Palo Alto High School Facilities Steering Committee Agenda

Transcription

1 Facilities Steering Committee Agenda November 1, :30 pm to 4:30 pm Library, ERC Room 1. Performing Arts Center Action 20 min 2. Athletic Stadium Update Information 5 min 3. Construction Update (Gilbane) a. Media Arts Center b. Classroom Building 4. Next Meetings a. Paly FSC Dec. 7, 2011 Information Information 15 min 5 min 5. Public Comments Discussion 5 min 25 Churchill Avenue, Building D Palo Alto, CA Phone Fax STRONG SCHOOLS BOND

2 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (PAC) SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: ATTENDEES: 1 November 2011, 12:15 pm-1:30 pm PAC Plan Options See attached sign-up sheet The purpose of the meeting was to review the newest revisions to the PAC scheme responding to recent FSC and Board comments, discuss current design option, and come to consensus on a recommendation to the FSC at the 03 November 2011 meeting. The following are the highlights of the meeting: 1. Brad Gunkel (BG) of DLM began the discussion by walking the committee through a set of plans documenting the newest scheme. The balcony has been removed and the PAC has been increased in width by a couple feet and in length by approximately 12 feet. The increase in the length of the house and the need to maintain sightlines opened up an exciting opportunity to provide upper side boxes above the side aisles that can be accessed from the now higher back row, and a possibility of placing program space under the control booth. Side box seats could be removable or closed off to reduce seat count for performances. Scheme shows 570+ seats (some of which are contingency in case they need to be deleted while moving forward with design development. Possibilities for removable seats include side boxes (24 upper, 8 lower), orchestra pit (25) and numerous seats in the center aisle and back row. Instead of catwalks running under a coffered ceiling (as had previously been shown), new scheme has catwalks running above a false arched ceiling, hiding the clutter, maintaining the functionality and creating a greater sense of intimacy in the space. Building has been pulled back a little more to maintain 30+ foot setback from curb at drop-off area. 2. A conversation ensued regarding the new scheme: Michael Najar (MN) questioned the reason the current design is now being represented as a 570+ seat scheme when the direction coming out Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 2 November 2011 P. 1

3 of the last meeting with Kevin Skelly regarding this topic had 540 seats as a target. JDL stated that the 570+ seats shown were meant as a contingency to get to 540 seats since seats will likely be lost as the design development moves forward. 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. The board had misinterpreted the seating count of the new scheme and the actual seats shown (570 +) were counted. The Board was responding more positively to the new scheme but was not satisfied with 540 seats. MN stated that, in his mind, 570 is not 30 seats more than the previously approved direction because he never wanted 540 seats. He stated that the ideal maximum seating capacity would be in the mid 400s so 570 seats is 130 seats (not 30) more than makes sense. He stated concerns about a house feeling half empty for performances and sited recent performance numbers as examples. Holly Ward (HW) expressed similar concerns stating that the 570 seating capacity would rarely be used and would compromise the use of the space for performing arts. Phil Winston (PW) did a quick calculation based on projected future enrollment and the fact that approximately 10% of a class are generally not in attendance at full-class assemblies to determine that an assembly space would only need to accommodate around 520 students to house an entire class. BG pointed out that the current scheme can address the Board s desires that the PAC accommodate an entire class for assemblies while addressing the PAC Subcommittee s desire for a space that does not feel half empty during performances. BG and JD revisited the locations and numbers of possible removable seats and noted that these seats could be taken out with little impact to the seating capacity that is not being utilized. MN stated that, even though the current scheme is still not ideal, he believes it is the best it is going to be considering the numerous parties involved in the approval process. MN stated that, overall, he thinks the new plan is a good plan. He and others stated that they re concerned that, if this moves forward, the elements that make this plan work as a performing arts center are not lost. BG stated that DLM s intention is to continue working with the Subcommittee to make sure that those elements are preserved as the design moves forward. The Subcommittee voted to recommend the revised scheme to the FSC. 3. BG showed the Subcommittee the presentation intended for the FSC: The slideshow presented the information that had been discussed. The Subcommittee requested that slides emphasizing the numerous schemes previously considered not be presented. Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 2 November 2011 P. 2

4 Carolyn Williams (CW) asked about sightlines to the Haymarket Theater. BG showed that a 30+ setback from the drop-off curb was being maintained to preserve those sightlines. Next FSC meeting will be scheduled for Thursday, 03 November 2011 at 3:30 PM. END Prepared by Brad Gunkel 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 Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 2 November 2011 P. 3

5

6 P A L O A L T O H I G H S C H O O L Palo Alto Unified School District Facility Site Committee 2 November 2011 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Various schemes were reviewed and discussed. 7 Reduced Scheme 575 seat max. theater with side boxes, 1 classroom, basement/ orchestra pit & full fly tower

7 Schematic Design: Program Elements: Program remains same as 575 scheme with the deletion of balcony seating Lobby with restrooms, tickets, concession and gallery/display area Stage sized for band, orchestra, choral, and theater Full fly loft Orchestra pit and trap room (now part of base contract not an alternate) Control room and tech equipment support rooms Green Rooms with adjacent toilet and dressing rooms Scene,prop pand costume storage, front of house storage Performing Arts Classroom Performing Arts Center office Total Area: approx 26,000 SF SecondFloor Approx. 38,000 SF First Floor Presented 5 Oct 2010 Previous Scheme

8 Previous Scheme Current Scheme 550 Seats with Balcony 575 Max. Seats with Side Boxes First Floor Plans First Floor Plan Upper Side Box Plan 2 November 2011 Revised Floor Plan - Single Story with Basement

9 East-West Section North-South Section Example of Catwalks Above False Arches

10 Site Plan XXX xxx Tree Mitigation Strategy

11 Trees to be removed: Total 7. Trees to be relocated: Total 31 Replacement trees per landscape plan: Total 53 Tree Status Remains Same Tree Inventory Plan View from El Camino 575 seat max. 2 November 2011

12 575 seat max. View from El Camino 2November 2011 Aerial View Remains Similar Remains Similar

13 View from El Camino 540 seats plus 2 November 2011 Remains Similar Performing Arts Center Schedule 1. BOE Presentation November 29, 2011 OR Schematic Design December 13, DSA submittal July Bid / Award April Start Construction June Planned Occupancy August 2015

14 Proposed Schematic Design Budget Estimated Construction Cost $17,350,000 Change Order Contingency $ 1,735,000 Total Construction Budget $19,085,000 Soft Costs (Architect, CM, Inspection, Other fees) $ 5,310,049 Total Proposed Project Budget $24,395,049 A R C H I T E C T U R E