Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-11 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER MARCH 11, 2002 SELECTION OF A DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES CMR: 178:02 SITE OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR THE MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER REPORT IN BRIEF In July 2001, Council approved the development of conceptual architectural designs and cost estimates for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center expansion project. Accordingly, an architectural firm, Group 4 Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc. (Group 4), was retained to prepare a site feasibility study, as a precursor to the development of conceptual designs (CMR:402:01). This report transmits the findings of the site study to Council. Under Group 4’s guidance, the Mitchell Park Project Site Committee (Site Committee), using input from a rigorous public process which included various boards and commissions, public forum participants and staff, recommends that Council approve Scheme 4/3, the Edge of Park option, and instruct staff to move forward into conceptual design. The overall aesthetics of Scheme 4/3, with an "in the park setting" and lobby at the end of a park-like, tree-lined lane, are considered the most prominent features of this scheme. This scheme also has a superior interface with the park, allowing views of the park from inside both facilities, and easier access into and from the park for recreation and library programming. Scheme 3, the South option, was also considered a very workable plan by all commission and boards, and is also presented here for Council review.. CMR:178:02 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council select Scheme 4/3, the Edge of Park option, as recommended by the Mitchell Park Project Site Committee (Site Committee), and instruct staff to proceed into conceptual designs for an expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and complete a environmental documentation, as specified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the selected option prior to Council making a decision on which projects will be placed on the November 2002 ballot for public funding. Based on preliminary work, Staff believes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared for either of the options being presented at this meeting. BACKGROUND In May 2000, the City’s Library Advisory Commission (LAC) produced the New Library Plan that recommended creating significantly expanded resource libraries at the City’s Main, Mitchell Park, and Children’s Libraries. Council conceptually approved the New Library Plan in October 2000. In June 2001, a community-led Site Committee was formed to shepherd a process to hire an architect and proceed with an evaluation of the Mitchell Park site. The Site Committee was composed of stakeholders including representatives from the Library Advisory Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Public Art Commission, Friends of the Palo Alto Libraries, Palo Alto Unified School District, Art Center Foundation, Youth Coflncil, library and community center users, and City staff. (See Attachment D, Mitchell Park Site Committee Roster) The evaluation took into account both the library and community center facilities since both share a common site, parking and infrastructure, and the programs they house partner in children and teen programming. Community Services staff had determined that the existing community center was outdated and in need of expansion to better accommodate current and future programs. Additionally, it was clear that any major expansion of the library facility would not be physically possible without, directly impacting the community center. In October 2001, the Site Committee selected Group 4 from a list of seventeen architectural firms interested in the project..In November 2001, Council approved a contract,with Group 4 to prepare a site feasibility study that would investigate, with input from City staff and the community, site options for expanded library and recreation facilities. Group 4 was charged with developing site alternatives that included: ¯Replacement of the existing buildings with one new building, which would house both programs. ¯Renovation and expansion of both buildings, potentially linking them with new construction. CMR: 178:02 Page 2 of 8 ¯Replacement of the library or replacement of both library and community center with new construction. Group 4 was also charged to examine parking, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and safety, and sustainability options for the site. Since contracting with Group 4, the study has progressed through a rigorous public process including: ¯Two public forums with a total of eighty-five community participants. Study sessions and public hearings with the Library Advisory Commission (four meetings), Park and Recreation Commission (three meetings), Architectural Review Board (three meetings), Historic Resources Board (two meeting), Public Art Commission (one meeting) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (three meetings). ¯Seven Site Committee meetings to review information and direct the services of Group 4. Additionally, Group 4 incorporated the recommendations that came from library and community center building spatial program studies that were undertaken and completed by Phillips Swager Associates, a firm with expertise in both library and recreational programming studies. The program spatial studies identified library and recreational needs in south Palo Alto, and then quantified the results with recommended space requirements for both programs. The completed studies recommended approximately 55,000 square feet of space for an expanded Mitchell Park Library and 16,000 square feet for the Community Center. Additionally, certain interior spaces were identified that could be shared by both library and recreation operations, should a single building option emerge, thus possibly reducing the recommended space by approximately 2,200 square feet. Since September 2001, City staff also initiated an assessment of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center projects to ascertain potential environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. One component of the environmental review was to evaluate the historical and cultural significance of the library building if it were to be removed, remodeled or added onto. In January 2002, Architectural Resources Group, a firm specializing in the evaluation of historic buildings, reported that the Mitchell Park Library was not eligible for theCalifornia Register of Historical Buildings. This finding was based on significant remodeling and expansion during the life of the building, which had diminished the historic integrity of the. building. As of this date, staff is working with traffic/parking and arborist consultants to complete the environmental assessment of the CMR: 178:02 Page 3 of 8 site. It is anticipated that the findings will result in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which should be complete and available for public review by early April 2002. DISCUSSION Group 4 has completed the feasibility study of the Mitchell Park site and summarized its results in the "Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Master Plan". An executive summary of this report is attached (Attachment A). Copies of the full report have been provided to Council members. Additional copies will be made available for the public to review at the Mitchell Park Library, Community Center and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall. A variety of site options were explored by Group 4 and the Site Committee and were presented to the community and City boards and commissions. The different schemes included: Preserving the present library building and constructing an attached facility housing library and recreation services. Demolishing the present library and community center buildings and replacing them with: two separate buildings on different parts of the site; two buildings that are attached to each other by a common lobby or courtyard; and one building housing both library and recreation services. Various parking options, including parking under a new facility, surface parking, and a parking structure. Various pedestrian and bicycle circulation schemes that provide the utmost safety and ease o f access for visitors and children. ¯Various entrances and exits to the site for vehicles, including drop-off and delivery areas. ¯Ways to retain parkland and the significant trees on the site. Throughout the feasibility study, certain schemes were removed from further consideration as not meeting established project guidelines and/or not being favorably received by a consensus of groups reviewing them. Of the six schemes reviewed, Schemes 3 and 4/3 were determined to be the most promising and met most of the guidelines. CMR: 178:02 Page 4 of 8 Scheme 3, the South Plan (Attachment B), includes:.complete demolition of the existing library and community center and a single new facility, housing both library and recreation services, constructed on the south side of the site; parking under the new facility and surface parking; retention of all significant trees; and new vehicular, bicycle -and pedestrian entrances, exits and drop-offs. Scheme 4/3, Edge of the Park Plan (Attachment C), includes: complete demolition of the existing library and community center and construction of two new facilities, connected by a shared court or lobby and placed near the edge of the park; parking under the new facility as well as surface parking; and new vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian entrances, exits and drop-offs. City boards and commissions have had the opportunity to review both of the schemes presented in this report. These bodies provided a variety of comments and ideas that shaped the development of the schemes. Although no clear favorite emerged, both of the presented schemes were considered workable solutions, for the site by all the boards and commissions, with the Parks and Recreation Commission favoring Scheme 3, the Library Advisory Commission and Architectural Review Board favoring Scheme 4/3 and the Planning and Transportation Commission not reaching a consensus on either scheme, but expressing interest in both. The Site Committee has reviewed the outcome of the board and commission meetings and the input received from the public forums and has concluded that both schemes present excellent solutions for the site. However, the Site Committee is recommending Scheme 4/3, based on the following assessment: Characteristics Both Scheme 3 and 4/3 Share ¯They provide the appropriate build-out space to library and community center programs. give full functionality ~o the ¯Both schemes allow for under-building parking. As compared to existing conditions, both offer better traffic circulation through the site by establishing a new street entrance directly across from Mayview Road and making Middlefield Road less confusing and, consequently, safer by eliminating one of two traffic lights that are now just thirty yards apart. The parking requirements for both schemes are similar, calling for an increase of approximately 70 to 126 parking stalls, depending on the. outcome of an upcoming parking analysis. Group 4 believes that under-building parking, which was favored by all boards and commissions over deck parking, will be relatively similar in cost to deck parking. This is because although under-building parking is CMR: 178:02 Page 5 of 8 more expensive per parking space than deck parking, deck parking must be increased in size to make up for the surface parking it displaces. Both schemes require the displacement of two tennis courts and two paddle ball courts. The Site Committee and staff believe that these courts could be relocated to another underutilized Mitchell Park location, near the tennis courts on the far southern-most area of the park across Adobe Creek. Staff recommends employing the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine an appropriate area for relocating the courts. The schemes provide excellent locations for the development of sustainability features. ¯The schemes are similar in construction costs.. ¯Both schemes offer excellent opportunities for shared use. ¯Both schemes save the site’s most valued trees. Both schemes may allow library services to continue during construction, uninterrupted, since the new buildings will not be Constructed at the same location as the present library. Advantages of the Scheme 3 ¯ Places the buildings slightly nearer (approximately 60 feet) to Middlefield Road and thus presents less distance to travel to the lobby and more perceived security for those entering on foot from Middlefield Road. ¯Presents more of a "building presence" on Middlefield Road. ¯Allows a vantage of the park from Middlefield Road, while the Scheme 4/3 building locations may obscure views of the park from Middlefield Road. Scheme 3 may offer easier pedestrian and bicycle circulation/access in that bicycle and walking routes are more direct from Middlefield Road to the park’s path system. Advantages of Scheme 4/3 ¯May hold more opportunities for creative architectural design since most exterior sides of the buildings will be easily viewed. CMR:178:02 Page 6 of 8 The overall aesthetics of Scheme 4/3, with an "in the park setting" and lobby at the end of a park-like, tree-lined lane, are considered superior to Scheme 3. Has a superior interface with the park, allowing views of the park from inside both facilities, and easier access into and from the park for recreation and library programming. Provides a park presence along Middlefield Road by providing larger landscaped areas at the entrance to the site. Provides a joint use setting and a solution for possible noise issues that may arise between the active nature of community center activities and the more subdued nature of some library uses. It is the recommendation of the Site Committee that Scheme 4/3 is best suited for the site because, while Scheme 3 provides many of the same advantages, the Site Committee believes that these are outweighed by Scheme 4/3’s aesthetic qualities and integration with the park. RESOURCE IMPACTS Group 4 has provided construction costs for Schemes 3 and 4/3. The estimate includes building project costs, including design, furnishings, public art, parking, tennis court relocation and an inflation factor based on an April 2004 construction date. The parking and site costs were divided between the two facilities based upon the relative size of the two projects: 77% for the Library and 23% for the Community Center. The total project costs are capital costs only and do not include other ongoing costs associated with staffing, operation, maintenance, or financing costs. Both schemes, 4/3 and 3, have essentially the same costs: $32 million for the library facility and $9 million for the community center. Staff intends to continue to review costs, and plans to present to Council in April 2002 a matrix of project costs for potential bond measures. The matrix will include an estimate of phasing options and future staffing, operational, and maintenance costs for the expanded buildings. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation to proceed to conceptual design on the approved scheme does not represent any change to existing policies. This project will require a park improvement ordinance as the new library will be constructed on dedicated parkland. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration is being developed for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Expansion project. Because neither of the alternatives presented to CMR:178:02 Page 7 of 8 the Council appears to have significant adverse environ~mental impacts, the Council is free to direct staff to proceed to develop one or the other now. However, before committing the City to a project in Mitchell Park, the Council will need to consider, and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The various boards and commissions advising the Council will review and consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as well. The public review period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is expected to begin in early April 2002. Following the close of the public review period, staff will prepare responses to any written comments, received. The Mitigated Negative Declaration will then be presented to Council for its review and approval in late May or early June 2002. NEXT STEPS Staff has negotiated an amendment to the existing contract with Group 4 to complete conceptual designs for the approved site scheme. Staff is proceeding under the assumption that Council will select conceptual designs on all the community facility projects around June 2002. Furthermore, staff anticipates that Council will decide by June 2002 which projects will be placed upon a November 2002 ballot for public funding. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: ~ Attachment D: Executive Summary of the "Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Master Plan" Scheme 3, The South option. Scheme 4/3, The Edge of Park option Project Site Committee Roster PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Deputy Dir~Services PAUL THILTGEN Director OF Community Services Assistant City Manager CMR: 178:02 Page 8 of 8 A Community Based Planning Process The Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Master Plan is the result of a community-based planning process led by architects, Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. and a Project Management Team (PMT) comprised of Community Services, Public Works and Planning Department staff and a representative from the Project Site Committee (PSC). Group 4 and the Project Management Team were assisted by the Mitchell Park Site Committee that included representatives of the Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Public Arts Commission, Friends of the Libraries, Palo Alto School District, Art Center Foundation, Youth Council, library and community center users. In order to solicit ideas and comments from the public, community meetings were held at the Mitchell Park Community Center on November 29, 2001 and on January 31, 2002. In addition, presentations each were made to each the Library Advisory Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Public Art Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the Historical Resources Board. Sixteen presentations were made over a two and one half month period from December, 2001 to February, 2002. As a result of this process of engaging the community, valuable insight was provided to the project team resulting in an improved relationship between the Library/Community Center building and the park. Meeting Community Needs The City of Palo Alto has worked for several years to analyze and understand community needs for library and recreation services. Following a process where staff and City commissions examined needs, the New Library Plan was developed. The New Library Plan was conceptually approved by the City Council in October, 2000. To begin implementing the plan, the City commissioned a building program specialist to determine specific space needs for a new resource library and an expanded community center at Mitchell Park. The City’s consultant recommended a building program of approximately 55,000 square feet for the Library and 16,000 square feet for the Community Center. Further, the City’s consultants recommended areas that could be shared as part of a joint use operation thereby reducing the total building area. Group 4, with input from City staff, made an initial estimate of parking needs. Following discussion with the PMT and the PSC and input from City Planning staff, a tentative estimate of parking spaces was made for between 314 and 390 spaces for Community Center, Library, and park needs. The City has retained a traffic and parking consultant to further analyze parking needs and provide specific recommendations. AI-rACHMENT - A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MITCHELL PA~K LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PIAN- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Community members presenting their small group discussion. Mitchell Park Aerial Photo ATTACHMENT- A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Comprehensive community participation The preferred option is a combination of schemes3 and 4 Different Approaches to Meeting Community Needs Following an analysis of the site, Group 4 studied five potential location op- tions for the proposed Community Center and Library. The options included reusing and expanding the existing library with a joint use facility, creating a joint use facility on various locations on the site and building the Community Center and Library separately at different locations within Mitchell Park. The options were presented to the PSC and the community with analysis pro- vided by Group 4. Based upon community input, the PSC selected Scheme 3, building at the southern area near Middlefield Road, and Scheme 4, building west of the present Library and Community Center at the edge of the park for future analysis. After the second community meeting, Scheme 4 was modified to move the building east to reduce the building’s intrusion into the park. This revised scheme is labeled 4/3. The PSC, after listening to input at the second community meet- ing, chose to locate any parking that could not be accommodated in surface parking lots, under the new building. This approach will reduce the building footprint and, when compared to the option of building additional surface parking or deck parking, will be visually less obtrusive to the park. Recommended Option Following the community meetings and board and commission hearings, the PSC met to review the input received. The Committee carefully evaluated Schemes 3 and 4/3 at their final meeting on February 28, 2002 and chose Scheme 4/3 for meeting the Committee’s criteria and provided its best orientation and connection of the building to the park. ¯ The estimated construction cost is $20,759,000 and the total estimated project cost, including construction, furniture, moving, professional services, technol- ogy costs, cost estimating, public art and contingencies is $39,776,000. These estimated costs from Program Option 2 are derived from the reduced program based on shared spaces for staff and programming. It is anticipated that the present Mitchell Park Library could remain in opera- tion until the new library is ready for move-in. Following move-in, the present library would be demolished and the parking lot and site improvement would be completed. MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SCHEME 3 : SOUTH Joint-use facility located on south side of site with the Middlefield and the Community Center adjacent to the Park. Library adjacent to ATTACHMENT - B PREFERRED OPTIONS ~m . Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle Book Drop Off ~ People Drop Off "~ Shuttle stop Parking Options Surface only = 280 Under-building & Surface = 380 Deck & Surface = 320 Strengths of Scheme 3 : Locates the lobby entry slightly closer (60 ft) to Middlefield Road and presents less travel distance for visitors coming from Middlefield Road, either by foot or by public transportation. ¯Stronger building presence on Middlefield Road Allows view of the park from Middlefield Road and vice versa. Offers better pedestrian and bicycle site circulation/access by creating more direct bicycle and pedestrian routes between the Library and Community Center facility, the parking lot and the Park. /V~ITCHELI. PARK I.IBRARY AND COh, U~UNITY CENTER/VJASTER PLAN- PREFERRED OPTIONS 3 SCHEME 4/3 : EDGE OF PARK Joint-use facility with a connection lobby between Library and Community Center on the edge of the Park. ATTACHMENT- C PREFERRED OPTIONS ~m . Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle Book Drop Off ~ People Drop Off ~(" Shuttle stop Parking Options Surface only =210 Under-building & Surface = 350 Deck & Surface = 290 Strengths of Scheme 4/3 : Presents more aesthetic opportunities for creative and intrigu- ing architectural design that can characterize the Park and neighborhood. Presents a stronger identity in the neighborhood for the Library, Community Center and Mitchell Park by functioning as a gateway to the site. The layout maximizes exposure and interface of both the Library and Community Center to the Park and allows more physical and visual connections with the Park. Addresses the noise issues that may arise from the different nature of activities in the Library and Community Center. Offers more park presence (green space, gardens or court- yards) on Middlefield Road with the building being the formal transition to the Park. MITCHELL PA~K LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER P~N- PREFERRED OPTIONS 4 ATTACHMENT D MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY/COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT SITE COMMITTEE ROSTER Richard Beckwith Chair, Parks & Recreation Commission Staff Members Dawn Calvert Recreation Superintendent Caroline Conley Youth Council Marilyn Gillespie Supervising Librarian Mitchell Park Library Sandra Hirsh Mitchell Park Library Patron Lenore Jones Library Advisory Commission, Proiect Site Committee co-Chair Tina Kass Chair, Library Advisory Commission Richard James Deputy Director, Community Services Department, Mitchell Park Project Lead Patrick Larkin Supervisor, Recreation Programs Mitchell Park Community Center Edie Keating Parks & Recreation Commission And Project Site Committee Co-Chair Lois Kershner PAUSD - IMC Dept. Marta Thoma Public Art Commission Gwen Weisner Art Center Foundation Mary Jo Levy Director, Library Division Bob Morris Project Manager, Public Works Department Tricia Schimpp Contract Planner Dan Williams Director, Recreation, Open Space & Sciences Division Roster.doc Updated January 2002