Planning & Design Meetings 5/5/2010 - Minutes
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
5 May 2010
Page 1
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
Palo Alto Unified School District
FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
DATE: 5 May 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:
Erwin Lee (EL) welcomed the committee and initiated the meeting.
Landscape Master Plan
2. Erwin Lee (EL) shared the progress and discussions from the last Landscape
Subcommittee meeting and showed the latest landscape master plan design with a
power point presentation. Some of its major features include:
Plan shows an L-shaped concessions/restroom building at the Football
Stadium by the new Churchill Street drop-off and a clearly delineated path to
the Quad.
Plan shows further definition of walkways through the Quad and a place for
a bio-swale.
The rectilinear geometry of the Quad expands the lawn area and provides
additional useable space for activities such as graduation.
For the Tower Building’s entry garden the large existing oak tree is a major
focus. Anne Anderson (AA) asked if the small trees could be replaced by
shrubs because there needs to be more useable space in this garden and
the views in and out of the school should be unobstructed.
EL noted that a major bike storage area will be shifted to the east side of the
Gym in order to open up the Quad and eliminate bicycle traffic in the Quad.
Discussion followed and the following comments were made by members of the
committee:
AA noted that bike parking by the Gym would be good as this area will be
open to view with the new design that pushes the entry to the school further
into the driveway of Churchill. AA felt that this reconfiguration and new
location behind the new campus gateway will be much more visible and help
deter theft.
AA added that the newly configured Churchill entry benefits from a more
formal gateway discouraging car traffic. EL noted that only emergency
vehicles, busses and authorized vehicles will be allowed beyond the gates.
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
5 May 2010
Page 2
Michael Nagar (MN) asked what would happen to the Corporation Yard.
Tom Hodges (TH) answered that the busses and traffic would continue and
though some spaces would be lost adjacent to the Gym, others would be
gained in areas left behind by the Central Plant and portables.
MN also asked if all the portables would be removed and if the Music
instructor was aware of this. TH answered that yes all the portables are
slated to be removed in order to open up this part of the campus.
Question was asked if all the parking was to be removed and if the parking
counts could be revisited. EL answered that the basic concept of the design
called for removing all the parking from this area, and yes the parking counts
for cars and bikes will be revisited.
Stephen Pond asked what happened to the design of the Student Center
and when is construction scheduled. EL responded that the redesign of the
Student Center was a catalyst for the redesign of the master plan. It was
determined that an L-shaped building would serve the campus better as well
as providing a more rectilinear approach for the entire Quad layout. As for
schedule, the Student Center is “below the line” meaning that it’s currently
un-funded. TH added that it has not been approved yet and the conceptual
plan will be reviewed by the Board on June 11th.
Caroline Willis asked if work to improve the drainage in the Quad by the
Library was going to happen now or in three years. TH answered that first
the Library remodel needed to happen and that this project would address
the drainage issues adjacent to the Library.
Jerry Berksen (JB) asked if a dollar figure could be attached to the Quad
remodel. TH answered that yes, a potential budget for this work will be
developed.
MN asked why a Student Center is being designed. Mary Gordon answered
that it was goal of the master plan to provide an attractive space and an
inviting pavilion for the students. The current building is not used much. It is
inwardly oriented with very little connection to the outside and the activities
that occur outside.
New Theater Plan
3. EL provided a Theater programming and massing model update with a power point
presentation. Highlights of the presentation were the following:
Photos were shown of the future Theater site taken from Embarcadero and
from El Camino. EL noted that this part of the campus is not very visible
from either street until one gets close to the corner and the Embarcadero
driveway entry.
Schemes B and E where shown, inserted in the current landscape master
plan, to illustrate how each worked with the overall campus. The yellow part
of the plans represented the lobbies.
Computer massing models were shown with options for each scheme.
Plan diagrams for both were shown and EL noted that each scheme had the
same program and performance hall. Only the lobbies and back of house
spaces were arranged differently due to the geometry. EL also noted that
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
5 May 2010
Page 3
these are only diagrams and the layouts were developed far enough to test
the program elements.
Conceptual elevations of each scheme were shown and EL noted that
design intent was to strongly relate to the Haymarket Theater and Tower
Building architecture. Following slides included 3D views of each scheme
inserted in a photograph taken from the parking lot close to the street corner.
EL showed another scheme (F) that combined the rectilinear lobby of
scheme E with the rotated hall and fly loft of scheme E. The intent of this
scheme is to keep the orientation of scheme B which many in the committee
liked with the rectilinear lobby of scheme E which some suggested would be
more acceptable than the broad curve of scheme B.
Discussion followed and the following comments were made by members of the
committee:
Stephen Pond asked which parts of the program have fixed heights and
which are flexible. EL answered that the performance hall and fly loft are
based on the geometry of the space governed by sight lines, while the other
portions have some flexibility.
MN shared that the curve of scheme B has inherent appeal for the Theater
committee and given some triangular spaces, it’s still more compelling.
MG noted that scheme E has a strong continuity with existing buildings.
MN countered that an art building can and should be different and the curve
seemed to reach out and say “welcome!”
MG noted that the same effect can be achieved with scheme E by
incorporating some of the features of the older structures.
TH asked EL if two schemes could be presented to the School Board for
their consideration. EL answered that yes, this can be done seeing that its
difficult to make a choice at this time
MG asked that more 3D work be done to help understand option F.
Stadium Field Renovation
4. EL showed slides of the proposed Football Stadium bleachers with a seating
capacity of 2,444. The Concessions/Restroom Building is an L-shaped building
rather than a rectangular modular building. TH commented that a modular building
for a new Stadium didn‘t seem appropriate. The following discussion followed:
Question was asked, when and how the complex will be done? TH
answered that the project will be done in phases:
1. Existing portable buildings will be moved.
2. The Concessions/Restroom Building will be built.
3. The Visitor Bleachers will be done.
4. The existing Restroom Building will be demolished and the Home
Bleachers will be constructed.
EL noted that a plan to remove the portable buildings has not been done yet.
TH noted that the new bleacher design has not gone to the Board for
approval. The previous estimate for the project was $3.5 million while the
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
5 May 2010
Page 4
budget was $1.5 million.
Question was asked how the stadium could be funded and TH answered
that, like Gunn High School, the committee will need to come up with a new
list of priorities.
TH noted that the CTE Building is a place holder as is the Tower Building
renovation and that it‘s still possible to arrive at a new list.
Construction Update
5. Bob Golton (BG) announced that the reconciled cost estimates for the Group 1
projects are currently over budget by 1.8 million. This is due to the amount of site
work required to deal with the serious drainage issues that are necessary to fix.
6. BG showed slides of two Baseball Fields, one with an all turf field and another with
a traditional skinned field. He asked the committee to consider installing the all turf
field because it requires less maintenance and drains easily. BG explained that both
options combined natural turf and synthetic turf. The following discussion followed:
AA expressed concern that the transition between natural turf and synthetic turf
would be more difficult in all turf field and that it should be evaluated.
JB noted that he likes the all turf field because it minimizes rain delays and is
easier on the players. He noted there are several schools that have used it with
success.
Question was asked how the baseball coach felt about it, and the committee
expressed the opinion that they could not make a decision without knowing the
view of the coach.
Others suggested that the players should be asked as well.
7. Upcoming Meetings are as follows:
FSC meeting will be on Wednesday, June 26th.
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
P A L O A L T O H I G H S C H O O L P l Al U ifi d S h l Di iPalo Alto Unified School District29April 201029 April 2010NEW THEATER
Previous Decisions•Separate Theater from 100 Building•Location of Theater•Increase budget Last MeetingD t i d th t f ll fl l tVisited Theaters•Determined that full fly was a necessary program element•Program should be based on Scheme B•Need to see scale and massing for Scheme B or Scheme E TdToday•Review scale and massing and decide which Scheme should be recommended to FSC•Decide if the orchestra pit and trap room should be includedPalo Alto High School•Decide if the orchestra pit and trap room should be included•Provide direction for the design team to continueD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolPartial Site PlanD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolSite PlanD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolConstruction Cost $14.779mw/o fly and pit $12.779D e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e yProject Cost $18.178m
View from EmbarcaderoView from El CaminoPalo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Sh B2Sh B1Palo Alto High SchoolScheme B.2Scheme B.1D e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolScheme BD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolSite PlanD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Construction Cost $14.108m Palo Alto High Schoolw/o fly and pit $12.108mProject Cost $17.353mD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
First FloorSecond FloorPalo Alto High SchoolFirst Floor Second FloorScheme ED e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
View from EmbarcaderoView from El CaminoPaloAlto High SchoolPalo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolScheme E1 Scheme E1D e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolScheme ED e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Scheme ESh BPalo Alto High SchoolScheme BView from El CaminoD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Scheme EPalo Alto High SchoolScheme BView from Embarcadero with Media ArtsD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Scheme EPalo Alto High SchoolScheme BD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
2,466Seating CapacityHome 1 672Palo Alto High SchoolHome 1,672Visitor 794Total 2,466D e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y