Loading...
Planning & Design Meetings 9/7/2011 - Minutes FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 07 September 2011 Page 1 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 07 September 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: Introductions: 1. Phil Winston (PW) welcomed the committee and initiated the meeting. Performing Arts Center (Discussion): 2. Erwin Lee (EL) of DLM presented the newly proposed scheme of the PAC: • Previously considered 466-seat, single-floor scheme brought to BOE was viewed by the Board to have too few seats. A larger seating capacity was desired. • The new scheme (550 plus seats) includes a moderate-sized balcony with a first floor plan similar to the single floor 466-seat scheme. • Stair to balcony is tucked into area adjacent to entry (to side of lobby) • House is slightly smaller in both directions with balcony providing additional seating. • The Lobby and exterior are relatively unchanged in program and area. • No restrooms are included on the second floor. • Tom Hodges (TH) presented the PAC budget summary (attached). Estimated base construction cost of new scheme is $17.5m. Proposed add alternates include the motorized orchestra pit, additional seat wall with trellis, upgrade of lobby flooring, upgrade to acoustical wood slat ceiling at lobby, glass guardrail at upper level of lobby, and upgrading exterior aluminum storefront to curtain wall. Alternates will only be a part of the project if additional sources of money become available or the bid comes in under budget. Theater equipment will be included in the project as an alternate, but can be funded by a separate budget if necessary. Estimated total cost (including soft costs, non-alternate equipment and contingencies) is $24.5m. This cost is $2.1m above the current project budget presented to the board of $22.4m. TH believes that the revised budget will be acceptable to the BOE. • Michael Najar (MN) asked if the alternates are budgeted for and TH clarified that they are not. MN stated that a motorized orchestra pit is essential to the theater and music performances. MN further added that a non-motorized orchestra pit will rarely be utilized and is not a good idea. He differentiated between a theater FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 07 September 2011 Page 2 and a performing arts center. He stated that the Performing Arts Committee does not see a need for the additional seating (Haymarket Theater already accommodates 550 plus people) but does need a quality PAC with a motorized orchestra pit. He stated that the space will not be utilized to its full potential if the building is not treated as a complete performing arts center. • PW stated that the BOE views the ability of the PAC to accommodate 550 plus seats as important in order to maximize its use (which is one of their stated goals). • Anne Anderson (AA) and Rachel Kellerman (RK) asked if the goals of the FSC were made clear to the Board. PW said that FSC’s view was clearly presented at the BOE meeting. • RK shared that she is concerned that the BOE is not aware of the community’s desires (which is for a quality Performing Arts Center). She offered that she is unaware of any community concern or interest that the facility has a larger seating capacity. • PW stated that he would request the BOE to schedule a study session so that all stakeholder interests are discussed. The FSC voted unanimously to request a study session with the BOE. • RK stated that the Board should be provided with a study of the Haymarket Theater. TH indicated that a study had been done in 2000. • Nancy Bork (NB) commented on the difference between an auditorium and a PAC, stating that MN’s prior comments had made this difference very clear and that it’s an important point to stress to the Board. • AA asked if the budget number provided at the top of the summary was correct and TH acknowledged that the number included a typo and should contain an additional zero (should read $16,340,000). Construction Update - Media Arts Center & Classroom Building (Information): 3. Heidi Rank (HR) provided a summary of the work being performed related to the Media Arts Center and Classroom Building: • HR said that the maintenance portable building, originally scheduled for demolition, has been moved by the contractor and is being used as their office. • Site demolition work is in progress as well as some grading activities. • Bids came in $400,000 under budget. The unused portion of the budget was moved to Group 2 Equipment (matching funding for part of CTE grant). • TH and EL explained delays related to DSA approval process (which caused loss of 1-1/2 months from original schedule). Ron Smith (RS) clarified that Sacramento DSA reviewed project as a favor (Oakland DSA office was overextended) to PAUSD and DLM but it still required extra time and coordination. • HR clarified that the final phases of work, such as the central plant demolition, can occur after building occupancy so the schedule has not changed relative to the occupancy date. • Paul Kandell (PK) asked why people were seen wearing ‘Tyvek’ suits. RS clarified that it was associated with the abatement of a transite pipe but that the FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 07 September 2011 Page 3 work was encapsulated and would not impact the campus. • Mary Gordon (MG) asked if the alternate for pavers was selected and included in the contract. It was noted that it was not due to the additional $400,000 cost. AA and EL noted that the base bid hardscape is slated to be grey concrete. Boiler Replacement Project Status (Information): 4. RS explained Boiler Replacement Project: • Boiler replacement in the Tower Building was budgeted for ($400,000) which was part of the base scope of work for the Tower Building. The work was moved up because of the condition of the existing boiler. New boiler should work better, be more efficient, and provide the much needed heat. • TH reminded the group that there were other first phase Tower Building improvement projects such as the construction of an elevator and restroom upgrades that were to be discussed in conjunction with the planning of the Library project. • RS explained that some repairs to the Tower Building will still occur as part of a separate budget. Stadium Improvement Project Update (Action): 5. TH and HR explained the Athletic Stadium project status: • HR explained that project was originally split into two projects (bleachers and concession/site improvements) in order to expedite DSA approval specifically, the bleacher portion of the project. The bleachers were bid and came in 50% over the budget for this package. Staff is recommending that both packages be combined as a single project which hopefully will reduce the overall cost. If project bid is within budget, the concession stand can be started right away while bleacher contractor submits incremental drawings for final DSA approval. If the bleachers are approved quickly by DSA, they could be installed next summer. However, if they are not quickly reviewed and approved by DSA, they will be installed after the football season. Unfortunately, the time table is entirely dependent upon DSA which is an unknown. Regardless of the bleacher installation date, the concession can start construction independently of the bleachers and should be ready for next fall. Earl Hansen (EH) has been informed of the scheduling options. • TH went over the Budget (attached). Original budget/estimate for bleachers was $977,959 and for site work was $1,473,097. Current estimates (including bleacher estimate based on actual bids) are higher. The track resurfacing will be part of the project but will be funded by Planned Maintenance. Relocation of relos is also included in the overall project costs. Total cost (including construction cost, relos, soft costs and contingencies) is estimated at $4,852,416 ($1,226,315 above original Budget). • PW asked about reducing the size of the Weight Facility/Fitness Center as a way to fund the shortfall. TH noted that DLM had worked with EH to determine the essential spaces needed for the building and that the programmed area FSC Meeting Palo Alto High School 07 September 2011 Page 4 could be further reduced. The revised total resulted in a 12,000 sq.ft. building (with estimated savings of approximately $800,000). The site would also be constrained for the original building area but should easily accommodate a smaller building with modified program requirements. • AA said that EH and the subcommittee wants to make sure that the end result includes everything necessary. She expressed concern that we are working off of estimates and wants to make sure that important pieces of the facility do not get lost from scope. PW discussed making the alternates’ part of base bid. EL explained what the alternates were. AA mentioned that the reduced bleacher section was actually preferred since it would allow for more gathering area beneath the trees. NB explained that the trellis structure is more important than it sounds (tying the concession into everything else and making the entire area more attractive. After hearing that the sound system was a bid alternate, Jerry Berkson (JB) stated that the Principal’s Budget has roughly $17,000 for speakers in it. AA emphasized that doing the stadium right is EH’s highest priority. • PW proposed that we take $800,000 from Weight Room/Fitness Center budget and the remaining difference from Tower Building to fund alternates for the Athletic Stadium project desired by FSC (all but bleachers) part of base bid. This Proposal was approved unanimously by the FSC. Master Plan Project List (Discussion): 6. TH reviewed the Master Plan Project List (attached): • As mentioned above under the Athletic Stadium Improvement discussion, TH explained that he thinks he could take out $800,000 from Fitness Center while providing scope and program that EH had requested. • The timeframe for Library work was requested by RK. TH stated that the Gunn HS work will be wrapped up first then the focus will return to the Paly Library and Fitness Center with initial meetings in early 2012. It was decided that the stake-holders for the planning meetings should be identified. • The timeframe for the Library project is dependent on the completion of the Media Arts and Classroom Building project. Next Meetings (Information): 7. PW will request a Performing Arts Center working session with the Board and report back to the FSC. END Prepared by Brad Gunkel of Deems Lewis McKinley. Please advise in writing if you feel that any of the above items are inaccurate. cc: Attendees, File