Planning & Design Meetings Meeting #5 3/31/2009 - Minutes
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 1
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
Palo Alto Unified School District
THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
DATE: 31 March 2009, 3:15pm-5:00pm
SUBJECT: Performing Art Center Conceptual Design
ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached)
The following are the highlights of the meeting:
1. Jacqui McEvoy (JM) welcomed the committee and opened the meeting.
2. The members of the committee that visited the two theaters, Sacred Heart
Preparatory (SHP) and Menlo Atherton Performing Arts (MAPAC) on March 12th
shared their thoughts with the others. They had the following comments:
Mike Najar (MN) noted that Menlo Atherton high school has one of the smaller
performing arts programs in the Bay Area. Paly’s program is much larger and of
better quality.
Kathleen Woods (KW) agreed with Mike’s comment and said that the MAPAC
building was designed to be grown into. Paly already has a ‘top notch’ program that
is larger and the new theater should support it.
MN noted that many high school theaters are built with music as an after thought
and wanted to make sure that the new facility supports the music programs equally
as the drama program.
Stu Berman (SB) commented that he thought that the SHP facility was a good mix
of performance space and hands on learning environment. MN suggested that it
was a compromise design.
Adam Shalleck (AS) noted that the two facilities are very different in feel although
they have similar seating capacity.
Rachel Kellerman (RK) commented that the MAPAC was more of a community
theater than a teaching facility which the SHP facility was.
SB commented that for the size of the MAPAC, there was minimal only storage
space
AS noted that from a production standpoint the MAPAC facility is outstanding.
However, the educational side was compromised to make this happen.
Arne Lim asked how the number of seats was determined for the facilities and how
does that compare to Paly’s desire for a seating capacity of 600.
Jacquie McEvoy (JM) responded to the capacity question that anything less than
600 will not accommodate a full class.
MN asked JM how often she thought a class-wide meeting would be held to which
JM responded, probably once a month if we had a facility.
SB emphasized, the purpose of the theater is to serve the most students possible.
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 2
JM suggested that the new theater is a “one shot deal” and that the funds will be
found to build the desired facility. For example, the CTE building could be reduced.
This is our only opportunity.
MN added that high school productions have different needs than community
productions.
AS indicated that an orchestra pit would accommodate approximately 30 people
and that it is a good use of utility and flexibility. When it is not used, the area can be
recovered for the stage.
MN reminded the group that the orchestra pit is not used in current productions.
Tom Hodges (TH) asked what the other uses for the facility would be beyond
productions. How does the facility benefit the campus at large?
Arne Lim asked how the balcony will change the size of the building. AS responded
that for acoustical purposes, the building needs to be a certain height. The balcony
will not make the height double—it will be slightly higher.
AS commented that the MAPAC had very little to offer beyond the house and stage.
The support spaces were very small such as the green room and some spaces like
storage were nonexistent.
KW commented that the fly offers so much more flexibility than the tension grid.
There is no question that the fly is necessary for the scale of the program at Paly.
AS indicated that with a fly, an orchestra shell is absolutely necessary acoustically
for musical performances. The shell would roll off to the side just off of the stage.
EL commented that all of the schemes have a space adjacent to the stage to
accommodate the storage of the shells.
MN said that originally he was for the grid. However, after seeing the grid and fly
arrangement he is committed to the fly.
3. EL summarized the progress made to date on the Theater design and program and
displayed new drawings outlining five schemes: A, A1, B, C, D, and E. All the
schemes vary in cost, number of stories, and orientation. EL also handed out a
matrix that listed associated costs of each scheme.
Scheme A was done prior to programming for the CTE Grant and serves as a
point of departure for the other more developed schemes.
Scheme A1 is similar to scheme A but features a “cross-under” below seating
for a tighter footprint and it has additional space to meet programmatic needs.
Scheme B has a rectangular house and the largest 2nd floor to meet more
programmatic spaces including a Classroom and generous Lobby.
Scheme C is a reduced version of scheme B with less 2nd floor (no Classroom)
and smaller Lobby.
Scheme D has the house turned perpendicular to Building 100. It’s nearly as
large as scheme B and has a storage space on the second floor.
Scheme E is a smaller version of scheme D and omits all the curved walls. It
features a colonnade at the entry which picks up design elements from the
landscape master plan.
EL noted that all the schemes have similar programmatic elements and noted
that the cost matrix showed the step down costs without the fly tower and
orchestra pit. The delta for eliminating the fly and orchestra pit is approximately
$2 million.
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 3
4. The following discussion on the design schemes ensued:
Caroline Willis (CW) noted that in the future, plans should address how the
loading dock will be treated noting that screening this function is very important.
EL responded that the loading dock won’t necessarily be the “messy” area. It
most likely will be by Building 100 where the scene storage space is planned.
Question was asked which scheme might lessen the bulk of the fly tower and EL
replied that scheme B or the rotated schemes might appear less bulky although
it will need to be studied in massing forms to make a final determination.
CW noted, she felt that the schemes with a fly tower and house parallel to
Building 100 (schemes D and E) had a better relationship to the overall campus
and might be less expensive.
Adam Shalleck (AS) noted that scheme B seemed to be the “build-out scheme”
the one that best provides for the programmatic spaces.
5. Discussion followed on the project schedule:
Aimee Lopez (AL) handed out a Tentative Schedule for CTE Grant and without
CTE Grant. AL noted that the schedule for the CTE Grant would accelerate the
project so that it needed to be ready for DSA within 6 months which is nearly
impossible with the existing review process.
Tom Hodges noted that DSA could hold up the process and noted that the
school approval process and duration could hold things up, so it can’t be
assumed that the grant money can be used.
TH added that the School Board will be informed of the tight schedule and that
this might help.
JM noted that $3 million slated for the Media Arts Center, if not used, it could be
available for the Theater project.
CW noted that it was still too soon to pick an option. There needed to be 3D
drawings and/or models in order to understand the design.
JM replied that this decision could occur after the FSC reviewed the progress.
TH noted that the Board will want to see progress on the Theater design.
Steve Pond (SP) asked if the Board should see models and elevations of the
schemes. EL responded that it was too soon given previous experiences with
how the BOE prefers to have designs presented.
Rachel Kellerman (RK) noted that the committee needed to see massing and
elevations and EL agreed that this was appropriate.
TH noted that EL should show the plan options at the next FSC meeting and
recommend scheme B in order to keep all program needs per the
subcommittee.
The Theater subcommittee unanimously agreed to recommend to the FSC that
the program elements of Scheme B be pursued making a distinction between
program and architectural design.
Arne Lim asked how soon Shalleck could pull a design together from conceptual
design to construction documents and AS answered, in 9 months. EL concurred
but noted that it’s always the checking points along the way that can delay.
AL noted that first the Board needs to approve conceptual design, followed by
schematic design before construction documents can proceed.
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 4
6. Schedule:
Next Monthly Theater Sub-Committee meeting will be scheduled for April 29th 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
Tentative Schedule for CTE Grant Tentative Schedule without CTE Grant Tentative Schedule without CTE Grant and Fundraising Efforts
Construction Cost Budget $11.76Palo Alto High SchoolConstruction Cost $8.075mProject Cost $9.932mD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Palo Alto High SchoolConstruction Cost $9.263Project Cost $11.393mD 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
Construction Cost $13.984mPalo Alto High School$w/o fly and pit $11.984mProject Cost $17.200mD e e m s L e w i s M c K i n l e y
Construction Cost $14.521mPalo Alto High School$w/o fly and pit $12.521Project Cost $17.860mD 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