Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 260-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS JUNE 12, 2006 CMR:260:06 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ON PROPOSED MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY EXPANSION,SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECTED COSTS 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council a) approve the recommended project timeline and methodology for determining the potential size and costs of the new Mitchell Park Library; and b) approve deferring work on the Roth Building or the College Terrace infrastructm-e upgrades to give staff the necessary time to work on this project. BACKGROUND In December 2004, the City Council directed the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) to "recommend a strategy for creating a Nil-service library at the existing site or another site, a strategy to include maintaining neighborhood facilities and distributed services; to maintain collection services, and to direct the LAC to recommend a redefinition of branch services." The Library Advisory Commission returned to the Council on May 15, 2006 to present an interim report on its work-in-progress, the Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations ~SMAR), and to ask for Council feedback and direction. The Council gave conceptual approval to several key concepts in the draft report, including maintaining all current library locations; expanding and/or improving access to services; seeking further efficiencies; and upgrading Mitchell Park library services from branch library resource levels without downgrading the Main Library. Among other points, the Council directed the LAC and staff to "Determine how big Mitchell Park Library would need to be," and "prepare preliminary cost models/projections/estimates for capital needs." Staff was directed to return to Council with this information for inclusion in the LAC’s final report by September 11, 2006 (Schedule A). The Council made it clear that existing General Fund revenues would not be used to cover the added costs associated with the Library plan, and that additional funding would need to come from a tax measure or other new source. CMR:260:06 _.Page 1 of 5 DISCUSSION A three-part study is needed to determine a) the potential maximum size of the new Mitchell Park Library building; b) the estimated square footage requirements for the proposed building as envisioned by the LAC; and c) cost estimates for building and operating the new library. An architectural consultant with expertise in public library facilities will be required.to make these determinations. Given that the new library facility must not encroach on park land, available sites are very limited. There seem to be three potentia! sites: a) the footprint of the exi~ing libra.ry building; b) the footprint of the existing library and community center (in which case the proposed new building would need to provide sufficient space for the community center, unless the community center operations could be relocated elsewhere, such as to Cubberley; or c) the parking area to the south of the comrnurfity center, rneaning the access road and parking would be shifted to where the existing buildings are located. The consultant might identify other feasible sites. Because potential sites for the new library seem few in number, the amount of space to adequate!y provide for library services for the next twenty to forty years is limited as wel!. Moreover, a larger building will trigger the need for more parking. If resistance to an underground structure dictates, a large amount of the !imited available space will need to be allocated to surface parking, the space availability for the library building, and its capacity for meeting identified needs such as expanded collections, adequate public spaces for different uses, and flexibility for as-yet-unforeseen services and programs will be severely limited. It is advisable to secure a consulting team that has familiarity with trends and best practices in public librap~, construction, so that it can accurately project space requirements for optimal application of new technologies, self-service options, automated materials handling, ergonomic work areas, and other critical program elements. Attachment A is a scope of work for consultant services that will be needed for this project. This scope of work differs from that included in the contracts exceeding $85,000 duNng the 2006-07 budget process (C~-~/hR:228:06) in that it does not include environmental assessment work. At least two important issues will need to be considered as the Council moves forward with this project: Staffing for this project The impact of this project on already scheduled work at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. It is important to note that despite Council guidance to focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, this project and others such as the Public Safety building and the Roth Building require staffing resources originally designated for projects to rehabilitate existing infrastructure to be redirected to planning for and design of new facilities. Staff is over ful! capacity with the combination of FY05/07 budgeted projects and additional priorities which have been added by Council during the past 12 months. Those new projects include the Police Building BRTF, the advanced schedule for Charleston-Arastradero, the MSC - auto dealers study, Roth Building renovations, and the CAADA California Avenue streetscape master plan project. Staff has CMR:260:06 Page 2 of 5 literally worked on evenings, weekends, and holidays to ensure that the schedules for those additional priorities would be met. No further capacity to take on additional work remains. This additional work cannot be taken on without deferring something else. It is recommended that the Roth Building or the College Terrace Library improvements be deferred for six months to allow for this project to take priority. Delaying one of these two projects will free up enough stafftime to apply to the successful completion of this project. The Mitchell Park Library and Community Center have been slated for important infrastructure improvements since 1998. These improvements include electrical, mechanical, seismic and accessibility upgrades at both buildings. The work was deferred pending the Library bond issue of 2002, and when that measure failed, it was rescheduled tbr design in 2005. An assessment of necessary upgrades, including a projected budget, was conducted prior to design, and the assessment revealed that the cost of doing the necessary upgrades on both buildings would be in excess of $2.4 million. Further work on infrastructure has been put on hold pending completion of the Children’s Library and outcomes from the Library Advisory Commission’s planning process. Public Works recommends prompt attention to the critical infrastructure upgrades, particularly at the !ibrarj, despite the possibility of construction of a new library building or a new combined community center/library. Realistically, a new building is at least six years away, and the existing systems are long past their functional life. Once some key parameters for the new Mitchell Park Library have been established, staff will need to return to the Council for further direction on the implementation of some or all of the in_frastructure upgrades to the existing buildings. RESOURCE IMPACT Effective July 1, 2006 pending Council’s approval of the 2006-07 proposed budget there will be $4007000 in the Capital Improvement Program (CEP) (PE-07011) for design and other initial costs associated with the Library Advisory Commission’s rgcommendations. Work can beNn prior to July 1 to secure the consultant and finalize the contract. It should be noted that there is some cormnunity and perhaps Council interest in a bifurcated library project, consisting of a new Mitchell Park Library building and a possible expansion renovation of the Main Library, rather than focusing exclusively at Mitchell Park. This may become even more necessary if space limitations at Mitchell Park preclude the construction of a building of adequate size. If so, this budget would need to cover initial costs at both locations. Costs for the scope of work as described in the first paragraph under "Discussion", above, will likely be between $150,000 and $250,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recornmendation is consistent with Council’s direction to the LAC in May, and consistent with the establishment of the Library as a Top 3 priority for 2006. TIMELINE Two possible timelines are presented for the Council’s consideration. The first, Schedule A, is extremely aggressive, and may not provide the information desired by Council by Council’s deadline of September 11, 2006. The second allows for all the required steps in the procurement CMR:260:06 Page 3 of 5 process and is more realistic given current workloads in Purchasing, Public Works, the Attorney’s Office and the Library. Staff will make every effort to fulfill the Council’s expectations and complete this project as swiftly as possible. i Prepare request for proposals Pursue sole source contract Response period for RFP Evaluate responses Finalize contract Council award contract Project fulfillment Report to LAC LAC develop report to Council Total weeks Schedule A Meet Sept 11 deadline (numerals represent number of weeks per task) 1 Skip Skip 3 1 4 1 12 (September 11) Schedule B Based on actual practice (numerals represent number of weeks per task) 2 skip 4 2 6 1 11 1 2 29 (December 22) It shotfld be noted that Schedule B still complies with the recently approved Top-3 Priority milestones for the Library as the consultant selected for this effort would likely be considered for the follow-on design work needed to get a potential library measure on the ballot by June 2008. EI~WIRON~IENTAL REVIEW This limited-scope project is statutorily exempt from CEQA. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Outline Scope of Work for consultant services Assistant Director DEPARTMENT HEAD:/.~--- .... GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CMR:260:06 Page 4 of 5 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL; PAULA SIMPSON Library Director EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:260:06 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A Scope of Work Mitchell Park Library Space Study 1.General Information The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from Consukants to prepare a study to evaluate the space available to renovate or replace the existing Mitchell Park Library located at 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto. Design and construction cost estimates should also be prepared for the proposed improvements. Mitchell Park is a community parking serving the entire city of Palo Alto. The park is located in a residential area with surrounding land uses that include several schools, churches a senior complex and other educational facilities. The approximately 22 acre Mitchell Park is comprised of an 18 acre outdoor recreational park with surface parking and an adjoining 3.2 acre area that contains the library, community center and surface par-king area. The library and community center are not on dedicated park land. The site is shown on Attachment A. Palo Alto’s public library system is comprised of five libraries. The City has a high library item per capita circulation rate and recent studies by the Library Commission have shown the Mitchell Park Library to be the most space-constrained. 2. Proiect Description The Library was designed by Edward Durell Stone and built in July of 1958. It has been used exclusively as a library since construction. The Library was expanded in 1974 to its current size of 10,984 square feet. The City wishes to determine the cost and compare the benefits of, building a new library on the existing site or renovating and expanding the existing library. The project site, which is shared by the Library and Community Center, includes two surface parking lots immediately adjacent to the Library and Community Center buildings. The parking lots have a total of 264 parking stalls. 3. Scope of Work S cenario s: a) b) The three scenarios to be evaluated are as follows: Demolish the existing library and construct a new library without adversely impacting the Community Center. Construct a new library on the surface parking lot south of the community center and add surface parking where the Community Center currently stands. c)Demolish the existing Library and Community Center and construct acom combined facility on the site. Site Constraints and Assumptions a) No parkland will be considered in the expansion b) All work, whether remodel or rebuild scenario, must fit onto the existing site. c) In the "demolish and rebuild" scenario, it is possible, and may even be desirable, to relocate the existing parking onto the other side of the site. This may allow removal of an existing signal and allow better access to both Library- and Community- Center parking and to 1Vfitchell Park. Reference Materials: The following studies were prepared for this site and will be available for review: 1) Draft "Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, Design Development Study Report", December 2005 2) "Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, Initial Study", April 2002 Task A Site Assessment The Consultant shall meet with City staffto review the existing Library and Community Center site. The Consultant shall interview Library staffto identify what technology and programs are currently used in the program and what upgrades would be desirable. These needs may need to be scaled back as needed to fit into any new Libraw. The Consultant shall review existing reports listed above under "Reference Material" and review existing site plans. Task B Conceptual Space Availability For scenarios a), b) and c) above: Evaluate the existing site and identify opportunities for, and cost of, expansion. Include any related code upgrades that might be required. Prepare massing diagram and pertinent report for: expandability of the existing building; human, vehicular and material flow patterns; analysis of operating functions; adjacency and parking demand and adequacy. No design renderings or elevations will be needed for this Task. The purpose is to identify how much space could be made available and which functions could occupy that space. Task C Cost Estimate For scenarios a), b) and c) above: Prepare cost estimates for the expansion and any needed relocation of existing services. Cost estimates shall be prepared by a firm specializing in construction cost estimating. Costs shall be presented in current-year dollars, but inflation projections shall be given for the anticipated construction year, which will be provided by City. The estimate should include the cost to design, construct and commission a LEED-certified building. For financing purposes, costs shall be broken into two categories: 1) ’hard costs’ to include design, consWaction, testing, construction management and hazardous material testing and removal and 2) ’soft costs’ such as furniture, equipment and moving costs. Furniture and equipment will be re-used as much as possible. Due to the schematic nature of the workscope, a detailed cost estimate is not required and per-square foot costs may be used. The numbers used should be conservative in order to reflect the conceptual nature of the design. Task C Meetings ¯ Meet as needed with City staff ¯ Consukant shall prepare presentation materials for 1 meeting with the Library Advisory Commission. Consultant shall budget each meeting at up to two hours (this includes the ’waiting time’ as well as presentation time) and shall include travel time and the cost of any presentation materials. ¯ Consultant shall prepare presentation materials for 1 meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Consultant shall budget each meeting at up to two hours (this includes the ’waiting time’ as well as presentation time) and shall include travel time and the cost of any presentation materials. ¯ Consultant shall prepare presentation materials for, and attend 1 meeting with the City Council. Consultant shall budget each meeting at up to four hours (this includes the ’waiting time’ as well as presentation time) and shall include travel time and the cost of any presentation materials. Task D Reimbursables ¯ The Consukant shall prepare a report summarizing the findings and costs for the 3 scenarios listed above. The report shall include massing diagrams showing adjacency, circulation and parking. The design and construe’don costs shall be presented in a table format so that each Scenario can be easily compared to the other. ¯ Consultant shall submit a preliminary and final copy of the report for review and revise as needed based on staff or advisory board comments. Consultant shall provide 2 unbound copies of each report and 2 reproducible copies of schematic plans associated with the report. The cost of travel and meals shall be included in Task C, Meetings. The mark-up on subconsultants, printing and related tasks shall not exceed 10 percent. Task E Additional Services If approved by the City Project Manager in advance and in wMting, additional services may include but are not limited to: additional meetings, study scenarios or cost estimates.