Tabled until next week.
Turkish Student Assoc:
-This Saturday they are celebrating Republic Day, expecting 45 grad students. Will be in Tresidder in front of the court. Request is $450 food and $25 event services. Recommendation is $450 food and $25 event services, total $475. It is on the calendar. Voting, passes unanimously.
-Asking for $25 to cover the fee for using the Black Community Center so they can run classes and square dancing there. Recommendation is $25 event services, total is $25. The classes are every Sunday. It is $25 for the whole quarter. Voting for $25 event services, passes unanimously.
-Here to ask for $300 for Halloween mixer for LGBTQ students, on Friday before the Rains Halloween party. Recommendation is $125 food $160 alcohol and $15 event services, in total $300. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Ballroom Dance Team:
-Social dance event on Nov 3 (Halloween Dance Party), asking for $600 event food. Event will be from 8pm-midnight, expect over 60 grad students to attend the event. Recommendation is $600 food. Terence says the event description on the event page is not in English. And it does not indicate that it is from Stanford Ballroom Dance team. Isa says they have to put in descriptions about what their events will entail, including dinner and dancing. Isa also says that they might have problems with alcohol funding later. Voting on $600 on the condition that the expanded descriptions be put up at the end of the meeting. Second event is for San Jose State competition, Nov. 19, asking for registration fee for competition, 8 couples (16 ppl) attending the competition, it is $35 for each couple, asking for $560 for registration fees. The funding guidelines say that we do not fund off-campus registration fees, so the recommendation is $0. Isa asks what they have done in other years. Terence asks if they are getting funds from any other place. They say they also want to get funding from ASSU for the undergrads participating in competition. Gabby asks if there’s anything else from the event that we can pay for, like food or something. There are membership dues for the group, about $5-10 per quarter. There is also an entry fee for the competition to watch, which is $5. GSC is not voting on funding this.
Stanford Biosciences Assoc:
-3 events. One is Fall BBQ, secondi s Holiday party, last is Spring BBQ. They hold this annually for several years. Total amount is $6000. For the 2 BBQs, it’s about 2.5k for each BBQ and about $1000 for holiday party. In prev years, each BBQ have had 200-300 ppl attend, on Dean’s lawn, open to everybody. Bringing students together on the biomedical campus. They are asking for $1300 food and $700 alcohol $500 event services for the BBQs, total $2500 x 2 (for the 2 BBQs). For the holiday party, they are asking for $500 food, 450 alcohol, 50 event services, total $1000. This is their quota for the whole year. Fall BBQ is this Friday, holiday party is on Dec 8, and spring BBQ is May 19. $500 event services is going toward the grill costs and for renting it, there is an invoice for this. They are doing the holiday party in the Fairchild Atrium. There is an RSVP link to gauge how many people will come, will be on the calendar link. Terence offers support for their events. Voting in block for all 3 events for $6000. Voting, passes unanimously.
Polish Student Assoc:
-They sent their request late, so not included in the agenda. Asking for funding for BBQ event on Nov 11, Polish Independence day, applied for $300 food, $100 alcohol, and $10 gas used for transportation. Terence says we do not fund gasoline for personal use, only for zipcars. Recommendation is $300 food and $100 alcohol. They expect about 30-40 grad students and some undergrads. Voting on $400 recommendation, passes unanimously.
Dutch Student Assoc: Budget modification request:
-Moving $273.36 from alcohol to food line item for their summer BBQ. Voting for budget modification, passes unanimously.
African Entrepreneurship budget modification:
- Last week they asked for $475 for their opening event, they got $150 for event services but the actual amount on the quote ($373.23) is higher so they are moving money into event services from food. They are getting $525 for ASSU on food. They are moving $225 from food to event services. Voting on this transfer, passes unanimously.
Housing Meeting with Land Building & Real Estate (LBRE), R&DE, and GLO
LBRE is here. Ken Hsu from GLO office; Rodger Whitney and Jocelyn Breeland from R&DE ; Brian Shaw, Shari Libicki, Catherine Palter, Laura Goldstein, Susan Mineta from LBRE. GSC makes introductions. Stanford Daily is here too.
Terence thanks LBRE for working with students so far. Asks if there are any updates they can give on the timeline of what the appeal means, and what the current trajectory of the project is. Catherine says, county staff takes the appeal, writes a staff report to consider that, they are targeting it for Nov 17 meeting in San Jose at 1:30pm. When you get to the hearing, the Stanford planner for the county will give a staff report, they will take public comments, and the planners will assess whether or not it was appropriate that the ASA approved the project or not. It might slip date-wise, but right now maybe assume that it will happen on Nov 17. They will make the decision right there at the meeting. Rodger asks, what’s going to be the possibility of the role that the GSC can play at that hearing, is there anything that we can tell them about how that might look or work? Catherine says there’s a couple of ways to give input, we can write a letter to the planners, or show up at the hearing (there’s a card you can fill out if you want to talk, 2-3 mins). At this point, it might be great if a couple of people can come and speak, or to send a letter. If a lot of people show up, what might happen is that a couple of representatives can talk and the rest can just show their support. Yiren, will GSC stand as a third party, or stand in as either parties? Catherine says GSC will just be public comment. However, anything done by this organization in a letter that speaks from this organization (GSC) will have more weight than usual. Gabby talks about her experiences being a CA last year, where she was living in housing areas that will be demolished for this new project. From the very beginning to now, she went to all of the housing meetings, and she wants to say that it seems that we do this project now because the students who are not privileged enough are sometimes living in dangerous situations. In her experience, the university really listens to all the students. She talks more about her experience through this housing development process. She doesn’t want a few concerns to stop this project from moving forward.
David introduces the background on the technical issues surrounding the BIM that has been discussed at the past few GSC meetings. Laura says, the idea that the design will be done on paper is wrong. BIM is a 3D modeling software. They use it on many of the projects. It is a software that they have found is most effective when contractors and subcontracts own it, and use it to coordinate their designs. It is very efficient, allows them to prefabricate much of the work in a shop and bring things in to be assembled here. It is much less nail-pounding and noise making, because it limits things done on site and move it to the factory. What they tend to do is to use it mid-design. The architect will use 3D modeling, not full BIM, as they’re deciding big picture design, it is too soon to include all of those layers. It looks pretty with the designs, but the design might not be well developed at that step yet. As they hire the rest of the team members, it is hard to find any team members that don’t design in BIM because they all work with the industry standard. They haven’t hired all of their contractors yet, they can’t guarantee anything, but it is likely that all of them will be using BIM. Isa says, she is in structural engineering, the concern is that it is a big project, they were concerned why it wasn’t being used so early on, and maybe it’s not being used to its full potential? Some examples that were cited is that, for Kennedy, there may have been some measurement errors that might have been discovered in BIM that could have been avoided. For the people who work a lot in BIM, it seems it wasn’t being used to its full capacity, and also in early design stage, this model can be used to check many site options, and doing design iterations, she knows it’s a very time intensive field to do these iterations, if you have a flexible model, it is easier to make changes, and what we were led to know by these students who were making the appeal is that, from what Stanford presented at the county, it didn’t seem like they had used BIM in any capacity. Laura says, when construction is starting, they have so much to do before they get to the actual building of the buildings, they would start utility work, clearing the site, digging the garage, before they get there. They haven’t developed the building design to that level yet. But the early design has, which can take them through this appeal process with the county. Jennie asks, would there be some time for any students who are interested to look at the BIM and see? Laura says yes, what would they want to see? Jennie says, people have concerns about how space is used, is it the most efficient usage of floor space to functionality? Also perhaps people just have strong interests in looking at them. Laura says, they have quite a few experts in R&DE who have done it for years and years, who work with feedback about unit types etc, who give a lot of input into the design process. The problem is involving people at the right time, and getting to consensus. The more people you involve in the process, the longer it takes. Wants clarity on the designs to be communicated well. Jennie says, maybe set up a platform where people can look at the design and submit comments. Isa says, in Kennedy the closets were too small for hangers. Jennie says, just so that there is an avenue for this. Laura says, if you want to build a building on campus, it’s hard to coordinate between the different entities that are involved. It’s that kind of compromise, and it takes a lot of time to plan that. They want clarity on how to work through these comments. Rodger says, there’s been a lot of feedback over the 8 months about these things such as the closets, which have been incorporated into the design. A lot has been taken into account from the students up to this point. This is premised on what happens to Kennedy. All 3 units were designed from feedback from the students. Laura says, if you made a comment and it didn’t go anywhere, it might be frustrating for the people putting in the comments. Jennie says yes, and there does seem like a middle ground to make the design public so that people can look at it, even if there is no avenue for submitting comments, so that people who know about it can look at the designs if they want. Gabby asks, is there a reason why they don’t put it up? Laura says, there are more codes and inputs that go into the design than you can imagine, the more people you add to a design team, she would add a month of iterations for every person on the committee. Bringing all the information from these sources like R&DE, they considered their inputs on what students want, and put that in the design. Jennie says that nothing is ADA accessible. Rodger says that the floor plan adheres to the requirements. Jennie says, for example, if they had expanded the bathrooms by another feet, then maybe you could’ve put in bookshelves in there for storage. Rodger says an issue that was raised is that furnishings / fixtures for the units, which is different from the dictation about floor design and requirements from the county that are fixed. Terence says, he’s hearing that BIM and other state of the art techs are being incorporated. Laura says, they haven’t started on that yet, that’s more related to the contractors. Isa says, how it was presented to her was, the way they design wasn’t BIM, when it comes to placing the building, the method that was being used is not the best. Laura says she is not clear how the BIM model could help the placement of the building. BIM is a fantastic tool for the details of the units, but not for the siting. You can use BIM on any site. Terence says maybe we can give feedback about the furnishing / fixtures in the rooms when the time is appropriate. Rodger says sure. Laura says, right now they only have the architectural design, a little bit of the structural design. This model will be turned over to the contractor, who will then convert to 3D model for their use. Isa asks, once they do the structural design, because of the placements of existing things, if people want to comment on the changes in the room size, that makes it quite difficult? Laura says none of that is fixed in place yet. The ASA approval mostly regards the exterior, the form and the model shape, but it’s not fully designed. They have many months of design left to go, BIM is an iterative process and it will take many months. Gabby says that the comments have been taken into account for a long time already.
Terence pivots to the parking situation, can Brian give an update on parking? Brian says, nothing has changed since the project was originally proposed and presented 6 months ago. He can reiterate the numbers. There will be 1400 space, 2 story garage underneath the building. Roughly 400 spaces in the footprint of the building project that will need to be taken offline to build the project, so there will be a net increase of about 700 spaces once it’s done. Because they’re early in the project they don’t know how much surface parking they will get back yet, so this is a fuzzy number because of where they are. There will be some surface parking that will come back, however. Garage is more finite because it has to be as big as the building. Jennie says, main questions and concerns are, due to the increase in housing units, would additional parking spaces mean that there is a lower number of parking spots per unit? Brian says yes, EV is over supplied, they did a study last winter about parking utilization. EV has the lowest parking utilization of anywhere on campus, it is under 75% at all times of the day. This includes all the ES designated areas within EV. There are hot spots, such as next to Kennedy, but other areas in the villages with very low utilization. They treat the parking permits in EV as an entire district, these are the spaces they are counting as supplies to people with ES permits. During construction, EV will become more similar to other parts of campus that have higher parking utilization, and maybe during construction people have to walk farther from where they are parked to go back to their unit, which they will have to do anyway due to the fact that there will be constructions going on. They are evaluating having parking zones with R&DE once they know more about what’s going on, so people with children or stuff can get close to the building for 20-30 minutes, and they will need to relocate their vehicle to a permanent parking space. Jennie says that the families that they talked to said that is not realistic. Brian says it is not physically possible for some of the units to have any parking at all due to safety concerns from the construction. Parking will have to be at a distance. People will have to change their parking habits during the construction. It will become similar to what people experience on western side of campus, which is currently much worse than EV. Jennie asks, are there plans for easing the pains of transitions, such as increasing zipcar, etc? Brian says yes, they’ve discussed that at length with R&DE over the summer, it was communicated to EV people during the summer. They currently have zip cars, they have the most zipcars of any university in the world at Stanford, they will look at providing zipcar credits to EV people who do not have a parking permit. They are also looking at Enterprise rent a car collaborations, and maybe discounted memberships to delivery services such as Google Shopping Express (maybe a long-term thing if they seem to work well). These are some things that they have talked about, but still open to other ideas. Once they have a better idea of when construction will begin, then these benefits of the Transportation and Management program will begin. Gabby says, parking is one of these things that people will have to compromise on, and even if the end parking number per unit is slightly lower, people will have a safer place to live on campus and that is worth a lot. Rosie says, she had 2 related questions. One, what extent are they considering subsidies on mass transit to encourage students not to bring cars? Secondly, have they considered creating a more distant parking zone and offering discounted price for parking if people choose to use that zone? Brian says, they’ve talked about both of those things. The parking issue, there wasn’t support for that because they have a permit with the county that restricts the number of cars on campus, this would go against that permit. The challenge with transit is the rules from the agencies by which they can discount transit. In particular, Caltrain and VTA eco pass would not be able to leverage their discounts to people who live on campus. These are not being presented as options today. Rodger says, Brian has been open and supportive in this process, they need to find out what they will learn from this as they move forward on this, they will figure out and adjust the program as it runs. The other thing is that, the question regarding families, the one thing they can say is that the less dense part of the village that will stay intact (the north side where the families generally live) will probably not have too many parking issues because it is far away from the rest of the housing. But this is only anecdotally. Brian says nothing is set in stone yet, some will be policies and some is funding, and if they find that they need to do something else then they can do that because it is not set in stone. He wants to hear about things that can be improved, wants ideas. Isa has 2 questions. First, she read somewhere that some families suggested to create a new permit area for parkings that are nearest to family housing, it seems reasonable, although it seems they ran into difficulties in talking to admins about that. Brian says, they don’t typically provide discounts or additional parking capabilities for people based on status, except people with disabilities. But this has been tried in the past, there were problems with folks using spaces inappropriately, was causing turmoil in the village and they don’t want to revisit this situation with family parking. Parking in EV is arguably already discounted, it’s already a decent rate, something additional would need to be charged higher appropriately. If they want this, this would require people to pay more, he is not proposing that because he doesn’t want this to be a burden for people who live there already. However, if they do want to do this, this would be the path they would take. Rodger says, another thing that they talked with families about, it is an underutilization of parking to give a certain group in an underutilized areas even more benefits, exacerbating parking problems that are there. In the past, wars would break out over thing, families would get upset because people would park in these spots regardless. They are trying to balance the project out between all the different affected people who all have to share this area. Anything that goes much further will make the problems even worse in the short or long term. Isa says, another question she has is, the EV residents will get parking, but what about Rains and other housing units? Brian says that anyone with the ES parking permits then they would be eligible for these benefits. This does not affect to grad residences on the west side because they don’t need them, so it is an EV centric effort. Terence says, would there be any way of P&TS to provide a map to highlight where ES cars can park? Brian says yes they can do that, they can have a large blown up map to show where they can park. Currently the map has the highlighted parking areas, will make sure this is clarified. Rodger says, there will be enough parking to meet the demand as it current stands, it may not be as completely adjacent as they are right now, but by the number of parking it should serve the needs. Jennie says, one thing she recently saw from a CA is the possibility of students who have bought full year parking permits, could they have the option of selling back their permits at half price, and bring their cars off campus? Brian says they always encourage people to turn in their permits all the time. They will work to have communications out to students about actions that people can take, when more is known about the dates when the construction will take place. Winter break is coming and the project won’t get going until post-winter break, so December would be an ideal time to communicate to people that they might consider driving their cars home and leave it there, come back to campus and they will refund them their permits for the rest of the year. This has been the policy the whole time, but they will communicate it out to students probably in December. Sam asks, what metrics do they use for parking demand? Do they know what the ratio is? Brian says the current parking space/bed ratio is 0.56. Sam asks, how much will the ratio change? Brian says that they will add like 1400 spots there. For example, at UCLA they built a parking garage for a residence that was severely underutilized. Here at Stanford we use data and do the math, and plan from that. Parking originally wanted it to be smaller, but ended up at around 1400 based on what could be built on site. They believe that the parking utilization in EV will continue to go down, the graduate millennials are using cars at a lower rate. Catherine says, they also took into account people from people such as College Terrace regarding the number of parking spots. The parking ratio used to be 0.75 (in 2003), after the project is completed it is expected to be 0.61, which is higher than today’s ratio, and they will also put in all these incentives to encourage people to keep cars off campus. David asks if they will build a roundabout at the corner of Serra and Campus Drive. Brian says yes, the part of the space in the roundabout is cleared now that the gas station is gone. Especially when you have so many people living in that corner, people need to navigate that intersection safely. The roundabouts that have been put in have worked great so far. Laura says, timeline of the roundabout will fit into the logistics of the housing, probably summer of 2018 is the tentative date. Brian says there will also be transit interfaces nearby so that busses are more easily accessed, as well as bike lanes and similar.
(Note from Susan Mineta, Assistant Vice President of LBRE: The Grad Housing project will displace existing parking and add underground and surface spaces with a net increase of about 700 spaces. The net increase of 700 spaces will yield a supply of .61 spaces/bed when the project opens. This is more than the current parking demand ratio of 0.56 and we expect the demand to drop further in the future due to national trends and due to the additional programs that will be developed to support graduate students living without their own cars on campus.)
Terence says, another part of the appeal was regarding the safety, or workers and people living nearby. Are there any concerns with lead, air pollution, or anything from the construction that could affect the construction workers or the community nearby? Shari says, lead is a regulated substances when it comes to building demolishing, there are EPA regulations on how that must be handled that are then transferred down to the state. Cal OSHA has regulations on how lead abatement is handled. Any building pre-1978 (which these all are) have to go through appropriate lead abatement techniques assuming there is lead based paint, or if paint is tested to show that there is no lead based paint then it can be treated as a regular demolition. Asbestos is also regulated, there are very strict regulations on how asbestos can be handled. If there is suspicions of asbestos, it has to be tested, abated before the building is demolished, this is to protect the workers and the general public. The third concern of diesel particulates, they conducted a thorough study on exposure to diesel for off campus community, the results show that they are under half of the acceptable threshold, which is good, and less than 1/10 of the national air quality standards (PM=2.5). PM 2.5 is a particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 microns, which is the finest particulate regulated by the EPA. Shari also talks more about local particulate regulations. Studies have also shown that even small increments of fine particulate matter can cause problems, so the local air quality agency have put up standards that Stanford works with, that accommodate the reduction of small particulate matter. Isa says, a year or 2 ago, it appeared on the Stanford Daily in June 2015 that, during the 2013 demolition of the Kennedy housing, there were some paint chips that flew to one of the family courtyards, she wonders if they have comments on that. Shari can’t comment on the accuracy of the article, but she can say that if regulations are followed, nobody should have exposure to lead based paint or paint chips. Jocelyn says, when the Daily article was written they did provide them with info, at the time they during the project that an EV resident notified authorities regarding paint chips, which were removed and tested, and found no lead or hazards from the paint chips was found, and at no time was there a threat to the community. Rodger said that, at the time, anyone who was concerned was offered free testing of their children if they want, and they worked to address all the concerns of the families. The person who raised the concern then is the same person who is raising it now. Sam asks about earthquake safety. Laura says, they have a Stanford specific seismic guideline, which is more restrictive than the code, because they have an interest in limiting any damage to buildings. The code provides a building that is safe, and they go farther to limiting even more damage beyond that. Pau says, he is surprised at how open the LBRE people are, it is very different from what they heard from the students who came with the concerns. Gabby says, there was communication failure when talking to these people. Jocelyn says, one of the students was a family representative that met with R&DE and LBRE last winter, they were actively engaged in these conversations, and much of the information that was shared today was known back then. Rodger says he’s been in several meetings where these questions have been raised and been resolved, and then at later meetings the same questions would come up again. But these meetings have been answered many times.
Jennie asks, with the appeal process, does Stanford get to file a response to the appeal prior to the decision, and then can either party appeal the decision again? Catherine says they plan to submit a factual letter to the appeals people so they can understand. The county staff member is going to look at the narrow box about the ASA findings, so they want to provide facts about that. The way the process works, you get there and the decision made by the appeals commission can be appealed by anybody if they choose to. Jennie says, the response that they will put together, can that be made public or to the GSC? Catherine says yes they could if GSC thinks it is useful. David asks about who to write letters to at the Santa Clara county regarding the misleading petitions that were used in the ASA appeal? Susan says they can get the information to Ken regarding who and how to contact the appeals.
Isa says, she wants to clarify on this article about the lead paint, did Stanford for an independent testing on this paint chip? Rodger says yes, this went through a very careful and independent entity who ruled that it is completely safe. Isa says, the article didn’t say that Stanford independently tested this. For this new project, it sounds like anything will be independently tested too. Laura says, there is also a Stanford department who will be working with LBRE on hazardous materials, who was also involved in the process back then regarding the lead chip incident.
Isa says, final comment is about Lyman which is the only residence on west side of campus, the thing that happened with parking a few years ago was that Stanford created new parking on the side next to the farm back then. She feels a little left out because Lyman is the only grad residences on the west side of campus, it seems unfair that all EV will get access to credits, google shopping express, that Lyman residents don’t have, she’s putting it out there for consideration that everybody who lives on campus housing can get these benefits. Rodger says that this has to go back to Brian for consideration. Gabby says, it’s hard for any publications to get everything right, don’t rely too hard on the Daily for facts.
Terence says, to wrap up, it sounds like the project is using BIM, we heard a lot from Brian about parking and they sound very receptive to ideas, and also there is a commitment to inform students in advance, and regards to the safety it sounds like there will be a lot of oversight. Ken hopes we get a real sense of spirit here for the LBRE folks to provide graduate students great housing here on campus, and we can also see the impact that students can take outside of Stanford on the project, so he will work with Susan to come up for ways for GSC to show support of housing outside of campus. Ken will be working with GSC chairs and members to show our support and to fight for the project.
Title IX Training and Feedback
Terence sent out a grad wide email about it. 6% of students still have not begun the training yet. The enrollment hold should not impact people who are applying to graduate this quarter. If students have not completed yet, will see hold on their account soon. Survey for students to get feedback, David will spearhead the effort. Sam recommends we back up the hold for an extra quarter in the future.
Potential survey topics:
- How they took it / understood it
- Did people actually listen to the videos, or just skip?
- Technical difficulties
- Communication issues surrounding the survey
Bill for Funding Committee Changes
Isa sent out the new version that implemented Kali’s changes last meeting. Basically it’s to make sure that, even if they don’t have an invoice, if they’re buying things past the event services cap then they come with a list of hard numbers of item estimates so we can see they’ve done their homework. On the retroactive funding, Yiren says that any bylaws if it is to be amended then it would be a 2/3 vote, even for a guideline which is an addition to the bylaws. So retroactive funding never passed in the first place. We table this bill and vote on this next week.
Social Event Updates
All of the event with the quarter, Thanksgiving, Holiday Party, are under way and we will get an update next week.
- Jennie says fill out the Doodle for the retreat!
- Isa says, other R1 university grad students are unionizing, hasn’t heard stuff from Stanford yet, but keep it in mind. Gabby says: her old school had a student union with hella militant people leading it! Who forced strikes and stuff!!
- Isa says, last Monday she was at a CAPS advisory meeting, and they are trying to reach out to grad students more nowadays. They are trying to make the process as painless as possible. They are trying to figure out how to better communicate with grad students, maybe through CAs or departments.
- Jennie got a survey about the parking situation from her CAs, it was a bad survey. It will come up for discussion next week.
- Pau says, we just got new equipment! 2 speakers and the DJ set.
- Long discussion regarding how to structure GSC meetings. Potential options include trimming VSO portion so that certain VSOs do not have to attend GSC meetings, moving GSC open portion of the meeting to earlier in the meeting, and other discussions.