PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. 11 May 2011, 3:30 5:00 pm

Transcription

1 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District FACILITIES STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: 11 May 2011, 3:30 5:00 pm Palo Alto HS Facilities Steering Committee ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached) The following are the highlights of the meeting: 1. Introductions: Phil Winston (PW) and Tom Hodges (TH) welcomed the committee and initiated the meeting. Introductions were made around the table and room for the benefit of Dr. Kevin Skelly (SK) who was attending the meeting to discuss the status of the Performing Arts Center (PAC). 2. Performing Arts Center: TH opened the discussion by pointing out that the PAC was originally removed from this afternoon s agenda. However, TH shared that KS s participation today is to bring another perspective to the ongoing PAC discussion regarding the appropriate size of the facility. It s a follow up to similar discussions held at the PAC subcommittee meeting on 5/5/11. Since many were not part of the PAC subcommittee meeting, TH gave a brief history: 600 seat facility was taken to BOE for information 600 seat facility was over budget due to program creep and was pulled before BOE schematic design approval 600 seat facility was reduced in area and other value engineering opportunities were explored to reduce cost 466 seat option was generated which had all of the features of the 600 seat facility except the second level and balcony seating. 466 seat option was presented by the PAC subcommittee to the FSC as their recommendation which the FSC voted unanimously to support and recommend to the BOE. As a result of higher level conversations, it was suggested that the seating capacity was too small Other options were explored based on the above conversations Having met their program needs and the budget, the PAC subcommittee reconfirms their recommendation of the 466 seat option. Page 1

2 3. KS described his role and interaction with the BOE and how he relies on the expertise of the site and those participating in the process. He noted the important role that the FSC plays in bringing the expertise of the site together to make key decisions and recommendations to the BOE. KS believes that a bottom up approach is much better than a top down approach in connecting with the community. The community relies on the BOE oversight as a reality check for the bottom up recommendations. KS further added that it s very important to avoid putting the BOE and site in opposition over differing opinions that will not serve the BOE well. The BOE needs to be included in the why we are here and the how did we get here thought process. KS suggest the following considerations need further thought: Last BOE presentation was a 600 seat facility with balcony Subsequently six schemes have been explored ranging in seating capacity from 466 to 600 (the BOE is currently interested in approximately 550). Can the group convince the BOE? The group will be fighting early enthusiasm exhibited for the 600 seat facility Need for the classroom within the PAC given other options on campus such as the Haymarket Are the desired program elements what will serve the school best long range? Is the orchestra pit required and how often will it be used? Comparison to the Gunn Theater The following discussions occurred: Stephen Pond (SP) added that he s satisfied with the 466 seat option as a recommendation as it is within budget and meets the PAC department needs. However, it may not meet the BOE needs. He shared that other options to accommodate large numbers were discussed by this group and the FSC such as a future gym or acoustically updating the existing gym. Michael Najar (MN) offered to initiate any conversation necessary with the BOE and asked KS if this was appropriate. KS replied that it is acceptable to contact the BOE directly. MN further responded to KS s comment about the initial enthusiasm for the 600 seat scheme offering that if was the no apology building part that the enthusiasm was for and not the seating capacity. On the topic of the Haymarket Theater, MN noted that he has been at Paly for over eight years and has seen two modernization efforts at the Haymarket that had less than desirable results. Lastly, MN noted that the way that performing art students judge their performance is not by a letter grade but by playing to a full house. Conversely, performing to a non-full house is not a good feeling. Success is performing to a standing room only audience. He added that a major fundraising effort was going to be challenging. KS agreed that fundraising was not the best option. KS wanted to understand the classroom portion need. He asked if the Haymarket can serve that need. Holly Ward (HW) shared that from her Page 2

3 discussions with Kathleen Wood (KW), the need for adjacency was very important to the program providing direct access to costumes, props, lighting, and supervision. It would also serve as a break out space for smaller groups to practice while others are on stage. KW s preferred scenario would be to always have access to the stage for practice. Anne Anderson (AA) offered that from a non-theater perspective, but from a Master Plan project list and dollar allocation perspective, she was never convinced of the reasons for a larger more costly facility. PK added that the group looked at options to accommodate a large capacity such as fixing the acoustics at the gym and using a hi-tech approach by having the presentation simulcast on large screen monitors which, for example, could happen next door at the new Media Arts Center. HW felt that from her conversations with some of the BOE members, the BOE uncertainty was more a matter of having questions answered rather than a specific seating capacity. TH asked if this should be brought back to the BOE as an informational item and asked if we needed a community meeting first. KS suggested that the BOE meeting would serve as the community/public input meeting. KS asked Erwin Lee (EL) what his opinion was on the seating capacity. EL responded that he was fine designing for either capacity but went on to say that there are currently far more high school theaters being built in the seat capacity than there are in the seat capacity. SP added why would we want to duplicate the capacity of the Haymarket (approximately 520 plus) in the new facility? KS felt that the best arguments to the BOE for the smaller facility were the use of simulcast, the Haymarket can accommodate a class, and facilities currently being built are in the smaller range. A brief discussion was held on what BOE meeting date would be best to present this information. TH suggested the 14 June meeting. The date was not determined. 4. Boiler Replacement Project: TH informed the FSC that the current boilers need to be replaced sooner than planned, and that a project is in progress which will replace the two boilers and associated piping at the Tower and Haymarket Buildings. This project was one of the first phase projects for the Tower Building to address the issue of heat. The estimated allocation from the Tower Building budget for this work is approximately $800,000. TH asked the FSC if there were any objections to moving forward with this project. The FSC had no objections. 5. Construction Updates: AL gave an update on the Media Arts and Classroom Building indicating that the documents have been approved by the DSA and will be out to bid on May 20 th. For Page 3

4 the Athletic Stadium Improvements, she noted that the two projects have been submitted to DSA. SP asked if a logistic plan had been generated for the construction. AL indicated that Gilbane was working on a plan and that it would be shared with all before being finalized. SP was concerned that construction deliveries would conflict with school arrival and operations. 6. Group 2b Projects: TH advised the FSC that they would like to start work on the group 2b project which includes the Library Renovation and the Weight/Fitness Building and will ask DLM for a proposal to begin start up tasks. TH indicated that the Library will be programmed together with the Tower building to determine if other uses can be incorporated into the Library. TH also mentioned that the Weight/Fitness Building could be pushed back until after the bids for the group 1 projects are known. 7. Mary Gordon (MG) request that a follow up meeting be held to discuss the landscape portion of the Media Arts and Classroom building. Members of the landscape committee had met with Heidi Rank (HR) to finalize the plan but they had not had a chance to review the final version. EL provided MG with drawings of DLM s interpretation of HR s notes and drawings generated from her landscape meeting. EL indicated that DLM will schedule a meeting with the landscape group to review the plan before finalizing. 8. Churchill Project: TH indicated that the Churchill landscape plan will be implemented and that it is a multi-funded project. It will not impact the Paly project list. Next Meetings: To be determined END Prepared by Erwin Lee of Deems Lewis McKinley. Please advise in writing if you feel that any of the above items are inaccurate. cc: Attendees File Page 4

5

6 Scheme Options First Floor 2nd Floor Basement Level 1 Original Scheme 600 seat theater with balcony, 2 classrooms, basement, orchestra pit, & full fly tower. 2 Initial 600 seat theater with balcony, 1 classroom, basement, orchestra pit, & full fly tower seat theater with 1 classroom, basement, orchestra pit, & full fly tower seat theater with 1 classroom, basement, orchestra pit, & full fly tower seat theater with basement, orchestra pit, & full fly tower seat theater with 2nd floor balcony. No classroom, no basement. Performing Arts Center,, May 5th, 2011

7 New Performing Arts Center Palo Alto Unified School District - Palo Alto, CA DLM D E E M S L E W I S M c K I N L E Y 7 7 V A N N E S S A V E N U E S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A F A X Key Plan Approvals ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROPRIETARY DESIGN: THE DRAWING, DESIGN, AND INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET ARE THE PROPERTY OF DEEMS LEWIS McKINLEY, ARE DEVELOPED FOR THE USE ON, AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, AND ARE DISCLOSED IN THE CONFIDENCE AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE USED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PRODUCE, CONSTRUCT, OR MANUFACTURE DRAWINGS, PRINTS APPARATUS, PARTS, OR ASSEMBLIES WITHOUT FULL KNOWLEDGE AND WRITTEN CONSENT CONSENT OF DEEMS LEWIS McKINLEY. THIS DRAWING IS PROTECTED BY COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT, ALL PATENTABLE MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN AND ORIGINATING WITH DEEMS LEWIS McKINLEY SHALL BE THE PROPERTY OF DEEMS LEWIS McKINLEY AND ANY USE OF PATENTABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ROYALTY PAYMENTS TO DEEMS LEWIS McKINLEY A-0.2