Planning & Design Meetings Meeting #8 2/19/2009 - MinutesGunn HS MP MEETING No. 8
Palo Alto Unified School District 19 February 2009
P.1
GUNN HIGH SCHOOL MASTER PLAN
Palo Alto Unified School District
MASTER PLAN MEETING NO. 8
DATE: 19 February 2009, 12:30pm-2:00pm
SUBJECT: Master Plan Meeting with Gunn HS Facilities Steering Committee
ATTENDEES: See attached sign-in sheet
The following are the highlights of the meeting:
1. Principal Noreen Likins called the meeting to order, and introduced Erwin Lee,
architect from Deems Lewis McKinley.
2. Architect Erwin Lee welcomed the Committee and announced that the main goal of
the current meeting was to discuss how the anticipated projects of the master-
planning phase are to be prioritized. He assigned dollar amounts to each project
and stated that they are only approximate figures, and that they will change as
further, in-depth research of each project is done.
3. Lee summarized the steps that have been taken in the master planning process so
far. Those steps were the following:
• Review existing documents and site walks of the campuses
• Initial master plan meetings to review, discuss, and exchange ideas
• Testing of ideas from the initial meetings through conceptual plan options
• Review conceptual plans and develop further based on specific input
• Revise conceptual plans and finalize documentation
4. He showed a list of the original master planning goals that was created one of the
early meetings, and related them to the current site plan diagram. These main goals
were:
• Give organization and structure to campus
• Enhance traffic flow (pedestrians and vehicles)
• Create hierarchy of space
• Additional vehicle access
• Utilize in-between spaces – preserve open space
• Create edges to open spaces and buildings
• Define and articulate building entries
• Growth strategy – consolidate department functions
• Additional storage
• Quiet ventilation (no air conditioning if possible)
Gunn HS MP MEETING No. 8
Palo Alto Unified School District 19 February 2009
P.2
5. Lee discussed items that need to be taken into consideration for the upcoming
master planning phases:
• Projects currently under construction such as the aquatic center
• Projects that will happen regardless of priority list such as interim housing and
upgrades to infrastructure
• Projects that are a high priority to the school such as classroom space
• Projects grouped together for ease of construction and phasing sequences such
as those in the same area
6. The current master plan project list was shown with assigned construction and
project costs. The construction cost reflects the anticipated bid result, while the
project cost reflects the total approximate cost, including the construction cost. Lee
noted that various projects could be grouped together to create fewer, larger
projects in lieu of many smaller projects, and that some projects, such as
infrastructure upgrades, are a high District priority.
7. Lee presented a list of project phasing and prioritization recommendations that he
derived from the outcome of the master planning meetings from the Facilities
Steering Committee:
1. Classroom Buildings A and B, Gymnasium, Parking and Drop-off
2. Student Activities/Media Arts, Special Ed. Center, Science Lab and Classroom
Bldg, L-wing
3. Performing Arts Bldg, Spangenberg Lobby Mod, Art Bldg Addition and
Modernization, Mod projects, Entry Court and Structure, Amphitheater Upgrades
4. Administration Addition and Remodel, Guidance and Counseling Center
5. Quad, Demolition of RC Bldg, Site Improvements and Field Structures for
Athletics
8. Tom Hodges addressed the Committee about the recommended priority list. He
explained that value judgments need to be made and that the school’s capacity to
operate, while various projects are going on, needs to be considered. He
encouraged the Committee to prioritize the master planning projects in terms of
those projects that are needed immediately to accommodate teaching space for
student body growth, and those projects that can wait. Lee reiterated that some
projects will need to go in sequence, and some projects will be coupled together.
Overlap in projects may happen and the implementation plan will address the
details of the phasing.
9. Current site plan phasing diagrams were shown and discussed. Principal Noreen
Likins stated that the bond funding happens in two, 10-year parts. She reiterated
that it is not possible to fund all proposed master planning projects in the first, 10-
year part of the bond, and that priorities need to be finalized accordingly.
10. Lee explained that the master planning results are solid so far, and that the program
is not going to change; only the method of meeting the program requirements will
change. He discussed the next steps in the master planning process:
• Prioritization and phasing
• Implementation and scheduling
• Finalize documentation
• Approval by Board of Education
• Authorization to commence projects
Gunn HS MP MEETING No. 8
Palo Alto Unified School District 19 February 2009
P.3
11. The meeting was opened up for public comment. Two members of the public
addressed the Committee. The highlights of their comments were:
• Please consider the impact of the noise factor during construction of these
projects, especially around the Titan Village/Fire Access Road.
• There are restriping plans in progress for Arastadero Road. The impact of the
parking lot reconfiguration on public streets should be considered. Tom Hodges
reiterated that there are traffic consultants involved that are addressing this
issue.
12. The Committee was asked to comment on the proposed project phasing and
prioritization recommendations. The highlights of these comments are:
• Is it possible to modernize only half of a building?
o Lee stated that it is not necessary to modernize an entire wing at once, and
that not all modernization involves entirely gutting a building. Things will
evolve as construction goes on, and thinking will change as far as
displacement of classroom functions and priorities
• The proposed phase 1 is “dead on” as far as what our immediate needs are
• Perhaps the RC Building can be used as swing space during construction of
other projects
• The Athletic Booster Club is willing to fund design drawings for the new gym
• Consider the use of the amphitheater for courtyard swing space.
• More time is needed to finalize the Committee’s decision for the March 3rd Board
meeting
o Hodges announced that the Board has decided to allow one more Master
Planning meeting to take place before a draft of recommendations from the
Committee is expected
13. The next scheduled Master Planning Meeting is on 04 March 2009 at 12:30pm
END
Prepared by Dean Schmitz of Deems Lewis McKinley. Please advise if you feel that any of the above items
are inaccurate or need further clarification or detail.
cc: Attendees
File