The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-05-05; City Council; 8806/7-1; Safety Center Status reportCI1 OF CARLSBAD — AGENC BILL /\ AB# F^o y*7-l MTG.05/05/87 DEPT. MP TITLE:blAlUb KLPUKI PUBLIC SAFETY AND PHASES II ON CARLSBAD SERVICE CENTER, AND III DEPT. HOC^" CITY ATTYV/y) CITY MGR. 3^ o1 O <.J o ou RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and subsequent Center. Ill of the t ime. file the recommended Master Plan Design Guidelines for development of the Carlsbad Public Safety and Service Receive a status report on the design of Phases II and project. No formal Council action is required at this ITEM EXPLANATION; In the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Program budget, the City Council appropriated funds to begin the design of Phases II and III of the Carlsbad Public Safety and Service Center. On November 4, 1986, the City Council awarded consultant agreements with two (2) architect firms to design the projects. Phase II includes a Purchasing Department general stores warehouse, administrative offices and maintenance shops for the Utilities and Maintenance Department, and storage facilities, shops, and general offices for the Parks Department. The architect firm of Rob Wellington Quigley in association with the Fluor Corporation, Land Studio, and Michael Feerer and Associates was selected to design the Phase II project. Phase III includes a large fire station serving primarily the industrial corridor and surrounding residential and commercial areas. The architect firm of The Danielson Design Group in association with several subconsultants was selected to design the Phase III project. The design development phases of both projects are well underway. Staff has requested both consultant groups make a presentation on the design status of both projects to the City Council at this meet ing. An additional element of the Phase II architect team's design proposal approved by the City Council on November 4, 1987 was the preparation of updated, detailed Master Plan and Architectural Design Guidelines for the remaining development of the Carlsbad Public Safety and Service Center. As each successive phase of the Public Safety and Service Center is developed, this document will provide design continuity and aesthetic image for the entire complex. At this stage of the design of Phases II and III, the creation of consistent and cohesive architectural design guidelines is critical to promoting compatible, efficient, and economic development of the remaining phases of the Public Safety and Service Center complex. The Phase II architect team will make a presentation to the City Council at this meeting concerning the proposed Master Plan Design Guidelines. Page Two of Agenda Bill No. FISCAL IMPACT; The City Council appropriated in the current 1986-87 Capital Improvement Program budget $255,000 for the design of Phase II and $80,000 for the design of Phase III of the Carlsbad Public Safety and Service Center. In the current five (5) year Capital Improvement Program budget, the City Council has allocated $3,455,000 for the construction of the Phase II project and $1,680,000 for the construction of the Phase III project. Both Phases II and III are scheduled for construction in the current five (5) year C.I.P. for fiscal 1989- 90. In the upcoming 1987-88 C.I.P. budget review process, staff will recommend that the City Council consider adjusting the construction schedules to begin one or both projects in calendar 1988. EXHIBITS; 1. Location Map. 2. Carlsbad Public Safety and Service Center Master Plan Design Guidelines, April, 1987. LOCATION MAP PHASE I A. POLICE/FIRE ADMINISTRATION B. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE C. FUEL .ISLAND D. VEHICLE WASH F? PARKING PHASE U E YARD OFFICE F ' MAINTENANCE SHOPS G. PURCHASING WAREHOUSE PHASE IE H. FIRE STATION HEADQUARTERS VICINITY MAP N.T.S. PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD SAFETY AND SERVICE CENTER PHASE JL AN& PHASE JET PROJ. NO. 3242 EXHIBIT 1 cc LUK- LU O COLU O s«<£ LU CQ Wtn Q <fcO £ SH> ZJ J- CD to LUZ _l LU O DO Zo COLU Q Q Z Q. OCLU CO<2 if< >• oIf a c5 "5O o"O)0) ca CO coo> ~o = c?J3 a< 0. QC O) LUo(/)111o>DC UJ 111u. o _Jm=> Q. Q <m QC < Ou_O >- O I- s. JTENTS<c_ OO *- CM co •» ** <o r- co o> CM co co co co r; r: £ 5M N N T- T- T- T- T- CMCMCMCMCMCM O tUI1 UIw 82: = o! I Q g 5 < 882 i m W C = 3 fftLU /n ss — *- CO > u £<>&<<»<<,<'>«><'>ill f)<«^ ii^^l;Z*-*-*-'*-i*-'? > § t |oii ynii CC ^ O. C ""t ^ 7n ^ O <j) (jj fl) 0) <D § O S n O o o QJ •§ § o> buiujuiuujP & 1 s = > 1 1 ^ |s«8 ^- = s>> S S ui §888 |E| §s|« |888 88g " t §555 3 3 1 g a g g 35555S E 3 ui ui ui (/) >E g x 1 x ui ui5 S H H £ Q Q co * in CM CM CM CO O •ER PLAN'hases 1, II, III, IViquare Foot TabulatI'hases 1, II, III, IV, V55 "• w "• <t ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSUJ £ S CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT COMI(" c05 §'a_c O 14-^ "E cF ._ <D 0 £ "g H 8 So £ .E .®,Q o2 8 a- °- l«fc c c Frank Aleshire, City ManagerFrank Mannen, Assistant City ManagerRay Patchett, Assistant City ManagerJohn Cahill, Municipal Projects ManageLarry Willey, Acting Utilities and MainteDoug Duncanson, Parks and RecreatioRuth Fletcher, Purchasing OfficerJim Thompson, Fire Chief« 6 .g "5 I £ LL £aO ISCO *Al Virgilio, Phase II Project ManagerPat Entezari, Phase III Project ManageiMASTER PLANNERSRob Quigley, Architects1lc2 £ •offl Rob Wellington Quigley, Master PlanBill Behun, Project ArchitectLand Studiots Q) !c 1 8.rt 09 ?«_J "i?Andrew Spurlock, Master Plan and PILeslie Ryan, Project ManagerCONSULTANTS/CONTRIBUTORSMichael Feerer and Associatesf Michael Feerer, Phase II ProgrammeiFluor Engineers, Inc.1 3 f/)Bob Pfeifer, Phase II Architectural CoDanielson Design GroupDoug Danielson, Phase III ArchitectDon Her, Phase III Project Architect INTRODUCTIONI in $ <" ^ £ll? l*o This Master Plan offers a detailed and phased program for the presand future development of the City of Carlsbad's Public Safety andServices Center. It is an update to the Mounce Report (1 983),undertaken primarily to provide site planning and design guidelinesthe Phase II Utilities/Maintenance/Purchasing/Parks offices, shops iwarehouse, and the Phase III Fire Station. Schematic design for III and III was undertaken concurrently with this Master Plan update,afforded a unique opportunity in two areas:1 . To provide the most efficient site planning forPhases II and III in order to ensure flexibility andcompatibility with later projects.2. To provide a strong integration of thearchitectural design for Phases II and III withthe Master Plan concept.The balance of the site is planned for in Phases IV and V. This remland area may be used for a major community building, such as a CHall, Library, Cultural Arts Center or other public facility. It could alsbe developed as an intensive recreation area, an expansion of sitefacilities, or simply left in its present state. It Is consideredJ Important not to restrict future options.This report consists of six sections:A review of the previous planning report for the site(Mounce Report, 1 983) and its relationship to this Master PlanA site description- A program development} i CL A review of the plan selection process and the selected MasterconceptPresentation of the Site Planning, Architectural, and LandscapeArchitectural GuidelinesPhasing descriptions REVIEW OF MOUNCE REPORT•o CO&.2<a(f)o S CL •g .Q -croO "o ^b <D k_£ 03 0. .221/5a tn o 1Q. CD H 3 Services Center was prepared for the City by H. Wendell Mounce(1 983), a private consultant. Its purpose was to evaluate proposedfor the site.r. .0 ^ "5 Five major concerns were studied in this report:Determination of square footage space needs for the various cidepartments slated to occupy the Safety and Services siteDevelopment of several concepts for site planning, and presento the City for considerationAnalysis of program requirements for facilities proposed , andpresentation to the City for consideration•Kr\Recommendations for phasing the development of the siteDevelopment of a general Master Plan showing Phase I site w<.0 0 In addition to studying the programming requirements of a Police StFire Station, Maintenance yards, and offices for several Citydepartments, the report investigated the programming needs of aLibrary, a Performing Arts Theatre or a City Hall to potentially belocated in the center of the site (referred to as "Anchor Site" in thisMaster Plan). The Mounce Report concluded that the programrequirements Identified for all of the proposed facilitiescould not be accommodated on the present site.( a 8 = 0,2z tA nt The construction of the loop service road, general site and city servfacilities, and the Police and Fire Administration Center were the reiof Phase 1 construction. Residential and commercial growth has pli•»new demand on the need for public services, and two of the majorfacilities proposed for the site by the Mounce Report are now need(This updated study addresses those changes, and developsthe Mounce Report's general Ideas to the stage of practicalImplementation with a current Master Plan that will betteraccommodate Phases II - V. en HI •s £o> "iCO 2DC o COO o toCO0) *"3o.2 I s« -aO £ "o w &£b-g CD Q. £ co £ •§ co o « £ -s * llltllllO .o S cfl cz o ~ «oP.2 ^ c wt^•si-SS-^ O "• CDW •55_oO(D = co U/8 w11Q.-0 S§^ *5 o :erhe service.—•"! -.— ^ O ^"•8 •c o> Ji: . <»SP!"-9 « F^^ri^iil-? « tr -2 s J5 U. r- — 1111»»?sto « co o Slsf?i^£98he r LL LL LLCO CO COO O O LL LL LL CO CO COO O O O Q O IO CM COis? <o" m"10 •* LL LL LL CO CO COO CD O 000tN. o> oin CM corC to" inin •* u. U.co <oO CD „ 8co" «vi coO co = 3 £ ^ -o o o *-: CVI §TJ 1 LU 0. O LLJ LU Q DC O ODCa. tS « O CD III < _l— UJLU CCO E= in !o 11 ccQ. cocoen 2u DC LU O O LL LU LL. U. CO CO CO COO O O O in C3in oinco" in" co" in"i- i- i- CM LL LL LL U.CO CO CO CO CD CD CD CD SS?•t co •< S ^ £ 8" U. £ U. U. U. UL U.co J2 <o co co co to•g o ^ O O O O O o S ° to c> o o o e g=i 3°3 1 " «s28. T" s ^CC o 8 1cc i~a. c o> = o -P.— 'f C lit «g QW CO a, ^ £ 1 8J 888*~" 10" o" i- 1 §?? c | §.O CL (/) *S5 co1 »^«^-. .. CO O)£ « £ "g o).es c < Si-§ fl Illi1? 1 J 1 5 § ^ 1S • •otal Square Feif Outdoor Areact ilx HO OOco> HO o ui {n/A *•'< UJIEQ. U.<o Ul O if UJ g Ul (3cc u < Q Ul o 2< -P (A Z< UlX Q.D. O li g S3g?a ..IE E oo *s LL LL CO CO O OZ Z 82 8;= °-S. <cc DCQ. UlCO< OL o0> E p<3l O)in" O gQ. Ul i0. 52 6 CO "cdI O O 8 ^ | |> ?!n m .2-S 3O LL LL CO COO O LL LLCO CO O O O O 88o" o"O> CD 10§Q.U> O 8^^- cd o,^C 3*<3 S E3 cdQ. O CD 1 § S" II28£3 8•M M 2oh-oU4 LU CO < 0. 0 <(/>COHI O O DCQ. O Zz <_lQ. HIX t in O iew the planning concepts)nsultants. The eleven mA Project Committee was appointed to revideveloped by the architect and planning ccS m and representatives andManager. A series of fivecommittee consisted of department headschaired by John Cahill, Municipal ProjectsJ2 1"In> Jl 0> ID meetings with the committee, the architect<D month period to determinand the programmer, were held over a six•o the alternatives presenteings, interviews, and site& « ! ert —S CCc !l § c5 rt-o o. is.> CO 'o 5CD ^io" o>o £ 0,g Pis s and develop technicalvisits were conducted to analyze conditioncriteria.o ttee explored objectives ffunctional requirements.The initial meeting with the Project Commiimage and character of the site as well asCO 0.o 1* I**o% c 5 —« f A major objective of the design procesPublic Safety and Services Center whica Xo TJ amm >o functional but also an attractive place t<«D 1 5u)2 Q. "o 1oM (0 J2 1 _> 1 u> o w0'5T community and to city employees.5 *. a> * jz iiscussed on pages 4-7,ties and constraints of th«tions of each plan wereach plan responded to thet suburban image for th«i the city departments. Trt description and list ofFour alternatives, based on the program cprepared in order to analyze the opportunisite. The requirements and possible variadiscussed with the Project Committee. Ecommittee's intentions of creating a civic ycenter, and facilitating interaction betweeralternatives are presented here with a shoindividual advantages and disadvantages.00 0)1. PARKING LAKE CONCEPTConcentrates public and much of stalparking at the center of the site. Opespace, pedestrian linkages and buildiientries are located along the roadwayspine.Advantages-Convenient access fromCO -1 O> Q. ?s£ CO3 P s|0) W 2 15la - Interesting design opportunities- Views provided for all facilitiesDisadvantages- No central people space- Focus is on cars- Open spaces are separated bybuildings- Existing parking wouldn't conformto concept8s 1I .2 1 5:1oo <cc? e\i a MIIIfi-i.5" lo o> 8 fSSjMSS•*= ® 'w »- p S « S I §1 * "O ® rt c 'e § £1 it IS ?80 0 I's OCD COfo •g to.1 Hi p 'o 1 o IIs a O) S-s•5 ®II £i en space uses are concen) drive. A landscaped proi&^ 0 '55o.C*-•i dominant visual image ofw£vantages5 £Clearest site organizationautomobile use, *Sa) o>Allows potential for parkincenter Anchor Site, 1•o CD ?(/> i" f (advantagesw Q « > m tj.•e co » 0 "Dead" space at center ofA lack of adequate uses t 0 w <5 "5rt\ *^ r-Disperses open space usiPolice Administration Cenare partially blocked by Ar, 1 AMPUS CONCEPTU "«f Q. b 2 '5.0 <o 5 "S 2 w ^>1 CD <D 1 U < 05 I and landscaping of•fto o 3CO 2LL 1icti 5 t/5 §i II a> £® .E (D •= i-hevantagesParking is not adjacen> c Anchor SitePolice Administration Centerare partially blocked by theSitecoE , UJz_l UJ 0 5Ozgen UJ Q <0ilCD .CD 8 i ? -.5 0)S JE 'P O-S-o*•— C0 cd ?8.•i= ra S »8-g| * S g0) ^It« Sco y S s 2 ® tfl T=i.o 1^^ 8CD C 1 8 ^ O) I- -o eo y_-r~cc>icD^^ (0UJ LU O Oo Q. UJ g LU £CO LU LU CO ^cc2I LU ? ' to 05 .™ iz-sll f 8o-o J2 JS 52 ^. 2t8 LU •c -2 £?^-ic " LU ^« 7; ur •»•"5 ® 'IsQ.J? .frit ~5§1 O <o o> IiS W'-gO£ S3 g> 511£ O gI— o E sitepusIffc 0>CO .c -g CO CO 5f 0 O lements crcampus c<D 15 c\ c O O •n <D <D *—(08s omenade ;k_Q_ (D *T2 o 1 &£E?0 CO U "S cc oto >. fr§c S <D ^in o Ifo> to w 2•sr ®« S * '55 o •= c *^o 55 i!H« O) Q.is CODCo LLJ CO S 3 elco. l! III! - cco COUJz _lUJQ Da_i<oc i3Ul XoQC<conce<D c5 c "cO E | •atoS'> T3 £CO Sc "CD2"^O "cd ect T>The<D ..™ « c? o ^o *r~ >_ _E O -= '^ j: en ®« o 3 S e g §>• « .a -| o -g o g -s S 2 « 5 g .? CD £ {0 £ ^ fl Buildings0)O £ <£ 1 5 ?at Co '3CO £LL ion Center,Iministrat3 £iZ T3 CO CD0 "o Q. CD.C fco 1 *S S "S o wo>c 2 u £idscaping.•g &£S •5 2•2 8- ICO0. ^)ance/Purchasic .2]c 2 _o 0) •*-< T3 (0(1) "§ 0Q. "cO k.'CD o ?CO 5? 2 A £ OJO O«M appearaibe modest In2 o M co '•E£« 153 .!2 £ ® 0)Q. OO 2 "o is 13 co*•»n fJ2c•*- Vv O 0)50) 8 cS 5[c :c T3 CO Cg 555 £u. <Ds^1- </i0) oa$• 0) "c E CDx: .c 'i £LL T3 _O "o C _"S CD CD O w"Jo £ 1 t ling/Parks Faci1| £ "o CD</} CD C 8 1c/> (0 CD COUU> T3 CO & Ou c tration CenterCO'c E -Q <aterials.3nt masonry mc5 8.<0 I i 1a (f)LII aigDo cc UJ ucc< UJ0.<oI 1 . 1« *—• WJ31 s (0 :*= o •e~S £ns c c HEw x.®.£ CD CD o o3u. Q y^u13 § UJ = „m — 0- Z <t§m%§ai^i< o_ _j co co iso e Ian CirculationPedestrnk between buildings on northTL COi/>CO JC a promenade wal& CDSQ .•§U) "o £O) "S ^oCO•os S-s£O) •ECO $" 8c ^;&rate pedestrian acConcent? 2 ^CD 1 | .a cd S !a path along loopProvidefa & S 5 k.o'5T .c ^CD ffl tDr^ca w ? 5|y o 8.^ 1"1a?i.0^ J3£ CO O) 1a 2 feeder walkways fProvideffi .00 wra <5 3 Sco O O> . "" O» co 5-55a> *- *- « 3 a T5 O) .<D C ™ ?15O)^ T3 82 J111Sf I*2 Ins 8 D LLJ 1 00 I I til o a. LLO LJJ Q. O LLI S Q CM o 8 o i ASEIVEN SPACE IMPROx o. Q. O inistration1 £il ?rt o>_o "5a. 0) ^£ fa Construct a front, § 6 8s% rt jfi extension of the porch paving ma8» ? 0 uT0>"c ><S «o 5 fr! 5| 8^ §1s- T11iJ£ 8?i ^S 3|«l.E ca, .9.^o•*= o> ?S Formal landscapilInstall walkway al1 1 § I CO $ LUo 3UJs£w ^^ PT uj oW I X Z0. <NTS AND PARKING<\CE IMPROVEMEQ.w o CO o <1§ruction of a future Public Buildingdiamond)|i la 8?"O COC -Q CO o) Sfj8-S Q ®. , .£•sQ. 3 ?C0 front porch between the courtyardConstruction of aBuilding, | £ -i1 "- B15o> -X paved promenade walk connectinlities/Maintenance/Purchasing/PaiConstruction of aporch with the Utiporch, ^ £ 3 1 .S a O) ^ 1 J5 o> 1COQ. £ O C/5 (D Construction of th, .-!Q. O CO Q. I1 j= E« 2a X rd", including an amphitheatre, pUnation area, terracing and walkwa;ration Center to the courtyardoutdoor eating terracesnecessary"Campus Courtyalandscaping, recr<, Ta £c 5"E o> 3 •-< -on?"§§ 0 , §.1 CO 0) CO 00 QL DC LU cn J= c <BC .185& t w C M -22 <u gj w Sill B. PERIMETER/EDGESthe lush center courtyardvegetation. Geometry ofCarlsbad's agricultural wiT, *I S-218 Q- to litg 8 8E .= " O •*-• CO ~ 0)CD -£ O .E 5 73Z « S C. PARKING geometry oorganizes the parking aretraffic to the promenade £c c— QJ 0) "D 0 -Q"i_ r-S «Q} al IB 8. ^ "to73 y D. ART is site specific anand clarify architectural fccirculation8 o 73 "EC fl> ^ 8 0 ~2 E § £ o a> (B 73<3> 0) 73 CC (0 E. ENTRY EDGE use of iplanting materials create iocean promontoryQ. «„ <BO c (0 CB 0) CO §1 >— «W.w w O) ^F. FOREGROUND screeia definite edge and to visiindustrial uses from the si o oo to CM CO li g 1 m< os UJoc oto CO 8oco zO o) 511 ESx o o o18 8§w in o" oo 2 III5? o CD « £S3? §Spo. o So o8o"to oo> <D c -5 Ifl ii*|M & ell 3 ta oQ_ Q. CO § 5? O ..UJ Uloc -J= oa3 <o 3UJ 3oc<u. <w ^ Ul(A 8 DO Q W o" o oto eg oo ooc O o C 885 O~ ,-' «3" O>" CO o oO O o o88 BS" S S 88•^ °.e? m S Ul10 M wo</>(0x:Q. Q. DC111 A. FRONT PORCHES emphasize building entriesand link the buildings to the pedestrian promenadeand courtyard while acting as a "gallery" space forart worksB. CAMPUS COURTYARD (PARK) is an opengreen space and paved area which brings inpedestrians from all portions of the site. It isenlivened by the cafe, amphitheatre and recreationareas, and is the heart of the Safety CentercommunityC. PERIMETER/EDGES are a transition betweenthe lush center courtyard and the surrounding nativevegetation. Geometry of planting is suggestive ofCarlsbad's agricultural windrowsD. PARKING geometry of lines formalizes andorganizes the parking area while directing pedestriantraffic to the promenade and center courtyardE. ART is site specific and used to enrich, enhanceand clarify architectural focal points and pedestriancirculationF. PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE anchors theconcept of a campus plan, provides a gathering placeand separation from the automobile circulationG. ENTRY EDGE use of indigenous rock and coastalzone planting materials create an edge reminiscent ofan ocean promontoryH. FOREGROUND screening is necessary to providea definite edge and to visually separate the nearbyindustrial uses from the siteoo Io 0) Q) 0) <B QM M « j» «en n to <3 5•"= -c -c £• £•0. o. Q. a. U. Q.<