Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PR - 2018.06.21• City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 F I� Meeting Agenda - Final Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:00 PM Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. May 17, 2018 Minutes Attachments: Minutes 4. Correspondence 5. Public Comments Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State and local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a `request to speak' card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. The Chairperson may limit speakers to three minutes each. 6. Old Business 7. New Business a. ConceDtual Plan Options for the New Communitv Center Attachments: Commission Staff Report Staff Report from the August 17, 2015 Study Session Executive Summary Staff Report from the March 19, 2018 Mission Style Conceputal Plan Pavillions Style Conceptual Plan 8. Staff and Commissioner Reports 9. Future Agenda Items City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 811412019 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Agenda - Final June 21, 2018 10. Adjournment Next Meeting: July 19, 2018 NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Department at (650) 558-7323 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 811412019 CITY I O 9 gvorsar PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Vice -Chair Schissler at 7:07 pm (Lewis arrived at 7:08pm) at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame. 2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lewis, Malekos-Smith, Baum, Matthews, Schissler & Milne COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Palacio STAFF PRESENT: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, Management Analyst Hager, Parks Supervisor Holtz & Recording Secretary Helley OTHERS PRESENT: Veronica Vostinak, The Sphere Institute; Ann & Paul Wallach, Burlingame; Al & Lula Ossipoff, Burlingame; Mark Haberecht, Burlingame; Jenny Keleher; Burlingame; Lisa Stoltz, Burlingame; Shaeda Urbani, Burlingame; Gretchen Kindberg, Burlingame; Ray Marshall, Burlingame & John Calahan, Consultant K�.A99tDIY:11 we) auII►11111Oky Commissioner Baum made a motion to approve the April 19, 2018 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Matthews and was approved. 5-1-1. (Palacio absent & Schissler abstained) 4. CORRESPONDENCE None 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Veronika Vostinak, with The Sphere Institute, spoke about the Institute's vision for the State Land parcel located at 410 Airport Blvd. in Burlingame to develop the property into an open space preserve built around interaction with the Bay. The group will also be presenting at the June 4, 2018 City Council meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Design Approval for the Ray Park Playground Renovation Project Parks & Recreation Commission DRAFT Minutes May 17, 2018 In the past several budget years, City Council has approved funds for the Capital Improvement Project to replace the Ray Park Playground. Due to the size, complexity and features offered at Ray Park, staff felt it was important to look at the playground design within the context of the overall features of Ray Park. The interest was to maximize the playable space and identify how the playground fit within the overall context of the park. Staff contracted with John Cahalan, Landscape Architect, to develop a Ray Park Master Plan and to serve as a consultant as the committee identified how the playground would fit in the overall context of Ray Park. To commence the Master Plan process, in September 2017 a letter was sent to the neighbors of Ray Park informing them of the Ray Park Master Plan effort and inviting neighbors to serve on the Ray Park Master Plan Committee. Staff received eleven applications and chose three neighbors from the committee. Staff also contacted Burlingame Girls Softball and Lincoln Elementary School to invite a member from each organization to serve on the committee. The Ray Park Committee included the following members: Shari Lewis — Parks & Recreation Commissioner Claire Schissler — Parks & Recreation Commissioner Christina Ahlers — Ray Park neighbor with small children & Landscape Architect Mark Haberecht — Ray Park neighbor with school aged children Lisa Stoltz — Ray Park neighbor and grandmother of small children Gretchen Kindberg — Lincoln PTA member Rich Holtz — Parks Supervisor, Certified Playground Inspector Nicole Rath — Recreation Coordinator John Cahalan — Landscape Architect Karen Hager — Management Analyst, Project Manager The Committee convened on several occasions. The first meeting on November 30, 2017 included reviewing the survey results, discussing the timeline of the project, reviewing the site plan identifying needs to provide input to John Cahalan, Landscape Architect to develop a preliminary bubble diagram. Subsequent meetings included refining the Master Plan based on the survey results and identifying the final selection of the playground equipment. A link to an online Ray Park Master Plan survey was included in the neighborhood letter to encourage broad participation. Additionally the survey was posted on the Parks & Recreation Department homepage, posted on the Parks & Recreation's Facebook page, on Nextdoor and included in the City of Burlingame eNews. There were 182 responses to the survey and the results were used to guide the Committee's decisions. The list below includes the playground elements that were considered high priority based on the community survey as well as feedback from the Ray Park Master Plan: 1. Climbing Structures 2. Multiple slide options including a curly slide 3. Multiple bays of swings including both tot and strap 4. Horizontal bars (monkey bars) 5. Spinning element 2 Parks & Recreation Commission DRAFT Minutes May 17, 2018 The survey indicated that the equipment include a 2-5 year old play area and a 5-12 year old play area with the preferred color scheme being natural and the most popular theme choice being a nature theme. Over 2 1 % of the survey respondents wanted the sand area to be removed because it was unsanitary. The final Committee meeting took place on Wednesday, April 11, 2018. Committee members reviewed the revised design that was rendered based on the feedback from the previous meetings. The Committee approved the design as presented tonight. As part of the Master Plan and based on the survey results, the parking area adjacent to the Balboa entrance at Ray Park was considered difficult to maneuver and unsafe. The comments "more and safer parking" were a key identifier in the survey results. In addition, several survey respondents identified the need for a dog off leash area to be addressed within the context of the Master Plan. To maximize the play space, the playground design will require the removal of five trees including three eucalyptus and two medium sized oak trees. An additional small oak tree would be removed in the add - alternate parking lot redesign as well. Ray Park has over 65 mature trees. New trees will be planted elsewhere in the park, including four new trees in the revised parking lot. The proposed parking would shift the lot 30 feet towards the softball field to accommodate a new safety zone and sidewalk and addresses the safety concerns as well as adds two additional parking stalls. The anticipated timeline has the Ray Playground renovation project starting in fall 2018. If no construction delays occur, it is expected that the project will be completed by early spring 2019. Neighbors and Ray Park user groups will be notified of the project timeline when the contract is issued. City Council has authorized $850,000 for the Ray Park Playground renovation as part of City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program. The estimated construction costs for the playground portion of the project falls within the budgeted amount. Due to the identified safety concerns with the parking, the parking portion of the plan will be listed as an add alternate for the current project. The other phases of the Ray Park Master plan are not part of the current budget and could be included in future Capital Improvement Plans as monies become available. Motion by Commissioner Milne (seconded by Schissler): Commission moved to approve the Ray Park plan with a change of the nature explorer panel to a gender neutral option and the recommendation that Council approve additional funding to add the additional parking option to increase safety. MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Palacio absent) 8. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER REPORTS a. Parks & Recreation Department Reports Director Glomstad reported on the following updates: There are funds in the capital outlay budget for the purchase of a SMART Board for program use, the Parks Division has implemented a maintenance tracking program called CARTEGRAPH and will be purchasing a ball groomer machine and a real mower to replace old equipment. Funds were requested for the following Capital Improvement Projects: park pathway improvements, concrete the dugouts at Ray and Cuernavaca Parks, resurface tennis courts at Ray Park, replace the stairs at Heritage Park, replace the pergola at Pershing Park, fix the gate at J-Lot and fix an erosion problem at Ray on field two by the 3rd base line. Projects will be prioritized and completed as funds are available. Additional funds were requested for maintenance at Mills Canyon, the purchase and installation of exercise equipment stations on the Bay Trail, repair fencing at Bayside park, add double batting cages (softball and baseball) at Bayside Park, remove the playground at Murray and 3 Parks & Recreation Commission DRAFT Minutes May 17, 2018 install grass in that location, maintenance of resilient surfacing at J-lot, Laguna and Cuernavaca Parks, additional recycling containers at all parks and the replacement of old drinking fountains at several parks. b. Commissioners Reports None 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 pm. The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame Recreation Center. Respectfully submitted, Joleen Helley Recording Secretary 4 Parks & Recreation Commission DRAFT Minutes May 17, 2018 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: June 21, 2018 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Conceptual Design Options for the New Community Center RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission review the conceptual design options, Mission and Pavilions, for the new Community Center. BACKGROUND Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014. On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a study session on the community center. The attached staff report from the study session provides a thorough background of the master and conceptual plan processes (Exhibit A and B). At the study session, the City Council provided the following input on the conceptual plan: create a more active presence on Burlingame Avenue, strengthen the civic aspect of the design, and create more depth and detail in the facades. With this feedback, Group 4 continued to refine the conceptual plan for the building. On August 25, 2015, staff brought the conceptual plan to the Planning Commission to gather further input. On April 14, 2016, staff presented the completed traffic study to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) to seek additional input regarding parking options, the impact of construction on parking, and the phasing options of the project. TSPC Commissioners offered suggestions including exploring options for bike and pedestrian access. Overall, the Commission favored the under -the -community center building parking option. They also offered suggestions if both parking options (under the community center building and one-half level under the tennis courts) are considered, including looking at parking permits for the lot under the tennis courts and/or installing meters for the tennis court lot to offset the cost of added parking. Additionally, Commissioners expressed interest in using the tennis court parking area as an option for downtown parking. 1 Conceptual Design Options for the New Community Center June 21, 2018 The CAC met again on April 20, 2016 to discuss the input from the City Council, Planning Commission, and TSPC. From the comments generated at the previous meetings and additional input from the CAC, Group 4 further refined the conceptual plans. At the March 19, 2018 Council meeting, staff and Group 4 presented the conceptual design for the Mission style building along with parking options, project budget, cost reduction strategies, sustainability options, and next steps (Exhibit C). Staff and Group 4 also shared renderings of the conceptual design for the Pavilions style building, which was the other style favored by a number of members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. After discussion, the City Council made a number of decisions relative to the project scope, the building's size, the location of parking, the maximum budget, and the sustainability features of the new building. The City Council also requested that staff gather input from the community on the Mission and Pavilions style building options prior to bringing the conceptual plan back to the City Council for approval before the summer recess. DISCUSSION Since the March 19 meeting, the project team has updated the project scope and design to incorporate: • the updated project scope and limits of work, which are now defined by the area of the park bounded by the east side of the Lions Club, the south side of the softball field, the existing picnic area east of the softball field, and the east boundary of the park. • an updated site plan that reflects the new boundaries and relocates the playground so as to accommodate the full -court basketball court • design updates, design development, and presentation graphics for the two conceptual design options, the Mission (Exhibit D) and the Pavilions (Exhibit E) Both of the design options, the Mission and the Pavilions, have the same program spaces and adjacency opportunities. At this phase of design, the project cost models for the two design options are similar, they use similar exterior base materials, similar quantities of accent materials, and have similar massing and volumes. The exterior materials palette for the two designs both use stucco as an option for the base material but have different opportunities for the roof material and accent materials. The materials palette for the Mission design includes: stucco/plaster base wall material, concrete roof tile, terra cotta and wood accents, with wood and steel trellises. The material palette for the Pavilions design includes: stucco/plaster/polished concrete base wall materials, metal roof, metal/fiber cement panel and wood accents, with wood and steel trellises. Inherent with the massing of the design options, their respective roof lines, and roofing materials, the Pavilions option is inherently more compatible with integrating roof -mounted photovoltaic (PV) arrays. The Pavilions design option has approximately 1/3 more capacity to accommodate PVs; the PVs on the Pavilions option are almost completely concealed within the butterfly roof; and the installation, mounting, and maintenance of the PVs on a metal roof is substantially easier. The exact calculation and quantity of PVs required to meet the zero net 2 Conceptual Design Options for the New Community Center June 21, 2018 energy goal identified by the City Council will not be possible until the next phase of the project, the schematic design phase, when the building envelope, mechanical system, and integration of natural ventilation is further defined. The community's input on the two design options is being collected through intercept kiosks located at the Recreation Center, the Library, and at the June 11 Farmers Market; the June 21 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting; and an online survey that was promoted to the community through social media and was available from June 5 through June 15. As of June 11, 2018, 1,222 community members have shared their design option preference, and initial response by the community has favored the Mission design option: Mission has 620 votes and Pavilion has 602 votes. Next Steps Staff will return to the City Council with an update at the June 18 and again on July 2 with the results of the community input and seek direction on the preferred Conceptual Design option. Once the City Council has approved the conceptual design, the consultant team and staff can begin to complete the CEQA requirements and the construction document phase of the project. Staff anticipates that once the City Council accepts the conceptual design, the construction document phase and CEQA approvals will take approximately 18-20 months. FISCAL IMPACT In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a % cent sales tax measure that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal -setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager's recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds. (The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018.) As noted at the goal -setting session, an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds for the project would yield bond proceeds of approximately $15 million. Therefore, in order to fund the Community Center project, the City will need to rely on a combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the Capital Investment Reserve. Staff thus recommended that the Council consider an additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million, with the remaining financing for the Community Center project to be provided from the Capital Investment Reserve or some other source not yet determined. The recommended debt service funding from Measure I and other General Fund monies ($2 million in total) is included in the proposed budget for 2018-19, in anticipation of the bond issuance for the Community Center project sometime in the upcoming fiscal year. Exhibits: • Staff Report from the August 17, 2015 Study Session • Executive Summary • Staff Report from the March 19, 2018 • Mission Style Conceptual Plan • Pavilions Style Conceptual Plan 3 aMESTAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 17, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 17, 2015 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director— (650) 558-7307 Subject: City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the presentation on the conceptual design options for a new community center and provide feedback. BACKGROUND Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architeclure, the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a master plan for the active areas of the park. The current Recreation Center building was built in 1948 as a memorial to those who gave their lives in WWII. Over the years it has been remodeled, expanded and repaired many times and is now in need of significant upgrades. Although the City originally considered modifying the existing building, this option was rejected due to significant challenges with the building, and the City decided that a new structure was the most reasonable option. Some of the problems with the current building include: 1. There are structural deficiencies causing seismic concerns. 2. There is a lack of sprinklers throughout the majority of the building, causing fire safety concerns. 3. The HVAC is inadequate; there is no air in the Ceramics Room, Art Room or Studio B; and the Front Office is very cold in winter due to drafts and inadequate heating. 4. There is insufficient electrical/power structure to support today's need for technological media. 5. There is a lack of adequate drop-off and pick up areas. 6. The facility lacks convenient parking, which necessitates patrons parking in front of the neighbors' houses. 7. The building has poor lighting. 8. There is an excess of non -programmable space due to inappropriate access and poor layout. 9. The current available space restricts class/program options and reduces options for available meeting spaces. 10. The doors/thresholds, counters, corridors in staff areas, kitchen counter tops, and parking spaces require improvements to enhance universal access 1 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan August 17, 2015 11. Security is lacking due to the absence of a central alert/paging system and staff cannot monitor certain rooms because of the poor layout 12. Storage is challenging, causing staff to spend an inordinate amount of time moving equipment back and forth and up and down stairs. 13. The building also presents many challenges for the senior population as a result of problems with access, the HVAC system, lack of near accessible parking, poor lighting, and layout of the building. Master Plan Phase After the determination that renovating the existing facility was not the best option, staff undertook the development of a Master Plan for Washington Park and a new community center that would meet the needs the entire Burlingame community and that would have a useful life well into the future. The Master Plan is a document that defines the framework and vision for the Burngame Community Center and Washington Park. The recommendations for the Master Plan are based on analyzing the recreational needs of the community, best practices and future trends of community centers, as well as an assessment of the existing facility. The vision and recommendations for the Master Plan have been developed with the Burlingame community through an engaging, open and participatory process. Through a series of statements defining the parameters of the project, the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan is a pragmatic, implementable, master plan that will respond to the needs and goals of the dtizens of Burlingame. During this process, the City and its consultants considered many factors, including the size of the building, the location in the park, respecting the passive areas of the park, the mature trees, the ballfields, the tennis courts, the Lions Club, parking challenges, and the impact on neighbors. The outcome is a functional, two story, 35,500 sq. ft. building that is larger than the current single story 21,200 sq. ft. facility and only increasing the building and parking area's footprint by 1,000 sq. ft. The new facility has a full complement of recreational mul4use, multi -generational, flexible spaces that support all of the identified community needs. During the development of the master plan, there was discussion regarding the inclusion of a gymnasium in the new facility. However, the community members who participated in the process determined that a gym was not appropriate for this site, as it would create a footprint that encroached significantly into Washington Park (with both the larger building and additional parking considered). Fortunately, due to the strong relationship with the Burlingame School District, the City has access to their gymnasiums for many of the youth programs in addition to many private gymnasium options on Rollins Road. The west end of Washington Park was considered as a site option. However, input from the community and the City's traffic engineers identified major traffic concerns from Burlingame High School and the train crossing that would make that location for a building undesirable. The proposed building remains in the same general location but opens to the park to reduce noise that could be heard if the building was oriented toward the street. Additional, the Master Plan worked around the Lions Club and ballfields. The playground was shifted away from the street to address park user's safety concerns about the proximity of the playground to the street. The City is very proud of the status of being a 35 year -long Tree City, USA and is committed to preserving as many mature trees as possible, which led to using the areas in the park thatwere already hardscaped to minimize the removal of mature trees. 2 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan August 17, 2015 Lastly, parking for the current Recreation Center is severely inadequate. To reduce the impact on the neighborhood, the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) formula of 3.2 cars/1000sf of building was used based on a recommendation from the City Public Works staff. The Master Plan includes two potential parking options in addition to the current surface parkingadjacent to the building. The strategies are under the new building, and grade under the tennis courts. The Citizen's Advisory Committee is interested in planning for both options at this time. The parking under the building could serve the community center and the park, while the % grade under the tennis courts could serve the Lions Club, sports fields and downtown. The Master Plan was presented and approved by Council in July of 2014(Exhibit A, page 8) Conceptual Design Phase The Conceptual Design phase began on January 21, 2015 with a CAC meeting. The CAC reviewed the updated project schedule and made suggestions for potential outreach opportunities in addition to the scheduled opportunities for input. The CAC viewed the Master Plan's building program and design spaces to offer input to assist Group 4 Architecture as they moved forward with developing the building design options. Outreach meetings and presentations to the community covered three subject areas: 1. Reviewing and summarizing the site and building goals and objectives identified in the Master Plan phase. 2. Reviewing and discussing the updated and refined building program option 3. Reviewing and providing input on design value images, which illustrate architectural styles, massing strategies, design strategies. Through the community's input, five potential design options have been refined to two options to be reviewed by Council at tonight's study session. Programming Opportunities The Parks and Recreation Department provides a high level of programming in conjunction with community partners, as measured by the variety, scope, and number of programs offered, especially when considering the conditions of the existing facility. The goal is to provide program offerings that are responsive to community demand and current trends and are designed to maintain interest, and create dynamic opportunities for the communitywhile generating revenue to reduce the burden on the City's General Fund. The proposed interior layout provides new and improved spaces that will allow staff to offer opportunities that have never been available before. The new community center will have a community hall with a dining capacity of 300 occupants that will be available for rent and is divisible by a modular wall for additional programming activities. The hall will also have a raised platform that can be used from inside the hall or from outside in the park. This offers opportunities for a variety of theater programming. The active spaces such as camp and preschool classes will be on the lower level; while the quieter activities, such as art and adult enrichment, will be on the upper level and easily accessible from an elevator or three sets of stairs. New spaces include a maker space, which will have the technical support and layout to offer classes such as Great Inventions, App Design, and Teen Architectural Design. Kids Town will be a space for younger children's programming, with the appropriate -sized furnishings and design. This space will also be available for party rentals. The Teen Scene will be a modern space for active youth to attend classes or "hang out". It can also be used for the more mature population 3 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan August 17, 2015 to socialize during the day and participate in activities. The enty area will be warm and inviting with clear and easy visual access to staff and includes a comfortable lounge that community members can use while waiting for programs to begin or end or as a space to meet their neighbors or just relax. The Community Hal will have an adjacent commercial catering kitchen that will help increase the number of rental opportunities. Upstairs, an Active Lounge and Enrichment classroom have been added to facilitate new programming for the older population and as well as additional space for community members to reserve for meetings and presentations. In addition to the new spaces, other spaces will be available for work areas, storage and quiet study areas. The programmatic intent for the rooms in the proposed community center is identified in ExhibitB. The financial performance of the new center is expected to improve based on expanded capacities, flexible design, new types of rooms in which to offer programming (dance studio, maker space), and a new attractive facility to attract additional rentals. Community Hall Banquet and Receptions Space, Market Demand Space Comparisons It is important to note that the attached inventory (Exhibit C) is not an "apples to apples" comparison. The rooms range in quality and hierarchy of use. For example, Marin JCC, Livermore, and Mill Valley all are similar in quality and purpose with an emphasis on marketing the community hall for the private rental market during prime time. On the other extreme, Strawberry is a gym setting without a caterer's kitchen. The rates also vary as to the amenities and services included and should be considered a "range of market value" pricing. Market Demand The Sports Management Group (TSMG) contacted local area event planners to assess the demand for event space in Burlingame. Allegra Entertainment & Events, Glow Meetings & Events, and Any Occasion all responded that a facility accommodating 15G300 people in Burlingame is in constant demand during primetime (Saturday & Sunday) for social events, weddings, holiday parties, and smaller company parties. The proposed amenities, catering kitchen, courtyard, natural light, and access to side rooms were all positive attributes of the proposed space. These companies have clients looking for spaces renting in the $2,000-$4,000 range. For all day rentals, 8-12 hours would be needed to start and complete the event. The park setting and courtyard would be desirable settings, and they expressed that it is a beautiful location and a good area for weddings. TSMG also contacted San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department to inquire about the demand they experience. They receive wedding and social event facility requests "all the time" and do not have an indoor facility to accommodate the 250-300 banquet seating in a quality setting. Based on this preliminary market research, there appears to be a demand for a 250-300 capacity banquet hall space in Burlingame. Event planners stated that seating for 250-300 people is the desired attendance for weddings and social events. There are limited venues in this market niche at an affordable rate, defined as between $2,000 and $4,000. The site was considered "charming", and a great location for a range of social events. r. City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan August 17, 2015 Community Hall Examples: Example of possible rental revenue*: Number of prime rental days per year — 110 If 80% of prime rental days are rented, and of those days, 44 are all day rentals (8hrs) and 44 are 5-hour rentals, the total number of hours rented is 572. Total Rental Revenue $250 Per Hour = $143,000 $300 Per Hour = $171,600 $350 Per Hour = $200,200 *Source- The Sports Management Group (TSMG) DISCUSSION Through the project's community outreach, Group 4 Architecture identified the community's preference for the architectural styles that best reflect Washington Park and Burlingame's values. The four preferred design values as determined by the communityare: • contextual inspiration • traditionally influenced • warm + inviting • civic At the CAC Meeting #3, four conceptual building massing options were presented forthe CAC's initial review and input: two "traditionally inspired" options, and two "warm + inviting" options (Exhibit A, page 21). Through feedback provided by the CAC, staff and Group 4 decided to pursue the "traditionally influenced Mission style" for further development of conceptual design options. Despite an appreciation for the contemporary "warm + inviting" options, the CAC felt that the "traditionally influenced Mission style" option aligned more closely with Burlingame's existing architectural context. At the CAC Meeting #4, Group 4 Architecture developed two updated "traditionally influenced Mission style" options: • Option A: civic scale • Option B: residential scale Included in Exhibit A is "civic" Option A, in addition to a revised version of "residential" Option B (page 22), which incorporates recommendations given in the last CAC meeting. Option B contains two sub -options (131 and 132) highlighting two varying exterior design approaches: 5 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan August 17, 2015 Option B1: utilizes a combination of articulated, varying -sized window openings, stepped massing, and a combination of gabled and hip roofs to tie the building more closely with its surrounding context Option 62: uses the arched opening as a main architectural feature that repeats at key instances throughout the building to signify key programmatic elements and main entryways Both Options A and B (and sub -options B1 and 132) pursue the concept of creating a rhythm of window openings along Burlingame Avenue's fagade to provide continuity with the neighborhood character. On the park side, all options use generous bands of windows and ground -level sliding doors to create a strong indoor -outdoor connection to the park for key programmatic spaces. At this early point in the design process, the project team is seeking input fromthe City Council on the conceptual design Options A and B (131 and 132). Council's comments and preferences on the various options will be used to help refine and develop the conceptual design, which will be brought back for Council's consideration in the late fall. FISCAL IMPACT The estimate in 2014 for the proposed community center was $15,165,000. The site work including parking and the relocation of the playground ranges from $8,964,000 to $10,544,000. Soft costs range from $7,705,000 to $8,170,000. The project is currently unfunded, and discussions of funding structures are in progress Exhibits: A. Power Point Presentation B. Programmatic Intent C. Community Hall Rental Survey 6 0 L m %ow 0 L d d r� U I� 4, .Ja 0 li c 0 T 0 V Ln N C. E E GE 55 OD QM r E ELI v �o ® w �' LAI 00 �a LI w o, m cc, M p8n, —75 a 00 0 0 5 (61 o U4 0 Ln a E E :3 P.- E (®r > 0 0 u z a Uj 0 0 u w af LU C LL 0 c uj CL 0 u• uj 04 w V) CL'r_ 0 LL 0- E coL 4, 0 0 a 0) 0 E 0 u E E E m 0o v a E -a C — — — 1�--- — 0 o Z E U < U v s v 0 E a Z'p a o 0.2 E Cn o 0 E z Tc CL (D 'L 0 0 ID (D CL 0 0 -�� 0 0 u c —0 0 CL C= 0 > 0 0 > CL w 0 0 0 LU u In 0 0 + z z > 0 V) uj z u Z > :D U Lij u u Z z LU F- » 0 C� 0 u LU V) Z z .6 LU ad z =0 • 0 m F- Z < Z'T z Z 0 L) 0 0 z u U) < ui Lu 0 w CL C, < F- Z CL Lu U zV) z Z 0 z W Z4:�E 0 Z Z 0 LU vi �E 0 Y 00 U (.5 z Zn < oul — p- - Z lz >n F- Ul Z 0 E iE < , z u U, K Z CL V) LUF- 0 < UJ a P: p t :E 0 :3 S2 ce a_ m z uj z LLJ Z z w U LL 0 LU z 0 2: 0 ag C', O z Lj- Cf U P: U U 2 0 LLJ 0❑ u w Lu 0 w u LLI LU W C� F- Fn U 0 0- a o u o CY LO CD W t/1 Q a ce W F- bib N MIME i O CL O Ln Ln V ram" O N Mama MORRO r.. O N Noma LL TOM .1 � v e� LL N Va Z:E vi � a v 0 0 Ls Q 5 0 0 ce � < 43 0 ,v � �+ � ate' � �— M Ln C4 00 LIn co 0 9 Z CL (A C'q M so em� 06 (D 77 NINE + CL N 00 ON QM •m jD Q CD 0 o #A %"moo 0 r- 12 Z) w 0 Ln co C) �9� z 0. LU (D L c� Q G • N "aM 79 �—w Z< 0 w I 9�1 Jz coo HSSQ LL vn p Coro\oPi n e N d co 0 ray > LU Is low 0 n uj Ln 03 CD W p Z O ZE _Q p J � J Z Q O °m p LL- Z O ne C7 LU � Z O cle w 0"' QLU p Z W Q Q O Z LLj W _ :* Cie Loo) CD CM Q 0 Z � Q O i V Z Cn OLU Z L*j ~ W � �z �ck:: �Q Z W O in LD Z Z _ W Ln 0 _V- oa LU LU LL, I-) Ln CD vI cl:f ALL Lo q L" -�< CY3 CD ------ DILI- '7 LUlJ C) Z-5 CL, 11 CD t :) 0 0-0 ow 0 CN w + r, 0 En Ne Ln co CD Q! ® Z% � L :C _ > `0 Z�Lr )C AaO G QE 0 -- C ® O OO O u a0 o _ a L W O O O C& C O O �".. "O- C - LA a D. C co2 0 CL d O } O O a 0 X CDID tq -fl a O= O® O ti a> O � y s O> s. 0-0 IM L. ,Moo-ocmo d i O C y i L. O Vs -0 3�® c v a u v d E '— O G� LG1 m io E m c c ®r- .r°a .7 a-� C0-0 ox V a D V= u W V (n — t Z u 3 u N - 7 W CW G Z 0 6U 06 2 1-- co r W Z Ln 00 0 � I 7D 00 y- 0 W IL Z 0 • • 0 a _ E E U a Q o s 3 0 N v N c H� 0 N � L V V 0 CI'D 1 a as + + + + + 10 0 a 0 O _ N O CC) Q) G .0 C ck� ti CL w F O h O CD N o iL CD o aN G �f v :Ev Cc: L o V O c O o v a p = G c 7 �� U Q N G N N v c 97 L c2f Q N C V _ p Y G� Q Q LL' 0VI 6 C (D c Q ✓1 a)C N :EJ Q cn r N O cZf V7 (tin O Q O N— G V Q a)O N QLL C Cn O = OC E .L Q6 tN •�v� c UV a LF-a.Qw O E O N � U V ) H > 0O_. V) (n (V Cl) d Ln 10 r, 00 Ol 6 1 � O CD (A ui 0 D 0 3: 00 'm 0 LU Lln ................................................................................................... MIR, AL E L-n 3L, co cD z 0 ce CL E 0 0 �h U-5 0 U LO c (D 0 Ln co CD �, Z c- cG G � � 0 co 0 r.. 00 ff7,) tA CL -C,3 0 c_ un Ez "n oc Q2 !11 m �j z 10 Ch c zc C3 10 -OC ;> —3 to; �j L7 LI I p t; 2 0 - Li CDP 0 ------- --- z, Id "j- W 0 Ln r, 00 0 4� '�! �liil�I?a F171- 3� 0 Z 4 F m C3 ----------- ,, < 77. z ::E 0 m Mc= I I. u 10 WLfl to; u Z+20 a I..L 4S V) ce Q w U Z . . W Z Vo Z® D Z G ® W V ❑ W —j Q rQ F— V CL ZW — U Z �a m U LL o ZY u O O Lu LLI O w CL In W J w U-���z_z_pc� Z~y3�Ew>- J J W W -A W O W J_ H W { w�G�00 �"'Ya :D�00� p `'• O O o a LLJ z w O p r ( = o J 1-- 0 W J 4, ` . O Q J J N W z QJO J J 3 a x J wz Ee UO�—Q W �ZZD=fn _:. se zZsCO�— p w o O -, Llj z U Z � Z w —` w — O° p ❑ ,,n� ,� }g � z w�w J Zu UNpt-pQ= `L w� Z w w Z Z L oV O z "' Q D U Z z =wWo�,l, ��-aQW �CoLLILU w OZ��w J�w Z 0a f—Ow •-'y9:1:': N uJ 7 J Z Z C uj CO in u Ln 00 O f 0 lt, 0 co 0 C4 00 chi Z LJJ z uj 0 Cie :z 1�— z CL 0 0 Ix NO LL Q W z ce. 0 0 LL. LLJ ui z 0 ITS LU x uj 00 O W Z W z I 0 ad W x W Ln cc 0 00 i l V LU <0 ILI Lu Ce LLI W j�� Imo'. P O 00 OW I H 0 W J 5z V0 LU Cd ao cW IX G � (� W z D co co O cc O C, J z 0 Al IL les ..................... . *'x r, I-- Z0 D W W oz V t� 09 LU x LU Ln r. 00 0 Ln Go CD Lu Z LU 0 LU 0 O Ln 00 0 ■ LO r-_ 00 0 H zCL W z Q ' N a W w' Imm R�- N N H W D z O Burlingame Community Center Program Ideas Kid's town Large Meeting Maker Space Musical Arts Flooring: Carpet/Resilient Flooring: Carpet Flooring: Resilient Flooring: Carpet Program Ideas: Program Ideas: Program Ideas: Program Ideas: Reading Niche Mystery Theater Marshmallow Math Voice Acting Baby Boogie Stand -Up: Comedian Training Crazy Chemist Spanish Music Together Children's Playspace Tumbling Spy Academy The Art of Listening Mommy and Me Fun Group Karaoke Home School Lab Tuning & Instrument Care Birthday Parties Monday Night Football: Sr. Social Great Inventions: Next Step Conference rentals Buddies Playdate Lifelong Learning Lecture Series Teen Architecture Design Introduction to Pets Financial Fitness for Women Jet Cadets: Flying Machines Drop -in care while adult at class Workshops Digital Photography Art History App Design Open Night Storytelling iPad 101 iPhone 101 Exploring Social Networking: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Blogging Anime Industrial Graphics Lego Mindstorm Prosthetics Label Designing Brand Creation Existing Programs: Existing Programs: Existing Programs: Existing Programs: Parents & Me Mandarin Math Olympiad (am/pm) Video Game Design (pm) Peninsula Music Together Baby & Me Mandarin Common Core Reading (am/epm) Lego (epm) Piano (pm) Drop & Go Creative Corner (am) Debate (epm) STEM Piano Readiness (epm) Tiny Tots Boogie (epm) Meeting Rentals Robotics Voice Lessons (epm/pm) My First Art Class Public Meetings Tech Builders Guitar/Ukelele (epm/pm) Chess Wizards (am) Public Speaking HomeBuyers Bootcamp (am) Employee Stock (pm) Couple Communication (pm) Burlingame Community Center Program Ideas aeaGve AD10ramlcs Dance&Fitness Enrichment Fine Arts Roaring. Resilient Flood : Wood Flooring; Resilient Fborl : Resillent Program Ideas: Program ideas: Program Ideas: Program Ideas: Dh'Home/Garden Art [opals Safe Driving Techniques M.r. Photography Ltd. Green Thumbs: Pre K Art Tie Karon Do Pet First Aid &CPR Photography Wlre Works Ughtsabre Combat Knife Skills EapresiMe Drawing Jewelry Making Judo Ju)hsu Rejuvenate Your Retirement Commercial Drawing Nail An Chang T.I Do Karate senior Balance Framing & Mailing Makeup Monsters 1-1ty Workout Chmr Yoga Home Decorating DIY: Patting Creations Hoop Dance Teen Startups: Business Basics Fktwer Arranging Friday Night Paine &Sip Pilm. Fusion Board Game Masters Sculpture Urban Gardens MammYFitness Home Aft Quilting Miaology, Kuk Soo[Won Act Oull: Improvisation Ballet &FalryTales Balance &Core Training Aikido Functional Training: Seniors Hip Hop Teen Dan. Juggling Power Yoga MaglcTddcs Broadway Moves Writing Screenplays Yogalates Ancestory/Genealogy Mammy and Me Bally—cl Landscape Design Savate Kickbodng Home school Fit Eidicting Programs: FadsU pr Fires: existing Programs: Eris P s: Youth& Teen Ceramles(epm/pmI Dancing Togetherlaml SAT/ACT Prep (..I Mang. Cartooning lepm) Adult Ceramics IF.) Tiny Tots Billet(am/pm) Meditation for Bell (pm) Knit Wits learn) Modem Ceramics lepm) Ballet& Tap lepm) language CW—(pm) Watercelor(aml Jewelry Knotting (am] pdncess Pre-Ballet(epm/pmI Business Marketing(pm) 011s(am/epm) Kids Carpentry(epm) Hip Hop Boogie loom) Pet Health Workshop Drawing (am) Pre -Ballet lam) Driver's Ed(am/pm) Paper Crafting (pm) Irish 0... ing(epm/pm) Awareness Through Movement(pmj Meeting Rentals French Folk Dancing tom) Adventures In Fitness Adult Tap(pml rumble &Dance lam) Bdlyd.nce Is.) Manners are Fun(pml American Une Dancing(epm) Babysitting Workshop lam] Power Yoga(am) Zumba (pm) Turbo Kick (pm) Power Fusion (pm) Strength & Wellness through Filoess Boot camp (epml Cardlo Kick (pm) Karate (pm) TO Ch1jOJ Gong m ir X LLJ m E :3 O d m c m q c_ w v Y Q 2' L9 m E m _ _ o d r o — c E d ca u u c y c� -u �..� 'y o a. ° c C u Q y m a`�o w m a E v t o e o u vi 2 oW a o Q Q F v' x g LL m m o N C E H O W l�s•� C W � m U LL LS Z J A C N o m C LL � v o v 1 cA2 ` o 2 — vTi > a — o m j o01emm5 -Y L O n O __ o � � > •u dl U Q y 'H m E E g m E— 01 3 n u C � N m E o E c c N m ~ m V U ~� •C N -�^ ¢ a a d n m u o u m a N m m E~ ° o a_ u c OLLw o °O ii m ... ? c E c u m° =i3 v°a�`cwmux°< o b 3 o v m m m @ $ c m - E LL Y a oo > iz o u o O o v o o a o u� �N `o•� r 3}3>Y o� •972 — c E y v o. a m o m cL m= h u Q G `1 m A i 6. 1> a Y d � r _ o co f4 O c 1di u t� �o ° Z l7 E P, en m 'o N � m C X LU L a) O aj u 4 O E O u O cc E O t4 a` C •L 'y m w .\ { \ \ § (\\ F \ 2Jk \ \))/\ 2 §aal. �\e - - k - f 7 �- - < ] .R § q .f `\� 02 Burlingame Community Center Program Ideas Creative Arts/Cerarnics Dance & Fitness Enrichinerit I ine Arts Kid's Fn%vn Large Meeting Maker Space Musical Arts Flooiin6: Resilient Flooring: Wood Floating: Resilient Flood,,g: Resilient Flowing: Ca,pet/Resilient Flomring: Carpet Flooring; Resilient Flooding; Carpet Preschool Little Green Thumbs: PreKArJ Ballet & FairyTales Baby Boogie Tumbling Mommy and Me Bollywood children's Playspace Mommy and Me Fun Drop -In care whlle adult at class Youth Light Sabre Combat Reading Niche Mystery Theater Marshmallow Math Spanish Music Together Home School Fit Birthday Parties Crazy Chemist Buddies Playdate Spy Academy Introduction to Pets Home School Lab Great Inventions: Next Step Jet Cadets: Flying Machines Youth/Teens Tae Kwon Do Board Game Masters Open Night Storytelling Digital Photography Judo Jujitsu Juggling App Design Chang Tal Do Karate Magic Tricks Mime Alkldo Writing Screenplays Teens Makeup Monsters Hip Hop Teen Dance Teen Startups: Business Basics Teen Architecture Design Lego Mlndstorm Prosthetics Label Designing Teens/Adult Nail Art Capoeira Tuning& Instrument Care DIY: Potting Creations Voice Acting Jewelry Making Adult Mixelogy Insanity Workout Balance &Core Training Stand -Up: Comedian Training Industrial Graphics The Art of Listening Wire Works Mommy Fitness Landscape Design Group Karaoke Brand Creation Kuk Soo[ Won Financial Fitness for Women Broadway Moves Workshops Savate Kickboxing Adults/Mature Adults Friday Night Paint & SIp Hoop Dance safe Driving Techniques Marco Photography Monday Night Football: Sr. So IPad 101 Conference rentals Urban Gardens Palates Fusion Pet First Atd & CPR Photography Lifelong Learning Lecture Serl !Phone 101 DIY Home/Garden Art Power Yoga Knife Skills Expressive Drawing Art History Exploring Social Networking: Yogalates Rejuvenate Your Retirement Commercial Drawing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Senlorga[ance Framing & Matting Blogging Chair Yoga Home Decorating Home Arts: quilting Flower Arranging Act Outl: Improvisation Sculpture Functional Training: Senlors Ancestory/Genealogy Preschool Dancing Together Tumble & Dance Parents & Me Mandarin Peninsula Music Together Tiny Tots Ballet Baby& Me Mandarin Princess Pre -Ballet Drop & Go Creative Corner Tiny Tots Boogle My First Art Class Youth Kids Carpentry Ballet &Tap Manners are Fun Math olympiad LEGO Piano Hip Hop Boogle Common Core Reading Voice Lessons Pre -Ballet Chess Wizards Gultar/Ukelele Irish Dancing Youth/Teens Youth & Teens Ceramics Karate Debate STEM Plano Readiness Robotics Tech Builders Teens SAT/ACT Prep Mango Cartooning Video Game Design Babysltting Workshop Teens/Adult Karate Driver's Education Piano Voice Lessons Guitar/Ukelele Public Speaking Adult Adult Ceramics Adult Tap Meditation for Beginners Knit Wits Meeting Rentals Bellydance Language Classes Watercolor Public Meetings Boot Camp Bulsness Marketing Oils HomeBuyers BootnMp Cardio Kick Pet Health Workshop Drawing Employee Stock Awareness through Moveme Paper Crahing Couple Communication Adventures in Fitness Meeting Rentals Adults/Mature Adults Jewelry Knotting Um, Dancing Power Fusion JAmerican Strength & Wellness through Tal ChI/QI Gang C` 0 a C L 0 H a U E C R U f0 C E E m 0 U > U O O ` LO U 7 C 7 O) ICO r LL tt m O L m m O W 4 A O m¢ NWUV' N C O N ei3�0� a 0 0 w � 0, C M W cr 0 0 O m _ mQ"' <n OON ON Zrn¢IC03 y o o c un n N mo �� coi» cU n CO m o e» m m mcr th, L UV m C LCN'•c N•— N� � mCD U N m �an d m 2 m a Sv m c Lo > E� Loy o u o ami s 3 N<E Lo N v I.L ...�¢.,..C❑ 7HU X �t O C Uv EmZ-,r 6'o a c� c 0 E_Fnot Cl! �c c Ec�cmimCO � vm rn Lo mLo a l v eos E u O y N N 11 E M O N LoFLm N co L m L m N O L d'of -CH Uv 0 m0 co `mom O _ m N m Z `y N ¢¢ co. o U y E a Ca C N' m Ei. r cr m c O m m �Qm>.Ur`>. .` m� m U> co m m m aEO°o��0) ' E ID CDoc! v CD CD Lo oa ° aD '— V r a0 Z t- > N = m r�rnv N 000Ca`mc) a)¢ o U O r m o `o m NLnC Lf) iA m N m 7 C Vi L :2Ci C N 0 W Eor� m motet incn mLO Lo a O P� o ON CJmm CD dN N i,%Z 64 o ¢ v N U L 3 m :J• L _O m m h m a) m C 14 OO � N m m O G 1- a)Eoo m¢mmco C) 0. C. oC' No SZd� a O c m ¢ N (D0 7 LL w >'Qln d moo, o o fD O N cU�m roi �e»ZN» r L a a ¢ v 3 U rn rn o m m v T V en m m ` U) cn C C @ m W m]�M m -0U mmL2Er 7N In m-It N md: z0t» CD M IVT� mm 7 O TLo L.. o 0 m 5a a. m m m U r- LL C 7 N Q t m a" In c m w m 3oc m mSr�i _ E� O.LL¢N m L cU EN ao o O�C�Y—L C ca m `� E O�Uroido �') �v m 3 E ¢ m m c L U O O m o r a m 1l7 N N N i a L EO a � C N C N m N W (a 1� m�ODL9 m U C C D aft cm E c n O) C O 47 ma CD vJ Cu) C E m O 2U)mti) W N N 7 0 0 L 0 KZ NmZU O of N/ OI m m m a m n = c m m Q ioU =ate n w � F-M N H Z W H Z O V CONTENTS OVERVIEW AND PROCESS.................................................................................................1 SITE CONNECTIONS AND PARKING................................................................................ 3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCESS AND OPTIONS.........................................................5 PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTION..................................................................7 Building Style, Orientation, and Form................................................................................. 8 Program Organization........................................................................................................ 10 BuildingMateriality........................................................................................................... 16 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY............................................................................................. 17 SUSTAINABI LITY................................................................................................................ 18 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................18 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 20 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK a N W H W X W OVERVIEW AND PROCESS At the start of 2015, the City of Burlingame engaged Group 4 Architecture to develop the conceptual design for the Burlingame Community Center in Washington Park. The project builds upon the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan approved by the City Council in July 2014, aiming to confirm the building program, establish z the preferred conceptual floor plans, site plan, and building massing for both the CD community center and Washington Park improvements. LU 0 The existing recreation center is a much loved and well used community asset, serving Q residents for nearly 70 years. Set amidst groves of mature trees, the center also abuts the former Gunst Estate, a historical estate originally owned by cigar retailer Moses Gunst w who built his mansion there in 1904. The Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department Z currently offers a diverse range of programs, providing recreational and enrichment 0 opportunities for community residents of all ages. Unfortunately, the existing center v has reached its maximum capacity; the spaces are insufficient for programs, services, LU and events, which greatly limits the Parks and Recreation Department's ability to z LU adequately serve the community. Due to its lack of ADA compliance and limited v parking, it is inaccessible or difficult to access for some community members. Originally built in the late 1940s, the center has aged building systems (mechanical, plumbing, z electrical, and data systems), in addition to seismic safety issues. The character and ambiance of many spaces within the facility are dated and limit the revenue potential. O The proposed community center is being designed to meet the needs of today's v LU community and to have the flexibility to evolve to meet the ever -changing needs of future patrons. Located slightly to the west of the existing facility, the new multi- Q generational community center will be nearly 43% larger than the existing facility z through the addition of second floor. This will allow for a programming capacity of 510+ hours per week; the existing recreation center can only program about 300 hours m per week. The design of the building will be functional and beautiful, honoring the rich history and heritage of Washington Park and Burlingame. a D Ln W H U w x W May 2015 Fresh Market kiosk event The conceptual design process engaged staff, stakeholders, and the community - at -large at all levels through online surveys, drop -in events in Washington Park, intercept kiosks at the Fresh Market, and public meetings. Community members had the opportunity to weigh in on program and site diagrams, architectural styles, and massing options. Project oversight was provided by a Citizens Advisory Committee comprised of key community leaders. The CAC guided the overall development of the conceptual design and provided the design team with feedback throughout the entire process, ultimately helping refine the preferred conceptual design option. The following meetings were held during the conceptual design phase: • Two (2) Fresh Market outreach kiosks events • Two (2) community open houses at Washington Park • One (1) lunchtime kiosk at Burlingame High School • One (1) lunchtime kiosk at Burlingame Intermediate School • Two (2) Parks & Recreation Commission meetings • Five (5) Citizen Advisory Committee meetings • One (1) City Council study session meeting • One (1) Planning Commission meeting • One (1) Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission meeting • In addition to an online survey, which collected 122 responses on building design value options Overall, the conceptual design phase engaged nearly 870 Burlingame community members, including both in -person interactions and online survey respondents. N } LI I Softball Gunst Fields L Estate Horsephoe Pits - P°rPIOMen,d,' Bocce Courts i —..IPlayground 1� R T. Court .r _f ti...9 " �.•.' .: Tennis Courts _ � _ .,�� - � - Plaza • ' Burlingame Ave LION'S CLUB COMMUNITY CENTER Site plan SITE CONNECTIONS AND PARKING As established during the Master Plan process, the site location of the new community center is slightly to the west of the existing recreation center. The shift allows for the building to act as a nexus for the park, organizing events around outdoor terraces that connect interior and exterior spaces. The building itself acts as the easternmost anchor of the new "charm bracelet" of park amenities running through Washington Park, connecting downtown Burlingame to the community center. On the ground floor, all main programmatic spaces have direct indoor -outdoor connections to the terraces, allowing indoor programming to expand outwards into the park, and greatly expanding the programmable square footage of the community center. Visitors entering the community center from Burlingame Avenue or the adjacent parking lot will be greeted by a nicely scaled plaza, with planted seat walls that provide places for patrons to wait to be picked -up. Space for covered bike parking will be provided on the southeastern facade of the building, allowing for convenient and safe parking places for cyclists. Directly to the east of the new building, a small surface parking lot with vegetated landscape and trees takes the place of the existing facility location. The surface lot provides a buffer between the new building's activity and neighbors along the eastern edge of the park. A vegetated sound wall between the parking lot and immediate neighbors is being considered to reduce any noise form the surface lot. The lot will also provide a designated vehicle pick-up and drop-off zone immediately adjacent to the entry plaza. Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission commissioners have recommended exploring zoning the surface lot for short-term, senior, ADA, and staff parking only. Concord Way N-4 a N W W X LL M a Nf W D U W X W z (D V) w 0 J Q w U z O U clf z w U z O U w Q c� z_ J m PARKING OPTIONS - 143 spaces Option 1 Surface + Underground Parking FEN I4�1 k �/////yam, r. �� ♦O/1 35 SURFACE 70 PARKING SPACES 38 SURFACE PARKING SPACES BELOW BUILDING PARKINGSPACES Option 2 Surface + Below Courts Parking (]/2 level down) �1 i BELOW TENNIS COURTS PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES Recommended parking options 0 M The conceptual design maintains the recommended 143 off-street parking spaces set forth in the Master Plan to serve the new community center and Washington Park. This quantity of parking spaces was established through direct communication with the community, the City, and the parking consultant. During the conceptual design phase, a traffic analysis and report was created, which further validated the proposed parking approach. As outlined in the Master Plan, there are two options for meeting the parking need: • The first option places 70 parking spaces directly under the building, in addition to a new parking lot on the southeast edge of the park. The added construction cost of mechanical ventilation for under -building parking is offset somewhat by sharing a single structural system with the new building above. These spaces also have the advantage of being able to directly tie into the new community center through a lower level vestibule containing interior stairs and an elevator into the community center lobby and outdoor plaza. • The second option locates parking under the tennis courts on the western end of the park. Moving the courts up a half -level creates an opportunity to have terraced, amphitheater -style seating facing the park. Parking is depressed a half -level below grade to provide approximately 70 parking spaces. Natural ventilation reduces the overall cost relative to parking that is fully below grade. In both schemes, the remaining 73 spaces would be accommodated at the new parking lot on the southeast edge of the park and the parking lot adjacent to the Lions' Club (with a slight reduction in surface parking at this location to accommodate the relocated basketball court). To accommodate the frequent tour bus trips associated with recreation programming, the section of Burlingame Avenue directly in front of the community center will be zoned for bus loading and unloading. The curb in front of v PREFERRED DESIGN VALUES CONTEXTUAL TRADITIONALLY WARM + INSPIRATION Preferred design values INFLUENCED INVITING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCESS AND OPTIONS During the programming phase of the project, the consultant developed a series of design values, which included a set of images that encompassed an array of architectural styles (ranging from traditional to contemporary), and expressed options for the overall look and feel that the community center could have. Community members were asked during the outreach events to prioritize and rank the values, based on individual opinion of which value or image was most appropriate for the project's location in Washington Park and the Burlingame context as a whole. The results generated an understanding of the community's preferred design aesthetic, and helped guide the initial conceptual design options for the new community center. The highest ranked design values were Contextual Inspiration, Traditionally Influenced, Warm + Inviting, and Civic. Many of the design values can work in conjunction with one another, with the final design often encompassing multiple values. From the input on the design values, four massing options were developed for the CAC's review. Two of the options were more traditionally influenced, and two were contemporary in style. The CAC reviewed and commented on each option. a N W u W X W z 0 V) w 0 w Q c� z_ J rZ D m LM a D Ln W H U w X W Z (D V) w 0 J Q W U Z O U w Z w U z O U w Q cD Z_ J 00 Option Al: Traditionally Influenced "Mission." This option was redolent ofBurlingame's existing civic context and rooted in Spanish California mission styled architecture. It included a high -volumed entry tower reminiscent of a mission tower, and incorporated a Mission -style design vocabulary of overhangs, trellises, and simplified openings. The material palette consisted of stucco, red tile roofs, and wood accents. The CAC had a strong preference for this option, and especially liked the entry tower component. Other comments included more articulation of the overall building massing, the exploration of more traditional elements, such as arches, and making the trellis or colonnade more prominent. Option A2 : Traditionally Influenced "Arts & Crafts." Using the former Gunst Estate home and the arts and crafts bungalows of northern California as inspiration, this option had a strong gabled roof, but broke the massing down on the entries and park side of the building to create a more human -scaled experience. Second -story covered balconies provided upper -level outdoor space, referencing the sleeping porches of arts and crafts homes from the early 20t" century. The CAC particularly liked the community hall's massing, which broke down in scale on the park side, incorporating clerestory glazing and a continuous covered outdoor colonnade. The CAC disliked the entry, which many felt was too institutional. Several comments also centered on the dominance of the gabled roof, and suggested a more shallow pitch for the main roof forms to reduce its visual prominence. Option 131: Warm + Inviting "Gables." This more contemporary option also utilized a continuous gable roof as a strong design move; the elongated roof forms accentuated the linearity of the building form. On the park side corners of the two main wings, the roof edges were "deconstructed" or chamfered, allowing for natural light to enter the upper volumes, and created a more contemporary, civic feel to the building. A warm material palette of wood, glass, and color accent panels was proposed. CAC members were in agreement that this option was not the right solution for Washington Park, with many feeling that the gable roof was too dominant, similar to the feedback received for Option A2. a D tN W H W x W z cD Ln w 0 Option 132: Warm + Inviting "Pavilions In the Park." The most contemporary option presented to the CAC, this scheme broke the Center's building mass down to create w four distinct "pavilion" forms that corresponded to the four main programmatic zones: v Community Hall; main entry; enrichment classrooms; and fitness and arts spaces. Each mass contained a single shed roof form that sloped up towards the park. This z allowed for a smaller building mass along the street side, responding to the smaller - scaled residential neighbors while still maintaining a grand civic scale along the park. Generous overhangs and second level clerestory glazing further accentuated the open, U floating pavilion forms of the building. The CAC felt the building forms responded LU nicely to the park, and were well integrated with the park setting. In contrast to the Q other options, the shed roofs reduced the visual prominence of the roof forms, and z many CAC members liked the open transparency of the building. Some members felt m N a W U W x W z (D V) w 0 J Q w U z O U w z w U z i O U w Q cD z_ J m the forms were well articulated, while others voiced the opinion that the forms were too broken up. Many members liked the design, but worried that it did not represent Burlingame's values and context. The CAC selected the Mission and the Pavilions In the Park options for further development at the next round of community outreach, but encouraged the design team to explore hybrid options as well, combining key concepts or features of each option. At the second round of community outreach, residents were given the opportunity to comment and vote on the two refined designs (the Mission style and Pavilions in the Park options), as well as provide input on specific design approaches, such as indoor - outdoor connections or the Burlingame Avenue street relationship. The feedback collected from the community process showed that the majority or respondents supported the traditionally influenced Mission option. While many respondents liked aspects of the Pavilions in the Park option, there seemed to be an overall consensus that the Mission option was a better fit for Burlingame's existing architectural context and community values. With the initial input from the CAC and community received, the design team further developed and refined the Mission option. Additional design input was collected at subsequent CAC meetings, as well as at a City Council study session and a Planning Commission meeting, all of which helping shape the preferred conceptual design option. PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTION BUILDING STYLE, ORIENTATION, AND FORM The preferred Community Center design is a contemporary reinterpretation of Burlingame's civic use of Mission styled architecture (as seen in the Burlingame Library, Fire Station, and Caltrain station). While the design is rooted in the Mission style through its use of gabled roof forms, overhangs, deep inset windows, and primary materiality, the Community Center's stylistic reinterpretation occurs in several ways: the breakdown of building mass in response to the immediate site context and building program; generous fenestration and expression of interior program space; the contemporary use of building technologies and materials; and incorporating best practices for sustainable design. Massing The preferred conceptual design option will be two stories, with the main entry mass smaller in height than an adjacent four-story apartment building located across the street from the Lion's Club. The two Community Center wings will be kept to a minimal height to support the recreation activity inside without overwhelming its single-family residential neighbors. Keeping with the recommendation set forth in the Master Plan, the new building footprint is sited at the location of the existing building and the existing children's play area. As such, the park's mature tree canopy can be preserved as much as possible. In order to further support connections between the building and park, the Center's footprint is L-shaped. Through two wings and a central lobby, the majority of the Center's spaces are connected to the park with outdoor rooms and views. The building is articulated through a series of recesses along the street and park sides, helping to break down the overall building's mass and length. On the exterior, these indentations allow for planted areas or seat walls, while vertical circulation or smaller programmatic spaces on the interior respond to the articulated zones. In turn, the indentations further break down the continuous gabled roofs, creating distinct Go Q D tN W H W X W Rendering view of main entry and plaza off Burlingame Avenue volumes, similar in effect to the well received Pavilions in the Park scheme. On the south and northwest ends of the building, the overall volume steps down from two stories to a smaller mass to create a more residential scale for each end of the building's wings. The flat -roofed areas in between the gabled roofs provide functional space for rooftop mounted air handling and ventilation units. z Arched Great Windows Ln w The arch is one of the strongest design elements that can be found within Mission 0 style architecture, and many Burlingame residents expressed their fondness for it. The j Library, Fire Station, and Caltrain Station all incorporate the arch into their design vocabulary, and the new community center will do so as well. The design team sought v to be purposeful in the use of the arch, as to not downplay its significance, and thereby z used the arch in four distinct locations on the building. O The two most prominent arches are located at the central entry volume, and will serve as the main entrances, or portals, to the building from Burlingame Avenue and Washington Park. The glazing at these locations will be deeply inset within the arches, reinforcing the transition from solid to the void, and expressing the layering of building materials. The insets at these prominent openings will be celebrated with the use of terracotta accents, and allow for a rich play of shadows within the main lobby space. The two secondary arches will be concentrated at either end of the building's wings, O anchoring the first level corridors, and serving as key wayfinding elements on the v interior. w� • The southwest wing arch will be within the Creative Arts classroom, and is the first face of the building patrons will encounter approaching from the west along Z J Burlingame Avenue. The location of this arch, looking towards downtown, creates a strong architectural dialogue with Burlingame's other civic structures — including Ca the Caltrain Station just down the road — and asserts the building's civic character. 0� a D Ln W U W x W z (D V) w 0 J Q w U z O U w z w U z O U w Q cD z_ J m • The northwest wing arch is located within the Community Hall, and will be a beautiful focal point for the space, offering framed views outwards to the former Gunst Estate and park. This arch is centered on the raised platform, with the lower portion of glazing having the opportunity to open up to the exterior portion of the raised platform for indoor/outdoor connections. Facades and Accents The park and street facades of the community center wings take the existing site context into account while simultaneously responding to the programmatic functions occurring within the building. Along the street and parking lot facades, the bands of windows are smaller and strategically placed to allow daylight into the interior spaces, but are careful to not impose on neighboring residences. On the park side, where strong physical and visual connections are wanted, larger full -height glazed walls and framed windows are utilized, blurring the distinction between inside and outside. The main program spaces on the ground floor will have direct access to the outdoors through retractable, glazed sliding doors permitting the flow of space to the outdoors. The organizational pattern of the windows directly responds to the program function within the interior; more glazing provided for public spaces where programs and activities occur, and reduced or minimal glazing in non-public staff and back -of - house areas. In effect, a playful fenestration pattern is created, expressing the interior functions of the spaces, and reducing the institutional feel of the building. Many of the windows begin to wrap the corners of the pavilion -like volumes, sculpting the forms and further breaking down the building mass. The window patterning will continue to be developed in subsequent design phases, as the floor plans and spaces are refined, with input from the public and City Council. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION First Level Connecting the two wings at the center of the building is the main entry lobby. Visitors who enter the new community center from Burlingame Avenue will be welcomed into a light -filled, two story space with direct views through the building to the park itself. A secondary entrance to the park will directly link the community center to the "charm bracelet" park promenade. The lobby will serve as an informal gathering area or pre - function space, and will offer seating and tables for patrons to relax, work, or meet friends. The central stair will be an integral feature of the lobby, ascending to a balcony overlooking the lobby and park, connecting visitors to the upper level. To the left of the lobby entry from Burlingame Avenue will be the main service desk and elevator; to the right will be the lounge, which flows off the lobby to offer a more intimate gathering space for patrons. The lounge overlooks the surface parking lot and drop- off area, allowing patrons to wait inside for their rides during inclement weather. If under -building parking is included in the project, the elevator will be two-sided, connecting the garage to the interior lobby as well as an exterior vestibule, and could be operational after-hours. Branching off the lobby to the northwest, is the Community Hall wing of the building. Visitors will be afforded a direct view down the corridor to the beautiful Community Hall and its arched window with views out to the Gunst Estate. Positioned along the corridor is a meeting room that could comfortably accommodate 12 individuals. The ground floor's main restrooms are located further down the corridor, placed near the Community Hall for ease of access during large events. The Community Hall itself will be a double -height space able to serve a dining capacity of 266, or 400 guests 0 a D tN W H W x W Rendering view of main lobby Rendering view of the Community Hall interior a D tA W H W X W z (D V) w 0 J Q o_ w U z O U clf z w U z O U w Q c� z_ J m Rendering view of Kids Town classroom in a theater/auditorium style layout. For flexibility of use, the space will be divisible, allowing for two smaller programmable spaces. At the northwest end, a raised platform is centered on the arched window, with access to an outdoor platform, providing the opportunityto incorporate Music in the Park and other Parks and Recreation events into the building. To the west of the space, sliding glass doors will open to the Community Hall terrace, providing a seamless connection to the outdoors, and allowing for indoor events to expand outside. Integrated seat walls, planters, and fire pits are some of the landscaped features for this terrace. A catering kitchen and storage areas will border the Community Hall to the northeast, and will have direct access to the surface parking lot for operational flexibility and independent use of the Community Hall. Two park restrooms (accessed directly from the outdoors) on the park side are located directly to the south of the Community Hall, close to the park side building entrance for additional surveillance. Branching to the northwest, in the opposite direction from the lobby, is a wing of three classrooms that are primarily focused on youth and teen programming, in addition to the Creative Arts & Ceramics and staff spaces. All of these spaces have been intentionally placed along the park, allowing for dedicated outdoor space and views towards the park. • The Maker Room will provide a flexible classroom for a variety of activities with a focus on technology. Such programs could include a coding class, carpentry course, or any hands-on type of craft activity. • The Teen Scene, immediately adjacentto the Maker Room, offers teens a dedicated after school hangout and homework space. • The Kids Town classroom will provide space for early childhood education or preschool programming, and will feature a dedicated restroom for children, as well as a secure outside play yard. N Second floor plan N-4 a D tN W H W x W Z (D Ln w 0 w Q (D Z_ J Ca First floor plan M Anchoring the end of the wing, the Creative Arts & Ceramics space will offer a generous a amount of space for ceramics and pottery programming. A dedicated kiln room and oversized storage area will support the space. The Creative Arts room will have direct Daccess to a large outdoor arts yard, allowing for art activities to occur outside during N warm weather. Staff space makes up the remaining portion of the wing, and is oriented LU along the Burlingame Avenue side of the building. The design team worked directly with Recreation staff on the layout of these spaces, uand it's envisioned that during the summer months, the classrooms and Creative Arts x space in this wing will be used for the youth summer camps, consolidating the more W active, youth -oriented programming to one part of the building, and allowing the Z (D V) w 0 J Q w U Z O U w Z w U Z O U w Q CD Z_ J 00 remaining Community Hall wing and upper levels to be open for other recreation programming. It is important to emphasize that all program spaces within the community center are envisioned as multi -use space, available to patrons of all ages when not programmed for a specific age group. Second Level On the second level, at the top of the central stair, is the Large Meeting Room that can serve as a large classroom or secondary event space, allowing for lifelong learning lectures or space for the Parks and Recreation Department Commission meetings. Overlooking the lobby to the interior and the entry plaza to the exterior is the enclosed Active Lounge, which will primarily provide programming for senior activities such as cards, billiards, and informal gathering. The Active Lounge's location at the nexus of the building provides for dynamic views to the interior and exterior, and allows for ease of access from the elevator, which is located immediately adjacent to the entry of the lounge. Continuing off of the lobby and Active Lounge is the Fine Arts Classroom, providing ample space for painting, drawing, and other fine arts courses. Overlooking the park and tree tops, the space will be an inspirational setting for creating art. Next to the Fine Arts Classroom is a dedicated Musical Arts studio, for music lessons and classes. At the end of the second story wing is a Dance & Fitness Studio set amongst the trees, which will contain a sprung wood floor and a mirror wall for dance classes and fitness focused programming. Special attention will be given to the acoustical attenuation and vibration isolation between the Dance & Fitness Studio and spaces below it. Three separate storage closets support the space, allowing for an abundance of dedicated storage for various service provider equipment. The Studio has access to a small balcony along the park side for patrons to step outside for a breath of fresh air before or after a workout. Along the Burlingame Avenue side of the wing is a divisible Enrichment Classroom, which will provide the space and the necessary technology for a multi -purpose training classroom environment. Overall The proposed total square footage of the building is currently 35,700 square feet, providing for an increase of nearly 11,000 square feet of program space from the existing condition today. As previously mentioned, the gain of program square footage is possible through the addition of a second story. The new community center's overall building footprint is around 25,000 square feet, compared to the existing recreation center's footprint of just over 24,000 square feet today. IfI A. a N W H V W X W z CD V) w 0 J Q w U z O U w z w U z O U w Q O z_ J m Rendering view of the Community Hall wing and outdoor terraces BUILDING MATERIALITY The selection of building materials for the new community center reflects the Spanish California mission style inspiration as well as Burlingame's existing civic architecture and nearby downtown character. Durability and ease of maintenance will be of utmost importance. The primary material for the building is stucco, with a precast stone base along the entire ground level of the building, creating a strong, continuous datum line along the length of the building. The roof material will be high quality concrete tiles, similar in look and color to clay roof tiles. The recessed indentations between pavilions and accent material between glazing bands will provide an opportunity to introduce more contemporary materials. One option for the secondary material between the volumes will be terracotta panels, which relate in color and texture to the roof tiles and clay materiality of historic mission structures. Inset terracotta accent or richly colored integral cement fiber board panels could also be used between segments of glazing. Daylighting is paramount to sustainably illuminating the interiors, particularly the multi -purpose classrooms, Community Hall, and arts spaces. In order to balance the desire for transparency with the need to control glare and solar heat gain on the east and south facades, integrated metal sunscreens will protect the glass windows and will be painted with a corrosion -resistant paint. Along the west elevations of the Creative Arts and Community Hall elevations, where window walls open to the exterior, large trellises will further reduce the solar gain into the spaces. The trellises create another opportunity to incorporate a more contemporary vocabulary within the building through their use of steel and wood members. On the interior, an elegant material palette is envisioned, allowing for a contemporary feel to the 21 stcentury community space. Terrazzo, large format tiles, orstained concrete could be used for the lobby and ground floor circulation space, with wood flooring in the Community Hall. Accent or feature walls could incorporate wood -veneered panels, creating a warm and inviting feel to many of the public spaces. Ceiling treatments may I* yd4:4L■]:i7_1 111:11Rd41 INTERIOR INSPIRATION yigloo I. a 41k Exterior and interior material palette inspiration EXTERIOR PALETTE 2 SW pop INTERIOR■ e 's.cs A: W include inset wood slats in the lobby, lounges, Community Hall, and arts classrooms, with acoustical tile in meeting and classroom spaces. Public art opportunities will be identified within the building, allowing for local artists to contribute to the beauty of the space with commissioned paintings or sculptures. In subsequent design phases, the design team will look to the Burlingame community and City Council for further direction on exterior and interior materiality, integrating input on final material selections and colors. OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY An important innovation in the functional planning of community and recreation centers today is the ability to close down certain zones while keeping others open along with their associated services. In addition to times when the entire building is open and staffed, there may be periods when, for instance, a public meeting or wedding reception in the Community Hall runs beyond the Community Center's open hours. In these instances, the other program spaces can be closed while the restrooms and parking remain available to guests. Roll -down or sliding gates and partitions (concealed in the ceiling or wall) can be utilized to block off the classroom wings, allowing for the lobby or Community Hall to remain open after hours. The Community Hall maintains a secondary access off the surface lot, allowing the space to function with the lobby and main entry secured. Access to the under -building garage will be able to operate independent of the community center building. An exterior vestibule, accessed from the outside at the entry plaza and serviced by the two-sided elevator and separate set of stairs, allows the under -building garage to be accessible when the Community Center is closed. Regarding staffing, the central service desk is strategically placed in the lobby in order to maintain sight lines along both wings of the building, as well as the central stair. This strategy supports the new, larger building to operate with staff levels similar to today's Burlingame Recreation Center, while providing significantly more public amenities. a tN W H W X W z xn w 0 w Q c� z_ J rZ D co S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y a D Ln W V W x W Z (D V) w 0 J Q w U Z O U w Z w U z O U w Q (D Z_ J m The use of sunscreens and trellises will enable effective natural daylighting and are just one element of a comprehensive strategy to make the new Community Center a LEED Gold (or higher) rated sustainable building. Overhangs will further shade the windows on all sides of the buildings, while light shelves will be used on the interior of classroom and staff spaces to project daylight further into the building. During the next design phase, the design team will conduct an Integrated Design Workshop with the client and engineering team to confirm goals and objectives for efficiency, sustainability, functionality, performance, first and life cycle costs, and other project considerations, and identify strategies and options for building and site systems consistent with those objectives. One of the sustainable strategies that may be utilized are rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels for onsite renewable energy. The gabled roofs and general southeast orientation of the building provide an optimal condition to incorporate a PV array. Many of the interior spaces have the opportunity for natural cross ventilation, including the Dance & Fitness Studio, Large Meeting Room, and Community Hall. Naturally ventilating these larger, active spaces would allow for improved air quality and lower cooling loads. Site sustainable features will include bioretention areas that filter and clean the rainwater runoff from the roofs and the parking lot before it flows back to the Bay. Pervious paving for the terraces and parking lot could be utilized, functioning similarly to the bioretention areas, filtering the water before it enters the groundwater supply. Covered bicycle parking and electrical vehicle charging stations would promote alternate means of transportation. For the interiors, materials and furnishings will be selected for sustainable production and the preservation of indoor air quality. CONCLUSION The conceptual design process for the new Burlingame Community Center has enabled residents to accomplish the first steps toward successfully realizing a shared vision for Burlingame's future. Their participation ensures this vision will address their unique needs and celebrate community values. The Burlingame Community Center will be the newjewel of Burlingame, welcoming and serving all ages and backgrounds of the city's diverse population. From this initial design concept we have been able to create a basic cost estimate for the community center building and parking. This estimate and the building's design were based upon several preliminary assumptions about the site, surrounding development, program requirements and the timing of the funding and construction of the project. These concepts will evolve in the following design phases, and will allow for continued input from the community and City Council, particularly in relation to the fenestration, materiality, color schemes, and sustainable features. Though this is just the beginning of a long process,the Burlingame Community Center conceptual design project was a momentous start, enjoying widespread support from the Burlingame community. co PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK N W U a Z W a a Q Z CD V) w 0 J CL CL w U Z O U w H Z w U Z O U w Q (D Z_ J m APPENDIX 1 : COST MODELS LOW HIGH Community Center Building (Including Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment) $20,863,000 $22,827,000 Community Center Hard Cast Contingency $3,068,000 $313631000 Site & Park (incl. Site work, Washington Park Improvements, Surface/UnderTennis Court Parking @ Lions and Surface/UnderbuiIding Parking @ Community Center) $13,329,000 $14,863,OD0 Site & Park Hard Cost Contingency $1,995,000 $2,229,000 Soft Costs $12,292,OD0 $13,458,0130 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS* *Costs in Jan 2018$ PARKING SCENARIOS & COST FOR MASTER PLAN BUDGET (Mote these numbers are NOT for the reduced cast strategies which has different numbers for how parking is distributed since we are utilizing the existing fit parking spaces adjacent to the Lions building to meet the overall parking requirement) OPTION 1: 35 Surface Parking @ Lions Building Parking= 143 SPACES Parking Hard Cast- Option 1 Parking Contingency- Option 1 PARKING TOTAL- OPTION 1 38 Surface Parking @ CC, 70 Under Bldg $51,550,000 I $56,740,000 LOW HIGH $6,039,000 $6,084,000 S906,000 $1,040,000 $6,944,000 $7,924,000 OPTION 2: 70 Under Court Parking, 29 Surface Parking @ Lions Bldg; 44 Surface Parking @ CC = 143 SPACES MMEW%mmus Parking Hard Cost- Option2 $4,635,000 $5,484,000 Parking Contingency- Option 2 S696,400 S823,000 PARKING TOTAL- OPTION 2 $5,334,000 $6,307,000 COMBINED OPTION 7 & 2: 70 Under Court Parking, 29 Surface Parking @ Lions Bldg; 38 Surface Parking @ CC; 70 Under Bldq Parking= 207 SPACES Parking Hard Casts- COMBINED Parking Contingency- COMBINED PARKING TOTAL- COMBINED SM,202,000 $11,736,000 $1,53D,i}04 $1,761,000 $11,732,000 $13,497,000 O N APPENDIX 2: PARKING OPTIONS PARKING OPTIONS - 143 spaces 35 SURFACE PARKING SPACES 70 PARKING SPA[ ES 29SURFACE BELOW TEN NISCQURTS PARKING SPACES T�Y 7 7O PKNG 70 PARK ING SPACES 38SURFACE BELOW BUILUING PAR KING SPACES 44SURFACE PARKING SPACES to W V 0 Z W a a a Z (D w 0 J Q H d W U Z O U w F- Z w V Z O U w Q (D Z_ J Co r N C4 6 R .6 u p -4: A R C H I T E C T U 9. 9 R E 5 E A R C H + P L ANN I N G, INC 211 LINDEN AVENUE SO. SAN FRANCISCO C A 9 6 0 8 0 U 5 A T: 650.671.0709 F= 650.871 .791 1 12421-02 BURL- INGAME AGENDA NO: STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 19, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 19, 2018 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Subject: City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan and Next Steps RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the presentation on the conceptual design options for a new community center and provide feedback on the next steps. BACKGROUND Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014. On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a study session on the community center. The attached staff report from the study session provides a thorough background of the master and conceptual plan processes (Exhibit A). At the study session, the City Council provided the following input on the conceptual plan: create a more active presence on Burlingame Avenue, strengthen the civic aspect of the design, and create more depth and detail in the facades. With this feedback, Group 4 continued to refine the conceptual plan for the building. On August 25, 2015, staff brought the conceptual plan to the Planning Commission to gather further input. On April 14, 2016, staff presented the completed traffic study to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) to seek additional input regarding parking options, the impact of construction on parking, and the phasing options of the project. TSPC Commissioners offered suggestions including seeking options for bike and pedestrian access. Overall, the Commission favored the under the community center building parking option. They also offered suggestions if both parking options (under the community center building and one-half level under the tennis courts) are considered, including looking at permitting for the lot under the tennis courts and/or seeking meters for the tennis court lot to offset the cost of added parking. Additionally, Commissioners expressed interest in using the tennis court parking area as an option for downtown parking. 1 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018 The CAC met again on April 20, 2016 to discuss the input from the City Council, Planning Commission, and TSPC. From the comments generated at the previous meetings and additional input from the CAC, Group 4 further refined the conceptual plans. nisr_i issinm Conceptual Plan The proposed community center is being designed to meet the needs of today's community and to have the flexibility to evolve to meet the ever -changing needs of future patrons. The new community center's site has been developed with direct, ongoing consultation with the community -at -large, park users, neighbors, and City staff. Located slightly to the west of the existing facility, the new multi -generational community center will be nearly 43% larger than the existing facility through the addition of a second floor and will act as a nexus for the park, organizing events around the patios that connect interior and exterior spaces. Additionally, a small surface parking lot with ample trees and landscaping will be located adjacent to and east of the new building, providing a buffer between the new building's activity and the homes directly adjacent to the east edge of the park. A wide, organically -shaped promenade clearly links the park's existing and new amenities with the landscape and mature trees. From west to east, this new promenade links the tennis courts, horseshoe pits, bocce courts, a basketball court, the Lions Club, picnic area, a fenced children's play area, and the new community center with a well -lit, safely -designed linkage for both pedestrians and cyclists. Parking As outlined in the Master Plan, there are two options for meeting the parking need: 1. The first option places 70 parking spaces directly under the building. The added construction cost of mechanical ventilation for under -building parking is offset somewhat by sharing a single structural system with the new building above. These spaces also have the advantage of being able to directly tie into the new community center through a lower level vestibule containing interior stairs and an elevator into the community center lobby and outdoor plaza. The cost estimate ranges from $6,944,000 to $7,924,000. 2. The second option locates parking under the tennis courts on the western end of the park. Moving the courts up a half -level creates an opportunity to have terraced, amphitheater -style seating facing the park. With this option, parking is depressed a half -level below grade to provide approximately 70 parking spaces. Natural ventilation reduces the overall cost relative to parking that is fully below grade. The cost estimate ranges from $5,334,000 to $6,307,000. In both scenarios, the remaining 73 spaces would be accommodated at the new parking lot on the southeast edge of the park adjacent to the new building and at the parking lot adjacent to the Lions Club (with a slight reduction in surface parking at this location to accommodate the relocated basketball court). A third cost -saving option, which was not included in the Master Plan, involves using surface only parking. In this scenario, parking would be provided next to the Lions Club building as well as 2 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018 east of the new community center. This option would require a smaller building footprint and a larger surface parking lot next to the community center. Building Design The community center design is a contemporary reinterpretation of Burlingame's civic use of Mission styled architecture (as seen in the Burlingame Library, Fire Station 34, and Burlingame Avenue Caltrain station). While the design is rooted in the Mission style through its use of gabled roof forms, overhangs, deep inset windows, and primary materiality, the community center's stylistic reinterpretation occurs in several ways: the breakdown of building mass in response to the immediate site context and building program, arrangement and expression of interior program space, the contemporary use of building technologies and materials, and incorporating best practices for sustainable design. Massing, Arched Great Windows, Facades and Accents and Building Materiality A complete description of the massing, arched great windows, facades and accents, and building materiality can be found in the executive summary attached to this report. Sustainability One area the Council may wish to consider is whether the building should be LEED-certified and/or Zero Net Energy (ZNE). LEED is a green certification program managed by the US Green Building Council. LEED-certified buildings are considered leading examples of environmental sustainability, water and energy efficiency, and healthy and productive spaces for occupants. A ZNE building is a building that produces as much energy as it consumes by being extremely energy -efficient and generating onsite renewable energy. To achieve ZNE, a building must be well designed by an experienced team and generally includes extra insulation, high performance windows, natural and LED lighting, smart HVAC systems, and onsite solar power systems. A ZNE building may cost incrementally more (approximately $2-8 per sq. ft. according to some studies) than a conventional building. However, the operational costs of a ZNE building are significantly lower than in a conventional building over the long term. The current cost estimates for the project assume that the community center is built to the LEED Gold standard. Project Budget The project's cost estimate has been revised as of January 2018. The proposed community center building itself is estimated to range from $20,863,000 to $22,827,000 (including FF&E). The site work, including parking and relocation of the playground and basketball court, ranges from $13,329,000 to $14,863,000 depending on which parking option, described above, is selected. The total project budget including soft costs and contingencies is estimated to range from $51,550,000 to $56,740,000. Cost Reduction Strategies Staff and Group 4 have identified two cost -reduction strategies that reduce the scope of the construction area in the park. All construction identified in the Master Plan that is west of the Lions Club is removed from the project scope to achieve the cost reduction. 1. Reduce the project's scope by limiting the project to a new community center with the same building square footage as described above. Under this option, the project includes both 3 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018 surface parking and parking under the community center. This option also includes relocating the playground and reducing the size of the basketball court to half-size. No site work would be done west of the Lions Club building. The estimated total project cost with this open is $38,037,000 to $41,711,000. 2. Reduce the project's scope by limiting the project to a new community center with a reduced building square footage (approximately 3,700 square feet less) from that described above in order to allow for a larger surface parking lot adjacent to the community center. Under this option, there would be no subterranean parking. This option does include relocating the playground, reducing the size of the basketball court to half-size, and the loss of the drop-off area in the surface parking lot. No site work would be done west of the Lions Club building. The estimated total project cost with this option is $30,097,000 to $32,924,000. Other Cost Reduction Strategies Other cost reduction strategies, in addition to reducing the project scope, have been explored. Research on these options indicates that, while there may be some cost savings (10-25%), they would not be appropriate for the proposed new community center for the following reasons: Pre-engineered Buildings: Pre-engineered buildings are metal buildings that consist of a structural steel framing system supporting a metal roofing system, with a variety of wall panel choices. Pre-engineered buildings lend themselves to single story, large volume spaces such as gyms or warehouses. The proposed community center is a series of program spaces, with one large -volume space for the community hall. It has been designed as a two-story building in order to minimize its footprint, and therefore minimize the impact of the proposed new center on the park. Modular Buildings: Modular buildings are sectional prefabricated buildings that consist of multiple sections called modules. The modules are fabricated offsite and transported to the site for assembly. Modular construction lends itself to smaller, repetitive types of volumes that deliver efficiency in their ability to be reproduced. Concrete Tilt -up Buildings: In tilt -up construction, the building's walls are poured directly at the jobsite in large slabs of concrete called "tilt -up panels" or "tiltwall panels." These panels are then raised into position around the building's perimeter, forming the exterior walls. Concrete tilt -up construction lends itself to buildings with simple geometries and openings. The proposed new community center's massing has been carefully designed and sculpted to be respectful of the residential neighbors and to respond to the indoor/outdoor connections that exist on the park side of the building. Next Steps Based on the direction and preference of the City Council, staff can proceed in one of two ways: Option 1. Update the current conceptual design for the new community center project based on the input received from the Council tonight. This effort would include the consultant team working with staff to develop an updated conceptual design package and sharing it with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the community, and the E City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018 Planning Commission. Once the conceptual design is updated to integrate review comments by the various stakeholders described above, the conceptual plan would be brought back to the City Council for review and consideration. The anticipated timeline to complete this work is 3-4 months at a cost of $50,000. Option 2. Revise the current conceptual design for the new community center project based on the input received from the Council tonight. This option includes a redesign of the community center building and would require the consultant team to develop a revised conceptual design package that would reflect the input received from the Council. This effort would include the consultant team working with staff and the City Council to develop the revised conceptual design. Study sessions would be scheduled early on with the City Council to integrate their early input into the development of the revised design. The revised conceptual design package would then be shared with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the community, and the Planning Commission for their input. The revised conceptual design package would be brought back to the City Council for their review and consideration. The anticipated timeline to complete this work is 6-8 months at a cost of $90,000- $100,000. Once the conceptual design has been approved by the City Council, the consultant team and staff can begin to complete the CEQA requirements and the construction document phase of the project. Staff anticipates that once the City Council accepts the conceptual design, the construction document phase and CEQA approvals will take approximately 18 -20 months. Council Direction In order to proceed with the plans to build a new community center, staff requests direction on several questions. Many of these are iterative; the answer to one question may change the answer to another. Thus, Council may wish to consider the questions in a different order than presented below. 1. What is the preferred parking option? 2. Should the scope of the project as described in the cost reduction strategies above be revised? If so, in what way? 3. Does the Council wish to keep the current conceptual design or revise it? If the Council wishes to revise the design, what is the Council interested in seeing? 4. Should sustainability features remain in the design? If so, is LEED Gold appropriate, or is the Council interested in a lower (Certified or Silver) or higher (Platinum) certification level or the building achieving zero net energy? 5. What is the recommended maximum budget for this project? FISCAL IMPACT In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a '/4 cent sales tax measure that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal - setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager's recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds. (The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018.) 5 City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018 As noted at the goal -setting session, an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds for the project would yield bond proceeds of approximately $15 million. Therefore, in order to fund the Community Center project, the City will need to rely on a combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the Capital Investment Reserve. Staff thus recommended that the Council consider an additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million, with the remaining financing for the Community Center project to be provided from the Capital Investment Reserve or some other source not yet determined. Exhibits: Staff Report from the August 17, 2015 Study Session Executive Summary Co MISSION DESIGN OPTION Ali dim ik, N-� -Ll fflu;, VW. 4RK wpm PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION VIA � it, il. ---a %ik.;— AM LIK 1,14 PIP 30 Ale 51JRLINGA� Al' IA&I jwppf--,— —I- E, 1 —11 1 . Ili [.I q d ��yy ,r_ nx F//--. '00, -w- - --------- - ------ 'AMR I