The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/27/1989, 1 - PRESENTATION OF PROGRAMMING WORK FOR THE CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 9u M&-MG DATE: J Iat��IIIIII �I�II city of san LUIS OBISpO Februarg 27 1989 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Imo""NUMBER: FROM: Toby Ross, Assistant Administrative Officer"- David F. Romero, Public Works Director Gv PREPARED BY: Dave Elliott, Administrative Analy SUBJECT: Presentation of Programming Wor r the Civic Center Improvements Project CAO RECOMMENDATION Review programming work and reach consensus on major programming issues BACKGROUND At its meeting on January 3, 1989 the council entered into an agreement with Grant Pedersen Phillips Architects to provide architectural services for the civic center improvements pro- ject. That agreement authorized the architect to proceed with architectural programming and perform the following programming tasks: 1. Introduce the civic center improvements project to the Architectural Review Commission and review project objectives with the commission 2. Prepare a functional program which - describes current and possible future activities at city hall and its site - lists possible building and site improvements to accommodate selected activities and promote adopted building goals: productive work environments, safe and energy-effi- cient spaces, a positive image for the city, and maximum service life - clearly differentiates between needed and desired improvements 3. Prepare four to six alternative architectural programs showing different site arrange- ments, building sizes, phasing strategies, improvement levels and construction/furnishing costs. 4. Prepare sketches of site plans and building configurations depicting the alternative architectural programs 5. Compare the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of each alternative architectural program 6. Present the findings and products of the first five tasks to the council 7. Obtain council approval of one architectural program and authority to proceed with conceptual design Fred Sweeney, the project architect, has completed the first five tasks and is ready to pre- sent his findings and products to the council in an informal "shirt-sleeve" study session. Major issues requiring council direction include parking, open space, transit facilities and building program duration (5 years, 10 years, 20 years . . .). Decisions on all of these issues will significantly influence site arrangements and building sizes. �IFING J AGENDA DATE FEB 2' B9 ITEM # 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo *Denotes action by Lead F.e<.. CALIFORNIA 93401 February 23, 1989 Respond by.. Regarding Item 1', Feb. 27 Agenda DCXO .nv am. [ .erk-orig. ED-T Ross City Council T City of San Luis Obipso iXE 990 Palm Street San Luis Obipso, CA 93401 Dear City Council : I would like to be able to participate in this decision , for I think it is one of the most important to came up in a long time. However , taking action at Monday's noon meeting precludes my participation. I am utterly dismayed and confounded that you are considering the adoption of *conceptual program alternatives' for the City Hall expansion project at this meeting. First of all , this seems to be being rushed through on the fast-track before the issues are fully, honestly and openly examined. Secondly, by taking action at a daytime (bureaucrats' hours) meeting, you effectively exclude the participation of working citizens like myself . We do not have the option of coming to a noon meeting. Third, I think this is a most serious issue , inasmuch as the alternatives being advanced by staff differ so radically from the assumptions made .by previous City Council persons about the disposition of the Library once the library functions were removed. One wonders why the 180 degree change in direction away from adaptive reuse of the existing building; the reasons advanced that. I am aware of are suspicious and unconvincing. Because of the above , I urge you to take no action towards limiting alternatives at the Feb. 27 meeting. I ask this because I , and perhaps others, would like to have the opportunity to talk with you about specific concerns, including the followings 1 . The consultant's programming/facility needs study for the city hall expansion is so fundamentally flawed that it is worthless as a guide to understanding your options. My concerns with it are so deep and complex that I cannot attempt to enumerate them here , but I would like to be able to point out the clear problems to you in Page 2 person . I believe you should scrap this report . 2. In light of the demonstrated experience of other applicants for the facility needs study, one wonders why staff chose the consultant they did. For example , we have based in San Luis Obispo a programming and facility needs firm that conducts a nationwide. practice , doing projects up to the $50 million range , which has done numerous facilities needs studies for municipalities and counties in California, which has won numerous national awards in recognition of its innovative and careful work ( including a couple of the prestigious awards made annually by Progressive Architecture magazine) , which has published extensively and authored standard texts used in the field -- in short , first class experts, who applied for the job, and were rejected. One wonders what sort of staff judgment this reflects, especially in light of the predictable problems encountered because of the choice made . ( I add, for your information , that I worked for this firm for several years, but have not for some time, nor do I intend to seek work there again . I speak with respect , but no personal motivation. ) 3. In discussing some of my concerns with some of you , I have been told that. no dec.ision about demolition of the Library has been made , and that the Council is still open to all alternatives, including adaptive reuse and expansion . Yet staff has already notified owners of property on the Library site to remove it because of the imminent demolition of the building. I am concerned that it appears staff is engineering the outcome of this process, and manipulating the City Council to follow. 4. From conversations with persons on the council at the time the new library project got underway, I have learned that a plurality of that council assumed the old library would be renovated for city offices. It is not evident , other than that we now have a city buildings bureaucracy which must justify its existence by proposeing new buildings, why those plans have now been reversed at the .staff level . Under separate cover , I have pointed out to you at least one aspect of the issue which has received no analysis (historical architectural value of the building), and I would further like to point out that obvious options, such as expanding the building onto its present parking lot , were not even evaluated by the consultant .. With such an addition , the building would more than meet square footage needs for the forseeable future , even accepting the consultant's flawed projections; this option would be magnitudes less expensive than the proposed demolition + new construction , and would also have the obvious historical benefits. 5. As an individual planning commissioner , I am .dumbfounded that this matter has got to this point without the commission's in any way being involved. We learned from third parties that the city-hired architect has met with the ARC to discuss planning matters within a 3-block radius of city hall , but apparently the planning commission doesn' t count . This is typical of the way the commission has been closed out of downtown planning decisions in recent years. With the exception of Court Street (which was well r Page 3 underway when we read of it in the newspaper and asked to be dealt in) , the planning commission has not been substantively involved in any downtown projects: the new. Library, the old Library, Mission Plaza expansion,• the parking program, the parking garages (both came to us at the last minute for rather trivial use permits) , French Pavilion . If there is no place for the commission in such major planning matters, perhaps You should abolish the commission and assume its legal functions. I would also point. out that the commission collectively wrote to you many weeks ago to express its concerns about the library site , and to date has had no response of any sort . In conclusion , I urge you to take no action limiting your options until the entire issue can be laid out in public, studied seriously by those public officials who must be concerned, and the best decision , based on sound and factual information and analysis, can be made . Thank you . Sincerely, 041 ! L4 Richard Schmidt FRespond action by Lead PersonAGENDA MEETING y: g2T 8s ITEM #DATEy. �-odg. F,i, A.V CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO O�T T CITY HALL EXPANSION A G E N D A Date: 27 February 1989 Time: 12 Noon Place: City Council Chambers San Luis Obispo City Council Working Session I. Introduction of project within the context of the downtown civic center. II. Review of issues that impact the downtown civic center and the site specifically. III. Review and discussion of the specific program requirements and parameters. IV. Presentation of mass studies of potential building configurations and shapes as it relates to the contextual placement within the civic center proper. V. Discussion and review of options and recommendations for further study and refinement of current civic center and project specific issues. Distribution: David Elliott Toby Ross RECEIVE ® FEB2710 CITY CLERK SAN LUISOB14°0.CA j0 : sv4. � . GPP #886400 Page 1 of 1 27 February 1989 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL EXPANSION Planning Issues Passive and active solar systems Water Size, scale and bulk Circulation Parking Transit activity Open space, accessible and visual Program Fixed City Hall activities Public access and usability Resulting departmental relationships Interdepartmental relationships Growth factors for physical space requirements Space requirements for additional or perceived future activities GPP #886400 Page 1 of 1 27 February 1989 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL EXPANSION San Luis Obispo City Facilities Master Plan Projected City Hall square footage requirements: 58,000 g.s.f. high 48,000 g.s.f. low February 1989 GPP Architects project program square footage requirements: 55,000 g.s.f. Currently identified City Hall off-street parking: 84 spaces Existing City Hall site square footage: 43,800 Available project square footage: 21,900 GPP #886400 Page 1 of 1