Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-25 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report This report is being submitted prior to the January 25, 1999 Council meeting for early review. TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:JANUARY 25, 1999 SUBJECT:OPTIONS IN CONSIDERATION OF JOINT, CITY/SCHOOL PROJECT AT GUNN HIGH SCHOOL REPORT IN BRIEF ~ report presents the bad~ound and issues related to ~ion of City participation with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in joint operation of a new h~orary for Gunn High School Th~ altemative~ are ~’bed, as well a~ the implications each option has on the draft Library Maste~ Plan, and for the role of the new Library Advisory Commi~ion. The altomatives are: make~ the significant computing technology and networked capabilities and mmll and la~ group spaces of the high school h~ary available to the public aP~r school houm ajointly operated and funded full service publio/sohool l~rary, replacing the nearby, limited service Terman Park Branch. decline to participate in a joint project at Gunn at ~ time. explore collaboration in the future. CMR:115:99 P~e 1 ofl~ Staffrezxamnends that Counoil adopt the Community Media Center (CIVIC) ooncept for the joint City/school projeot at Gunn High School, and provide guidance to staff about a preferred capital funding approach. BACKGROUND Included in the Pale Alto Unified School Distriot’s (PAUSD) Building for Excellence (Measure B) of 1995 was a proposal to remodel the Ounn High School Library (Ounn LRaaW). This lavvided m Ol:~’ty for the City and PAUSE) to develop a projeot jointly, and make the faoility and services available to the community and students. The 1997-98 Capital Improveanent Program (CIP) included funding to perform a feasibility study ofajointprojcot at Cnam School L~ary. Since Winter 1998, PAUSD and City staffs have been meeting togather to olarify the soop¢ of the projeot; understand the timing of building projccm on tbe (Rum campus; disouss the new (ham Library’s vision for the future; review archfiteoUm~ siting issues, inoluding paddng and trio exmfigumtions; disouss oollatxaafive and oost-effeotive student and community options for joint service progranm; and work-~th a cons. ultant to prepare for a community meeting held October 24, 1998, to present the work of the joint staffs and for gathering community input. This projeot has been the topio of disoussion at Counoll Finance Committee meetings in August, September and November 1998, and the joint staffs have reported periodically on their work at the City/Sohool Liaison Committee (composed of representatives from the Counoil and the PAUSD Board) meetings, May through November 1998. As PAUSD’s Building for Exoellence Program has progressed, a goal which has emerged has been to use interest income earned on the bond fun& to build the maximum number of txanmrmnt classrooms to mplaoe ~le olassrooms, as soon as possible. The ourrent Gunn Library building has been targeted for renovation into ¢laasrooms and a new expanded library on another location will be built. This has caused the Gunn Library projeot to be moved up in sdmd~ from approximately four years from now to be early in the PAUSD 2001. PAUSD has re.quested that the City dcoide by the end of ~anuary 1999 wbeth~r it is intereste.d in partioipating in a joint projeot. InMm~ 1998, the draR~ Master Plan (Master Plan), entitled Transforming Pale Alto Libraries: aPlanfor the New Century, was forwarded to Council. The draR plan included a controversial recommendation to expand the three most heavily used libraries and to gradually phase out the remaining three libraries, including Ternmn Park, which is located near CamnHigh school. The potential of collaboration at Ounn, however, was addressed as part of the Plan: "This Master Plan envisions public library services for all ages being provided only ttgough three enhanced faoilifies, Main, Mitohell Park and Children’s libraries, C~R:115:99 P~e 2 ell1 and precludes City involvement in a traditional type ofh’bmry service at CrunrL However, the plan envisions increased collaborations to enhance h~rmy service in the community across ot~niz~icml botmdmim. The City and PAUSD may take the opportunity to develop a project at Ounn which demomtmtes an innovative, todmologi~flly enabled information ~rvice or capability available for the community and smden~ alike." Subsequently, on May 26, 1998, the Counoil approved the recommendation of the City Manager to establish a Library Advisory Commission reporting to the Council and to postpone comidemtion of the draR Lt~-ary Master Plan until the Commission was operational. An ordinance establishing a Lt~,ary Advisory Commission was passed by the Cota~ on October 12, 1998 and became effective November 27, 1998. The appointment process is cunmfly mxienvay arid it is anticipated that the new commission will hold its first meeting in March 1999. DISCUSSION Prooosal devel _oped by City ~md PAUSD ~af~: CommtmiW Media Certt~ In keeping with the guideline included in the Plan, City staff worked with PAUSD/Ounn stafftotmdemtarglthenee& f~ranew hi~ school library. Since the Gunn Libra~ complex will have significant computing and audio visual reaotmms available only to students and only during s~hool hours, the con~t of making these unique roso~ available with meet~ speom to create a c~r~nunity media c~mter open to the public (includin$ students) after sdmol mad on weekends was proposed. This idea w~ consistent with the lViastor Plan $uiddine end would make unktuo services available to students and the public which would ~ remain unused for significant portions of each day. Briefly, these inolude places and technology fo~. pr0duotion capabilities: presentation preparation, copying faxing, desk-top publishing, printing, video-editing and integration of all the toohnologios teleexmferencing and distance learning community meetinss, discussion groups, wired presentatiom community group teaohing in computer lab setting quick access via computer to electronic resourc~ and the Intemet small group spaces for tutorir~ English ~s a Second ~e practice, project work, etc. special programs for and by the community (e.g. intergenemtional projects). In addition to the general publio and students, audienoea for suoh a faoility would include small bus~ rgmixvfit organizations, neighborhood associations, and people employed in their homes. With the assigance elan architect, Alice Sung of VBN Architects, the staffs studied key site and building requirements for both a student and public faoility. Sufficiem space has been CMR:11~:99 P~ 3 ofll ~ at the front of the (ham campus for a building with a signature appomanoo to be identifiable for the public and additional parldr~ Traffie,/aooess issues and possible sol~ bav~ been disoussed. Saveral building oonf~ for combined purposes will fit the sire, both cam story and two story options, for a building of approximamly 15,000 sq. fL and ccmtnx#~n cost of $4.29 million (excluding fianishir~ and modifications for traffic requimmenm). PAUSD has budgeted $2.86 million for the Ounn High School L~rary and a building size of approximately 10,000 sq.lL This propo~al would not incorporate augmentation of the Ounn Librmy collection with additkzml librmy materials (books, magazines and other media, e@ books-on-tape, videos, CD’s, etc.~ suitable for all ages, since the working assumption has boon that the Ounn print and research collooti0n would not be available to the public on site. This unkltm facility would become a citywide resoure¢ with hours of service for the public aRCr school and potentially evenings, weekends, summer and during vacation periods. Annual operational costs for the City will depend on the hours Of servioe and other ~ agroenm~ with PAUSD. For purposes of this report, the rangy of potential City expenses is listed below. (Note:* These are City expenses only, PAUSD expeme is not included below). Staff. Operational Expense: Total Annual Expense: POTENTIAL CITY OPERATfNG COSTS $1sl,500 $30,,000 $213,500 $350,000 Community Inout A ocamm~n~ingwas held Saturday, Ootober 24, 1998 at Ounn High Sohool, at whioh oonmfltsnt Elizabeth Barrett, an export in plannir~ designing, managing and using state-of- .the-art h~raries (and who has operated a similar facility in the mid-West), presented an overview of trends ooouning in libraries, including the forces of change, how people are using libraries, the impact of the Interact and technology on people’s access to and use of information, how these changes are affecting space design, and potential audiences for the library. Her presentation was to provide a vision of what is possible, developed around proliafina~ needs developed for the Ounn High School L~ary and the loom suggested by the draft ~ Mas~ Plan. In addition, presentatiom wore made by representatives from Gram and the City lRzafies. The purpose ofthe meeting was to gather community input and reaction tothe concept of providing community access after school hours to the equipment, wired spaces and potential tminin~ places, for information access and produotior~ Attachment A is a report of this meetin& While there was some positive community feeclbaok to the cone, opt from the audience of approximatdy 65, the key points expressed both orally and through a survey distn~out~ to attende~ were: Use of the multimedia capabilities in the proposed hi~ school library and spsce for small and large training groups would be a plus for the community, but alone are not enough. "Where are the books?" A joint, full service h~nery is the preferred option, or~ to include books and other reading ~ and media (e.g. talking books videos, CD’s) for all ages, not just high school curriculum needs. Such a facility needs to be open all day, not just after school. ~ that this decision is being rushed and made without deh~oemtion by the ~ Advisory Ccmnission and without the Master Plan being finalize& The benefits of proceeding with this cxmoept include: Provides cxanmunity-wide access to a fully equipped and unique facility (whick would otherwise be looked up after school hours) on an at’mr school, evening weekend and summer schedule: Provides fully wired meeting rooms, a scarce resource in the city, for community, public, school and L~ry use. Comistmt with the staffreoommendation in the draft L~rary Master Plan and does not impact operational deoisiom related to other branch h’braries. PAUSE) supports this option. The features ofthis option fit well with Gunn Library plan and services on campus. The disadvantages ofthis concept include: As building design txvooods, eliminates poss~ility of having a fully combined public/school h~lry in this geographic area of the city. Requires significant additional annual reso~ for staffing, opemtiom, maintenance, etc. in addition to capital expeme. ¯New expemes may mgati~ly impact operational budget and capit~l resoure~ ~le for other City libraries and places priority on this facility over Main or C1xfldmn’s l~mries. ¯A decision now by-passes input from the Library Advisory Commission and may not fully integrate with any version of the L~rary Master Plar~ Full service public/school library To provide an option which appears to be more acceptable to the public based on the omammity ~ hold October 24, 1998 but which is not oomistent with the draR Master CMIUllS:99 P~e $ ofll Plan, City and PAUSD staffs have discussed a program which would incorporate much of the community media center concept (since the capabilities are needed for modem hi~ sdxx~l ~ sezvices) ~ add typical public l~rary branch components for all ages. This proposal would improve the level ofpublic library serdce (collection, hours, access, etc.) frc~nthat currently provided at the Terman Park Branch to a level somewhat similar to the College Terrace and Downtown branches. (Attachment B is a description of the service parameters for Terman Park.) Branch services of a combined library would include: 0 0 Collections of about 25,000 volumes for all ages which am popular and oomun~~ which would cover all subjects as well as fiction for adults and pi0tum books for dfildren and in a variety of formats (print, CD’s, videos, laser discs, etc. and those electronically aoce~le). Children’s enrichment prosrmm (preschool to grade 5) Reference and readers’ advisory assistance A teen program component Use of extemive technology for information access, training ~ production purposes and moo ".tin~ presentations. A full ~ librmywouldrequiro qmce of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 sq. f~ in addition to that proposed for the high school hqm~y. This would provide service areas for. pro- school and school age dfildr~ including pr~ and shelving space; quiet reading and study’, reference assistance; computer and electronic information access; circulation activities; ~ storage; public ~ small and largo group discussion or mooting or program use; staff offices; and a lobby and rostroonm. Most of those spaces can be shared among high school students, the public and both sets of staff. Public service hours would be 35-50 hours per week, year-round, some of which would overlap with those of the hi~ school li~. Building desisn can accommodate ways to separate pro-school areas from high school and adult use and building policies can emure that quiet areas f~r reading contemplation and study will accommodate multiple ages. This will not mean that all oolleo6c~ or services needed for hi~ school clientele during the day, especially technology-based ones, will be equally available for the general public during school Imum These and other operational issues related to this model remain to be worked out with PAUSD. Several building ccu~raticm for the full-service model will fit the site, both one story and two story Options, for a building of approximately 20,000 sq. R. and construction ca)st estimate of $5.72 million (excluding fumishin~ and modifioatiom for traffic requirements) and one-time expeme ranging from $300,000 to $440,000 for a public library start-up collection. Annual operational cost for the City will depend on the hours and levels of servi~e and negotiated agreements with PAUSD. Estimates for the range of costs am: CMR:115:99 P~ 6 ofll ~S: FULL SERVICE LIBRARY $394,000 $631,000 (6.5 FIE plus (11 FTE plus hourly hourly expense)expense) Operations:$87,800 $154,000 Total annual expense:$481,800 $785,000 The benefits ofprooeeding with this c~n~cept include: ¯ Provides ~ public library service ’for community residing in southwest area of Palo Alto and would enable olosure of Terman Park branoh. ¯Provides larger and broader c, olleotion, and additional hours and services for hi~ school students. ¯Retains toohnolosy foam.s of the oommunity media center and, therefore, provides unique services for the entire oommunity. The disadvan~ of this oonoept inolude: * Confliots with staff reoommendation in dmR L~)rary Master Plan to oOmolidate publio h~n~y services into the three most heavily used fa0ilities. A decision to proceed with a new, larger .branch may result in a de~ ~ to retain a six-branch library, system without c~msideration of current h~ry weaknesses and c~st and service delivery options. A decision now bypasses input of the Lfl3rary Advisory Commission, exc~-pt f~ olxratia~ agreements, and may preclude any of its ~endations for the Library Master Plan. New expenses may nesatively impaot ongoing and oapital resources available for other City hlraries or other City priorities. ¯ No analysis oompleted about the optimum feas~ility of locating a full service publio library branoh at western edge of the City, serving a population of approximately 6,200. No Deoision to Particivate at this Time The ~ may &olir~ to participate in a joint l~rary project at Ounn m proposed, ~ither a community media c,e~ter or a full-service combined library. The advantages Of not participating include: Focuses opemt~ and ~pital funds available to support existin~ public library system defioienoies and needed growth. Enables the new Library Advisory Commission to make recommendations about the total library system for the Library Master Plar~ CMR:I15:99 Pete 7 ofll The disadvan~ ofnot participatin~ include: Elimim~ ~ ofco~ on provision ofjoint City/School l~rary If a six-branoh h’brary system is retained, improvement of service at Terrnan Park is limited to this site. Exa)lore Future Collaboration PAUSD has expressed a deadline of the end of January 1999, for a firm decision about the City’s participation in a joint project. If the City is not a participant, PAUSD plato to proceed ~y with a hi~ school-only library. Staff explored an additional potential option with PAUSD staff in which PAUSD proceed~ with the Gunn Lt~mmy design and cor~uction, and incorporates a plan allowing for a future public use addition. While this alternative would allowthe City to complete the l~rary planning process, determine the type ofpubli~ IRxmy servi~ to support for the Temmn/Cmnn neighborhood and develop its new Infrastm~xre Marmgement Plan, PAUSD was not interested in this optior~ Council may express interest in the concept of collaboration at the Gunn Library and direct staff to continue to explore further opportunities for a joint project at a later time. The benefits of proceeding with this concept include: Retains potential for a joint service facility at Ounn L~mry. Allows for Lt~orary Commission to review and make recommendatiom for a Master Plar~ Enables full oannnmity mppat and, potentially, incorporation into the City’s Infrastructure Management plan. The disadvan~oftl~ concept include: * ~ expressed by PAUSD staff for potential design compromises for the (kmn Lib~ on the ~hance of City partio, ipation. *Later participation by the City would came a second wave of campus *Potential ~ in expense became of additional cost for remodeling/adding on ai~r building is complete or for other negotiable issues. This option has not been fully explored with PAUSD Board or staff. RESOURCE IMPAC The capital cost of the community media center is estimated to be $4.29 million for ~mtxuctic~ ofa 15,000 sq. it. lmildin~ The capital cost of a full-serdce library is estimated to be ~pmxin~toly $5.72 million for comtru~on and a rar~e of $300,000 to $440,000 for a public lflxary start-up collo¢fian. Both comtmofion cost estimates exclude furnishin~ and any modifications for traffic requirements. The City/PAUSD shares are subject to negotiation. PAUSD has budgeted $2.86 million for construction. CMR:115:99 ~ 8 ofll The estimated ran@es of expense for the Library Services operating budget, depending upon houri, progan~, agreements with PAUSD, and other factom, were discussed earlier in th~ report. For the community media center, they range from $213,500 to $350,000 annually. For the full service library, they nmge from $481,800 to $785,000 annually. The potential ofcollabemtion with PALTSD at Gunn I-Ii=_~h School needs to be oomidered in the context of a cohesive expectation for the future of the Palo Alto’s system of publio h’braries which the community, the Council, and the PAUSD Board can all endorse and understand. While the newLib~ Advisory Commission will have the responsibility to ~view the draft Master Plen, it will probably not be able to forward any recommendations to Counoil for six months to a year following its first meetir~ tentatively scheduled for Mmuh 1999. Thus, any action taken by the Council to prooeed with the Cmnn Library could preen-q3t a primary role of the commission and procedurally compromise its effectiveness. Capital fLmdi~ 0fany City cost-sharing portion of a new joint faoility at Ounn H~ School should be evaluated for consistency with policy direction approved by Council on July 20, 1998. That direction was that new or enhanoed infi~uoture facilities be funded from speoific new revenue sources such as Beneral obliaation bonds, 8xanta, new or increased tmtm, and assessment or speoial tax districts. Prio~on of projects is underway and the ~ Finance Committee is recommending that one of the three top priorities be L~ry Master Plan improvements. The timing to obtain approval for funding of such projects has not yet been determined but it is ~fe to project that an exception to the cturent policy will have to be made to fund the City portion of any approved Gunn construction project. In addit~ to these, the following Comprehensive Plan proarmm are related to this project: Community Facilities Servi~:es C-1 In ~ with existing public and private agencies and PAUSD, develop a service program .that will coordinate, the efforts bf agenoies prodding services to families and youth in Palo Alto. C-2 Continue to use the City/School L’mison Committee to remove barriers to ~xmmmnityuse of schools and facilities and coordinate other areas of mutual interest. C-3 Assess the potential for City use of PAUSD facilities for child care, libraries, recreational facilities, oommunity meeting space, education, health care, culture, and computer resources. C-4 Work with PAUSD to determine ways that schools can be made more available to the community for weekend and evening use. C-5 Consider joint provision of library services with PAUSD.. C-18 Encourage the continuation and development of after-school and evening ~ f~ dtildren andyouth. Maxim]~ participation in sttoh programs by CMR:115:99 P~e 9 ~fll increasing the number of locations where the programs are provided and by supporting transportation options to those locations. Periodically assess the need for citizam input on various policy issues and appoint advisory bodies and ad hoo e, ommitt¢~ as noeded. Prov~ advamed ocemnunioation opportunities for the public at City libraries. Land Use/Community Design L-68 To help satisfy prosom and futur¢ eamanunity m¢ne, ods, ooordinato with the School District to eatuoato the public about and to plan for the future use of school sites, including providing spao¢ for public gathering places for Transportation T-12 Encourage options. concepts, and work-at-hom~. PAUSD has roquestezl that the City make a dooision to partioipato or not participato in a collaborative projoot by the and of Yanuary 1999. If the City procoods, the noxt stops will nood to b¢ aocomplishod prior to Whtor 2000: 1. Inooqxamion of community mombcr/s in the City/PAUSD planning toam. 2. Preparation of joint legal aSroomont/s hetwe, on the City and PAUSD rogarding funding, respom~ilities, govemano¢, oporational policies, etc. 3. Dotormination of funding plan for City’s sham of capital oomtruotion and exluipmant and :fianishing ofnow facility. 4. Dovelopment of program desaription for arohitoom~ design 5. Dovolopmont ofbuilding design The Ounn High School L~y is- tontativoly scheduled for constmction in 2000 and occupancy in 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL REvIEw This report of options in oomidemtion of a joint~ City/School project at Ounn High School ~ pr¢~ policy dimotk~ It does not require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review at this time. Attaohment 1:Report on oommunity meeting ~ by Elizabeth Barrett, Meeks T~ohnology Consultant. Attaohment 2:T~mn Park Branch L~’brary S~rdc~ Desadption PREPAKED BY:Msry ~o I.~vy, Dkeotor of L~brades APPROVED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:. PAUSD Board Dr. Don Phillips, PAUSD ~1R:115:99 P~ 11 ell1 MEEI TECEtI"IOLO ¥ r ouP EDUCATIOI"IAL TFCH~OLOGY (~OI"ISULTAI"ITS Community Meeting Gunn High School Spangenberg Auditorium, Palo Alto, California October 24, 1998 Discussion of feasibility of and needs for a joint city/school district library project at Gunn Library Prepared by Elizabeth (Bets) Barrett, Meeks Technology On Saturday, October 24 the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) hosted a community meeting to discuss the feasibility of and needs for a joint city/school h’orary project. Prior to this community meeting, members of the Palo Alto library and PAUSD had met to discuss the current needs and future direction of national libraries. The purpose of the meeting was to give the district and city library an opportunity to describe information and needs concamdng the concept of a joint fatty operated for students and the pubfic at large and to solicit response from those attending. Elizabeth Barrett, library consultant from the Meeks Technology Group, presented a national perspective ofclumges ocoanin8 in libraries and community technology centers. The school district was represented by Gunn High School Principal, Chris Rich, who spoke to the group about the background of the proposed project; .while Gunn High School Librarian, Kristi Bowers shared her thoughts on current school library needs, a state-of-the-art library with extensive technology. The city was represented by Mary Jo Levy and Diane Jennings who shared the city’s perspective. Approximately 65 community members attended the meeting and responded with a variety of concerns.and viewpoints. A survey form was distn’outed for return to the consultant in the week following the meeting to gather additional thoughts from the audience. The data is appended to this report. Summary of Public Innut: Support highest for a full-service public library combined with a school library rather than a community media center. The biggest "message" from both the surveys and the community meeting is that ]1~ this proposed facility can provide s’unilar "usual" public library services in addition to being a technological information center, then acceptance would be easier. 2322 S. Rogers St., Ste. 43 * Mesa, AZ 85202 Phone: (602) 775-1230 Fax: (602) 775-1231 E-mail: bbarrett@uswest.net A major concern of some in attendance was the impending or possible closure of Terman and not the collaboration of the city and schools. Those responding felt very strongly either for or against the project. Concern about the pace of decislon-making The"fast track" of the project made a number of the community very uncomfortable. Many wanted to slow down and move this action back into the library planning mode. Even when they began to understand that "it" might not happen if that were to take place, they still opted for the conserv~ve approach. The relationship of the project to the draft of the Library Master Plan and the Library Advisory Committee is an issue - - nbt in sync. Mixed response to technology and other amenities. Those who knew the importance of technology were very supportive and could see a real community use of this facility proposal. Some with knowledge of Intemet did not seem to recognize a need to provide information access to those who did not currently have acoess. Many connected either from home or their offices, and assumed everyone else would do the same. Some were intrigued with the idea of being able to have access to "spaces" for other uses, community meetings, training .teleconferenoing. Issue of introducing the general public to high school campus discussed. One concern expressed which questioned the public’s access to the campus and the resulting security risk to students. Several members of the public rebutted the concerns and proposed security measures to consider. The conclusion is whether the city and district can build and fund a large enough facility to .provide a "combined" services approach, complete with circulating collections AND teohnology spaces. Are both groups willing to be innovative and agreeable on an ongoing basis in determining staffing, upgrade, and funding support? Will this agreement take longer than the dislrict can wait to get this project nnderway? Does the combined group feel comfortable with placing this project on a combined fast track7 Or, should the district proceed on their own? As only an observer, I feel that consensus and total support of the community will not happen. This collaboration is just .tOO new and controversial for them to totally buy into the concept. I am convinced the library and school representatives fully know and understand the implications of this shared facility, and that they have already demonstrated an ability and aptness to .work together in this project. Their enthusiasm and knowledge has impressed me as we’ve discussed all of the possibilities and ramifications of this type of space. Therefore, it is my observation that if the city leadership can and will take an innovative and firm stance about the funding and future of this project (damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead) and decide to go on with it, then a collaboration is possible. If not, then perhaps it would be propitious for the district to work singly to design the new Gunn Library as a sole school facility. Attachments: Part I - Community Input, Audience, October 24, 1998 Part II - Survey and written comments submitted after the meeting Part I Community Comments - October 24,1998 The following meeting audience comments were recorded alternately by two people and do not appear in the order or sequence of presentation. 1.Haven’t yet heard any mention of books (from the presentation). Will there be books in the new facility? lntemet not only the best resource - - no quality. Need branch public library for "traditional" uses. 2. " Q. (Community) There is never a waiting line to access Internet Currently. Why do we need this much technology in the public library7 A. (City Library) There are insufficient Internet stations in the public libraries, the majority of the time people are waiting to use the equipment Who is being served? Should be individuals, not non.profits and other g~.oups. Q.(Community) How many square feet planned for books/academic spaces and how much for city.collection? A,(Joint library response) Haven’t planned that. far, yet, PAUSD has budgeted for a 10,000 sq. ~ building How far we go beyond has not yet been determined. When a neighborhood group was recently discussing Terman Park Library, we didn’t rule out a combined facility, but.resolved it should be (a) full branch. Negotiations will be difficult. Must be tme~ for public and school. : o (Community) Who will pay~ What is the construction time frame? Who will have access to books? What happens to Terman Park? (City Library) Our immediate fimeline is to prepare a proposal (based On input) to go to City Council and School Board in early December. No decision made about books. This meeting is for the community to tell the City what you want. There will be some costsharing (between PAUSD and City); as yet undefined. Libraries are made to serce kids and seniors - - should be open to all at all times. This project needs to be considered as a part of the long-range Master Plan for all City libraries and by the Library Advisory Commission. Technology is a toolto access knowledge. It is not knowledge. Books are the real thing. 9.Tremendous benefit to everyone if City can support for technology and teaching of research skills. 10.Q. Expression of concern about traffic volume and parking limitations which exist on A.(PAUSD) We have looked at options to improve traffic access and add parking.. It is feasible - - was first thing studied by City/School committee. 11. 12. 13: 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Parent concerned about access to Gunn by the public. PAUSD personnel are fully s~reened. If combined facility for students and public, safeguards removed. Input should be solicited from Police Department (drug sales, etc.) and attorneys. School b~ held responsible? Strongly against joint use. [Parent submitted a letter to fully articulate her concems]. Do not have so much concern about students sharing space with the public. Technology is great; but keep the books and pay attention to fiction/pleasure reading. Not mutually exclusive. If losing Terman, be sure to expand Gunn’s book collection. Process questions: Need details about joint use libraries. How is it working elsewhere? Suggest that work commence in small groups to further explore; include community representatives. Terman is an "oasis" in the neighborhood - - would hate to see it gone. Concern about traffic and access. Keep Terman. Re. Student safety: Joint use time no different than when students/public together in Main Library or other settings. Questions validity of high tech presentations this morning. Fearful that it isn’t the full truth andjnst the "flash". F.aoility to should be a place for books and open during regular hours; not jnst evening. Concerned about timing - - need to bring two jurisdictional needs together. There are ways to deal on short term with cone.era about lack of space for meetings and technology access. Free up existing meeting rooms used at Downtown and Mitchell Park libraries by oth~ City staff. Add Internet aooessto Temum Park Library. Call it a"technology center". It isn’t a libnuy, it will not replace Tennan Parl~ Consider budget. This may not be well thought out. The current public library collections are inadequate (not well funded). David Harris! Making a pitch for use of proposed faoility by workers. Looking at new ways of learning. Looking at ways to provide a better life. Looking at new ways to access Intemet/Librmy. Bring citizens to/from library centers through alternative means. Ship books to reduce travel. Re. Meeting rooms: public should be able to use facilities at night. Re. Security issues for high school students (in combined facility) - - kids/adults exist in other public places in the community, use cell phones, digital cameras. Don’t need restricted publio access. This is a great idea: Number one problem for libraries is limited hours. This merger may be a "win" for both (extended hours). 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Re. Benefits fu.r the public: Computer lab proposal puts too much focus on technology. Should be just a Technology Center. There’s value of Terman Park paperback books for children. Urges joint library. Re. Space: We need .more, build as much as possible. Re. Timeline: Figure out how the City can participate from the beginning otherwise the City will lose. Re. Security issue for students: Teens live in the world, doesn’t see an issue. In the Library Focus Group session told to "Dream your Dreams." We "dreamed dreams" and then the City proposed closing thr~ libraries. The Library Commission has numerous needs to address. This proposal is diverting the library focus. This project is more community service than library needs. Person wants six libraries, not to take too much away from basic library service. Hard to create "community". Community will pay for this project, supportive of the technology and books. Have to expand for community. Won’t work unless it is a general purpose!use facility. Not concerned about (student) security. This (security) can be addressed. Think’differently. Build for the 21a century. Excited about the possibility. Commend City/PAUSD for looking at the project Strongly supports collaborative projects. Wants this to be more than Intemet In December, will there be specific det~.’ls, more/better defined plan? Go to Site Council (meetings) at area schools for input Go to citizen association meetings. Enthusiastic about the project Q. What about funding from the state? Will we get it? A. Bonds funds must be.applied for - - looking into feasibility. Q.Clarification requested on process. What will Meeks Technology Group do (Bets)? What will City/PAUSD (we) do next7 A.Meeks Technology Group (Bets) will compile a report of input received orally today and from surveys returned from audience to allow the joint committee to prepare a proposal for the City Council and PAUSD School Board. Joint Librsty Committee will meet the following week to discuss next steps. Thanks to MaryJo Levy and staff: speaking as a neighbor, appreciates other centers in the City (e.g., Children" Library, Junior Museum). Wants branch public library in this part.of town. What support is possible from Silicon Valley companies? 0 I0 II 12 October 24, 1998 Statement of Concern to: "New Shared-Use Library" Presenters Dr. Donald A. Phillips, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Candace Simpson, Assistant Superintendent - Human Resources Dr. Irvin G. Rollins, Jr., Assistant Superintendent - Student Services Mrs. Barbara Liddell, Associate Superintendent - Educational Services Mr. Robert Golton, Associate Superintendent - Business Services I have very serious concerns about the proposed creation of a new high school library which would be shared by the public. A public library is a resource center with free access to anyone wishing to use it. A high school campus, however, is a carefully protected environment. On-campus adults- teachers, counselors, others -- who come into contact with students are very carefully screened for anything in their background which might pose a threat to students. Adults with prior offenses against children are not hired and may be excluded from campus. Every time campus officials Or the Palo Alto Police Department become aware of a complaint of illegal, offensive or inappropriate conduct by an on-campus.adult toward a student, the complaint is thoroughly investigated and resolved in a manner that protects students completely from the presence of adults who might harm .them. By creating a high school library shared by the public, we would remove critical protections and safeguards now afforded our students. We would provide members of the public who are now prohibited from entry onto campuses -- and for good reason -- with free access to our children. In fact, we would invite, and we would provide a forum for such access. I urge you to solicit input from the Pale Alto Police Department and the PAUSD’s civil attorneys, specifically wli.’th regard to child protection issues necessarily arising from a shared-use facility. To your proposal, what is the response of the PAPD detectives who investigate cases involving drug sales to minors or the sexual molestation of children? What is the response of the PAUSD attorneys who will be required to defend the district from new civil exposure with unknown limits? Regarding certain offenses, a school may be held liable for damages incurred once it has been placed on notice that a particular on-campus individual poses a risk to students. What will constitute "notice" when the unscreened public at large is "on campus"? I insist that the protection of our children outweigh the fiscal benefits of a high school/ public-use library. While I support a state-of-the-art facility dedicated for use by Palo Alto district students, I strongly oppose the public "sharing" of any on-campus facility. Respectfully, A Concerned Parent 13 The following statements do not represent the Friends of the Palo Alto Library organization, who have no stated position on this issue. These are only my personal comments after attending the meeting. Mary Jean Place 809 Northampton Dr. Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 659-325-4967 October 25, 1998 Thoughts on the presentation about the combination of Gunn School Library and Terman Public "Library. 1. Good, informative material on the purposed technology center to be built at the site of Gunn High School. Question of parking addressed. 2.. No discussion of how the two communities, high school students and the general community would be served wi.th BOOKS, hours, and staff. 3. School Staff seemed to support the concept of the technology center. Observations by the public 1.Concern about adults on the campus during school hours. 2.Availability of the library for young children that now use Terman 3.Need for the community to have full service library available to them 4.Daytime hours for use by older members of the community with suitable reading material 5. What about books? Personal observations: ¯ 1. The footprint outlined for computer workstation with TV camera, left little space for storing of materials, if the space is only 20,000 square feet. Where would books be stored? 2. There was no expressed awareness of the discomfort that adults have for teenagers in groups. 3. No discussion of the library needs of the general public and how all this new technology would fill their need. 4. For me, technology is just a tool, it is not an end in itself; it is almost like a furnace or lights, or bookshelves !. 5.My impression is that those attending were amiable to the discussion of technology, but my personal view is : will they be well served? 14 James G. Smith 1527 Byron Street Palo Alto CA 94301 28 October 1998 Comments on a proposed Palo Alto Unified School District---City of Palo Alto shared high technology library I find the proposal for a joint Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and City of Palo Alto Library intriguing and exciting. As presented at the public meeting on October 24, 1998, the PAUSD and Palo Alto propose creating the most technologically advanced library in either the school district or the city of Palo Alto. The proposed new shared technology-rich library will give Palo Alto students and citizens access to a level of technology available to the Stanford ’ community through facilities in Stanford’s Meyer Library and the Center for Teaching and Learning. However, Stanford’s facilities have to satisfy only a single cohesive constituency--the Stanford community, while any joint PAUSD and Palo Alto Library facility must satisfy the needs and expectations of the larger and more diverse communities of Palo Alto. EQUAL ACCESS FOR ALL If a new joint PAUSD~Palo Alto library is to win approval and succeed over the long term, then a new shared library must offer the diverse communities of Palo Alto at least a continuation of present levels of service and access to facilities that the present separate libraries provide. All parts of the Palo Alto community must have an equal opportunity to use all the facilities in any new technology-rich joint library. More than anything else, this means that all facilities must be available to all parts of the Palo Alto community equally during the full time the joint library is open. Some versions of the present proposal state that access to the new joint library would be reserved for Gunn High School students during school.hours. Such a limitation will make any proposed new facility unappealing to at least the following constituent groups: Preschool ad~d grade school children and their parents: About one third of the present Terman and College Terrace Libraries are devoted to serving the needs of young children. The prime time for library visits by these children and their parents are exactly those times when older brothers and sisters are in school -- midmoming to mid afternoon. Seniors: Seniors are loyal library visitors and supporters. Many seniors prefer to restrict activities beyond their homes as much as possible to daylight hours. Self-employed and home office workers: The advanced information technologies and access to real-time information available in the proposed joint library will attract the self-employed and home office workers in numbers that present PAUSD and Palo Alto City libraries can not. The prime time for working and connecting for the self-employed and home office workers is midmorning to mid afternoon when the people with whom they need to connect are also at work. Late afternoons, evenings, and weekends are preferred times for family and other non work related activities. GET COMMUNITY COMMITMENT EARLY AND NAIL DOWN WHO PAYS FOR WHAT AND WHEN The most difficult aspect of the digital revolution for managers and funders to accept is how quickly leading edge technology and equipment become obsolete. From personal experience, I can tell you it is difficult to go to funders and tell them that the thousands of dollars of hardware and software you want them to buy has a life cycle of just two to five years, and that, oh, by .the way, the next generation of replacement technology is likely to be even more expensive. Having funding for a joint PAUSD and City high technology library dependent on two separate bureaucracies greatly increases the difficulty of insuring the synchronized and continued funding necessary to keep up with advancing technology. PAUSD, the Palo Alto City Council, and the voters of Palo Alto must fully understand and be committed to building and continuing to support any new technology-rich library. One community meeting with a turn out of fewer than 75 people on a single Saturday morning is not enough community involvement and discussion to build committed long term consensus. 16 < < File Attachment: CiTYGUNN.TXT> >From: Ted Kamins < kamins@hpltk.hpl.hp.com > To: bbarrett@uswest.net, mary_jo_levy@city.palo-alto.ca.us Cc: ted_kamins@ho~mail.com 4132 Thain Way Palo Alto CA 94306-3926e-mail: ted kamins@hotmail.comOctober 29, 1998 I attended the meeting on Saturday, October 24, at Gunn High School todiscuss the possible joint city-school library at Gunn High School. I live nearby and pass Gunn High School going to and from work. Because of the convenient location and lack of effective library facilities in the area, I initially favored the proposed project. After hearing the presentations, however, I have major reservations about the proposal, partially because of the organizational similarity to a previous bad experience. A number of years ago, a multiple-use scenario was proposed for the old Terman school site on Arastradero Road. A branch library was included in this plan. Many of the other parts of the plan have been very successful, but the library has been a major disappointment to me and to other residents of the neighborhood. Instead of a functioning branch library, the facility turned out to be more like a reading room with a very limited number of paperback books. Even that was somewhat useful to me. However, the hours and services weregradually cut back until it is only open a few hours a day on selected days. I finally gave up trying to remember the different hours it was open on different days and stopped even trying to go there. The similarity of an initially attractive proposal makes me wonder if the reality will be at all useful to me. In the worst case, I can see the school district getting money from the city and then making the library ineffective for use by the community. The school district has an extremely bad reputation for not following the spirit of agreements, as indicated by the financial machinations following the recent school bond issue. I would prefer to see any available city money used to upgrade existing library facilties, even though their location is less convenient for me. Without a clear guarantee of hours and services available to the community, I reluctantly strongly oppose the proposal of a jointly used facility. Dr. Ted Kamins (Please note that I am not even addressing the relative merit of hard-copy books, both circulating and a good reference collection --- which is what I want --- compared to access to electronic media o-- which i already have.) Answers to some of the questions on the questionaire distributed at the October 24 meeting: Attachment 2 Termau Park Branch This branch library opened in 1985 in the front wing on the site of the former Termaa Middle School, now primarily occupied by the Jewish Community Center, multi-unit homes and public playing fields. It is the smallest and youngest facih’ty in Palo Alto’s six branch system and service is limited, by design as detailed in the Terman Specific Plan, a legal planning document. The collection is small (about 10,000 volumes), composed primarily of paperbacks, a few magazines and newspapers, arranged in bookstore fashion by topic, hardback best sellers and rotating (from other branches) media collections. It is not fully cataloged (although a separate file of holdings is included in the library’s catalog). There is no significant "on site" reference collection or service (the latter provided by phone connection to other branches) and the only children’s program is part of the summer reading program. Internet access is planned for 1999. Due to budget reductions, service hours are currently 23 hours per week by two employees (1 FTE), compared to 42-67 for other libraries and the circulation comprises only 3 percent of the system’s over one million. Because of the small size of the collection and limited hours, residents in this part of town use other branches more than Terman Park. Nevertheless, it has high use by children and older adults, the least mobile ages. The community frequently comments about the inadequacy of the collection, services and hours.