So.
Design Advisory Committee (DAC)
Meeting No.1
- January 15, 2008
1.01 Consideration/Options
1. Considerable conversation
ensued with review of the EIR plan:
A. Drop-off configuration
B. Parking
quantity/configuration/who would use it?
C. Building locations
D. Admin./Library Bldg.
priority (Submit plan to DSA by March 31, 2008.)
E. Gym priority due to
community & school frequent use.
F. Fields to be developed at
one level for maximum flexibility & utility. (Not identified as scope in
Alt. 6)
G. In general, how much
flexibility do we have in the EIR? PSWC to discuss w/district counsel.
H. Off-site parking/drop-off @
Option A. EIR Plan Strictly Adhered (scaled
roughly)
1. Gym 9,500 s.f. +
2. Shower/Locker 4,140 s.f. +
13,640
s.f. + 13,640 s.f. +
3. Admin. 6,980 s.f.
+
4. Library/ Media
3,920 s.f. +
5. Computer Labs 2,600
s.f. + 13,500
s.f. +
13,500 s.f. + 27,140 s.f. +
Phasing is difficult due to
“bridge” of 2nd –story over easement.
Option B. Develop 2-story Admin –Spec. Ed/ Lib.
MC-Comp. Classroom
1. Develop Admin/ Spec. Ed.
Classroom at ground level
2. Develop LMC/ Computer
Classroom at 2nd level
3. Admin. Requires area for 5
secretarial staff, 1 attendance clerk, 1 nurse, 1 principal office, 1 vice
principal office, - other requirements listed on large tablets (to be listed in
notes when tablet is available). Faculty Work & Lounge included.
4. LMC requirements (see
attached LMC notes Jan.15, 2008).
5. Special Ed Classroom Req.
(see attached program dated Jan. 15, 2008). The program provided lists several
additional spaces beyond the State funding – SDC (non-severe) usually is 1,080 s.f. w/ a
toilet adjacent. The provided program includes a cluster of office for
psychologist, special ed. Counselor, language/ speech specialist, testing room
and conference room. A decision is required from the District Admin. Office on
whether or not to include this level of Spec. Ed. facility.
Option C 6. DAC challenged the position of Admin. It
could be on the 2nd level w/LMC & Comp.
Classrooms on ground level
–weight of books on the 2nd level was cited as a concern, as was
potential noise from students going up & down the stairs. No decision made?
Note: Special Ed. must be on
ground level.
1.02 Considerations/ Options (cont’d)
A. PSWC Suggestion:
1. Submit plans on the
Admin/Lib. Bldg “C” to DSA per original schedule (March 31, 2008 or early
April). Plan can be developed with flexibility – classroom modules (960 s.f.)
dictate the shape of the building (w/10’ aisle width)
2. Changes to the final
functions of the building could be made later in the process or even after
construction.
3. The window for funding
opportunities from OPSC could be lost ($3M +) if we do not proceed with
the plan of the Admin/Lib. Bldg “C”
1.03. Parking: Critical
dimensions…affects building locations/ impacts into play fields
A. EIR shows 63 - 60° angle parking w/one way 26’w fire access lane &
20 temp. parking stall/drop-off lane –total parking 83 spaces (requires 4
handicap stalls)
B. EIR requires landscape w/in
parking area to ‘soften’ impact
C. EIR required lighting in
parking w/no light ‘spill’ onto adjacent parking
D. Teachers/ Design Advisory
Committee did not want to have parents drop off turning into school area –
especially the shared 20 temporary parking stalls/ drop-off lane. However, the
EIR plan must be followed.
E. DAC suggests curbside
drop-off zones (
F. EIR section 4.8-5 (p2.0
–3.1) 172 spaces not required. Alternative 6 plan shows 83 spaces (includes 20
temporary) Approx.100 lin.ft. @ south side of
G. DAC has suggested possible
gated access to the
H. DAC suggested to petition
City to change the
1.04 Rollin
Street Abandonment
A. Easement for utilities: the
least expensive solution is to leave as they are with special easement
recorded.
B. Another possibility is to
negotiate w/City Public Works to cap utilities. No easements would be required
but removal of existing utilities would carry some cost.
C. Once a design direction can
be determined, school administrators/ staff should “lobby” city council to
facilitate decisions.
1.05. Building
Elevations:
A. Arched arcade originally
connected CR wings to Auditorium. Consider development of arched arcade to
“tie” new structures to existing.
B. Auditorium/ Tower shall be
the dominant feature on site –exterior to be maintained as existing.
C. EIR requires new Gym to
respect 1414 property – not to ‘over power’
D. Historical photos (copies)
were provided by Sharon (LMT) to base design in historical vernacular if
possible (EIR requirement)
E.
F. The original architect’s
renderings of the 1927 school design have been studied for the original design
effect/vernacular. These original details will be incorporated into the new
design where feasible.
1.06. Gymnasium/
Showers & Lockers
A. Gym should have 4 cross
courts (8 half courts) 40’W x 70’ L each w/swinging backboards
B. Bleachers to fold back to
wall. Bleachers require 25’ clear to bottom of structure – structure to be open
truss design –further coordination is required for pulleys, ropes, etc. to be
suspended from trusses.
C. Rock Climbing wall to be
attached to new gym (move from existing gym?)
D. Wood Gym floor required
(1/8” concrete tolerance level.) Court lines and inserts for poles, etc. to be
further coordinated
E. DAC suggested possible
basement location for shower/lockers. PSWC advised against basement due to
excess cost impacts
F. If Gym encroaches into
field, existing fields should be regraded to yield a much more functional
single level field area. Exterior basketball courts should be relocated to
immediate area of Gym (5 full courts-BB) Remove tennis courts.
G. Add 20’ x 30’ min. storage
for Gym equipment
H. Add a roll-up screens at
center of gym @ each cross court
I.
Existing BB courts are 30’W – too narrow.
J. DAC shared concerns over the
“blind” corner at Gym northern wall. PSWC to study further.
K. The Gym should be the focus
of the project because of school and community use is intense (after school
(week days & weekends,) & school use)
L. Showers for students should
be minimal (4). Handicap access will be required to lockers and showers
M. If parking at
N. Another suggestion was made
– if EIR could allow relocation of buildings; locate Gym next to Auditorium.
PSWC suggested that due to mass of gym facade, the Auditorium would be visually
impacted; the noise generated at the gym should be at the furthest location
away from academics; the Gym should be directly related to the field area; the
Library / Computer Classrooms/Admin. should be located close to the “center” of
the campus and adjacent to the academic functions.
O. Lockers: 6 basket to 1
street; 5’ high w/sloped top, vent space at center; 6” high curb + ;
Girls – 690 basket/115 street; Boys – 690 basket/ 115 street
1.07. Communications:
A. Meeting notes will be
developed by architect
B. Meeting notes will be posted
on a website as the project develops. (develop web posting w/Mary Anne McCabe)
C. Copies of meeting notes will
be sent to
D. Design Advisory Committee
understands that design suggestions can be included or not included in
the final design & construction usually based upon construction cost
impacts and/or schedule impacts and/or district policy decisions. The Board of
Education will provide the ultimate decision and guidance.
1.08. Review w/District Counsel:
A. EIR Flexibility?
Modifications? Building Configurations? Size?
20,000 s.f. @ Gym
8,000 s.f. @ Adm.
8,000 s.f. @ Comp. Lab / Lib. MC
B. Building/Parking Positions
& Quantity?
Rotate longitudinal access?
Relocate functions?
Reduce parking quantity?
C. Site Plans 1-8 dated Jan.
15, 2008 & Jan. 16, 2008
1.09. Attendees:
A. Refer to Sign-in Sheet
(Jan. 15, 2008)

