The South Pasadena City Council on Nov. 5 reviewed a final site‑plan report for the Library Park campus and heard the ad hoc committee recommend a middle approach — called “B‑plus” — that preserves the historic 1930s community room and the Bay Morton fig tree while adding roughly 10–20% additional square footage to create flexible, multiuse spaces.

The project team presented results of a yearlong study led by Group 4 Architecture that included nearly 3,000 community engagement touchpoints (about 672 survey respondents) and 12 ad hoc committee meetings. The consultant said the existing library and senior center are overcrowded and inefficient and described three program options: renovating the existing footprint (roughly 27,000 square feet), a new‑construction option that integrates the historic building, and a larger 40,000‑square‑foot option. The consultant gave escalated cost ranges for the options, noting uncertainty at this early feasibility stage: “for the renovation … we’re looking at 21,000,000 to 25,000,000; for the new construction option … 36,600,000 to 41,400,000; and for the 40,000 square‑foot option we’re looking at 53 to 60,000,000,” the project lead said during the presentation.

Julia Wang and Rich Elbaum, who presented the ad hoc committee’s recommendation, said the committee favored a B‑plus approach that balances historic preservation and functionality while avoiding the highest cost tier. The committee emphasized multiuse rooms rather than many single‑use spaces so the facility can adapt to future needs. Elbaum warned of the cost of delay: “there’s a cost to doing that in terms of every time you wait … it’s going to cost more and you’re falling further behind,” he said.

Council members asked about accessibility, code compliance, and the practicality of future vertical expansion. Staff and the consultant said renovation can address code shortfalls but may not deliver the same flexibility as new construction; they cautioned that phasing or future vertical additions carry design and code uncertainties and can be expensive to implement as a cold or warm shell.

On next steps, City Manager Todd Heilman told the council staff seeks acceptance of the ad hoc committee report and recommended moving to conceptual designs so the city will be shovel‑ready for competitive grants and appropriations. Council discussion centered on how large a package the city would be willing to ask voters to consider in Nov. 2026 and on preparing costed conceptual drawings to support funding applications.

The council then considered a separate procedural motion from the committee: whether to dissolve the ad hoc committee after it completed its charge. A motion to dissolve the committee (with a provision that original members have first right of refusal for any future reconstitution) was moved, seconded and approved by roll call vote. Staff said a similar committee could be reconstituted at a later project phase if the council moves forward with a ballot measure or detailed design.

The study session adjourned at 7:14 p.m. The council’s immediate next steps, as described by staff, are to accept the report, start outreach connected to roadway/road‑program planning immediately after Thanksgiving, prepare conceptual designs for grant readiness and to return with options for what size package to place before voters for Nov. 2026 funding consideration.

What’s next: Staff will return with conceptual designs and a timeline for grant work and ballot planning; council members will weigh fiscal priorities against competing needs (streets, housing) before finalizing a funding measure scope.