NAPA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY MASTER PLAN UPDATE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING MARCH 20, 2012

Transcription

1 NAPA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY MASTER PLAN UPDATE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING MARCH 20, 2012

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Programming and Master Plan for the Expansion and Consolidation of the Napa County Health and Human Services Agency Campus Project Team Representatives TLCD Architecture Brian Wright, Project Manager Nate Bisbee, Master Plan Architect Alan Butler, Lead Programmer Suzanne Nagorka, Interior Design Napa County HHSA Napa County Public Works Napa County Conservation, Development, and Planning Napa County Executive Office

3 TLCD ARCHITECTURE WORKING IN THE NAPA COUNTY COMMUNITY Napa Valley College Queen of the Valley Wellness Center Vintage Hall

4 PROJECT SCHEDULE BY PHASE Completed Completed In Process Site & Building Evaluation 1 st Round Functional Group Meetings Community Meeting / EIR Process Started Visioning Meetings: 1. HHSA Design Team 2. HHSA Senior Managers 3. County Executive Committee Site Feasibility Studies 2 nd Round Functional Group Meetings Community Meeting Discovery Visioning Exploration Sept. Dec December 2011 Jan. March 2012 Master Plan Phasing Plan Community Meeting Environmental Impact Report Completed Phase 1 Bridging Documents Community Meeting Board of Supervisors Presentation Select Design/Build Team Construction Documents Construction Planning Design Construction April Sept To be Determined To be Determined

5 Discovery Phase Building and Site Discovery (completed) Site Surveys Building Evaluations Historical Assessment

6 Discovery Phase Historical Assessment Buildings A, B, and C Crescent Driveway

7 A B C Discovery Phase Historical Assessment Buildings A, B, and C Crescent Driveway

8 Discovery Phase Historical Assessment Buildings A, B, and C Crescent Driveway

9 Discovery Phase Historical Assessment Summary: The Crescent driveway and Buildings A, B, and C have been identified as contributors to a National and California Registereligible historic district Campus Expansion will not necessarily trigger improvements or preservation requirements Buildings will require deferred maintenance and structural upgrades if retained Demolition, per CEQA, would be a significant impact, and would require the County to adopt overriding considerations finding that other alternatives are infeasible.

10 Discovery Phase Public Outreach HHSA Project Website Community Meeting November 17: Project Overview and EIR Scope Next Community Meeting: March 22

11 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM NOVEMBER 17 COMMUNITY MEETING AND EIR SCOPING HIGHEST AREA OF CONCERN FROM ATTENDEES AT COMMUNITY MEETING (IN ORDER OF PRIORITY): 1. Building Proximity to Adjacent Property 2. Neighborhood Traffic Impact 3. Maintain Park-like Quality 4. Bicycle Friendly 5. Daytime Noise and Activity 6. Historic Buildings

12 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM NOVEMBER 17 COMMUNITY MEETING AND EIR SCOPING SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM EIR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (NOT ORDERED BY PRIORITY): Restore/Maintain/Re-Use the Historic Buildings Traffic and Noise Impacts Construction Impacts Sustainable Campus Strategies

13 Discovery Phase Functional Group Meetings (completed) Facility Tours Review Existing Staffing and Operations Functional Relationships and Adjacencies

14 Visioning Phase (completed) Site and Buildings Divisional Adjacencies

15 Visioning Phase (completed) Workplace Standards Office Environments

16 Best Practices Studies Napa and Sonoma Counties studies look at typical office usage Have a high ratio of open work stations How is HHSA Different? High visitor and client load Large waiting rooms Need for many confidential client meeting areas Security considerations

17 THEMES AND GOALS EMERGING FROM VISIONING AND FUNCTIONAL GROUP MEETINGS 1. Integration of Programs, Accessible and Efficient 2. Welcoming, Open, Accessible Campus 3. Campus as a Public Resource 4. Promote Employee Wellness 5. Open and Collaborative Workspaces 6. Balance between Public Access and Security 7. Priority to Replace Modular Buildings 8. Current needs reflect a higher square footage than existing occupied space.

18 SPECIFIC PLANNING CRITERIA EMERGING FROM VISIONING AND FUNCTIONAL GROUP MEETINGS 1. Annual Growth Projection: 2.38% per year 2. Current Program Needs (includes on and off-site): 149,000 gsf 3. Estimated Year 2028 Build-Out: 200,000 gsf 4. Parking Criteria Current on-site parking: 237 spaces Current parking need (based on 149,000 gsf): 455 spaces Recommended parking supply at 2028: 610 spaces

19

20 Existing Campus

21 Adjacent Parcel 3.3 acres Existing Campus 8.5 acres

22 Site Feasibility Studies (assumes 2028 Build-Out) Alternative 1 Build on Existing Site, Retain Buildings A, B, C, and Crescent Driveway Alternative 2 Build on Existing Site, Remove Buildings A, B, C, and Crescent Driveway Alternative 3 Include Adjacent Property, Retain Buildings A, B, C, and Crescent Driveway Alternative 4 Include Adjacent Property, Remove Buildings A, B, C, and Crescent Driveway

23 SITE ALTERNATIVE 1 SUMMARY 1. All work on existing site 2. Buildings A, B and C renovated 3. Primarily 4-Story and 3-Story New Buildings 4. 3-Level Parking Structure (325 spaces) 5. Surface Parking (285 spaces) 6. Landscape: Campus Quadrangle linked to Crescent 7. Circulation: Axial with Public to Private transition

24 ALTERNATIVE 1

25 ALTERNATIVE 1

26 ALTERNATIVE 1

27 ALTERNATIVE 1

28 SITE ALTERNATIVE 2 SUMMARY 1. All work on existing site 2. Buildings A, B and C and Crescent Removed 3. Primarily 3-Story New Buildings, with some 2-story components 4. 2-Level Parking Structure (215 spaces) 5. Surface Parking (395 spaces) 6. Landscape: Campus Courtyard defined by Buildings 7. Circulation: Diagonal Circulation Pattern

29 ALTERNATIVE 2

30 ALTERNATIVE 2

31 ALTERNATIVE 2

32 ALTERNATIVE 2

33 SITE ALTERNATIVE 3 SUMMARY 1. Purchase 3.3 acre school parcel 2. Buildings A, B and C renovated 3. Combination of 3-Story and 2-Story New Buildings 4. Surface Parking (610 spaces) 5. Landscape: Organic Campus Courtyard Network with connection to Crescent Lawn 6. Circulation: New strong West Entry

34 ALTERNATIVE 3

35 ALTERNATIVE 3

36 ALTERNATIVE 3

37 ALTERNATIVE 3

38 SITE ALTERNATIVE 4 SUMMARY 1. Purchase 3.3 acre school parcel 2. Buildings A, B and C and Crescent removed 3. New 2-story Buildings 4. Surface Parking (610 spaces) 5. Landscape: Diverse with broad range of Outdoor areas 6. Circulation: New strong West Entry

39 ALTERNATIVE 4

40 ALTERNATIVE 4

41 ALTERNATIVE 4

42 ALTERNATIVE 4

43 Site Feasibility Studies Evaluation Criteria 1. Program Adjacencies 2. Temporary Facilities 3. Neighborhood Compatibility 4. Historic District 5. Public Amenities 6. Total Project Cost 7. Future Growth Capacity 8. Phase 1 Costs

44 COMPARISON BY EVALUATION CRITERIA Rating Legend Least Successful Most Successful

45 NEXT STEPS EXPLORATION PHASE 1. Community Meeting March Public Comments 3. Finalize Program and Growth Projections 4. Develop Phasing Concepts 5. Board of Supervisors Meeting April Identify Preferred Site Concept 7. Master Plan Development

46