Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District unveils three conceptual designs for Atascadero High School multipurpose room; early cost and schedule estimates presented
Summary
Architects presented three conceptual approaches for a new multipurpose room at Atascadero High School — options range from a standalone multipurpose room to a combined multipurpose room, kitchen and relocated library — and staff warned site constraints and costs will affect prioritization.
District staff and an architect showed trustees three conceptual options for a new multipurpose/dining commons at Atascadero High School and outlined program trade-offs, site constraints and early cost assumptions.
Brent Lloyd, the district director of support services, told trustees the high school lacks an indoor, air‑conditioned multipurpose space suitable for assemblies, indoor dining during bad weather, or a modern kitchen to expand scratch cooking. RRM Design Group project architect Catherine Hicks presented three additive concepts: (1) a new multipurpose room that renovates the existing snack bar and expands the covered eating area; (2) a multipurpose room plus a new kitchen/serving facility to support higher-volume service and a more efficient serving line; and (3) a multipurpose room, new commercial kitchen and a relocated/reworked library pulled more into the core of campus to improve circulation and security.
Hicks emphasized site challenges: the library sits roughly two feet above the snack bar and several feet above parking and drive aisles, and the existing library building dates to 1975 with original roofing and HVAC that will need future work. She said the concepts are early-stage and programmatic, intended to allow board discussion and prioritization rather than to be final designs. The firm described typical cost components that will drive the final budget — hard construction costs, contractor fees under a lease-leaseback delivery, escalation allowances, design and owner contingencies, soft costs for design and permitting — and noted some items (fixtures/furnishings, seismic and utility upgrades, and temporary housing) were excluded from the high-level estimates.
Timing and construction impacts: the architect estimated a shorter schedule for the smallest option (roughly 10–14 months of design and permitting plus a 10–12 month construction window, depending on phasing) and a longer timeline for the most comprehensive option (roughly 12–16 months of design and permitting plus a 14–18 month construction window). Hicks and staff advised planning demolition and heavy site work for noninstructional periods where possible and analyzing interim housing and food‑service solutions for students during construction.
Next steps: staff said Kitchell — the district’s facilities consultant — is finishing a facilities condition assessment and preparing a dashboard of deferred‑maintenance and condition items that will be available to the board by October 31. Trustees said they will use the condition assessment and the district’s bond resources to prioritize projects; staff flagged that state matching funds eligibility will vary by project and that availability of those funds may open in later years.
The presentation was informational; no final design or authorization to proceed with construction was approved at the meeting.
