HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-10 City Council (5)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
2
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 10, 2002 CMR:286:02
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ADOPTION OF MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN OF THE MITCHELL. PARK LIBRARY AND
COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
REPORT IN BRIEF
On March 11, 2002, Council approved a feasibility study scheme for the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center expansion projects. That scheme united the two facilities
into one structure and placed it alongside Mitchell Park. The architect, Group 4, has now
completed the conceptual designs.
The conceptual designs have been reviewed and recommended for approval by various
City boards and commissions, the community and the Project Committee. Features of the
design include a 53,900 sf (or a reduced-program, 47,000 sf) 2-story library wing, a
16,800. sf 2-story community center wing, a common lobby/entry that opens onto the
park, Shared spaces, indoor-outdoor spaces, under-building .and surface parking, safe
pedestrian pathways, reconfigured site circulation, and landscaping.
The project capital cost estimates are $30.7 million for the. full-program library, $27.7
million for the reduced-program library, and $10.2 million for the community center.
These costs include site, parking and landscape costs, as well as design and construction
management costs. To fund the capital costs of these projects, both facilities are being
considered for inclusion in a bond measure in November 2002. An application for State
Library Bond Act grant monies will be submitted on June 14, 2002, for a 65% State, 35%
City match. Another City Manager’s Report elsewhere on this agenda addresses the grant
application in detail. "
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been circulated and all.public comments
responded to. The .MND, with comments and responses, is included as Attachment A.
For a project of the sizeanalyzed, all environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than
significant, in part through the use of an. aggressive parking and transportation
management demand pro gram.
CMR:286:02 Page 1 of 10
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Adopt a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center Project (Attachment B).
Approve the conceptual design of the Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center Project.
BACKGROUND
Mitchell Park Library and Mitchell Park Community Center are located off Middlefield
Road in s.outh Palo Alto. They share a large site with Mitchell Park. The library was
designed by Edward Durrell Stone, a prominent international architect, as. a one-story
wood-framed building. It was constructed in 1958. An addition was constructed in 1975
expanding the building from 5,100 square feet (sf) to 9,500 sf. The addition so altered the
Stone design that the building is no longer eligible for listing as a historic resource on
either the National Register 6f Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Resources.
The Mitchell Park Libraw is severely overcrowded and in need of expansion. Many of
the building’s original systems are past their useful life and need replacement. In May
2000, the City’s Library Advisory Commission (LAC) produced the New Library Plan
(NLP). This document lists the LAC?s recommendations for upgrading and exPanding
the City’s library system, including a significant expansion of the Mitchell Park Library
into a full-service resource library for south Palo Alto.
In January 2001, the City retained Phillips Swager Associates.(PSA) to prepare programs
for the expanded libraries, quantifying the various space needs described in the NLP.
PSA completed the programs in August.2001 and recommended 55,000 sf to accomplish
the NLP’s vision for the Mitchell Park Library.
The Mitchell Park Community Center was constructed in 1970 immediately adjacent to
the library. It is a one-story, wood-framed, 10,000 sf facility housing many City
recreation programs and some staff. The facility is outdated and in need of expansion to
better accommodate Current and future recreation programs. A building program by PSA
was completed in 2001 recommending a 16,800 sf facility.
City Council approved coordinating the expansion of the Mitchell Park Library with the
expansion-of the Mitchell Park Community Center to ensure the site is master planned to
accommodate both facilities as well as the parking, circulation and landscaping.
The Mitchell Park Project Committee was formed to select an architect and to provide
guidance to the architect through the design process.The committee consists of
CMR:286:02 Page 2 of 10
community, Youth Council and School District representatives, Library Advisory
Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, and Public Art Commission members,
and key Library, Recreation, Planning and Public Works staff.
In October 2001, the Project Committee selected Group 4 Architecture, Research+
Planning, Inc. (Group 4) to prepare a feasibility study, or master plan, of the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center site. Group 4 has master planned and designed
award-winning libraries for Daly City and Burlingame, recently completed the design of
the City of Santa Clara’s new library, and is currently designing.the Bei’ryessa Library in
San Jose.
On March 11, 2002, Council approv(d the feasibility study and selected a scheme for
continuation into conceptual design. The scheme unites the library and community center
into one new structureand places it at the southwest Corner of the site adjoining the park.
Also on March 11, Council approved an amendment to the contract with Group 4 to
include the conceptual design work.
DISCUSSION
Group 4 has worked very hard since March in order to complete the conceptual designs.
Three of the firm’s principal architects as well as support staff have prepared and
developed the designs and conducted an extensive public review process.. The designs
were presented to and discussed with the Library Advisory Commission, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the.
Architectural Review Board. In addition, there were three community meetings held at
Mitchell Park Community Center, including one for school children.
The Project Committee met regularly with Group 4 to discuss the input from the
community and the review groups and to consider ways that the designs could
accommodate their recommendations and resolve the issues that were raised. Issues
included parking, site traffic, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, tree preservation,
landscaping, tennis court relocation, floor plans, shared spaces, security and sustainable
design. Based upon these discussions, Group 4 made many improvements to the
conceptual designs, and produced a final donceptual design.
.On May 30, the Project Committee voted unanimously to recommend the final conceptual
design to Council. The final conceptual site plan, floor plans and. perspective sketch are
included as Attachment C.
Summaries of the key issues that affected the development of the conce 9tual designs are
listed below.
CMR:286:02 Page 3 of 10
Program
The programming studies recommend 55,000 sf for the library and 16,800 sf for the
community center. However, combining the two facilities into one saves approximately
1,100 sfby sharing certain spaces, such as staff, meeting and mechanical rooms and the
lobby. Consequently, Group 4 has developed conceptual designs of approximately
53,900 sffor the library and 16,800 sffor the community center.
In an effort to reduce costs, the City Manager asked the LAC to review the programs to
determine if any spaces could be reduced or eliminated. The LAC reported to Council in
January 2002 that the Mitchell Park Library could be reduced to 46,700 sf, a reduction of
about 8,000 sf, .and still attain the major goals of the NLP. Reductions in space came
from collection areas, teen area, seating throughout the building, storage, Friends of the
Library area, exhibit space and the joint staff lounge, plus the loss of a public/staff
conference room. On April 22, 2002, Council directed staff to survey the community
with tw~o bond measure options: a full program at all facilities, and a reduced program at
the Main and Mitchell Park Libraries and the Art Center.
staff directed Group 4 to develop a second conceptual design for the library at the
reduced program of 46,700 sf. The conceptual design of the. reduced library is essentially
the same as the full program library and keeps the same site location and configuration,
massing, style and general floor plans of the .library. The most significant difference, is
that the length of the building as it extends towards Middle field Road has been reduced
by approximately thirty feet.
The community center is the same in both versions. It was not reduced in size .because
staff had originally directed the programmer not to include some desired, but non-
essentialspaces: a gym, lockers, showers, and a fitness/work-out room.
Floor Plans
The conceptual floor plans are arranged with separate library and community center
wings, joined by a common lobby. The floor plans work well for both the library and the
community center wings of the facility. Group 4 conducted a number of meetings with
library and community center staff to analyze different floor plan configurations and
adjacencies. Some of the features of the floor plans are:
¯A glass common lobby/entry that unites the two wings of the building and is
envisioned as a gathering and waiting space, as well as a focal point of the approach
’ to the building and a portal to the park
¯A gallery off the lobby connecting the two facilities
¯A separate library entrance closer to Middlefield Road
CMR:286:02 Page 4 of 10
¯A large and a medium multi-purpose room, with the large one having the facilities
(separate entry, restrooms, kitchen) to accommodate public and private parties after
normal operating hours
¯A Homework Help and Enrichment Center, in partnership with the Palo Alto Unified
School District
¯Numerous outdoor spaces, like patios, decks and gardens, so users have the ability to
have a meeting or read a book outside and enjoy the views and weather
¯Children homework spaces
¯Teen spaces in the library with pathways and adjacencies to teen spaces in the
community center
¯A centralized circulation hubin the library for convenience and s~ecurity
¯Many rooms with views to the park and landscaping
Tennis Courts
Two existing tennis courts and two existing paddle tennis courts would be removed to
accommodate the new building and adjoining landscaping. There have been staff, Parks
and Recreation Commission, and community meetings to discuss whether the courts will
be replaced. With the consensus of the tennis community, staff is recommending that all
four courts be replaced, but has not yet determined where. Options are at another location
within Mitchell Park; at Cubberley Community Center, at another park in Palo Altb, or a
combination of these sites. Community Services staff is confident that there are locations
that will not be adversely affected by the relocated new courts..
Parking
There are currently 264 parking spaces at-Mitchell.Park for the park, library and the
community center users. The parking demand for the entire site, including the new
facility, has been calculated at 390 spaces per the Palo Alto Municipal Code. However,
the Project Committee, and Boards and~Commissions urged that methods be found to
encourage alternativ~ forms of transportation and reduce the number of parking spaces
provided on site. The Council also has the ability to require that events at the site be
coordinated to manage parking demand.
The Planning and Community Environment Department will prepare a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program for the site to determine the extent to which
overall parking demand can be reduced. A TDM program develops strategies for
encouraging employees and visitors to use alternative modes of transportation when
coming to the site. On-site bus and shuttle stops, bicycle parking, and employee ride-
sharing are all strategies that can be employed to reduce the parking demand and would
be incorporated into the project. With a combination of a joint use facility (library,
community center, and park) and a TDM program, the Planning Director has the
discretion to reduce the parking demand up to 20%, from 390 to 312 spaces. However, if
CMR:286:02 Page 5 of 10
necessary, the site can accommodate 390 parking spaces in under-building and surface
parking lots.
During the feasibility study, Group 4 demonstrated that all of the parking could not be
accommodated in surface parking lots only. Some parking would need to be in a parking
structure and/or under the new building. The community as well as the boards and
commissions were unanimous in their preference for under-building parking instead of a
parking structure. Accordingly, the conceptual de, signs include under-building parking
for approximately 100 c.ars and a new surface lot for approximately 100 cars, all primarily
for the library and community center users. Combined with the existing surface lots,
which are used primarily by the park users, the entire site parking total is approximately
335 spaces.
Site Circulation
Group 4 developed a number of different site circulation schemes to ensure that
pedestrians, bicyclists and alternative modes of transportation are being-accommodated
safely, convenient)y and intuitively. Pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to access the
library and the community center without having to cross driveways or parking lots as
they do now. The plans include an on-site shuttle bus stop. They also include a well-
defined two-way vehicular roadway through the site from Middlefield Road to East
Meadow Road. One of the two traffic lights in front of the site on Middlefield Road will
be removed to improve traffic on Middlefield Road. A new Vehicular entrance is
provided off Middle field Road directly across from Mayview Road. It is centered on the
site, framed by new landscaping helping to define a park entryway, and leads directly to
the lobby of the building. Parking is on the right of the entrance road and a pedestrian
path is on the left that does not cross any driveways.
Landscaping
A large, existing Silver Dollar Gum tree, a preferred species of eucalyptus tree, will
become a feature of the site, framing the entry. All. other significant trees, including
redwoods, pines and an oak, have been retained and are important components of the
landscaping. Additionally, dozens of new trees will be planted. The parking lots will be
landscaped. The area between the library and Middlefield Road is planned to
accommodate a children’s garden and a general public garden, potentially with public art.
S ecurity
Pathways, driveways and parking lots will be well-lit. The building interiors are laid out
in a manner that will allow both interior and exterior surveillance. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the plans to ensure that emergency site access, surveillance
and security are accommodated.
CMR:286:02 Page 6 of 10
Sustainability
Group 4, with its electrical and mechanical engineers, conducted a sustainability
workshop with City staff. Sustainable strategies for both the site and the building were
discussed. In an effort to meet the City Council’s direction to incorporate sustainable
components and strategies, staff recommended that Group 4 include the following in the
design and construction cost estimate for the project:
¯Raised floor system, which allows more efficient control of heated and cooled air,
eliminates ductwork, and is more flexible in running electrical and
telecommunications cabling in future remodeling projects
¯Photo,voltaics, which are panels, usually on a roof, that convert sunlight into
electricity. The City is hoping to obtain grant funding for at least a portion of the
capital costs
¯Alternative transportation, including electric car recharging stations, shuttle bus
drop-off, and¯ bicycle parking at grade and in the under buildi,ng garage with a
changing room
¯Water-efficient landscaping
¯Landscaping to minimize heat islands
¯Building commissioning, which is the balancing and fine-tuning of the buildings’
electrical and mechanical systems
¯Recycled content building materials
¯Low-emitting materials to improve indoor air quality
¯Maximizing natural daylight ..
¯Minimizing energy and water use
Preliminary calculations indicate the project will qualify for a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certification. LEED is a program conducted by the
United States Green Building Council. Projects get points for incorporating
environmentally conscious and energy efficient materials and systems. Points are scored
for the site as well as the building. A project must have a certain number of points to be
LEED certified. Additional points can earn the project a silver, gold or platinum ranking.
Staff’s goal is to achieve a LEED silver certification for this project.
A~chitecture
Group 4 conducted a design preference survey with those who .attended the community
meetings. The preferences were for light, open, naturally-lit interior spaces, sloped roofs,
natural materials, and patios and decks. These features have been incorporated into the
conceptual design. Architectural features and styles will be more fully¯ developed in the
next phase of design, schematics.
CMR:286:02 Page 7 of 10
PUBLIC AND BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW
The designs were reviewed by the Library Advisory Commission, the Architectural
Review Board, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the community, and the Project .Committee. In general, the groups felt that
the community center and the library work well combined in one facility. The building
integrates well with the park, the landscape and the parking. The parking and the
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular site circulation are safe and convenient. Sustainability
has been incorporated. Formal recommendations from all the Boards and Commissions
are included in Attachment D.
RESOURCE IMPACT "
Group 4 has prepared two construction Cost estimates for the project. One includes a full,
program library, the other a reduced-program library. In addition to the building costs,
these estimates include the surface and under-building parking, landscaping, an allowance
for sustainable design, an allowance for reconstruction of the tennis courts at another
location, an allowance for public art, and the removal of a traffic signal on Middlefield
Road. Staff has added the other project costs, including design, construction
management, contingencies, allowances, escalation, and financing, to arrive at the
estimated total project capital costs of $30.7 million for the full-program library, $27.7
million for the reduced-program library, and $10.2 million for the community center. See
Attachment E for the summary estimate of all project costs. These costs have been
updated from those discussed with the Council during the site feasibility stage of the
project. The capital cost estimates do not include furnishings, estimated at $3 million.
Nor do they include any staffing, operation, or maintenance costs, which are estimated at
$2.2 million per year, because these costs are not reimbursable with bond proceeds.
The City, with assistance from Group 4 and Beverly Simmons, a consultant grant writer,
will be applying for a Library Bond Act grant on June 14, 2002. The grant is a 65%
State, 35% ’City matching grant with a $20 million cap per project. To increase the
chances of success, the City has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Palo Alto
Unified School District to sponsor the Homework Help and Enrichment C~nter at the
Library.
There is a statewide pool of only $150 million in grant money for this application cycle..
Therefore, staff is recommending applying for the reduced-program library amount of
$29.3 million in an effort to increase the City’s chances of receiving a grant and to reduce
exposure to the Infrastructure Reserve. The State will most likely inform the City if a
grant will be awarded by the end of 2002. If the City receives a full grant for the reduced
library, the split would be approximately $19 million from the State, and $10.3 million
from the City. Note that the grant application estimate differs from the City’s estimate
($27.7 million) due to differences in the eligibility of certain costs, such as furnishings,
CMR:286:02 Page 8 of 10
and differences in percentage mark-ups for certain items. If the bond measure does not
pass; a successful grant means the City will be required to use available reserves, shift
existing resources, or seek another revenue source. Staff does not recommend using
reserves.
The City Council is scheduled to decide on July 8, 2002, whether to include the Mitchell
Park Library and the Mitchell Park. Community Center in a bond measure on the
November 2002 ballot. If the Library is included in the bond measure, the Council will
need to decide for a full-program, $30.7 .million library, or a reduced-program, $27.7
million library. If the community center is included in the bond measure, staff
recommends using the estimated amount, $10.2 million. Since proceeds from a bond
measure cannot be used to pay for furnishings, operation, maintenance, staffing, or other
on-going costs, the City will need to identify other ,funding sources for these costs.
The City Manager has convened the Community Facilities Cost Advisory Committee to
review the cost estimates of all the community facility projects being considered for the
bond measure. The Committee consists of eight professionals in the building industry,
including architects, developers, contractors, construction managers, and public works
staff from other cities. The Committee has met twice, and is planning to meet once more.
It will issue a report stating its conclusions and recommendations regarding the various
cost estimates. Staff will incorporate the Committee’s recommendations and revise the
final conceptual d~sign cost estimates for all the projects accordingly. The Committee’s
report and the revised final estimates will be included in the Council packets for the
July 8,-2002, Council meeting.
Current staffing levels are inadequate to proceed into final design and construction of all
of the projects if a bond measure were to pass in November. The 2002-03 Proposed
Budget document includes the following additions to the Table of Organization: an
Engineering Technician III, a Senior Project Manager, and an Office Specialist. These
additions to the Public Works Department have an .annual ongoing cost of $246,640 in
salary and benefits expense. The fundilag of these positions will be requested by a Budget
Amendment Ordinance only after a successful November 2002 bond measure vote. Staff
may also request one Library position to support the building planning process, however,
these needs are still being reviewed. The cost of three Public Works positions can be
capitalized as part of the construction process and could therefore be financed as part of
the bond measure as long as they are directly related to design and construction activities.
These positions are not permanent and should be terminated upon project completion or
adsorbed through attrition of similar positions,
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
CMR:286:02 Page 9 of 10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, which addresses-the
potential environmental impacts, and identified mitigation measures included in the
project that would reduce impacts to a less.than significant level. The MND has gone
through the public review process and staff has responded to all comments (see
Attachment A). The City Council received copies of the Initial Study and the MND at the
beginning of the review period. Staff recommends Council approve and certify the MND
by adopting’the attached Resolution (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:.
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses
Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell
Park Library and Community CenterProject
Site plan, floor Plans, and Perspective sketch
Recommendations on the conceptual designs from the Boards and
Commissions
Summary cost estimate
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
BdB
Senior Project Manager
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:286:02 Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Deciaration has .been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed below, In accordance with. CEQA
Guidelines, this document is available for review and comment during a minimum 20-dayinspection period
beginning April 17, 2002 to May 6, 2002. Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Planning and
Co~mnunity Environment during the hours of 8:00’AM~to 5:30 PM in the Planning Division, Civic Center,
250 Hmnilton Avenue, fifth floor, Palo Alto, California or FAX 650-329-2154. The Initial Study prepared for the
Mitigated Negative Declaration may be also be reviewed at the Department of Planning and Community
Environme .nt
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: April 17, 2002 Application Nos.: . .02-PAR-11; 02-EIA-05
Address of Project:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
3700 and 3800 Middlefield Road
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue .
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attention: Tricia Schimpp; Department of Planning and Community
Environment (650 - 329-2230)
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Description and Location:
The proposed project consists of the demolition of both the existing Mitchell Park Library, a
civic facility of approximately 11,000 square feet, and. the existing Mitchell Park Community
Center, approximately 10,000 square feet, and construct a new two-story library of
approximately .55,000 ~quare feet and a new community center of approximately 17,000 square
feet, or a single joint use facility of approximately 70,000 square feet on an approximate 4 acre
easter.ly portion of the approximate 22 acre Mitchell Park, a community park in the City of Palo
Alto,
The project site is located in the southeast quadrant of the City of.Palo Alto, in the northern part
of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real).
The civic facilities expansion program includes the Mitchell Park Library and the Mitchell Park
Community Center, both located in Mitchell Park, a colrcrnunity park bounded on the east by
Middlefield Road, the .north by East Meadow Drive and the south by E. Charleston Road. The
Community Center, parking areas and the 18 acre open space park are situated on dedicated park
land owned by the City of Palo Alto. The Library is situated on an adjacent parcel of City ovflled
land adjacent to the Community Center.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 3700 and 3800 Middlefield Road may have a
significafit effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the
following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on; the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project; as proposed, . could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE. DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
1) The proposed project would be required to comply with all City Design Review,
Comprehensive Plan and PAMC standards.
2) Construction contractors shall implement a dust-abatement program that complies with the
guidelines established by BAAQMD to reduce the contribution of project construction to local
respirable particulate matter concentrations to include:
,Use truck routes approved by the City of Palo Alto.
¯Water all active construction areas at least twice daily or as needed to prevent dust.
¯Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain
at least 2 feet of freeboard.
¯Pave, apply water three times.daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved roads,
parking areas, and construction staging areas.
¯Sweep daily with water sweepers, all paved access roadsl parking areas, and staging areas at
construction sites as needed to prevent dust.
¯Sweep street daily with water sweepers, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent publi~
streets.
¯Hydroseed or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
¯Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand~ etc.).
¯" Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
¯Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways
during rainy season construction (November through April).
3) The architects shall utilize the design standards identified in.Section 4.0 of the Arborist.Report
(See, Initial Study, Appendix C) and the Planning Arborist Memorandum (Appendix F) in the
final design of conceptual plans.
4) The C~ty of Palo Alto Planning Arborist shall review final conceptual design plans. Certain
high value trees, identified as "specimen trees" in the Plalming Arborist memorandum, shall be
incorporated into the site design and landscape with adequate room for their survival and
protected during the course of construction. These trees include: Silver Dollar Gum #31, Blue
Atlas Cedars #101-108, Coast Redwoods #59, 63, 64, 84-91, London Planes #101-108. Valley
Oak #31 shall be retained or relocated on the Mitchell Park site. Other high and moderate value
trees that may be impacted may be removed for development purposes. Their removal would 15e
mitigated by relocating or replacement according to the guidelines specified in the City of Palo
Alto’s "Tree Technical Manual".
5) The City of Palo shall conform to the guidelines identified by the Consulting arborist in
Section 4 of the Arborist Report and comply with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Tree Technical
Manual during all phases of demolition and construction of the project,
6) In the event that the areas near Adobe Creek located at the south end of the park should be
selected as the site for the new tennis courts, project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility
of encountering archaeological resources during construction and appraised of the proper
procedures to follow in the event that such materials are found. In the event of accidental
discovery of archaeological resources on the sitb, work at the place of discovery should be halted
immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. In the event of accidental
discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be
notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American,
and if they are, shall.comply with CEQA Guidelines sec. 15064.5(e).
7) All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the final geotechnical report and
with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an
earthquake.
8) Demolition would include testing and, if necessary, would provide for standard safety
protocols and best management practices in doing removal of any hazardous materials. Required
protocols are set forth in the California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations
and the California Health and Safety Code. ACM’s and lead paint containing materials will be
handled only by trained construction workers and disposed of in a manner prescribed by State
Law. If the materials are handled and disposed of in accordance with the regulations they should
not pose a hazard either to the construction workers nor to any members of the public nearby or
neighboring residents.
9) The City shall conduct a Phase I hazardous substances survey for the site prior to Construction
to determine the historic use of the site. If the results of the Phase I survey indicate the potential
presence of hazardous substances, the City shall conduct a Phase II survey to test soil samples at
the site and shall comply with City standards for subsequent cleanup and removal of hazardous
substances, as necessary.
10) Mitchell Park. has 5 other tennis courts. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consider
the need, if any, to replace the two tennis and two paddle tennis courts and shall recommend
other areas in the 18 acres park to construct new tennis and paddle tennis courts, if deemed
necessary.’A Park Improvement Ordinance shall be required for the proposed development
within the park.
11) The proposed development of the civic facilities and site shall conform with the City of Palo
Alto Noise Ordinance and shall be required to follow standard constructiol~ techniques and best
management practices.
12) City staff shall prepare a detailed staffing and program schedule for the continuance of
Librar.y and Community Center services at other existing civic facilities in the nearby area
during the construction of the new civic .facility at Mitchell Park.
13) The project architects have estimated the parking requirements based on the City’s zoning
ordinance. Summing the requirements for the individual uses (120 spaces for the library, 135
spaces for the community center, 135 spaces for the park) yields a total of 390 spaces. However,
because Mitchell Park serves a different user group and the expanded library and community
center will have unique operating characteristics not found at the other libraries within the City,
the actual parking needs are uncertain. In such cases where insufficient data exists to establish
the future parking needs,, the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment may
utilize Section 18.83.120(c) and Section 18.83.120(e) of the zoning ordinance to reduce (up to
20%) or defer (up to 50%) of the parking requirements.
The Comprehensive Plan, Policy L-76, encourages the evaluation of parking requirements and
actual parldng needs for. specific uses and to develop a standard somewhere between average and
peak conditions. Policy L-78 encouragesdevelopment that creatively integrates parking into the
project by providing for shared use of parking areas.
The City shall review the design development plans, and based upon the specified program space
of the civic facilities and the site plan provisions for bicycle, pedestrian and shuttle bus, shall
provide sufficient parking to address the parking demand based on final design and program
analysis.
14) A detailed site plan has not been finalized. The ultimate’ site design shall include
pedestrian paths and bikeways that minimize conflicts with. vehicular traffic, provide logical
and direct pathways between building entrances, and connect building entrances and parking
areas. Furthermore, pedestrian and bicycle pathways within the site shall connect to the
sidewalks and bike lanes on the adjacent public streets and the existing pathways through
Mitchell Park. Bicycle parking shall be provided according to zoning ordinance standards.
Project Planner Date
Date
ATTACHMENT A
Responses to comments on the Mitchell Park and Communit7 Center Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Comments from Mr. Herb Borock, received May 6, 2002:
Comment: 1) Piecemealing violates California Environment Quality Act. The
Children’s Library project, the Mitchell Park and Community Center project are
one project as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and their
effects on the environment define the term must be analyzed i.n a single Draft
EIR..Reviewing the Children’s I~ibrary project as aseparate project is
piecemealing in violation of CEQA.
Response: The three individual library and community .facilities are not one
project, and therefore are not subject to a single DEIR. The fact that they are being
considered under a single bond measure would not constitute a single project for
environmental review. The action that is subject to CEQA review, is the Council’s
selection of a preferred project for each site and facility. Further, piecemealing
constitutes a series of subsequent project actions subject to CEQA review for a
single project. The cumulative impacts of theprojects have been addressed.
Each of the three facilities has separate design development, budgets and could be
constructed indepe.ndently of each. CEQA requires the lead agency to analyze the
project, as the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a
direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
¯ physical change in the environment including an activity directly undertaken by
any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and
improvements to existing public structures. ..
CEQA also requires projects to analyze the project’s potential to add to a
cumulative impact form existing plus proposed projects. The Initial Study for the
Mitchell park/Community Center.did not identify that there would a cumulative
impact from the project
Comment: 3) Project review occurred before application filed. No application
for a permit or entitlement has been filed for the children’s Library project. The
environmental evaluation of a project under CEQA and a determination that a ’
project is subject to CEQA can occur only after there is a permit for.an
application or entitlement.
Response: The City is not required to file a development permit application in
order to initiate CEQA review for a public project requiring City Council
approval. The CEQA review was required when it was determined that the
Council would be required to take a discretionary action to approve .a project
design for the Mitchell Park/Community Center before placing it on the ballot for
funding. A preferred design approach, as .initiated by the City, requires
environmental review.
Comments from Department of Toxic substances Control, received May 6,
2002.
Comment:.l) The Initial Stud/MND indicaies that.the City will conduct a Phase
I hazardous substances survey prior to construction and if necessary a Phase H
as well Further, if the Phase II survey indicates that hazardous substances have
been released, they will. need to be addressed as part of the of this project.
Response: The city concurs with~this commen~ and it is included in the project as
mitigation.
Comment: 2) The.comment cites four steps for remediation that would be
included in the project: 1) assessment of airand health impacts, 2 conformance
with any applicable local standards, 3) transportation impacts for the removal of
materials, 4) risk assessment of any potential accidents on site.
Response:. The city concurs with this comment. In th~ vent that toxic or
contaminated material is discovered on site as a part of a Phase I or II Report, the
Citywou!d provide for the remediation and/or removal of all material in
conformance with all Federal, Stat and Local law, including soils, water and air
quality.. Prior to construction the City Would prepare a remediation program
including and addressing the activities described in the comment letter.
~r~ Borock
0 Box 632
~alo Alto, CA 94302
6, 2002
Tricia ScHimpp
artment of Plannlng.and Community Environment
2ity of Palo Alto
50 Hamilton Avenue
AIt0,CA 94301
~rbss-references:
CHILDREn’S LIBR_~RY,. 1276 HARRIET STREET
(02-PAR-12, 02-EIA-06)
Ms. Schimpp:.
comment~ in this letter must be adequately answered before the
rbf Palo Alto can approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Mitchell Park Library-and Community Center project.
~CEMEALING VIOLATES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center project, the
dren’s L~brary project, and the Newell/EmbarcaderoCivic
Facilities Expansion Program (Main Library and Art Center .project)
one project as that term is defined by the California ’
ronmental Quality Act (.CEQA), and their effects on the
Lronment must be analyzed in a singie Draft Environmental Impact
(EIR) instead of in one Drift EIR and two Mitigated Negative
~clarations. .
viewing the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center project as-a
~parate project is piecemealing in violation of CEQA.-
T~he Draft EIR f~r the Newe.ll/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion
Program .(Main Library ’and Art center project) must be. revised to
.nclude t~e review of the Children’s Library project ~nd the Mitchell’
’ark ~ibrary and Community Center-project~. and the revised D~aft EIR
must be recirculated-for public review and cQmment ¯ ~"
?he City of Palo Alto New Library Plah proposes to mak~ Mitchell Park
~ibrary, Childrenls. Library,and Main Library the city’s resource
libraries. "
The City of Palo Alto is currently conductin~ an 0pini@n survey~to
determine the content of a bond measure for the November 2002 ballot
that would fund the projects for the Children’s Library, the Mitchell
Park Library and Community .Center, and .the Main Library and Art .-
~enter.
The New Library Plan and the opinion survey for the proposed bond
measureprovide substanti$1 evidence that the applications reviewed
by the two initial studies and one Draft EIR arereally-one CEQA
)roject that must be reviewed in a combined Draft EIR.
?KOJEC~ ~EVIEW OCCURRED.BEFORE APPLICATION’F~LED
No application for a permit or ~ntitlement has been filedfor the
Mitchell Park Library and Communfty Center project.
The environmental evaluation of a project Under CEQA ~nd a
determination that a pr0jeC~ is subject, to CEQA can occur, only after
there is an application for a permit or entitlement.-
the Mitchel.l Park Library and Community Center proj.ect has submitted
only an application for preliminary.lrev.iew, which is "For the purpose
of securlng the advice of the architectural review board prior to
naking an application for the boardis recommendation on a project....
If the applicant wishes to proceed with the project, he or she must
then file an application ~nd pay a regular application fee.i’
(Section 16.48.110, Palo Alto Municipal Code).
£t is a prejudicial ’abuse ofdiscretion to do an environmental impact
~ssessment before an applicationfor .a permit or entitlement has been
filed.
Thank you for you~.considerition of these .comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency .
May 6;.2002
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200
Berkeley, California 947! 0-2721 Gray Davis
Gdvernor.
Ms, Tricia Schimpp
Department,of Planuing and. Community
City of Pale Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Aft0, California 94301
Dear Ms. Schimpp:
~hank you for the opportunity to.comment on the draft Initial study/Mitigated Negative
.Declaration (draft IS/Neg Dec) for the proposed Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center project [2002042085]. The project site is located in the southeast quadrantof
the City of Pale Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway
101 and east of State Route 82 (E! Camino Real), As you may be aware, the California
Department of Toxic Substances-Centre! (DTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites wh~re
.hazardous substances have been released pursuant to the California Health and Safety
Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a potential resource agency,DTSC is submitting
comments to ensure that the environmental documentation prepared for this project.to
address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any
required remediation abtivities which may be required to address any.hazardous
substances release.
The proposed project consists of the demolition of both the existing Mitcheli Park
Library, a civic facility of approximately 11,000 square feet, and the existing Mitchell
Park Community Center, approximately 10,000 square feet, and construct a new two-
sto.ry library 0f.approximately 55,000 square feet and a new community center of
approximately 17,000 square feet, or a single joint use facility of approximately 70,000
S~luare feet on an approximate 4 acre easterly portion of the approximate 22 acre
Mitchell Park, a community park in the City of Pale Alto.
The draft lS/Neg Dec indicates that the City of Pa!o Alto (City) will conduct a Phase I
hazardous substances survey for the site prior to construction to determine the historic
use of the site, It further states that if results of the Phase I.survey indicate the -
potential presence of hazardous substances, the City will conduct a Phase I1 including
soil sampling which will be conducted in compliance with City standards for subsequent
. cleanup and removal of hazardous substances; as neoessary. Please note that health-
based cleanup standards should be used in cleanup and removal.activities.-
The energy ct~allenge "facing California is real Every Ca!ifomian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For
¯ a lis! ofsimp.le ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy coats, see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Ms, Schirnpp
May 6, 2002
Page Two
If the Phase II survey indicates that hazardous substances have been releasedi they
will need to be~addressed.a.s part of.this project. For example, if the reme.diation
activities include the need for soil excavation, the CEQA document should include: (1)
an assessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with the excavation
activities; (2) identification of any .applicable local .standards which may be exceeded by
the excavation activities, including dust levels and noise; (3) transportation impacts from
the removal or remedial activities; and (4) risk of upse.t sho.uld be there an &ccident at
the Site.
DTSC can assist your agency in0verseeing characterization arid cleanup autivities
through our Volunltary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is.. .
enclosed. W-e are aware that projects. Such as this one are typically on a compressed
schedule, and in an effort to use the available review time efficiently, we request that
¯ DTSC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory, authority are
discussed. "
Please c’ontact Annina Antonio of my staff at (510) 540-3844 if you have .any questions
¯ or would like to schedule a meeti.ng, Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this
matter. -
Sincerely,
’ Barbar:a J. Coo~,JP.E., Chief
Northern California.- Coastal Cleanup
Operations Branch
¯ Enclosures
CC without encldsures
Governor’s Office of Planning and ReSearch
State Clearinghouse
P. O. Box 3044
Sa.cramento, California.9581.2-3044.
Guenther Moskat
CEQA Tracking-Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento California 95812-0806 "
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
.MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (02-EIA-05;3700 and 3800 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD,
CITY OF PALO ALTO, PROPONENT)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION i. Background.The City Council of the City of
Palo A~to ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. The Mitchell Park Library and Community Center "the
Project" would replace the existing Mitchell Park Library and
Mitchell Park Community center, located at 3700 and 3800
Middlefield Road, with a new joint use facility of approximately
70,000 square feet, and include improved pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular access, parking facilities, and landscaping.
B. The City as the lead agency for the Project prepared a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Mitchell Park Library
and Community Center. The Draft was released for a public.comment
period on April 17, 2002. The public comment period concluded on
May 7, 2002. The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of
May 16, 2002, the Library Advisory Commission at its meeting of
May 23, 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission at its meeting of
May 23, 2002, and the Planning and Transportation Commission at its
meeting of May 15, 2002 reviewed and considered the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration consists of the
following documents and records: Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center Initial Study prepared by the City of Palo Alto
April 17, 2002, including Appendices A through F, (Mitchell Park
Library and Community Master Plan, Traffic Impact ~Analysis,
Inventory and Evaluation of Trees, Preliminary Geotechnical
Findings, Historical Evaluation, City of Palo Alto Departmental
Memoranda); those documents referenced therein, including without
limitation those listed as "Source References" on Page 33 of the
Initial Study, and the Comments and responses to comments on the
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the planning and other
City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of
proceedings. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section
15000, et seq. The Mitigated Negative Declaration ±s on file in
000302 syn 0091094
1
the offices of the Direc<or of Planning and Community Environment
and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and
files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated
herein by this reference.
D. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
including the comments received and the responses to those
comments, EIR and record of proceedings.
SECTION 2. Adoption. The City Council finds that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts and
approves it.’ The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff
reports] oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the
proposed -Project, and all other matters deemed material and
relevant before .considering for approval the various actions
related to the Project.
SECTION 3. No Recirculation Required. The CityCouncil’
finds that no new significant information has been received that
requires recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures
set forth in Exhibit A attached to this resolution and a part of it
are hereby adopted.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
000302 syn 0091094
2
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures
For Mitchell Park Library and~Community Center Project
l)
2)
The proposed project will comply with all City Design Review,.
Comprehensive Plan and Palo Alto Municipal Code standards.
Construction contractors shall implement a dust-abatement
program that complies with the guidelines established by Bay
Area Air Quality Management District to reduce the
contribution of project construction to local respirable
particulate matter concentrations to include:
¯Use’truck routes approved by the City of Palo Alto.
¯Water all active construction areas at least twice daily or
as needed to prevent dust.
¯Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least 2
feet of. freeboard.
¯Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil
stabilizers on all unpaved roads, parking areas, and
construction staging areas.
¯Sweep daily with water sweepers all paved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites as
needed to prevent dust.
¯Sweep street daily with water sweepers, if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
¯Hydfoseed or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas.
¯Enclose, cover, water, twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
¯Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
¯Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways during rainy season
construction (November through April).
3)The.architects shall utilize the design standards identified
in Section 4.0 of the Arborist Report (See, Initial Study,
Appendix C)and the Planning Arborist Memorandum (Appendix F)
in the final design of conceptual plans.
4)The City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist shall review final
conceptual design plans. Certain high value trees, identified
as "specimen trees" in the Planning Arborist memorandum, shall
be incorporated into the site design and landscape with
adequate room for their survival and protected during the
000302 syn 0091094
.1
course of construction. These trees include: Silver DollarGum
#31, Blue Atlas Cedars #101-108, Coast Redwoods #59, 63, 64,
84-91, London Planes #101-108. Valley Oak #31 shall be
retained or relocated on the Mitchell Park site. Other high
and. moderate value trees that may be impacted may be removed
for development purposes. Their removal would be mitigated by
relocating or replacement according to the guidelines
specified in the City of Palo Alto’s ~Tree Technical Manual".
The City of Palo Alto shall conform to the guidelines
identified by the consulting arborist in Section 4 of the
Arborist Report and comply with the guidelines of the Palo
Alto Tree Technical Manual during all phases of demolition and
construction of the project.
In the event that the areas near Adobe Creek located at the
south end of the park should be selected as the site for’the
new tennis courts, project personnel will be be alerted to the.
possibility of encountering archaeological resources during
construction and appraised of the proper procedures to follow
in the evenZ that such materials are found. In the event of
accidental discovery of archaeological resources on the site,
work at the place of discovery will be halted immediately and
a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. In
the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the
site, the Santa Clara county coroner’s office shall be
notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the
remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall
comply with CEQA Guidelines sec. 15064.5(e).
7
8)
All new construction shall comply with the provisions of the
final geotechnical report and with the provisions of the most
current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of
life and property in the. event of an earthquake.
Demolition will include testing and, if necessary, will
provide for standard safety protocols and best management
practices in doing removal of any hazardous materials.
Required protocols are set forth in the California
Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations and the
California Health and .Safety Code. ACMs and lead paint
containing materials will be handled only by trained
construction workers and disposed of in a manner prescribed by
State Law. If the materials are handled and disposed of in
accordance with the regulations they should not pose a hazard
either to the construction workers nor to any members of the
public nearby or neighboring residents.
9)The City shall conduct a Phase I hazardous substances survey
for the site prior to construction to determine the historic
use of the site. If the results of the Phase I survey
indicate the potential Presence of hazardous substances, the
2
000302 syn 0091094
City shall conduct a Phase II survey to test soil samples at
the site and shall comply with City standards for subsequent
cleanup and removal of hazardous substances, as necessary.
10)
11)
The project will displace two of the seven tennis courts. The
Parks and Recreation Commission shall consider the need, if
any, to replace the two tennis and two paddle tennis courts
and shall recommend other areas within the park or other City
facilities to construct new tennis and paddle tennis courts,
if deemed necessary. A Park Improvement Ordinance shall be
required for that portion of the proposed development within
the park.
The proposed development of the civic facilities and site
shall conform with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance and
shall be required to follow standard construction techniques
and best management practices.
12)City staff shall prepare a detailed staffing and program
schedule for the continuance of Library and Community Center
services at other existing civic facilities in the nearby area
during the construction of the new civic facility at Mitchell
Park.
13)The project architects have estimated the parking requigements
based on the City’s zoning ordinance. Summing the requirements
for the individual uses (120 spaces for the library, 135
spaces for the community center, 135 spaces for the park)
yields a total of 390 spaces. However, because Mitchell Park
serves a different user group and the expanded library and
community center will have unique operating characteristics
not found at the other libraries within the City, the actual
parking needs are uncertain. In such cases where insufficient
data exists to establish the future parking needs, the City’s
Director of Planning and Community Environment may utilize
Section 18.83.120(c) and Section 18.83.120(e) of the zoning
ordinance to reduce (up to 20%) or defer (up to 50%) of the
parking requirements.
The Comprehensive Plan, Policy L-76, encourages the evaluation
of parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific
uses and to develop a~ standard somewhere between average and
peak conditions. Policy L-78 encourages development that
creatively integrates parking into the project by providing
for shared use of parking areas.
The City shall review the design development plans, and based
upon the specified program space of the civic facilities and
the site plan provisions for bicycle, pedestrian and shuttle
bus, shall provide sufficient parking to address the parking
demand based on final design and program analysis.
3
000302 syn 0091094
14 A detailed site plan has not been finalized. The
ultimate site design shall include pedestrian paths
and bikeways that minimize conflicts with vehicular
traffic, provide logical and direct pathways between
building entrances, and. connect building entrances and
parking areas. Furthermore, pedestrian and bicycle
pathways within the site shall connect to ,the
¯ sidewalks and bike lanes on the adjacent public
streets and the existing pathways through Mitchell
Park. Bicycle parking shall be provided according to
zoning ordihance standards.
000302 syn 0091094
4
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT C
Z
.-I-
.1"
ATTACHMENT C
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
-.l-
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
FROM THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Architectural Review Board
on May 16, 2002, the Architectural Review recommend that the City Council:
1)
2)
Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Approve the conceptual design alternative identified as Scheme 4/3 and that
the schematic design development include the following design elements:
a.Further investigation of natural ventilation and lighting of the
’underground parking garage.
b.The architect provides a more detailed look at the "knuckle",
addressing access, landscaping, and sun/shadow studies.
c.A public art program be developed and incorporated in the
project.
d.The public parking lot landscaping be reviewed for compliance
with city standards and that the landscape screening from the
street be looked at.
e.The project seeks certification as a lead for Silver Certification.
Planning and Transportation Commission
On May 15, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended
that the City Council:
1) Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
2) Approval of the conceptual design altemative identified as Scheme 4/3, and the
continued development of a final set of conceptual design plans and schematic
. plans for the development of the new Mitchell Park Library/Community Center.
3) Encourage that additional mitigation efforts be pursued, not only within the Park,
but with the relationship to the surrounding areas, to the schools, other pathways,
and from the schools through the Park and the pathways leading into the
Community Center complex.
4) That the City ~xplores the prospective need to expand shuttle service to this site as
this site is going to have an expanded Civic Center usage, and therefore, it may
consequently deserve to be an elevated priority in future shuttle service
expansion.
ATTACHMENT D
Parks and Recreation Commission
On May 23, 2002, the Parks and Recreation Commission, by split vote, approved
the following motion regarding plans for Mitchell Park Community Center, to
send on to the City Council. The Parks and Recreation Commission approves the
conceptual ideas of the plans as presented to us by Group 4 Architecture at this
point, aside from the costs involved.
By unanimous vote, the PARC requests that the tennis courts and paddle ball
courts that are to be displaced due to the recommended new building location, be
replaced by comparably high quality lighted courts in South Palo Alto, before the
existing ones are removed.
The Commission does have concerns regarding the cost and size of the total
project.
Also, the Project Site Committee unanimously recommended moving forward on
the conceptual designs for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
Library Advisory Commission
On May 23, 2002, the Library Advisory Commission recommends to City Council
that they adopt the Mitchell Park Library conceptual designs and that it is in
accord with the New Library Plan.
2
ATTACHMENT E
MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER
CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
DESCRIPTION OF COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
New construction
Under-building parking
Sitework, surface parking & landscaping
SUBTOTAL
Sustainability allowance
Public art
General conditions
Bonds and insurance
Overhead and profit
Permits and fees
Design/scope contingency
Construction contingency
Escalation @ 2.5%/yr
TOTAL
.SOFT COSTS
Design
Construction Management
Testing & inspection
Environmental
Commissioning
Relocation
TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
FINANCING COSTS
BOND MEASURE COSTS
USE ROUNDED-OFF AMOUNTS
FURNISHINGS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
compared to
FEASIBILITY-LEVEL ESTIMATE
YRS BUILT
TYPE
SIZE
UNIT
MITCHELL
PARK
LIBRARY
(full program)
2004-2006
New 2-story
53,900 sf .
COST
$219/sf 111804,100
Lump sum 3,800,000
Lump sum 1,400,000
$17,004,100
2%340,082
1%170,041
8%1,360,328
2%340,082
4%.68O, 164
1%.170,041
10%1,7.00,410:
7.5%1,275,308i
7.5%--,~ .1,.275,308
43%$24,315,863
15%3,647,379
-5%1,215,793
1%243,159
1%243,159
1%243,159
1%243 159
24%$5,835,807
$30,151,670
,, ~;500~000
$30,651,670
$30,700,000
$2~371 ~600
$33,023,270
$32;000,000
$44/sf
MITCHELL
PARK
LIBRARY
(reduced program)
2004-2006
New 2-story
47,000 sf
COST
10,293,000
3,643,000
1,400,000
$15,336,000
306,720
153,360
1,226,880
306,720
613,440
153,360
1,533,600
1,150,200
1,150,200
$21,930,480
3,289,572
1,096,524
219,305
219,305
219,305
219,305
$5,263,315
$27,193,795
$450~000
$27,643,795
$27,7OO,OOO
.$2,068,000
$29,711,795i
N/A
MITCHELL
PARK
COMMUNITY
CENTER
2004-2006
New 2-story
16,800 sf
COST
3,679,2OO
1,390,000
600,000
$5,669,200
113,384
56,692
453,536
113,384
226,768
56,692
566,920
425,190
425,190
$8,106,956
1,216,043
405,348
81,070
81,070
81,070
$1,945,669
$10,052,625
$150~’000
$10,202,625
$10,200,000
$739~200
$10,941,825
$9,650,000
S:Morris\Libraries\Mitchell\Conceptual estimates; Last updated 6/6/02