South Pasadena ad hoc panel narrows library-park options, flags historic building and parking trade‑offs

South Pasadena — Consultants and members of the city’s Library Park ad hoc committee on Tuesday reviewed community engagement results and three development options for a reimagined Library Park campus, recommending a shared library/community center without a full gym and asking consultants to return with stronger analyses of a renovate‑and‑retain option for the 1930s library building.

Consultants told the committee they gathered nearly 2,600 participant votes from in‑person outreach and online survey work and offered three site strategies: (A) demolish and build new; (B) demolish the 1980s addition while retaining and integrating the 1930s historic portion; and (C) retain and renovate the entire existing building. The project team advised that a full gym (8,000–12,000 square feet) would likely not fit well on the Library Park site and recommended pursuing gym partnerships with schools, the YMCA or other providers instead.

The options matter because they change the scale, costs and timeline of the project. The consultants presented planning targets developed from peer comparisons and program‑level analysis: a standalone library model would range roughly 27,000–33,000 square feet; sharing spaces with a co‑located community/senior center reduces the recommended library footprint by about 20% to roughly 21,800–27,200 square feet. For the senior/community center (excluding a gym), the recommended range is 19,200–26,000 square feet. The project team said adding exterior program areas (reading gardens, outdoor performance space) would increase usable capacity without necessarily adding equivalent interior square footage.

Why it matters: the committee must balance community expectations for preserving historic character, providing modern library and recreation services and the city’s likely fiscal capacity. Consultants warned renovation of the 1980s portions could prove structurally and financially challenging: ‘‘As soon as we do a major renovation of a building, though, we are gonna trigger new code compliance requirements,’’ a consultant said, noting contingencies on renovation can approach or exceed new‑construction costs.

What the committee heard and where opinion split - Community input and survey: Justin Nuttall, the team’s engagement lead, told the committee, "The total number of participants online and in person was almost 2,600," with 613 online survey responses counted so far. Top library uses identified were books for all ages, quiet reading/work/study and children’s play and learning; top park uses included preserving existing trees (32.5%) and markets/fairs (29.9%). - Historic resources: John (historic resource consultant) summarized historic‑resource constraints, saying, "the library site has contributes to 3 different historical resources." He noted the library building includes a 1930s community room and later 1980s additions; the 1930s elements and the site’s contribution to the Mission West Historic District are the pieces consultants flagged as most sensitive. - Gym and program choices: Consultants recommended omitting a full gym from the Library Park site because a gym’s footprint would push the site ‘‘over capacity’’ and complicate parking and tree preservation. Committee members generally supported pursuing off‑site partnerships for full gym needs and retaining indoor multiuse fitness/studio space on site.

Arguments for and against retaining the 1930s building Supporters of retention emphasized civic character and the visible civic presence along El Centro Avenue; they urged exploring design solutions that integrate old and new. Others warned that retaining the 1930s building — or portions of it — could lock the project into costly compromises, limit efficient modern layouts and reduce the area available for new program spaces. The consultant team said they have studied options that keep the 1930s building and still achieve program goals but agreed more analysis is needed to demonstrate operational efficiency under option B (retain the 1930s core, remove 1980s addition).

Parking and budget notes Consultants reported about 80 on‑street spaces immediately adjacent to the site and that the zoning code does not currently require additional parking for this project. They characterized underground parking as ‘‘very expensive’’ and likely cost‑prohibitive; a consultant gave a rough industry figure discussed during the meeting of roughly $125,000 per space in recent nearby projects (not a firm estimate). Committee members asked that the team note parking constraints and the city’s public garage capacity in materials to the community.

Next steps and committee direction Committee members directed the consultants to: (1) develop stronger talking points and technical backing for option B so the group can explain tradeoffs to the public; (2) treat option C (retain and renovate the entire existing building) as a less likely path because of likely cost and code triggers unless the team can demonstrate otherwise; (3) present a clearer comparison of the committee’s recommended option and the city’s current combined footprint (roughly 30,000 square feet now) at the next meeting; and (4) keep program ranges flexible to align with the city’s still‑to‑be‑determined funding capacity. Several members asked the team to add simple massing/bubble diagrams and a site section that includes the adjacent school property to help the public visualize scale.

Public comment One online commenter suggested the team reassess whether side windows and balconies of the 1930s building should be treated as contributing historic features, saying removing some side elements could increase redevelopment options while keeping the primary front facade.

Where this goes from here Consultants will return with additional analysis focused on option B (retain 1930s elements, remove 1980s addition), clearer comparative materials (existing square footage vs. proposed ranges), and visual massing studies for public review at the next scheduled ad hoc meeting in July. The committee asked the team to prepare materials that explain tradeoffs transparently — costs, program gains/losses and effects on trees and neighborhood impacts — before broader public outreach.