Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middle‑school rebuild hits design‑development milestone; BCDC review and budget thresholds shape next steps
Summary
Architects and staff showed near‑final design drawings for the middle‑school rebuild, reported DSA progress on temporary‑campus permits and BCDC review as the remaining permit, and warned that a 50% replacement/10% structural threshold will force prioritization within the $81M package.
District facilities staff and the project team presented near‑final design development materials for the middle‑school rebuild and temporary campus plan.
Julio Royo, the district’s director of maintenance, operations and safety, and members of the design team (Laura Nas and Mark Juul) told the board that phase‑one temporary‑campus permits have cleared several DSA (Division of the State Architect) steps (rough grading and utilities) and that the second increment — the finished site work and portable buildings — was being routed back to DSA. They said Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) review remains a gating item for full project permitting because of shoreline‑adjacent access and public‑access conditions.
The team described scope and scheduling for the permanent campus (phase two), including a draft budget in the vicinity of $81 million with a board decision to add a new arts building (building C) into the scope. Mark Juul said the team plans to submit the phase‑2 documents to DSA in late September or early October with anticipated DSA approval in February and construction start thereafter; targeted occupancy is mid‑to‑late 2029, with some schedule risk depending on how the gymnasium scope is sequenced.
Design and budget constraints: the team reminded the board of a 50% replacement threshold and a 10% structural threshold that limit which renovations can be treated as repairs vs. replacements for permitting and cost accounting. Building A was identified as the most cost‑sensitive element; the design team said they will present a reconciled cost 'menu' of scope reductions and priorities for the board’s June 18 decision before moving to construction documents.
Site and program highlights included a proposed arts wing with a courtyard and roll‑up doors, revised library and collaborative spaces, improved entry canopy options and an updated site plan that relocates some facilities and expands bike parking relative to the existing campus. The team noted that solar was not included in the current budget except where required for new construction; district representatives said solar or PV can be pursued later (for example, parking‑lot canopies) if funding is available.
Public access issue: team members and trustees discussed a standing BCDC condition that preserves public shoreline access through part of the campus; the district is negotiating how access and gate operation will be maintained during construction and interim campus occupation.
Next steps: staff will reconcile design‑development cost estimates, present a prioritized menu of scope changes for Building A and return at the June 18 meeting for design‑development approval and cost guidance. The board also authorized bond issuance to preserve the district’s credit posture and proceed with planned financing steps.
Attributions: project update and permitting status provided by Julio Royo (director of maintenance, operations and safety) and presented by design‑team members Laura Nas and Mark Juul; follow‑up questions by board members and public commenters.
