Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-10; City Council; 8472-1; SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY* E E u a )-I aJ C *d L) (d a, )-I a, w a a (d 4- a (d FI m h h rl g do [o -4 U a (d FI g. om CJ aJa )-Id (d w (d mo a uG a0 aJ *rl CJa d wm U. z am LIU cda rlaJ 50 u)-I co I ';1 E do 00) \o I 0 rl \o f 0 i= 2 s 8 2 3 CIT-F CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL -L TITLE: DEPT. AB# 8472 MTG. 6/10/86 SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY CITY A CITY h DEPT. P & R RECOMMENDED ACTION: -*j FEASIBILITY STUDY City Council accept the following recommendations by the Senio Citizen and Parks and Recreation Commissions: 1. Set aside all proposals relating to the Harding Community Center site until the Pine Street School pgoposal is resol1 2. Direct staff to pursue acquisition of Lots 7 and 8, locate( on the southeast corner of Oak and Harding, to be develope( for edditional parking for the Harding Community Center. 3. Endorse the concept of constructing a Senior Center on the Pine Street site; specifically Design Concept #2, Exhibit 4. Dirkct staff to pursue a cooperative agreement with the appropriate CUSD officials, with the specific objective to assist in the relocation of the District's Administrative and Maintenance functions, and the retention of the occupic space for public use. 5. Authorize RSI to complete the Design Development Report depicting the proposed Senior Center and School District offices on the Pine Street School site. ITEM EXPLANATION: On January 7, 1986 City Council directed staff to contract wit1 Recreation Systems, Inc. (RSI) to study the feasibility of con- structing a Senior Citizen facility on the current site of the Harding Community Center. The study was to specifically addres 1. The feasibility of the total demolition of the Harding Corn Center and construction of a new 12,000 square foot exclusi use Senior Center with the potential for expansion. 2. The displacement of Parks and Recreation personnel, Senior Center staff, and the programs offered by both groups. 3. The ability to provide ample parking. The Study was -to be completed in two phases. Phase I was to analy the feasibility of constructing the proposed Senior Citizens Ce on the Harding Street site. If determined feasible, Phase I1 which addresses estimated costs, the displacement issue, and conceptual floor plans would then be completed. Agenda Bill # 9 Senior Citizen Facility Feasibility Study Page 2 A committee was appointed on February 18, 1986 to assist RSI in the study. Committee members are: John Conti, Parks and Recreation Commission John Mitchell, Senior Citizen Commission Hiram Hoskin, Senior Citizen Commission David Castner, Carlsbad Senior Citizens' Association Howard Harmon, Carlsbad Senior Citizens' Association The Committee met on numerous occasions to discuss facility needs, building functions, floor plans, phasing, and parking requirements. The City Council/School District Coordinating Committee met on April 10, 1986. One topic discussed was the consideration of constructing a facility on the Pine School property. This proposed facility would house the CUSD Administration offices and the Senior Center. RSI and the Feasibility Study Committee was then requested to assess this proposal along with the Harding Community Center study. RSI Findings & Committee Recommendations RSI determined that the Harding Community Center site could feasibly accommodate a 12,000 square foot senior center facilit However, even with the acquisition of the Jacob's property and Lots 7 and 8, which would be very costly, the parcel could not support an expanded facility necessary tomeet future needs. Additionally, the City would be eliminating an 11,000 square foot community center and replacing it with a 12,000 square foot senior center; permanently displacing a wide variety of public recreation programs, staff and private group uses, as well as temporarily displacing all senior activities and staff. Therefore, in RSI's opinion, the Harding site is feasible but not practical. The Feasibility Study Committee unanimously endorsed RSI's recommendations as follows: 1. Set aside all proposals relating to the Harding Community Center site until the Pine Street School proposal is resol. 2. The City pursue the acquisition of Lots 7 and 8, located o the southeast corner of Oak and Harding, to be developed for additional parking for the Harding Community Center. 3. Endorse the concept of constructing a Senior Center on the Pine Street site; specifically Design Concept #2, (Exhibit "3") . Agenda Bill # 0 0 Senior Citizen Facility Feasibility Study Page 3 4. The City pursue a cooperative agreement with the CUSD, with the specific objective to assist in the relocation of the District's Administrative and Maintenance functions, and the retention of the occupied space for public use. 5. The City authorize RSI to complete the Design Development Report depicting the proposed Senior Center and School District offices on the Pine Street School site. RSI further recommends that appropriate District representa- tives be identified and included in the design process to assure effective coordination with school needs and desires. Commission Action On May 19, 1986 both the Senior Citizen Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to accept RSI's report and the Feasibility Study Committee recommendation FISCAL IMPACT: January 7, 1986, Cost Estimate for demolition, $1,676,700 land acquisition and facility construction Phase I study cost, which included Harding 5,500 Street Community Center and the CUSD Pine School site Phase I1 study cost, which includes either 7,000 further study for the Harding Street Community Center or the Pine School site Funds are available for the study cost in the Senior Citizen Professional Services Account No. 001-820-4135-2470. Cost estimates for the Pine School facility demolition and construction, additional land acquisition, planning, and design study are not available at this time. EXHIBITS : 1. RSI's Senior Citizen Center Interim Report 2. Senior Center Conceptual Drawing #1 3. Senior Center Conceptual Drawing #2 4. Exiting Pine Street School District Site 5. Senior Citizen Coordinator's Report .. e 0 site evaluatior senior citizen centei interim repor may 198 carlsbad, californi Exhibit 0 e authority On January 7, 1986 the City Council approved in concept a report from staff, the Senior Citizen Commission, and the Senior Citizens Site Committee related to the location of a proposed Senior Citizen Center. This report recommended the demolition of the existing Harding Center and the COnStrUCtiOn of a 12,000 square foot Senior Citizen Building with room for expansion and parking. The City Council further authorized staff to contract with the city's park and Facility Planning consultant, Recreation Systems, Inc., to review the report and to conduct an architectural feasibility study. On March 17, 1986, the City of Carlsbad entered into ar. agreement with Recreation Systems, Inc. to prepare this feasibility study, including an evaluation of current and future Senior Citizen needs. background The Carlsbad Senior Citizen Association (CSCA) has beel providing senior programs and services since 1975 Originally, this program was housed at Magee Park. In 1983 the program and offices were transferred to their presenl location at the Harding Street Community Center. The Cit: Council action for this transfer identified the long rangc objective for the Seniors to "take over" all facilities a the Harding Street site following the "...timely relocatio of Parks and Recreation staff and programs." In June of 1985, the City established a Senior Citize Division within the Parks and Recreation Department an hired a Senior Citizen Coordinator to coordinate the variou programs and services. In August of 1985, the Counci established a Senior Citizen Commission, and in Septembe initiated action to find a permanent site for a Senio Citizen Center. In April of 1986, RSI was requested to expand the scope o the study to assess the potential for using the Schoo District's administration site adjacent to the Pine Schoo located approximately two blocks south of the Harding Cente at Pine and Harding. -1- 0 e program requirements RECOMMENDED SCOPE Before a determination can be made on the adequacy of any site, it is important to establish a desired level of service. There are no specific standards for the provision of senior citizen services. Nor is there an established square footage of building space recommended based on the number of individuals over 60 years of age within the community. The of a seniors building is determined by the variety and magnitude of proposed functions that it supports. We cannot catalog these functions as critical needs in the same sense as we determine the width of streets to move a certain amount of traffic; or the size of a storm drain to handle anticipated rainfall. The size of a Seniors Building, like a park or a Community Center, pertains to the quality of life The community itself is judged by the balance of its amenities and the level of service it provides for all interests and ages. The following functions and types of events were identified by the Seniors Committee as representing the desires and aspirations of the senior community in Carlsbad. The numbers and projected participation rates reflect the best judgment of the committee and the consultant as pertains to current and future usage. size of the people that it will serve. Activity Participation 1. Senior nutrition program, lunches 10 0 - 2 0 0 2. Special events, Association meetings, dances, banquets, bingo, exhibits, Classes, small meetings, light crafts, socials, etc. 150-350 3. seminars, exercise, etc. 20-60 4. Quiet games, reading, conversation, 5. group discussions, etc. 10-30 Legal aid, health clinics, income tax, counseling, etc. 20-so 6. Activiites: drop-in table games, cards, conversation, etc. 20-30 -2- 0 0 The activities and events listed above dictate a scope that appears reasonable and consistent with similar communities. The facility should ultimately incorporate four or five activity centers that would allow simultaneous programming with minimum interference between scheduled events. Multi-use of spaces for a variety of types of activities should be carefully evaluated with assurance that negative impacts on the quality of accommodations is kept at i minimum. The actual scope of initial improvements must be determinet as a part of the ultimate facility. In other words, thc size of all elements should be established based on futurc needs or projections with phasing determined by budget limitations. It is easy to add a few classrooms or a gamt room, but quite difficult to expand the size of a1 auditorium or acquire additional land for parking to meel future operational requirements. It is estimated that a viable Senior Citizen Center to servc the City of Carlsbad will require a structure ol approximately 17,500 to 20,000 square feet of usable space. POSSIBLE PHASING There will be certain core facilities that will be require( to produce a viable structure initially. Certainly, tht auditorium, kitchen, office space and a multi-purposc meeting room would form the absolute minimum activit] scope. Added to this would be storage, restrooms mechanical space, lobby or entries, and interior circulatioi space. The auditorium should be separated with an operablc wall to achieve maximum flexibility. The addition of i lounge area and/or a drop-in game room would be desirable. It is estimated that the desirable scope of initia. improvements could involve a structure of approximatel: 11,000 to 12,500 square feet. However, it is essential tha. the site provide the opportunity for future expansion of thc structure and parking. TWO STORY MYTH Whenever site restrictions cause a reduction in scope or thl sacrificing of desirable amenities, the suggestion for multi-level structure is usually offered as the idea solution. Unfortunately, this suggestion is only viab11 under certain circumstances. The efficient multi-stor structure dictates a uniformity of space requirements, bot in layout and volume for all levels. Plumbing, structura supports, elevators, stairwells and utility runs are stackel to assure effective service and economic return. 0 particular concern is the establishment of uniform ceilin . heights. -3- a 0 Usually, the two story alternative is presented as l solution to the lack of adequate parking. One of thi proposed sitings for the Seniors Center suggests a two stor structure with 12,000 square feet on each floor. Even i this design were feasible, the net increase in off-stree parking would be less than 25 cars. Since this type o structure would probably require about 150 parking spaces the net advantage would be negligible. Probably the most important concern associated with multi-level senior citizen facility is providing adequat space to house the wide variety of uses while assuring saf and convenient access to the different activity centers Further, the relationship of the kitchen, storage, lobby an restrooms to the main auditorium as well as a secondar assembly room becomes a vital ingredient in the functiona effectiveness of these units. As an example, an auditorium to house 350 individuals a tables and a secondary room to accommodate up to 120 peopl with necessary access to kitchens, restrooms, storage an entries, would require a basic floor space of approximate1 9000 square feet on a single floor level. Because of th large assemblies scheduled for these activity centers auditorium, for proper proportions, would suggest a thirtee or fourteen foot high ceiling requiring a minimum separatic of sixteen vertical feet between floors. Similarly, tk second floor over the assembly room would require a twelt foot differential, while rooms with a typical eight foc ceiling would need only a nine foot differential Obviously, a second floor would only be feasible over ares that could reasonably use the lower ceiling height. Wit required housing for mechanical ducts, etc., it would appes that two story construction would only be feasible for minor portion of the basic footprint of a 12,000 square foc structure. . ground floor accommodations would be desirable. Tk OVERALL OBJECTIVE With the exception of the Harding Street Community Centei there are no public facilities available for indoc recreation activities within the entire northwest quadrar of the City. Furthermore, the area is heavily developc with only minimal open space available to meet tl recreation needs of the area. Although this study is directed at the provision ( facilities to serve the senior citizen, it would 1 shortsighted to ignore deficiencies in all areas ( recreation service. The immediate objective will be 1 recommend a course of action to mitigate the deficiencies : service to the senior population within the area and tl City as a whole. Concurrently, the study must consider tl ultimate goal of the City, to provide a balanced program fc all interests and age groups. Where possible, the effecti7 use of available resources and opportunities will 1 considered as they relate to both issues. -4- w e harding site A primary objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of: (l), constructing a 12,000 square foot Senior Center facility on the existing site of the Harding Street Community Center; (2), ample parking for the facility; (31, acquiring additional property to meet these objectives. LOCATION, SIZE, AND CONFIGURATION The Harding site is located less than a block south of Elm Street, just one block west of the freeway. It is within the Redevelopment area, and definitely within walking distance of public transportation. The site is 210' long and 140' deep with a 20' alley. The adjacent Jacob's property involves an additional 50' lot, and if acquired, would extend the site to 260' in length. EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND USES The existing Harding Street Community Center consists of four separate structures totaling approximately 11,000 square feet of floor space. This total is somewhat misleading, since the actual usable space is considerably smaller. Actually, there are four functional spaces that can be programmed or assigned for public or seniors use. The multi-purpose room (300+/- sq.ft.) is used for a varieti of meetings with scheduled time divided between Park and Recreation sponsored programs involving 40% of the time, 384 use by seniors, and the balance assigned to community uses. The recreation hall (2500+/- sq.ft.) with kitchen and restlooms, is used primarily by the seniors (62%), followed by Park and Recreation programs (38%), with the balance of usage by community groups. The auditorium (4477+/- sq.ft.) with small stage anc restroom facilities, experiences heavy use with about 38% ol scheduled programs by seniors, 43% of use for various type: of community groups, and only 19% by Parks and Recreatior use. Actually, 43% of the existing use of the programmable area! are scheduled for senior use. This is in addition to tht housing of two staff persons and the full use of the loungt (320+/- sq.ft.). -5- w 0 CONCLUSION Preliminary analysis indicates that the existing site (210' x 140') could accommodate a 12,000 square foot structure, with parking for approximately 14 cars. This site could not support an expanded facility that would meet future needs. To provide for the anticipated expansion, it would be necessary for the City to proceed with acquisition of the Jacob property northerly from the site. It would also be necessary to acquire lots 7 and 8 comprising the southeast corner of the Harding and Oak intersection. This would provide a site of 200' x 150' that could accommodate approximately 75 parking spaces. Coupled with the 32 spaces across Harding and the 14 spaces by the proposed building, there would be approximately 120 off-street parking spaces available to serve the expanded Seniors Center. Although it is physically possible to to construct an adequate Senior Center on the expanded Harding Street site, this course of action does not appear to be economically or functionally prudent at this time. Even with the addition of the Jacobs property, the structure would have minimal set backs from Harding and Oak and the majority of parking would require the crossing of streets. No exterior space would be available for outside amenities. In essence, the City would be eliminating the existing 11,000 square foot Harding Center and replacing it with a 12,000 square foot Senior Center. Although the Harding Center is not an efficient building, it still is currently serving critical Senior needs and hosting a wide variety of public recreation programs and private group uses. These public programs would be aisplaced along with seven staff members of the Parks and Recreation staff who are currently housed within the Harding Center. These facilities and staff people are currently providing programs and services in an attempt to meet the heavy demands of this sector of the City. Relocation to another site outside this area would severely reduce service levels. It should be noted that the demolition of the existing Center and the construction of the new Senior Center in its place would cause a complete disruption of public recreation services & Senior programs in this area for a period of at least one year. Moreover, the cost of accomplishing this program would exceed the tentative budget of $1.6 million, due to the acquisition of additional property. -6- II E --------- -- I -- q-2 1 xl E- __ __ __ t_ H-- iE r ;g j_ cy ~. .__._ ~ 1- ~ __. .- d 0- 5 r- _- r-- 0 I - " 0 0 N - ._ :<' s i=* -- I* w e pine street site Subsequent to the completion of the evaluation on the Harding Street site, the City requested RSI to assess the potential for locating the proposed Senior Center on the Pine Street School site. This request emanated from a discussion with representatives of the Carlsbad Unified School District, where they suggested the possibility of a cooperative effort between the City and the District to construct a major structure on school properties that would house the Seniors Center and new District administration off ices. The suggestion referred to a two story structure with the 12,000 square foot first floor used for Senior Citizen facilities, and the second floor accommodating administrative offices. Discussions implied the eventual relocation of District offices and maintenance facilities with the possible availability of the second floor of the structure for expanded use by Seniors. LOCATION, SIZE AND CONFIGURATION The proposed site is "L" shaped facing Pine Street and extending south bordering the alley to the west of the school. It is located immediately north and west of the existing Pine Street Elementary School. Currently, it is occupied by the District's administrative offices and various structures housing its-warehousing, maintenance, and transportation functions. These existing facilities are quite antiquated and do not adequately meet the expanding needs of the District. RELOCATION OF EXISTING USES Obviously, the School District administrative and maintenance functions cannot be interrupted without some provision for interim operations. It may be possible for the administration offices to be relocated temporarily to portable structures on-site while existing structures are demolished and new accommodations are constructed. Removal of the warehouse, maintenance and transportation facilities poses a more difficult problem. These functions currently occupy well over half of the potential site and an effective design for any major building appears to be totally impractical without the prior relocation of these operations. -7- w 0 The problems of relocation do not necessarily affect the ultimate effectiveness of the site. However, it must be understood that the final resolution of these issues may cause extended time delays. DESIGN CONCEPTS As discussed earlier with the Harding site, it is impractical to consider a typical two story structure. Because of the variable ceiling heights within the activity areas, less than one quarter of the floor space of the initial phse of the Senior Center appears to be suitable for two story construction. For this reason, we have prepared two studies. The first shows the District offices as a two story element of the total structure, with the second scheme projecting both functions as parts of a single story complex of 24,000 square feet. Either of these concepts is feasible from a structural and site planning standpoint. There is adequate space available to provide off-street parking for both functions and/or for the future use as an expanded Seniors Center. CONCLUSION Our preliminary analysis of the Pine Street School site confirms its potential as an outstanding location for the proposed Senior Center facility. Its convenient relationship with the downtown area and the older residential areas of Carlsbad offers a significant opportunity to resolve recreation deficiencies in this critical sector. The site offers ample space for adequate off-street parking and the development of a variety of site amenities that could augment the quality of program experiences. Of paramount importance, the placement of Senior activities in this central location allows the retention of the Harding Center for expanded community oriented recreation programming. The single discordant note involves possible difficulties related to the relocation of existing operations. This must be resolved efficiently, and in a manner that does not cause undue hardships or costs to these critical governmental functions. -8- I. IC P 1 puqslleo JO At13 le)ueo smpes n'wi*pniW*w-pmw moosz r~w~~ps5(pd'~~lcpa &el -00 18811s OUIPJSL! i Je(W3 slopes pGwmdJo9q suraads uqle;uoar --r leWs BUlPJW * w a recommendations RSI has completed a preliminary evaluation of the proposals to construct the proposed Seniors Center at the Harding Community Center site and the more recent suggestion to build the facility at the Pine School site. The Advisory Committee, with representation from the Carlsbad Senior Citizen Association, the Carlsbad Senior Citizen Commission, and the Park and Recreation Commission, has been most helpful in establishing scope and discussing the various alternatives. We have carefully reviewed the various opportunities and consequences inherent to the alternative courses of action. Based on this review, RSI presents these findings and recommendations for consideration. 1. It is recommended that the City, through the Redevelopment Agency, pursue the acquisition of Lots 7 and 8, located on the southeast corner of Oak and Harding, for the development of additional parking to serve the Harding Center. 2. It is recommended that the City pursue a cooperative agreement with the Carlsbad Unified School District, with the specific objective to assist in the relocation of the District's administrative and maintenance functions, and the retention of the occupied space for public use. 3. It is recommended that the City authorize RSI to complete the Design Development Report depicting the proposed Senior Center and School District offices on the Pine Street School site. It is further recommended that appropriate District representatives be identified and included in the design process to assure effective coordination with School needs and desires. -9- hardtng street Exhil: herdlng street widened access road /-2 c;C1~~O~S 1 PORT-Q~LC C~~,rs&c//r CS~(C-EDJ / PVMIW. QfF1C-Z (~~I#CWA~ / idorAmw Rut&% CTfMP.) j rl1LzRACy i ] c)? [J~EC~RL) /woAf4M af//cf rcp1,04 D!JILQ,Wt Am r && IS, 131 SQFT. up€& C&/€L€O ella : .msQFF. 7kA- 8L&kMA : A7 96 8 q FT. BLhcErop AACA (gtn<ancN ~A~KIN~) 3LAt<Mr At- -?AAXIcifl CI 147SQ JQ Fr- - 0- j3 r‘yrircr Ab/ 4 I// !<TI< 3dnOm6 /?&A: la, 3x.J- J-( (c-:-=d drr9 T-&.w,,&colyfl& SLra: .z. 9 /4c.M.Y(@ErJ E&CK rupAM.4 <ar&p- r,aM/ 8UCKTDP AeA -QALKrd& SkiZUOJ AIIQ rJ?.pC€S WALK Way$‘ &dtJ AeEA ( 1. +‘~/6A5.) Di~r AHO 96. ARO\ * ~~ ~r,T~L *f CFf!f~ PVPlL P&fXOHfl&L cr,-Xvlt~ ANO - foL S4A r6N w6*- fiu’G. -Z../Aoce; TAECrAnnr &aiix d 0 0 May 19, 1986 TO : DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR FROM: Sue Schultz Spickard, Senior Citizen Coordinator FEASIBILITY STUDY P' BACKGROUND On January 7, 1986 City Council directed staff to contract with the City's Park and Facility Planning Consultant, Recreation Systems, Inc. (RSI) to study the feasibility of constructing a Senior Citizen facility on the current site o the Harding Community Center. The study was to specifically address : 1. The feasibility of the total demolition of the Harding Community Center and construction of a new 12,000 square foot exclusive use Senior Center with the potential for expansion. The displacement of Parks and Recreation personnel, Senior Center staff, and the programs offered by both groups. The ability to provide ample parking. 2. 3. A committee was appointed to assist RSI in the study. Committee members are: John Conti, Parks and Recreation Commission John Mitchell, Senior Citizen Commission Hiram Hoskin, Senior Citizen Commission David Castner, Carlsbad Senior Citizens' Association Howard Harmon, Carlsbad Senior Citizens' Association The study was to be completed in two phases. Phase I basical: was to analyze the feasibility of constructing the proposed Senior Citizens Center on the Harding Street site. If determined feasible, Phase I1 which addresses estimated costs, the displacement issue, and conceptual floor plans would be completed. On April 10, 1986 the City Council/School District Coordinatir Committee met. One topic discussed was the consideration of constructing a facility on the Pine School property. This proposed facility would house the CUSD Administration offices and the Senior Center. RSI was then requested to assess this proposal along with the Harding Community Center study. Exhibit 5 v r' Feasibility Stu dl: 0 May 19, 1986 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS RSI has completed preliminary evaluations of both the Hardin Community Center and Pine School. properties. Through their analysis, RSI determined that the Harding site couldaccommodate a 12,000 square foot Senior Citizens facility. However, there would be no space for expansion and ample parking would remain a problem. RSI's opinion is not "economically or functionally prudent." RSI's recommendations are as follows: 1. The City pursue the acquisition of Lots 7 and 8, located on the southeast corner of Oak and Harding, to be developed for additional parking for the Harding Communi. Center. The City pursue a cooperative agreement with the CUSD, with the specific objective to assist in the relocation functions, and the retention of the occupied space for public use. The City authorize RSI to complete the Design Developmenl Report depicting the proposed Senior Center and School District offices on the Pine Street School site. RSI further recommends that appropriate District representa- tives be identified and included in the design process to assure effective coordination with school needs and desir A special meeting of the Senior Citizen Commission was called on May 19, 1986 to review RSI's findings. Ron Paige, President of RSI presented the report. The Senior Citizen Commission voted unanimously to: 1. This proposal in 2. . of the District's administrative and maintenance 3. endorse the concept of constructing a Senior Center on th Pine Street site; specifically Design Concept #2, a sing1 story, joint-use facility. 2. recommend that all proposals relating to the Harding Community Center site be put on hold until the Pine School proposal is resolved. 3. endorse RSI's recommendations as listed previously. kw