NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING

NEWTON NORTH HIGH SCOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT

EDUCATION CENTER, FRAZIER ROOM

OCTOBER 8, 2003, 7:00 P.M.

PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Susan Albright, Gail Glick, Patricia Kellogg, Marc Laredo, Nancy Levine, Leslie Schneider, Dori Zaleznik, Mayor David Cohen

CALL TO ORDER

Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. She announced that after the presentation on the feasibility study draft on 9/25, she had discussions with the Mayor, which resulted in their asking the architect to work on some alternative proposals involving moving Dickinson Stadium to Albermarle Field. The results are not available for tonight's meeting, but will be discussed at a later date.

Susan Albright asked about travel time in Option A.

Carl Franceschi, DRA, estimated the most distant travel time in this option is in excess of 10 minutes, which was found to be unacceptable.

Susan Albright asked how this compares to travel time at Newton South, which is a more spread out building.

Carl Franceschi responded that he will check into this question.

Superintendent Jeffrey Young mentioned that students are moving quickly at South to get to classes and are not always making it on time. However, staff are understanding of the distance that must be traveled in some cases and are trying to be flexible.

Anne Larner added that the entire campus at South is not yet finished, so it is difficult to determine the extent of the problem.

Jeff Young stated that there are different dimensions to this issue. The physical plant and mileage is one factor and one way to address this is by placement of departments. Another is the consideration of smaller learning communities, where there are ways to organize how people are placed within the school that can take advantage of the physical space. The system has received a $100,000 smaller learning communities grant and they are looking forward to their work in this area. Finally, there is the issue of 990 (State regulations with regard to Time & Learning) and the fact that this has produced a frantic pace in schools, which in some cases has had an adverse impact on the quality of life in the high schools. The Committee will hear more about this at a later date.

Some discussion was had about how smaller learning communities might impact on the various designs and it was noted that there is flexibility in the plans for various options of how to utilize space.

Marc Laredo asked if they have had a chance to study the notion of underground parking.

Carl Franceschi stated that they have only thought about it conceptually in terms of budgetary implications, but will be doing further work on it, as requested.

Dick Amster, Turner Construction, stated that they need to know the number of cars required.

Marc Laredo responded that first the Committee should know if it is feasible.

Dick Amster reiterated that the number of cars would help them determine the size and cost.

Marc Laredo suggested they choose a small number and work up to a more expansive plan. He does not want to waste anyone's time discussing the matter if it is not even feasible.

Anne Larner believes it would be helpful if they could provide some direction to the architects as to the number of cars they would like to see in the space and then allow them to look at various options.

Marc Laredo wondered if there is a way to reduce the size of the addition by preserving more classroom space at the front of the building along Lowell Ave., while still creating an entrance that would provide more light and air. This would reduce encroachment on the athletic fields.

Carl Franceschi stated that, on a theoretical basis, if they were to demolish less they could add less. However, they have to keep in mind the need to build something large enough to house the population for one or two years while demolition and renovation is occurring in the existing building. Anything smaller would probably require modular classrooms or other methods to house students and staff. In addition, there are physical limitations to selectively demolishing the space precisely where they might prefer.

Marc Laredo would like to know if it is a feasible option.

Carl Franceschi would be happy to run the scenario and numbers.

Dori Zaleznik asked about contingencies if they run into cost overruns or time delays.

Carl Franceschi noted that it could possibly impact scheduling if there are variations needed to fit enrollment. However, once the population is housed in the new area, any unforeseen time delays simply means that it will take longer to phase people back into the renovated areas. The more critical pieces are the spaces that are scheduled for summer work because there are no alternatives to the cafeteria and library, so those would have to be carefully monitored. A more descriptive phasing schedule will be included in the final feasibility report, but there will need to be a much more thorough investigation with various consultants in the months to come.

Susan Albright mentioned that the Engineers Design Group, Inc. (EDG) preferred an option for more demolition and provided some good reasons for that choice.

Carl Franceschi replied that the EDG report is from a single perspective of a structural engineer. As the leader of the team of all of the consultants, it is their responsibility to take into account all viewpoints. While EDG's opinion is logical from their perspective, it has to be balanced with others. They believe that even though structurally it is somewhat more complicated, it makes more sense to reduce the size of the addition for programmatic and economic reasons. The final product will be structurally as safe in either option.

Susan Albright suggested there might be other uses for the demolition money, such as a parking structure and there could be a possibility of using the remaining space for some other City function.

Carl Franceschi replied that their scope has been limited to focus on the school program, so they did not deal with the issue of excess space.

Susan Albright said it might be worth looking at by the appropriate people.

Anne Larner suggested that the City would need to take a lead on this issue.

Marc Laredo likes Susan's idea of investigating the notion and thinking creatively throughout this process.

Leslie Schneider would like documentation on the input that has been provided by the various focus groups that the architects have been meeting with, as well as further clarification of the criteria, which does not always seem to be clear.

Carl Franceschi will provide the notes from the meetings that they have had to date.

Gail Glick stated that in addition to the notes, she would like to get a sense of the priorities, concerns, issues, etc.

Jeff Young mentioned that many issues raised by staff and students are more appropriate for the design vs. feasibility phase, so there will be ample time to discuss this further.

Dori Zaleznik stated that the temptation is to try to pin down everything in the feasibility study. She would prefer to spend time making sure there are no large gaps or mistakes in this phase. The final design is not going to necessarily replicate everything in the study. Issues such as teacher workstations and clustering of classrooms need much more input and she would not want to get bogged down in these items at this point.

Nancy Levine asked if there is a way to turn the orientation and make the front of the building on Lowell Ave.

Carl Franceschi stated that this is feasible with moving the football stadium.

Patty Kellogg asked if parking garages can be architecturally attractive.

Carl Franceschi admitted that there are no parking garages in their portfolio associated with public schools, but this does not mean it is not a possibility. Usually it is not the aesthetics of the garage that is the determining factor, but rather cost and perceived vandalism and safety issues.

Marc Laredo feels that Options C1 and C2 lack a vision for the potential of the building, particularly with regard to the entrance. He then asked why they could not keep the service entrance in its current location.

Carl Franceschi stated that the service entrance will stay in its current location. However, they envision another service entrance for the Career & Technical Education shops.

Marc Laredo asked if they would alleviate the need for this entrance if they were to shift some of the technical areas back to their current location.

Carl Franceschi replied in the affirmative, but mentioned that they would then have to deal with the issue of accommodating those students while the shops are being renovated/recreated.

Marc Laredo noted that those areas could be renovated during the summer.

Carl Franceschi stated that they would do some work on this suggestion.

Dori Zaleznik commented that new construction would allow them to take advantage of environmental and green initiatives and wondered if that were true in the case of renovations.

Carl Franceschi stated that while the green options may be limited in the hybrids vs. new construction, they do exist, particularly with regard to the mechanical and electrical systems, which will be totally replaced. The more difficult piece in the renovated areas is lighting.

Dori Zaleznik requested they check on Article 97 (open space) regulations, which was raised by a speaker at the last meeting.

Anne Larner added that they are also getting information on deed restrictions from the Law Dept.

Patty Kellogg asked if it would be possible to retrofit the heating system with solar panels.

Carl Franceschi stated that they would be eligible for grant funding for this, as was the case with Newton South. They have already begun investigating an energy efficient solar hot water heating system for the swimming pool. The replacement rooftop units can also be energy efficient models, which would make them eligible for utility company rebates. In addition, they received a $20,000 grant for studying the design initiatives for the old project and they may be able to apply that to the reconfigured option.

Susan Albright has concerns that a vertical atrium cannot provide the same type of environment as the current Main St.

Carl Franceschi responded that they believe it can provide both an image-identifying element of the building, as well as the central circulation space, as long as it is carefully designed in terms of function and flow. It might also be an improvement in terms of the supervision of the quieter, smaller areas and may be able to provide more of those type of areas. He reiterated that it is not inherent to the scheme that Main St. be vertical. The focus is on square footage and program and, at this point, it is not as critical how the space is arranged. They can illustrate the horizontal Main St. in this option and can also provide examples of successful interaction in vertical spaces.

Marc Laredo expressed concern about safety with the vertical design.

Gail Glick wondered if there is a way to fuse the two concepts into a ramp type design.

Carl Franceschi stated that the design already has a ramp type feature, with landings between floors. They can also expand the landings and the stairs can be shallow rather than steeply graded.

Anne Larner worries about the long, thin corridor of the former Main St. as being unfriendly and not the kind of place that would attract activity.

Carl Franceschi does not believe it would appear narrow or crowded since the volume of traffic would be reduced. The placing of programs in that area is what would make it successful. They are suggesting things such as the Tiger's Loft and access to the library and cafeteria as some options. Students would also need to travel through this area to get to the physical education facilities.

Leslie Schneider requested 3-D images of the plans, which might help the Committee better visualize the options and possible variations.

Dori Zaleznik was surprised to see all of the timelines at 55 months for completion, since there is considerably more renovation in some than others. She asked about concerns of not meeting the timelines.

Dick Amster reiterated that it is an aggressive schedule. The greatest variable or risk factor is the new wing getting extended beyond the summer and then having to figure out how to proceed with demolition while school is in session or to hold off until the next summer.

Marc Laredo stated that if Option C2 proposes to eliminate and shift the stadium, they need to know if that option is feasible and its costs, particularly if it involves shoring up the hill along Hull Street. He then asked if they have looked at what it would cost to renovate the pool.

Anne Larner replied that this was not part of the scope of their work.

Marc Laredo asked if there had been any investigation of satellite/shuttle parking.

Dick Amster responded that construction workers will be restricted in where they can park and will not be allowed to park on the school site. Legal street parking is certainly one option and a shuttle service is something worth looking into. If the Committee were interested in doing the same for students and staff it could also be investigated.

Marc Laredo asked about the status of discussions with the School Building Assistance Program (SBAP) regarding reimbursement.

Mayor Cohen reiterated that they are waiting for a decision by the School Committee.

Dori Zaleznik asked if there are any other disadvantages to building a new school other than cost and reimbursement concerns.

Carl Franceschi replied that there are not many major disadvantages to a new school. However, they would be disrupting more of the site and would be losing a couple of athletic fields for that period of time. The final footprint would also take up a somewhat larger area, which impacts on parking and green space.

Gail Glick asked if they are looking at how removal of the stadium would impact on the design for a new school.

Carl Franceschi replied that they had not factored that in at this point.

Nancy Levine asked if the current theater program would be impacted in the new school option.

Carl Franceschi replied that there is currently more space in the existing program that most likely would not be reimbursed by SBAP under the new high school option. Those areas are currently in athletics, theater and assembly spaces.

Nancy Levine commented on the variety of venues in the current theater program and their importance. She asked is there are plans to rearrange or expand the backstage areas. In the current design, the only way to cross backstage from one side to the other would be to go outside the building.

Carl Franceschi stated that this could be modified with a corridor or use of a curtain.

Anne Larner asked about natural lighting in Option C 2 along Main St.

Carl Franceschi replied that all new space along Main St. in this option would have natural lighting on each floor. They have updated plans showing the modifications and will be sure to provide copies and get them on the web site as soon as possible.

Marc Laredo asked if in their design work they could depict shortening the wings and renovating or building classrooms on the Lowell St. side to the demarcation point, which would allow them to preserve the athletic fields. He would also like to see the field shown both in its current configuration as well as the shifted model.

Patty Kellogg asked about stairs.

Carl Franceschi envisions one staircase associated with the new entrance and then at least three others along the rest of the building. They want to encourage traffic to the middle of the building, to make the space more inviting and to reinforce the notion of Main St.

At this point, the floor was open for public comment.

Miles Fidelman, 542 California St., commented that this phase of the project is critical and is what will drive the next level. At some point there needs to be a vote of confidence taken to move forward and he is not getting a sense that this is happening.

Marc Kaufman, 553 Walnut St., Newtonville, parent representative of the Newton North High School Council and member of the Citizen's Task Force, is excited to see the work of the Task Force entering a new realm. The feasibility report provides good analysis and detail, but he remains concerned about the construction project driving the educational program rather than vice-versa. There is abundant information available on the design of exceptional schools and campuses and he does not see that in the design work to date, which seem like boxed extensions. Flexibility in the space is vital to the design. This is an opportunity to excite the community with an innovative project that supports the educational program for future generations.

Mike (last name inaudible), asked if there are any common lounging areas for students in the current designs.

Carl Franceschi stated that there are common spaces in the design solely for students, which are meant to be flexible.

Leanna Kisch, English teacher at Newton North, expressed concerns about Option C-1 separating the library and cafeteria from the rest of the building and the time it would take to get from one part of the building to the other. She does not feel the design creates a good learning environment or sense of community. She is not as concerned with the size of the classroom space, as she can be flexible, but more with the movement of people throughout the building.

Anne Larner reminded people that the population at North is going to decrease, so the new building is being built for a target population that is lower than what is currently in place.

Susan Albright wonders if the issue is the size of the building or the lead time allocated to passing between classes.

Leanna Kisch responded that she believes it has to do with congestion, particularly in the main thoroughfares. It will be important to not create a lot of corridors and to be mindful of the size of the ones that are in place.

Carl Franceschi added that the spaces on the perimeter of the library that are currently being used for other functions will return to library usage in the new designs.

Dori Zaleznik stated that the educational goals have largely been maintained since the original report, aside from some changes to the Career & Technical Education and Special Education programs. While there are many ways to design the spaces, they will be maintaining the same square footage and criteria.

Anne Larner added that there have been numerous discussions around the educational program, which may not be clear in the feasibility report. However, the work in the study reflects these many conversations about program. It might be helpful to translate some of that into text for the final report, so that the public can understand the framework that is behind the material.

Anatol Zuckerman, Nobel St., West Newton, wonders how they can guarantee that the State is going to fund this project given the current fiscal situation and on what they are basing the schedule.

Anne Larner replied that she cannot guarantee anything that the State will do, but feels they need to respond in the way the State has asked, which is to come forward with a specific recommendation on how they wish to change the original project. The schedule is based on the work of the design team. She would be happy to meet with him at a more convenient time to discuss these issues more fully.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.