The graphics of the northwest view of the Performing Arts Center created by architect Erwin Lee of Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture in November 2010. In June, the school board requested that about 100 more seats be added to the design, sparking unrest in the Palo Alto High School community.

– Deems Lewis McKinley Architecture

Why are we spending $17 million on a building unless it is the building that voters want? What are we building for, how should we build and who will decide?

Questions and anxiety continue to rise over the Board of Education’s request for additional seating in the ideal Performing Arts Center design that the Palo Alto High School theater sub-committee has already carefully planned and pieced together.

The school’s Facilities Steering Committee met on Wednesday for the first time this school year since meeting with the school board in June. Taking into consideration the board’s request for $2 million more in seating, architect Erwin Lee presented the newly revised PAC design to the FSC. 

Visual and Performing Arts Instructional Supervisor Michael Najar expressed disapproval for the new plan, explaining to the committee that adding more seats is unnecessary and would take away from the performing arts component of the building, making it more into an auditorium fusion.

“I don’t want something in the middle,” said Najar at the FSC meeting. “Don’t make it more middle, it just looks tacky.”

Editor’s note: In a recent interview, Najar clarified that he was misinterpretted, making it sound like he was calling the building tacky when he was actually referring to the idea of hanging a drape from the balcony to cover the additional seating. 

Najar and the theater sub-committee had worked with the architect to design the ideal Performing Arts Center. While the theater sub-committee envisioned a more intimate facility with 425 to 475 seats, the board, during its June discussion with Paly representatives, indicated it wanted an area with at least 575 seats.

Najar explained that building a center with 575 seats would be like creating a second Haymarket theater, which holds 556 seats.

“Build it the way you want, but I won’t be using it as much as I could be using it,” Najar said. Najar stressed the fact that while the board fully supported the PAC, the members don’t understand the concept of performing arts.

He stated, “With larger ensembles does not come larger audiences.”

Najar added that the board seemed not to have listened to nor cared about the experts who spoke at the June meeting to advocate a smaller theater – even if those same experts would lose money on such a project.

Librarian Rachel Kellerman, an FSC committee member, agreed with Najar that the board should listen to the FSC, which had already approved the smaller theater design more than once.

Principal Phil Winston explained that the board wanted a larger theater because of the obligation for the facility to benefit the entire Paly community and have the facility used as often as possible. With 575 seats, the theater could fit an entire class. However, Paly rarely has class meetings. According to Najar, a bigger theater could be used for parent meetings but even 575 seats would not be enough to fit all parents.

Kellerman brought up the question of who from the Paly community the board was representing by asking for a larger seat count.

“The voters voted for a performing arts center,” Kellerman said. “I don’t see any of the voters clamoring for this [more seats].”

“Why is the Board not listening to us?” Kellerman added. “In all my years here, I’ve never run across this. It’s almost like a personal thing.”

Amid the hubbub, the main purpose of the PAC project has become murky. It is unknown whether it is being built to satisfy the math parent who wants to see her student receiving a math award once a year, or to be utilized exactly as what the project has been named, a performing arts center.

Winston asked if there was a way to meet in the middle. However, the rest of the committee seemed to agree with Najar and Kellerman: compromising would defeat the purpose of spending millions of tax-payers’ dollars on a project that would not be exactly like the one they had voted on.

Winston reminded the committee that just like he was responsible for the Paly community, the school board was accountable to the entire Palo Alto Unified School District community. Winston said that the committee did not have to find a consensus by the end of the meeting and project manager Tom Hodges agreed that no one should feel rushed on time. 

To conclude the discussion, Winston made a proposal to seek out the board and have a study session – an unrecorded and informal meeting – to discuss the issue and to make sure the board understood the differences between a performing arts center and an auditorium. 

The FSC unanimously voted in favor of meeting with the board in private. After voting, one member commented that it must have been at least the fourth time the committee had voted unanimously on this issue.

The status on the study session is still unclear, according to Winston, and as of right now, the PAC will not be discussed at the board meeting that will take place at 6:30 p.m. tonight at the PAUSD administration building.