The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-10-13; City Council; 6687-1; Library Site Analysis_ 4 _s ry c co .a � bo v �20 �c r{M a a �� r �U .n %49 �.�o4c O H 00 g o .ZV r-4 a O V y CIT"_`5F CARLSBAD — AGEND' °BILL CD, .A4# Z-- 9P7 Library Site Analysis MTG. 10 /__13 / a 1 DEPT. H D. DEPT.-2—� R _ CITY ATTY._ � RECOMMENDED ACT9E.N: CITY MGR.'� 1• Provide further clarification on the •- e facility proposed (ie. branch, secondary ornnewymainf library); and direct staff to initiate hiring a consultant to prepare a library building program. 2-. Direct staff to further investigate the five highest ranked sites, and direct the city land acquisition negotiator to initiate appraisals of the subject properties. 3. Direct staff to investigate the cost of developing a store- front library facility (approximately 3,000 s ft- of co cial space) in the La Costa area as an interim• measure whmmer- s ite negotiation/analysis continues. ITEM EXPLANATION: On July 21, 1981, the city council directed staff to investigate alternative site location for new library facility to be located in the South Carlsbad area. 1. A task force committee was formed which comprised members from the Library, Parks 8 Recreation, Planning., ments. Also included was a Library Board memberaiid i,ganDaonng Depart- Corporat.i.on representative and the Library consultant. The task force met on a weekly basis, analyzed 13 potential sites made field inspection and developed a site criteria formula that was used in evaluatingrank of the various locations. The task force proceeded on the assumption that the library facility might be a branch, phased or full -scaled facility, pending further council direction. The 5 highest ranked sites recommended axle as follows: Rank `— Site 1° 2. Dove and El Dove, Camino Real (NE) - Site J 3° A. east Alga and Ll of E1 Camino Camino Real Real (NW) - Site B 5. Dove and E1 Alga arid. El Camino Real Camino - (NW) _ Site Site G I Real (SW) - Site F FISCAL IMPACT: A. Available and recommended funding: It Capital outlay Library operation 2. Recommended funding 81-85 C.I.P. $ 25,000 $1,325,000 B. Land Cost: 1. Various sites range from s to 7 dollars per square foot. (Does not include grading). 2. Possible land dedication through Quimby act. (P.I.L.) C. Building Cost: 1. Construction cost estimated to be $62.00 per square foot 1980-81 dollar. (Does not include grading, landscaping or furnishings.) EXHIBITS: Attachment I Memo, Library Site Studies Attachment A Memorandum from Planning Director to Library Board analyzing potential sites. Attachment B Location map for all sites considered. Attachment C 'Location map for five highest ranked sites. Attachment D Memorandum from Building Official to City Manager regarding construction costs. Attachment E Letter to City Manager from Raymond M. Holt, dated September 11, 1981. rR MEMORANDUM TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: Library Task Force -icf% DATE: September 2, 1981 <E SUBJECT: Potential Library Site Analysis I. BACKGROUND At the July 21, 1981, City Council meeting, the City Manager was directed to investigate alternative site locations for a new library facility, and to report back to the City Council within 60 days. In order to accomplish this task, the eight (8) member Library Task Force was formed, including representatives from city staff, library x personnel, Library Board of Trustees, the Daon Corporation and Ray Holt, the city's library consultant. The Library Task Force has been meeting on a weekly basis to analyze and prioritize potential library sites. Basic assumptions regarding the proposed facility included seeking a site readily accessible to existing and projected south Carlsbad residents, with a projected service population of 36,000 residents (1995). In terms of space requirements and functions of the proposed facility, the Task Force proceeded on the assumption that the facility might be a branch, phased or full-scale facility, pending further Council clarification/direction on this matter. a; The Library Task Force analyzed 13 potential library sites, making field inspections of most of the sites. Numerical site evaluation criteria, developed by Raymond Holt, was used to analyze the 13 site locations, and provide rank - order prioritization of the sites. This report was written to inform the City Council of the Task Force's progress, to forward recommendations regarding the preferred sites, and to request further council direction regarding the objectives and purpose of the proposed facility. II. RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide further clarification on the size and type of facility proposed (ie. branch, secondary or new main library); and direct staff to initiate hiring a consul- tant to prepare a library building program. -1- ATTACHMENT 1 3 2. Direct staff to further investigate the five highest ranked sites, and direct the city land acquisition negotiator to initiate appraisals of the subject properties. 3. Direct staff to investigate the cost of developing a i store -front library facility (approximately 3,000 sq ft of commercial space) in the La Costa area as an interim measure while site negotiation/analysis continues. TII. DISCUSSION t As outlined earlier, the Task Force has met on a weekly basis to analyze 13 potential library sites. The methodology employed involved rating sites against given criteria, resulting in numerical values for each site. i This methodology is fully explained in Attachment memorandum to Library Task Force, August 24, 1981. The five highest ranked sites recommended for further analysis, are as follows: 1. Dove and El Camino Real (NE) - Site J ' 2. Dove, east of El Camino Real - Site B ' 3. Alga and E1 Camino Real (NW) - Site G .�, 4. Dove and El Camino Real (NW) - Site I i 5. Alga and El Camino Real (SW) - Site F ; These are the sites recommended for further analysis and i cost appraisal. Acquisition of Site B, located on Dove fi street, east of El Camino Real, could involve a trade-off of park land proposed for dedication in the La Costa Master Plan Area. The Task Force discussed this alternative, and the possibility that such a trade off would be subject to ' General Plan park standard requirements. Alternative actions available to the Council primarily address recommendation #1, requesting direction from Council on the size and use of the proposed facility. Facility alternatives include.- 1. Construct branch library (7,500 to 10,000 sq ft) 2. Construct secondary library, comparable to existing , facility (20,000 to 25,000 sq ft) 3. Construct new main library (55,000 to 60,000 sq ft, may be phased). In recommendation #3, the concept of a store -front library as an interim measure is suggested. According to library consultant Ray Holt, this would provide services while permanent site negotiations proceed, and would provide a "Test Market" which would assist in determining the demand for library services in the south Carlsbad area. -2- IV. CONCLUSION A. Findings - The City Council should take the following actions: 1. Provide further clarification on the size and type of facility proposed (ie. branch, secondary or new main library); and direct staff to initiate hiring a consultant to prepare a library building program. 2. Direct staff to further investigate the five (5) highest ranked sites, and direct the city land acquisition negotiator to initiate appraisals of the subject properties. 3. Direct staff to investigate the cost of developing a store -front library facility (approximately 3,000 s sq ft of commercial space) in the La Costa area as an interim measure while site negotiation/analysis continues. B. Financial Impact - Primary fiscal impact includes i commitment of staff time, cost of retaining real estate appraiser's services, and funding for library Building Program. Financial componants include: i 1. Available funding: a. $ 25,500 - Remainder of Childrens Library funds b. $1,325,000 - Allocated in Capital Improvement Program, fiscal years 1981 to 1985 2. Land Costs: Approximately 5 to 7 dollars per ± square foot (raw land costs, may not include ! grading; based on five highest ranked sites). 4 3. Building Costs: Approximately $61.50 per square foot (based on construction of 40,800 sq ft t Escondido Library, does not include site work, landscaping or furnishings; see exhibit D). C. Environmental Review - Site analysis and acquisition of real property are exempt from environmental review requirements. D. Exhibits Exhibit A: Memorandum from Planning Director to Library Board analyzing potential sites. Exhibit B: Location map for all sites considered. Exhibit C: Location map for five highest ranked sites. Exhibit D: Memorandum from Building Official to City Manager regarding construction costs. Exhibit E: Letter to City Manager from Raymond M. Holt, dated September 11, 1981. N Ll Memorandum TO: Library Task Force FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Department ,tom DATE: August 24, 1981 SUBJECT: Potential Library Site Analysis I. Assumptions: 1. Facility size A. Staged facility: 7,500 to 10,000 sq. ft. B. Full facility: approximately 55,000 sq. ft. 2. Parking ( 1 space/250 sq. ft. floor area). A. Staged facility: 30 to 40 spaces. B. Full facility: 220 spaces. 3. Site requirements (including facility, required parking and 25% on -site landscaping). A. Staged facility: 1 to 2 acres. B. Full facility: 4 to 5 acres. 4. Service population: 36,000 (est. 1995). 5. Site criteria: Holt "site selection criteria". 6. Sites considered: A. Carrillo Way and E1 Camino Real B. Dove, east of El Camino Real C. Alga Norte Park D. Melrose and Carrillo Way E. Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa Avenue F. Alga and El Camino Real (SW) G. Alga and El Camino Real (NW) H. Alga off El Camino Real (NW) I. Dove and El Camino Real (NW) J. Dove and El Camino Real (NE) K. Alga, near water tank L. Camino Vida Roble, E1 Camino Real (SW) M. El Camino Real, north of Carrillo Way (NW) -4- EXHIBIT A A II. Site Evaluation Criteria Essential Score Important Desirable Inadequate 1 1 i Average 5 4 1 Excellent 9 7 3 r 5 Criteria Site F 4 F Essential A B C D E F G H I J K L M 1. Access to population 5 9 5 1 t 2. Parking 1 5 5 5 5 9 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 3. Sufficient Site 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4. Visibility 9 5 5 5 5 9 9 5 5 5 9 5 9 5 5 5 Important .- 5 9 9 5. Near commercial facility 1 7 1 7 6. On -site circulation 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 7. Near traffic generators 1 7 4 7 4 4 4 7 7 7 4 7 4 4 4 4 4 8. Compatable with 7 7 1 4 4 surrounding land use 4 4 4 4 E Desir e 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9. Supplemental parking 1 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 10. Street access 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 1 3 1 11. View potential 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 5 3 12. Solar orientation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 t 3 3 3 3 3 Thtal 48 62 45 50 54 58 62 54 60 68 38 45 41t Rank 7 2 8 6 5 4 2 5 3 1 10 8 `9 III. Site Specific Anaylsis At the August 20 Task Force meeting, discussion w,As initiated developing a second set of site criteria, concerning to be applied to the more desirable site locations. more specific, and to be d Criteria discussed included: 1. expansion potential 2. site configuration 3. acquisition test i 4. site preparation/grading cost. S. location and accessibility within the i site. PT:rh -5- 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 1981 TO: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ' x FROM: Building Official t SUBJECT: LIBRARY COSTS The following information may be useful in determining future library costs: CITY OF ESCONDIDO LIBRARY NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION Building Size 40,800 square feet Description: One half the area of the first story is tiro story, similar to ours. Construction: Wood frame, stucco, drywall inside, many windows, oak panelling. Sprinklered, one -hour; Occ load 920. z Architect: Ralph Allen, 1606 Bush Street, Santa Ana(92701) Specializes in libraries. City is very pleased with his work. Contractor: Larson. City also recommends him. Date of construction contract: May, 1980. Cost: $2,644,000 including land preparation but not cost of property. Land preparation costs: Earthwork $45,000, Paving $25,000, Landscaping $64,000. Net cost after above deduction: $2,510,000 Per sq ft - $61.52'. Plus 15 percent for three years (15 percent added to the total each year - not the original 1980 cost). 1981 - $2,.886,500 1982 - $3,319,475 1983 - $3,817,396. Please co tact me if more information is required. MA( T F.NYAK-, Building Official / cc: James Hagman V .David Bradstreet -9- r° EXHIBIT D .., RAYMOND Af. HOLT Post Office Box 745 Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 LIBRARY CONSULTANT 92014 - Telephone (7141 755-7878 4r h�A nq September 11, 1981 Dear Mr. Aleshire: Just a quick follow-up on our ;earlier conversation this week concerning the Task Force Report on the Carlsbad City Library Site Selection. Since I have not yet received a copy of the final report, I can not comment on its contents. However, several thoughts have occurred to me relative to this 1 matter which I would like to convey. Throughout its deliberations, the Task Force was hampered by the lack of a clear concept of the size and nature of the library for which a site j was being sought. I understand that one of the Task Force recommendations will be that the City Council provide a=uch clarification before a final decision on site is made. Obviously the size of the library to be developed on the site will have profound impact on the amount of land required and other aspects of site selection. Some of the questions which the Council members may find necessary to address in making their determination include: I. What is to be the function of the new library in terms of its collections, services, and relationship to the existing library? 2. How much money can the City afford to spend on the construction, furnishing and equipping, and stocking of the new facility? 3. How much money can the City afford to spend each year on the operation of the new library for (a) library materials, (b)personnel, and (c) operating costs? 4. What portion of the total City revenues can be spent for library service including the present library and the new facility? 5. If necessary, is the City willing to sacrifice present levels of services, personnel, and collections as a means for maintaining the new facility? �Mroximatin� the present library Unfortunatly, there appears to be an assumption that the new library/can be created by splitting off parts of the present library. This is not possible unless the City is willing to assume responsibility for an inefficient, ineffective, •,untatisfactory and very expensive library operation, Such a system would foster excessive duplication of resources, personnel and operating costs, along with general user inconvenience and discontent. The historic public library organ- ization consisting of a headquarters library and branch libraries of smaller -10- EXHIBIT ET �t September 11, 1981 Dear Mr. Aleshire: Just a quick follow-up on our ;earlier conversation this week concerning the Task Force Report on the Carlsbad City Library Site Selection. Since I have not yet received a copy of the final report, I can not comment on its contents. However, several thoughts have occurred to me relative to this 1 matter which I would like to convey. Throughout its deliberations, the Task Force was hampered by the lack of a clear concept of the size and nature of the library for which a site j was being sought. I understand that one of the Task Force recommendations will be that the City Council provide a=uch clarification before a final decision on site is made. Obviously the size of the library to be developed on the site will have profound impact on the amount of land required and other aspects of site selection. Some of the questions which the Council members may find necessary to address in making their determination include: I. What is to be the function of the new library in terms of its collections, services, and relationship to the existing library? 2. How much money can the City afford to spend on the construction, furnishing and equipping, and stocking of the new facility? 3. How much money can the City afford to spend each year on the operation of the new library for (a) library materials, (b)personnel, and (c) operating costs? 4. What portion of the total City revenues can be spent for library service including the present library and the new facility? 5. If necessary, is the City willing to sacrifice present levels of services, personnel, and collections as a means for maintaining the new facility? �Mroximatin� the present library Unfortunatly, there appears to be an assumption that the new library/can be created by splitting off parts of the present library. This is not possible unless the City is willing to assume responsibility for an inefficient, ineffective, •,untatisfactory and very expensive library operation, Such a system would foster excessive duplication of resources, personnel and operating costs, along with general user inconvenience and discontent. The historic public library organ- ization consisting of a headquarters library and branch libraries of smaller -10- EXHIBIT ET �t Aleshire 9�-11-81 Page 2 size has been an evolutionary design based on the necessity of maximizing public utilization of library collections, personnel and other resources. Previous attempts to divide and operate a library system composed of two more or less equal facilities have not succeeded - and because of serious inherent flaws - they are not apt to be successful in the future. Regardless of the system tentatively decided upon by the City, it would seem that the minimum requirement would be for a realistic five-year cost Projection including: 1. Site costs 2. Construction costs 3. Furnishings and equipment 4. Library collections required for opening S. Personnel costs for selecting, purchasing, cataloging and preparing the collections + overhead costs 6. Moving costs 7. Operating budget for not less than two years based on a specific program including levels of service to be provided. Any action by the Council would seem premature unless based on such fundamental information, made imperative by the stringencies of Proposition 13 budgets. Perhaps it is worthwhile to call attention to the obvious: Land for a library building is almost always the least expen^ive part of a new facility, and facility costs, over a period of a few years, are far less than operational costs. Once a library facility is established in a community, it is a very difficult political achievement to close it. As I told you, we are leaving now for two weeks of field work on projects in New Mexico and Texas. We expect to be back in the office on or about September 28. Please keep us informed and let me know how we can be of further service. Sinc re yours, Raymo IV . Bolt Library Consultant P.S. In addition to the cost study above, I would think the City would want to have a detailed plan setting forth the objectives, plan of service, administrative organization, potential public, and other essentials as assurance that the expanded library system had appropriate potential to meet the library needs of the citizens of Carlsbad. Such a plan would be an elaborat$.on and refinement of the fundamental data contained in our report Moving Ahead: Master ?Zan No. II ,for the Carlsbad City Library. -10- / a