Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-03 City Council (7)TO: FROM: DATEi City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT JUNE 3, 2002 . CMR:272:02 SUBJECT:INITIAL REVIEW OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGARDING CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR TI-~ MAIN LIBRARY AND TI-IEART CENTER EXPANSION PROJECTS REPORT IN BRIEF The purpose of this item is to receive preliminary Council comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Newell/Embarcadero site for the .Main Library and Art Center Expansion. The official public review and comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report has concluded. The City has prepared an FEIR, . which includes the comments received during the public comment period and written responses to them. The FEIR analyzes two schemes for the Main Library, the Partial Retention scheme which keeps a significant portionof the historically significant existing library, and a Replacement scheme, which does not. It also analyzes a three-phase renovation and expansion of the Art Center, and parking, circulation, and landscaping for the entire site. The .FEIR also discusses the "no project" alternativ(, a reduced scale project, an alternate site configuration, and other geographic locations. The Partial Retention scheme is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. There are, however, significant operational and programmatic concerns with this alternative. This ¯ discussion is in anticipation of a Council review of the project June 24, 2002. At that meeting, the Council will¯ be asked to certify that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with state law and to select a project for further development. CMR:272:02 Page 1 of 6 BACKGROUND The Main Library and Art Center .are located on an11.9-acre site, referred to as Newell/Embarcadero, that also includes community gardens. The City proposes to expand the existing one-story Main Library facility from 26,800 square feet to approximately 66,000 square feet. Site options include expanding the existing library building with a two-story wing and basement withunder-building parking and a two-deck parking structure in the southeast quadrant of the site; or demolishing the existing library and constructing a new two-story structure with basement and under-building parking, but no parking structure. The existing 146-stall parking area would be expanded to accommodate approximately 311 shared parking stalls. The existing one-story Art Center is proposed to remain, and could be expanded from 28,800 square feet to approximately 55,000 square feet in three phases. Some existing vegetation, including mature tr~es, would be removed and the site would be re-landscaped. Approximately 10 percent (15 plots) Of the Community Garden plots would be relocated to another site. Because both the Main Library and Art Center appear eligible for the National and California Registers of Historic Resources, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared. Mark Cavagnero Associates (MCA), with SWA Landscape Architects completed the site feasibility study phase for the Main Library/Art Center. This included community meetings and study sessions with the Site Feasibility Committee,. Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Library Advisory Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Public Arts Commission. The City Council reviewed the site options .on February 19, 2002, and directed staff to proceed with conceptual design plans for both Scheme 2, which retains the Main Library (Partial Retention Scheme), and Scheme 3, which replaces the Main Library with a new structure (Replacement Scheme). Both schemes retain the existing Art Center and could add wings in three phases. Only the first phase of the Art Center Expansion is currently being considered for inclusion in the facilities improvement proposal. MCA was selected to develop the conceptual design plans for the Art Center. A new architectural consulting firm, Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle (MSR) with ELS Architecture and Urban Design, was selected to develop the conceptual design plans for the Main Library. MCA with SWA Landscape Architects will continue as the site planners and landscape designers for the entire project site. DISCUSSION The EIR found no significant impacts from the project on mineral resources, public services, utilities and service systems, agriculture, hydrology/water quality, air quality, geology and soils, population and housing, or energy. It found that potential significant impacts on biology, traffic and transportation, noise, aesthetics, land use, and public safety either do not exist or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Because, however, the Main Library is a historic building, there would be significant adverse CMR:272:02 Page 2 of 6 environmental impact from the Replacement scheme for the Main Library. No additional significant impacts were identified during the public comment period. Staff, therefore, has concluded that no recirculation of.the EIR is necessary and will be presenting it to the Council for certification on June 24, 2002. Included in the DEIR are the historic evaluation report, the traffic impact analysis and the arborist’s report. Because the Main Library and Art Center both appear eligible for the National and California Registers of Historic Resources, the potential impact to these historic resources was the primary focus of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The removal of either of the existing buildings would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment. Insofar as the Art Center building would remain, with an addition, it is the Replacement Scheme for the Main Library that would result in fi significant impact on an historic resource. In order to approve the Replacement Scheme, the Council would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The existing library has historic significance because .it was designed by the architect Edward Durrell Stone, and embodies the distinctive characteristics ofa type, period, region, or method of construction for which this architect is renowned. An architect of demonstrated importance, Leslie Nichols, also designed the Art Center. The building was first used as a City Hall, and demonstrated a radical shift in the design of a civic building from the Grecian or Neo-classical style to the modem, residentialist style. The building is considered significant as it represents historical and living style shifts in the middle of the 20th century. In addition to the impact on historic resources, additional potential significant impacts were addressed in the DEIR The additional environmental issues included biological impacts because the site contains 422 trees, a number of which are significant. The project would remove approximately 85 to 121 trees. The significant trees would be preserved, and with the expansion program includes both relocation and replacement trees. This impact, therefore, was found to be less than significant. The current site has 146 surface parking spaces. A parking demand analysis using the City’s zoning ordinance concluded that the fully expanded buildings, including all three phases of the Art Center expansion, would require 311 parking spaces. Accordingly, both the Partial Retention and the Replacement library schemes include parking for up to 311 spaces. In the Partial Retention scheme, the parking is accommodated under the library addition, in surface lots, and in a 2-level parking structure on the northeast comer of the site off Embarcadero Road. The Replacement library scheme includes under- building and surface parking, but no parking structure. The EIR identifies the potential to reduce this parking through shared parking, which is consistent with the zoning ordinance for community facilities; and the development of a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM). The project would have a less than significant impact on traffic. CMR:272:02 Page 3 of 6 The Council received copies of the DEIR at the time of public circulation. The DEIR was sent-to the State Clearinghouse, the Palo Alto Unified School District, and the adjoining cities of Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Altos..The public review included copies being available at all City libraries, the Lucie Steru Center, the Development Center, and available for check out at the Planning Department at the Civic Center. The Final Environmental ImpactReport (FEIR) includes the following additional information (Attachment B): ¯Text revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ¯List of persons, organizations, and public agencies .commenting on the DEIR ¯Written comments and responses to both.the written comments and the comments received at the hearings held by the Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission on the DEIR ¯Verbatim minutes of the Commission meeting of May 15, 2002. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:. The Historic Resources Board (HRB), at its meeting of May 15, 2002, unanimously recommended: " 1)Support the concept of the Main Library and Art Center and that the expansion include the existing Main Library [Retention Scheme] structure conform to the Secretary’s Standards; 2)Support the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided that the historic preservation policies of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are included in the DEIR; " 3)Recommend that the Council consider the relocation or modification of the Community G~dens to ease site constraints on the expansion of the Main Library. The Architectural Review Board (ARB), at its meeting of May 16, 2002, unanimously recommended: 1)Support the concept of the Main Library and Art Center expansion and that the expansion include the phased expansion of the Art Center and the Replacement Scheme for the Main Library; 2)Support the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report; CMR:272:02 Page 4 of 6 3)That the final schematic design consider, that the east wing meeting, room being moved to the north side of the new building. The Library Advisory Commission (LAC), at its meeting of May 23, 2002 unanimously recommended: 1)Support the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2)Support the concept of the Main Library expansion and that the City Council approve the Replacement Scheme as the preferred alternative; 3)That there are overriding considerations to support the Replacement Scheme including, but not limited to the following: ¯The replacement scheme offers stronger overall site utilization for expansion . ¯The replacement scheme achievesthe goals ofsustainability and efficiency ¯Development costs of the replacement scheme are expected to be lower ¯The replacement scheme is superior in .achieving the project goals for programs and library services to the community. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) held a public hearing on May 15 for public comments. At the Commission meeting of May 15, six speakers provided public comments addressing the DEIR and proposed Main Library/Art Center Expansion. All of the six speakers submitted written comments that included their public testimony comments. All of their comments are included in the FEIR with responses to those comments. The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its May 29, 2002 meeting, recommended (5-2) to the City Council: That the Council certify the Final EIR as complete, and further that the FEIR include the architect and staff’s presentation regarding the design and operational considerations for a three-story and/or below-grade story used for programs and general library operations. 2)Support the concept of the Main Library and Art Center expansion and that the expansion include the phased expansion of .the Art Center and the Replacement Scheme for the Main Library. 3)That the staff and design team evaluate the-feasibility of eliminating the parking. structure for full buildout; that. retention of the existing trees is further evaluated by the design team to determine the optimum building design; and that the CMR:272:02 Page 5 of 6 Community Gardens be further evaluated for relocation off site in order to maximize the best overall site feasibility design for Library/Art Center expansion and parking. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Additional Comments received from the community Attachment B: Final Environmental Impact Report (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: o~us~di, Current Plating Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ HARRIS ON Assistant City. Manager CMR:272:02 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A STAFF NOTE: The comment letter below was received on May 16.durinll the public review period for the DEIR; A previous letter submitted at the Planning Commission was included in the response to comments in the FEIR. The letter below includes expanded comments by the author. However, the expanded comments do not raise any new environmental issues that were not addressed in the’ FEIR responses to comments. TO: PALO ALTO CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: JOHN R. EASTER 1175 Stanley Way (650) 321-3110 SUBJECT: Public Dm~ EIR Newel I/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program DATE: May 15,2002 When I attended the May 1 Main Libraw infol-mational meeting at the Arts Center auditorium I was struck by the following incongruity. Mr. Scherer, the architect, stated he’d been given a list of protected trees that had circumscribed the site layout. He went on to sag his planning had been tumed~inside out. Normally he’d lay out a site and the landscaping would occur afterward. In planning the Main Library site he had to fit the buildings footprint so that certain trees would be saved. Now this isn’t so bad except study ofwhich trees were to be saved led me to condlude there were two groups of trees to be saved. The first group obviously is Protected Trees and Street Trees as defined by Title 8 of the Municipal Code, I concur that all trees in these two categories should be saved with the exception of one protected Redwood tree. (See item 2.) The second group oftrees being listed to be saved are Designated Trees. It seems to me this is an open group into which any tree can be placed regardless 0fits current condition. Who places-trees into the Designated group? Apparently the City Arborist, Mr. Dockter, and the consultant, Mrl David L. Babby, have sole authority to make this decision. Close study of their choices leads me to question some oftherr~ They should not have sole authority in stating which Designated Trees are to be saved on this site. It is only their opinion. The architect should not be foreclosed t~om laving out a site plan and designing a new library by any group other than the City Council. I have the following COlimaents on Section A. Biology Why are designated m~ture specimen trees to have.equal mitigation value with other protected trees as required by the Code. If a mature tree is not in good shape why should it inhibit the architect, s ability to design the best possible building/s on this site? Other variables should have equal or more importance. Four ofthese are ( 1 )building function; (2) building cost; (3) interior supervision; and (4) efficiency of operation including staffutilization. Significant trees should not include the single coast redwood tree on the northwest comer of the art center. The canopy of this tree is only one foot fi:om the roof overhang of this building. It can be expected to expand its diameter significantly during the next 60 years which ~ be the expected lifetime of this building. This tree should be removed at council direction. This tree is identified in the Draft EIR as either #154 or#357. .3. 5; The map in the DraR EIR is too difficult to decipher. I suggest as part ofa new EIR that all trees be identified on a large map as to whether each tree is rated low, moderate, or high for preservation. This can be done by color coding each tree on one large map to identify this information. One copy of this map. This map_ should be available for review at the main hbrary. Another copy should be given to the architect A collaborative dialogue should occur _~tween ~e arborl~’ and the architec2t_ so that designated trees ~ ~ saved ffthey interfere with the four variables descN:~din item 1. The only readable map I could find is in the city’s plarming ~-~-~ent, They wouldn’t let me check it out to study. I ~_n,~cl..u_d_~ theyhadn’t thought this would be questionned by anyone. After all isnt everyone. in favor oftrees. I certairdy arr~ We have 14 trees on our property which is . 7,500 square feet One ofthese is a 13 year old Pacific Yew tree.which has grown from seed. There are many differences, either typographical or otherwise, between Mr. Babby~s final report and the DEIR that should be addressed before any decisions are made on preservation of trees on this site. I will be glad to point these out to the pl .arming sta<ffin the interest ofhaving a more accurate final ~ EIRrepor~ . There is no documentation available, either in Mr. Babby~s report or hhe DEIR, that documents in a rational, undem~mdable way how ~ ..l~ges were arrived in designating a tree to be in po% fair, good, or optimal condition. The vaiables are standardbeen used to rote each tree on each ofthesc variables? The issue hem-is Many trees that arepoor or fair on the overall . . " " ¯ condition list are classed as suitabile for preservation. These include trees that are NOT Oaks or Redwoods and thus on the city’s list ofprotected trees. The loop hole which is used to make these judgements is "all tr~s that are specifically designated by the City of Palo Alto to be preserved and protecteed on property--.ol ,, e 8 of thewhich is subject to.a discretionary development approvo~. (Tiff ’ Municipal Code) This judgement should be open to discussion by citizens and should include the arctikecfs opinion as part of the discussion. Please See Tables I, II, and rll for documentation of this problem. One specially egregious example is tree # 161 which is rated in fair conddition but is designated for preservation. This tree has a cavity in its center. It has performedpoorly during the past two years that I have noticeck A close look should be made as to whether the trees along the north and east boundaries of the site should be left as cover trees. Many of them are glossy privets which had to be weeded out recently as they were providing cover for homeless shelters. ., A paved service road is shown on site plans. This road is to run along the fenceline from the north parking lot to a smallka’naround area directly behind ex Mayor Lelaild Lewis former home. There is no service road there now. I suggest it be removed and the garden areabe structured as it is currently. A paved sex-vice road is not necessary. If¥ou put it in a parking space will be there for overnight campers Just last year one of those vehicles burned up. The hazed .to homes iust over the fence is not appropriate. PAL(] ALTO WEEKLY 703 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Letters to the Editor 271 Creekside Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306-4507 May 6, 2002 D~ar Sir: Why do newspapers insist on calling h~-aty plans "upgrading" whe~ the plan is to demolish Main and Mitchell Park and build 2 story monstrosities and parking garages? Large old l~ees will be destroyed; at Main pa~ of Community Garden will go. Mitchell’s h’brary will be built further into the park; tennis courts ¯ will be demolished and rebuilt further into the park, too, taking away much of Mitchell Park’s crowded parklaad. Mitchell Park Library will be aJ_! glass. What about earthquakes, heating and cooling, and glare? Most pcopl~ go to libraries to look at books, not look out windows. The original libraries were designed by world-famous architect Edward Durrell Stbne, who also designed Stanford Hospital and our Civic Center, New York’s Museum of Modem Art, the J.F.Ketmedy Performing Arts Center, U.S. Embassies, public lxtildings and residences all over the world~ There are .1500 websites on the lntemet about his work Our libraries were coordinated by Stone to fit architecturally into their neighborhoods; the new plaits have no coordixmtion_ Each site, including the Art Center, has a different designer. The 91 million dollar bond will result in higher taxes for 3 0 years and.does not include money for the new librarians required, or for new furniture, etc. (Of course we can’t use what we have). Coul&t’t something less than 91 million pay for uggrading the present b~braries, not destroying them? .. Palo Alto has 6 libraries; surrounding cities have one. Must we always be the biggest7 ¯Sincerely, (650)494-1477