HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-01; City Council; 7380; Public Safety Center Site Development PlanCIT. OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
*^** 7 'T!^ C^y\
Jk ^10 / »-Jj'T^ / J
MTG.5/10/83
DEPT. DS
TITLE: PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICE TENTFR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DEPT. HP. (<*
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR.^^=r>
^
O§
o
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That City Council select a Site Development Plan and designate those elements to be
included in the first phase of construction.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At the workshop session of March 11, 1983, council directed the architect and staff
to develop a site plan which included: police station; fire station; fire
administration; offices, shops and storage for Maintenance, Utilities and Parks;
purchasing warehouse; conference room; emergency center; support facilities and an
area for future expansion. Council instructed that effort be made to allow for open
space.
Staff has reviewed eight proposals presented by the architect. After several
meetings, the alternatives have been reduced to three basic plans which will be
discussed with council. Staff preference is plan "H".
All alternatives provide for the inclusion of all facilities as directed by council
at the March 11 meeting, except for the police firing range. Council, by a
separate report, has received staff's recommendation regarding the firing range.
That recommendation remains the same except that we no longer recommend that it be on
the Safety/Service Center site.
Council recommended that the first phase of construction include: site work;
communications; police building; fire administration and; Maintenance, Utilities and
Parks shops, storage and office space. Council also requested information on the
police firing range and the cost of using modulars for office space. Staff had
initially proposed that first phase construction be designed to meet space needs at
the 100,000 population level. To construct the council designated facilities at the
desired size would cost $14,400,000. The five-year CIP has approximately*8.0
million designated for design and construction. The alternatives available to
council are to:
1. Instruct staff to modify the CIP designating more funds to the project, or;
2. To remove elements from the project, thus bringing it within existing funding
range, or;
3. Downsize the scope of some of the elements to bring the project within existing
funding ranges, or;
4. A combination of the above choices.
PAGE 2 of AB#
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately 4.04 million is currently available. The CIP up through
1986-87 identifies an additional 3.96 million, of which 1.5 million is
water funds and 2.1 million is from public facilities fees. Total funds
available will be eight million.
EXHIBITS:
1. Staff Report.
2. 3 Sketches.
MAY 5, 1983
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Developmental Services
CITY SAFETY/SERVICE CENTER - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BACKGROUND:
At the council meeting of March 11, 1983, council directed staff and the
architect to work on preliminary layout of the City Safety/Service
Center, consistent with the following criteria:
A. Provision for a police station; fire station; fire administration;
shop, offices and storage for Maintenance, Utilities and Parks; and
a purchasing warehouse.
B. Provision for an area suitable for future development.
C. Investigation of the possibility of including a police firing range
and a fire training facility.
D. Provision for an Emergency Operations (Command) Center and a public
meeting room capable of seating 100-200 people.
STAFF ACTION:
Since the last council direction, staff has worked closely with the
architect in pursuit of these goals. In addition to meeting one-on-one
with the architect on many occasions, staff has held two group "workshops"
with all affected departments and the architect. The goal was to select
three alternative site plans for further study. Selection was based on a
number of site considerations:
A. Site considerations consisted of the following:
1. General topography.
2. Site dimensions.
3. Site flora.
4. Vistas.
5. Access (including Beckman Instruments agreements.)
6. Surrounding development.
7. Site image.
B. The architect indicated that there were three major functional
groupings:
City Manager - 2 - May 5, 1983
1. Police/Fire administration.
2. Maintenance operations.
3. Future development.
4. To a lesser extent, the fire station/training facility and
firing range were considered separate entities.
C. The architect presented three layouts of very basic functional
grouping schemes, based on the site constraints noted above.
D. The architect then presented six preliminary building layout schemes,
based on the three functional groupings. The strengths and
weaknesses of each scheme were discussed. These initial layouts
were based upon buildout at the 160,000 population level.
E. Staff discussed each of the layouts and decided upon three for more
detailed consideration and preliminary cost estimation.
F. Staff suggested that the fire station should be located to the south
of Faraday Road on each of the schemes, for aesthetic and functional
reasons. However, this would involve additional land acquisition to
obtain the required room for the expansion. Staff felt it could
effect a land swap with the county for extra room. Each of the
preferred alternatives could accommodate the fire station north of
Faraday if negotiations with the county were not fruitful.
At the second group session the architect returned with three layouts
based upon the previous staff decision. In addition, the architect
presented two additional alternatives which provided greater open space
and aesthetic considerations:
A. The advantages and disadvantages of each layout were discussed.
B. Rough cost estimates for each layout were presented.
C. After some review, staff selected three preferred alternatives,
including one of the new proposals.
D. Staff then decided the new alternative presented the best possible
solution to the site constraints, functional considerations, public
image and development options.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING:
Once the three preliminary layouts had been selected, staff attempted
to prioritize their needs in order to determine the construction phasing,
realizing there may be budget limitations:
A. The following phasing was selected:
City Manager - 3 - May 5, 1983
1. Police.
2. Fire Administration.
3. Meeting Room.
4. Utilities and Maintenance Center.
5. Parks Administration and Shops.
6. Fire Station.
7. Firing Range.
8. Purchasing Warehouse.
9. Fire Training Center.
B. Based on the three chosen layouts, staff felt the firing range was
inconsistent with the proposed public use and surrounding industrial
and residential zones.
C. The architect was instructed to return with more detailed cost
breakdowns to better understand relation of funding to priority needs,
RONALD A. BECKMAN
RAB:DAH:pab
t ^
^6t*«^l^e
«?#*<? <?
<*/V
/
•&»*&?-•
.^§£»^if-»
'-?e*S^•"V**-**;,,
^
?.**£P-'ii-^-
5*;--',
-»>•:-7r .-!- ,/f,'-'i,-^^.;-^*!L^->i"' -••-'
'^&>*;^->v>*V ;•; 'J"N
'^
•pm>—* * jjA-' * ™***"jf*«iry"r
.^^i^^rjjf -\^£•'-• • ~-yf*^f" \ XR _
1#>^\^v"Vv"vp
:. V^-, ^ \ *\^>
.,^<-y^43^*%^Va^^^
i*--"5s tV'*"^' "'••-1\AW' -. •*' '•
t^^
. a- ""^i^^'T- ^*&-)xy v^ • -;^^%^^*XC
^ ^t;"^^^^o'• ' ,^^^!s*i^7^^v*K-*X^., j^f-^^rt^^*^
iv>cS-*-
'.•&?*
\£&
t-*=t>'i^•>w:^-^
-<i.ra*-"
c/c
:<^:
^^^*s^
yKd-^
j-.
l^V-^-s^"'-"' '
PARADOX
//\»^
^S^^-•^^:wc^
^f *^T' -^r
7
&0
r