSC/CEQA process per AB 972, and tools to assist school districts with integrating all the requirements.
| | 1.4.39 CEQA Process Overview | | Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center | January 2006 | | | This presentation outlines CEQA's origins, rules, process, and major issues and concepts.
| | 1.4.38 Wetland and Endangered Species Mitigation Land Banking | | Craig Denisoff and Greg DeYoung, Environmental Business Partners | January 2006 | | | Both the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts require mitigation. This presentation describes types of mitigation, mitigation banking and its benefits, and recent legal/regulatory issues.
| | 1.4.37b Studies/Analyses Conducted by School District Consultant | | Kenneth Wilson, Wilson Geosciences, Inc. | December 2005 | | | One of two school site consultants presents environmental health and safety studies required by CDE for school site approval.
| | 1.4.37a Studies/Analyses Conducted by School District Consultant | | Jackie House, J House Environmental, Inc. | December 2005 | | | One of two school site consultants presents environmental health and safety studies required by CDE for school site approval.
| | 1.4.36 LEA Perspective On-Site Issues | | Britt Reese, Murrieta Valley Unified School District | December 2005 | | | This presentation discusses Murrieta Valley USD's third high school site selection process. | | 1.4.35 Site Issues Problem Solving | | Jim Bush, School Site Solutions, Inc. | December 2005 | | | This illustrates the process of using a consultant in site selection process. | | 1.4.34 Is Your School Built On A Stable Foundation? | | Jack R. McMillan, Senior Engineering Geologist, CGS | June 2005 | CASH Register Article | | This summary of the current geologic review required prior to permit approval for schools includes the preliminary Geologic Hazard Report and the final Geologic Hazard Report.
| | 1.4.33 The Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | | Andy Rosenau, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | July 2005 | | | This presenation focuses on the role the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays regarding school sites, including its regulatory program mission; jurisdiction; and regulated and exempted activities, as well as information on nationwide, regional, and individual permits and working with consultants.
| | 1.4.32 Evaluating Geological Hazards | | Jack McMillan and Mike Manson, California Geological Survey | July 2005 | | | The geohazards zoning act, geologic report requirements and approval process, and the CGS note 48 review checklist are provided in this paper. This presentation focuses on achieving project approval by evaluating geologic hazards, including CGS geologic review priorities and authority, CGS guidelines for geologic reports, and final report approval. | | 1.4.31 Evaluating Geological Hazards | | Bill Staehlin and Nat Chauhan, Division of the State Architect (DSA) | July 2005 | | | DSA’s role in evaluating geological hazards and the requirements related to those hazards as per IR A-4 are outlined here.
| | 1.4.30 Working With Environmental Consultants | | Camille Remy, Sustain Environmental, Inc. | July 2005 | | | The best practices for selecting and retaining environmental services, consultant expertise, and tools for determining the project scope are presented here.
| | 1.4.29 Love at First Site – How to Select a Site That Meets Title 5 Requirements | | Bedelia Honeycutt, Michael O'Neill, Louis Joseph, CDE/School Facility Planning Division (SFPD) | February 2005 | 21 pages | | Representatives of the School Facilities Planning Division explain how Title 5 regulates the selection of school sites.
| | 1.4.28 Title 5, EMF Set Back Exemption Protocol | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | July 2004 | | | This release defines school site approval regulations for schools proposed near electric transmission lines, as stated in the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 14040 (c).
| | 1.4.27 Refresher on CDE Site Approval Requirements | | Michael O’Neill and Tom Payne, CDE, School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | February 2006 | | | This update outlines exactly what the CDE looks for and will accept in site approval.
| | 1.4.26 Selecting An Environmental Consultant | | Anthony C. Ward, RG, Montgomery Watson Hazardous | January 2003 | 13 pages | | This information covers the scope of issues and services to be performed by an environmental consultant such as: how to find a qualified consultant, expectancies and where to get more information. For additional sources see 1.4.9.
| | 1.4.25 Toxics Cleanup Funding – AB 14 | | Ernest Silva, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | October 2002 | 3 pages | | This presentation discusses funding for toxic cleanup.
| | 1.4.24 Another 12 Step Program: Detoxifying DTSC | | Lysa Saltzman, Best Best and Kreiger LLP | February 2002 | 7 pages | | This is an easy-to-read, up-to-date legal description of all the steps required to secure CDE and DTSC approval of a potential school site. | | 1.4.23 CDE/DTSC Site Acquisition Process | | Michael O’Neill, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) and Hamid Saebfar, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | February 2002 | 13 pages | | This excellent “outline” describes how CDE and DTSC interface with other agencies
or
Contact Michael O’Neill at (916) 322-1463.
| | 1.4.22 The Urban School Site Acquisition Process | | Jerry Suich, Oxbridge Developement Inc. and Michael J. O’Neill, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | January 2002 | | | This article describes the complex process of acquiring land for a new or expanded public school site in an urban school district including searching for a new site, the process for site approval, relocation, voluntary acquisition offers and appraisals and eminent domain.
| | 1.4.21 Site Acquisition Basics | | Gordon Itow, Santa Ana Unified School District; Dr. Denise Clendening, Haley and Aldrich; Michael Otavka, William S. Hart Union High School District | February 2002 | 19 pages | | The roles and requirements of all agencies involved in site acquisitions and approvals are described in this presentation. | | 1.4.20 CEQA: Role and Authority of CDE | | Michael O’Neill, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | December, 2001 | 12 pages | | This CEQA presentation outlines the role and authority of CDE regarding sites, new construction plans and exemptions. It also deals with meeting the CDE requirements, DTSC issues and hardship issues.
| | 1.4.19 Small School Site Policy | | Jim Bush, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | February 2001 | Link to CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | | This small school site policy recognizes that unusual circumstances can exist when indemnifying an adequate school site. This policy provides procedures that school districts can follow when requesting CDE consideration.
| | 1.4.18 Securing Schools Site Acquisition Approvals | | Wendy H. Wiles, Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone | September 2001 | 7 pages | | This presentation includes information regarding environmental analysis, geology/ soils, title restrictions, local agency review, and proximity to airports and utilities. Note: Supplement to 1.4.10.
| | 1.4.17 CEQA Guideline Section 15378 | | Maureen F. Gorsen, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava and MacCuish | June 2001 | | | This article discusses a 2001 ruling by the Sacramento Superior Court that invalidated the CEQA guideline section specifiying that shcool district reorganizaitons are not subject to CEQA.
| | 1.4.16 Fast Tracking School Site Acquisition | | Jerry Behrens, Lozano Smith Attorneys | March 2001 | | | This document gives an attorney’s perspective of an Eminent Domain site acquisition, including issues realted to the seller, the community, CEQA, DTSC, relocation, and related legal items.
| | 1.4.15 Small Urban School Site Solutions | | C.A.S.H. Urban School Facilities Network | April 2001 | 4 pages | | In Fall 2000, CDE SFPD provided a questionnaire seeking model solutions for small school sites to large/urban school districts. The highlights of responses from six districts are paraphrased and followed by the questionnaire. The responses indicate that districts must utilize both facility design and operational solutions as methods to optimize their school facilities on small sites. Most districts rely on community/City support and joint use for parking and some space for P.E.
| | 1.4.14 Toxic Nightmare | | Dr. Ronald L. Feist, Superintendent, Eureka Union School District | March 2001 | 11 pages | | This presentation artfully describes the process, events, obstacles, and solutions the District experienced and developed while obtaining CDE and DTSC approvals for acquiring the Douglas Ranch School site.
| | 1.4.13 Complying With CEQA | | Douglas N. Yeoman, Esq., Parker and Covert, LLP | March 2001 | | | This presentation deals with the three phases that are generally a part of the preliminary review of a project to comply with CEQA.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery.
| | 1.4.12 California Environmental Quality Act Process | | California Environmental Resouces Evaluation System - CEQA Division | | Link to California Environmental Resouces Evaluation System - CEQA Website | | The State Clearinghouse (SCH) in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is responsible for distributing environmental dDocuments to state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions for review and comment, including the California State Clearinghouse Handbook, which provides information and forms to fulfill CEQA requirements. Information about CEQA is also provided on the SCH web site.
| | 1.4.11c CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) Advisory | | The CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | July 2000 | Link to The CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) website | | The CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) continually publishes and distributes timely advisories on various school site acquisition topics and toxic issues. The information in this advisory "Identifies how those districts located in the coastal zone may be affected by the California Coastal Act and resultant policies adopted by the California Coastal Commission and local governments, particularly as they apply to school site selection, acquisition and new construction."
| | 1.4.11b CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) Advisory | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | January 2000 | Link to CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) website | | As stated in this advisory "AB 387 and SB 162 became effective January 1, 2000 making additions and changes to the Education Code related to the requires assessment and remediation or clean-up of toxic contamination of school sites. Specifically addressed in this advisory are new procedures for both Plan and Site approvals by the California Department of Education (CDE) School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) and new oversight role of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). | | 1.4.11a CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) Advisory | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | November 2001 | Link to CDE/School Facilities Planning Division website | | The modifications in this memo primarily relate to school district and DTSC options for conducting public review and approvals of Preliminary Endangerment Assessments (PEA)s. | | 1.4.10 Land Use Planning in California - Have the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5th Amendment Takings Decisions Changed Land Use Planning in California? | | Daniel Pollak, California Research Bureau | March 2000 | 140 pages | | This publication is an executive summary of the new California Research Bureau report on the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that requires government to compensate citizens for the taking of private property. Under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, this constitutional takings clause can require government agencies to pay compensation to property owners for regulations that go too far in depriving owners of economically beneficial use of their property.
| | 1.4.09 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | | Peter Garcia and Hamid Saebfar - Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | July 2005 | 7 Pages | | This presentation focuses on the responsibilities of DTSC within the structure ot the California Environmental Protection Agency, including the role of DTSC's Schools Division. | | 1.4.08 A Primer on Choosing and Using Environmental Consultants | | Bruce S. Klafter, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe | 1992 | 3 pages | | Consumers of environmental consulting services should pay close attention to issues raised at three stages of the consulting relationship: (1) selecting the consultant; (2) negotiating a contract for services; and (3) managing the consultant’s work. This primer highlights some of the issues that arise in each of these important stages of a company’s relationship with an environmental consultant.
| | 1.4.07 Early Planning: School Site Selection | | Michael O’Neill, CDE/School Facility Planning Division (SFPD) | January 2003 | 9 pages | | This presentation describes an array of issues to consider when selecting a school site, such as prior assumptions, involved agencies, project management, communications, legal requirements, safety considerations, the site evaluation process and required major documents.
| | 1.4.06 School Site Additions Approval Procedure | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | 2004 | 3 pages | | This advisory describes the prcedures an LEA must follow to obtain CDE approval of a new school site or the addition of land to an existing site. | | 1.4.05k Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near a Waste Disposal Site? | | California Integrated Waste Management Board | | Link to California Integrated Waste Management Board website | | Contact: California Integrated Waste Management Board
| | 1.4.05j Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near Toxic Materials? | | Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | | Link to Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | | Contact: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | | 1.4.05i Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near Questionable Outdoor Air Quality? | | Air Resources Board | | Link to Air Resources Board website | | Contact: Air Resources Board
| | 1.4.05h Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near Pesticides? | | Department of Pesticide Regulation | | Link to Department of Pesticide Regulation website | | Contact: Department of Pesticide Regulation
| | 1.4.05g Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near Lead, Related to Drinking Water? | | Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch | | Link to Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch website | | Contact: Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch | | 1.4.05f Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near a Historical Landmark or Resources? | | Office of Historical Preservation | | Link to Office of Historical Preservation website | | Contact: Office of Historical Preservation | | 1.4.05e Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near Geologic Hazards? | | Department of Conservation, State Mines and Geology Board | | Link to Department of Conservation, State Mines and Geology Board website | | Contact: Department of Conservation, State Mines and Geology Board | | 1.4.05d Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near a Fish or Wildlife Habitat? | | Department of Fish and Game | | Link to Department of Fish and Game website | | Contact: Department of Fish and Game
| | 1.4.05c Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near a Coastal Zone? | | California Coastal Commission | | Link to California Coastal Commission website | | Contact: California Coastal Commission | | 1.4.05b Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near an Agriculturally Protected Area? | | Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection | | Link to Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection website | | Contact: Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection
| | 1.4.05a Is Your Proposed School Site Location Near a Dam? | | Division of Safety of Dams | | Link to Division of Safety of Dams website | | Contact: Division of Safety of Dams | | 1.4.04 Good Practice | | Ron Pregmon, WLC Architects | May 2001 | 1 page | | This brief paper provides hints for working with DTSC.
| | 1.4.03 Environment Requirements for Proposed School Sites | | Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) | | Link to DTSC Website | | This website contains current and historical information on toxic clean-up for school sites.
| | 1.4.02 School Site Selection and Approval Guide | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | 2000 | Link to CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) website | | This document has been designed to help school districts (1) select school sites that provide both a safe and a supportive environment for the instructional program and the learning process and (2) gain state approval for the selected sites.
| | 1.4.01 Site Development | | Jim Bush, School Site Solutions | August 2005 | | | The site development issues dealt with in this presentation are the CDE site selection and approval process; CDE recommended site size; potential site costs; actual site costs (a case study); and coordinating the process.
|
1.5 Educational Specifications | 1.5.12 C.A.S.H. High Performance Schools Committee Guidebook | | C.A.S.H. High Performance Schools Committee | 2007 | | | Proposition 1D set aside $100M to encourage the construction of high performance schools. Funding is available for both new construction and modernization projects. The applications run through a special process at DSA and may include new projects, projects currently under review or previously approved projects. The Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) will process DSA-approved funding applications and provide adjustments to your district’s base per-pupil grants for high-performance features in the project. The High Performance Schools Grant (HPSG) Program mirrors the adopted guidelines of the Governor’s Green Action Team, which uses the “CHPS Standards” as the basis for measuring all projects for conformance to the state’s high performance schools goals. This guide is intended to help districts get started in the program and provide basic information regarding the program and resources to assist and encourage districts to participate.
| | 1.5.11 C.A.S.H. Career Technical Education (CTE) Guidebook | | C.A.S.H. Career Technical Education Workgroup | 2007 | | Proposition 1D, approved by the voters on November 7, 2006, provided $500 million to construct, reconfigure, and equip school facilities.
The purpose of the funding is to enhance educational opportunities for pupils to provide them with the skills and knowledge necessary for the high demand technical careers of today and tomorrow.
The State Allocation Board (SAB) adopted regulations implementing the Career Technical Education Facilities Program (CTEFP) – 1859.2, which are posted on the Office of Public School Construction’s website, (see helpful links at the end of this document).
The purpose of this C.A.S.H. CTE document is to assist school districts understand the major components of the new CTEFP and to help them get their CTEFP started. At the end of this document is a summary of some of the key links to information pertinent to the CTEFP.
| | 1.5.10 District Responsibilities and Impact | | Bill Savidge, West Contra Costa USD, and Janet Dixon, Riverside USD | July 2007 | | | This presentation discusses advantages to adopting the CHPS standards in your district; the policy and operations credits, including prerequisites and policy and ops implications; CHPS project implementation; tips for managing district CHPS projects; and the commitments a district must make for a high performance project.
| | 1.5.09 Fit or Fat – Incorporating the New Wellness Program | | Julie Barrett, WWCOT; Lynne Cooper, WWCOT; and Mays Kakish, Beaumont USD | February 2007 | | | This presentation is intended to open the eyes of school administrators, students, teachers, and planners to think beyond physical education programs and to encourage the use of facilities that support these programs.
| | 1.5.08 Career Technical Education: Plan Now For This Growing 21st Century Academic Program | | Kathleen Moore, CDE/School Facilities Planning Division, and Patrick Ainsworth, California Department of Education | February 2007 | | | Career Technical Education (CTE) is a program of study that involves a multiyear sequence of courses that integrate core academic knowledge with technical and occupational knowledge to provide students with a pathway to postsecondary education and careers. CTE encompasses 15 content area standards in current or emerging professions—from agriculture, building trades, business, engineering, health careers, and more. This presentation includes facilities design implications for CTE, including case studies to support the SFPD content standards.
| | 1.5.07 Catalog of School Reform Models | | Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory | 2001 | Link to Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory website | | This catalog lists a variety of School Reform Models.
| | 1.5.06 The Importance of a Good Educational Specification | | Rainforth and Grau Architects | February 2002 | 15 pages | | The Educational Specification process is described in this presentation including such topics as leadership, committee organization, unique issues and philosophies.
| | 1.5.05 Summary of Modernization Specifications SFPD 4.08 | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | November 1999 | 8 pages | | The California Administrative Code (CAC) of Regulations, Title 5, Section 14030(a), requires the preparation of educational specifications for school plans. Since modernization projects are limited in funding, development of comprehensive educational specifications is not required.
| | 1.5.04 The Value of District Standards | | Jim Watts, Program Manager, San Diego Unified School District | February 2000 | | | This presentation is a general discussion of the benefits of preparing district standards prior to commencing a large building program. Standards created were education specifications, design guidelines and guide specifications. Discussion presented the benefits from the perspective of the district, the designer and program management.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery.
| | 1.5.03 Educational Specifications and Requirements – Elementary Schools | | Riverside Unified School District | 2000 | 23 pages | | This sample document is an excellent source of information on what Educational Specifications for an elementary school should be.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery. | | 1.5.02 The Form of Reform: School Facility Design Implications for California Educational Reform | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | 1997 | Must be purchased from CDE website | | This publication addresses how the learning environment can be shaped to support educational reform objectives and lays out the process for linking the educational program to the school facility.It also features several illustrations of schools that received design awards as well as floor plans of new schools.
(120pp.) Item No. 1355 - $18.50
| | 1.5.01 Educational Specifications: Linking Design of School Facilities to Educational Program | | CDE/School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) | 1997 | Must be purchased from CDE website | | The Educational Specifications document is the vehicle by which educators transmit the curriculum and the local instructional program to the architect, who then translates that information into a beautiful, economical, and functional educational environment. This first publication in the series is designed to help school districts develop specifications based on a fundamental principle of modern architecture; that is, form follows function. The publication lays out the process for developing a state-of-the-art Educational Specification, inlcuding suggested procedures and a model formal.
(120pp.) Item No. 1352 - $18.50
|
|
|
