Loading...
Planning & Design Meetings 12/2/2009 - Agenda 25 Churchill Avenue, Building ‘D’ ● Palo Alto, CA 94306 ● Phone 650.329.3935 ● Fax 650.327.3588 ● www.pausd.org MEASURE A – STRONG SCHOOLS BOND Gunn High School FSC Agenda 12/2/09 1. Welcome and Meeting to Order 2. Schematic Design Presentation 3. Air Conditioning Upgrade a. Operation Cost 4. Interim Parking Plan 5. Next Steps a. Schematic Design Budget Approval i. Next FSC Meeting, January 6, 2010 b. Schematic Design to the BOE i. Presentation, January 12, 2010 ii. Approval, January 12, 2010 6. Public Comments Palo Alto HS FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 02 December 2009 P. 1 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 02 December 2009, 3:30pm-5:00pm SUBJECT: Palo Alto HS Facilities Steering Committee ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached) The following are the highlights of the meeting: 1. Jacqui McEvoy (JM) welcomed the committee, introduced student participants and opened the meeting. 2. Tom Hodges (TH) introduced Mark Wei (MW) who is the network administrator for the District and discussion followed:  MW related that the existing network infrastructure at Paly is old and does not meet District standards. His hope is that the network can be replaced. Associated costs are between $.25 and $.5 million, a huge financial constraint.  TH noted that funds might be found in savings through intelligent design such as locating the central plant in the new Classroom Building. These savings will also fund any electrical upgrades and storm drain infrastructure work.  Paul Kandell (PK) expressed concern that a better data infrastructure is tied to the needs for a new storm drainage system. He noted that the new Media Arts Center will require a large amount of data lines to run properly.  MW noted that the existing data backbone is a patchwork and increasingly hard to fix. A new optical fiber backbone is required.  TH asked MW how long it would take to investigate the needs and requirements for a new backbone and get a cost estimate for this work. MW responded that he can get it in a month and noted that it would include wiring to the IDF rooms.  JM concurred with the need for a better wireless system. Perhaps 3,000 people could be using the wireless network on campus at the same time.  MW said he would design for bottlenecks such as the Theater where as many as 700 could be using wireless in one place.  TH noted that this issue will remain on the agenda for the next several meetings. 3. Aimee Lopez (AL) distributed the proposed Site Logistics Plans that illustrated two construction scenarios. Scenario 1 was for concurrent construction of the Media Arts Center and the Classroom Building. Scenario 2 was for separate construction schedules. The following discussion ensued:  Arnold Teten (AT) explained that in Scenario 1 there are more traffic issues though it’s still possible to keep school circulation separate from construction zones. The biggest impacts are to the corporate yard parking areas. Most Palo Alto HS FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 02 December 2009 P. 2 construction fencing would occur along existing roof overhangs.  JM said she preferred Scenario 1 because it shortens the overall construction schedule, and “the sooner the better.” Her only concern was over the memorial area and that it should not be forgotten or damaged during construction. AT noted that the memorial area should be identified as a “project”. Part of the Landscape Master Plan is to determine an appropriate location for the memorial trees and site features.  Stu Berman (SB) expressed concern over the lengthy construction period which begins this summer with the relocation of the portable classrooms to the Quad. He asked if the relocatable project could be shifted closer to the beginning of building construction or the summer of 2011. TH answered that the relocatable project required a full summer to complete and the intent is to start the new building projects as early as April and no later than June of 2011. In order to ensure this is to schedule the relocatable project for this coming summer and JM concurred that summer was the only time to perform this project.  PK expressed concern over the reduction of 38 parking spaces by the corporation yard. JM noted that according to recent counts there’s a surplus of 97 parking spaces along El Camino which would make up the lost spaces.  TH asked for a vote on which scenario to pursue. The group chose Scenario #1. 4. TH asked the group to decide on whether or not to include a new central plant within the new Classroom Building. (1) Option #1 locates a new central plant in the southeast corner of the new Classroom Building. (2) Option #2 expands the existing Central Plant. Maintenance/Facilities reviewed the options and favored Option #1 because it places the chillers on the roof. AL distributed a site plan and the following discussion followed:  Participants liked the way Option #1 frees up the site for other uses but questioned the parking planned for that space. EL noted that parking plan was just one option and other possibilities can be explored.  PK expressed concern over noise that might travel into adjacent classrooms and that over time these units might rattle. AT noted that in his experience noise from roof mounted chillers can be isolated from occupied spaces. AT gave an example of a hospital operating room where this configuration works well.  SB asked if other AC options are being considered such as heat pumps or geo- thermal systems. EL noted that geothermal systems are problematic and limited by the area required for piping. A central plant is an efficient system and while initial costs are higher, operating costs are much lower than individual units.  TH noted that other conditioning options for the central plant will be looked at but asked the group to choose between options 1 or 2. The group voted and chose Option #1, to incorporate central plant into the new classroom building. 5. Architect Erwin Lee (EL) related that the presentation to the Board of Education (BOE) has been postponed till next month and that he would give the group a similar schematic design presentation prepared for the BOE explaining the various design and plan developments to date: The Media Arts Building design updates included: various plan changes to Palo Alto HS FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 02 December 2009 P. 3 responding comments from staff and students such as, forum clerestory windows are now smaller and has a pitched roof which relate better to the adjacent buildings, exterior design has more elements that recall the existing architecture of the Tower building such as “punched” windows and pronounced sloping roofs. An arched gateway and connector to Building 100 helps define the entrance on the Embarcadero Road side of campus. The Classroom Building plans now feature a separate access to the teachers’ office area on both floors. The exterior has also changed to include more design elements from the Tower building including a covered walkway that matches other covered walkways linking it to building 700. Slides were shown to illustrate how these projects will be CHPS verified projects that will qualify by satisfying criteria in the categories of: sustainable site, water, energy, materials and indoor environmental quality.  Slides were shown that illustrated the progress of the landscape master plan including the tree inventory, tree mitigation criteria and tree studies at the new buildings identifying trees to be removed and saved.  JM noted that she was excited to see how the new buildings looked more integrated with the campus as a whole. She has toured the Stanford campus and seen some good examples how new buildings can complement existing.  PK also commented that he liked the design direction including the sloping roofs and taller windows. 6. JM opened up the meeting to the public and discussion followed. Participant asked if the master landscape plan could address student circulation patterns and introduce more landscaping along the drop-off zone at Haymarket Theater. She also asked that the Landscape Master Plan provide clearer view corridors into the campus from El Camino and Embarcadero. Participant noted that the Classroom Building could now be more rectangular since the Central Plant building was going to be demolished. TH responded that the Central Plant building is still an obstacle as it needs to remain until the Classroom Building is finished. Mary Gordon (MG) noted that the design now has real cohesiveness with the campus and she wants to see how the landscape design for the new fields will turn out. She recommends warm and regenerative plantings and is concerned over the deletion of a number of redwood trees by the baseball fields. TH noted that four redwoods will be saved and thinning of these redwood trees is required for maintenance and health of the trees. He will look at saving two more at the ends. 7. Schedule: Next Monthly FPC meeting will be scheduled for Jan. 6th at 3:30 PM. END Prepared by Christopher Ades 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 20’ Fire Lane 19 Staff Parking (includes: 1 ADA)18 Staff Parking (includes: 2 ADA) 15 Staff Parking (along curb/gate) 8 Staff Parking Bike / Ped Gate Coordination and Impacts 60 Staff Parking (includes 3 ADA) Note: Same impact if only 1 bldg Limited Summer Programs Adult Education -900 Bldg. Access to Bldg will remain Construction Fence on Perimeter of Bldgs Bike / Pedestrian Entrance Fire Access to Remain Corporate Yard (in progress) Parking Transportation / Buses Warehouse Construction Schedules Scenario 1: June, 2011 to December, 2012 Scenario 2 Classroom Building: June, 2011 to December, 2012 Media Arts Building December. 2012 to August , 2014 Corp Yard Parking Potential Cost Savings Scenario 1 Construction Cost + Escalation + 6 Added Relos Total: $29.8M Scenario 2: Construction Cost + Escalation Total: $30.2M ------------------------------------ Potential Savings for Scenario 1: ~ $388K Scenario 1: Site Logistics PALY OVERALL SITE (halfscale-15x21) (2).pdf (100% of Scale); PAUSD; Projects; 12/2/2009 02:10 PM PALY OVERALL SITE (halfscale-15x21) (2).pdf (100% of Scale); PAUSD; Projects; 12/2/2009 02:12 PM