Loading...
Planning & Design Meetings 5/5/2011 - Minutes Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 5 May 2011 P. 1 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (PAC) SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 5 May 2011, 3:30 pm-5:00 pm SUBJECT: PAC Plan Options ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached) The purpose of the meeting was to review the the various PAC Schemes, discuss the current design option, and come to consensus on a recommendation to the FSC at the 11 May 2011 meeting. The following are the highlights of the meeting: 1. Tom Hodges (TH) gave a brief history of the conversations that have been occurring behind the scenes regarding the Board’s concerns about the seating capacity of PAC. This was the reason that alternate designs have continued to be studied after the FSC recommended the 466 seat scheme. 2. Erwin Lee (EL) provided a handout which showed plan diagrams of the six schemes that were reviewed along with the estimated project cost. All include the full fly tower with grid. The six scheme were: a. The original schematic design option, 600 seat, two-story with balcony ($28.0m) b. Initial area reduction and VE options to the above scheme ($27.0m) c. One-story, 466 seat scheme with nearly all features of original 600 seat scheme including orchestra pit ($23.0m) d. One-story 575 seat scheme with classroom and orchestra pit ($24.5- $25.0m) e. One-story 575 seat scheme without classroom and orchestra pit ($23.5- $24.0m) f. Two-story, 600 seat with balcony, without classroom and orchestra pit ($24.8-$25.0m) 3. The last 600 seat scheme was a suggestion by Michael Najar (MN) as an attempt to satisfy both the Board’s desire for a larger seating capacity while preserving the intimacy of a smaller facility favored by the subcommittee. 4. TH indicated that the group would need to recommend a scheme to the FSC committee next week and added that it is acceptable to reconfirm the 466 seat Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 5 May 2011 P. 2 scheme that was previously reviewed and approved by the FSC. 5. Holly Ward (HW) and others asked where the other schemes came from. TH shared that it was in response to a visit to the Saratoga High School McAfee Center which Superintendent Skelly was involved with while at Saratoga High School. The cost for that facility was considerable less and Skelly questioned why we could not build a similar facility. Those that were familiar with the facility indicate that it is far from the facility desired at Paly and lacks many of the features and program elements that Paly specifically requires. • MN suggests that the Saratoga facilities should not be compared at any level with the proposed PAC. • Kathleen Woods (KW) and James Hilmer (JH) have both worked at that facility and are aware of and understood the program compromises that were made there. 6. Scheme 6, which does not have an orchestra pit or trap room, was discussed relative to their program needs. MN asked if the Shalleck Collaborative had designed theaters without orchestra pits and how did they work? He suggested an alternate to the orchestra pit in way of an orchestra perch. • KW offered that St. Francis just built a facility without an orchestra pit. • MN added that modern productions have fewer musicians in the orchestra pit and that is why he felt it was not as important to the facility and a reasonable compromise. The trend is towards smaller number of musicians for productions. • Stuart Berman (SB) wondered how often the orchestra pit would be used and shared that he was under the impression that it might be used only twice a year for productions. • Rachel Kellerman (RK) noted that not all PAC students will become actors and that many will go on to work in theaters in a production capacity. The PAC should prepare those students for technical education and the facility should provide the working, learning environment for this happen. • MN indicated that the facility should be designed to the intent of the program and not the program backed into the design. • TH shared that Building 100 is essential to this scheme and would be remodeled to accommodate the program elements that were deleted from the PAC proper such as the drama classroom. 7. A further discussion followed regarding the origination of the 600 seat capacity requirement. • The 600 seat capacity was introduced by the former principal as a facility that could accommodate one class or approximately one quarter of the projected enrollment. • SB offered that he has not heard the argument why a 600 seat facility is not required and questioned what the need of the rest of the school is. Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 5 May 2011 P. 3 • Phil Winston shared that he did not believe that there is a need to seat one class. The need does not currently exist, and for this to happen there would be significant scheduling challenges because of the current block schedule. If it does happen, up to four periods would be impacted as well as after school activities. The school has not expressed an interest in the larger facility. PW further added that it would be a tremendous shift in school culture to start integrating single class assemblies or program functions to accommodate the facility. • HW feels that from her discussion with board members, it is not so much the actual capacity that they are concerned with as it is with questions that might still exist and the reasons for the shift in direction away from the 600 seat facility. • KW said that asking the building to meet dual needs will compromise the instructional side. • RK added that we should all keep in mind that the bond program is a 20- year plan and we don’t need to meet all of the goals in this building. The next round of projects might address the need for a large assembly facility such as a new gymnasium. 8. HW summarized the discussion by noting that the subcommittee is reconfirming their recommendation and desire to support the 466 seat scheme as they did previously. 9. Bob Golton (BG) asked if the desired 466 seat scheme had been presented at a community meeting. A meeting was held but no one attended. BG went on to discuss the following: • Is there a group in the Paly community lobbying for the larger facility? MN responded that there wasn’t and that he had heard from only two individuals regarding the larger facility. • BG suggests that the subcommittee get a reconfirmation from the FSC group at next week’s meeting. PW and the subcommittee indicated that the FSC has already endorsed the subcommittee choice and unanimously voted to recommend the 466 seat scheme to the Board. PW will take BG’s suggestion under consideration. • Next FSC meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday, 11 May 2011 at 3:30 PM. END Prepared by Erwin Lee 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