Post Occupancy Evaluation - UCSF Helen Diller Family ...

Post Occupancy Evaluation
Report of Findings
Photo (s)
Helen Diller Family Cancer Research Building
January 7, 2011

Post Occupancy Evaluation
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
January 7, 2011 contents

Summary of Findings
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 Summary
The 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 Security
Environment 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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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 & Workflow
Space 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 to
overall 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 Maintenance
The 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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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 Cultural
The 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”.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION PURPOSE

Post Occupancy Evaluation
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 purpose

Post Occupancy Evaluation
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 building
maintenance 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 infrastructure
conditions within the work environment.
benefits

METHODOLOGY

Post Occupancy Evaluation
Outline of the evaluation process:
I. Plan
a. Liaison with the client & team
b. Performance criteria
c. Plan data collection process
II. Conduct
a. Focus group discussions
b. Observation
c. Web-based survey
III. Analyze data
IV. Apply
a. Report findings
b. Recommend actions
c. Apply lessons learned to future projects
January 7, 2011 methodology

Conduct:
Post Occupancy Evaluation
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
evaluation process

participants
Staff
Current
occupancy
Interview
Participants
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Web Survey
Responses
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
Combined
Response Rate
Total 304 46 77 40%

Demographics: web survey respondents
Wet Lab
Dry Lab
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

TRANSLATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE

The Process
Post WWII Growth of Science
The Old Model
$
Translational
The New Model
$
Science for Science Sake
Research Funding/
Rankings
Starting Point
Basic Science
Approach
Shotgun
Science/Medicine/
Commercialization
Cures and Revenue
Starting Point
Patients
Approach
Targeted
LAB
Research
Focus on Knowledge
LAB
Discovery
Focus on Application
ANIMALS
ANIMALS
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Development
VALLEY OF DEATH
Development
Technology Transfer
Internal Development
I II III IV
ANIMALS
I II III IV
ANIMALS
Trials
Trials
PEOPLE
Recruit Subjects
PEOPLE
Recruit Subjects

Clinical Trial Process
I II III IV
ANIMALS
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
PEOPLE
How do we accelerate the process?

Translational Research: Kit of Parts
Patient Care
Hospital | Out-Patient Care
Medical
Education
Auditorium | Classrooms
Clinical Trial
Simulation
Core Resources
Cure
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Research &
Development
Vivarium
Core Resources
Lab

Summary: 12 Principles of Successful Translational Organizations
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.
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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Health & Science
12. Branding!

FACILITY OVERVIEW

Post Occupancy Evaluation
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 staff
15 vivarium staff
16,640 Cages (max capacity)
Occupancy Date: April 2009
background
January 7, 2011

Performance
Criteria :
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
1world class
translational
research facility
knowledge
transfer
social
cultural
3best and
most efficient
use of space
health
safety
security
.
infrastructure
engineering
maintenance
2foster
interaction
among
researchers
function
efficiency
work flow
4flexible
research
environment
project goals

Building Organization: section
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.
Diller
5
4
3
2
1
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Seminar
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Vivarium
Support
Support
Support
Atrium
Lobby
Office
Office
Office
Office

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.

Time spent
Manager/Supervisor
Clinician/Clinical
Researcher
Admin support
Diller
Who?
Scientific Staff
Physician
PI/Professor/Program
Leader
Post-doc/Grad Research
Assistant
Lab tech
52% 17%
50% 20%
10% 56%
64%
39% 36%
10%
51% 20% 7%
68% 18%
77%
8%
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
20%
9%
16%
17%
Where?
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

Agree or Disagree: Your assigned individual work space supports your ability
to perform quiet focused work as effectively and efficiently as possible>
Diller
Quantity of Lab Occupant Responses
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

KEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Findings
Takes into account the following:
1. Original Project Goals
2. Standard POE Performance Criteria
i. Health, Safety and Security
ii. Function, Efficiency and Workflow
iii. Engineering, Infrastructure and Maintenance
iv. Psychological, Social and Cultural
3. Experience & Best Practices
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

Summary of 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 collaborate
more 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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

Goal: Provide a
state-of-the-art facility
that co-locates scientists
investigating cancer’s
basic biological
mechanisms to facilitate
Translational Research.
health, safety & security
engineering & maintenance
function & efficiency
attract & retain

Safety Features
Typical lab floor
• 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.
Recessed Safety Shower
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Recessed Eyewash

Safety Features
Typical lab floor
• 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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Safety Shower
without escutcheon
Safety Shower
with escutcheon

Safety, Security & Health Summary
Card reader entries
Tight entry corridor
Seismic anchor tall items
PPE strategy More lab support bench Elec. panels at showers
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
• Card entries provide secure
perimeter from lobby
• Narrow corridor entries give
way to people bumping into
each other.
• Seismically brace all tall
cabinets & 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.

Organization: vivarium
procedure & holding
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
1 st floor, staff member has to go down to
1 st floor reset & then gown back in.
• Condensation canopy weep not
connected to drain.
• Minimize drain locations for cart steering
Holding Room Unconnected weep
Procedure Room
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Floor trenches at doors
preferred

Engineering Capabilities
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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

Engineering Findings
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
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.

measured temperatures
73
N
73 70
72
72
Smith
Cardiovascular
Research Building
70
71
69
• 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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
70
68
68
70 69

Engineering Findings
Safety shower at electric panel
Pneumatic waste conveying tube
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
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:
• 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.

Engineering Findings
“The
darkness of
the labs is
depressing.”
Wet Lab Focus
Group
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
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.

measured foot-candles
68
N
15 23
30
24 30
27 23
18
Smith
Cardiovascular
Research Building
target illumination levels
lab 75-100 fc
office 50-75 fc
conference 20-40 fc
corridor 20-30 fc
68
25 52
70
• 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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
70
36
28 70
38 39 75

office
Typical floor: hvac
office
N
• Temperature fluctuation in
offices creates discomfort.
• Open fume hoods consume
energy.
• 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.
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
88% fume hoods were open, 13% closed.

office
Typical floor: access to daylight
office
• 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.
N
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
light levels in labs is low
access to daylight in
office is good
adjacent building
shades some labs

Typical floor: ambient environment
importance
importance
very high
high
neutral
low
very low
very high
high
neutral
low
very low
very low
very low
low
neutral
high
satisfaction
low
neutral
high
very high
very high
Research Labs
Office
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
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.
acoustic privacy
visual privacy
control of light levels
access to daylight
general lighting
temperature

Co-location
Diller
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?
3%
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
27%
30%
40%

Attract & Retain
“Overall, the Diller building is
great…”
“We are very satisfied with
the building…”
“We love it here.”
“When 4 th floor opens we will
have a massive competition
for researchers.”
Diller
Would you recruit other researchers to work in this building?
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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 areas
break out
• Conference capacity meets needs of
building 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 storage
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
coordinate electric
for intended use.

office
Organization: office area
office
N
• 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.
oversized aisle width
coordinate electric & furniture
low ratio of office to lab seats
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
touch-down
operable window at office

Organization: atrium
atrium
N
• 35% take the elevator
65% take the stair
• 72% use east entry
28% 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.
high point
• Elevation change from walk-off
low point
grate to door threshold is
a tripping hazard. entry door transition
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
communicating
stair well utilized
cracks at sealed
concrete is common

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

collaboration
Your work environment supports your group’s ability to work together as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
1%
Most requested spaces:
14%
19%
1. Quiet work area for focused work / writing room / quiet space for reading
2. Support space for post-docs
3. More tissue culture space & cold rooms
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
29%
37%

Average number of interactions per week
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
qty level
1 to 3 low
4 to 6 medium
7 to 9 high
10+ very high
Average number of trips into the lab per day:
Dry Lab: 1
Admin: 1
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Frequency of interaction
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.

Goal: Optimize
efficient use of space
in support of program
design requirements
space utilization
floor organization
lab module design

Area analysis
P
5
4
3
2
1
vivarium
lab
lab
lab
seminar
support
support
support
support
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
office
office
office
office
5,860 GSF
29,180 GSF
29,930 GSF
33,220 GSF
34,130 GSF
29,680 GSF
TOTAL 162,000 GSF

Area analysis
typical research floor (second floor)
ground floor
vivarium (fifth floor)
OFFICE 6,630 SF
LABORATORY 9,115 SF
LABORATORY SUPPORT 7,570 SF
MEETING / CONFERENCE 1,176 SF
BUILDING STORAGE / PANTRY 908 SF
CIRCULATION 3,133 SF
TOTAL Net 28,532 NSF
SHELL & CORE 5,593 SF
TOTAL Gross 34,125 GSF
OFFICE 628 SF
MEETING / CONFERENCE 1,631 SF
BUILDING STORAGE / SUPPORT 4,288 SF
ATRIUM 1,089 SF
VIVARIUM SUPPORT 1,124 SF
CIRCULATION 6,123 SF
TOTAL Net 14,883 NSF
SHELL & MECH CORE 14,796 SF
TOTAL Gross 29,679 GSF
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 NSF
SHELL & CORE 6,962 SF
TOTAL Gross 29,180 GSF
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Circulation:
11% of total net
Atrium:
7% of total net
Vivarium:
56% holding to
44% support

Area analysis: typical floor
35%
Office to Laboratory
Best Practice
60-65%
Laboratory support
to Laboratory
Best Practice
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Admin space 7,806SF
Office, Conference, Break.
Laboratory space 16,685 SF
Laboratory, Lab Support.
32%
68%
TOTAL NET 24,491 USF
Laboratory support 7,570 SF
45%
Laboratory 9,115 SF
55%
TOTAL NET 16,685 USF

Area analysis: vivarium
“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
Best Practice:
Holding 50%
Cagewash 20%
Surg/Diag/Treat 10%
Dock/Storage 15%
Staff 5%
total 100%
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Admin 2,283 SF
Office, Conference, Break, Lockers
Vivarium 14,447 SF
Holding rooms, Procedure rooms,
Cage wash, Imaging suite, &
Receiving (level 1).
TOTAL NET 16,730 SF
Procedure / Prep 4,972 SF
Imaging suite, Procedure rooms,
irradiator, storage, & receiving.
Cage wash 3,077 SF
Clean & dirty cage wash & cage prep,
Holding 6,398 SF
TOTAL NET 14,447 SF
14%
86%
35%
21%
44%

Provide a flexible
research environment
that can easily
reconfigure when
program needs
transform.
lab module design
support spaces
modifications

Lab module analysis: planning
Lab
Support
Circulation
Lab
Bench
Lab Techs
3’-0”
10’-6”
1:4p
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Comments:
• 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.

Lab module analysis: planning
Very High
High
Neutral
Low
Very Low
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Satisfaction Level
quantity
elec
ports
quantity
emerg
power
quantity
data
ports
quantity
sinks
location
sinks
air
quality

Lab module analysis: flexibility
Telescoping legs at standing and seated
height benches are unsuable.
Privacy/splash panel is permanently
adhered to standing & seated height
benches
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
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.

Lab module analysis: congestion
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
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.

Very High
High
Neutral
Low
Very Low
Very High
High
Neutral
Low
Very Low
satisfaction with space allocation
Bench
Space
Ratio:
per bench
importance versus satisfaction
Storage Ergonomics Safety
Adaptable
to change
Lab
Module
Importance Satisfaction
Quality
equip
space
Data /
Electric
Quality
work
area
Lab
Gases
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
Lab Attributes
Participants 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.

Typical floor: open laboratory
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.
compressed aisles
flexible casework use/low
under counter storage
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
insufficient
lighting level
Equipment
in aisles

Organization: shared support
support
support
• 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.
flooring failing at LN2
increase in usable bench
equipment corridor
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011
narrow entries
adjacent lab
support to lab

CONCLUSION

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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
Post Occupancy Evaluation
January 7, 2011

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
January 7, 2011