post occupancy evaluation - ucsf helen diller family...

Helen Diller Family Cancer Research Building

Photo (s)

Post Occupancy EvaluationReport of Findings

January 7, 2011

Post Occupancy Evaluation

January 7, 2011 contents

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Findings

II. Post-occupancy Evaluation Purpose

III. Process and Methodology

IV. Translational Health Sciences

V. Facility Overview

VI. Analysis and Findings

VII. Conclusions and Recommendations

VIII. Appendix

Post Occupancy EvaluationJanuary 7, 2011

Building Description The Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) houses the brain, kidney and prostate cancer research departments, as well as the UCSF Cancer Research Institute, whose 15 major laboratories investigate the basic biological mechanisms of cancer. At 162,000 gross square feet, the five-story building features two interlocking L-shaped wings, one containing research labs, the other containing offices for principal investigators and research fellows. The two L-shaped wings enclose a five-story sky-lit atrium in the residual space between them. Open staircases and pedestrian bridges are located through the multi-level atrium with the goal of promoting building circulation while providing researchers and students with ample public function space. Offices for principal investigators and fellows in the north and east wings are clad in aluminum and glass curtain-wall, reflecting the more public and open nature of their function. Laboratories and support spaces are located at the south and west wings, which tie the building into the surrounding campus. A vivarium occupies the fifth floor of the research wing. A shared seminar facility located in the level one lobby accommodates 70 occupants, with a pre-function area immediately adjacent. The balance of level one is devoted to building support and mechanical functions. Sculptural enclosures screen rooftop mechanical equipment and exhaust stacks, while mandated setbacks are transformed into cascading terraces that soften and activate the north façade.

Post-occupancy Evaluation SummaryThe Helen Diller Family Cancer research Building is an attractive desirable research building well situated on UCSF’s Mission Bay campus. Its views and well-lit public spaces connecting state-of-the-art BSL-2 laboratories and office space are uplifting to occupants. While the building’s purpose is to optimize synergies of co-located cancer researchers and foster Translational Research, collaboration between groups is comparatively low and not yet at optimal levels of interaction.

Health Safety SecurityEnvironment Health and Safety personnel are very concerned with the potential safety hazard created by the location of emergency showers within 18” of the main electric panels on each floor. Regular testing requires careful placement of plastic sheeting in order to prevent water from spraying onto the panels.Recommended lighting levels at a lab bench and writing desk area are between 75 – 100 foot-candles. Lighting levels measured in the Diller lab are between 18 and 70 foot candles at these areas. Focus Group participants and web survey respondents complained about low lighting levels causing eye strain, fatigue and difficulty seeing close up work.

Summary of Findings


The main entry into the lab is through active equipment corridors, creating congestion when people are entering and exiting while others are accessing freezers or equipment. Occupants report leakage from some equipment into the corridor, causing a slipping hazard. Maintenance personnel report having to change filters much more frequently due to heavy foot traffic along main lab entry.The building meets UCSF desired security protocols.

Function Efficiency & WorkflowSpace allocation of lab to lab support square footage is within best practice range at 50% lab support to 50% lab. Overall allocation of office square footage to lab square footage is slightly low, at 32%. Best practice is 35% office square feet tooverall lab square feet. Insufficient corridor width clearance prevented a significant quantity of workstations from being installed in the office wings during move-in. This resulted in a shortage of office seats. Wet lab and dry lab occupants are frustrated with the lack of office seats.The open lab is very dense, with the lab module width at 10’-6”, narrow corridors and lab write-up in the lab. The organization of lab components is such that lab write-up spaces located at the end of benches are directly across from busy sinks where the queue blocks the main traffic flow of the lab. Also, the lab write-up is arranged back to back, creating a bottleneck for researchers moving from bench to support space. This is not optimal for the variety of focused and collaborative activities performed in the space. Occupants assigned to lab desks inside the lab reported difficulty concentrating and performing focused work; resulting in a reported lack of efficiency. Most requested space to add to the building: library or study.Occupants are very satisfied with the access to daylight, open “community” stairwell and proximity of lab support to lab areas.

Infrastructure Engineering and MaintenanceThe Diller Building was designed to meet LEED equivalent performance. Aggressive targets were set for energy savings. While user satisfaction with thermal comfort ranges from “perfect for me” to “very uncomfortable”, measured temperatures are within the desired range of 68 and 73 degrees. Air quality is good; however, drafty in some areas. Occupants report that the capacity of sinks, process gasses, and electric and data ports in labs is appropriate. More 208V power is needed in the equipment corridors. Power capacity is limited for future expansion.

Summary of Findings


Vivarium design concept providing one procedure room adjacent to one holding room is optimal. Vivarium personnel are very happy with the design. The ABSL3 lab in the vivarium is not sealed and is unable to meet certification due to several issues. Vivarium is easily maintained via overhead catwalk and external access. Maintenance on most major equipment in the building is satisfactory. However, access to fan coil units for maintenance is difficult. Psychological Social CulturalThe Helen Diller Building serves as a vehicle to attract researchers and funding. The visual and physical connection from the entry through the building by way of the connecting stair creates a feeling of openness and positive energy. The choice of materials, color and careful attention to design detail supports UCSF’s desired image.The break rooms are very well designed and ideally situated for breaks and informal interaction. Equipped with a mix of seating, food / beverage source, communication tools, visual access to public spaces and information centers, they act as a destination for floor occupants. Informal meeting spaces intended for team collaboration are too open and casual for meetings. These spaces are used for break, cell phone calls and touch down. Evaluation participants concurred that there is inadequate space for team interaction and information sharing within appropriate proximity to the lab spaces. The reported frequency of informal interaction within groups is very good. The frequency of informal interaction between lab groups is low. This makes team identity, knowledge sharing and There is also a general lack of knowledge and awareness by building occupants about who is in the building, what lab groups are doing and where people are located. Since optimal neighborhood size is 20 – 25 people, overall lab capacity of 65 seats “seems a bit daunting with respect to informal interaction”.

Summary of Findings

POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION PURPOSE


January 7, 2011 purpose

The purpose of a post occupancy evaluation:

Solicit opinions from its users about how well a built environment meets their needs.

Assess how well a building performs.

Identify ways to improve building design, performance and fitness for its purpose.

Identify whether the assumptions on which design, construction, and cost decisions were based are justified.


January 7, 2011

The benefits of a post occupancy evaluation:

Conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current evidence in making planning and programmatic decisions.

Creates follow through with buildingmaintenance and operations issues.

Keeps up with industry trends.

Utilizes lessons learned to inform future projects.

Measures and quantifies the success of work space functionality, safety protocols and infrastructureconditions within the work environment.

benefits

METHODOLOGY


January 7, 2011 methodology

Outline of the evaluation process:

I. Plana. Liaison with the client & teamb. Performance criteriac. Plan data collection process

II. Conducta. Focus group discussionsb. Observationc. Web-based survey

III. Analyze data

IV. Applya. Report findingsb. Recommend actionsc. Apply lessons learned to future projects


January 7, 2011

Measurement & Analysis:

Interviews: September 22 and 23, 2010• Facility Maintenance and Operations Group• Lab Management Leader / Core Facility Group • Dry Lab Focus Group•Environmental Health & Safety Group•Director’s Group• Wet Lab PI Group• Post Doc / Graduate Students / Technicians•Vivarium Focus Group

observation & facility tour- 4 building tours & observation sessions

web-based survey: Issued October 15, 2010- issued to all building occupants- 31% response rate

Conduct:

evaluation process


Staff Current occupancy

InterviewParticipants

Web SurveyResponses

CombinedResponse Rate

Administrative 13 3 12

Research, Wet Lab & Core 244 24 47

Research, Dry Lab 21 6 11

Maint., Security & EHS 20 11

Vivarium 6 8 7

Total 304 46 77 40%

participants


Wet Lab

Demographics: web survey respondents

Dry Lab

TRANSLATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE


I II III IV

ANIMALSPEOPLE

Translational

The New ModelScience/Medicine/CommercializationCures and Revenue

Starting PointPatients

ApproachTargeted

DiscoveryFocus on Application

TrialsRecruit Subjects

$LAB

ANIMALS

DevelopmentTechnology Transfer

Internal Development

Post WWII Growth of Science

The Old ModelScience for Science SakeResearch Funding/Rankings

Starting PointBasic Science

ApproachShotgun

$I II III IV

ANIMALSPEOPLE

ResearchFocus on Knowledge

TrialsRecruit Subjects

LABANIMALS

DevelopmentVALLEY OF DEATH

The Process


I II III IV

ANIMALSPEOPLE

How do we accelerate the process?

Clinical Trial Process


Translational Research: Kit of Parts

Cure

Simulation

Patient Care

Research & Development

Hospital | Out-Patient CareVivarium

Core Resources

Lab

Auditorium | Classrooms

Clinical Trial Core Resources

Medical Education


Summary: 12 Principles of Successful Translational Organizations

1. Top Tier Commitment

2. Identify Clear Stake in the Continuum

3. Strong Translational Culture

4. Partnerships

5. Encourage & Reward

6. Strong Internal Multi-disciplinary

Connectivity

7. Multi-level Knowledge Transfer

8. Leverage Expertise

9. Rapid Response to Change

10. Integrate Multi-level Education

11. Seek Bold Advancements in

Health & Science

12. Branding!

Our extensive research on Translational Health Sciences shows that these characteristics are consistent across leading translational organizations experiencing advanced and accelerated translation into patient benefit.

FACILITY OVERVIEW


January 7, 2011 background

Project Type: Research/Academic Laboratory

Key Components: BSL-2 Laboratories, Faculty Office, Atrium, Auditorium, Vivarium, ABSL-3

Area gross sq ft: 162,000

Population: 250 research and administrative staff15 vivarium staff

16,640 Cages (max capacity)

Occupancy Date: April 2009


January 7, 2011

infrastructureengineeringmaintenance

knowledge transfersocial

cultural

functionefficiencywork flow

healthsafety

security

.3

1world class translational

research facility 2 fosterinteraction

among researchers

best and most efficient use of space 4flexible

research environment

project goals

Performance Criteria :

Post Occupancy EvaluationJanuary 7, 2011Diller

Advantages:• Co-Located programs with

single identity and mission.• Vivarium below mechanical

pace for ease of maintenance.

• The atrium brings people together for functions.

• Ease of knowledge transfer and ability to share resources between floors.

Challenges:• No program space on the first

floor.• Not enough office space.• Perception that atrium takes

away from potential lab space.

Office

Laboratory

Atrium

Seminar

Vivarium

Lobby1

2

3

4

5OfficeLaboratory

Support

OfficeLaboratorySupport

Support Office

Building Organization: section

work styles

This section describes findings about the manner in which occupants of the Diller

Cancer Research Building work. It is important for the

building to support general, team and individual work styles in conjunction with

research goals.


Admin support

Clinician/Clinical Researcher

Manager/Supervisor

Lab tech

Post-doc/Grad Research Assistant

PI/Professor/Program Leader

Physician

Scientific Staff

Lab

Office/Wkstn

Core Resource Space

Meeting Room

Informal Team / Break Area

Colleague's Space

Shared Support

Other Campus Sites

Traveling

Other Spaces in building

Where?

Who?52% 17%

50% 20%

10% 56%

64%

39% 36%

68% 18%

8%

10%

9%

51% 20% 7%

77%

20%

17%

16%

Time spent


Quantity of Lab Occupant Responses

Agree or Disagree: Your assigned individual work space supports your ability to perform quiet focused work as effectively and efficiently as possible>

KEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS


Takes into account the following:

1. Original Project Goals

2. Standard POE Performance Criteriai. Health, Safety and Securityii. Function, Efficiency and Workflowiii. Engineering, Infrastructure and Maintenanceiv. Psychological, Social and Cultural

3. Experience & Best Practices

Findings


Project Goals

• Provide a state-of-the-art facility that can co-locate scientists investigating cancer’s basic biological mechanisms to facilitate Translational Research

• Create design elements to foster interaction and communication among cancer researchers enabling laboratory and clinical researchers to collaboratemore effectively

• Develop a building to optimize efficient use of space in support of program design requirements

• Provide a flexible research environment that can easily reconfigure when program needs transform

Summary of Findings

Goal: Provide a state-of-the-art facilitythat co-locates scientists investigating cancer’s basic biological mechanisms to facilitate Translational Research.

health, safety & security engineering & maintenance function & efficiency attract & retain


Safety Features

Recessed Safety Shower

• Recessed safety showers are located between lab & lab support entry for consistency & easy accessibility indicated as red circles on plan.

• For lab support with doors, a recessed eyewash is located at back wall indicated by yellow circles on plan, but becomes inaccessible by chairs at bio safety cabinets.

Typical lab floor

Recessed Eyewash


Safety Features

Safety Showerwithout escutcheon

Safety Showerwith escutcheon

• Recessed safety shower heads were installed without an escutcheon. Monthly testing damages the adjacent dry wall, peels & becomes a breeding ground for mold growth.

• HDR CUH2A coordinated a site visit by Water Saver & provided a mock-up for the correct installation for EH&S to review. Water Saver provided UCSF with additional escutcheons for installation.

Typical lab floor


Safety, Security & Health Summary

Tight entry corridorCard reader entries

• Card entries provide secure perimeter from lobby

• Narrow corridor entries give way to people bumping into each other.

• Seismically brace all tallcabinets & equipment.

• Central PPE strategies encourage people to wear protective gear.

• Increased bench space would limit people from having to bend over to use equipment.

• Do not locate electrical panels at safety showers.

• Improve ergonomics through height adjustable bio-safety cabinets.

• Include EH&S earlier in designs for review, comments & approvals.

Seismic anchor tall items

PPE strategy More lab support bench Elec. panels at showers


Organization: vivarium

procedure & holding• Ratio of one holding room to one

procedure reduces contamination risk & simplifies coordination usage.

• Interstitial space improves ceiling accessibility for maintenance.

• Bedding accumulates in disposal pipe to compactor, so tunnel wash needs to run 10 minutes longer to prevent clogs.

• Tunnel wash reset button is located on 1st floor, staff member has to go down to 1st floor reset & then gown back in.

• Condensation canopy weep not connected to drain.

• Minimize drain locations for cart steering

proc

edur

e &

ho

ldin

g

Procedure Room

Holding Room Unconnected weep

Floor trenches at doors preferred


The facility has many positive engineering design attributes such as:• Environmentally conscious design targeting LEED equivalent performance. • Use of radiant panels for the office areas and main lobby areas on L1 to minimize

air flow through ducts and save energy.• Dedicated air handling systems based on space types to maximize safety and

minimize energy use. The dedicated systems include:• Office air handlers, Lab air handlers, BSL-3 suite air handlers, Radioisotope

Hood exhaust fans.• The building takes advantage of the campus chilled water and steam loops for its

cooling and heating needs.• There is a separate lab waste collection system with monitoring at discharge to

sanitary.• Waterless urinals and low flow fixtures used at restroom.• High pressure and low pressure steam distribution networks.• Proper level of security around the building and in the building.• Effective use of day-lighting to increase comfort and reduce artificial light use.• Lighting controls used throughout to reduce energy demand.• Emergency power back up for critical equipment.• Redundant equipment for critical lab functions (holding room areas)• Safety protocols in place for the safe operations of the labs.• Routing of utilities along a central spine increases adaptability of the labs.

Engineering Capabilities


Participants were asked to indicate their satisfaction with lab utility/engineering with respect to quality, capacity and control. Engineering questions were discussed during focus group meetings and building tours. Highlights of lab engineering satisfaction include:

• Mechanical: The users general perception was that labs were cold. Placement of the thermostat on the return air duct instead of occupied space could be the issue. No issues reported with regards to humidity levels in the labs. The air handlers have been retrofitted with carbon filters to mitigate odors with no major issues reported. Offices can at times run too hot or too cold. The original radiant panel two-pipe system was value engineered to a one-pipe system. Depending on the zoning scheme, some office areas will, therefore, not get the heating or the cooling water needed. There are also noise issue associated with the radiant panels as well as lack of performance and maintenance issues.

• The holding rooms do not appear to have room exhaust. The intent was to use the cage rack exhaust as the exit path for the supply air. But this is an issue when the cages are not in use and not connected to the exhaust system (see photos.) In this scenario, the air supplied to the room is exhausted through the procedure room. The doors are fitted with automatic door bottoms and they are creating a restriction to the air flow needed to maintain proper space pressurization.

Engineering Findings


measured temperatures

73 70

73

• Temperature ranges are within a comfortable level, but the velocity of the of the air coming from the supply creates a drafty experience for those sitting below slot diffusers.

• Occupants in the shade of Smith Cardiovascular Research Building identified that the HVAC does not turn on as often speculating the thermostat is not in the direct sun. The location of the thermostats needs to be assessed as well as the tolerance used around the temperature set point for the labs.

Smith Cardiovascular

Research BuildingN

68

6870

70 69

70

7272

7169


Engineering FindingsParticipants were asked to indicate their satisfaction with lab utility/engineering with respect to quality, capacity and control. Engineering questions were discussed during focus group meetings and building tours. Highlights of lab engineering satisfaction include:

• Plumbing: Plumbing capacity and sink locations are satisfactory. No issues reported with regards to capacity of the gases and DI water supply.

• The quantity of the urinals and toilets in the men’s (1 urinal/1 toilet) and women’s (2 toilets) restrooms appears inadequate for the building occupancy.

• The emergency showers are in some instances located near power panels creating a potential safety hazard and maintenance issue (see photo above.)

• The bedding disposal system works fine most of the time. However, the pneumatic waste conveying tubing leading to the dumpster on level 1 gets blocked near the bedding dispenser (see photo below) requiring periodic disassembling for cleaning.

• The location of the cage wash drains and their relatively steep slopes are a safety issue as some are located in the path of travel for the racks creating the potential for rack overturning.

• The emergency eye wash in the procedure rooms are not properly sealed. Air is escaping through the gaps around the fixture.

Safety shower at electric panel

Pneumatic waste conveying tube


Participants were asked to indicate their satisfaction with lab utility/engineering with respect to quality, capacity and control. Engineering questions were discussed during focus group meetings and building tours. Highlights of lab engineering satisfaction include:

• Electrical: One of the major issues facing the labs is the lack of good lighting. Our survey indicated that the measured foot-candle levels are below the recommended values for the labs. The users perception is that the labs are too dark. The placement of the light sources at the ends of the lab modules (see photos) to provide indirect lighting is highlighted by the users as an opportunity for improvement. Their preference being the use of direct overhead lighting. The lighting controls programming should be re-assessed to insure proper calibration, placement and assignment of light fixtures to the sensors.

• Lab users and maintenance staff are satisfied with electrical capacity and location of power outlets. However, additional 208 volt power is needed in the equipment rooms. Also, not enough emergency power capacity was planned for expansion.

• The office outlets are not properly located in the group rooms.

• Wireless is lacking in the common areas, preventing staff to use them for interaction and meeting spaces.

Engineering Findings

“The darkness of the labs is

depressing.”

Wet Lab Focus Group


measured foot-candles

Smith Cardiovascular

Research Building

• Lighting levels are adequate at southern perimeter for laboratory purposes at bench.

• Lighting levels are inadequate at western perimeter for laboratory purposes at bench where in the shadow of Smith Cardiovascular Research Building.

• Lighting levels at center bench and at write-up desk along main lab aisles are inadequate with the existing lighting design.

• Staff at write-up desk along main aisle & in shadow of SC building are susceptible to eye strain even with supplemental task light usage.

• Light levels in offices are appropriate for office usage.

N

lab 75-100 fc

office 50-75 fc

conference 20-40 fc

corridor 20-30 fc

target illumination levels

2552

70

70

24 30

68

703628

383975

68

2723

181523

30


office

offic

e

• Temperature fluctuation in offices creates discomfort.

• Open fume hoods consumeenergy.

• The laboratory areas can be drafty, possible due to the use of slot diffusers near the perimeter wall.

• The holding rooms do not have proper room exhaust.

• Air capacity and quality is good. Minimal reports of odor in work areas.

NTypical floor: hvac

88% fume hoods were open, 13% closed.


• Researchers enjoy access to daylight in office, the labs and the common areas.

• Light levels in the labs is low. The use of supplemental task lighting is not wide spread and is often ignored. The users cited strong preference for direct overhead lighting instead of the indirect lighting provided.

• New adjacent building created a shading effect, limiting the amount of natural light that comes into the labs.

Typical floor: access to daylightoffice

offic

e

N

light levels in labs is low

adjacent building shades some labs

access to daylight in office is good


Typical floor: ambient environmentim

port

ance

satisfaction

very high

high

neutral

low

very low

very

hig

h

high

neut

ral

low

very

low

Research Labs

very

hig

h

high

neut

ral

low

very

low

Office

impo

rtan

ce

very high

high

neutral

low

very low

User Feedback:Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance each aspect has on their ability to perform their job and then rate their level of satisfaction with the building’s ability to achieve it.

Web survey respondents who work in research space have a neutral to low level of satisfaction with their ambient environment. They rated most ambient aspects as important, except for visual privacy. This feedback is consistent with all lab focus groups. See page for actual light level and temperature readings.Web survey respondents who work in office space were generally satisfied with their ambient environment. They are most satisfied with access to daylight and least satisfied with acoustic privacy. Focus group feedback was consistent, citing poor acoustic properties in wall partitions and excess noise from the hvac system.

access to daylight

general lighting

temperature

acoustic privacy

visual privacy

control of light levels


Has your group benefitted from the co-location of cancer research scientists, wet laboratories, dry laboratories and vivaria to collaboratively address cancer research while benefitting the community and the region?

Co-location

40%

30%

27%

3%


Would you recruit other researchers to work in this building?

“Overall, the Diller building is great…”

“We are very satisfied with the building…”

“We love it here.”

“When 4th floor opens we will have a massive competition for researchers.”

Attract & Retain

Goal: Design elements will foster interaction among cancer researchers, enabling laboratory and clinical researchers to collaborate more effectively.

collaborative spaces frequency of collaboration preferences


Organization: break out areasbreak out

• Conference capacity meets needs ofbuilding occupants.

• Informal meeting space used for breaks.• Third floor terrace is used for bike

storage because it is within the secure building.

• Existing conf space does not provide 3-way calling or Polycom sets.

• Request to add data outlets.• Seating with high tables preferred to

seating at low tables for eating and working.

break out space

bike storagecoordinate electric for intended use.


Organization: office areaoffice

offic

e

• Operable widows are well used.• Insufficient office space – especially

for dry lab researchers.• East corridor width too narrow for

workstations; reducing ratio of office to lab capacity.

• North aisle width is oversized. Recommend populating with team space, communication centers, info hub, branding, etc.

• Furniture is not coordinated with electric wall outlets & floor boxes.

touch-down

operable window at office

oversized aisle width

coordinate electric & furniture

low ratio of office to lab seats

N


Organization: atrium

atrium

• 35% take the elevator65% take the stair

• 72% use east entry28% use west entry

• Identity and location of building occupant groups is vague.

• Recommend directory, signage or electronic kiosk.

• Make good use of abundant open lobby space for Diller occupants.

• Elevation change from walk-off grate to door threshold is a tripping hazard. entry door transition

low pointhigh point

cracks at sealed concrete is common

communicatingstair well utilized

N


Typical floor: teaming

• informal seating areas used for break, “too remote, and uncomfortable seating for quick meetings”

• good traffic flow at atrium corridors

• most traffic circulates within labs• “not enough team space within

the labs.”• “quantity of formal meeting

rooms is good.”• “appreciate the variety of

conference room sizes.”

informal meeting informal meeting

formal meeting


Organization: auditorium

• Auditorium is well used for planned meetings.

• “I wish it were bigger!”• Acoustics in round auditorium are too sound absorbing.

• Contrast between white board and wall paint is not strong enough and has caused some to write on the wall surface.

• Preference of larger capacity room for outreach and group collaboration.

auditorium well utilized

finish compatibility sharp edges


Most requested spaces:

1. Quiet work area for focused work / writing room / quiet space for reading2. Support space for post-docs3. More tissue culture space & cold rooms

Your work environment supports your group’s ability to work together as efficiently and effectively as possible.

19%37%

29%14%

1%

collaboration


Frequency of interaction

1 to 3 low4 to 6 medium7 to 9 high10+ very high

Average number of interactions per week

qty level

Principle 5: The institutional culture should encourage and reward clinical personnel and teams to pursue research interests and research personnel teams to pursue patient- oriented research. Translation should become a goal for a significant percentage of life sciences research and healthcare activities at the institution. This does not mean that fundamental (basic) research should not remain a major goal, it means that opportunities for discoveries from fundamental research should be rapidly and fully explored for translation.

User Feedback:Studies have shown that programs with the highest interaction between groups had the strongest likelihood of advancing and accelerating translation into patient benefit.

Average number of trips into the lab per day:

Admin: 1

Dry Lab: 1

admin research vivarium clinic core bio info maint ops

admin 4 3 1 2 1 1 1

wet lab 3 3 2 2 2 2 1

vivarium 1 1 4 1 1 #DIV/0! 1

dry lab 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

Goal: Optimizeefficient use of spacein support of program design requirements

space utilization floor organization lab module design


TOTAL 162,000 GSF

33,220 GSF

34,130 GSF

29,680 GSF

29,930 GSF

29,180 GSF

3

2

1

4

5

office

vivarium

lab

seminar

Area analysis

lab

lab

office

office

office

support

support

support

support

5,860 GSFP


OFFICE/AMENITY (outside barrier) 2,513 SF

VIVARIUM OFFICE/AMENITY 1,232 SF

VIVARIUM HOLDING 6,398 SF

VIVARIUM SUPPORT 3,848 SF

VIVARIUM STORAGE / CAGE WASH 3,077SF

CIRCULATION 5,150 SF

TOTAL Net 22,218 NSFSHELL & CORE 6,962 SF

TOTAL Gross 29,180 GSF

OFFICE 6,630 SF

LABORATORY 9,115 SF

LABORATORY SUPPORT 7,570 SF

MEETING / CONFERENCE 1,176 SF

BUILDING STORAGE / PANTRY 908 SF


TOTAL Net 28,532 NSFSHELL & CORE 5,593 SF


Area analysis

OFFICE 628 SF

MEETING / CONFERENCE 1,631 SF

BUILDING STORAGE / SUPPORT 4,288 SF

ATRIUM 1,089 SF

VIVARIUM SUPPORT 1,124 SF


TOTAL Net 14,883 NSFSHELL & MECH CORE 14,796 SF


Circulation: 11% of total net

Atrium:7% of total net

Vivarium:56% holding to 44% support

typical research floor (second floor)

ground floor

vivarium (fifth floor)


Admin space 7,806SF

Office, Conference, Break.

Laboratory space 16,685 SF

Laboratory, Lab Support.

TOTAL NET 24,491 USF

60-65%Laboratory support

to Laboratory

Best Practice

32%

68%

Laboratory support 7,570 SF

Laboratory 9,115 SF

TOTAL NET 16,685 USF

45%

55%

35%Office to Laboratory

Best Practice

Area analysis: typical floor


Admin 2,283 SFOffice, Conference, Break, Lockers

Vivarium 14,447 SFHolding rooms, Procedure rooms,

Cage wash, Imaging suite, &

Receiving (level 1).

TOTAL NET 16,730 SF

14%

86%

Procedure / Prep 4,972 SFImaging suite, Procedure rooms,

irradiator, storage, & receiving.

Cage wash 3,077 SFClean & dirty cage wash & cage prep,

Holding 6,398 SF

TOTAL NET 14,447 SF

35%

21%

44%

“Placing dedicated procedure rooms directly adjacent to the animal holding rooms was one of the best ideas in Vivarium planning in the last 20 years” Jim Wilkerson

Area analysis: vivarium

Best Practice:Holding 50% Cagewash 20%Surg/Diag/Treat 10%Dock/Storage 15%Staff 5%

total 100%

Provide a flexible research environment that can easily reconfigure when program needs transform.

lab module design support spaces modifications


10’-6”1:4p

Lab module analysis: planning

Lab Support

LabBench

Circulation

Lab Techs

• Occupants are satisfied with ratio of scientists per bench, lineal feet of bench.

• Access to daylight in labs is very positive.• Difficult for techs to concentrate because of

poor acoustical privacy and tight quarters.• Good proximity of lab to lab support.• Low percentage area dedicated to lab

support causes over-crowded equipment rooms.

• Lab traffic congestion caused by most circulation occurring inside lab rather than at major corridor outside of the lab.

• Open lab supports sharing lab techniques but knowledge sharing between groups is limited due to grant parameters.

• Gap between bench and window used for storage of residential refrigerators, bicycles, supplies and other general items. This area is not used for circulation.

Comments:

3’-0

”


Lab module analysis: planning

Very High

Neutral

Low

High

quantitysinks

airquality

Very Lowquantity

dataports

quantityemergpower

quantityelecports

locationsinks

Satisfaction Level


Lab module analysis: flexibility

Privacy/splash panel is permanently adhered to standing & seated height benches

Telescoping legs at standing and seated height benches are unsuable.

Comments:• Fisher Hamilton’s “Distinction Line”

casework installed at Diller is designed with maximum flexibility and adaptability in lab environments.

• Diller makes good use of the under counter mobile storage carts, which are interchangeable with a knee space or an under counter refrigerator.

• Adjustable overhead shelving is also installed.

• At Diller, however, the standing and seated height work surfaces are permanently affixed to common privacy/splash panel prohibiting the adjustment of work surface height.

• Both dry lab and wet lab researchers who are assigned to lab seats report low satisfaction ratings with work space ergonomics and flexibility.


CONGESTION CREATED BY:

• Write-up seats are located at ends of bench, along main corridor.

• Sinks located in ghost corridor directly align with bench write up space.

• Main lab entry is though equipment corridor and lands at lab write-up area.

Lab module analysis: congestion


Very High

Neutral

Low

High

Lab Module

Data /Electric

LabGases

Very LowSafetyErgonomicsStorage

Importance Satisfaction

Lab AttributesParticipants were asked to indicate their satisfaction with lab attributes. In some cases they were asked to rate the importance of each aspect as it related to their work process. They were also asked to rate how satisfied they were with the building’s ability to support that aspect. Similar questions were asked during focus group discussions. Highlights of lab attributes include:

• In general, building occupants are very satisfied with the size of the lab module, the 4:1 ratio of scientists per bench, and the amount of lineal feet with which they need to work.

• Work space for prep and manipulation is appropriate for the work that is done by each research group.

• Overall, safety and security protocols are being met. Focus group participants did not report any issues.

• Area dedicated to short and mid-term storage is limiting; causing researchers to store items in circulation corridors and equipment rooms.

• Shelving above benches is too narrow.• Researchers are very satisfied with the capacity

and location of data, electric and lab gas ports.

importance versus satisfaction

Very High

Neutral

Low

High

Very LowQualityequipspace

Adaptableto change

Bench Space

Qualityworkarea

Ratio:per bench

satisfaction with space allocation


Typical floor: open laboratory

insufficient lighting level compressed aisles

flexible casework use/low under counter storage

Equipment in aisles

open

lab

open lab

• Standing portion of bench is well received for intended use.

• Distance between aisles compresses users availability to maneuver.

• Task lighting provided on shallow low shelf is not effective and underutilized.

• Write-up space is too industrial lacking ergonomic options such as: key board tray, monitor arm or reachable shelf.

• Seated write-up desk along main aisle is highly disruptive to occupants needing to concentrate.


Organization: shared support

narrow entries

flooring failing at LN2

increase in usable bench

adjacent lab support to labequipment corridor

support supp

ort

• LN2 is cracking sealed vinyl.• Filters for refrigerators in high traffic

entries are needing more frequent changing from all the dust kicked up.

• To accommodate people’s quite time needs it would be helpful to provide remote carols outside of the lab.

• Dehumidification value engineered from cold rooms.

CONCLUSION


Health, Safety and Security• Health:

• “Lighting is very poor: 1) proximity of CVRI building affects light levels and access to daylight; 2) lighting in a lab should be directly overhead for fine work (recessed lighting is not helpful in lab work)”

• Fume Hoods meet Cal OSHA 150fpm face velocity for carcinogen use• Incorrect installation of Safety Shower heads causes paint failure and potential for mold

and mildew. • Improper ventilation in the darkroom causes odors to build up.

• Safety:• Negative air flow of labs is good• Safety Showers near electrical power panels create a safety hazard• Eye wash stations at rear wall of tissue culture rooms are remote from exit door and some

are blocked by furnishings• Write-up space within the lab is not ideal

• exposure to chemicals adjacent to bench • environment is not conducive to performing detailed focus work, • back to back layout can cause difficulties circulating within the lab

• Fire exits are lined by heavy equipment• Some equipment leaks into pathway, causing a slipping hazard• Seismic bracing is required for floor standing equipment

• Bio-safety officer not involved in design of the BSL3 suite• DSA office placed away from labs within secure hallway

• Security:• Building supports security protocols• Secure building – minimal property loss• Complaint of too many security points between office and lab

Conclusion


Function, Efficiency and Work flow• Main aisle in labs is too narrow and position of sinks is right across the write-up area• Shared support and equipment space is undersized with respect to a number of researchers • Minimal base cabinets in labs• Vivarium plan concept of dedicated procedure rooms directly adjacent to the holding rooms

supports scheduling, control, containment and efficiency• Missing wireless internet throughout facility, and some conference rooms do not have active

Ethernet ports• Atrium space is well used (provides relief to busy lab environment)

• Building occupants prefer using the Communicating stair. In the atrium to elevator to move between floors (65% stair use)

• Researchers complain that too much space was dedicated to the atrium at the sacrifice of more research space

• Quiet, distraction free space for post doc rooms are needed due to environment within lab space• Low fixture count in men's and women's restrooms fixture count is not supporting current building

occupancy• Additional dry-lab space is needed for all the epidemiology research

• Limited acoustically private areas to conduct confidential patient conversations• More administrative space is needed; percentage of office space is too low with respect to

number of occupants.• Write-up space in the labs (2 people working back-to-back) proves difficult for people to pass by• Vivarium floor in cage wash area slopes more than needed and makes handling large racks

difficult• ADA benches at wall conditions are too shallow (24”d. vs. 30”d.) for normal lab work and

equipment

Conclusion


Engineering Infrastructure and Maintenance• Commissioning of MEP systems started before systems were 100% complete. This

created several issues during move-in• The facility was designed to meet LEED equivalent performance. Aggressive targets

were imposed for energy savings• Lighting level in labs is not sufficient for detail research work (surveyed range is 18 -

70 fc - best practice is 80-100 fc)• Comfort issues in regards to space temperature–too hot, too cold. • EH&S was not involved early enough in the design process. Early participation

could have prevented ergonomic and safety issues• Offices are noisy. This affects ability to concentrate • Not adequate soundproofing in the offices results in neighbors overhearing

conversations• Air quality in labs is good, however it is drafty in some areas. Minor reports of sulfur

odors in southwest offices• Appropriate capacity of sinks, process gasses, electric and data ports in labs • More 208V power is needed in the equipment corridors• Power capacity adequate but limited capacity for expansion • Location of the office power outlets is not functional • ABSL3 lab in vivarium not sealed and is unable to meet certification• Vivarium holding rooms don’t have room exhaust. They exhaust through procedure

room

Conclusion


Engineering Infrastructure and Maintenance• Maintenance:

• Vivarium is easily maintained via overhead catwalk and external access• More isolation valves desired at the branches• Refrigerators in the hallway create issues of access, noise and require more

frequent filter change out due to foot traffic • Light fixture replacement in atrium steps is infrequent • LN2 spills in equipment rooms have cracked vinyl tile • Most finishes in high traffic areas have worn well except for cracks in lobby

floor• Furniture for casual seating is not intended for high traffic area – already

showing signs of wear• Access to the fan coils units for maintenance is difficult

Conclusion


Psychological, Social and Cultural• Building design serves as a vehicle to attract researchers and funding• Atrium is well used and supports a positive image to visitors• First floor auditorium is used for weekly seminars – planned collaborations• The quantity and capacity of formal meeting spaces is appropriate• Co-located PI’s in office block positively supports collaboration• Frequency of informal collaboration between lab groups is low• Open labs have reverse effect of fostering interactions

• Overwhelming number of people in open lab space (48-64) • Should look at creating neighborhoods of 16-20 person range

• No dedicated collaboration space within the lab environment• Noise and acoustical privacy within the lab is a distraction to people wanting to

perform focus work

Conclusion


This report is provided by HDR using its professional standard of care. Such information is furnished based upon HDR’s knowledge, information and belief from the information HDR possessed at the time it authored such report. HDR makes no warranties or guarantees that the information utilized to provide such report has not or will not change thereby having an effect on such report. HDR therefore does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such reports.

Any reuse or modification of such reports by Client for purposes other than those intended by HDR shall be at Client’s sole risk and without liability to HDR.

post occupancy evaluation - ucsf helen diller family...

Documents