San Rafael subcommittee previews 50,000‑sq‑ft library–community center, estimates $105 million; delivery method decision due this spring

San Rafael’s Measure P subcommittee on Feb. 23 reviewed a draft program and program‑level budget for a proposed combined library and community center and discussed procurement approaches, including progressive design‑build and traditional design‑bid‑build. Griffin Structures, retained as the project consultant, presented a preliminary cost estimate and said staff will seek subcommittee guidance on next steps.

The project as presented centers on a roughly 50,000‑square‑foot building that combines modern library services with a community center and shared multipurpose spaces. “The building program sits around 50,000 square feet total,” Griffin Structures’ Dustin Alamo told the subcommittee, outlining adult, teen and children’s areas, flexible classrooms, event space and back‑of‑house support. Library director Catherine Kufa said the draft translates to an approximately 82% increase in adult space, a 150% increase for children’s space and a 225% increase for teen spaces over the current facility.

Why it matters: the draft ties the program to funding from Measure P and tries to balance community priorities against affordability. Griffin presented a high‑level program estimate of $105,000,000, with a $52,000,000 base building cost for the 50,000‑sq‑ft facility, roughly $9,800,000 for site improvements and demolition, escalation allowances to account for inflation and program‑level contingencies. “All in, at the bottom, you’ll see a 105,000,000 is the number,” Gary Chubb of Griffin said.

Key details and trade‑offs: the exterior program described by staff includes an inclusive children’s playground of about 12,000 sq ft, roughly 10,000 sq ft of picnic/green space replacement, patio and covered event rollout areas and about 32,000 sq ft of exterior programmable space; parking and detailed site circulation remain to be designed and will affect final footprint decisions. Staff said the project team is attempting to retain existing recreational programming where feasible but acknowledged some site elements (for example, the playground location) may have to move or be reconfigured when parking and circulation are resolved.

Contingency, flood‑plain allowances and schedule: a member questioned whether a 10% contingency was adequate for the program‑level estimate; Griffin responded that 10% plus escalation is typical at this stage and that construction contingencies remain embedded. The presentation included a $1.7 million allowance described as a flood‑plain premium based on shallow foundation risk and the current assumption that the building would sit at existing grade rather than require deep excavation. Griffin said more geotechnical work is required before those allowances are finalized.

Procurement and labor implications: staff framed the choice of project‑delivery method as a policy decision with procurement, schedule and labor implications. Griffin explained the difference between traditional design‑bid‑build, design‑build and progressive design‑build (selecting teams on qualifications and then refining design and cost within a budget). “You’re hiring a team you feel comfortable working with,” Griffin said, describing progressive design‑build as a way to select a coordinated architect‑contractor team earlier in the process. Staff warned that pursuing progressive design‑build will require local policy actions, including adopting a conflict‑of‑interest policy and complying with state rules that call for a “skilled and trained workforce,” which staff said effectively requires either enforceable reporting commitments or a project labor agreement (PLA).

Decision timing and next steps: Griffin told the subcommittee a delivery‑method decision is needed within about two months to remain on the targeted schedule for soliciting teams this spring. “To stay on our overall schedule… it needs to be decided in the next 2 months,” Gary Chubb said. Staff recommended a two‑stage outreach approach: detailed stakeholder committee review followed by a community survey to prioritize program tradeoffs (for example, fitness space vs. a stage). An architect is expected to be onboarded in the fall, after which design renderings and deeper community outreach would follow. The subcommittee scheduled the next meeting for June 2 at 10 a.m.

What was not decided or specified: no final procurement method was selected at the meeting; the exact parking strategy, final site footprint and many line‑item cost details remain subject to design and geotechnical analysis. Public comment was opened for the item but no substantive members of the public spoke during the session.

The subcommittee approved routine minutes from the July 28 meeting by roll call vote and otherwise recessed the meeting after asking staff to return with materials that lay out the pros, cons and risk‑mitigation steps for the delivery options and the administrative implications of a PLA versus enforceable reporting commitments.