School board to review initial design for Lydiksen rebuild

Also: Vote on MAP system, CSBA delegates, public employee appointments

A rendering of the initial design concept for the Lydiksen Elementary School rebuild and modernization project. (Image courtesy of PUSD)

The Pleasanton school board is set to discuss the conceptual design for the Lydiksen Elementary School modernization project Tuesday night.

Staff and Aedi Architects, who were officially approved last fall to design the proposed rebuild, will be presenting this initial design for board discussion and feedback.

No action is expected to be taken this week. Depending on how the board discussion goes Tuesday, the conceptual design could return for possible approval at the March 13 board meeting.

The Lydiksen Elementary rebuild is among the projects included in the initial $70 million Measure I1 bond issuance authorized by the board in August, with $30 million earmarked for the Lydiksen project. About a third of that amount would go toward soft costs like pre-construction services and furniture while the rest would cover construction, according to staff.

A "Campus Committee" consisting of Lydiksen staff, parents, and district staff worked with the architects to put together the conceptual design. Overall, staff said in a report, the modernization project aims to replace the removed circular buildings, minimize interim housing costs, preserve the on-site heritage trees and resolve traffic and parking issues.

On a classroom level, staff hopes the design will encourage student collaboration, create "21st century classrooms" and improve classroom flexibility.

The interior changes highlighted in the conceptual design include increasing the square footage of all classrooms to include "collaborative space," creating additional space for an administration building (separate from the library and campus center) and reducing the overall classrooms count, from 29 to 25 for TK-5 classrooms, and from eight to seven for specialty classrooms (classrooms like music, art and computer lab).

Exterior changes include reducing the playground and field turf areas, expanding the hard court and kinder play area, adding in a covered lunch structure, decreasing staff parking from 78 spaces to 66 and increasing parent parking from 26 spaces to 30.

If approved in March, the schematic design phase will begin immediately, followed by construction drawings, six months of review by the Division of the State Architect, and another two or three months for bidding and approval.

Staff estimates construction will begin summer 2019, with students and staff moved into the first completed classrooms by fall 2020.

The board's open-session meeting will be held in the district office boardroom at 4665 Bernal Ave. at 7 p.m.

In other business

* The board will review and discuss current enrollment information and an updated report by the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS).

* Board members will consider approving an early adopters pilot for a new student assessment program called MAP (Measures of Academic Progress).

The new program was presented for review and feedback at the last school board meeting, and would cost the district $13,625 for the pilot licenses and professional development.

* Trustees will hear a report on updates to board polices and administrative regulations.

* The board will consider voting for delegates to represent Alameda County's Subregion 7-B in the California School Boards Association. Pleasanton Unified's vice board president Valerie Arkin currently sits in one of the spots that will soon be vacant, and is up for re-election.

Delegates will serve two-year terms beginning April 1.

* During closed session starting at 6 p.m., the board will consider two public employee appointments: the executive director of fiscal services and director of special education.

Also during closed session, trustees will confer with assistant superintendent of human resources Julio Hernandez regarding two of the district's employee union: the Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT) and the California School Employees Association (CSEA).

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


3 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 26, 2018 at 6:15 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Oh god. I voted for the bond measure and really hoped this would work out. But this sounds like horrendous mismanagement. Why are they shrinking the yard and adding extra spaces? That’s not a good use of funds, compared to building a new school.

Please please don’t tell me this will be a disaster that will require a grand jury to wade through.

1 person likes this
Posted by Mc
a resident of Lydiksen Elementary School
on Feb 27, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Net decrease of 8 parking spots. What happens when you are able to add more staff and more students? More impact on the neighbors! Be a good neighbor and please plan for growth!

3 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 27, 2018 at 8:17 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

Closed session for union talks. Bust that door open. We want transparency.

6 people like this
Posted by Ellen
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 27, 2018 at 8:33 pm

At a time when our schools are overcrowded, WHY ARE WE REDUCING NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS?

4 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 27, 2018 at 11:48 pm

Clearly the union is getting its hands on our money first. No supporting new schools until they get theirs first

2 people like this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 6, 2018 at 8:12 pm

Reducing the number of classrooms yet adding a new administration building, does anybody down at the district office actually care about our kids?? Sounds like the same group that would like to sell-off our downtown so they can build themselves some shiny new office buildings

Like this comment
Posted by Winston
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Mar 9, 2018 at 10:58 pm

Winston is a registered user.

Dear Grumpy, were you absent on the day Basic Math 101 was taught. Expanding parking is much cheaper and efficient use of bond money than building and operating a new school. And projections do not support another school amd Im paying the bill too so I want the most efficient expenditure.

EVERYONE drives their kids to school now so added parking is badly needed to avoid parents from creating the existing neighborhood street gridlocks and obstructing driveways often blocks away. More teachers are required due to mandatory class size.

On a new school, my same opinion applies. Expand Donlon with modulars to make dfficient use of tax payers money. The Donlon location and huge property is good. The population and demographics do not support a new school and if it ever does, we should be facility sharing with a new community center or PUSD renovated administrative building to accomodate both.

Like this comment
Posted by Gaslighting for beginners
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2018 at 3:20 pm

No one from the PUSD seems to be able to answer why they are reducing number of classrooms. By not reducing classrooms, it seems that they will never have the intention to bring classrooms back to the size of 20 students for early elementary years. And continue staggered start/end ad infinitum thus continuing cutting instructional minutes ad infinitum.

Also if you ask them why they call the Access period Access and ask what educational materials are actually "accessing" in what is essentially a glorified Study Hall, they can't answer that either.

In fact, if you ever have seen them in action at a meeting or have received emails from them, they seem to have all had training in Gaslighting 101 "Gaslighting for Beginners." Web Link

If you ask a question, they don't answer it. Then if you ask the question again, they say they already answered the question.

1 person likes this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 13, 2018 at 5:55 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Winston, you don’t know me. To be honest—and this is not personal as it would apply to most people, but given my unique background and the odds—I’m likely to be better at math than you are. But I could be wrong.

However, back to the point at hand. The district growth projections are out, and they contradict your statement. Projections do support another school now. And that’s ignoring new land development.

Are you willing to revise your opinion in light of the new data?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Couples: Write a Personal Ad . . . to Your Partner . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,588 views

I’ve been Hacked! Insulted, too.
By Tom Cushing | 8 comments | 981 views

Castlewood members voted for major clubhouse remodeling; Second vote looms
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 539 views