Loading...
Planning & Design Meetings 3/3/2010 - Minutes DD: Group 1 Project FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 3 March 2010 Page 1 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District SCHEMATIC DESIGN TO DESIGN DEVLOPMENT: GROUP 1 PROJECTS FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 3 March 2010, 3:30 – 5:00 pm SUBJECT: Palo Alto HS Facilities Steering Committee ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached) The following are the highlights of the meeting: 1. Introductions: Jacquie McEvoy (JM) welcomed the committee and initiated the meeting. 2. Board Meeting Recap: Tom Hodges (TH) reported that the CEQA report was approved by the Board of Education (BOE). The report contains items that would be mitigated such as the storm drain water prevention and tree protection during construction. A copy of the report is available on the PAUSD website for review. 3. Construction Update: Heidi Rank (HR) from Gilbane Construction Management gave an update on the Relocatables and Multi Purpose Field projects, currently in construction phase. HR informed the FSC that a jobwalk was held on February 23rd for the Paly relocatables project and there were 36 attendees of general contractors and subcontractors. HR also updated the FSC that the Multi-Purpose field project is out to bid and 6 out of the 7 pre-qualified contractors attended. Bids will close on March 16th and an FSC meeting will be held on March 17th to review the project budget and alternatives. JM asked if the FSC can receive a list of the alternatives prior to the meeting to review. HR stated that another meeting will be held to coordinate the classroom move. 4. Landscape Master Plan: Erwin Lee (EL) updated the FSC on the progress for the Conceptual Landscape Plan. EL noted that there have been two Landscape Subcommittee meetings since the last FSC meeting. At the last meeting pictures of other campus quad designs were shared and everyone had agreed to follow traditional models based on Stanford and Santa Clara University. EL showed (power-point) slides of the landscape master plan and noted the following:  Student Center as the hub of the campus is an idea that is being revisited.  Option A involved keeping and modernizing the Student Center  Option B involved tearing the Center down and designing a new Center that’s ideally placed on the campus quad. DD: Group 1 Project FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 3 March 2010 Page 2  A direct path from the Football Stadium to the hub of the campus has become a major feature and the new landscape plan reflects this concept. The path will involve the removal of building 900.  A Stadium gateway feature will reinforce this connection to the campus. Response from the committee followed:  Mary Gordon (MG) noted that the last Landscape meeting was very productive and felt that a more visionary look is being taken. Concern with the original option A master plan design led to look at an option B that would respond better to the long range goals of the Master Plan. MG observed that where other campuses need to create landmarks, Palo Alto HS already has them but needs to enhance them.  EL noted that the Student Center and Quad are in the 6a and 6c category which means they are currently unfunded. The Tower Admin Phase 1 work is category 4c and represents the funding threshold.  Tom Hodges added that funding for projects below the line is still in flux and the design for these can be changed.  Stephen Pond (SP) asked if each individual project such as the Library modernization would deal with immediate site problems such as the ponding rain water at the entry. Tom Hodges answered that yes, each project would include site work for the immediate surrounding area of the building. 5. Projects in Programming Update: Aimee Lopez (AL) gave an update on the Technology Infrastructure project.  AL noted that the intent is to connect the Tower Building with the Science Building and Gym. Currently the route is being researched and the budget is being evaluated by the IT group.  JM noted that it’s necessary to look at the emergency backup for these systems. The current MDF has one but it has a short life. Also solar power should be looked at as an alternative to generators.  TH noted that the design of the new communication system will get rid of the daisy chain configuration and that all wiring will lead back to the MDF.  TH added that the IT work should happen within the next 18 months and need not wait till the Library modernization. EL gave an update on the Paly Football Field and Stadium:  EL showed power-point images to illustrate the design intent for the stadium and entry plaza. The diagram illustrated: visible cues from the quad, separate walkway to the visitors bleachers, the plaza and gateway location, the bike and pedestrian path from Churchill and access to parking.  EL provided several drop-off design schemes. Scheme A would impact two sycamore trees. Schemes B, C and D do not affect the trees and locates the turnaround further into the campus. Scheme B locates the turnaround separate from the parking area. Scheme C integrates the turnaround with the parking area and Scheme D places the turnaround next to the Gym beyond the gateway. All schemes provide a lane for waiting, drop-off and a clear access route from the Quad to the Football Stadium. DD: Group 1 Project FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 3 March 2010 Page 3  EL showed a conceptual plan of the stadium generated from the last stadium meeting. Illustrated is a 30’ by 70’ concessions and ticket structure, a 10-foot wide path to the visitor bleachers, home and visitor bleachers that extend from the 15-yard line to the 20-yard line, and the long jump pits moved out of the end zone to an area just beyond the track.  EL noted the bleachers are being redesigned to fit more spectators within a narrower footprint. Previous design had a row depth of 25-inches but Earl Hansen measured the seat to seat at Stanford and it measures 18-inches. Also the press box might be placed within and over the bleacher seats to lessen the depth of the bleacher assembly.  EL noted that the goal is not to impact the sycamore trees with the new design for home bleachers but several trees by the visitors bleachers may need to be removed and mitigated.  TH noted that the relocatables on 85 Churchill would need to be moved in order to free up space for concessions and parking. EL gave an update on the New Theater:  EL said that plan diagrams which are now being updated to mirror the program. Due to site constraints only so much of the program can be incorporated into the plans. Haymarket Theater is now being considered to house the future drama classroom. EL added that the theater subcommittee prefers a full fly loft and that they are considering a balcony in order to seat 600 and keep people closer to the stage. It also minimizes the footprint of the building on the site.  EL noted that the balance of the program can be located in Building 100 but these spaces will have to wait as the Building 100 project is in the next Group of projects and Home Economics can’t be relocated till the CTE building is finished.  Michael Nagar (MN) asked if the CTE grant (potential $3 million) might help fund the work in Building 100 and noted that without Building 100 it was difficult to see how to move forward.  EL answered that the Theater would be designed as a stand-alone facility without requiring Building 100. All essential program elements for a functional Theater will be included in the new facililty.  MN noted that the Scene Shop slated to be located in Home Economics at Building 100 is an essential part of the program.  TH noted that it’s possible that Home Economics could be relocated ahead of time and placed in a Relocatable. At Gunn HS the program ran in a relocatable successfully and in this way the modernization of Building 100 could be done in tandem with the Theater.  Pat O’Hara (PO) noted that it would be difficult to operate the Home Economics program in a relocatable if not built properly.  JM noted that pricing these options will help make the right decisions.  TH noted that several scenarios will be considered with associated costs for the committee to consider next time. 6. Public Comments: DD: Group 1 Project FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 3 March 2010 Page 4  It was noted that the Landscape Committee is making progress and was pleased that the Student Center can be flexible in the design. 7. Upcoming Meetings are as follows:  Theater Subcommittee – March 10th at 3:15 PM  Subcommittee visit to Menlo Atherton Performing Arts Center on March 23rd at 2:30 PM followed by a visit to Sacred Heart HS Theater at 4 PM  Special FSC meeting will be on Wednesday, March 17th for Multi-Purpose Field – Budget Review on Alternatives. END Prepared by Christopher Ades of Deems Lewis McKinley. Please advise in writing if you feel that any of the above items are inaccurate. cc: Attendees, File