HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-20 City Council (4)City of Palo Alt
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:DECEMBER 20, 1999 CMR:442:99
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATION OF THE LIBRARY ADVISORY
COMMISSION SUPPORTING REQUEST OF THE FRIENDS OF
THE PALO ALTO LIBRARY TO CONDUCT A CHILDREN’S
LIBRARY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY CO-FUNDED BY
THE CITY AND THE FRIENDS
RECOMMENDATION
This report forwards a recommendation from the Library Advisory Commission that
Council approve the request of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (the Friends) to
conduct a building expansion feasibility study of the Children’s Library. The request
further proposes that the expense of the study be shared equally by the Friends and the
City, up to a maximum of $15,000 each, with the City paying the costs over $30,000 up
to a.potential maximum City expense of $35,000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Children’s Library, nearly sixty years old and is identified in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program Budget for a major infrastructure overhaul involving the roof,
seismic strengthening, plumbing, electrical work, ADA modifications etc. As now
projected, the work entails rehabilitation only of the existing building footprint without
rearrangement of interior spaces or expansion, and is tentatively scheduled for design in
2001/2002 and construction in 2002/2003.
As described in the attached memo from Helen Sweeny Beardsworth, a member of the
Friends Board, the Friends propose undertaking the lead role to hire appropriate
architectural and engineering professionals to conduct a study of the feasibility of
expanding the Children’s Library footprint in keeping with historical building guidelines.
The Friends are also proposing that the City authorize staff support of this effort through
input, review and guidance. With the information available from the study, the City could
determine the most appropriate next step related to the Children’s Library building and
potentially combine the planned rehabilitation with a remodeling and expansion project.
CMR:442:99 Page 1 of 3
It is estimated that the expense of this study will range between $20,000 and $50,000.
The Friends further propose that the City and Friends share equally in the expense of the
study, up to $30,000 and that the City pay all expenses over $30,000. It is estimated that
the City cost would range from $15,000 to $35,000.
Staff has worked closely with the Friends as its committee has explored this project and
supports the objectives of the study, including the proposed lead role by the Friends.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Library Advisory Commission discussed the Friends proposal at its October 28, 1999
meeting. Attached are a memo from the Chair, Tom Wyman, forwarding the
Commission’s recommendation to Council; and the relevant part of the draft minutes
covering this topic. In discussion, several commissioners clarified that the work to be
conducted will concentrate on any potential options to add to the building footprint and
will not reflect how library service to children will be provided throughout the City. The
latter will eventually be spelled out in a final Library Master Plan. A motion to support
the Friends’ proposal passed unanimously.
RESOURCE IMPACT
If approved, staff from Community Services, Public Works and Planning Departments
will assist the Friends in development of a request for services, the selection of project
consultant/s, provision of consultant access to City facilities and needed building records,
evaluation of historic building requirements, and review of draft project reports. All
departments have reviewed the scope of this proposed project. They are satisfied that the
staff time commitment will be minimal, given that the Friends are taking the lead and no
design review or construction is involved. The Children’s Library is a small building on
a small plot, so the options to consider for expansion are limited as well.
If Council approves this proposal, staff will work with the Friends to determine timing
for the study and return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to allocate the
funding required.
ALTERNATIVES
As alternatives to the Commission and Friends’ recommendations, Council could decide
to fully fund the feasibility study, contribute to funding in a different formula or not fund
it at all. The Council could also authorize City staff to perform the lead role in the study
CMR:442:99 Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment One: Memo to Library Advisory Commission, dated October 21, 1999, from
Helen Sweeny Beardsworth, Chair, Children’s Library Study Committee, Friends of the
Palo Alto Library
Attachment Two: Memo to Council from Tom Wyman, Chair, Library Advisory
Commission, dated 12/t3/99.
Attachment Three: Excerpts from 10/28/99 draft Library Advisory Commission minutes
PREPARED BY: Mary Jo Levy, Director of Libraries
DEPARTMENT HEAD~ I ~-
PAUL THILTGEN
Director, Community Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:442:99 Page 3 of 3
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION
HELEN SWEENY BEARDSWORTH~’~
Chair, Children’s Library Study Committee
Friends of the Palo Alto Library
DATE:October 21, 1999,
SUBJECT:Proposed Feasibility Study for Child-inn’s Library
This memo will give a brief overview ~f information about the Palo Alto Children’s Library
and make a request that the Commission endorse the request outlined below.
BACKGROUND
In 1940 this historic building, designed by Birge Clark, was given as a gift to Palo Alto by
Lucie Stern. There has been no major renovation or repair since the library opened.
The existing library building is in urgent need of renovation and is rapidly deteriorating. The
electrical system, plumbing, roofing and lighting systems are in poor condition. The electrical
capacity does not meet the needs for computers and other electronic equipment. When it rains,
the roof and windows leak. On at least one occasion, a light fixture has spontaneously fallen
from the ceiling. There is no air conditioning and the building is too warm during a significant
portion of the year. In certain parts of the library, termite damage is visible. The building has
not been seismically retrofit and needs work to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA").
The existing library is small and crowded and does not meet current or future needs. The staff
areas, including shared work spaces, are crammed with program supplies, computers, and
professional materials. The area in the library used for programs is too small and there are
frequently more persons interested in attending than can fit in the space. While a program is
being offered, patrons cannot read, study or even use the collection in that area. The shelving
and storage space is insufficient to accommodate the collection.
The circulation routines are hampered by crowded conditions. There is limited flexibility
within the space to handle high circulation. (This library accounts for 27% of the library
system’s circulation.) There is inadequate work space for staff and volunteers to work.
CITY PLANS
The City is aware that renovations need to be done. The City’s Capital Improvement Program
("CIP") includes plans to upgrade or renovate the existing Children’s Library. The CIP
includes plans to repair the roof, seismically retrofit the building, and perform ADA work.
(See Attachment A, CIP Public Buildings: Structural Improvements (18508)) This work on the
existing building as presently con_figured has been put on hold pending some decision on a
Library Master Plan.
City Staff believes it is likely that Children’s Library will be expanded and therefore, more
sensible to do the needed renovations at the same time as any expansion or reconfiguration.
This would avoid duplication of efforts and putting the building out of service twice. Since the
building is historic and has some special characteristics, it will be easier to preserve these
features if the work is only done once. (For example, the roof tiles, handmade by Ohlone
Indians, would have to be removed for the seismic upgrades and roof repair and again for any
expansion. It is likely that more tiles would be broken and need to be replaced if this was done
(wice.)
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Friends of the Library are very concerned about the conditions at Children’s Library and
want to expedite renovations before the building falls into further disrepair. This Committee
has explored ways in which they might provide assistance to the City.
After meetings and discussions with City staff, including the City Manager, Director of Library
Services, Director of Community Services and Director of Public Works, the Friends and staff
believe that a feasibility study should be done to determine the "footprint", number of square
feet available for potential expansion, the options for doing this, and the estimated cost of these
options. Although no actual design ~vork would be done, preservation of the historic character
~vould have to be considered.
Due to the complexity of the project and extensive work needed on the existing building, the
study would have to be done by a "team" which includes an architect, structural engineer and
mechanical engineer. Based upon discussions with architects and City staff, we believe that
such a feasibility study would cost in the range of $20,000 to $50,000.
2
The study would take approximately six months. The duration of the study would be the same
whether the Friends or the City do a study but if the Friends do the study, with the support and
assistance of City staff, the commencement date will be sooner. This study woul’d be a priority
for the Friends and I would be the person, in agreement with the City, from the Friends Board-
responsible for the project management.
The City has recently shown interest in public-private partnerships. The Art Guild’s proposal
to do a feasibility study (with staff support) at the Art Center was endorsed by the City Council
in March of this year. This relationship provides a model for the Friends’ proposal. (The Art
Guild’s proposal is different because it did not include a request for matching funds.)
PROPOSAL
1. The Friends of the Library propose to do a feasibility study of the Children’s Library
site
if the City matches the Friends in paying for the study up to $30,000 (i.e. $15,000 limit on
the Friends’ share) and the City to pay anything over $30,000;
2. This feasibility study will determine the "footprint", number of square feet available for
potential expansion, the options for doing this, and the estimated cost of these options; and
3. The City authorizes staff time from all departments necessary to accomplish this study in
a timely manner.
The Friends request that the Library Advisory Commission support this project and
recommend that the City Council approve this prgposal.
3
¢lP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
’This project provides for seismic retrofit, Americans with Disabilitieg Act (ADA) improvement~ and building
systems upgrades to the Children’s Library, College Terrace Library, and Junior Museum. This project also
provides for the re-roofing of both the Children’s and College Terrace Libraries.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
For both safety and liability considerations, this project will insure that the structural integrity of public buildings i,’
maintained. Additionally, this project will continue to bring the City’s buildings into compliance with the ADA.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
AMOUNT
Ongoing
FISCAL YEAR
PY Budget
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
$156,000
$897,0O0
$468,000
COMPONENTS
College Terrace study and design.
Children’s Library preliminary and final design ($117,000). College
Terrace construction ($780,000).
Children’s Library construction
Sources of Funding: General Fund Infrastructure Reserve.
IMPACT AND SUPPORT ANALYSIS
Environmental:Categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
Design Elements:
Operating:
Telecommunications:
Individual projects may need to be reviewed by the CIP Design Consultant.
Public Works/Facilities Management - Will reduce structural and systems mainte-
nance.
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This project furthers Policy C-24 of the Comprehensive Plan.
460
L~ RAR Y AD VISOR Y COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1999
TO: PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
RE: PROPOSAL BY FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO LIBRARY TO CONDUCT A
BUH.~DING EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE CHILDREN’S LIBRARY
During its October 28 meeting the Library Advisory Commission unanimously passed the following
motion and recommmends that the City Council endorse this proposal:
....... that the Friends of the Palo Alto Library complete a Feasaqaility Study of the Children’s Library
site if the City Matches the Friends in paying for the study up to $30,000 (i.e. $15,000 limit on the
Friends’ share) and the City pays anything over $30,000. This study will determine the "footprint",
number of square feet available for potential expansion, options for expansion and estimated cost
of the options. Incorporated in the motion is the request that the City authorize stafftime from all
the departments necessary to accomplish this study in a timely manner.
Among the compelling points in support of this proposal are the following:
¯The proposal has the full support of Friends, Staff and the Commission and is a good example
of cooperation between the private and public sectors. ¯
The Commission agrees that it is important that information be obtained as soon as practicable
as to what can be done to expand Children’s Library since providing increased services and
programs for children is an essential element in developing the Citafs Ll"brary Master Plan.
Recognizing that the building is nearly 60 years old and needs reconditioning, retrofitting and
seismic upgrading, work on the structure should be given high priority. To minimize costs,
this work should proceed in parallel with any expansion which might be determined as feasgole
and acceptable.
¯The cost to the City of the study is nominal and is expected to be in the range of
$15,000-$35,000.
Accordingly, the L~rary Advisory Commission recommends that City Council authorize sufficient
funds to cover the City’s share of the anticipated cost of a study to determine the feasibility of
expanding Children’s L~rary and to estimate what the cost of various expansion options may be.
CHAIRMAN, LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Excerpts from
Library Advisory Commission
10/28/99 meeting draft minutes
Wyman introduced Todd Quackenbush who will be transcribing the minutes of Library
Commission meetings.
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
BUSINESS
1. Approval ofdrafl minutes of September 30, 1999.
With corrections, Place moved to approve minutes. Kallenbach seconded.
Distribute Board and Commission Orientation Manual.
Levy briefly reviewed the orientation manual produced by the City, which will support the
verbal orientation given to Commissioners approximately 6 months ago.
Friends of the Palo Alto Library request for Library Advisory Commission support for
proposal to conduct Children’s Librar7 Building Feasibility Study.
Helen Beardsworth, from the Board of Friends of the Library and a member of a committee
studying Children’s Library, outlined the Feasibility Study proposal included in Commission
packet for this meeting. The City’s infrastructure plan has planned for renovation to
Children’s, however, it would make more sense to consider a reconfiguration or expansion of
the building before moving forward with the work the City has planned for, and therefore
limit potential rework and dollars spent later on. The Friends are convinced their proposal
will help jumpstart the process. Regarding the Library Master Plan, this study would give the
Commission more information on what to do with this building. The Friends propose to
match City funds up to $15,000 if that amount is necessary, providing a potential fund of
$30,000:$15000 from the Friends and $15,000 from City funds. Beardsworth has received
estimates of $20,000 - $50,000 to complete the study. If the cost should exceed $30,000, the
Friends would ask the City to fund the remaining cost.
¯ Kaltenbach asked how this proposal expedites arrangements to get a consultant. Beardsworth
responded that from a conversation with Glenn Roberts, Director of Public Works, Public
Works could start a feasibility study next summer. However, with the Friends’ proposal, a
feasibility study could begin as soon as approval/agreement from the City is received. Kagel
inquired about the process and who would be needed to perform the feasibility study.
Beardsworth explained, the consulting team would consist of architects, structural engineers,
etc. hired by the Friends. Thiltgen elaborated, this joint process with the Friends has been
done before, with Children’s Theatre for example, and usually requires a contract agreement
with the Friends organization who would then function as the Project Manager for the study.
Additionally, the City would contribute funds, expertise and assistance to the project. The
arrangement of the Friends being the primary contractor would allow taking this project
outside the Public Works work plan. This type of arrangement has been successful in the past
and has the support of the City Manager, and would allow the project to move forward
quickly.
Kass asked for clarification on when Children’s Library is scheduled for an upgrade. Levy
responded that based on a request from staff to postpone the remodel until firm plans of its
potential use are in place, the City decided to proceed with College Terrace first. The
H:LibComm.LAC/mtgs/10.28minsLAC 2 10.28.99
remodel will include seismic and ADA modifications. The earliest this project could be
considered through the City’s process is June 2000, and in all likelihood would be one year
from June 2000 before work began on the project. Thiltgen explained the City’s project
would only remodel and retrofit safety issues and does not include determining whether
expansion to the building is feasible. The Friends feasibility project would address expansion
possibilities.
Kass observed that there are two ways of look at Children’s Services. One way is to take a
building and see what can be achieved with that building, including improvements. The other
way is to state, this is what we think the ideal level of children’s services are in Palo Alto and
how can we achieve that. Her sense is that, if we take the second direction, it would not mean
to just renovate Children’s Library. She expressed concern not to limit the Commission in
their recommendations of how to provide children’s services. Kass further commented that
she doesn’t think we can do much more at Children’s Library and that clearly much more is
needed than what is possible there in terms of the site.
Levy responded that we have the research and data of what the needs are for Children’s
Library, and currently this is a building that needs to be maximized to service those needs -
the building is crumbling. The Friends’ proposal would immediately address these issues.
Levy also explained that supporting the proposal would not limit the recommendations of
what to do City wide.~
Thiltgen explained the City’s budget process and said that projects occurring outside the
budget cycle are not looked at strongly. However, support from the City Council is stronger
when there is a financial contribution from the community and facilitates Council project
approval outside the City’s budget cycle.
Wyman called upon members of the public who wished to speak.
Jim Smith responded to the above discussion that the Feasibility Study is not to determine
what to do with Children’s Services, but instead to determine what is possible with this
building and this site.
John Easter asked a rhetorical question to address his point: was ’the City Council chambers
renovated outside of cycle? Also, the City Council made this decision outside of any external
group/committee, and spent $300,000 more than originally authorized.
Kagel asked about the approval process, and when the project could be started and how long
it would take to complete. Levy responded the project would require approval from the City
Council. The study has been estimated by Public Works to take 6 months to complete.
Place motioned that:
The Commission support the proposal that the Friends of the Library complete a Feasibility
Study of the Children’s Library site if the City matches the Friends in paying for the study up
to $30,000 (i.e. $15,000 limit on the Friends’ share) and the City pays anything over $30,000.
This study will determine the "footprint", number of square feet available for potential
expansion, options for expansion, and estimated cost of the options. Incorporated in the
motion is the request that the City authorizes staff time from all the departments necessary to
H:LibComm.LAC/mtgs/10.28minsLAC 3 10.28.99
accomplish this study in a timely manner. We (the Commission) recommend the City
Council approve this proposal. Kallenbach seconded the motion.
Wyman opened the motion for discussion and commented that the Children’s Library is 60
years old, and the City recognizes the building is in poor condition, and in need of retrofitting
and seismic upgrading.
Place commented that this is a good example of the private and public sector working
together and highly recommends the Commission support this motion.
Kagel asked for clarification of the intent of the motion and if there would be any
precondition in what the Commission ultimately recommends with respect to the entire
Library situation. Place responded no. Kagel further asked, if it would be independent of that.
Place responded yes. In other words, the entire Library situation and Commission’s
recommendations are independent of the study. Kagel responded that with this
understanding, he supports the motion (and study).
Angiletta expressed and asked for a similar understanding as Kass and Kagel that in no way
the support of this motion indicates any programmatic use of this building once it is
architecturally, seismically, and ADA renovated. Thiltgen explained the Feasibility Study is a
building analysis and identifying potentials for the building. Where service to children is as a
library system will depend on where we go with the program.
Jones agrees with what has been expressed by the Commissioners, and would like to
emphasize that the City should have done something about this along time ago. She has heard
enough from staff to convince her this study is what is needed, and therefore supports the
motion. She also sees the study as giving the Commissioners the information they will need
when giving their recommendations to the Library Master Plan because they will have the
information of what can be done to the building.
In defense of the Public Works Department, Thiltgen wanted the Commission to be aware
that renovation to Children’s Library has been partially delayed by staff, with the work on the
Library Master Plan and the possibility that Children’s Library could potentially carry a
different use. With this in mind, staff wanted to avoid having the building renovated twice.
Motion passed unanimously.
Wyman asked staff to assist the Commission in getting the proposal on the City Council
agenda as soon as possible. Place will assist the Friends in this process.
Discussion and adoption of agenda for preparation of Commission’s Library Master Plan.
Wyman introduced the topic referring to his memo, included in the Commission packet, as a
proposed approach to discussion. Kass expressed concern about getting bogged down in
process and preferred allowing for creativity and being open ended now. Kagel wants to
move quickly as it is time to discuss feelings. Place referred to terminology in Wyman’s
memo and requested clarification about the charge to Commission. In her view it is to review
and respond to draft Master Plan, but not write a new one. After further discussion of ways to
approach discussion, evaluation and recommendations regarding the draft Master Plan, the
Commissioners agreed to hold an all day retreat on Sunday, November 7, to express views,
H:LibComm.LAC/mtgs/10.28minsLAC 4 10.28.99