Los Altos board favors higher‑capacity campus concept, asks designers to refine TK/K grouping and front‑of‑school layout

The Los Altos School District board approved the meeting agenda unanimously and then held a study session to review four concept designs for a proposed Los Altos Elementary campus. Board members and district staff focused discussion on student capacity, building configurations and tradeoffs among cost, flexibility and future phasing.

Design and construction teams presented four overall concepts and three grade‑configuration variants (TK–6, TK–8 and 4–8) for each concept. The design team described the tradeoffs: two‑building and three‑building folio configurations, single‑story wings for TK/K, and a separate administration and multipurpose (MPR) building in some concepts. The team said their target capacity range was roughly 500–600 students but presented options from about 394 up to roughly 807 depending on configuration.

Board discussion centered on flexibility, instructional program needs and budget implications. Concept 3 — three two‑story folio classroom buildings plus a standalone MPR and gym — produced the largest capacity (about 607 in the configuration shown) and was described by the presenters as the most flexible for long‑term use but also the most expensive. Concept 4 introduced single‑story TK/K folios to reduce code conflicts for younger students and produced a capacity estimate near 526. Concept 1 and Concept 2 differ mainly in whether administration is in a custom NPR building or within a folio; those alternatives produced lower capacities in some grade mixes (examples shown: Concept 1 TK–6 ≈ 418; Concept 2 TK–6 ≈ 394; Concept 2 4–8 ≈ 483).

The design team and board reviewed specific program counts used to calculate capacity: two classrooms per grade (the baseline), two special‑education rooms, and two to four flex rooms in many scenarios. The presenters noted that elementary classroom sizes for TK and kindergarten must be oversized per state standards, which reduces first‑floor classroom efficiency and can push some small‑group or special‑education spaces to the second floor in certain layouts.

The meeting also covered code and schedule constraints the district must manage. The team said building code generally disallows rooms used by students in TK and early elementary grades on the second floor unless those rooms have dedicated circulation not shared with older students. The presenters said Division of the State Architect (DSA) approvals are valid for a finite window (DSA approval typically lasts two years with one extension possible) and that the state code updates on a roughly three‑year cycle. The project cost discussion noted the presented total project cost estimates include construction, design/engineering, permitting and contingency; additional soft costs (special inspections, furniture, testing, commissioning) were estimated separately and were discussed in the 15–25% range depending on assumptions. The team described using a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract once design is locked and noted escalation and phasing raise cost risk.

Board members debated phasing vs. building all components at once (underground utilities and site staging are more economical if completed together, but phasing reduces initial expenditure). Several board members favored keeping the TK/K program compact and clustered so younger students share ground‑level access and play areas. Others emphasized placing administration and secure visitor entry at the campus front for safety and functioning as a clear front entrance. A recurring theme was preserving flexibility: several trustees said they preferred an option that allows the district to defer construction of TK/K single‑story wings or add them later without redoing underground utilities.

The board did not take a formal binding vote on a final design today, but members expressed a clear preference for Concept 3 (the three‑folio model) with two conditions: refine the site and building layout so TK/K are clustered in a self‑contained wing or single‑story building where feasible, and ensure administration and the secure front entry are located and detailed to meet safety and community access goals. Staff said the next step is schematic design and site‑fit studies, with interior allocation decisions targeted for completion by early fall and a plan to return to the board with refined options.

Votes at a glance: At the start of the meeting the board approved the agenda. There were no formal final votes on a preferred concept; the board provided direction and a consensus preference for Concept 3 that staff will carry forward into schematic design.

The district scheduled follow‑up work to test Concept 3 on the actual site plan, to evaluate phasing and cost escalation scenarios, and to refine administration, TK/K adjacency and MPR placement before the next board review.