Planning & Design Meetings 1/5/2011 - Minutes
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
05 January 2011
Page 1
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
Palo Alto Unified School District
FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
DATE: 05 January 2011, 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:
Tom Hodges (TH) welcomed the committee and initiated the meeting.
Construction Update (Multi Purpose Field):
2. Heidi Rank (HR) noted that the following:
Progress for the filed is ongoing and that a lot can be seen. The punchlist will
probably occur while the fields are occupied or in use.
The fields will be ready for the beginning of February 2011.
3. Construction Update (Group 1 Projects):
HR noted that DLM has started to receive plancheck comments from DSA.
Gilbane and the District will start the process of prequalifying contractors in
preparation of the bidding process.
In response to how long the bidding process would take, HR indicated that State
projects have to be bid for a minimum of 30 days. However, TH added that
projects of this size usually take longer and would be approximately 3 months
from start t o finish.
Stadium Renovation Project (review & approval):
5. EL gave a power point presentation of the latest plans and noted the following:
TheVisitor bleachers capacity will be reduced in order to avoid cantilevering
over the existing fence and the existing bike easement. Total capacity is now
2,357.
After meeting with the Concessions Building group a few changes were made
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
05 January 2011
Page 2
including modifying the restrooms and adding a screen wall to separate them
visually from the concession area.
The 3D model was updated and EL showed views that compared it to the model
shown in June of 2010.
Base bid design includes chain link fence and gates while an add alternate will
include an ornamental fence and gates with concrete piers and an entry
gateway. Views of the 3D model were shown that compared the base bid design
to the add alternate design.
EL noted that the Landscape Subcommittee will be asked to help with the initial
planning and design of the site in order to expedite the process. The landscape
scope for this project is minimal and consists primarily of new trees along the
new pedestrian path between the home and visitors bleachers.
EL noted that re-surfacing the existing track will be part of this project in order to
coordinate construction and minimize disruption to the field. TH noted that the
funds for the track resurfacing will come from a maintenance budget and not the
bond project.
Stadium Renovation Project (next steps):
6. EL noted that both the new Bleacher and Concessions Building projects are
planned to be completed by August 2012. However, the Concessions Building may
extend beyond the bleacher schedule due to the longer construction duration. Both
projects follow different schedules due to the DSA deferred approval process
required for the bleachers.
The anticipated schedule:
o Submit to DSA in March 2011
o Go to bid in October 2011
o Start Concessions Building construction in November/December 2011
o Submit Bleachers to DSA for deferred approval process in
September/October 2011(depending upon DSA review time)
o Start Bleachers construction in May 2012 (100 days to complete) and
complete by August 2012
7. AL noted that a budget will be presented on the February 2nd FSC meeting and the
schematic design presentation to the BOE will be on February 8th with approval on
February 22nd.
8. Group discussion followed:
Question was asked when the portables currently occupying the proposed
location of the new Concessions will be moved. AL responded that they will be
moved this summer.
Michael Najar (MN) asked if the users know they are moving. AL noted that
they do and have been kept informed of the plans.
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
05 January 2011
Page 3
AL noted that the IT training lab relocatable will move adjacent to Building D.
9. TH asked EL to prepare a drawing that shows the proposed changes to the
Maintenance Building for Chuck and Pete to review.
10. TH noted that these items will be confirmed at the next Stadium Renovation
committee meeting tomorrow, January 6th.
Performing Arts Center (Project Status):
11. TH noted that the PAC was taken off the agenda because after a meeting with
Michael Najar (MN) and Phil Winston (PW), a new approach to bringing the project
within the $22.4 million budget was generated. However, this approach had not
been reviewed with the PAC sub-committee and would need to be reviewed and
approved before it could be presented to the FSC. Two approaches will be
discussed with a recommendation for one. The two approaches are:
Approach # 1: 600 seat theater, with a reduced program, that requires a fund
raising effort to bridge the budget gap
Approach # 2: Reconfigure the existing design to a single story, 400 seat theater
that is within the budget.
12. Discussion followed:
MN noted that this new, single story approach was a good option but it needed
to be discussed and reviewed with the sub-committee.
TH noted that Jacquie McEvoy had been the champion of the 600 seat theater
in order to accommodate an entire class when the projected enrollment reaches
2,400. However, the sub-committee indicated that for their performances and
events a 400 seat theater would be more than adequate. Also there may be
other opportunities to seat 600 or more such as in the future Gymnasium.
Stu Berman (SB) asked how the smaller 400 seat theater (Option 4) came back
when it had been eliminated. TH responded that it was an unknown quantity but
now there is a design for it that shows it to be a viable option. Also there are
concerns regarding the large scale fund raising effort that go beyond this facility.
PW added that the school is obligated to meet the budget at all costs and that if
the PAC comes in over budget funds would come out of another project such as
the CTE Building or the Library which may be unacceptable.
TH felt that to reduce the cost of the 600 seat theater some unreasonable cuts
were being proposed such as eliminating the new plaza which would bring the
project cost up to $27 million. The 400 seat theater would retain all of the
original program elements and associated site work with Option 1 and still fall
within the budget range.
FSC Meeting
Palo Alto High School
05 January 2011
Page 4
SB asked what was the PAC seating capacity on the Bond Measure or what
was the assumption. TH noted that it was 500 seats. TH noted the assumption
was that student enrollment would rise by 300 students or from 1,950 to 2,250.
EL noted that the 400 seat theater option was not a total redesign but was
achieved by the removal of the balcony, stairs, and elevator and interior plan
adjustments. The proposed plan retains the exterior appearance and concepts
of the original design. PW noted that this option brought back the programmatic
cuts of Option 1 less the approximate 200 seats that were at the balcony level.
MN added that the proposed plan needs to be reviewed with the PAC
subcommittee to make sure that the desired program elements still exists and
that is satisfies their requirements. A meeting will be scheduled as soon as
possible.
Paul Kandell (PK) cautioned the group that even though a 400 seat theater
meets the requirements of the Music and Drama departments, it may not meet
the requirements of the school as a whole. He could envision many uses for a
larger seating capacity such as freshmen orientation. PK also noted that to add
a plaza later is doable but it’s impossible to add square footage or seating
capacity later.
13. TH noted that the project was on schedule to be presented to the BOE in February.
Next Steps:
Next FSC meeting dates are February 2nd, March 2nd, and March 30th.
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 District5 January 20115 January 2011ATHLETIC STADIUM IMPROVEMENTSATHLETIC STADIUM IMPROVEMENTS
PaloAlto High SchoolSeating CapacityHome 1,686Visitor 671Interim PlanPalo Alto High SchoolD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e yTotal 2,357
Palo Alto High SchoolMaster PlanD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolFloor PlanD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e yFloor Plan
1 June 2010 BOE presentationPalo Alto High SchoolConcession / Restroom FacilityD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e yy
Palo Alto High SchoolShown with Additive AlternateOldGD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e yOrnamental Fence and Gateway
Palo Alto High SchoolShown with Additive AlternateOldGD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e yOrnamental Fence and Gateway
Palo Alto High SchoolBase BidShown with vinyl coated chain linkD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolAdditive Bid AlternateD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolBase BidShown with vinyl coated chain linkD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolAdditive Bid Alternate D e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Athletic Field Improvement pSchedule1. BOE Approval of ppSchematic Design Feb 8 and 22, 20112. DSA submittal March 20113. Start Construction December 20114CliA 20124.CompletionAugust 2012The concession/restroom facility has a longer construction duration than the bleacher project and may extend into September/OctoberPalo Alto High Schoolthan the bleacher project and may extend into September/OctoberD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
ARCHITECTUREA R C H I T E C T U R E