City and school leaders have engaged architects to do informal, preliminary work on ideas for the Cubberley Community Center, Palo Alto school district Superintendent Kevin Skelly said Tuesday, Jan. 31.
In a report to the Board of Education on the progress of talks about the future of Cubberley, located at 4000 Middlefield Road, administrators said the architects — Gelfand Partners and Group 4 Architecture, both of San Francisco — are “coming up with some very rough and preliminary notions of how that site would be used.”
Group 4 has worked on the city’s libraries, and Gelfand has designed renovations of many campuses in the current facilities-bond program, including the new, two-story classroom building at Ohlone Elementary School.
City and school staff members were to have a conference call with the two architectural firms Thursday, school facilities and bond program manager Bob Golton said.
“It’s just to kind of warm them up, get a notion of ideas for what might go on that site,” Golton said.
Skelly said he’s been meeting monthly with City Manager Jim Keene and Assistant City Manager Steve Emslie on the city’s and district’s joint interest in the former Cubberley High School, currently leased by the city for use as a community center.
They plans to convene a “community advisory committee,” probably in mid-March, with broad representation of interested parties, including neighborhood associations, recreational users, PTAs, sports leagues and the senior citizen community, Skelly told the school board.
By Chris Kenrick
By Chris Kenrick
By Chris Kenrick
There is something wrong with the City’s continued association with Group 4. It’s time to use another architect. The library that is being constructed on Middlefield is certainly looking like it will be more ugly, and vastly too large, than not.
It’s time that someone take a long, hard, look at the cronyism that seems to be well developed between the City Manager’s officer, and Group 4.
I am on the City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission. While this matter is still in relatively early stages, it is clear that it will be a proverbial elephant in the room. Our Commission talked about it briefly at a recent meeting, and the surface was hardly scratched.
The school district is largely in the driver’s seat on this issue, since most of the property is PAUSD owned. The use of the campus as a school site again has not been thought through, and there are alternatives that can potentially serve the need for a 3rd high school and conccurrently provide community services would be a great outcome.
I don’t understand how architects can decide how Cubberley could be used. I thought architects were given instructions on how to design a building with a list of what facilities were required. Have they been given a list of requirements? This sounds like the cart leading the horse to me.
Perhaps it’s wise to demolish any and all existing structures and start anew on a small scale, with two story structures suitable to PAUSD’s current use.
I’d likely suggest selling all remaining land — that is, all land other than that needed to satisfy the siting of the buildings discussed in my preceding sentence — and using the proceeds to construct additional two-story buildings on existing PAUSD school sites, including, but not limited to, Cubberly.
Not-Happy says it clearly, something doesn’t smell right in the City Manager’s office connection with Group 4.
They just rehired a company that had a FOUR MILLION DOLLAR COST OVERRUN on Mitchell Park Library.
Something really really is not right. Newspapers should investigate this.
Could they explore the possibility of using the new site (whatever they build on it) as an alternate Emergency Operations Center in case of disaster? (i.e. Essentially, if there is a conference room, they make sure to wire it up and have a backup generator.) Might help to build some redundancy for preparedness.
Resident, No, it was the cart leading the horse on the high school construction, school board officials have said as much — trust the professionals to tell us what to do. That whole interaction was far more suspicious than the library, I think. This s a different architect. Seems to me they did a pretty good job on the library. And there’s nothing wrong with getting ideas. I thought this architect was far better at taking ideas and incorporating them in a good design. I think the cost overruns are the contractor’s issue, or is it that much overrun on the design? (Of course the contractor is going to try to blame the architect, but a contractor at that level should have enough experience to question a serious omission from the start.)
Please make the third high school, but a special one. A high school for STEM and/or Art at Cubberley. There are quite a few of that kind in other area in CA and in other states. Just not here yet.
Some PA teacher told me that PA parents would push their students even more if we had such a school, but I don’t think PA parents are that foolish.
I just want my kids to have a real lab available in/after school with proper adult supervision. At this moment, due to all the regulations, they have to apply for competitive applications in order to get an intern position in far away universities. Science summer camps are so expensive. My kids are not disadvantaged enough or smart enough to get into the Stanford programs. We are not Stanford professors who can let their kids to work in their labs.
In “Cubberley high school for STEM” I hope they have a project based science class with capable and willing teachers for the purpose.
> I think the cost overruns are the contractor’s issue, or is
> it that much overrun on the design?
Yes, and no. In the construction industry, there are always many players having input into decisions. The architect is supposed to provide a complete plan to the initiating party (a plan that can be constructed without OMGs [Oh My God] popping up). The party funding the construction project has an obligation to check the plans, because once they are “signed off”, then the project is now the initiating party’s problem. The contractor, of course, needs to do a comprehensive plan check, in order to estimate the project–expecting to make a profit when it is completed.
In the case of the library, the initiating party was the “City” (which is staffed with unaccountable individuals) who assume that all of their mistakes/errors/omissions will be ignored by the taxpayers, who will simply dig deeper into their pockets to put good money after bad.
Clearly the City of Palo Alto P/W officials failed to do adequate plan checking, prior to signing off when the Architect/Mechanical Engineers claimed that the “design is complete”.
Most construction projects include a hefty “contingency” line item (15%-25%), which allows for cost overruns that do not end up being overly obvious. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to tack how often these contingency funds are used, since most construction projects are in the private sector, and the books closed to the prying eyes of the public.
Don’t forget the important campus bike connections!
My understanding from City Staff is that despite the change orders, the Mitchell project will be done under the original budgeted amount, and have improved traits environmentally. This is due to the lower costs of materials and construction as a result of our wonderful recession.
Until Main Library renovation is completed, it will not be clear what the final cost of the entire endeavor will be. At this point, despite cjange orders, we are getting for our money what we voted for. And if it turns out that the total bill is less than what the bond initiative called for, the difference will be returned to the taxpayers.
How much is each public agency paying for each of the contracts and how much would be paid for any work beyond the “informal, preliminary work” covered by the current contracts? Follow the money.
Supporters of more playing fields in Palo Alto had better keep a close watch on the design plans of the Cubberley site to ensure that those that are there now are not lost.
Paul Losch seeks to cover the city’s and contractor’s mistakes:
“from City Staff is that despite the change orders, the Mitchell project will be done under the original budgeted amount”
Irrelevant. The Architects and the City made FOUR MILLION DOLLARS worth of mistakes.
Now the city is hiring them again. Collusion to cover up? Pretend it never happened by pointing to savings that should have been OURS.
> the difference will be returned to the taxpayers.
This statement is not exactly true. Not spending money that was authorized is not the same thing as “returning money” to the taxpayers.
And .. there is always the possibility that someone on the City Council will suggest that since $XXXX were authorized and not spent, then the City has a right to spend those dollars. We have seem that, from time-to-time, in the past.
> Irrelevant. The Architects and the City made
> FOUR MILLION DOLLARS worth of mistakes.
This comment is spot-on.
The problem here has to do with a failure to both plan and estimate the materials necessary for building this building safely. Hiring the same outfit again certainly does not pass the “smell test”. Unfortunately, people like Paul Losch are more interested in spending other people’s money, than operating a well-managed, honest, and cost-effective government.
It’s clear that the City Manager is more interested in moving construction projects along, than dealing with the best design/construction outfits.
“Resident” is right.
Long ago in an America that made sense, the norm for a remodel or new construction was to have the people who would be using the space first decide what they would like to do inside the space; THEN consult with space utilization experts/architects who told them what was feasible along those lines, and, once an expert hit on the best idea for the client, that company or specialist was hired to draw up specifics and then help make it happen (interact with the contractors, etc).
In Palo Alto, so much value is put on advanced degrees and important names or friends and people we hobnob with that the cart gets placed before the horse on almost EVERYTHING. We often don’t know what we are doing but heaven forbid we ask for advice from someone who actually has hands-on experience, especially if that person is not of our same (or desired) socio or economic class.
For example, when we set the rule on how many firefighters per truck, we essentially consulted with communities that had already done what we really wanted to do ourselves (and our local public servants who we were holding pretty much hostage on a number of issues), instead of following the broader guideline studiously set nationally by firefighters, paramedics and productivity experts after tracking the increase in injury and death among firefighters and the public in need of attention as a result of reducing the number from 4 to 3.
Or another example, a construction-related example. A self-appointed church activist asking an architect to tell them how to remodel a worship space without consulting with any of the various church staff and members about what they might envision doing in the remodeled space, and without making sure that they had an architect who had acxtual experience working with any of the many very specific and well documented aspects that make a good church design different from designing a simple multipurpose room (there are specialties involved with liturgical planning, music and pastoral considerations). But, and this is a key point around here, both the promoter of the idea and the architect brandished their credentials and connections around like prize fighters in a title match, exercised influence over the person driving that particular train wreck, and remained unchallenged by anyone in the church community because of who they were and not because of the suitability of what they were telling the rest they were going to do.
Gelfand and Group 4 were also involved at that place as well off and on. One would think there aren’t any other good architects and construction firms out there, making it pointless to even ask those others to compete.
I wonder if the Silicon Valley was the home of the infamous “no-bid” contracts and lack of fiscal oversight on foreign military and State Dept projects so popular in Washington?
Neither the City or the School District will ever build over the playing fields, they are sacrosanct. However, one idea that has surfaced is that the City could swap it’s 8 acres of buildable land closest to the Charleston Shopping Center for 8 acres of the playing fields.
The City would then promise to maintain the playing fields in the same way they maintain the playing fields they own at Terman. That would give the School District all the buildable land.
Very interestingly Larry Klein said at the Council retreat that the City had been told at a City/School Liaison Committee Meeting that the School District may not need the Cubberley site for a school until the mid-2020s.
The present buildings are old, deteriorated loaded with lead paint and asbestos and do not comply with modern earthquake standards. If Cubberley is rebuilt as a school or for anything else owned by either the City or the School District they will have to go to the voters to pass a bond measure for construction.
Both the City and the School District recognize that something has to be done with Cubberley that’s why they’ve got the architects involved.
Many people and organizations have a stake in the use of Cubberley. Balancing that is always tricky, and someone is bound to be upset. I know I have opinions!
The new Mitchell Park facility is the first building the City has constructed from the ground up in decades. There are numerous contractors, sub-contractors and probably sub-sub contractors involved. The fact that mistakes were made doesn’t mean there’s conspiracy or corruption in City Hall, just people trying to oversee an extremely complicated operation.
The voter-approved bonds financing the Mitchell Park construction can ONLY be used on construction; that’s why Paul Losch said unused money would be returned. It is, I believe, a legal obligation. Also remember that City operations are hemmed in by laws and regulations that make it difficult for decisions to be made quickly or impulsively; if a mistake is discovered, it’s impossible for the City to suddenly change course. For example, the City Council can’t even legally discuss an issue without publicizing it several days in advance. If you doubt any of this, please sit through a 4 or 6 hour Council meeting and see it all in motion yourself.
Also, as Paul said, the School District owns most of Cubberley, and it is a separate organization from the City. Its spending and hiring decisions are not the City’s, although obviously they have a strong impact on the City.
> Many people and organizations have a stake in the use of Cubberley
How about the rate payers and property tax payers who do not want to pay for non-residents using this facility for free? Do they have a “stake” in the game? It would appear that they do not–they are just “cash cows” to those who current are “stake holders”.
> The voter-approved bonds financing the Mitchell Park construction
> can ONLY be used on construction; that’s why Paul Losch said
> unused money would be returned.
Depending on how the bonds were sold, there may be no money to return. If all the bonds were sold, then there might be some money left over, but it is very unlikely that it will be returned, since there is no easy way to do that. Anyone ever heard of a “credit” on a property tax bill?
The City can find ways to spend that money on the library, however. That is a foregone conclusion.
Here’s something that boggles the mind. Many of the non-profits have rented space at Cubberley for the last 25 years at the same rent!!! There is a clause in the lease between the City and the School District which states that if the City increases rents on the tenants at Cubberley any increases will go directly to the School District!!!
All this is paid for by your Utility Tax. It’s time for the City to get out of it’s lease or at the very least renegotiate that clause so the City may benefit from any rent increases. As a neighbor of mine told me she has rented a room at Cubberley for the last 25 years to store her paintings, it’s cheaper than a storage locker in Mountain View!!!
Still can’t understand. Highlt paid Group4 made a FOUR MILLION DOLLAR MISTAKE on Mitchell Park Library.
Now the city is hiring them to do a new project.
Where is our investigative reporting? Cover up?
who is making this decision? the City Manager? Public Works?
I can not believe that the City hired Group 4 again.
I thought the City was going to sue them for errors and omissions in the construction drawings for the Mitchell Park Library that has cost the City millions of dollars in cost overruns.
WHO ON EARTH WOULD HIRE THEM AGAIN? This is idiotic.
Why would the City hire a high priced SF firm when there are so many great architectural firms right here in Palo Alto?
This totally dopey.
Work order changes are part of any project, be it a kitchen remodel, building a new house from scratch, and major works like the Mitchell Library project.
What has me concerned is not so much who the consultants are to figure out what the is the future of Cubberly than getting agreement on what the property’s best uses are gong forward.
Both the School District and the City need some good objective advice about this matter. I have no opinion about the consultants selected for this project. But, if the scope of work in around the buildings and land, we are too far ahead of ourselves.
We need consultants who can help the community define the optimal uses of the Cubberly complex going forward.
We need to have a clear definition and community buy-in on what the Cubberly complex should be gong forward to best serve the Palo Alto community. Buildings and land use and school district use and community use cannot happen intelligently until we go through such a process.
Are the nominated firms the right folks to do that sort of analysis? I don’t know, nor do I know if they were chosen for that sort of role.
NO NO NO NO NO
Leave things as they are.
At the conceptual stage of programming a site for changes in use, why spend more getting new design professionals up to speed? Group 4 obviously is current in PA, regardless of how the library steel gets settled. If the other Architect is currently working for PAUSD, they are both easy to get involved. In PA without someone leading a conceptualization, nothing will ever get decided that is feasible. Since neither agency has these professionals on staff, consultants make sense.
Perhaps there will be a big earthquake and the whole dilapidated place will come tumbling down – Hurrah!!! Then we can remove the rubble and have even more soccer fields
Take a look at Saratoga’s library. It is a Class A structure, on a huge parcel, that is the nicest community library in the valley. It has a classical design, adult and separate children’s section. The library is packed on weekends. The nicest part of the library is the beautiful informality of the entrance. Cupertino’s library is more modern, and San Jose has a modern library, but Saratoga designed their library perfectly.