Education for the win!
Jackie doesn't deserve this.

"That measure, passed in 1995, was slowed by mismanagement that resulted in litigation between the district and construction firm. This time around, district officials have pledged to get it right,"

I'm thrilled that we will be upgrading our infrastructure, and I'm glad for Kevin Skelley's leadership as we go forward. One thing I am concerned about - especially given our unfortunate but not-so-rare experience with recent construction problems in the district - is his publicly stated goal of putting two-story buildings at Gunn High School.

Building two stories is only more cost-effective than one story if you have to buy the land. In this case, the district owns the land already and doesn't need to buy more. Gunn has plenty of land.

The district's biggest expense in putting up new buildings is labor, and two story buildings are exponentially more expensive to engineer (especially in earthquake country) and build. They will be more difficult to upgrade as their structures inevitably become obsolete (sooner than single-story buildings), and probably thus have a shorter effective life span.
They are less safe and more complex when it comes to emergency issues such as fires and even run-of-the-mill accidents (stairs, etc.) They are less safe and less survivable in earthquakes than single story buildings, something we need to think about in earthquake country. Yes, we can engineer solid two-story buildings, but again, the costs go up exponentially, and for what purpose? That argument also counts on the construction being done without problems - something that is just not a solid bet in this day and age. (No one who has construction problems expects them, yet they are all too common even with vigilant oversight.)

Palo Alto already went through problems with the last bond measure because of construction problems. Unless there is a truly compelling reason to go for two stories (there isn't, I believe), we should plan any facilities upgrades at Gunn to remain single story. For the safety of our children, for cost effectiveness, for speed and for simplicity in completing the projects.

The issue of whether there should be multi-story buildings at Gunn is also (sort of) tied in with the decision of whether we should have two mega-campuses to accommodate growth, or whether we should open Cubberly again as a high school. Skelley has stated his opposition to opening Cubberly, mainly because he doesn't want to deal with pitchfork wielding parents angry at being redistricted away from Gunn or Paly. The way to avoid this is to open Cubberly as some kind of choice or magnet high school to take the pressure off of enrollment at both of the other high schools. Redrawing lines at sometime in the future may be unnecessary (depending on the type of choice school) or it may be a moot point if Cubberly develops a good reputation. These are big decisions that have yet to be settled.

With things moving forward the way they are with the bond measures, now is the time to clarify these issues so that the District maintains good communication with the public and decisions are made in the open. (With all the economic and safety considerations well considered.)

If you feel the same way, especially if you have children who will be at Gunn and are concerned about earthquake safety, please communicate this to Skelley's office. (And please do not forget to add a thanks for the otherwise excellent job his office is doing leading our district.)

I feel very strongly that we should keep Gunn a one-story campus, and will fight hard if it comes to it. I hope good sense and economic arguments win the day, but I never count on that. I'd like to know what kind of input ordinary citizens will have at this stage so that it doesn't become a knock-down-drag-out campaign down the line, when things are more expensive and harder to change. I would love to hear from the new committee members on this forum.

This appears to be another committee made up of north residents in the majority. I truly hope that this committee will be unbiased in its allocation of funds and watchdog activities.

Otherwise, good luck.

There are several inaccuracies in the above comment:
Gunn does not own the land; it is leased from Stanford. As you can see from the renovation of the playing fields, the massive portable villages on the campus, and the need to avoid building over the Hetch Hetchy easement, there is not a lot of land available. There is even less available space at Paly. So if the school population increases, it makes sense to think about two story buildings.
As someone who survived going to a 3 story high school back in the dark ages, I think it is ok.

There is a large state bureaucracy which regulates school buildings and mandates building to code. While we are in earthquake country, I do believe that architects and engineers have mastered the ability to build safe two story buildings.

I think the important part of school is the teaching that goes on inside the facility.

You can only choose people to be on a committee if they volunteer. Having been part of many district-wide groups over the past 10 years, I find that there is a greater representation of people who live in North PA because those are the people who offer to help.

I survived a multi-story high school, too. But I didn't pay all this money to live here so that my kids could go to an enormous high school the size of a college. Kevin Skelley arrived here with an agenda/bias to make our high schools multi-story, whether it makes economic sense or not, and regardless of how parents feel about larger schools. He came here from Southern California where mega-everything is the norm. That's why a lot of us don't live in Southern California.

If the school population increases, it makes sense to compare the cost of reopening and renovating Cubberley with the extremely high cost of building up at Gunn and Paly. The additional costs associated with two-story construction could run in the tens of millions for several buildings. We could conceivably tear down and rebuild Cubberley for that, and still get all the other renovations we want at Gunn and Paly (just not two-story buildings).

If I wanted my kid to go to a crowded, multistory high school, I would be living in San Francisco. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Skelly was the principal of Saratoga High before he was in San Diego. Just an FYI. I don't think he has an agenda. Just trying to fit a lot of kids into small spaces.