Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-24 City Council (6)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ~ CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS 2 DATE:JUNE 24, 2002 CMR:305:02 SUBJECT:RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWELL/EMBARCADERO CIVIC FACILITIES EXPANSION PROGRAM AND RESOLUTION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR THE ART CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT REPORT IN BRIEF Architects have completed the conceptual designs of the Main Library Expansion and the Art Center Expansion projects, including a conceptual site plan for landscaping, parking, and circulation. Two schemes were analyzed for the Main Library: a Retention Scheme, in which the Main Library’s reading room is retainedand added onto; and a Replacement Scheme, in which the. existing library is replaced with a new library. The Art Center expansion project has one scheme that consists of three phases. Remodeled spaces would provide three new classrooms and an after-school drop-in center for children as well as a gallery for participants in the adult studio programs. In all schemes, parking has been increased to accommodate the expanded facilities and existing significant trees and landscaping are retained, including 90% of the Community Gardens. The environmental impacts of the projects are analyzed in the EIR. The most significant environmental impact would be to remove the historic library in order to construct a new library. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual design for the Art Center project, and the, conceptual design of the site. Council is not being asked at this time to make a final decision on the Replacement or the Retention Schemes for the Main Library, but can make a project determination (and potentially adopt a statement, of overriding considerations) when there is a project for the Library that is ready to go forward. CMR:305:02 Page 1 of 13 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: Adopt the Resolution Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Pursuant to the California Environmental. Quality Act (Attachment G). Adopt the Resolution Approving the Conceptual Design for Renovation and Expansion. of the Palo Alto Art Center and Related Site Improvements and Approving a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment H). BACKGROUND The Main Library and the Art Center share a site at the northeast comer of Newell and Embarcadero Roads. The site includes community gardens, many significant trees, mature landscaping, and surface parking. Tennis courts and Rinconada Park are directly across Newell Road. A few blocks further west is the Lucie Stem Community Center. The north and east sides of the site back up to a residential neighborhood. The Art Center was originally built as City Hall and opened in 1953. It was designed by Leslie Nichols in the Modem Ranch style. It is a 28,800 square foot (sf), single-story, wood-framed building with a sloped roof, brick siding and a partial basement. In 1971, City Hall moved downtown and the facility was converted to the Cultural Center, which provided arts through exhibitions and classes for adults and children. Later, the facility’s name was changed and to Art Center. The facility was recently evaluated by the City’s historic consultant, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), and appears eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources as an example of public architecture derived from ranch house themes. The ,Main Library was designed by Edward Durell Stone, an internationally acclaimed modernist architect. It opened in 1958 and underwent remodeling and seismic retrofitting, including a 2,200 sf addition for staff offices, in 1981-85. It is a one-story, 26,800 sf building facing Newell Road. The library was also recently evaluated as appearing eligible.for the National and Califomia registers of historic resources. Edward Durell Stone designed or co-designed many noteworthy modernist buildings throughout the world, including parts of Rockefeller Center, New York’s Museum of Modem Art, ihe Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., the United States Embassy in New Delhi, and Stanford Hospital. He also designed Palo Alto’s City Hall. The Main Library is a residentially-scaled, ranch-style building which is unusual for institutional buildings. The library is considered historic as a significant example of Edward Durell Stone’s Ranch- style work. CMR:305:02 Page 2 of 13 In March 1999, the Art Center Foundation approached the City with plans to explore the renovation and expansion of the Art Center. In early 2001, a plan was presented to the City that included a new gallery, additional classrooms for children, a new auditorium, and an adult art wing. The expansions were programmed at about 26,500 sf, for a total of 55,300 sf, and were to be done in three phases: a 10,000 sfnew entry, gallery and office addition which included a new children’s wing in the existing building in Phase 1; a 6,500 sf auditorium addition in Phase 2; and .a 10,000 sfadult studio wing in Phase 3. The size of each phase has since been reduced (see Art Center in the Discussion Section). In January 2001, the City retained Phillips Swager Associates to prepare building spatial programs for expansion of the proposed Resource Libraries (Main, Mitchell and Children’s) based on the New Library Plan. The Main Library was programmed at 66,000 sf, which included significant expansion of the collection spaces and the addition of a large meeting room, study, spaces,, teen homework areas, a technology lab, and space for the Friends of the Library. ¯ In July 2001, the Art Center Foundation and the City retained Mark Cavagnero Associates (MCA), an architectural firm from San Francisco, teamed with SWA Group, a landscape architecture firm, to conduct a feasibility study of the Newell/Embarcadero site. MCA and SWA both have extensive experienc, e master planning community facility sites in the Bay Area. The study was to determine the options for expanding the Main Library and the Art Center, incorporating the community gardens, parking, site circulation, and landscaping. MCA/SWA completed the study and staff presented it to Council in February 2002. Council approved two schemes for continuation into conceptual design. One scheme retains the 13,200 sf original library reading room (about half of the existing library), removes the "T" wing (staff area), and adds a new 53,000-sf addition (Retention Scheme). The other scheme removes the entire library and replaces it with a new 66,000 sf facility (Replacement Scheme). Both schemes include the same Art Center Phase 1 plan described earlier. Both schemes retain about 90% of the community gardens, all of the significant trees, and much of the existing landscaping. Both schemes include reconfignred site circulation, including a relocated entrance off Embarcadero Road into the southeast parking lot, a drive lane connecting the two surface parking lots to improve site circulation and parking convenience, and a drop-off loop off Newell Road. Both schemes include a large open area with many mature trees between the Art Center and the Main Library that will become an important unifying component of the site and landscaping. 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 iphases of the Art Center expansion and the full library, would require 311 parking spaces. CMR:305:02 Page 3 of 13 However, the architect, in anticipation of the parking demand being reduced and because of site constraints, used a total parking demand of 300. Accordingly, both the Retention and the Replacement Schemes include parking for up to 300 spaces. In the 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 Scheme includes under-building and surface parking, but no parking structure. The conceptual design effort has made modifications to the parking demand in an effort to eliminate under-building parking (see Parking in the Discussion Section of this report). The Replacement Scheme would create a significant environmental impact because it removes the historic library. In order for Council to move forward on a project with a significant environmental impact, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. In late 2001 and early 2002, staff initiated the Draft EIR by retaining an architectural historian, an arborist, a traffic and’ parking consultant, and an environmental consultant to analyze all the environmental impacts. In January 2002, the Main Library/Art Center Project Committee, consisting of representatives from the Art Center Foundation, the Library Advisory Commission, on- site community gardens, Friends of the Library, and key Public Works, Planning and .Community Services staff, conducted interviews for architects to prepare the conceptual designs for the two projects. The Committee selected MCA/SWA to continue into conceptual design of the Art Center renovation and expansion as well as the site and parking designs; and Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle (MS&R) from Minneapolis, teamed with ELS Architecture from Berkeley, to design the Main Library expansion. MS&R has extensive experience designing many libraries throughout the country. DISCUSSION MCA/SWA and MS&R/ELS have developed conceptual designs over the last four months. They have met regularly with their respective project committees to discuss the issues and review the designs. There has been an extensive public review process, with many community, board and commission meetings. The architects have used the input received at all of these meetings to revise and refine their designs and produce final conceptual designs. The Retention and Replacement Scheme site plans are included as Attachment A. The Art Center site/floor plan and perspective sketches are Attachment B. The Main Library site plans, floor plans, and perspective sketches are Attachment C. Final reports for each of the two projects have been prepared by the architects and summarize the conceptual design process. Copies of these r.eports have been provided to the City Council members. The public may review Copies at the City Clerk’s Office, the Main Library or the Art Center. CMR:305:02 Page 4 of 13 A brief summary of some of the key issues regarding the development of the conceptual designs follows. Parking MCA/SWA developed a number of different parking plans. Initially, the. plans all included approximately 300 Parking spaces. However, it became apparent that the cost of parking relatively feW cars (30-50) under the library was very high. The construction cost was high because of excavation, ramps, elevators, stairwells, waterproofing, a structural concrete slab with columns to support the first floor of the library, and the irregular layout of the Retention Scheme. Additionally, there would be ongoing energy, cleaning, maintenance, and security costs. City staff and the architects worked to determine if the under-library parking could be eliminated. The Planning Department recommended that a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program be developed for the project. This program will emphasize the use of alternative modes of transportation to and from the site by both visitors and employees, and includes such things as bicycle parking, shuttle and City bus stops, and employee ride-sharing. A TDM program allows the Planning Department to reduce the calculated parking demand by up to 20%. Accordingly, the architects have eliminated under-library parking from both the Retention and Replacement Schemes in anticipation of the Planning Department approving the TDM program and granting a reduction in the parking demand. The plans now show approximately 280 parking spaces for both schemes; a 10% reduction from the 311 calculated spaces. However, if all 311 parking spaces are required, the plans can be modified to include under-library parking. Costs would significantly increase as a result. The Art Center has a current demand of 99 parking spaces. The first phase of the Art Center expansion would .require 7 additional spaces, the second phase would require 27 additional spaces, and the third phase would require 11 additional spaces, for atotal of 144 spaces at full build out. The Main Library would have a demand of 136 parking spaces with the full program, or 124 spaces with the reduced program. The total parking demand is required only after a Main Library project and all three phases of the Art Center are completed. The parking could be phased to match the demand of the Main Library project and the Art Center phases. For instance, if the Art Center Phase 1 project were done first, additional parking would be provided for that phase only by expanding the southeast parking lot. A parking structure in the southeast comer of the site would replace the surface parking lot there and would only be required if the Main Library Retention Scheme project were done as well as all three phases of the Art Center. Landscaping The current site is landscaped with many mature trees, shrubs and ground cover. An arborist’s report has catalogued more than 400 trees on the site. The expanded buildings CMR:305:02 Page 5 of 13 and parking would necessitate the loss of some landscaping, but every effort has been made by the architects to retain all significant trees, lawns and other landscaping. "Some trees would be relocated and many new trees would be planted to mitigate the loss of lessr than-significant trees, to relieve and cool surface parking, and to fill in a screen of trees along the residential neighborhood boundary. The large open space between the Main Library and the Art Center would become a featured component of the site. This space has a.well-established grove of redwood, Italian Stone pine, and Japanese maple trees that are a continuation of groves in other parts of the site and in Rinconada Park, helping to knit all these public facilities together. The open space is envisioned as a multipurpose space that can unify the site and integrate the library and Art Center projects. It can be used for a variety of functions, such as receptions, reading, eating, sketching, and relaxing. It is considered a prime area for featuring public art. Community Garden , The plans for the community gardens remain unchanged from the feasibility study, where a strip of the gardens is removed from the west side of the gardens to accommodate the drive lane connecting the two parking lots. To compensate for this loss of garden plots, some plots would be added on the east side of the gardens. Soil would be prepared for the transferred plots. The net result is that about 90% of the current overall size of the gardens is retained. To compensate for the 10% loss, plots would be added at Eleanor Pardee Park. Parking areas would also be provided for better access for gardenersat the north and south ends Of the gardens. Additionally, staff is considering other garden improvements, including improving the irrigation system and a trellis along the western edge. Site Circulation The vehicular, bicyclist and pedestrian circulation through the site is similar to what was proposed in the feasibility study. The access to the site from Embarcadero Road will be located further west, to line up with the new driveway through the site and to move it away from the residential neighbors. A new driveway will connect the surface parking lots to increase the usefulness and convenience of the parking lots and to provide for vehicular circulation through the site from Newell Road to Embarcadero Road in order to reduce traffic on surrounding streets. A new drop-off loop is provided off Newell Road to serve both facilities and includes a shuttle stop as well as providing firefighting access. Main Library Footprint, Massing and Style The general locations on the site for both the Replacement Scheme and the Retention Scheme are similar to the feasibility study schemes. Once the arborist and the surveyor identified the locations of all the trees, the footprints of the buildings were shifted slightly, CMR:305:02 Page 6 of 13 to avoid significant trees. The footprints were also affected by the development of the parking layouts and site circulation. Both the Replacement and Retention Schemes include two-story structures. The heights of the buildings, per the zoning ordinance, do not exceed 35 feet within 150 feet of any residential property lines, or 50 feet when further away. The existing trees shield much of the view of the new facilities from the residences and from Newell and Embarcadero Roads. The architect’s survey of community members’ design preferences revealed that those who were present prefer natural materials, sloped roofs, natural light, and indoor/outdoor spaces. The architect has considered many different materials and styles for the library. However, the final materials and styles would be determined during the next phase of design, schematic design. The addition to the Main Library in the Retention Scheme as studied in the EIR would be required to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary’s Standards). This is a difficult task in that the addition would be considerably larger than the original building. Also, the addition is being added on the east side of the library that includes the main approach and main entry, and therefore is considered an addition to a primary facade. The Secretary’s Standards require, among other things, that additions not dominate or obscure the view of a primary facade. Also, consistent with the conceptual site plan, current conceptual floor plans indicate a need to demolish portions of the east fagade, including the original entries. Therefore, there is no assurance that a Retention Scheme would meet the Secretary’s Standards. If the Retention Scheme is approved, the project receives funding, and the project gets approval for continuation into schematic design, staff intends to hire a peer reviewer to assess whether the plans are or can be in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. Main Library Floor Plans The Library Advisory Commission (LAC) analyzed and prepared a reduced program for the Main Library, decreasing the square footage of the facility from 66,000 to 53,000 sf. Some spaces were removed (homework center, technology lab, teen spaces, caf6, Friends of the Library work area) and others were reduced (spaces for collections and storage). On April 22, 2002, Council directed staff to add back in all teen spaces, bringing the reduced program back up to 55,000 sf. MS&R has analyzed reduced floor plans for both schemes. The reduced Replacement Scheme floor plans have the same general configuration and many of the same pros and cons as the full program floor plan. The reduced Retention Scheme floor plans must be substantially revised to keep necessary adjacencies. The floor plans of the Retention and Replacement Schemes are markedly different. The program goals of the library appear to be significantly compromised in the Retention Scheme as a result of having to incorporate the existing original library. The original CMR:305:02 Page 7 of 1-3 library continues many of its current functions in the Retention Scheme: a large collection room housing fiction, newspapers, multi-media collections, and patios, adding space for teen services. The two story addition contains the circulation desk, non-fiction, magazine backfiles, reading areas, meeting and small group areas, technology lab, historic collections, staff spaces, elevators, stairwells, a caf6, a Friends of the Library selling area, and outdoor patios and decks. Computers are scattered throughout the building. The shape of the addition is irregular due to site constraints, resulting in a floor plan that is not compact or intuitive. It will be difficult to service and provide security for several spaces in this scheme. The spaces are not as flexible for future, unforeseen purposes as they would be in a compact building design and may be difficult to rearrange and remodel. In general, the functionality, efficiency and flexibility of the building appears to be compromised. The Retention Scheme plans total 69,200 sf for the full program, and 63,500 sf for the reduced program. These square footages represent increases over the original program amounts: 66,000 sf for the full program and 55,000 sf for the reduced program. These increases are due to a number of factors, but are primarily the result of the original program including inadequate space for building structure and circulation spaces. Essentially, there is no way to include all the program spaces in a 66,000 sf (or 55,000 sf) building of this shape. The Replacement Scheme floor plans total approximately 68,000 sf for the full program, and 62,700 sf for the reduced program. The Replacement Scheme plans are compact and functional. Staff will be able to service and secure the spaces conveniently. Space in the building maximizes operational efficiency and accommodates necessary adjacencies. The wayfinding is intuitive. The spaces are flexible and can accommodate future rearrangement. . With more design effort to come in the schematic design phase, staff is confident that the 66,000 sf goal can be reached for both the Replacement and Retention Schemes. However, reductions in program space would be necessary for the Retention Scheme. Art Center Footprint, Massing and Style The Art Center Foundation has scaled back its plans for expansion from those identified in the program study. The Phase 1 addition, consisting of an art gallery, new entry, prep space, shop, and office addition has been reduced from 10,000 sf to 9,600 sf. The Phase 2 ¯ auditorium has been scaled back from 6,500 sfto 3,500 sf. The Phase 3 adult art wing has been scaled back from 10,000 sfto 6,500 sf. The art gallery addition is on the north side of the facility, connected to the original building by a new lobby/entry and front office. The existing main entry on the north side of the building would be retained as a secondary entry. The gallery would be a one-story CMR:305:02 Page 8 of 13 space with a high ceiling and clerestory to gather northern daylight. It is conceived as a contemporary style, distinguishable from and complementary to the brick and glass exterior of the existing Ranch-style Art Center. Since the Art Center is considered historic, the addition is required to meet the Secretary’s Standards. Staff intends to retain a peer reviewer during schematic design review to make this determination. Art Center Floor Plans The floor plan of the original building would be rearranged to accommodate the Art Center’s program. The existing gallery would be converted to a community meeting space, a community gallery, the Project LOOK! Studio, and the Art & Tech Studio. New services would include three new children’s classrooms and a drop-in center, as well as a gallery for adults participating in studio classes. A catering kitchen would be relocated and downsized. The Art Center Foundation has currently capped the project budget at $10 million. This is a significant reduction from the $17-18 million estimates produced at the end of the feasibility study. To accommodate the reduced budget, the original building would not be fully renovated as part of Phase 1, as had been included in the feasibility study estimate. Some of the renovations of the existing structure would be done at a later date. The current estimate is approximately $16 million, so additional reductions will need to be incorporated during schematic design to achieve the $10 million goal. Alternatively, the Art Center Foundation is reconsidering the phasing plan given the financial strictures under which it has to operate. ’ Sustainability Both the Retention and the Replacement Schemes are designed with consideration given to sustainability. The schemes would incorporate many newer, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly materials and systems, such as a raised-floor system for efficient distribution of heated and cooled air. They would maximize natural daylight and ventilation. A preliminary scoring of the replacement scheme per the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system shows the building qualifying for a silver certification. The Retention Scheme would include sustainable systems and materials in the addition and renovation of the original building. In order to install a raised floor system in the existing reading room without decreasing the floor-to-ceiling height, the existing slab must be removed, excavation preformed, and a new slab installed lower. The energy- inefficient windows in the reading room have not been designated for replacement as it appears their historic integrity would be compromised. If during schematic design it is determined the windows can be replaced, the architects will be directed to include this in the design. The Retention Scheme has not been preliminarily rated yet per the LEED’s rating system, but it is also anticipated to achieve a silver certification. CMR:305:02 Page 9 of 13 The addition and remodel of the Art Center addresses sustainability through the building orientation, maximization of controlled daylight, the building systems and material selection. Most importantly, keeping the existing Art Center building is the first step towards sustainability. Providing a great deal of natural light in the Art Center allows for asignificant reduction in the amount of artificial light. The addition is oriented towards the north and, with its clerestories, captures north light without direct sun. A ground source heat pump, which would provide efficient heating and cooling, will be considered during schematic design. Also, recycled building materials may be used. BOARD AND COMMISSION AND PROJECT COMMITTEE REVIEW The conceptual designs have been reviewed by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic Resources Board (HRB), the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), the Park and Recreation Commission, and the Public Art Commission. The conclusion of most of those who reviewed the designs is that the plans accomplish the goals of the feasibility study and integrate well with each other and with the site. However, the HRB as a whole, .and a member of the P&TC, did not support any plan that failed to preserve the Main Library reading room as a historic and cultural resource. The ARB and the LAC unanimously, and the P&TC by a vote of 5-2, supported the Replacement Scheme. Recommendations from the Boards and Commissions are included in Attachment D. The Art Center Project Committee and the Main Library Project Committee unanimously recommended that Council approve the conceptual designs of the site, Phase 1 of the Art Center expansion project, and the Replacement Scheme for the library. All of these conceptual designs were felt to meet the goals of the feasibility study, to accommodate the programs, and to mitigate all environmental impacts except for the loss of the existing Main Library. Staff recommends that Council postpone a decision regarding the Main Library. However, for the record, the Replacement Scheme. appears to be a better and more suitable scheme than the Retention Scheme for the following reasons: ¯Better fit of the spatial program, translating to better and more efficient functionality, service, and security ¯Less building footprint and, therefore, less impact to the site ¯Does not require a parking structure at full build-out of all master planned spaces ¯More flexible for future remodeling projects ¯More energy efficient and sustainable as it is a smaller, more compact shape and does not have to make compromises retrofitting the existing building CMR:305:02 Page 10 of 13 ¯Less expensive to construct RESOURCE IMPACT MCA has prepared a construction cost estimate for the Art Center project and the site. ELS has prepared a construction cost estimate for the Main Library. Staff has added the other project costs to arrive at total project costs. In summary, the total project costs for each project are: Main Library - Retention Scheme (full) Main Library - Retention Scheme (reduced) Main Library - Replacement Scheme (full) Main Library - Replacement Scheme (reduced) Art Center Phase 1 addition and remodeling Replacement Scheme site costs Retention Scheme site costs $55,300,000 $53,600,000 $46,400,000 $45,100,000 $15,700,000 $8,000,000 $13,600,000 The site costs are included in the Main Library and Art Center estimates, but have also been listed separately so Council can see their impact. None of the estimates include under-building parking. The Retention Scheme site costs are more than the Replacement Scheme because they include a parking structure. Staff will determine the appropriate split of all of the site costs between the Main Library and Art Center projects when it is decided which projects will occur and when they will occur. See Attachment E for a summary of the project costs. The City is considering a bond measure on the November 2002 ballot to fund various facility projects, including the Main Library and. the Art Center. On Julyl5, 2002, the City Council is scheduled to determine which community facility projects, and for what dollar amounts, Will be included in the bond measure. However, since bond proceeds 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. These costs vary based upon the project selected, but estimated costs must be noted. City staffing costs associated with the capital project itself are discussed below. 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 six professionals in the building industry, including architects, developers, contractors, construction managers, and public works staff from other cities. The Committee has met four times. It will issue a report stating its conclusions and, recommendations regarding the various cost estimates. The Committee’s report will be included in the Council packets for the July 15, 2002, Council meeting. CMR:305:02 Page 11 of 13 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 funding of these positions will be requested by a Budget Amendment Ordinance only atter 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 These recommendations do not represent a change to existing City policies. Expansion of the Art Center will meet the Secretary’s Standards and, therefore, would not conflict with City. policies, particularly the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7, Policy L-5 l, L-52 and L-58, all encouraging the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project, which addresses the potential environmental impacts and identifies mitigation measures included in the project that would reduce impacts, where possible, to a less than significant level. The EIR has gone through the public review process and staff has responded to all comments. The Final EIR, with comments and responses, was provided to Council and discussed with Council on June 3, 2002. Council made a number of comments regarding the Final EIR at the June 3 meeting and staff has prepared an addendum to the Final EIR that responds to those comments. The Final EIR addendum is included as Attachment F. Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution to approve and certify, the (Attachment G). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Retention and Replacement Scheme site plans Art Center site/floor plan and perspective sketch Main Library site plans, floor plans and perspective sketches Recommendations from the Boards and Commissions Summary of project costs Addendum to Final EIR EIR CMR:305:02 Page 12 of 13 Attachment G: Attachment H: Resolution Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Resolution Approving the Conceptual Design for Renovation and Expansion of the Palo Alto Art Center and Related Site Improvements and Approving a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: BOB MORRIS Senior Project Manager GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager CMR:305:02 Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT A ~RETENTION SCHEME REPLACEMENT SCHEME ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT l SITE PLAN: RETENTION SCHEME © 2002 Mark Cavagnero Associates and S\VA Group < North (No Scale to drawing) This site plan was provided as a courtesy by Mark Cavagnero Associates and SWA Group for inclusion in this report. It illustrates the proposed relationship be- tween the Art Center and the Main Library. Please note that the floor plans have changed slightly since this site plan was complete. The site relationship has not. © 2002, ELS 0 MS&R Palo Alto Pttblic Library Concept Design--59 ATTACHMENT MS&R SITE PLAN: REPLACEMENT SCHEME Entran~e © 20(.)2 Mark Cavagnero Associates and S\’{;’,-~ GrouD ~ North (No Scale to drawing) This site plan was prm, ided as a courtesv by Mark Cavagnero Associates and SWA Group for inclusion in this report. It illustrates the proposed relationship be- t\veen the Art Center and the Main Library. Please note that the floor plans have changed slightly since this site plan was complete. The site relationship has not. © 2002. ELS & MS~R Palo Alto PId~lic Library Concept Design--60 . A-I-I-ACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C FIRST FLOOR PLAN: RETENTION SCHEME FULL PROGRAM G- Fiction A Public Entrance & I,obbv F Teen Area K Technology Services B Public Meeting Rooms G Adult Services-Fiction and Audio Visual 1.Administrative Services C Circulation Services H Adult Services-Non-Ficdon M Staff Support l)Comnmnirv Services l Periodicals N Technical Services E Children’s Services J l.ocal History ()Friends Book Sales © 2oo2. El.."; ~- ,MS~R l’alo ,41t¢~Puhlic I.ihrary (;,mcept Design--62 ATTACHMENT C MS&R SECOND FLOOR PLAN: RETENTION SCHEME FULL PRO~P~Z~ H I Servic~i" Quiet Study Referen.~e Homework Center A l’ublic Entrance & l.obbv B Pul~lic .Meeting Rooms C Circulation Services 1)(~omnm nity Services E Children’s Services _00_. EI.S ,2- NIS&R Teen Area Adult Ser\’ices-Fiction and Audio Visual Adult Services-Non-Fiction Periodicals l.ocal Histor\ K TechnOlogy Services I.Administrative Services M Staff Support N Technical Services O Friends Book Sales I’alo A/to Pnhlic Library (;oncept Design--63 AI-I-ACH MENT C MS&R FIRST FLOOR PLAN: REPLACEMENT SCHEME FULL P~O~F~t~ k_[] _ "1 L°bby D -~ A ¯ Servic .....¯¯ G-Fict~o N Teen Patio Patio A Public Entrance & Lobby B Public Meeting Rooms C Circulation Scr\’ices 1)Community Services E Children’s Services ©2002, EI.S d- MS&R F Teen Area G Adult Services-Fiction and Audio Visual H AdUlt Services-Non-Fiction I l’eriodicals .!Local History K Technology Services l.Admi|fistrative Services ,M Staff Support N Technical Services 0 Friends Book Sales Pah~ Alto Pul~lic l.ibr.,’\’ C,,ncept l)esign--68 ATTACHMENT C MS&R SECONO FLOOR PLAN: REPLACEMENT SCHEME FULL PRO~P, AM NI A Public Entrance 8,: l.obbv B Public Megting Rooms C Circulation Services 1)Community Services E Children’s Services F Teeu Area K Technology Services (;Adult Services-Fiction and AudioVisual I.Administrative Services H Adult Services-Non-Fiction M Staff Support I Periodicals N Technical Services .]Local Hi,tory ()Friends Book Sales _00_. EI_S c:" .M,S&R I’ah~ Alto l’td~lic Lihrary Concept Destgn--69 ATTACHMENT C MS&R ¯ Sketch looking northwest towards the south Flat roofed, single stor\’ connector will be primarily a entrance to the lihrarv glazed transparent element. Sketch looking northeast tou’ards the addition.Exterior is proposed to be a masonry or stone material. Plimarv forms include sloped roofs, large overhar~gs (with bracketed eaves), and k~rge operable windows. Clay tile screen enclosure of the existing library will be replicated at enclosures for the addition. Nlodel of alternate roof with flat roofs along the perimeter and clerestory inset by one structural bay from the building edge. Pal. Alth l’uhlW I.~hr, tr)’ C, mcept Des~.~tn--~6 ATTACHMENT C CONCEPT SKETCHES: REP~CEMENr SCHEME Sketch looking northeast from the drop-off drive at Newell Road. In this option, there is fully sloping roof extending six feet from the building face--with bracketed eaves. Exterior would be either masonry or stone and wonld inch,de oeprahle windows. Sketch looking northeast towards the addition.In this option, the wing of the building to the east would be ,’oofed separately to further articulate the planned residential scale of the building. Model of alternate roof with flat roofs ahmg the perimeter and clerestory inset by one structu,al bay from the building edge. © 2002. ELS c~, ,M.S~R l’alo AIt. Puhlic Libr, u’v C,)m-ept l)esign--57 A-I-IACHMENT ( Retention Sckeme: Model o1" Site. Looking Northwest over Art Center Retellllotl .Scheme: Model of Site, I.ookitlg Southtl,est tott’~lrds Art Center ©2002. ELS ,5- MS&R Pah~ Alto Public Lihr, try (5,ncept Destgn--75 ATTACHMENT C MS&R Replacement Scheme: Model of Sit,’. Looking Northeast Repl, tcement ,~cheme: Mo,tel of Site. Looking Nort)m,est over Art Cemer Rephtc(’ment .~cheme: Mo, h,I ,q" Site. l.ookmg N,)rtb over Art © 2002. EI.S c:" *iS~l( l’,tl,, Alto Puhli,- l.ihr,trv C,,n,-cl)t Destt~n--76 ATTACHMENT D 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; Recommend that the Council consider the relocation or modification of the Community Gardens 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; 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 achieves the goals of sustainability 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: 1)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 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. ATTACHMENT [ #2 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUB J: May 24, 2002 Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation to City Council 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. Regarding the portions of plans for the Main Library which are pertinent to the Commission, the PARC regrets the negative impact on the Community Gardens, and would like replacement areas to be found so that there is no reduction in the total garden area available. The Commission prefers the plans for an all-new Main Library building, with a smaller footprint, in order to have more usable open space available and to eliminate the need for a parking structure. The Commission does have concerns regarding the cost and size of the tota! project. Commissioners Participatinff: ¯Richard Beckwith, William Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Jennifer Hagan, and Lynn Torin ATTACHMENT D LIBRAR Y AD VISOR Y COMMISSION P.O. BOX 10250 I’ALO ALTO, CA 94303 DATE: May 29, 2002 TO :. FROM : SUBJECT: Palo Alto City Council Planning and Transportation Commission LibraryAdvis°ryC°mmissi°n4~~ ~ J4~ Preferred Conceptual Design for Main Library: Replacement Scheme On May 23, 2002, the Library Advisory Commission passed the following motion unanimously: "The Library Advisory Commission supports the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Library Advisory Commission supports the concept of the Main Library expansion and recommends that the City Council approve the Replacement Scheme as the preferred alternative. The overriding considerations that support the Replacement Scheme include, but are not limited to, the following: ¯ The Replacement Scheme offers stronger overall site utilization for expansion at NewelUEmbarcadero; ¯The Replacement Scheme achieves the goals of sustainability-and efficiency; ¯The Replacement Scheme has lower development costs, and; " ¯ The Replacement Scheme is superior in achieving the project goals for programs and library services to the community." In passing this motion, the LAC agreed that it would prepare a more detailed memorandum to the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission, identifying in greater detail the advantages of the Replacement Scheme. This memo serves that purpose and should be considered as incorporated by reference in the Library Advisory Commission’s resolution of May 23, 2002. If the Replacement Scheme is in fact found to have a significant unavoidable adverse impact to a historic resource, the Library Advisory Commission advises that the requirement of finding overriding considerations is fully met by theitems discussed below. In doing so the Commission points out that Meyer, Scherer and Kockcastle, architects, have created conceptual plans for both the replacement and retention alteruatives. Those studies have produced the following conclusions: 1. Footprint: The replacement building’s footprint is 8,000 square feet smaller than the retention scheme, mad is therefore more amicable to the Newell/Embarcadero site allowing for a fully developed central open space and preserving more trees. 2. Existing Building Mass and Retrofit: The size, location and configuration of an addition to. the existing building--to avoid infill of the facade--requires deviation from the site:s master plan to allow for more efficient structural bracing, better library service and program, and better architectural space between the old and the .new-portions of the project. Even then the massing of a two-story addition is incompatible with the scale of the existing building, is problematic in terms of conforming to Secretary of the Interior standard~, and impacts the central open space courtyard and north glade that is proposed in the master site plan. If.the existing building is retained, its exterior windows will need to be replaced for ease of operation, maintenance, seismic safety and energy conservation. Such replacement windows may not sufficiently mimic existing ones with the result that the existing structure cannot be re-created. In addition costs to properly adapt and reuse the existing building will increase from the site feasibility study figures because major building components must be upgraded or installed including the floor, HVAC, lighting, acoustics and finishes. Further the terra cotta screen walls will require added reinforcement by installation of 6x6 posts or reducing the height of the wall by 60%. 3. Gross Size and Cost: The replacement building will be smaller, with 300 feet less perimeter and 4000 fewer gross square fe.et. At $500 per square foot ther6 would be $2,000,000 less in construction costs. 4. Parking Structure: The replacement building allows for required surface parking. The retention scheme will consume more spaceavailable for parking and will require a parking structure on the southeast coruer of the site. This will have an impact on neighboring residences and increase construction costs by a minimum of $4,000,000. 5. Efficiency and Flexibility: The replacement building has much more flexibility in terms of the library program designed in the New Library Plan, staffing and both the physical security of staff and patrons as well as security of library collections. The retention scheme will result in an inefficient building based on its physical shape. It has the following lirriitations not present at all in the replacement building: ATTACHMENT D ¯ Compromised ease of use for patrons in terms of orientation to library services and materials; ¯ Lack of space for an exterior walk-up book drop; ¯ Community meeting room is not located at the front entry; ¯ Supervision of toilets, car6 and meeting room is not possible and staff views of public areas are compromised; ¯ Distance from and ease of access to parking is less desirable than the replacement scheme; ¯ Asymmetrical location of the circulation desk will make it more difficult to deal with theft of materials as opposed to a single security point for the entrances; ¯ Staff workrooms are not functionally laid out: for example the second floor reference desk is disconnected from the nonfiction workroom; ¯ Laying out of the reading room in the old building into logical programmed areas will result in overcrowding; ¯ Views to the reading patios are limited; ¯ Character of the old.central reading room space will be changed; ¯ Limited flexibility for future configuration. By contrast th~ replacement building can be designed with none of these deficiencies and will have enhanced energy and resource sustainability meeting and exceeding current certification standards. 6. Cultural Resources Impact: In addition, the Commission points out that the sole adverse impact noted in the Draft EIR is the cultural resource impact of demolition based on one report describing the existing building as a historic resource. That report, once studied, lacks conviction. Much of the current landscaping is retained and th~ architect’s ’~signature" screens can be retained and relocated. Most importantly, there is but a singular partial, sentence which claims to identify the building as historic in the architect’s body of work, describing it, without attribution, "as an important example of his residential-scale buildings" (DEIR, page 11). His projects cited in the report for historic merit are all non-residential in scale (DEI:R, pages 7, 11). Nothing is cited as comparable ’°residential-scale" buildings. Two buildings of the scale for which Stone is known are in the community--City Hall and the Stanford Hospital. Both are local examples of the type of work upon which his reputation rests. CO:Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Parks and Recreation Commission ’ ATTACHMENT E MAIN LIBRARY AND ART CENTER EXPANSION CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL PROJECT COST ESTIMATES PROJECT YEAR BUILT TYPE SIZE NEW MAIN LIBRARY (Replacement Scheme, Full Program) 2006-2008 New 2-story 68,062 sf NEW MAIN LIBRARY (Replacement Scheme, Reduced Program) 2006-2008 New 2-story 62,748 sf MAIN LIBRARY ADDITION (Retention Scheme, Full Program) 2006-2008 2-story addn 69,209 sf MAIN LIBRARY ADDITION (Retention Scheme, Reduced Program 2006-2008 2-story addn 63,530 sf ART CENTER 2007 1-stoW addn, remodel 9,600sf(N), 24,475sf(E) DESCRIPTION OF COSTS UNIT CON~/KUCTION Renovation of (E) bldg New construction $269-280 Under-building or structured parking Sitework, incl. surfr;ce prkng & landscpng LS BUILDING COSTS COST 18,303,000 3,000,000 $21,303,000 Sustainability allowance 0%incl General condition.,8%1,704,240 Bonds and insurano 2%426,060 Overhead and profil 5%1,065,150 CONS i RUCTION COSTS 15%$3,195,450 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL IN 2002 $’S $24,498,450 Design/scope contingency 10-12%2,449,845 Construction contingency 7.5-10%1,837,384 CONTINGENCIES 17.5-22o/=$4,287~229 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL IN 2002 $’S $28,785,679 ESCALATION (@ 4%lyr)20%~5,757,136 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL IN YR BUILT $34,542,815 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS Design, alldiscipline.~13-14%4,490,566 Construction Managemenl 5%1,727,141 Testing & inspectior 1%345,428 Permits and fee:1%345,428 Public ad 1%213,030 Environmental 1%345,428 Commissioning 1%345,428. Relocation 1%345,428 TOTAL 24-25%$8,157,877 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS FINANCING COSTS BOND MEASURE AMOUNTS FURNISHINGS TOTAL PROJECT coSTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (rounded) compared to FEASIBILITY-LEVEL ESTIMATE $42,700,692: $43,430,692 $44/sf ~;3,005,000 $46,435,692 $46,400,000 $42,000,000 COST 17,576,000 3,050 000 $20,626,000: incl 1,650,080 412,520 1,031,300 $3,093,900 $23,719,900 2,371,990 1,778,993 $4,150,983 $27,870,883 ~5,574;177 $33,445,059 4,347,858 1,672,253 334,451 334,451 334,451 334,451 334,451 334,451 $8,026,814 $41,471,873 ~730,000 $42,201,873 $2,895~000 $45,096,873 $45,100,000 N/A COST 18,592,000 2,900,000 2,925,000 $24,417,000 incl 1,953,360 488,340 1,220,850 $3,662,550 $28,079 550 3,369,546! 2,807 955 $6,177 501 $34,257,051 ~;6,851,410 $41,108,461 5,755,165 2,055,423 411,085 411,085 411,085 411,085 411,0851 411 085 $10,277 1t5 $51,385,577 ~820,000 $52,205,577 ~3~070,000 $55,275,577 $55,300,000 $42,000,000 COST UNIT COST $122/sf 2,985,95( 17,794.00C $300/sf 2,880,00( 2,900,00(; 2,975 00(;LS 1,300,00( $23,669 000 $7,165,95~. incl 0%incl 1,893,520 8%573,27E 473,380 2%143,31~ 1,183,450 5%358,298 $3,550,350 18%$1,074,893 $27,219,350 $8,240,843 3,266,32~12%988,901 2,721,93E 10%824,084 $5,988,257 25%$t,812,985 $33,207,607 $10,053,828 $6,641.521 20%$2,010,766 $39,849,128 $12,064,593 5,578,878 15%1,809,68~ 1,992 456 5%603,230 398491 1%120,646 398,491 1%120,646 398,491 1%120,646 398,491 1%120,646 396,491 1%120,646 398,491 1%120,646 $9,962,28~26%$3,136,794 $49,811,411 $15,201,388 ~820,000 ~250~000 $50,63t,411 $15,451,388 2959000 $30/sf $288,00~ $53,590,411 $15,739,388 $53,600 000 $15,700,00~ N/A ¯ $t7,600,000 S:Morris\Libraries\Main\Cost estimates04; Last updated 6/19/02 ATTACHMENT F ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWELL/EMBARCADERO CIVIC FACILITIES EXPANSION PROGRAM MAIN LIBRARY/ART CENTER SCH # 2002032008 This document, in conjunction with Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and the constitutes the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and consists of text revisions to the FEIR, responses to comments from City Council Members received during the preliminary review of the FEIR on June 3, 2002 and responses to written comments from that Council meeting. TABLE OF CONTENTS III. IV. Text revisions to the FEIR List of Persons, Organizations and Public Agencies commenting on the FEIR Comments and Responses to Comments Written Comments and responses to the comments June 24,2002 Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto June/2002 NEWELL/EMBARCADERO CIVIC FACILITIES EXPANSION PROGRAM ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SECTION I TEXT REVISIONS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Deletions are shown as :tr:’!~eeut and new text is shown as underline. IIl. Conformance With Applicable Plans and Policies Page 6 of FEIR - D.-..-..~ T, 1. Page III-l: Policy T-3. "Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels." Analysis: .The project is consistent with this policy. The Main Library and Art Center are and will continue to be on shuttle bus and publ’~c bus routes for the-- City of Palo Alto. The shuttle program operates Monday through Friday during commute and midday hours. In September 2001, the shuttle program expanded to serve more community needs, including improved service to Jordan and JLS middle schools and Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools, all day service on the Crosstown shuttle, and more frequent commute service to and from the Caltrain station on the Embarcadero shuttle. A Transportation Demand (TDM) Plan will be prepared during the schematic design phase of the project. The TDM Plan would provide adequate alternative means for vehicular access to the site sufficient to recommend a reduction of up to 20% of the prq[ected parking spaces. The TDM Plan will identify the availability of transportation alternatives, a shuttle drop off planned on-site, employee incentives for carpoolin~ and bike usage includine bicycle storage lockers, improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation between adjoining streets and land uses including safety precautions, public outreach and education that will include information about shuttle and other access during daily operation and special events, well planned bicycle parking and storage based on the minimum zoning standard Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Addendum to Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 of 25 % of the required automobile parking spaces for bike spaces~ pathways and outdoor seating for pedestrians, safety and theft prevention of bicycle..s by design and placement of storage areas that are within sight from inside the building, adecluate lit_,htin~ and clearly marked signage, etc.~ Page 7 of FEIR: Page III-4, Top of page: ... reading room would be reinforced seismically according to the description given in Chapter IV.G. Public Safety. Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic meri.t., inclu .ding residences listed in the Historic Inventory. Analysis: The Partial Retention Scheme meets thi~ objective as it retain.~ the historic Main Reading Room that would be upgraded to meet code standards In order to conform to this policy~ the proposed addition would be required to meet the Secretar~ of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The Replacement Scheme does not meet this objective. The replacement of the entire library would remove a structure that appears eligible as an historic resource by both federal and state standards, and would have~ significant impact. Therefore, this option would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council. Policy L-58: Promote adaptive reuse of old .buildings. Analysis: The Partial Retention Scheme meets this objective by retaining the Main Reading Room and constructing a new wing addition. The Replacement Scheme does not meet this objective. The replacement of the entire library would remove a structure that appears eligible as an historic resource by both federaland state standards, and would have ~ significant impact. Therefore, this option would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council. VI. CEQA Statutory questions Page VI-2: C. Effects Found to be Less than Significant Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 2 June/2002 Hydrology/Water Quality: The project is in an urban setting with a fully developed storm drain system that incorporates measures to prevent contaminated runoff from reaching San Francisco Bay. The project would not produce any change in the water quality of the storm water leaving the site from what exists at present. The project is served by an urban sewer system that can handle the increase in wastewater flow from project sanitary, kitchen and program-related sources. Standard measures of project approval from the Public Works Department during the demolition and construction phases of the prqiect would include: (a)The approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPEDS) regulations. The SWPPP would be required to demonstrate that thel~roiect development would not cause any increase of sedimentation’ turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters. The City Public Works Engineering Division would monitor implementation of the project’s approved SWPPP, with a particular focus on construction period erosion control. (b)All l~roposed water quality protection measures should be designed in accordance with the City’s "Planning Your Land Development Project" handbook, which is a companion document for "Start at the Source~ Design Guidance Manual.for Stormwater Quality Protection." In addition~ current best management practices manuals should be used as reference materials for the design of all filtration swales and sedimentation ponds, if applicable. The implementation of an approved SWPPP and design of storm water runoff treatments in accordance with City guidelines would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 3 June/2002 ¯ SECTION II LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE FEIR ¯City of Palo Alto Council Member Jack Morton ¯City of Palo Alto Council Member Dena Mossar ¯City of Palo Alto Council Member Nancy Lytle ¯City of Palo Alto Council Member Judy Kleinberg ¯City of Palo Alto Council Member Yoriko Kishimoto ¯City of Palo Alto Council Member Hillary Freeman ¯City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission ¯Mr. John Easter - 1175 Stanley Way - May 16, 2002 Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 SECTION III COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS MEETING OF JUNE 3, 2002 RESPONSES TO COUNCIL COMMENTS City Council conducted a preliminary review of the Final Environmental Impact Report on June 3, 2002. Following is a summary of the comments by each council member and responses regarding the FEIR findings. The comments do not necessitate substantial changes to the FEIR thatwould require the recirculation of the FEIR. Jack Morton: Comment 1: Concern about overriding considerations for removal of historic resource. Response: The comment on overriding considerations addressed the issue of approving a project with a significant impact on an historic resource. Page IV-F-1 of the DEIR states that "If the Replacement Scheme is selected, there would be an unavoidable adverse impact to an historic resource which would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order for the City Council to approve the project.." After considering the Final EIR in conjunction with making findings, the City of Palo Alto, as the designated Lead Agency, must not approve the project if the project will have a significant effect on the environment after imposition of feasible mitigation or alternatives, unless the Lead Agency finds that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects - CEQA Guidelines Sections. 15092, 15096(h). However, when approving a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, the Lead Agency is required by CEQA to prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is a written statement explaining why the Lead Agency is willing to accept each significant effect. In this way, CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The statement setting forth the specific overriding social, Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 5 June/2002 economic, legal, technical or other beneficial project aspects supporting the agency’s decision must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the record - CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(c). The architectural consultants for the project have identified some building design, site, and functionality issues that support overriding considerations specific to the project related to retaining and adding onto the Main Reading Room: Functionality of Interior space issues: ease of use for ,the patron is compromised, lack of space for walk-up book drop, meeting room not located at front entry, asymmetrical location of circulation desk is difficult to deal with theft of materials, staff work rooms are not functionally stacked, distance from and ease of access to parking is less desirable, supervision of toilets, care and meeting room is not possible, utilization of the Reading Room with logical programmed areas results in overcrowding, views to the reading patios limited, character of the central space will be changed, limited flexibility for future reconfiguration, staff view of public areas is compromised, physical shape of building is inefficient ¯Exterior Site issues: 28% larger footprint over the new building that results in less site area for surface parking and will require structured parking on southeast area of the site, exterior windows will need to be replaced for ease of operation, maintenance, seismic and energy, terra cotta screen walls will require added reinforcement to mullion or reducing height of wall by 60%, massing of two-story addition is incompatible with the scale of the existing building, entrance is less visible, central Open space courtyard and north glade of master plan is impacted ¯Costs for remodel of Reading Room: costs to properly adapt and reuse Reading Room will increase from the Site FeasibilityStudy for upgrading floor, HVAC, lighting, .windows, bracing terra cotta walls, acoustics and finishes The considerations for the replacement scheme include: Functionality of Interior space benefits: floor plan is intuitively easy to navigate and understand, circulation desk has visual prominence,~ single security point to main level entry, reference deck central to all second floor collections, service desk and orientation of key functional areas are the same for each floor making it more legible, about 80 % of seating is on the perimeter, major collection close to public circulation corridors, centralized copy centers and restrooms, staff circulation corridor well- Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 6 June/2002 organized, location of staff support on second floor, staff areas are stacked, ability to efficiently reshelf materials is.enhanced, structurally compact scheme, no need to improve existing structural systems, mechanical systems efficiencies, raised floor systems throughout (no ductwork), complete energy efficient building envelope Exterior Site benefits: a unified public building identity, smaller building footprint, no structured parking, 2 versus 3 public entries, easier entry and way finding to meeting room and caf~, exterior book drop/conveyor efficiency Comment 2: Concern to assure that Council give an adequate look to community Gardens. Response: The comment on the community gardens addresses the potential to lose or impact to the quality of the community gardens on the site. The DEIR, on Pages IV-E-1 through IV-E-3, discusses the potential impacts to the Community Gardens that would result in preserving 90 % of the garden space. Paul Thiltgen, Community Services Director for the City, has responded: 1)Any plots that need to be relocated due to the 10% reduction on the site can be fully accommodated at the Eleanor Park community garden area. 2)In regards to the existing service road that is in the present community garden - the City will work with the gardeners to remove any unusable soil, bring in new soil, and provide amendments and mulch. The City will also cut back the tree limbs on the south side of the site to maximize the sun lines. If needed to reorganize some of the existing plots, the City will stockpile soil for the gardeners that are affected. In addition, the City will upgrade the water pressure and sources for hose connections. Dena Mossar: Comment 1.’ Parking issues the focus of concerns. Response: The DEIR, on Page IV-B-22, section 3-d, addresses the analysis of parking needs. The Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the full build out of the proposed project would require 311 parking spaces. This number also meets the City zoning standard that requires I space per 4-person capacity for type of building space. The architects for the project prepared a chart (see Appendix G - Parking Counts) that breaks down the type of program space and assigns an occupancy level to determine the .number of parking spaces. No parking spaces are required for ancillary uses such as Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 lobby, hallways, mechanical rooms, staff support, loading areas, etc. Thus, this method of determining parking based upon actual user occupancy is more detailed than a general space per square feet assignment would be (i.e. 1 space per 1000 square feet). The Final EIR, on page 2, adds text revisions to the DEIR to clarify the parking analysis. Staff is preparing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that will be finalized during the schematic design phase of the project. The TDM Plan may provide adequate alternative means for vehicular access to the site sufficient to recommend a reduction of up to 20% of the projected parking spaces. Additionally, any reduction in program space for the Main Library or the Art Center would result in a lower automobile parking space need on the site. Comment 2: Storm water runoff- how mitigated/handled? Response: Page VI-2 of the DEIR states that the project has a fully developed storm drain system that incorporates measures to prevent contaminated runoff from reaching San Francisco Bay and that the project is served by an urban sewer system that can handle the increase in wastewater flow from the project uses. Standard measures of project approval from the Public Works Department during the demolition and construction phases of the project would include; (a)The approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPEDS) regulations. The SWPPP would be required to demonstrate that the project development would not cause any increase of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving waters. The City Public Works Engineering Division would monitor implementation of the project’s approved SWPPP, with a particular focus on construction period erosion control. (b)All proposed water quality protection measures should be designed in accordance with the City’s "Planning Your Land Development Project" handbook, which is a companion document for "Start at the Source: Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection." In addition, current best management practices manuals should be used as reference materials for the design of all filtration swales and sedimentation ponds, if applicable. Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 8 June/2002 The implementation of an approved SWPPP and design of storm water runoff treatments in accordance with City guidelines would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Comment 3: Heat islands resulting from parking (Response combined below with #4) Comment 4: Aerosolization of gases from paved parking Response: The comments on heat islands and aerosolization of gases from paved parking are directed at the environmental effects of the increased paved parking area needed to serve an expanded facility. Tom Reid, TRA Environmental Consultants, has provided the following response: The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) describes observed ambient air temperatures in cities 5° to 10° F higher on hot summer days. Urban development results in large amounts of paved and dark colored surfaces like roofs, roads, and parking lots that absorb, rather than reflect, the sun’s heat, causing the surface and ambient air temperatures to rise. The effect is regional, not local in scale, but individual paved areas cumulatively contribute to the effect. The UHI effect is undesirable because higher air temperatures make the summer outdoor environment less desirable, lead to increased energy consumption for air conditioning, and increase evaporative fuel loss, increasing volatile organic gas air pollutant emissions. Reactive, volatile organic gas is a precursor to ground level ozone, a major air pollution concern in the San Francisco Bay Area. According to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) (http://www.hotcities.org/), "Streets and parking lots account for the majority of paved surfaces in urban areas. Almost all streets and parking lots are constructed using black asphalt, which greatly contributes to the Urban Heat Island Effect. Dark colored pavements can get up to 40° F hotter than the surrounding air. "Cool Paving Strategies: "Use Reflective or Other Cool Paving Materials: Construct, replace, or reconstruct roads and parking lots with reflective or cool paving materials like portland and flyash cement Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program 9Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 concrete, porous concrete, chip-seals, turf-block or porous pavers, and light-colored asphalt emulsion sealcoats. (Ting et al, 2000) Pavement engineering studies have demonstrated that increasing pavement reflectivity can lower pavement surface and ambient air temperatures by increasing the percentage of solar radiation that is bounced back into the atmosphere. "Shade Parking Lots: Planting shade trees in hot spots like parking lots can reduce their surface temperatures and the temperatures inside parked cars. Cool parking lots not only help reduce ambient air temperatures, but also air quality problems. Studies have demonstrated that increasing tree cover in parking lots from 8 % to 50 % reduces evaporation of hydrocarbons from car fuel tanks and the emissions of NOx emissions from car start-ups. (Scott et al, 1999)" The City can design the site to minimize exposed paving. Reflective paving material would be evaluated for cost, maintenance, and appearance. Use of reflective roofing on the buildings could offset the effect of increased parking area and would need to be balanced by its aesthetic considerations. The main strategy, however, is tree retention. The value of trees in parking lots is brought out in studies in Davis and Sacramento (see http ://wcufre.ucdavis.edu/air.htm). The extensive tree inventory conducted by staff for the Main Library project is directed toward conserving or salvaging trees that can offset the aesthetic effect of increased site paving and increased structure ground coverage. This will reduce the Heat Island contribution as well. Comment 5: If Greer Park is cited as option for relocating community gardens, is it really appropriate given proximity to 101, quality of soil? Response: The DEIR, on Pages IV-E-1 through IV-E-3, discusses the potential impacts to the Community Gardens that would result in preserving 90% of the garden space. Paul Thiltgen, Community Services Director for the City, has responded: 1)Any plots that need to be relocated due to the 10 % reduction on the site can be fully accommodated at the Eleanor Park community garden area. Greer Park does not need to be considered as an alternative option at all. 2)In regards to the existing service road that is in the present community garden - the City will work with the gardeners to remove any unusable Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 10 June/2002 soil, bring in new soil, and provide amendments and mulch. The City will also cut back the tree limbs on the south side of the site to maximize the sun lines. If needed to reorganize some of the existing plots, the City will stockpile soil for the gardeners that are affected. In addition, the City will upgrade the water pressure and sources for hose connections. Nancy Lytle: Comment 1: Could traffic circulation next to gardens degrade community Gardens? Response: The comment on the community gardens addresses potential increased development offsetting the use of the garden. The DEIR, on Pages IV-E-1 through IV-E-3, discusses the potential impacts to the Community Gardens that would result in preserving 90% of the garden space. Paul Thiltgen, Community Services Director for the City, has responded: 1)Any plots that need to be relocated due to the 10% reduction on the site can be fully accommodated at the Eleanor Park community garden area. 2)In regards to the existing service road that is in the present community garden - the City will work with the gardeners to remove any unusable soil, bring in new soil, and provide amendments and mulch. The City will also cut back the tree limbs on the south side of the site to maximize the sun lines. If needed to reorganize some of the existing plots, the City will stockpile soil for the gardeners that are affected. In addition, the City will upgrade the water pressure and sources for hose connections. The schematic design phase of the project will include detailed parking and landscape site plans that have been in conceptual design at the current phase of the project. The detailed site plans will include measures to protect the garden plots from degradation due to automobile traffic. Comment 2: Why were two Comprehensive Plan policies - L-51 and L-58 - not addressed in EIR? Response: The comment on the omission of Comprehensive Plan policies is acknowledged. The FIER includes the appropriate City of Pale Comprehensive Plan policies - see Text Revisions. Comment 3: Would like to see info on school routes in terms of construction impact analysis. Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 11 June/2002 Response: The comment on school routes during construction is directed at the Construction Management Program. The Palo Alto Unified School District will be notified of construction plans and schedules. The City shall implement public safety measures to protect pedestrians in the vicinity of the construction zone as required by the Construction Management Program. Judy Kleinberg: Comment 1: Need to consider "what we would be left with" if we were to retain the Stone reading room. Response: The comment on retaining the Stone reading room addresses the historical integrity of the building with new programs. Page IV-F-3 through IV-F-6 of the EIR presents a discussion of the historical significance of the Main Library and Art Center and compares the two alternatives proposed. If the Partial Retention Alternative is .selected, the addition would have to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. This may require peer review by a qualified historic architect. If the Replacement Alternative is selected, Council would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to implement the Replacement Scheme. Comment 2: Work with Fire Department to make .sure construction/traffic impacts don’t impact emergency response. Response: The comment on impacts to emergency response is directed at the Construction Management Program. A Development Review Committee per City policy would include detailed conditions (including construction management) from each city department, including the Fire Department shall review the project. Yoriko Kishimoto: Comment 1:Baseline for noise study - what is it? Dealing with a residential neighborhood much like other residential neighborhoods in the city - construction noise is clearly going to stand out from this regardless of what the baseline is. Response:The comment on the level of construction noise is directed at a clarificationof a baseline noise study and potential environmental impacts to Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 12 June/2002 residential neighbors near the site. Tom Reid, TRA Environmental. Consultants, has provided the following response: The EIR contains sufficient assessment of existing conditions and potential for noise impact to allow the City to set adequate mitigation for potentially significant construction impacts. Operational impacts are expected to be less than significant without mitigation. A noise analysis looks at two sides of the issue: 1) Is the existing environment too noisy for the proposed use? and 2) Is the proposed use too noisy for its neighbors? The characterization of the existing noise environment is often taken from a 24-hour baseline noise monitoring study. In the General Plan, the "noisiness" of a place is described by the Day-Night Level or Ldn. It is the average noise level with the night time (10 PM to 7 AM) noise level weighted by an additional 10 dB. Some cities and airports use the Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL) which is essentially the same.. In the case of the Main Library project, 24-hour baseline noise monitoring was not needed because the proposed project is an extension of an existing use and has been clearly found to be compatible with the present noise environment. As a practical matter, much of the weather this spring during EIR preparation has been very breezy. We have found in past studies that in a heavily landscaped area like the Library, the leaf rustling noise at night gives a false impression of actual urban noise environment. The EIR consultant made spot checks of the site, and measured roadway noise to confirm the quiet residential neighborhood environment. The project impact on the neighbors also does not need a baseline monitoring study. The EIR follows this reasoning: 1. Construction noise is an acknowledged part of the urban environment. The City General Plan and Noise Ordinance reflect this reality. 2. The City relies on its Noise Ordinance to mange all forms of construction noise by limitations on times of day, days of the week, and noise level of equipment to be used. Construction is still "noisy", but is brought within an acceptable level for temporary disturbance. 3. The Noise Ordinance governs usual and conventional construction. While the main Library is a large building, the likely methods of construction are conventional concrete foundation, pre-fabricated steel, wood frame, etc. and Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program 13Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 do not include pile driving, riveted iron beams, or extensive rock grinding, breaking, or blasting that might put impact beyond that accommodated by the Noise Ordinance. 4. The building site configuration is not unusually noise sensitive. The buildings and main construction are set back some 100 to 250 feet from the property line. The rear yards of the neighbors are deep, so that homes are another 50 feet or farther from construction. The Noise ordinance deals with construction only separated by residential zoning setbacks, new buildings are sometimes as close as 20 feet from the neighboring home. 5. Main Library construction will be more extensive in scope, but the noise generating phases will be less than a year in duration. 6. No unusually noise sensitive land uses were identified, neither in the Draft EIR, nor in public comment on the Draft. The Main Library neighborhood is much like most of the single-family residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto. Field noise measurements confirmed this. 7. The EIR now addresses a program for Main Librdry improvement. If actual library plans implied a.greater potential for noise due to type of construction, position on the site, or protracted noise phases, the City may want to revisit the issue and decide if more noise mitigation is needed. 8. For now, the City can reasonably rely on compliance with the Noise Ordinance to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation monitoring should focus on compliance. Baseline/construction phase noise monitoring per se will not be a useful enforcement tool because it would not identify the source of offending noise. Strict enforcement of contractor obligations is the most effective implementation of mitigation for noise. Comment 2: Was consideration given to moving some of the Main Library functions to Mitchell Park Library? Response: The comment on moving some of the Main Library functions to Mitchell Park Library is directed at the environmental impact of moving type of service and additional square footage to Mitchell Park. The original Mitchell Park Library expansion was a facility of approximately 54,000 square feet. The reduced plan for Mitchell Park reduced the size of the library facility to approximately 47,000 square feet, while maintaining the full library program. An increase in the facility expansion of an additional 7,000 square feet could allow the relocation of some Main Library functions to Mitchell Park. This would bring the size of the Mitchell Park Library facility Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program 14Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 back up to the originally proposed 54,000 square feet. The additional environmental impacts for the type of services proposed below would not create an additional significant impact to the Mitchdl Park site. Main Library services that could be relocated include: ao Move 62% of the reference collection - 1,320 square feet Move some adult services non fiction workroom phone reference space - 250 square feet Move some back issues periodicals - 2,038 square feet Move entire local history program - 2,773 square feet Move volunteer coordinator - 1 staff- 150 square feet Move assistant director - lstaff- 219 square feet Move office specialist - 1 staff- 125 square feet Move adult/teen services coordinator - I staff- 125 square feet Comment 3: More information on TDM program. Response: The comment on a TDM program is directed at ensuring all aspects of programming are addressed, including special events. A draft TDM plan is being prepared by staff. The plan will include the availability of transportation alternatives (VTA bus and City Shuttle), a Shuttle drop off planned on-site, employee incentives for carpooling and bike usage including bicycle storage, improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation between adjoining streets and land uses including safety precautions, public outreach and education that will include information about shuttle and other access during daily operation and special events, well planned bicycle storage (based upon the zoning standard of 25 % of the required automobile parking spaces for bike spaces), pathways and outdoor seating for pedestrians, safety and theft prevention of bicycles by design and placement of storage areas that are within site from inside the building, adequate lighting and clearly marked signage, etc. Comment 4: Attention to bike lanes on Newell and school crossing on Newell in construction mitigation program. Response: The Pale Alto Unified School District will be notified of construction plans and schedules. The City shall implement public safety measures to protect pedestrians in the vicinity of the construction zone as required by the Construction Management Program. Hillary Freeman: Comment 1" Retention/replacement of Stone building is major issue - wants pros Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program 15Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 and cons chart for all options/choices Response: Details of the conceptual design phase of the project will be ¯ presented at the June 24 Council meeting by the consulting architects. Page IV-F-3 through IV-F-6 of the EIR presents a discussion of the historical significance of the Main Library and Art Center and compares the two alternatives proposed. Retention of the Stone reading room would require an addition design that would be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The replacement scheme would require Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Comment 2: Noise - wants to understand LDN Response: (See Response to Kishimoto Comment 1) Comment 3:Difference in square footage between Mitchell and Main: children’s programs at Mitchell that are provided at Children’s in North Palo Alto and systemwide services provided at Main Response: The principal difference between size of the two libraries is that there will be children’s programming space at Mitchell Park, but none added to Main due to the close proximity of Main to Children’s Library in North Palo Alto. In addition, Main Library would have systemwide services that would not be at Mitchell Park. Comment 4: Number of trees that will be preserved, how many can be-retained and replaced - in conceptual design, not final. Response: The project has 420 trees on the site. In either the partial retention scheme or the replacement scheme, the total of trees on the site would not be less than the existing. The required mitigation (Canopy Replacement Formula, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.20, Table 3-1) planting of new trees for those removed from the project would result in a net gain in the number of existing trees on the site. For example, under the partial retention scheme, 85 .trees would be removed and the landscape plan may require as many as 150 new trees for a new total of 485 trees. Trees that are rated in the EIR as "low" suitability for preservation would not need this mitigation. Only trees rated in the "moderate" or "high" suitability for preservation category would require mitigation. The schematic design phase of the project will determine the exact location and size of the proposed construction, and a more precise analysis of numbers of impacted trees in each category can be determined. Design consideration in determining the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program 16Environmental Impact Report June/2002 June/2002 actual number of trees will depend on the final landscape plan and site design to prevent overcrowding, to allow the high value trees room to grow into the future and to allow ample sunlight to the community garden. Comment 5: Coordinate construction management program to involve PAUSD. Response: The Palo Alto Unified School District will be notified of construction plans and schedules. The City shall implement public safety measures to protect pedestrians in the vicinity of the construction zone as required by the Construction Management Program. ~Iim Burch: Comment 1: Need to provide gardeners with adequate plots if they’re displaced - doesn’t want to reduce gardens by 10%. Response: The comment on providing adequate alternative garden plots for displaced gardeners is directed at ensuring quality plots are retained. The DEIR, on Pages IV-E-1 through IV-E-3, discusses the potential impacts to the Community Gardens that would result in preservation of 90 % of the garden space. Paul Thiltgen, Community Services Director for the City, has responded: 1) 2) Any plots that need to be relocated due to the 10% reduction on the site can be fully accommodated at the Eleanor Park community garden area. Greer Park does not need to be considered as an alternative option at all. In regards to the existing service road that is in the present community garden - the City will work with the gardeners to remove any unusable soil, bring in new soil, and provide amendments and mulch. The City will also cut back the tree limbs on the south side of the site to maximize the sun lines. If needed to reorganize some of the existing plots, the City will stockpile soil for the gardeners that are affected. In addition, the City will upgrade the water pressure and sources for hose connections. CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 29, 2002 Comment:The Commission expressed concern directed at the potential environmental impact of the height of the proposed library in a residential neighborhood. Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 17 June/2002 Response: The EIR evaluates the potential visual impact of new construction at the library and art center sites. It finds that the likely range of structure mass will not adversely affect the streetscape of Embarcadero or Newell Avenues, not affect the view, privacy, or solar access of neighbors. This assessment is based on a conceptual design, not a specific design of the possible new buildings. It considers whether the new building mass may be intrusive, block views or cast shadows. This evaluation does not consider the specific building appearance because that is a matter of deign review. The EIR considered a generic two-story building of 35 feet maximum height. The PF (Public Facilities) District sets 35 feet as the maximum in the first 150 feet from a residential zoning district; beyond that point, the maximum height rises to 50 feet. The PF District also imposes a shallow (2:1) daylight plane on side and rear yards to protect residential uses. These setbacks and height restrictions are quite protective. Any building complying with them would have less than significant impact on public or neighbor views, privacy, or sunlight. The actual design and whether it was two stories or three, is not relevant to the basic CEQA consideration of building mass and its effects. Future. project design compliance with the PF District height limits would assure minimization of aesthetic impact. Three-story building: The additional response below is a summary of comments made at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting of May 29, 2002 by Jeffrey Scherer, MS&R Architectural Consultants, regarding the disadvantages of constructing the 66,000 gross square foot new Main Library as a three-story building with one level below grade. Human Factors: .We would not recommend placing below grade any space, which would be utilized by the public or the staff for any period of time. We know from experience and professional knowledge that human beings work better,are happier and more productive in spaces that have a balance of daylight and electrical light. We know from the public meetings that there is a strong preference in he Community for the design of the building to maximize, in an energy efficient way, the available daylight. We also know that in a public library as much as 50 % of the energy consumed will be for lighting - any space that has daylight can be operated with less energy. Efficiency: on the basis of a two-sto~y structure of approximately 50% distribution of space on each level for the Replacement Scheme and 60%/40% on the Retention Scheme. If the distribution were changed to 33 % per level, the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 The current staffing plan and building program was developed 18 June/2002 number of service points (staffed) would have to be increased. This would result in a higher staff cost to operate the same service area. In addition, it would not be possible to maintain the logical division of each department. This potential discontinuity of service department would result in patrons having to access certain collection on different floor and the logical adjacencies of departments being broken. For example, the non-fiction collection might have to be disassociated with the reference collection. This would not only be an inconvenience for patrons, but would also require the reference staff to travel between floors to access the materials in researching patron on-fine, telephone or in-person questions. There are many other examples, but these are sufficient to illustrate this disadvantage. We would anticipate the increased staffing and service cost is between 20 % and 30 %. The actual cost, however,, would have to be researched to be more precise. Cost." The five load of the library floors, by code, is 150 pounds per square foot (except where there is compact shelving which is 300 pounds per square foot). The cost to construct this structural floor increases if the floor is suspended above another floor - as would be the case with the three-story building. In addition, the cost of constructing the below grade space will be greater than normal below-grade construction given the high water table of the site. Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 19 June/2002 SECTION IV WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A.Responses to written comments - attached B.Written comments - attached Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report June/2002 2O STAFF NOTE: The comment letter below was received on May 16 durin8 the oublic 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. Responses to the expanded comments are included in the Addendum to the Final EIR. Responses are included below. TO:PALO ALTO CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: JOHN R. EASTER 1175 Stanley Way (650) 321-3110 Public DraR EIR Newel 1/Embarcadero Civic Fadlities Extx~ion Program May 15, 2002 When I attended the May 1 Main Library informatior~ai ~eeea~c~ the~ ~Arts,, ~C_,~ ~t~____a~_’.todum..I w~ struck by the following incongruity. Mr. Scherer, ¯ , arcm__te~a, statea ne a oe.e.n., given .a last otprotected trees that had circumscribed the sitela¥,o.,ut. ,He ,went.on to ~¥ his plannm~ hod been turned inside out. Normally he’d lay out a site ,ano.,m,.e J,~a~.m~ would occur afterward. In plannin~ the Main Library site he bad to fit the ouuamffs ~ootpnnt so tlaat certain trees would be saved Response: All sites that are subject to redevelopment activities present both constraints and opportunities for the project’s design development. The Main Library/Art Center represents this type of development. The DEIR is required to analyze those constraints; historic, traffic, parking and circulation, neighborhoods, and trees. The design development is required to respond to both the constraints and opportunities for a project site. It is acknowledged that the mature landscaping and significant trees represent both opportunities and constraints. All of which were established at the initiation of the design process by the city staff, project architects and site feasibility committee. This review included extensive community, board and ’ commission meetings. The tree preservation program was established in coordination with the design review process. The FEIR accurately analyzes the result of this community design review process and establishes thresholds, impacts and mitigation measures for consideration. 21 Now this isn’t so bad except study ofwhich trees were to be saved ledme to conclude there, were two ~7oups of_.~., to be saved. The first group obviously is Protect__~ Trees and Street _T,_ _r~s, ,~ defin~ by,T!,tle 8 of the. Mur~i_’cipal Code, I concur that all trees in these two cate~ri~s snotua t~ saveo w~m me exceplaon or-one protected Redwood tree. (See item 2.) The second ~.up of..tr~es, being listed to be saved are Designat~ Trees. It seems to me this is ag. open ~’o.up into which any lree can be placed regardless ofits current condition. Who places, trees into the Designated group? Apparently the City Arborist, Mr. Dockter, and the consultant, Mr. David L. Babby, have sole authority to make this d~ision. Close ~ady of their ~.,i ,ces,_.leads me ,to_question some of~ern. ..They should not have sole ~t_a_hority in stating,"cn t~esignatea Jrees are to be saved on this site. It is only their opinion. The ~a’chite~ should not be foreclosed fi~m laying out a site plan and desi, .oning a new library by any other than the City Council. Response: Designated specimen trees should have equal mitigation value with other protected trees required by the Municipal Code. For the purpose of identifying significant impacts for the environmental assessment, the City must identify impacts that are reflected within the Municipal Code and other established resources for tree evaluation. There are many ’protected tree’ species (valley oak, coast live oak and coast redwood), which are addressed in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.020. Other mature specimen trees located on the property are ’designated trees’ that contribute to the character and landscape value of the property. Designated trees are included with protected trees and noted in the DEIR under IV. A. 2., ’Thresholds of Significance’; and are addressed in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 1.9. Designated trees are also provided protective mitigation consistent with development projects under Title 16 of the Municipal Code. I have the following comments on Section A. Biology Why are designated mature specimen lrees to ~r~Ual .miti .g:~ti.’on value with other protected trees as required by the Code. If a . . ~ ~s not m good shape why s.hpuld it inhibit the architect, s abilitytoaeslgn m.e tx~st possible building/s on this site? Other variables should have equal or more maportance. Four of these are (1) building function; (2) building cost; (3) interior supervision; and (4) efficiency of operation including staff utilization. o 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 from the roof overhang ofthis building. It can be expected to expand its diameter significantly during the next 60 years which will be the expected lifetime offlais building. This tree should be removed at council direction. This Wee is identified in the Draf~ EIR as either #154 or#357. 17~sponse: The clarification of the tree number is noted. The City Planning arborist has met with the commenter to discuss the specific trees thatwereidentified in the ommen~s. Mr. Easter identified several 22 areas where the DEIR was not consistent with the arborist report. These discrepancies included various grammatical errors or miscount of the actual number of a species on the site. Others involve minor numbers of trees being moved from one category to another or rating at tree from ’high’ to ’moderate’--and are not considered a significant change to the EIR. Many of these issues were addressed in the f’mal arborist report. As responded to in the May 29, 2002 FEIR response to comments, all of these issues will be satisfactorily addressed in the schematic design review of the project. One correction to note is in the final arborist report, Section 3.8 Discussion of Significant Issues and Trees, noting that the large London Plane trees contribute significant and functional .value are along Embarcadero Road. The correct street is actually Newel! Street. Any future documentation should make reference to this change. o The map "_m the..Draff E1R is too difficult to decipher. I suggest as part of a r~olRwthat .all lrees be !@n_tiffed on a l~ge map as to whether each tree is , moderate, or high tor preservahon. This can be done by color~g ._eac~h ~ on one l,arh~e’ map.,to, i,der~fify this information. One copy of ~s ,,i1~ap. ~ hiS map snouia oe avaua~le Ior review at the main library.,’morner copy should be given to the architect. A collaborative dialogue.should. ,o~cur_ _b~_ e~,. ~6 art?o..ris~s~ and.th.e architect so that designated trees are not always saveo tt me¥ lntertere with the four variables described in ~~Th~o~nly.read~, ,le..n’kap I could find is in the city’s planning~ hey woulam let me check it out to study. I concluded they .ha~ ~ tho~ught ~ wo~d,be questionned by anyone. After all isn~ everyone ~m]~a~voroltre~. l~certa~yam. Wehave 14 trees on our pmperty which is zOtn~ square teet. One ot these is a 13 year old Pacific Yew tree which hao Response: The EIR contains the tree survey on page IV-A-2 (Figure IV-A-l). Although it is a reduction of the full-scale survey, it is legible (Tree #357 above can be identified in the EIR copy). The record copy of the full-scale survey map is on file with the project files as part of the public record in the Planning Department, The commenter was provided access and staff assistance in reviewing the survey map. The condition of the trees is listed in Appendix included in the DEIR, coded to the tree number on the survey (DEIR Figure IV-A-l), and therefore it is not necessary to show all of the information on one survey map. The EIR addresses a project design in the conceptual stage. To date, the project architect has worked with city staff, the site feasibility landscape architect and the 23 site review committee. This has been a collaborative effort and will continue through the schematic design phase as well. The schematic design phase would continue to evaluate the condition of trees as well as the feasibility of retention as it relates the most efficient design for the Main Library/Art Center. Th _ere are many differences, either typographical or otherwise, between Mr. Babb~s final repqrt, and the DEIRtI~_ should be. addressed before any d.ecisxons are rrmae on preservation or-trees on this site. I will be glad to point these out to the planning staff in the interest of having a more ac.zarate final E1R Response: The City Planning Arborist has met with the commenter to discuss the specific concerns regarding discrepancies in the reports. The items that were identified were addressed by the City Planning Arborist and do not raise any new or significant issues that are not addressed in the EIR. o dd~~..t~is no .dooms.. taxi. "on available, eilher in Mr. Babbys report orthc DEI~ thata rati." .ogat ..way ho.w .o en ..t ,es were arri.v. in alr~e., to be mlX~.., .ran-, ~ or .o~ml con .d~on. Thevaiables are standard been used to rate each tree on each ofthese variables? The issue here is. o Many trees that are poor or fair on the overall condition list are classed as suitabile for preservation. These include trees that are NOT Oaks or R .eq’woods. and thus on the city’s list ofpmtected lrees. The loop hol.e which is .u:sed ~ make these.judgements is "all trees that are specifically d.es!..grj~.by the City.. of Palo Alto to be preserved and.,l~,, ~ on property wtucla us SU~lect to a discretionary development approval. (Title 8 of the,Mun~c, ipal,~, ~e,) This.iud..gemegt should be o_pkna" to discussion by citizens and snoula mctuae the architects opinion as part otthe discussion. Please see Tables I, II, and 111 for documentation of this proble.rn. One specially egregious example is tree #1.61 which is rated in fair condditlon but is designated for preservation. This tree has a cavity in its center. It has performed poorly during the past two years that I have noticed. A close look should be made as to whether the trees along the north and east boundaries ofthe site should be left as cover lree& Many of them are glossy privets which had to be weeded out recently as they were providing cover for homeless shelters. Response: As stated above, the project analyzed in the EIR is conceptual in design, and the schematic design process will continue to evaluate trees as they relate to condition for retention as well as achieving the best building design for library and art center programs and services. 7.A paved service road is shown on site plans. This road is to run along the fenceline from the north parking lot to a small turnaround area directly behind ex Mayor Leland Levy’s former home. There is no service road there now. I suggest it be .removed and the __ggrden area be structured as it is currently. A paved service mad us not n~. ff¥ou put it in a parking space will be there for ovemi~t campers Just last year one of those vehicles bumed up. The hazard to homes iust over the fence is not aplxogiate. Response: The comment is acknowledged. Please see previous responses regarding the conceptual ’ design and further evaluation of the site during schematic design. 24 ATTACHMENT G RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWELL/EMBARCADERO CIVIC FACILITIES EXPANSION PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (1213 AND 1313 NEWELL ROAD, CITY OF PALO ALTO, PROPONENT) The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION i.Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto Council") finds, determines and declares as follows: ("City A. The City of Palo Alto ("City") has undertaken a feasibility study for the renovation and expansion of the City facilities (the ~Project") at~the Embarcadero/Newell site, (the ~Site"), an 11.9 acre city-owned parcel which presently includes the Main Library, the Art Center, community gardens, associated parking, and landscaped open areas. The Project analyzed consists of an expanded library of up to 66,000 square feet; an expanded art center of up to 53,000 square feet, including classrooms and gallery space; reconfiguration of the community gardens with a reduction of the number of plots by approximately ten per cent; the creation, of up to 311 parking spaces; reconfiguration of the onsite pedestrian, automobile, transit, and bicycle circulation; and relandscaping of the site, including the removal of some trees and .the creation Of new outdoor areas for both social uses and the display of art work. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 2100 et. seq. (hereinafter ~CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code Section 15000 et. seq., an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared to evaluate anticipated environmental impacts resulting from changes in land use as a result of the implementation of the Project. C. The draft EIR was offered for public review and comment beginning on April 17, 2002, and written and oral communications were received by the City during the public review period. The City fully and adequately responded to these comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, and the.comments and responses have been included in the Final EIR. 020620 syn 0091108 1 D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on May 15, 2002 and continued the matter to its meeting of May 29, 2002. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and considered the draft EIR and comments received during the public comment period, and found that the draft EIR provided an adequate project description, identified and analyzed each potential significant environmental impact and proposed feasible mitigation measures for it, described and evaluated a range of ~easonable alternatives to the Project and its proposed location, including those specific alternatives required by CEQA, and recommended preparation of a Final EIR based upon the draft EIR reviewed by them. The Draft EIR was also reviewed by the Historic Resources Board on May 15, 2002, the Architectural Review Board on May 16, 2002, the Library Advisory Committee on May 23, 2002, and the Parks and Recreation Commission on May 23, 2002. E. The City Council has fully reviewed and carefully considered the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR and all other environmental documents that comprise the Final EIR. F. The City Council has fully considered and recognized that a significant adverse environmental impact nay result from implementation of some versions of the Project. G. The Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the Project with regard to biology, traffic and transportation, noise, aesthetics, land use, cultural resources, public safety, and recreation. Mitigation measures have been identified which eliminate or substantially reduce each of these impacts, with the exception of the cultural resources impact if the City Council decides, at a future date, to authorize the replacent of the Edward Durrell Stone library building. Each of the mitigation measures summarized below is more fully described in the EIR. I. Biology. The potentially biological impacts of the project are tree removal and damage to specimen trees during construction. The conceptual design plans identify a possible 121 trees that are likely to be removed under the Replacement Scheme and 85 trees likely to be removed under the Partial Retention Scheme. This impact would be mitigated by incorporating into the project the standards and specifications in the City’s Tree Technical Manual for both tree replacement and tree protection. Trees would be protected, as necessary during construction, by protective construction fencing and a specific tree protection 2 020620 syn 0091108 and preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. Mitigation measures would reduce to the project impact on trees less than significant. 2. Traffic and Transportation. The potential impacts of the proposed expansion of the Main Library and Art Center were evaluated by Hexagon Associates in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Palo Alto and the Congestion Management Program of Santa Clara County. The study included the analysis of weekday PM peak-hour traffic conditions and levels of service at 7 intersections and 3 roadway segments, cumulative conditions, parking requirements, bicycle and pedestrian activity and facilities, and future pedestrian paths and bikeways. The study found no significant impacts due to the Project. Phasing of the project may result in the need for phased parking additions to the site. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the site and adequate parking spaces could also be impacted by the phased construction. This impact .would be mitigated by the review and approval of site revisions in the schematic design phase and the development of a Transportation Demand Management Plan as described in the mitigation measures. 3. Noise. The potential impacts of noise would be due to construction at the project site. The construction phase is considered to be a less than significant impact because the construction period is of circumscribed duration and is regulated by adopted City policies that are described in mitigation measures. 4. Aesthetics. The existing Main Library and Art Center are sited in a park-like setting of many trees. The visual impact of either the Replacement Scheme, which sets the new building back 40 feet from the street, or the Partial Retention Scheme, with an 80 foot setback, is considered less than significant because all the buildings would be designed to be visually, compatible with the site and their view would be filtered and softened by many landscaping trees and lawn, as the existing buildings are. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 5. Land Use: The additional space taken up by parking lots under both the Replacement and Partial Retention schemes would reduce the area of the current Community Gardens by approximately 10%, which translates into a loss of about 15 garden plots from the existing site. The City has made a 020620 syn 0091108 3 commitment to relocate the gardeners losing their plots to another community garden site within the same general area of the city and to enhance the vitality of the remaining garden space. The reduction of plots will not result in a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Relocation of plots and upgrades to the Newell/Embarcadero garden are described in the EIR mitigation measures. 6. Cultural Resources: The potential cultural resource impact is significant for this Project because of the historic significance of the existing Main Library building. The Replacement scheme would demolish a building that appears eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. If the Replacement scheme were selected, there would be an unavoidable adverse impact to an historic resource, which would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order for the City Council to approve the Project. The impact could be partially mitigated by archiving and documentation as described in mitigation measures. The Partial Retention Scheme would remove the back wing of the building and involve some seismic work that does not compromise the building’s historic integrity. If the additionis designed and built in substantial compliance with The, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings the impact of the Partial Retention scheme on cultural resource valueswould be less than significant and no further mitigation would be required. The Art Center also appears eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. The proposed additions to the Art Center would be designed and built in substantial compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The impact to the Art Center is thus considered less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is ,required. 7. Public Safety..The potential public safety impacts include potential exposure to hazardous materials of existing building materials and possible soil contamination. Standard City regulations for demolition and construction and removal of hazardous materials would reduce the potentially 020620 syn 0091108 4 significant impacts to less than significant. mitigation is required. Therefore, no 8.Recreation. The Main Library and Arts Center are, in a broad sense, recreational in nature. These facilities are to be expanded so as to cause potentially adverse effects to historic resources, protected trees and a community garden. These impacts are addressed under the other respective sections of the EIR - Biology, Land Use, Cultural Resources. H. The EIR has described a reasonable range of alternatives to the development that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of development objectives or might be more costly. The "Partial Retention" scheme, which contemplates partial preservation of the Main Library and an addition that .is consistent, with the Secretary’s Standards, is theEnvironmental Superior Alternative. However, it may not be a feasible alternative. .The Council makes no determination on this issue at this time. SECTION 2.Certification of the EIR. The City Council hereby finds, declares, and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering the Project for approval. The City Council hereby finds the following: A. That the Draft and Final EIR were prepared by the City and its consultants and reflects the independent review and judgment of the City as lead agency. B. That the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. There is no significant new information that would support a conclusion that’ the EIR should be re-circulated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. // II II // // 020620 syn 0091108 SECTION 3. Future Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. At such time as the City Council approves any or all elements of the Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program, it shall, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15097, prepare a comprehensive mitigation monitoring and reporting program. At that time, if necessary, it shall also adopt appropriate findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding adverse environmental effects. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 020620 syn 0091108 ATTACHMENT H RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE PALO ALTO ART CENTER AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING A MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION i.Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto Council") finds, determines and declares as follows: ("City A. The City Council has previously approved Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report forthe Newell/Embarcadero Civic Facilities Expansion Program -State Clearing House Number 20020320008 (the "Newell/Embarcadero EIR"). B. The Newell/Embarcadero EIR analyzed both an expansion of the Main Library and of the Art Center, and a site plan to accommodate both of these building programs while maintaining a significant community garden. The site plan also includes a redesign of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation and additional parking facilities as well as major landscaping. C. The City Council is deferring action on the Main Library improvements to a later date but requires that any site plan approved at Newell/Embarcadero provide for a future Main Library expansion. By this resolution, it is approving a conceptual design for the Art Center building program and related site improvements (~the Project.") The conceptual plan for the Art Center building program is shown on Exhibit A. This is a conceptual plan, and further revisions, which will be reviewed by the City Council, are anticipated during subsequent design phases. D. The Art Center building program includes three new elements and renovation and reconfiguration of the existing building, all in a manner that retains.the original building’s historic significance. The ~Phase i" addition of approximately 9,600 square feet to the north of the present Art Center, would accommodate an art gallery, entry, office space, preparatory space, and shop. The existing building would then be renovated to provide three new children’s classrooms as well as community and studio spaces. ~Phase 2" is a 3,500 square foot auditorium attached to the Phase 1 addition. ~Phase 3" is a new structure 020620 syn 0091109 attached to the Phase 1 addition. "Phase3" is a new structure of approximately 6,500 square feet on the Embarcadero Road side of the Art Center which would accommodate classrooms. Because Phases 1 and 2 would displace existing parking and an internal roadway, construction of either would require construction of a new on-site connecting road and a Newell Road dropoff loop driveway. Construction at the Phase 3 location would not require these improvements. Reconfiguration of surface parkinglots could accommodate all required parking. Provision offull parking under present City standards for the completeMain Library and Art Center would require subsurface or above-ground parking structures. However, the Site Plan approved by this action includes only surface parking.. No above-ground parking is authorized by this action. E. The EIR determined that all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project will be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance by the imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. SECTION 2. Approval of Conceptual Design of Art Center Renovation and Expansion and Related Improvements. The conceptual design for the renovation and expansion of the Art Center and related site improvements as shown on those plans and drawings prepared by Mark Cavagnero Associates/SWA Group dated June 14, 2002 and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Development are hereby approved. // // // // // // // // // // // // 020620 syn 0091109 SECTION 3. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15097, the City has prepared a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, titled "Art Center Renovation and Expansion Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan" ("MMRP") attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ,ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Public Works 020620 syn 0091109 3 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM NEWELL/EMBARCADERO CIVIC FACILITIES EXPANSION PROGRAM ART CENTER AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS The Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts with regard to Biology, Transportation and Traffic, Noise and Cultural Resources. All feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. The Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program describes each potentially significant environmental impact and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant with responsible agency for mitigation monitoring and a time frame for mitigation monitoring. IMPACT: Mature trees are likely to be removed for the expansion of the Art Center. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 1: The project includes replacement trees with the site improvement for the Art Center expansion. The basis for replacement as specified in the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.15 will be used to mitigate the trees approved for removal. The Tree Technical Manual is included in the project. In addition, the following categories shall apply: When a tree is removed in the ’high suitability for preservation’ category, it shall be replaced at a higher ratio than required by the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.15. When a tree is removed in the ’moderate suitability for preservation’ category, it shall be replaced at a ratio required by the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard, Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.15 When a tree is removed in the ’low suitability for preservation’ category, it shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio or as determined to be acceptable by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Recommendations, Section 4.0 of the draft Tree Inventory and Evaluation Report, Arbor Resources dated March 2002 (on file at City offices) shall be considered for the design and construction of the project. 020620 syn 0091109 Trees of cultural importance shall be evaluated for their suitability for relocation. The trees that have a high potential for survival shall be integrated into the new landscape design. The memorial plaque for the Steadman Grove shall be included,with their relocation. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. Cit), of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design Development and preconstruction activities. Applicable department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. Project arborist shall report to City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion. Mitigation monitoring will also extend to a minimum of at least a year after completion of construction to ensure the health and retention of trees. IMPACT: Possible damage to retainedtrees during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 2: Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, 1) to keep the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in. which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. The Tree Technical Manual is included in the project. ao Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two- inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2- feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. Type I Tree Protection The fences shall enclose the entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must be located on paving or concrete that will not be demolished, the posts may be supported by an appropriate grade level concrete base. b.Duration. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction be~:ins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work .2 020620 syn 0091109 specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees). Warning’ sign. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence at 20-foot intervals. The sign shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x 11-inches and clearly state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PAMC Section 8.10.110." Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works at (650) 496-6974. All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. The contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any trees tha: are damaged during the course of construction. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. d. Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during all phases of construction per the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection is requested. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design Development and preconstruction activities. Applicable department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. Project arborist reporting to City of Palo Alto Arborist. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion 020620 syn 0091109 IMPACT: Possible damage to retained trees during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 3: preservation, as detailed below: Measures for long-term tree protection and Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist. The plan shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. All specific recommendations from the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained throughout construction. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans as a bold dashed line, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist inspections, and pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any other measures necessary.to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan shall be printed on a Tree Protection. Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact number. Site design and protection of high value trees that have been identified ’at risk’ to impacts from design and construction of either alternative shall be specifically addressed in the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. Some of the trees at risk are large, mature specimens that could serve as nest trees. While all trees to remain must be protected, the following trees shall receive individual detail in the Preservation Plan and be closely monitored by the project arborist during .the course of construction. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto. A Project Arborist shall be selected for the project as required in the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30. The Project Arborist shall be conducting all required inspections and be consulted in any activity involving the welfare of the trees to be retained. Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design Development and preconstruction activities. Applicable department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Project arborist reporting to City of Palo Alto Arborist. Inspection Schedule. All inspections outlined jn the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30, shall be performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on the final set of plans submitted for the building permit. Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition, grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. Prior to Occupancy. Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall call for an 020620 syn 0091109 inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plan. Post Construction Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSI A300-Current Year) as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. IMPACT: The expansion of the Art Center in three phases may result in the need for phased parking additions to the site. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the site and adequate parking spaces may be impacted by the phased construction. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 4: The full build out of the Art Center would require between 144 to 161 parking spaces on the site. The phased development of the site may require a reconfiguration of the site plan that shall be developed and reviewed by the City to ensure that adequate circulation is provided for .vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and emergency equipment. The City shall require surface or under building parking, and no parking structure on the site. In addition, a Transportation Demand (TDM) Plan will be prepared for the Art Center during the schematic design phase of the project. The TDM Plan would provide adequate alternative means for vehicular access to the site sufficient to achieve a reduction no mor6 than 20% of the projected parking spaces. The TDM Planwill identify the availability of transportation alternatives, a shuttle drop off planned on-site, employee incentives for carpooling and bike usage including bicycle storage lockers, improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation between adjoining streets and land uses including safety precautions, public outreach" and education that will include information about shuttle and other access during daily operation and special events, well planned bicycle parking and storage based on the minimum zoning standard of 25% of the required automobile parking spaces for bike spaces, pathways and outdoor seating for pedestrians, safety and theft prevention of bicycles by design and placement of storage areas that are within sight from inside the building, adequate lighting and clearly marked signage, etc. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 020620 syn 0091109 IMPACT: Site preparation, construction noise may result in temporary high noise levels at homes along the eastern edge of the site (next to Art Center parking lot). MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 5: Construction noise is controlled by time-of-day restrictions and required use of noise abatement equipment (e.g. low noise air compressors, mufflers on diesel engines). A Construction Management Program will also be prepared, which includes posting and notification of construction hours. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: , 1. City of Palo Alto. Implementation of Noise Ordinance and Construction Management Program. Hour of work restrictions-required by City Ordinance. Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Monitor during construction activities. Rigorous application of low noise equipment will help reduce maximum sound levels, but won’t eliminate the fundamental potential for annoyance at these home sites. The City should inspect contractor equipment to assure compliance. Because sound level depends on power level and site geometry, it is difficult to field check construction equipment for environmental noise. IMPACT: Heavy equipment causing vibration at homes along streets adjoining the property. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 6: Vibration can be reduced by use of lighter equipment (e.g. a Cat D8 instead of a D9), or by restricting use of tracked equipment. The tradeoff is protracted construction from use of lower capacity equipment. A Construction Management Program shall be included in the project. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto. Implementation of Construction Management Program. Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Monitor during construction activities. IMPACT: Construction of the connecting road between the southeast parking lot and the north parking lot may require the reduction of the community gardens by 10% and the relocation of up to 15 plots of the community garden. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 7: 1) Any plots that need to be relocated due to the 10% reduction on the site can be fully accommodated at the Eleanor Park community garden area. 2) In regards to the existing service road that is in the present community garden - the City 6 020620 syn 0091109 will work with the gardeners to remove any unusable soil, bring in new soil, and provide amendments and mulch. The City will also cut back the tree limbs on the south side of the site to maximize the sun lines. If needed to reorganize some of the existing plots, the City will stockpile soil for the gardeners that are affected. In addition, the City will upgrade the water pressure and sources for hose connections. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction activities. 3. IMPACT: The addition and renovation to the Art Center may !mpact a building that has been determined to have historic significance and meets criteria to be nominated to both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. MITIGATION MEASURE NUMBER 8: The impact would be mitigated by the requirement to substantially comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Responsible Agency for mitigation monitoring: 1. City of Palo Alto Time frame for mitigation monitoring: 1. Design development and preconstruction activities. Applicable. department is responsible for review of technical analysis prepared to ensure mitigation is included in the project. 2. Monitor during construction. 020620 syn 0091109 7