marin county civic center...marin county civic center master design guidelines the guidelines ensure...

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER

MASTER DES IGN GU IDEL INES

R O Y S T O N H A N A M O T O A L L E Y & A B E Y

Mark Cavagnero Associates

Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc.

Horton Lees Brogden Lighting Design

Kate Keating Associates Inc.

FINAL REPORTDecember 20, 2005

Table of Contents

Section 1: Executive Summary

Section 2: Project Overview and Background2.1 Introduction2.2 Master Design Guidelines Goals & Objectives2.3 Marin County Civic Center Master Plan of 1972-19902.4 National Historic Landmark Status2.5 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Principles2.6 Marin Civic Center Open Space Ordinance

Section 3: Site Organization3.1 Introduction3.2 View Corridors3.3 Site Circulation

• Pedestrian Circulation• Bicycle Circulation• Public Transportation• Vehicular Circulation and Parking

Section 4: Buildings and Architecture4.1 Introduction4.2 Frank Lloyd Wright Design Properties4.3 Building Guidelines

• Context: Siting, Orientation, Scale, Building Height• Function: Entry Orientation, Building Usage, Parking Approach• Visual Impact: Form, Roof Treatment, Walls and Openings, Exterior

Walkways/arcades, Materials, Color, Lighting

Section 5: Landscape & Site Elements5.1 Introduction5.2 Planting and Irrigation5.3 Paving and Surfaces 5.4 Site Furniture5.5 Fences and Screening5.6 Riparian Environments: Gallinas Creek, the Wetlands and the Lagoon 5.7 Park and Recreation Areas 5.8 Streetscapes 5.9 Parking Lots5.10 Lighting5.11 Signage and Wayfinding

Section 6: Potential Future Development Sites6.1 Possible Future County Facility Needs6.2 Overview of Site Analysis Report for Civic Center Expansion6.3 Additional Analysis and Site Selection Criteria6.4 General Recommendations

Section 7: Conclusion

BibliographyAcknowledgements & CreditsMaster Design Guidelines Summary Table

1

Executive Summary

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Marin County Civic Center is located on approximately one hundred and sixty acres in the City of San Rafael, twenty miles north of San Francisco. The Civic Center complex consists of three principal elements which include County government buildings, the fairgrounds and other culturally related facilities, and a park area. The entire site was master planned by renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright who, at the age of 90 years old, received the commission from the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 1957.

The government complex was Wright’s last major work and his largest constructed project. It is composed of two buildings, the 580-foot long Administration Building and the 880-foot long Hall of Justice, which are set at a slight angle to each other and joined together by a central rotunda. The rounded ends of the two build-ings are built into the side of the hills, where they are not merely placed on parcels of land, but the buildings are integrally con-nected to the landscape. In 1991, the buildings and surrounding area were granted status as a National Historic Landmark.

In August 2004, the County of Marin retained the services of Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey (RHAA), landscape architects and environmental planners, to lead the process of creating Master Design Guidelines for the Civic Center campus. RHAA’s project team included architects Mark Cavagnero Associates; traffic and parking engineers Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc.; lighting designers Horton Lees Brogden Lighting Design; and signage designer Kate Keating Associates.

These Master Design Guidelines were created to provide a framework for future development that recognizes the need to maintain the visual prominence of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Civic Center buildings within a setting that engenders an overall sense of openness.

REPORT ORGANIZATIONThe Master Design Guidelines report begins with a Project Overview and follows with design guidelines for Site Organization, Buildings and Architecture, and Landscape and Site Elements. Each chapter is divided into detailed sections which begin with design guidelines that are followed by related background in-formation including any laws and ordinances that would apply to new building on the site. Part of the Civic Center campus, including the Administration Building, the Hall of Justice, and Lagoon Park, was named a National Historic Landmark in 1991. Issues relating to this status are discussed in detail. In a similar vein, the Marin Civic Center Open Space Ordinance approved in 1992 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are also described. Finally, the report reviews

Portrait of Frank Lloyd Wright. Reproduced from the Administration Building Dedication Brochure, 1962. Anne T. Kent California Room, Marin County Free Library

The Hall of Justice (foreground) and the Administration Building (background)

Frank Lloyd Wright’s concept for the Civic Center. Reproduced from the cover of the Administration Building Dedication brochure, 1962.

2 MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES

Executive Summary

Potential Future Development Sites that have been identified in studies conducted prior to this one.

PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLESSeveral over-arching principles apply to all of the recommenda-tions in the Master Design Guidelines.

Sustainability. The County of Marin has set forth a policy to honor sustainable design principles, as described in the Draft Marin Countywide Plan, February 2004. New development at the Civic Center should strive to meet or exceed an environmental performance level based on the LEED™ Gold standard (from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System), subject to fiscal and programming constraints. These Guidelines identify and encourage green design concepts and practices.

Access. The County of Marin is committed to ensuring that no person with a disability is discriminated against in any program, service or activity. Any altered, remodeled or newly constructed facility on the Civic Center campus will be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. To achieve these practices, the County requires compli-ance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances.

Historical Consideration. In 1991 eighty-one acres of the Marin County Civic Center site were designated as a National Historic Landmark. These guidelines will ad-dress the County’s responsibility with regard to the site’s unique status, and will provide the County with guid-ance regarding potential future developments and site improvements.

Strategies for the Future. The Marin County Civic Center has amply served County residents for 30+ years and will continue to do so for decades to come. These Guidelines will help the County plan for the future while maintain-ing the Civic Center’s integrity and central role in Marin County culture and government.

Commitment to Children, Families and Seniors. The County is committed to providing community, recreation, and cultural resources for all Marin County residents. These guidelines help to ensure that current facilities and any possible future development will be of the highest quality and accessible to all.

MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINESThese guidelines are intended to provide a standard for future development and the criteria necessary to protect the architec-tural character of the site, preserve historic structures and reduce adverse visual effects while relating any new development to the historic context.

•

•

•

•

•

3

Executive Summary


The guidelines ensure that future projects will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, comply with the Civic Center Open Space Ordinance, and build on the design principles set out by Frank Lloyd Wright. These guidelines also suggest that all future development be designed sustainably in accordance with green building practices.

The Master Design Guidelines define design parameters for the following elements:

• Site organization to include views, parking locations and capacities, and traffic

• Buildings and architecture

• Landscape and site elements to include planting, irriga-tion, paving, site furniture, riparian environments, lagoon, park areas, streetscapes, parking lot design, lighting, and signage

Architectural guidelines are provided for possible future develop-ment that relate to the character of any new building in terms of context, function, visual impact, massing, and materials. These architectural guidelines attempt to capture Wright’s definition of “organic architecture” which required respecting the site, the nature of the building materials and creating an honest expression of buildings function. They also relay his sensitivity in relating a building to its context through orientation, scale, and building height. They also recommend an overall approach to the visual impact of new buildings that respect the Civic Center’s pre-eminence. These include guidelines relevant to new facilities such as building form, roof treatment, materials, colors, and light-ing, to more generic guidelines for the Civic Center landscape, streetscape, park areas, paving, and parking.

The following are the general architectural design principles, which support Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture:

• Associate the building as a whole with its site by extend-ing and emphasizing the horizontal planes of the build-ing. Where possible, programmatic elements should be elevated entirely above the ground to further emphasize the horizontality.

• Reduce the box-like nature of the building by making walls transparent and screen-like. Where program needs reduce the transparency of the exterior walls, walls should be designed to emphasize the lightness of the building through detail, rhythm and scale. Openings should be hu-man-scaled and should act singly or in a series, typically as light screens instead of walls.

• Reduce the number of building components in order to allow light, air and views to permeate and unify the build-ing.


Executive Summary

• Use uniform materials as much as possible to emphasize the form of the building, making it clearer and more ex-pressive.

Finally, the Master Design Guidelines provide direction in the areas of signage, wayfinding, and lighting in the Civic Center.

The attached Summary Table outlines the Master Design Guidelines, with more details in the accompanying full report and technical appendices.

POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITESA key component in the Master Design Guidelines creation process was to reevaluate and analyze previously studied de-velopment site recommendations and site capacities to identify additional land use criteria that should be considered in subse-quent designs. Issues discussed for site development include the following:

• County facility needs• Traffic impacts• Parking capacities• Visual impacts• Possible development sites• Site utilities

Based on the above, the Master Design Guidelines outline site selection criteria that the County can use for projects in the future. This document does not propose new development or authorize any new construction, but provides general guidelines for project proposals formulated elsewhere. The document dis-cusses previous site analysis reports that identify potential sites for new development on the campus. The sites for possible future development include the following:

Site 1 - Civic Center Parking “Pit”Site 2 - Temporary Dog ParkSite 3 - East Parking Lot and ArmorySite 4 - Overflow Parking LotSite 5 - North San Pedro RoadSite 6 - General Services BuildingSite 7 - Marin Center

This report recommends that Sites 1-4 and 6 remain in consider-ation as locations for possible future development and for further evaluation. Site 5 is outside the scope for analysis in this report. Site 7, the Marin Center, is currently undergoing a separate mas-ter planning effort. It is understood that future development in this area will be to enhance the County fairgrounds and other cultural amenities of the campus. Note that any development on Site 1, Site 4, and Site 6 is covered under the Marin Civic Center Open Space Ordinance approved in 1992 and would require a majority approval of the voters in Marin County.

The Administration Building upon completion in 1962

3

5

2

1

6

4

7

Potential Future Development SitesSite 1 - Civic Center Parking “Pit”Site 2 - Temporary Dog ParkSite 3 - East Parking Lot and ArmorySite 4 - Overflow Parking LotSite 5 - North San Pedro RoadSite 6 - General Services BuildingSite 7 - Marin Center

5

Project Overview


2. PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Introduction

LOCATION & EXISTING BUILDINGSThe Marin County Civic Center is located in the City of San Rafael, east of Highway 101 and twenty miles north of San Francisco. The approximately one hundred and sixty acre site is varied in type and form. Gallinas Creek runs along the northern end of the campus and links to wetlands that lead eastward to the bay. The southern end of the site is an oak woodland landscape of rolling hills, mature trees, and seasonal grasses. The San Pedro ridge frames the site to the southeast. The first major civic structure built on site was the four story Administration Building which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright before his death in 1959. The building was completed under the direction of architects William Wesley Peters and Aaron Green of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation in 1962. The second structure at the Civic Center, the five story Hall of Justice, was completed in 1970. The U.S. Post Office was also designed by Wright and completed in 1962.

The site hosts other structures as well. The General Services Building along Highway 101 was completed in 1971. The Marin Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium was designed by William Wesley Peters and Aaron Green, the same architectural heritage as the Administration Building and the Hall of Justice, and completed in 1971. The Exhibit Hall was designed by the Taliesin Associated Architects, led by Anthony Puttnam and was completed in 1976.

Marin County Civic Center - 1970

Marin County Civic Center - 2004


Project Overview

GALLINAS CREEK

EXHIBIT HALL / SHOWCASE CENTER

UNDEVELOPEDAREA

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

ARMORYLAGOON

JAIL

HALL OF

JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING

GENERAL SERVICES BUILDING

MARIN VETERANS' MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM

HIGHW

AY 101

N. SAN PE

DRO RO

AD

AVEN

UE O

F THE

FLAG

SCIVIC CENTER DRIVE

PETER BEHR DRIVE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJEC

T BOUNDARY

PROJECT BO

UNDARY

OVERFLOWPARKING

LOT

POST OFFICE

LAGOON PARK

PROJECT BOUNDARY

Marin County Civic Center - 1970 Marin County Civic Center - 2004

7

Project Overview


PREVIOUS STUDIESOver the last 30+ years various plans and studies have been completed to guide the County’s stewardship of the site. These include the following:

Marin County Civic Center Master Plan: 1972 - 1990, Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, June 1972

Schematic Master Plans: Grading, Utilities, & Planting, Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, December 1974

Conceptual Landscape Plan for Marin County Civic Center and Marin Center, Department of Parks, Open Space & Cul-tural Services, Marin County, by Steve Petterle, August 2000

County of Marin Facilities Master Plan, Gensler, April 2002

Preliminary Site Analysis Report for Civic Center Expansion, Heller Manus Architects, March 2003

•

•

•

•

•

Both firms are from the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. In 1960 Marin County leased the southeastern edge of the site to the State of California for a National Guard Armory. The 99-year lease agreement will expire in 2059.

The Marin Center property was deeded to the County several years ago by the State of California who originally purchased the eighty acres specifically to be home to the annual Marin County Fair, which moved to the site in 1972. There are no known land use restrictions on the site as long as the Marin County Fair is accommodated.

Marin County Fair 2003, Photo by Charles Benton


Project Overview

This project will review and update previous studies to equip the County with design guidelines that incorporate environmental protection and land use planning considerations for future de-velopment on-site.

2.2 Master Design Guidelines Goals & ObjectivesPOTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITESA key component of the Master Design Guidelines will reevaluate and analyze previous development site recommendations and site capacities to identify additional land use criteria that should be considered in subsequent designs.

Issues to be discussed for site development include the follow-ing:

County facility needsTraffic impactsParking capacitiesVisual impactsPossible development sitesSite utilities

Based on the above, the Guidelines will outline site selection criterion that the County can use for projects in the future.

DESIGN GUIDELINESThe Master Design Guidelines will also define design parameters for the following elements:

Site organization to include views, parking locations and capacities, and traffic

Buildings and architecture

Landscape and site elements to include planting, irrigation, paving, site furniture, riparian environments, lagoon, park ar-eas, streetscapes, parking lot design, lighting, and signage.

PRINCIPLESSeveral over-arching principles will apply to all of the recommendations in the Master Design Guidelines.

Sustainability. The County of Marin has set forth a policy to honor sustainable design principles, as described in the Draft Marin Countywide Plan, February 2004. New development at the Civic Center should strive to meet or exceed an en-vironmental performance level based on the LEED™ Gold standard (from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System), subject to fiscal and programming constraints. These Guidelines identify and encourage green design concepts and practices.

••••••

•

•

•

•

9

Project Overview


Access. The County of Marin is committed to ensuring that no person with a disability is discriminated against in any pro-gram, service or activity. Any altered, remodeled or newly constructed facility on the Civic Center campus will be ac-cessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. To achieve these practices the County requires compliance with all fed-eral, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances.

Historical Consideration. In 1991 eighty-one acres of the Marin County Civic Center site were designated as a National His-toric Landmark. These guidelines will address the County’s responsibility with regard to the site’s unique status, and will provide the County with guidance regarding potential future developments and site improvements.

Strategies for the Future. The Marin County Civic Center has amply served County residents for 30+ years and will continue to do so for decades to come. These Guidelines will help the County plan for the future while maintaining the Civic Center’s integrity and central role in Marin County culture and government.

Commitment to Children, Families and Seniors. The County is committed to providing community, recreation and cultural resources for all Marin County residents. These guidelines help to ensure that current facilities and any possible future devel-opment will be of the highest quality and accessible to all.

The County is also committed to the ongoing enhancement of security on the campus for employees and visitors alike. These guidelines assume that security is a critical responsibility of the County and that it will be thoroughly addressed in any possible future development projects. In addition, the campus will con-tinue to be a cultural centerpiece for the county and a gathering place for all to enjoy.

2.3 Marin County Civic Center Master Plan of 1972 - 1990Fundamental to the organization of the Marin County Civic Center is the idea that the entire campus, while made up of vari-ous governmental, cultural and recreational components, must nevertheless be experienced as a composite whole. The Civic Center and Fairgrounds form an integrated complex of related elements on an informal park-like setting that is visually appealing and accessible to all.

As expressed in the Marin County Civic Center Master Plan of 1972 – 1990, it is the intent of the County to maintain its open space heritage while providing for future growth. This sentiment is best summarized by the criteria established by the County of Marin for use in the development of this master plan:

•

•

•

•


Project Overview

DIAGRAM OF HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY

The site is to be treated as a composite whole. Any potential conflict between governmental activities and recreational-cultural activities must be resolved without interference or dilution of either.

Beyond identifying known and fixed items, flexibility to ac-commodate future developments is necessary.

New buildings must respect and enhance natural land formations. Extent of building and land coverage must be limited.

Variations in contemporary design for future building stages, not incompatible with present buildings, shall be consid-ered.

The possibility of grouping and combining new buildings as against constructing isolated elements should be thoroughly explored.

Introduced over thirty years ago, the stated criteria continue to provide a basis for current and future planning efforts and serve as the underpinnings for these guidelines.

2.4 National Historic Landmark StatusNational Historic Landmarks are buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects that have been determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be nationally significant in American history and culture. The Marin County Civic Center received its landmark designation

•

•

•

•

•

as an historic district on July 17, 1991. The following is a summary of the landmark application describing the extent of the historic district and the significance of the contributing resources.

11

Project Overview


BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONThe boundary of the eighty-one acre landmark site extends from North San Pedro Road to the south, U.S. Highway 101 to the west, edge of the lagoon to the north, and an adjoining residential neighborhood to the east.

Within the landmark designation, the Civic Center is classified as part of the Modern Movement and is an expression of Wright’s “organic architecture.” The contributing resources of the district include the Administration Building and Hall of Justice complex and the U.S. Post Office building along with the parking areas, roadways and lagoon, that compose the landscape setting. MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTERAs indicated in the landmark application, the Marin Civic Center government complex is the last major work of Frank Lloyd Wright and his largest constructed project. It is composed of two build-ings, the 580-foot long Administration Building and the 880-foot long Hall of Justice, which are set at a slight angle to each other and joined together by a central rotunda. The rounded ends of the two buildings are built into the side of the hills, where they are not merely placed on parcels of land, but the buildings are integrally connected to the landscape allowing the roadways to flow under and through the buildings.

Extending from the domed rotunda are repetitive arches that exhibit a light screen-like character and create a horizontal rhythm that recalls Roman aqueduct construction such as the Pont du Gard in Nimes. The screen of arches helps modulate the daylight. Adjacent to the rotunda is a terrace at the end of which springs a 172-foot triangular spire that complements the rhythmic, low-lying structures beyond.

Both the four-story Administration Building (completed in 1962) and the five-story Hall of Justice (completed in 1970) are con-structed of a combination of steel with poured concrete and pre-cast/pre-stressed concrete elements. The floor system uses pre-cast/pre-stressed double-tee floor members. Vertical supports are primarily small-diameter, extra-strength steel columns with pre-cast, elliptically shaped, concrete covers. The roof system is composed of a series of pre-cast concrete trusses supporting a thin, barrel-arched shell of reinforced concrete. Pre-cast units of ornament adorn the roof to help mask construction irregularities. Although intended to have a golden color, the roof is painted a sky blue color since no gold paint or coating had been de-veloped at the time to withstand tarnishing. The walls are of an intensified sand/beige color to compensate for the fading that would naturally occur over time.

The public enters the Administration Building from the center of the archway over the entrance drive. An ornate gold anodized gate leads to the interior of the building. Each of the interior floors have open light wells that increase in width from bottom to top to allow natural light to pour down from the roof. Though

View of Administration Building

Pont du Gard in Nimes

Entrance to Administration Building

Interior light wells


Project Overview

intended to be open to the outside, it was deemed necessary to cover the roof openings and barrel-vaulted skylights were subsequently installed.

UNITED STATES POST OFFICEThe U.S. Post Office (completed in 1962), located near the main entrance to the grounds at North San Pedro Road, is Wright’s sole federal commission. The one-story, elliptically shaped building has a flat roof hidden by a parapet and is constructed of rein-forced concrete masonry block painted the same color as the Civic Center complex. A broad, round-arched canopy of cast concrete is cantilevered from the façade above the glass entry wall. Originally, a large plastic globe of the world was mounted on a pole centered halfway inside and halfway outside of the building. However, as the plastic deteriorated over time, the globe was removed. The County owns the property under the Post Office (the lease expires in 2012) and is committed to the preservation and restoration of its historic resources. It encourages the restoration of the post office to its original form.

NON-CONTRIBUTING RESOURCESNot all buildings in the eighty-one acre landmark site are included as part of the historic designation, and are classified “non-con-tributing resources.” The Standards of Treatment do not apply to these buildings. The four non-contributing resources on the site include: 1) The County General Services Building near the west edge of the site along Highway 101, 2) the Marin Veterans’

DIAGRAM OF NON-CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES

View of U.S. Post Office today

View of U.S. Post Office with original globe

13

Project Overview


Memorial Auditorium near the north edge of the lagoon, 3) the Exhibit Hall Building at the north portion of the site that includes the fairgrounds and associated storage buildings, and 4) the Marin County Jail situated in the hill adjacent to the Civic Center and generally concealed from view. Also on the Civic Center Campus is a fire station located near the Post Office. The fire station is maintained and operated by the City of San Rafael, but the property under the station is owned by the County. The County leases this land to the San Rafael; the current agreement expires in 2006.

2.5 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards provide a reference for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction proj-ects related to historic resources such as the Marin Civic Center site. As a National Historic Landmark, all treatments undertaken within the historic district of the Marin Civic Center should be ap-proached with sensitivity and in accordance with the following ten principles:

1. County General Services Building 2. Marin Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium

3. Exhibit Hall 4. County Jail


Project Overview

A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be re-tained and preserved. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic prop-erty shall be preserved. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than re-placed. Where the severity of deterioration requires replace-ment of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be under-taken using the gentlest means possible. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construc-tion shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

2.6 Marin Civic Center Open Space OrdinanceApproved in 1992, the intent of the Marin Center Open Space ordinance is to preserve the aesthetic quality of the Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center buildings and grounds by preventing the construction of any building at the Marin County Civic Center grounds without the prior approval by a majority vote of the County electorate. The Civic Center grounds is defined as the land bordered by North San Pedro Road to the south, U.S. High-

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

15

Project Overview


way 101 to the west, the railroad right of way to the north, and Civic Center Drive to the east.

This ordinance does not, however, prevent or impede the County from: maintaining, repairing, restoring, or rebuilding the existing Civic Center building; maintaining, repairing, altering, or adding at-grade parking, pedestrian, or playground facilities; maintaining, altering, improving, or adding landscaping, utili-ties, or fencing; approving or constructing minor structures that do not exceed two hundred and fifty square feet and that are incidental to the operation of the Civic Center facilities; or mak-ing interior changes or modifications to the Civic Center building. Furthermore, it does not prevent or impede the placement on the Civic Center grounds of temporary structures for the purposes of seasonal activities such as Christmas tree sales and the County fair, and other temporary activities such as the weekly farmer’s market.

Projects undertaken within the Civic Center grounds (as shown within the dashed line of the diagram below) are therefore sub-ject to the requirements of this ordinance in acknowledging the Civic Center’s open space heritage.

DIAGRAM OF OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE BOUNDARY


Site Organization

View Number 6, from Marin Center toward Civic Center

View Number 8, from intersection of Civic Center Drive and No. San Pedro

View Number 9, from the Hill in Lagoon Park

SECTION 3: SITE ORGANIZATION

3.1 IntroductionThe Civic Center campus is unique for its natural and cultural history alike. Care must be taken to protect and enhance the campus while also planning for the future of Marin County. The issues discussed in this section relate to the overall organization of the site.

It should be noted that Frank Lloyd Wright’s master plan ad-dressed site organizational issues as well. Of this the National Historic Landmark Nomination states that “the master plan for the site respects its topography. The buildings, hills, roads, parking areas, lagoon, and prominent landscape features were linked together to facilitate the movement of people and automobiles.” It goes on to point out that while Wright’s plan set aside the north portion of the site for the fairgrounds, many of the features for this area were never built. The lagoon is the “major surviving feature of this part of the grounds.” 3.2 View CorridorsThere are many spectacular views through and to the Civic Cen-ter site. Views help to define the site and orient visitors thereby enhancing their overall experience of the landscape and build-ings. The following guidelines are to help protect, enhance and frame significant view corridors at the Civic Center.

GUIDELINES

Where views from the Civic Center buildings to the east and south are obstructed due to tall trees, replacing the trees with smaller species should be considered. (This must be handled with care; a thorough tree planting master plan is required.)

Undesirable views of Highway 101 from the Civic Center buildings should be mitigated with buffer and screen plant-ing along the site’s western edge. Care must be taken, however, to protect the view from the highway back towards the buildings.

Several important views are listed below and indicated on the View Corridors diagram.

View from Highway 101 southbound to the Hall of Justice and Administration BuildingView from the offices on the east side of the Administration Building eastward toward the San Pedro ridgeViews from the offices on the east side of the Hall of Justice

•

•

1.

2.

3.

17

Site Organization


1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

4

to the lagoon, Lagoon Park, the open space in the northeast corner of the site, and the bayViews from the offices on the west sides of the Administration Building and the Hall of Justice to Mount TamalpaisView from the island in the lagoon south and eastward toward San Pedro ridgeView from the northern edge of the lagoon southward to the Civic Center buildings framed by the San Pedro ridgeView from the open space area just east of the existing corral southwest to Mount Tamalpais

4.

5.

6.

7.

VIEW CORRIDORS


Site Organization

View from entry at Civic Center Drive and North San Pedro RoadView from the hill on the west edge of Lagoon Park

Where views of the Civic Center buildings are obstructed due to tall trees, replacing the trees with smaller species should be considered. (It should be noted that virtually all of the Monterey Pines on the campus will be removed within the next few years due to disease.) Careful attention must be paid to the historic character of the site when selecting replacement trees; drastic changes should be made only after careful consideration.

3.3 Site Circulation and Parking Capacity

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONThe following guidelines outline an approach to enhancing pe-destrian accessibility to the Civic Center.

GUIDELINES

Sidewalks along primary and secondary streets are pre-ferred site-wide in order to strengthen connections between buildings and recreational features on the site. Signage and nighttime lighting should also be included. Sidewalks will improve overall pedestrian safety and access to alternative parking lots for events.

A paved walkway of a minimum 12’ in width that circles the lagoon entirely should be completed per Frank Lloyd Wright’s original plan. Signage and nighttime lighting should also be included. Width and material should be consistent.

Pedestrian access to the undeveloped area in the northeast corner of the site is encouraged. Paths should be adequately signed for wayfinding and formalized to the degree necessary to protect sensitive habitats. Habitat control fences will be necessary to protect sensitive wetland areas. Paths should typically be approximately 4 - 6’ wide.

Existing trails on the site may or may not be formalized, based on the adjacent natural conditions at the discretion of the County. If formalized, trail width and materials should be consistent and determined on a case by case basis.

The County of Marin is committed to enhancing the travel experi-ence for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to ensure that alternate modes of transportation are successful in reducing car traffic. The Marin Countywide Plan underscores this commitment with repeated emphasis on the importance of pedestrian links and connections between neighborhoods, shopping centers, employment centers, schools and recreational sites.

Similarly, Frank Lloyd Wright and later planners agreed that ac-cess to the entire site by way of foot paths, walkways and bicycle

8.

9.

•

•

•

•

19

Site Organization


Existing pedestrian or multi-use path

Proposed pedestrian or multi-use path

Existing bicycle lanes

Proposed bicycle lanes

routes was critical to the site’s success as a recreational, cultural and civic destination. Plans for the Civic Center campus have always included a comprehensive network of walkways. Cur-rently the site lacks several critical pedestrian links. Stronger and consistent pedestrian connections would enhance accessibility to the site for visitors and employees alike.

It is also becoming increasingly important to provide access to

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CIRCULATION


Site Organization

the Civic Center from adjacent neighborhoods, as the campus now serves as a neighborhood park for an increasing number of local residents. Currently access to the site from adjacent areas is limited and could be improved.

For the purposes of this document, primary streets include major arterial and key north/south and east/west routes – North San Pe-dro Road, Civic Center Drive, Peter Behr Drive, and the Avenue of the Flags. Secondary streets are Judge Haley Drive, Vera Schultz Drive and Armory Drive.

BICYCLE CIRCULATIONThe following guidelines would improve bicycle circulation and accommodate increased bicycle usage on the Civic Center campus while reducing adverse effects on the landscape and environment.

GUIDELINES

Civic Center Drive and other primary streets should have striped bike lanes and should meet all City, County and State standards.

Bicycle access via bike paths or multi-use paths throughout the open space areas is encouraged. Care should be taken in designing these paths to avoid user conflicts and safety problems.

Coordination with relevant County agencies, City of San Rafael plans (including the Northgate Promenade), and in-terested citizen groups is encouraged.

The Transportation Section (Built Environment Element) of the Marin Countywide Plan emphasizes the importance of non-automobile transportation. The plan suggests expanding and improving exist-ing bicycle facilities and access. The County of Marin believes that “roadway designs should strive to adequately serve all types of users.” Again, this sentiment was expressed in the Marin Civic Center Master Plan developed in 1972. The plan recommended that “various areas be linked with bicycle paths” including a loop around the lagoon and along Civic Center Drive.

Today the Civic Center lacks a strong draw for cyclists. Only North San Pedro Road has striped bike lanes; the pathways in the rec-reation areas are not connected in a logical fashion; and there is a lack of adequate bike parking/storage. The Countywide Plan recommends adding a bicycle route along McInnis Parkway and a bicycle path along Civic Center Drive. While these addi-tions would improve the Civic Center’s accessibility to cyclists, a more comprehensive approach that provides links internally on the site as well as to other areas of the County is preferred. The County should also explore ideas such as providing additional bike parking (possibly covered areas) in various locations on site and implementing a “loaner” bike system would be beneficial

•

•

•

21

Site Organization


Bus shelter on Civic Center Drive

for County staff and visitors to the Civic Center.

The Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (June 2002), the North San Rafael Vision 2010 (November 1997) and the North San Rafael Vision Promenade Conceptual Plan (November 2002) identify the need to establish new pedestrian and bicycle con-nections from Terra Linda to the Civic Center. All suggest that this connection run under Highway 101 along the railroad tracks and then follow Civic Center Drive to North San Pedro Road. The County will work in collaboration with these previous efforts if and when such improvements are made on the campus. In addition, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) plans have incorporated these ideas into their plans for a future station at the Civic Center. SMART is discussed further in the following section on Public Transportation.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONThe following general guidelines address public transportation is-sues on the Civic Center campus that will help to accommodate increased transit utilization.

GUIDELINES

The County is committed to enhancing public and alternative modes of transportation to and from the Civic Center. Future transportation planning efforts should emphasize options other than the use of private vehicles.

Bus shelters are encouraged on the Civic Center campus and should be designed specifically for the site.

Additional bus service to the Civic Center for cultural events (evenings and weekends) and access to the library is en-couraged.

Coordination with and support of the SMART project and sta-tion at the Civic Center is encouraged.

Public transportation to and from the Civic Center campus is provided primarily by Golden Gate Transit bus service. The same was true in 1972. Today five bus routes stop along Civic Center Drive including the 33, 57, 59, 75, 123 lines. The primary bus stop is located at the intersection of Civic Center Drive and Judge Haley Way. Even so, most visitors travel to and from the Civic Center via automobile.

In addition to the regular bus service, the Marin County Depart-ment of Health and Human Services provides a free, wheel chair accessible shuttle service from the San Rafael Transit Center to 120 North Redwood Drive in San Rafael. This service increases public access to Marin County social service agencies and the Civic Center campus.

The Marin Countywide Plan supports and emphasizes the need

•

•

•

•


Site Organization

for expanded local bus service. It also encourages bus service providers to “post current schedules and maps at all transit stops and other key locations” and to “provide shelters that adequately protect riders from inclement weather.”

The Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, June 2000, states that communities “may choose to have bus shel-ters designed and built uniquely for individual sites.” This ap-proach seems especially appropriate at the Civic Center given its unique architecture and history. It should be noted that bus shelters must be installed in accordance with all disabled access requirements.

The Countywide Plan also supports the Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit (SMART) project, which proposes to bring rail ser-vice to the Civic Center campus. A new regional transportation district was established in 2003 to oversee the development and implementation of passenger rail service in Sonoma and Marin Counties. The goal of the SMART project is to provide passenger train service to Sonoma and Marin County residents along the Northwestern Pacific (NWP) rail corridor that lies next to Highway 101. A transit station is proposed at the northwest corner of the Civic Center campus. Further details regarding the station and its location at the Civic Center is discussed in Section 6.1, Possible Future County Facilities Needs.

SMART passenger train service will provide a much needed trans-portation alternative for thousands of commuters traveling within and between Sonoma and Marin counties as well as commuting to San Francisco. For example, currently the average southbound automobile trip between Santa Rosa and San Rafael during the peak morning commute along Highway 101 takes 70-80 minutes. The same trip by train will take approximately 55 minutes (CalTrans Report, 2001).

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION & PARKINGThe following guidelines present recommendations from an analysis of the potential traffic and parking impacts that would be associated with possible future changes to the Marin Civic Center campus in the County of Marin, including four alternative schemes for expanding use at the Marin Center together with additions such as the Public Safety Building and the Court Facilities which are also under consideration. The traffic and parking study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the County of Marin and the City of San Rafael, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.

GUIDELINES

The northbound, southbound and eastbound approaches to Civic Center Drive/Peter Behr Drive should be re-striped to include separate left-turn lanes and through/right-turn lanes and the intersection should be signalized as part of the de-velopment of the new Court Facilities.

•

23

Site Organization


Civic C

enter

Civic C

enter

Freitas Parkway

McI

nnis

Par

kway

Pete

r Behr

Arm

ory

N S

an P

edro

Roa

d

101

1

3

4

5

6

2

McI

nnis

Par

kway

Pete

r Behr

Arm

ory

N S

an P

edro

Roa

d

Freitas Parkway

Merrydale Overcro s sing

DriveDrive

LEGEND

xx(xx)

A.M. Peak Hour VolumeStudy Intersection

P.M. Peak Hour Volume

North

Not to Scale

142(136)

889(642)

76 (18)

(279)542

(545)614

(58) 30

(154

)146

(56

) 2

1

(38

) 2

6

237(

397)

59 (

42)

169(

141)

8/046

26(187)

15(45)

28(43)

(163) 47

(11) 15

(110)181

(115

)66

(275

)88

(10

)31

146(

207)

556(

176)

43 (

21)

8/042

(290)295

(24)123

(235)390

(173

)25

(450

)91

(

4) 4

256(

429)

321(

135)

42 (

1)

8/041

566(

333)

148(

74)

79(135)

74(106)

(214

)122

(65

)107

8/043

2(4)

1(0)

7(10)

(60)15

(1) 0

(6)12

(

9)

9

(209

)230

(

3) 1

3

161(

18)

440(

399)

4

(3)

8/044

6 (13)

3 (0)

18(28)

(5)0

(0)0

(12)4

(12

) 5

9

(210

)257

(28

) 7

2

30 (

12)

375(

380)

29 (

8)

8/045

FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA AND EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES


Site Organization

The County should coordinate events at all of the various fa-cilities throughout the Marin Civic Center campus to ensure that the parking supply is not exceeded.

The County should improve the signing and pathway con-nectivity between the east parking lot and the Marin Center facilities so that this parking area can be more readily as-similated into the supply for large events.

Traffic impacts are typically evaluated by determining the number of trips the new use would be expected to generate, distributing the new trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, and then by analyzing the impact the new traffic would be expected to have on critical intersections included in the study. Parking impacts are evaluated by deter-mining if the planned supply of parking will be adequate for the new land uses or development proposed.

The study area consisted of the following six intersections chosen with input from County staff. Although worst-case conditions for the Marin Center would exist in conjunction with a large event at one or more of the venues, since such events typically occur when there is limited activity at the Civic Center or in the area in general, conditions were evaluated during the weekday morn-ing and evening peak periods when commute traffic creates the greatest congestion in the vicinity of the Marin Center.

Civic Center Drive-Redwood Highway/Freitas ParkwayCivic Center Drive/Merrydale OvercrossingCivic Center Drive/McInnis ParkwayCivic Center Drive/Peter Behr DriveCivic Center Drive/Armory DriveCivic Center Drive/N. San Pedro Road

The location of the project area is shown in Figure 1.

The complete Vehicular Circulation & Parking study, including the full analysis, tables, assumptions, methodologies, and discussion is contained in the Appendix. This includes an analysis of exist-ing and future traffic and parking conditions under alternative scenarios.

•

•

1.2.3.4.5.6.

25

Buildings and Architecture


SECTION 4: BUILDINGS & ARCHITECTURE

4.1 IntroductionUnique to the Marin County Civic Center site is the sense of open space organized around Frank Lloyd Wright’s landmark Civic Center building with its golden spire serving as the symbolic center of the campus. This is consistent with Wright’s original plan that stakes out a variety of uses to claim and organize this large continuous space that was once undeveloped land. As shown in his last site plan, each proposed building acknowledges the Civic Center as the focal point of the campus allowing a clear line of sight across the open space from each of the buildings back to the emanating spire.

The following guidelines provide a framework for future develop-ment that recognizes the need to maintain the visual prominence of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Civic Center Building within a setting that engenders an overall sense of openness. Important to this dis-cussion are the aspirations of the previous Marin County Civic Center Master Plan and the significance and implications of the Civic Center’s status as a National Historic Landmark. Thorough review of these issues as well as an understanding of the underly-ing design principles of Frank Lloyd Wright will inform the recom-mendations of these guidelines.

These guidelines are intended to provide a standard for future development and the criteria necessary to protect the archi-tectural character of the site, preserve historic structures and reduce adverse visual effects while relating any new develop-ment to the historic context. The guidelines ensure that future projects will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, comply with the Civic Center Open Space Ordinance, and build on the design principles set out by Frank Lloyd Wright. These guidelines also suggest that all future development be designed sustainably in accordance with green building practices.

Last Frank Lloyd Wright Site Plan

Civic Center spire



4.2 Frank Lloyd Wright Design PrinciplesPer item 9 of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that to be compatible with the architectural character of this site, one needs to be compatible with the tenets of Frank Lloyd Wright’s own work.

The following design principles are derived from Frank Lloyd Wright’s work, including the landmark Marin Civic Center Ad-ministrative Building and Hall of Justice. They follow the intent set out in the Master Plan of 1972 –1990, the Historic Landmark Designation, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treat-ment of Historic Properties, and the Marin Civic Center Open Space Ordinance.

General architectural design principles, which support Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture:

Associate the building as a whole with its site by extending and emphasizing the horizontal planes of the building. Where possible, programmatic elements should be elevated entirely about the ground to further emphasize the horizontality.

Reduce the box-like nature of the building by making walls transparent and screen-like. Where program needs reduce the transparency of the exterior walls, walls should be de-signed to emphasize the lightness of the building through detail, rhythm and scale. Openings should be human-scaled and should act singly or in a series, typically as light screens instead of walls.

Reduce the number of building components in order to allow light, air and views to permeate and unify the building.

Use uniform materials as much as possible to emphasize the form of the building, making it clearer and more expressive.

Frank Lloyd Wright’s work was based in his belief that a building is a unified whole; that form and function are one. This has become associated with the term “organic architecture.” For Wright, organic architecture required respecting the site, the nature of the building materials and creating an honest expression of the buildings function. The following images illustrate these principles with buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. They are intended to show in general terms a range of ways that these design principles may be used in building on the Civic Center site.

•

•

•

•

27



Associate the building as a whole with its site by extending and emphasizing the horizontal planes of the building. Programmatic elements should be elevated entirely above the ground to further emphasize the horizontality.

Robie House – 1906 Fallingwater - 1935

Marin Civic Center, Hall of Justice - 1970 Hall of Justice Entry Arch - 1970

FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DESIGNED PROJECTS



Reduce the box-like nature of the building by making walls transparent and screen-like. Where program needs reduce the transparency of the exterior walls, walls should be designed to emphasize the lightness of the building through detail, rhythm and scale. Openings should be human-scaled and should act singly or in a series, typically as light screens instead of walls.

Willits House – 1901 Robie House -1906

Marin Civic Center Roof and Spire - 1970 Exterior Entry Arch, Administration Bldg. - 1970


29



Reduce the number of building components in order to allow light, air and views to permeate and unify the building.

Florida Southern College - 1938Guggenheim Museum - 1959

Marin Civic Center Interior, Upper Floor - 1970 South End of the Administration Building - 1970




Use the uniform materials as much as possible to emphasize the form of the building, making it clearer and more expressive.

V.C. Morris Building - 1948 Guggenheim Museum - 1959

Marin Civic Center -1970 Administration Building -1970


31



4.3 Building GuidelinesThese building guidelines are intended to provide a standard for future development related to the character of the building in terms of its context, function and visual impact. They follow the intent set out in the Master Plan of 1972 –1990, the Historic Landmark Designation, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and the Marin Civic Center Open Space Ordinance. They further build on the design prin-ciples set out by Frank Lloyd Wright.

These guidelines also suggest that all future development be designed sustainably. New development at the Civic Center should strive to meet or exceed an environmental performance level based on the LEED™ Gold standard (from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System), subject to fiscal and program-ming constraints. Specific areas of interest are identified within the guidelines but do not represent the full extent of possible environmentally sensitive design practices.

CONTEXTThe distinguishing character of the Administration Building and Hall of Justice in bridging the hills, serve as a powerful reminder of Frank Lloyd Wright’s genius in relating building to site. The following guidelines attempt to capture this sensitivity in relat-ing a building to its context. More specifically, they outline an approach toward development on the Civic Center campus in terms of siting, orientation, scale and height.

GUIDELINES

SitingIntegrate the building with the site by working with the topog-raphy to create an environment that allows the campus to be seen as a composite whole.

Site the building to maintain a sense of open space throughout the campus while preserving as much contigu-ous outdoor space as possible.

Where parking is necessary, it should be sited with sensitiv-ity so as not to obscure the sense of open space or diminish the presence of the buildings.

OrientationOrient buildings, wherever possible, to create a clear line of sight toward the Civic Center spire - acknowledging it as the focal point for the Civic Center campus.

Where it may be difficult to create a line of sight to the Civic Center spire, the building should nevertheless acknowledge the Civic Center as the center of the campus.

•

•

•

•

•



Orient buildings, wherever possible, to conform to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards to maximize ecological design efficiency and minimize en-ergy use.

ScaleScale buildings so as not to diminish the prominence of the Administration Building and Hall of Justice on the site.

With respect to neighboring structures, scale buildings to avoid large-scale discrepancies.

Building heightA new building should not be so tall as to overwhelm the Administration Building and Hall of Justice. The height of a new building (or portion of a building) will be determined by programmatic needs with the utmost care and sensitivity to its surroundings.

FUNCTIONThe principle aim of the Marin County Civic Center complex is to provide a place for governmental, cultural and recreational activities. To this end the buildings and site must function together to allow for ease of public use. The following guidelines provide recommendations toward organizing building functions. More specifically, it addresses issues concerning entry orientation, pro-gram placement and parking approach.

GUIDELINES

Entry orientationWhere possible, orient main building entries toward the ar-terial roadways of the site to promote circulation efficiency throughout the campus.

The siting of the building takes precedence and should be carefully considered per the ‘context’ guidelines before un-dertaking the placement of entries.

Main building entries should be clearly distinguished from the rest of the structure to ensure recognition and ease of access.

Organize building entries to promote pedestrian circulation between buildings.

Building usageBuildings should promote public activity throughout the site.

Public uses should be maintained on the ground level, wherever possible, to promote accessibility and street level activity.

Less active functions such as administrative, educational,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

33



non-profit, or similar uses should be placed on the upper level wherever possible.

Parking approachParking should be on site and easily accessible, but should not obscure the site’s sense of open space or diminish the presence of the buildings. Further discussion on parking lots is in Section 5, Landscape and Site Elements.

All methods of sharing existing parking through parking man-agement programs should be explored before pursuing the construction of parking structures.

If required, parking structures should be lined with program space, dense landscaping, or a designed series of earth berms with plantings to conceal their appearance and use as a non-occupied building. The feasibility of underground parking structures, covered by landscaped park-like areas or new buildings, should be explored.

Parking fields and parking structures should be designed to be environmentally sensitive, minimizing hardscape and built structures while maximizing open space.

VISUAL IMPACTCentral to the Marin County Civic Center complex are the Frank Lloyd Wright designed Administration Building and Hall of Justice, which span three hills with their graceful arches. In overlooking the site from the top of these hills, these buildings evoke a civic presence across the landscape. The following recommendations prescribe an overall approach to the visual impact of buildings that respect Civic Center’s preeminence. More specifically, it addresses issues concerning form, roof treatment, walls and openings, exterior walkways, materials, color and lighting.

GUIDELINES

FormUse fewer forms to present a simpler and “quieter” effect to enhance the beauty of the surroundings.

Long, low forms are preferred in accordance with Frank Lloyd Wright’s design principles and the visual quality of the Administration Building and Hall of Justice.

Do not use forms that visually challenge the topography but rather allow the building forms to be complementary to the landscape.

Emphasize formal clarity of the building by maintaining a simple palette of materials.

Roof treatmentRoof types that are larger, simpler, visually quiet, and formally cohesive are preferred.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



Avoid roof types that appear smaller and visually busy, and might be interpreted as residential in scale.

Roof types should be differentiated from the existing landmark buildings to avoid mimicry and to protect the historic integ-rity of the landmark buildings. Refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Roof treatments should be visually integrated into the overall architectural concept.

Incorporate the need for mechanical and electrical equip-ment into the building design to avoid placing such items onto the roof.

Sustainability issues such as use of renewable energy and daylighting should be considered and incorporated into the design of the roof.

Walls and openingsTreat exterior walls as light screens, wherever possible, to take advantage of natural daylight and views to provide building occupants a connection between the indoor spaces and the outdoors.

Harmonize all necessary openings – doors, passages and windows – with good human-scaled proportions.

Organize exterior wall openings to act singly or in a series, typically as light screens instead of solid walls.

Exterior walls should not mimic the Administration Building and Hall of Justice, but may be sympathetic in its intent as a screen to modulate daylight. Refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Buildings must respect any privacy issues with regard to nearby residential structures.

Sustainability issues such as optimizing energy efficiency and use of daylighting should be considered and incorporated into the design of the exterior envelope.

Exterior walkways/arcadesExterior walkways and arcades should be of good human-scaled proportions and integrated with the buildings.

If exterior walkways/arcades serve no functional and pro-gram purpose, as the Civic Center arcades do, do not inte-grate them so as to mimic, copy or degrade the landmark structure.

An arcade does not require arch forms, which in itself may

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

35



be seen as mimicking. Refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

MaterialsEliminate the combination of different materials in favor of uniform materials as much as possible to emphasize hierar-chy and clarity.

Choose a simple material palette to express building con-tinuity.

Materials should convey a sense of substance and evoke a civic quality.

Use natural, non-reflective materials where possible to com-plement the landscape.

Sustainability issues such as recycled content and mate-rial origination should be considered in making material choices.

ColorBuilding colors should not compete with or otherwise diminish the visual character of the Frank Lloyd Wright Administrative Building and Hall of Justice.

Building colors should follow Frank Lloyd Wright’s intent of relating the building to the landscape.

Avoid bright colors so as not to clash with, compete with or otherwise diminish the existing landmark structures.

LightingThe overall feel of the open space, as a natural setting should be respected, with security and wayfinding/orientation light-ing given precedence. Further information is included in Section 6, Landscape and Site Elements.

Buildings should have visually restrained and elegant lighting, and should be designed to be compatible and complemen-tary with the landmark structures.

Exterior building lighting should be designed and shielded as necessary to avoid off-site lighting and night sky pollution.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


Landscape and Site Elements

SECTION 5: LANDSCAPE AND SITE ELEMENTS

5.1 Introduction HISTORY AND APPROACHThe Marin County Civic Center Master Plan 1972 - 1990 and the subsequent Schematic Planting Master Plan prepared in Decem-ber 1974 by the Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation provide a framework of ideas for planting and irrigation that are equally appropriate today. Both reports suggest that the Civic Center site be treated as “one continuous informal open space with a natural or ‘native’ feeling.” The 1974 report further states that “a largely ‘native’ landscape would be most appropriate in order to maintain and reinforce the pastoral character of the Civic Center site, to provide a sympathetic set-ting for the buildings, and to minimize maintenance and irrigation needs.”

Over the last 40 years, the landscapes at the Civic Center have matured and endured. A generally native and indigenous ap-proach to much of the landscape of the Civic Center seems appropriate for the past, present and future of the site. The 1974 report defines plant groupings for specific locations on the site based on the location’s environmental conditions and functions. This approach works well for such a large and diverse landscape.

In August 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a Conceptual Landscape Plan by landscape architect Steve Petterle of the County’s Department of Parks and Open Space. The intent of the plan was to renovate the existing landscape of the Civic Center and Marin Center. Although approved by the Board, no working drawings or further documentation were completed. However, the landscape and site elements’ guidelines presented below are consistent with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan.

Many of the plant groupings described below are similar to those defined in Wright’s earlier report; others have been modified and amended for current conditions. The guidelines below take into account both the natural and the cultural landscapes of the site; the goal is to respect Frank Lloyd Wright’s original vision as well as the natural environment. Other factors include existing conditions; soil fertility; deer damage potential; aspect and sun exposure; location; level of required maintenance; water con-servation; native species; and sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITYUsing sustainable design practices is a priority for the County of Marin. Planting and irrigation design are key components of

37



sustainability. To that end, it is proposed that durable, low water use plants be used wherever possible. Typically plants that are native to the area are more likely to thrive with less supplemen-tal water and fertilization, but non-native ornamental species may also be appropriate for some areas on the Civic Center campus.

IRRIGATIONState-of-the-art irrigation systems and techniques are also impor-tant to sustainable landscapes. The Civic Center landscapes,

LANDSCAPE ZONES

LAGOON

Building entries and courtyardsNative hillsides

Streetscapes

Park areas

Riparian environments

Building entries and courtyardsNative hillsides

Streetscapes

Park areas

Riparian environments



where irrigated, are watered using recycled water. Reclaimed or recycled water impacts the types of plants that can be used. In many cases the irrigation systems operated on site are as old as the landscapes themselves, and require extensive maintenance to remain operational. Updated and improved irrigation systems for the more manicured areas of the site would improve water use efficiency, reduce maintenance costs, and improve plant health and durability. For example, drip irrigation systems should be considered for planting areas with low water needs.

5.2 Planting and IrrigationLANDSCAPE ZONESThe following plant groupings, or landscape zones, describe dif-ferent areas of the Civic Center campus based on the type of planting appropriate for that area.

NATIVE HILLSIDES PLANTING AND IRRIGATIONThe hillsides on the campus are currently dotted with mature Oak trees as well as some non-native trees and shrubs.

GUIDELINES

The existing Oak trees are to be augmented with additional Oaks whenever and wherever possible. Oaks will serve as the “signature tree” for this landscape as they thrive on these hills, are long-lived, and are appropriate to the site’s cultural history.

Non-native trees and shrubs – especially those that are invasive, unsightly, and/or unhealthy – should be replaced over time with species appropriate to the Oak woodland landscape.

Both deciduous and evergreen plantings should be selected to enhance the native Oak woodland landscape and be appropriate in size and scale with respect to any adjacent historic structures. For example, new planting should not in-terfere with views to or from the Civic Center buildings when they reach maturity.

The present grassy ground cover is to be preserved and aug-mented with additional native seeding when necessary.

The hillsides adjacent to the Administrative Building and Hall of Justice are now inhabited by a variety of trees. In general, the native Oak species appear to be healthy and thriving. Some of the Pines and Poplars are doing less well; many appear to be dis-eased and in some cases are obstructing views. The County has indicated that virtually all Monterey Pines on the campus will be removed within the next few years due to disease. There are also several species of ‘volunteers’ in this area such as Cotoneaster that do not add to the beauty or character of the site.

•

•

•

•

California Live Oak tree

Native Hillside

39



The Native Hillsides plant grouping described below is preferred where existing slopes exceed roughly 20% or where heavy foot traffic is not expected or desired. Currently this applies to the hillsides adjacent to the Administration Building and the Hall of Justice as well as the area south of the General Services Building along Highway 101. Frank Lloyd Wright’s affinity to the rolling hills of Marin supports the approach of enhancing the Oak woodland ecosystem wherever possible.

It should be noted, however, that Sudden Oak Death syndrome is a serious problem in Marin County. The County must use cau-tion in order to protect existing trees and reduce the potential of introducing the disease to the site.

STREETSCAPES PLANTING AND IRRIGATIONThe guidelines listed below are intended to provide guidance for the improvement of streetscapes on the Civic Center campus.

GUIDELINES

Primary streets, such as Civic Center Drive, Peter Behr Drive and the Avenue of the Flags, should each have a clear and consistent streetscape planting approach and design. Plant palettes, especially street trees, should be devised for each primary street. Formal street tree planting is encouraged where appropriate. Cohesion and clarity in planting and materials will enhance the visitors’ experience and improve wayfinding on the site. Special attention should be paid to the protection of view corridors. While unity is desired, some breaks in street tree plantings may be necessary to preserve views.

Secondary streets, such as Judge Haley Drive, Armory Drive, and Vera Schultz Drive, should also have a clear and con-sistent streetscape planting approach and design. Because these streets have less traffic and importance on the site, the street tree planting can be less formal than those for the pri-mary streets. However, designing a planting palette for each is encouraged in order to guide future improvements.

Over the last several years improvements have been made to some streetscapes on the Civic Center campus. Median plantings on Civic Center Drive include flowering perennials, small shrubs and trees. The median of Peter Behr Drive is planted with a row of flowering Redbuds and perennials. Most of the streetscapes, however, lack unified or cohesive planting schemes.

For example, the east side of Civic Center Drive beyond Judge Haley Drive is not planted with street trees, presumably to allow a clear view to the adjacent lagoon. The west side of the street is too steep to plant with street trees. Between Civic Center Drive and the Administration Building the median of Peter Behr Drive is attractive, but the south side of the street is considerably less so. It is lined with diagonal parking and a sidewalk that is adjacent to a

•

•Garden outside cafeteria

Peter Behr Drive

Cafeteria courtyard



native hillside area. Currently there is not an adequate transition between the more urban vehicular and pedestrian realm and the natural planting area beyond. The north side of the street is similar, although it has a better feel due to the denser planting of the native hillside area.

BUILDING ENTRIES, COURTYARDS, PATIO PLANTING AND IRRIGATIONThe guidelines listed below are intended to provide general direction for the maintenance and improvement of building–as-sociated landscapes on the site as well as for any future devel-opments.

GUIDELINES

As is currently the practice, highly ornamental plantings are appropriate for the building-related landscapes of the Marin County Civic Center buildings including interior courtyards such as the patio adjacent to the cafeteria and the former exercise courtyard of the original jail. These landscapes should reference Wright’s historic plans whenever possible and appropriate and should include a balance of decidu-ous and evergreen plants. Where the exterior of the building meets the natural ground plane, plantings should be mature and appear to be part of the natural landscape.

The entry landscapes of the Veteran’s Memorial Auditorium and the Exhibit Hall should be enhanced and improved with additional appropriately scaled plantings. This would also enhance wayfinding for visitors to these venues.

Planting adjacent to any future development – at entries, in courtyards, etc. – should be contemporary in nature and ap-propriate in scale, color, and texture for the new architecture. It should not attempt to match or mimic existing plantings on the site.

The 1974 plan suggested that landscaping adjacent to buildings be smaller in scale and more detailed than other planting areas. This approach is still appropriate, generally speaking, for the cam-pus now and in the future. Planting at the main entries to the Administrative Building and Hall of Justice appear to be healthy and well-tended. This is also true of the planting beds ‘inside’ the buildings on the ground floors. The landscaping adjacent to the structures at the Marin Center, however, are not as attractive.

The planting in the courtyard/patio at the south end of the Ad-ministration Building is a specialty water-conserving garden. This seems appropriate for this space. The courtyard/patio adjacent to the cafeteria includes an artificial pond and fountain, a lawn area, and many ornamental trees and plants.

PARK AREAS PLANTING AND IRRIGATIONThe following guidelines are intended to enhance current park

•

•

•

Lagoon Park

Courtyard at south end of Administration Building

41



lands and to guide the development of additional parks on the site.

GUIDELINES

The irrigation in the Lagoon Park area should be upgraded for efficiency and ease of maintenance.

Perimeter tree planting to define the edge of the site and to screen the park from adjacent neighborhoods should be maintained and enhanced. Replacement trees in the lawn areas must be able to tolerate lawn watering and should provide as much shade as possible. Trees along the site’s perimeter, away from the lawn area, may be Oaks or other natives that do not require or tolerate irrigation or understory planting. A balance of deciduous and evergreen species is desired.

The character of Lagoon Park should be extended around the entire lagoon, as was originally intended, to form a complete loop of green space. The planting of this space should be pri-marily lawn due to its versatility and ease of maintenance.

Planting for park areas to be developed in the future should connect both literally and figuratively with the existing open space at the Civic Center so as to create a cohesive whole.

The park area immediately southeast of the lagoon has provided visitors to the Civic Center a functional recreational landscape for decades. The open expanse of turf is popular with individuals out for a stroll and families looking for a relaxing place for a picnic. Given the popularity and multi-purpose nature of the space, no changes to the planting are suggested.

5.3 Paving and SurfacesThe following guidelines are intended to outline the preferred ap-proach to paving treatments and surfaces on the Marin County Civic Center campus. Further discussion regarding pedestrian circulation, path widths and preferred routes can be found in Section 3.3, Site Circulation and Parking Capacity.

PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS PAVING AND SURFACESFor the purposes of this study, the pedestrian routes between the buildings on the campus, adjacent to arterial streets, and circling the lagoon are considered “primary pedestrian connections.”

GUIDELINES

Existing sidewalks should be made as consistent as possible in terms of design, material, color and finish.

The preferred material for primary pedestrian routes is stan-

•

•

•

•

•

•



dard gray concrete with a consistent medium broom finish. Where the route is directly adjacent to historic structures and “Taliesin Red” paint color has traditionally been used on the paving, it is recommended that integrally colored or stained concrete be used in lieu of surface paint.

SECONDARY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS PAVING AND SURFACESPedestrian routes such as trails are considered secondary pe-destrian connections. Existing trails should be evaluated by the County for their popularity, usefulness, safety, and overall ap-propriateness.

GUIDELINES

County-sanctioned pedestrian paths and trails should be for-malized where doing so would not conflict with adjacent uses. This will increase access to various site amenities.

For existing trails that are not formalized, the preferred surface material is stabilized decomposed granite. Where conditions require additional stability and durability, concrete or asphalt may be appropriate.

STREET PAVING AND SURFACESStreets throughout the campus, as mentioned above are and should continue to be paved in asphalt and adhere to City of San Rafael and Marin County design standards when applicable.

GUIDELINES

Asphalt paving with concrete curbs for primary and second-ary streets is preferred.

In particular, the Avenue of the Flags should be repaved with asphalt. (It is understood that the Marin Center Master Plan will address further design issues of the Avenue of the Flags. While certain details on the Avenue of the Flags may change as a result of the Master Plan, it is desired that the overall look and feel of the street be consistent with that of other streets on the Civic Center campus.)

SPECIAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES PAVING AND SURFACESThere are several existing special landscape features on the site. Additional features such as a plaza and outdoor courtyards may be developed at the Marin Center in the coming years.

GUIDELINES

Paving for outdoor courtyards adjacent to historic structures should be historically appropriate and of the highest quality available. Painted or exposed aggregate concrete surfaces should be replaced over time with integrally colored concrete. Examples include the outdoor area adjacent to the cafeteria and the outdoor area at the south end of the Administration Building.

•

•

•

•

•

43



Paving and surfaces of new special landscape features ad-jacent to new architecture should match in spirit with the new building and be site appropriate. Paving materials should be generally neutral, of the highest quality and as permeable as possible in any given situation. Paving and surfaces in these cases should support a unified view of the overall campus whenever possible, but may be contemporary materials and treatments as is appropriate for new development.

Paving materials and site surfaces in any landscape are important as they help to define spaces and connections. Surface treat-ments also signal the importance of an arrival point or building entry and provide visitors with a sense of orientation.

At the Marin County Civic Center much of the paving for side-walks and pedestrian paths has varying materials, quality, and levels of maintenance. These include standard gray concrete, “Taliesin Red” painted concrete, exposed aggregate concrete (sometimes tinted) and asphalt. The roads are paved in asphalt and lined with concrete curbs. Special landscape features, such as patios and courtyards adjacent to existing structures, are generally paved with exposed aggregate concrete or painted concrete. The use of “Taliesin Red” at the entries of the Civic Center buildings ties in with the building’s interior décor and is historically appropriate.

In general, the quality of paving materials at the Civic Center should be significantly improved and updated. It is preferred, too, that paving treatments and materials be consistent based on function as much as possible and promote permeability to reduce stormwater runoff. For example, primary pedestrian con-nections throughout the site should be upgraded with the same surface. This will provide clarity for pedestrians finding their way through the site.

5.4 Site FurnitureThe following guidelines are intended to outline the preferred ap-proach to site furniture on the Marin County Civic Center campus that will be accessible to all users.

GUIDELINES

Park Areas and Lagoon PerimeterIt is recommended that all site furniture in Lagoon Park and the landscape surrounding the Lagoon be replaced with high quality, easy to maintain, durable pieces consistent through-out the campus. These pieces should become campus standards for park-like settings.

Benches, tables, trash receptacles and any other desired site furniture should be of similar design, color, and materials. Please see recommendations below.

•

•

•

Existing picnic table

Existing bench

Existing recycling and trash receptacles



The design of the furniture should be site appropriate and considerate of the historic buildings on the site. The use of the “Taliesin Red” as an accent color should be considered depending on the furniture’s location, but is not required.

Courtyards & PatiosOutdoor furniture for spaces related to the Administration Building and the Hall of Justice should be consistent. Further study on historic information regarding Frank Lloyd Wright’s original intent could be done in order to choose an appropri-ate standard for these spaces. Otherwise, the campus-wide standard site furniture should be used.

New buildings on the campus with related outdoor areas such as courtyards or patios should use the Civic Center’s standard furnishings whenever possible. When this approach is not appropriate, the new building should establish site furniture standards specific to the architecture. These pieces should also be respectful of the overall setting and character of the campus.

The pieces shown here - benches, picnic tables, trash and re-cycling receptacles, bollards, and bicycle racks - are recom-mended as site standards for the campus. Several factors that

•

•

•

Backless Austin Bench by Landscapeforms Austin Bench by Landscapeforms

Metal Austin Bench Timber Form Model 38918-W

45



Timber Form Model 38918-W

influenced these selections are durability, availability, ease of maintenance and comfort. (The County must also decide if additional measures, such as the addition of middle armrests, are necessary or desired in order to discourage sleeping on the benches.)

BenchThe Austin bench by Landscapeforms (www.landscapeforms.com) is available in backed or backless, six feet in length, extruded aluminum or ipe wood slats. Ipe is a durable and extremely dense, tight grained exotic hardwood that is naturally resistant to rot and decay without preservatives. It is available with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. The design with arms is preferred.

Picnic TableThe Timber Form Picnic Table Model 38918-W has massive wood members and is available in six or eight foot lengths. The Western Red Cedar material is preferred. Trash and Recycling ReceptacleThe Mission Bay Receptacle, Model SLMIS-32R, made by Forms + Surfaces (www.forms-surfaces.com) is made in cast aluminum. The charcoal gray color is preferred.

BollardThe Annapolis bollard by Landscapeforms, with a custom pow-der-coated finish in Taliesin Red is preferred. Where the Taliesin Red color is not appropriate, the brushed stainless steel finish may be substituted.

Bicycle RackThe stainless steel Bici Linea bike rack by Santa & Cole is preferred, and is available in various sizes.

Site furniture now on the campus of the Marin County Civic Cen-ter has been on-site for quite some time. Site furniture is located along the lagoon and in Lagoon Park includes benches, trash

Mission Bay Receptacle by Forms + Surfaces

Annapolis bollard by Landscapeforms

Bici Linea bike rack by Santa & Cole



receptacles, and picnic tables. These items are functional but dated and generally unattractive. Given the attention paid to and the quality of the Civic Center’s interior furniture, a new and upgraded approach to site furniture is recommended.

For example, the trash receptacles currently in the Lagoon Park are oil drums and the benches and tables are worn and uninvit-ing. The bollards in front of the exhibit hall are steel pipes painted “Taliesin Red” that are faded and worn. Site furniture in outdoor spaces related specifically to buildings, such as the patio off the cafeteria, differs significantly in character from those found in the park areas.

5.5 Fences and ScreeningThe following guidelines outline the preferred approach to fences on the Marin County Civic Center campus.

GUIDELINES

It is preferred that permanent chain link fencing be used as little as possible in the public park and recreation areas of the campus. When it is necessary, black vinyl coated fences are preferred for durability and aesthetics.

All fences should be planted with shrubs and vines wherever possible.

Planting barriers including trees may be appropriate where Civic Center property abuts residential neighborhoods to provide a visual screen (for example, as currently exists along Madison Ave.). Any possible future development on the campus should consider and address these issues.

The Marin County Civic Center campus has fencing in only a few areas. There is chain link fencing along the southern edge of Lagoon Park in order to control access to the County Fair; along the southern edge of the east parking lot adjacent to Madison Avenue; around the north end of the Hall of Justice for security; around the southern end of the Administration Building for secu-rity; and in various places along the northern edge of the Marin Center. The fences vary in height and materials, but are typically 6’ tall galvanized chain link.

Maintaining and ensuring safety on the campus for all users is the County’s first priority. In addition, the aesthetics and functionality of fences and screens are important. The County is committed to finding and appropriately addressing fencing, screening and access issues with its neighbors to the north, south and east.

5.6 Riparian Environments: The Creek, Wetlands and Lagoon

•

•

•

47



View of wetland area

Gallinas Creek leading out to the bay

The following general guidelines underscore the County’s com-mitment to sustainability and natural resources.

GUIDELINES

Enhance, protect and restore riparian habitats on the Civic Center site to the highest degree possible.

Provide as many interpretive and educational opportunities for Marin residents in these riparian areas as is feasible.

Improve water quality of the lagoon; explore sustainable solutions for water filtration.

Gallinas Creek runs along the northern edge of the campus, ad-jacent to the Avenue of the Flags, and empties into the wetlands in the northeast corner of the site. These wetlands are linked with the bay just beyond. Any changes, additions or improvements to the Civic Center campus must take into account these unique ecosystems. To that end, the use of sustainable design practices will be required of any future development that may impact the creek and wetland areas.

The Marin Countywide Plan’s section on Biological Resources highlights the County’s commitment to the protection and res-toration of riparian systems. In particular, the plan designates setbacks called Stream Conservation Areas (SCAs) to protect the active channel, water quality, flood control functions, and associated fish and wildlife habitat values along streams. The setback width is to be 50 - 100 feet on each side from the top of the bank depending on the size of the adjacent development. Although the Marin County Civic Center campus is technically in the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael, it is recommended that the County consider implementing this policy along Gallinas Creek.

Unlike Gallinas Creek, the lagoon is a man-made water feature originally designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in the late 1950s. Today the lagoon is fed by natural springs and rainwater run-off from the Civic Center campus. It is included in the “historic district” defined in the Civic Center’s National Historic Landmark applica-tion of 1991 and as such must be retained as a character defining feature. The lagoon is aerated by pumps and hosts wildlife such as ducks, geese and fish. The water quality and relative “health” of the lagoon is unknown.

In addition to Federal and State laws, the Marin Countywide Plan makes clear the County’s commitment to the protection of water resources such as wetlands and riparian areas. However, given that relatively little is known about the creek, wetland, and lagoon it is recommended that further study be performed to assess their current condition. Recommendations for the preservation, maintenance and enhancement of these unique amenities can be made after more is known.

•

•

•

View of Gallinas Creek



5.7 Park and Recreation AreasThe following are general guidelines for both new and existing park lands on the site.

GUIDELINES

The preferred approach is to complete the loop around the entire lagoon with parkland as originally envisioned. The path along the lagoon should be considered a primary pedestrian route and enhanced accordingly. Site furnishings should be upgraded per the guidelines above. Lighting should be improved for safety and nighttime ambiance. Signage and wayfinding should be clear and encourage visitors.

New park areas may be developed on-site in the future. Such development should connect seamlessly with the existing park lands per Wright’s original design. While the new park areas may differ in character from Lagoon Park, it is desired that new parks have adequate transitional space between landscape types in order to enhance the cohesive quality of the campus. For example, the open space in the northeast corner of the site may be enhanced with improved access to the public. The access points to this more natural landscape should be clearly connected to the existing park areas, but they do not need to match the pastoral design character of Lagoon Park.

The Marin County Civic Center Master Plan 1972 - 1990 placed a strong emphasis on protecting and enhancing the open space of the site. The Master Plan states that the open space on the site “links the entire project and connects and enfolds the vari-ous elements. As much as is possible they have endeavored to make the open space areas contiguous and continuous; one area flowing into another, the whole making an apparently uninterrupted environmental pattern into which the buildings fit and naturally merge. A practically continuous and uninterrupted open space area surrounds the entire lagoon extending into the park lands on the southeast and into the spacious planted and grassed terraces along the Fairgrounds to the north.”

In reality, an uninterrupted open space surrounding the entire lagoon does not currently exist. The Lagoon Park is an open, multi-functional lawn in the southeast. A green space does follow the lagoon along Civic Center Drive, but the open space connec-tion on the northern edge of the lagoon was never completed, thereby isolating Lagoon Park from visitors to the Marin Center and vice versa.

5.8 StreetscapesThe guidelines below outline the preferred approach to streetscape design on the Civic Center campus.

•

•

Island in the lagoon

Lagoon Park

49



GUIDELINES

Concrete sidewalks adjacent to primary and secondary streets are preferred. In particular, Civic Center Drive between Armory Drive and the Avenue of the Flags should have a concrete sidewalk along its eastern edge of no less than 6’ in width. See section 5.3 on paving above for further details.

Streets should have adequate night lighting for vehicles and pedestrians to enhance safety and in order to improve the site’s accessibility during evening events. Civic Center Drive, the Avenue of the Flags and Armory Drive are of particular concern. Lighting fixtures and design for streets should be consistent site-wide. See section 5.10 on lighting for further details.

Site signage should be easy to see and understand in order to enhance wayfinding and improve accessibility. See section 5.11 on signage and wayfinding below for further details.

All intersections should be appropriately striped for pedestrian crossings; curb-cuts and other appropriate measures should be taken to ensure disabled access.

The County should consider striped bike lanes on primary streets, particularly Civic Center Drive, in order to encourage cycling. See section 3.3 for further information on bicycle circulation.

Street trees are encouraged as they define edges and beau-tify the site. Highlighting the same tree on a single street is also preferred in order to add order and clarity to the campus. Special attention should be paid, however, not to obstruct view corridors with new street tree planting. See section 5.2 on planting for further details.

The streets on the Civic Center campus are varied in appearance. Although all of the primary and secondary streets are paved with asphalt, not all have sidewalks, bike lanes, parking spaces or street trees. Some of the differences in the site’s streets have been described above in the sections on paving and planting. Generally speaking, the preferred approach to streetscape design at the Civic Center is to provide a consistent experience and clear wayfinding for visitors.

5.9 Parking Lots

The following are guidelines for parking lot improvements and for any new lots to be added on the site.

GUIDELINES

All existing parking lots on the Civic Center campus should be redesigned to incorporate bioswales to capture and treat

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Existing Exhibit Hall parking lot

Civic Center Drive

Civic Center Drive



run-off on-site wherever possible. These swales should run in between rows of parked cars and be planted with species specifically chosen for their water filtration abilities.

Existing parking lots should also be densely planted with shade trees. Soil fertility and irrigation strategies must be devised in order to promote sustained health and growth of trees in such harsh environments.

The terraced parking areas west of the Administration Build-ing should be improved by planting vines to cover the large expanses of the concrete walls.

Planting for lots that may host the farmer’s market should be controlled so that the market would not be negatively impacted.

Where possible, existing lots should be repaved with perme-able surfaces to reduce stormwater run-off.

Parking lot lighting should be enhanced for safety. See sec-tion 5.10 on lighting for further details.

All new lots on the site should strictly adhere to the sustainable design practices listed above. The feasibility of underground parking, covered by landscaped park-like areas or new buildings, should be explored.

The feasibility of installing solar panels in shade structures over parking areas should be explored.

The parking lots on the Civic Center campus would value from aesthetic and functional improvements. Vast expanses of asphalt with few trees are not what Frank Lloyd Wright and his associates envisioned for the Civic Center campus. In the revised 1972 plan they defined the problem as follows: “The critical problem in plan-ning and developing the parking areas in the Marin County Civic Center complex is to provide the maximum possible number of spaces and at the same time preserve the unique natural beauty of the site.” The architects go on to say that “grade level parking areas should be heavily planted” and that “trees and shrubbery [should] be thickly planted around all parking areas and between the rows of all parking spaces.” They envisioned a “canopy of greenery over the rows of vehicles (in maintenance parking areas as well as in public parking spaces) to form an apparent garden of vegetation to the viewer.”

The preferred approach today, over thirty years later, is to return to this idea of highly vegetated parking fields. In addition to beautifying the campus, the County has an opportunity to demonstrate cutting-edge sustainable design strategies in the Civic Center’s parking lots. Using bioswales to filter run-off from the lots, dense tree planting for shade, and permeable paving to reduce run-off, these sustainable parking gardens could be models for development county-wide and beyond.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Example of a Parking Lot with Bioswales

Example of a Parking Lot with Permeable Paving

Existing Exhibit Hall parking lot

51



5.10 Lighting

The lighting system for the Civic Center campus should appropri-ately address historic areas separate from new areas and act as a unifying element that is coordinated and integrated with signage, landscaping, and architectural elements. In addition, care must be taken to ensure that excessive light pollution into adjacent neighborhoods is avoided. By utilizing lighting fixtures and effects to reinforce a sense of safety and security, establish a strong night-time identity, facilitate wayfinding, and simplify maintenance, the lighting design for the Marin County Civic Center campus will contribute to the safety and enjoyment of all night-time users and visitors.

GUIDELINES

Functional CriteriaProvide adequate light for safety and security. Two main light-ing factors that reinforce a sense of safety and security are adequate horizontal illuminance at the ground for navigation of pathways, and adequate vertical luminance at surfaces such as building forms, building entries, people, signage and planting to provide visual context.

Create a strong nighttime identity. Establish a hierarchy of il-luminated site features, such as the spire on the Administration Building, where brightness, color, and coverage can indicate degree of significance and focus.

Use lighting to promote wayfinding. Illuminate gateways and vertical surfaces to provide context for pedestrians and drivers. Integrate lighting systems with signage.

Address maintenance issues such as standardizing lamp types as much as possible, maximizing accessibility of fix-tures for easier repair and re-lamping, optimizing lamp life, cost, and energy efficiency, and minimizing opportunities for vandalism.

Design Criteria and ApproachThe scale, form, color, and spacing of lighting elements should be cohesive campus-wide and compatible with the historic design precedents and with the simple, and timeless designs of other site elements such as planting, architecture, and signage.

Site lighting fixtures located near historic structures must be respectful of the historic styled designs and site lighting fixtures used elsewhere should be simple, timeless, and cohesive throughout possible future development areas. This concept of a “family of fixtures” should be applied to the major open spaces.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Original nighttime lighting scheme



The color of light throughout the Marin County Civic Center should be consistent with only slight variations in the color of the light source, which may be considered appropriate for distinguishing adjacent areas of different functions. To maintain this historic color variation, we recommend using warm colored 3000 Kelvin compact fluorescent light sources. All light sources should have the highest color rendering properties available to enhance the quality of the nighttime experience.

The Area Brightness Lighting Diagram contained in this section summarizes the overall design approach. Each possible future project should provide smooth transitions between zones of different light intensities. Zones of varying levels of brightness based on the diagram should be implemented. The lighting solution should provide an appropriate balance of light and level of comfort, with the actual quantity of light (i.e. number of footcandles) as a guideline. Special attention should be paid to providing a visually comfortable transition from one area to the next.

To facilitate seasonal lighting and special events, the infra-structure of each possible future development should include power for the installation of temporary lighting.

The existing historic hat-shaped fixtures, placed 60’ on center, do not provide a uniform coverage of the pathways, where vertical illumination on pedestrians falls off in between light fixtures. It is recommended that a higher light pole with the same fixture head style and profile be considered for greater vertical and horizontal illumination coverage along pedes-trian pathways.

A reconstructed custom hybrid fixture design that represents the original historic fixture concept and overall profile yet with modernized fixture optics and lamp technology is rec-ommended. The use of ceramic metal halide technology is preferred for roadway and street lighting.

Technical CriteriaThis section discusses how the above goals are quantified and achieved from a technical standpoint. Standard practice perfor-mance criteria is defined for major areas and issues such as source color, light levels, and uniformity is addressed. The major areas of the site can be broken down into the following categories for lighting: Parking Areas, Pathways, Recreation Areas, Roadways, Loading Docks, Building Entries, Signage, and Site Features. The

•

•

•

•

•

LIGHTING GUIDELINES BACKGROUNDVision is the primary means by which we gather information about our surroundings. The variations in color, texture, and brightness that make up our visual world inform our perception of our environment. Light is the medium that renders our visual environment and shades our perceptions, and as such it is an important design element.

53



Historic (retrofitted) pedestrian light pole adjacent to Administration Building and Hall of Justice

Historic light column pole at Lagoon, Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium, and Exhibit Hall and Showcase Theater

To develop a design that is inspiring yet practical and economi-cal, these lighting design guidelines build upon and maintain historic lighting concepts while addressing concepts of connec-tivity and cohesiveness where appropriate with new and future developments. This section will describe how these concept goals can be realized by following some design guidelines that are responsive to the historic character and functional requirements of the Marin County Civic Center campus. The lighting design guidelines presented are intended to establish and define the design goals and criteria initially in the context of a master plan, and ultimately to guide realizable design solutions. This section is comprised of five parts. The first part will discuss the existing conditions and the second part, Functional Criteria, will discuss general exterior lighting issues. The third part, Design Cri-teria and Approach, addresses lighting design guidelines for the site by discussing the intended “quality of light” for each area. A fourth section, Technical Criteria, will present quantifiable design metrics specific to the Marin County Civic Center campus. The fifth part summarizes the important lighting design guidelines from this section in a summary table for both existing and new areas.

EXISTING CONDITIONSAn illustrative summary of the existing lighting conditions observed during a site visit on August 25, 2004 is provided in this section.



Accent light fixtures for historic spire

Historic globe fixtures of varying size and pattern underneath Administration Building and Hall of Justice

Non-historic parking lot light fixtures located away from historic structure

Non-historic parking lot light fixtures located adjacent to historic and non-historic structures. Note that fixtures match the painted finish of the historic fixtures

55



Nighttime identity of the Administration Building and Hall of Justice incorporates accent lighting for the spire and internal arcade downlighting. No façade lighting was present or identified.

Pedestrian Pathways:The historic styled pedestrian light pole fixtures have been ret-rofitted and slightly modified from the original historic design. It is assumed that the retrofit may have been done in an effort to meet current light level requirements. Additional light fixtures have been added in some instances where increased light levels may have been required due to changing needs (i.e. floodlights near county jail facility).

Most light fixtures have been moderately maintained. One style of historic light fixture with adjustable fixture heads shown on the original historic design plans could not be found on-site.

FUNCTIONAL CRITERIAThe primary goals of most exterior lighting systems are functional: to provide adequate light for safety and security. Another impor-tant consideration is the nighttime identity of the project. Under-standing that a nighttime identity has already been established through the historic design, a comprehensive lighting design for Marin County Civic Center must seek to adapt and improve the current lighting system to meet current expectations of lighting performance for vehicular and pedestrian wayfinding, and a simplified maintenance program.

Safety and SecurityThe Marin County Civic Center campus is comprised of several dif-ferent types of pedestrian paths and vehicular roadways, public open spaces, park areas, various gathering spaces, recreation areas, and historic landmark and transitional buildings. Given this

Non-historic parking lot light fixture with additional pole mounted floodlight for security lighting purposes at county jail facility

Original loading dock with concealed light fixture (left) and newer loading dock with exposed light fixture (middle and right) at Hall of Justice



level of complexity and scale, it is imperative that a primary layer of the site lighting system be dedicated to creating a sense of safety and security with special attention paid to the transition areas between different uses.

Two main lighting factors that reinforce a sense of safety and security are adequate horizontal illuminance at the ground for navigation of pathways, and adequate vertical luminance at surfaces such as building forms, building entries, people, signage and planting to provide visual context. The technical criteria as-sociated with these goals are discussed further in Section 3.

It is important to note that due to the historic landmark status of the Administration Building, Hall of Justice and the U.S. Post Of-fice, careful consideration is required when adapting the existing lighting system to meet modern criteria. Improvements may be made, but done such that the appearance and design intent of the historic fixtures are maintained.

Nighttime IdentityWith the variety of buildings and site features that make up the Marin County Civic Center campus, one important function of the lighting system will be to provide historic consistency throughout the Center, much in the same way that hardscape, paving and planting will. While each new development will have its own set of lighting criteria, the use of consistent lighting effects, sources, and equipment among non-historic areas will strengthen the visual identity of the historic landmark areas and ultimately the overall campus. The historic “hat” styled area light is an example of how visual consistency has developed a strong design identity for the project.

One method for creating a strong nighttime identity is to establish a hierarchy of illuminated site features such as the tall spire on the Administration Building, where brightness, color, and coverage can indicate degree of significance and focus. The silhouetted arcade forms along the Hall of Justice and Administration Build-ing create a secondary layer of lighting. The use of medium scaled lighting/architectural/signage elements at key site loca-tions such as the gathering spaces, Exhibit Hall and Showcase Theatre, Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium and U.S. Post Office can help to unify distinct areas of the site; these elements also act as lighthouse-type markers that facilitate wayfinding.

WayfindingAt night many of the visual cues that help direct daytime visitors are less visible, and site lighting must be utilized to compensate for this deficiency. Effective illumination of gateways, such as at the main entrance to the site off North San Pedro Road, signage, gathering spaces, and “landmarks” facilitates wayfinding and reinforces a sense of safety and security as well.

Illumination of vertical surfaces against darker backgrounds is an effective way to create a visual context at night. A wonder-

Original nighttime lighting scheme

57



ful feature of The Marin County Civic Center campus is the tall spire at the top of the Administration Building that can be seen from a distance, as well as the long undulating building facade. In addition, the organic styled light posts surrounding the lagoon acts as a wayfinding element as well. At night, these elements provide the visual context for pedestrians and drivers alike. New and future developments that address the illumination of facades and historic building features will be an important factor in the success of the Marin County Civic Center campus.

Lastly, lighting systems that enhance or are integrated with signage are especially important for wayfinding.

MaintenanceThe scale of The Marin County Civic Center campus and its variety of open spaces can translate into a lighting system with many fixtures. Maintenance issues that must be addressed include standardizing lamp types as much as possible, maximizing ac-cessibility of fixtures for easier repair and re-lamping, optimizing lamp life, cost, and energy efficiency, and minimizing opportuni-ties for vandalism.

The key to minimizing the maintenance costs for lighting is to keep the lighting design as simple as possible. By carefully select-ing fixtures that serve dual purposes, providing light for safety as well as night-time identity for example, fixture quantities can be reduced resulting in reduced maintenance as well as reduced first costs and some energy savings.

DESIGN CRITERIA AND APPROACHThe Marin County Civic Center will be a series of inter-connected exterior venues each with its own unique design character to be enhanced by the lighting. In this section, the use of a fam-ily of fixtures and overall design goals including hierarchies of brightness and quality of light that are responsive to each space will be described. The approaches will be discussed in terms of the functional criteria of safety and security, nighttime identity, wayfinding, and maintenance.

For each open space, light levels at the ground, vertical surface luminances, spill light from building interiors, and facade lighting all contribute to our perception of brightness at night. Zones of varying brightness, informed by the technical criteria noted in part four, need to be defined with special attention to providing a visually comfortable transition from one area to the next. In the case of lighting site features and planting, a perceptible differ-ence in brightness between the illuminated object and its con-text is desired. Within the open spaces such as the Lagoon, this contrast will be used to create visual interest, establish night-time identity, and facilitate wayfinding by highlighting “landmarks,” building entries, and transitions. However, excessive contrast is to be avoided.

Like brightness, color and color rendition of light are important

The Spire



design factors for site lighting. The color of light can act as a visual cue to delineate areas of different function. However, it can be disorienting when a variety of sources are juxtaposed or layered in a small area. A broad range of source color should be avoided.

One aspect of the site lighting system that is as important during the day as it is at night is the lighting equipment itself. The scale, form, color, and spacing of these elements should be cohesive and compatible with the historic design precedents and with the simple, and timeless designs of other site elements such as plant-ing, architecture, and signage. Site lighting fixtures located near historic structures must be respectful of the historic styled designs and site lighting fixtures used elsewhere should be simple, timeless, and cohesive throughout the new development areas of the site for connectivity while being versatile enough to be responsive and appropriate to the character of each space. This concept of a “family of fixtures” should be applied to the major open spaces.

Color and Color Rendering Properties of Light SourceAt the beginning of the design process for each proposed new or future development, careful consideration should be given to the color of light used. Consistency is very important and the use of metal halide sources, preferably 4100 Kelvin color temperature to best match the originally designed 5700 Kelvin color temperature mercury vapor lighting system, is recommended throughout the Marin County Civic Center campus. While mercury vapor lamps are still available, they are a lamp technology that has been surpassed by the energy efficient, high lumen maintenance and high quality color rendering capabilities of compact metal halide. In general, all sources should have the highest color rendering properties available to enhance the quality of the nighttime experience.

Recommended LampingThe use of metal halide technology in the nighttime environment is becoming much more prevalent due to the awareness of the importance of good color rendering in the nighttime environment and re-evaluation of how human vision is optimized at low light levels. Metal halide is becoming the preferred choice for urban roadway lighting. Some design standards for new or future site lighting within the state of California already encourage the use of metal halide sources in order to meet the demands of California Energy Codes. The application of metal halide technology for street lighting represents a progressive approach to emerging technologies and results in a high quality urban environment within the Marin County Civic Center campus.

High color rendering sources including metal halide lamps provide a more realistic rendering of illuminated surfaces and objects - tree leaves appear green, car colors can be distinguished, and pedestrians and surrounding building materials are easily recognized. Poor color rendering sources such as the high pressure sodium lamps currently used for some areas within the Marin County Civic Center campus are a limited spectrum source

59



that turn most surfaces and objects to a dull gray. Color and color rendition of light are important design factors since the color of light can either improve or distort the nighttime environment.

Light is measured in foot-candles, which is a measure of the amount of light (lumens) incident over a surface area. This measurement was first defined under photopic (daylight) lighting conditions. The following list describes some of the reasons why metal halide is a preferable technology to high pressure sodium for roadway lighting.

The primary wavelengths of light produced by metal halide sources coincide with the most sensitive nighttime vision receptors of the human eye resulting in improved visual re-sponse at low light levels.

Several studies indicate better visual acuity resulting in quicker reaction times for off-axis detection of hazards when metal halide lighting is used in low-light level situations. This in turn increases safety for approaching pedestrians and vehicles especially at roadway intersections.

High color rendering sources such as metal halide with a color rendering index (CRI) of 70 or better (on a scale of 0 to 100) realistically renders the color of illuminated surfaces and objects while sources such as high pressure sodium with a CRI of 22 distorts colors and renders most surfaces a dull gray. This distinction is critical in recognizing pedestrians, planting, car color, and surrounding building materials.

Areas illuminated with white light are typically described as ‘brighter’ and ‘active’ in comparison to spaces illuminated with high pressure sodium sources. This distinction has already been attributed to the revitalization of parks and retail spaces in many installations.

The use of metal halide and other white light source more closely resembles the original historic mercury vapor light sources designed for the campus, thereby revitalizing the historic nighttime visual environment. More importantly, this also results in a comfortable, active and friendly environment for pedestrians and adjacent business owners.

To promote sustainable lighting, lamps with low mercury content and lamps with high efficacy (lumens per watt ratio) are recommended where possible. Exterior lighting controls such as a photocell/timeclock device that limits unnecessary energy use when areas well illuminated with daylight are rec-ommended for efficient use of our energy resources. Lighting solutions should also be designed to minimize light pollution as much as possible and restrict light trespass into adjacent residential and commercial properties.

•

•

•

•

•

•



AREA LIGHTING BRIGHTNESS DIAGRAMLight levels are shown in average horizontal footcandles

61



Color Contrast within Area and from One Area to the NextThe color of light throughout the Marin County Civic Center should be consistent with only slight variations in the color of the light source, which may be considered appropriate for distinguishing adjacent areas of different functions. For instance, the decorative globes mounted in the pass thru archways at the Hall of Justice and Administration Building originally utilized incandescent warm colored sources in contrast to the mercury vapor light sources used along pathways and roadways. To maintain this historic color variation, we recommend using warm colored 3000 Kelvin compact fluorescent light sources. These sources provide an energy efficient and sustainable lamping solution. Variations in lighting level to signal changes is a more common technique, with the color of the general lighting sources remaining relatively consistent.

Uniformity/Contrast of Light DistributionThe brightness diagram contained in this section summarizes the overall design approach. Each project should provide smooth transitions between zones of different light intensities.

Hierarchy of BrightnessLight levels at the ground, vertical surface luminances, spill light from building interiors, and even light fixture “glare” all contribute to our perception of brightness at night. When adjacent areas of the streetscape have perceptibly different brightness levels, our eyes require time for adaptation. These varying brightness levels when kept at appropriate contrast ratios work effectively as wayfinding, while excessive contrast ratios are undesirable from a design standpoint and can compromise a sense of safety and security. Therefore zones of varying levels of brightness based on the diagram below should be implemented. Then the bright-ness of the border areas between these zones can be graded to ensure a visually comfortable transition from one area of the site to the next.

Actual lighting levels may be used as a guideline for establishing the lighting design, but should by no means be the only criteria. The human eye is very adaptive, and may not detect large vari-ances in lighting levels. Illumination levels can be quite deceiving; an object or surface can have high lighting levels but appear very dull and inappropriately lit due to finish reflectances or distribu-tion of light. The lighting solution should provide an appropriate balance of light and level of comfort, with the actual quantity of light (i.e. number of footcandles) as a guideline.

In general, the impression that a person has of the amount of light (dim, adequate, bright) is a much more important consideration than the actual illumination levels. The amount of light that a sur-face or object appears to have is a function of finishes, contrasts, brightness of surrounding surfaces, and brightness of adjacent interior spaces. In areas where certain quantitative levels are required for performance of tasks the qualitative aspects of light-ing must also be considered as having equal impact.



Special Event LightingTo facilitate seasonal lighting and special events, the infrastructure of each development should include power for the installation of temporary lighting. Especially in gathering areas such as the Lagoon, the easy access to such infrastructure would reduce set-up time and cost for special public and private events or performances.

As illustrated by the above diagram, the existing historic fixtures, placed 60’ on center, do not provide a uniform coverage of the pathways, where vertical illumination on pedestrians falls off in between light fixtures. It is recommended that a higher light pole with the same fixture head style and profile be considered for greater vertical and horizontal illumination coverage along pedestrian pathways.

The light source could be concealed within the bottom housing as originally designed and illustrated in Drawing A. Drawing B illustrates a modern light fixture with a very different fixture profile, but one that utilizes a similar “reflected light” design concept. A reconstructed custom hybrid fixture design that represents the original historic fixture concept and overall profile yet with mod-ernized fixture optics and lamp technology is recommended.

It is important for reasons of visual comfort that the light source be concealed from direct view while maximizing the efficiency of the reflector system.

TECHNICAL CRITERIAIn the previous section, general goals for the Marin County Civic Center campus lighting system were described. The appendix contains a section that discusses how those goals are quantified and achieved from a technical standpoint. Standard practice performance criteria (from The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Handbook, 9th Edition) is defined for major areas and issues such as source color, light levels, and uniformity will be addressed. The major areas of the site are broken down into the following

Conceptual Fixture Diagrams

63



5.11 Signage and WayfindingThis section addresses existing site signage, a concept for overall site signage and wayfinding, and signage design guidelines and concepts. An updated, comprehensive site wayfinding system would substantially improve visitor orientation and enhance the special character of the Marin County Civic Center campus.

GUIDELINES

Gateway FeatureThe blue roof and gold-leafed spire are so distinctive and •

Drawing A Drawing B

categories for lighting: Parking Areas, Pathways, Recreation Ar-eas, Roadways, Loading Docks, Building Entries, Signage, and Site Features. Please refer to the appendix for detailed information on technical criteria as well as a summary table.

Light Fixture Families



well-known that gateway enhancements are not functionally necessary at the intersections of Civic Center Drive with San Pedro Road and the Avenue of the Flags.

Gateway features would nevertheless add richness to the site and “announce” the design character of the landscape improvements and signage that visitors will encounter.

Gateway features would likely combine signage with land-scape enhancements.

Primary Vehicle DirectionalThese should be sized for readability at the nominal 25 mph speed limit along Civic Center Drive. They would typically be placed at the intersections with all public roadways, and, in some instances, at advance locations as well.

Upgrades to existing directional signs to the Marin Veterans’ Auditorium and Exhibit Hall complex would essentially repli-cate existing sign copy.

New directional signs at the roadways to the Administration Building and Hall of Justice “overpasses” would identify each building entrance and the principal public destinations it serves most directly.

Secondary Vehicle DirectionalsSecondary directionals are used where slower speeds per-mit readability of smaller copy. Generally, they also display fewer destinations.

Existing secondary signs at the Marin Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium and Exhibit Hall complex should be upgraded.

New signs should be placed along Peter Behr Drive, Judge Haley Drive and Vera Schultz Drive to direct visitors to the parking zone nearest the building entrance that leads most directly to their destination.

Pedestrian DirectionalsPedestrian-scale wayfinding should be provided along the paths of travel from the Administration Building and Hall of Justice and east parking lot to appropriate building entries, and throughout the Marin Center.

Pedestrian Orientation MapsA few strategically placed maps will give many visitors a helpful overview of the site. (Some people cannot make the association between a scaled representation and the physi-cal world. Wayfinding should therefore not rely exclusively on orientation maps.)

Potential map locations include the transit stop on Civic Cen-ter Drive, the Administration Building and Hall of Justice park-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

65



ing lots, and key pedestrian nodes at the Marin Center. These maps should include only the destinations and information necessary to guide most visitors. The more complex a map, the more intimidating and confusing it can be.

Building Entry IdentificationIt will be critical to “label” each public entrance to the Ad-ministration Building and Hall of Justice conspicuously (i.e. - A/B/C or North/Central/South). Each label should be aug-mented by a directory of primary public destinations (Courts, Jury Assembly Room, Traffic Citations et al).

Public transit systems typically have their own, distinct signage and graphics, together with standards for their use, and this may be the case for SMART. However, because of the Civic Center’s unique, historic character, SMART signage should, if possible, have site-specific structural supports and/or “fram-ing.”

TypefaceThe typeface Futura is currently used throughout the Ad-ministration Building, Hall of Justice and Marin Veterans’ Me-morial Auditorium. Futura’s circular (or apparently circular) letterforms are uniquely appropriate to complement Wright’s use of circles and circular arcs as design motifs. Futura is therefore the recommended typeface for future signage.

Copy SizeThe cap height (the size of a capital letter measured verti-cally) for primary directional signs along Civic Center Drive should be 4” to 4.5.”

The cap height for directional signs along secondary road-ways and entry drives should be 2.5” to 3.5.” Because Futura has unusually extended (wide) letterforms, signs will be cor-respondingly wider to accommodate the typeface without reducing cap heights or digitally condensing the copy.

Amount of CopyWherever possible, directional signs should have a maximum of three listed destinations. Drivers don’t typically have time to process more information than that, and the more destinations displayed on a sign, the less attention each will get.

Overall SizeSize as necessary to display the copy at the indicated cap height and to provide an adequate border zone all around.

Sign panels should generally be wider than they are high to minimize multiline messages. 4’6” is an optimal overall height. The lowest copy on a sign panel should be 1’0” to 1’6” above finish grade to keep the copy within a driver’s line of vision and to prevent being blocked by ground cover.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



MaterialsAluminum is the industry standard for most sign fabrication. It is lighter and easier to work than steel, doesn’t rust, and is only moderately more expensive.

A spray applied paint finish is also standard; powder coat-ing and baked enamel are more durable and more costly. Porcelain enamel is most expensive, but non fading and es-sentially impervious to graffiti.

A primary sign can be a monolith or a sign panel on a base structure like precast concrete.

Secondary signs are usually post and panel signs.

ChangeabilityMost destinations at the Marin County Civic Center campus are unlikely to change over time. Where change is a possibil-ity, the use of modular directional signs which simplify copy updates should be considered.

PlacementVehicular directionals should be placed as close to the street as possible without disrupting sightlines or interfering with underground utilities.

Placement should also take into account adjacent trees, shrubs and ground cover.

Irrigation heads should be directed away from sign panels to avoid the buildup of alkaloids from repeated spraying.

LightingAll principal wayfinding features should have dedicated ex-ternal illumination unless ambient light levels are high enough to provide the necessary visibility.

Design ConsiderationsAll components of the hierarchy should employ the Futura typeface and utilize the Civic Center color palette – sandstone beige, blue and Taliesin Red – and all components should reflect a common design vocabulary.

That design vocabulary, however, should not mimic the Civic Center architecture. Instead, it should be compatible in a gen-eral way, using curved forms to soften massing, and horizontal rather than vertical proportions whenever possible.

If design motifs or details are incorporated into the signage, they should be placed on the edges of a sign panel and/or the support structure so that they don’t obtrude on the “live area” reserved for copy.

Borders between colors or materials should be articulated

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

67



by a reveal, a trim piece, a change in plane or some similar device.

The features which make the Marin County Civic Center campus so distinctive will impact a functional system of site signage and wayfinding. The long blue roof and gold-leafed spire serve as unmistakable landmarks at large scale, but the integration of the Administration Building and Hall of Justice into the hilly topogra-phy restricts view corridors from adjacent roadways, requiring wayfinding elements to guide visitors to the building entries.

Civic Center Drive divides the site into two distinct sections: hilly and partially treed to the southwest, and flat and more open to the northeast. There are existing directional signs along Civic Center Drive at the entry drives into the northeast section. These signs direct visitors to the Marin Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium, Exhibit Hall and related functions along straight, level roadways with essentially unimpeded sightlines. Most are generic “off the shelf” signs with white copy on blue backgrounds; the copy is generally smaller than it should be. These signs do not reflect the Marin County Civic Center design palette in any way. They are mounted haphazardly on posts, walls and fencing. There are also three original sign armatures on Civic Center Drive between the Post Office and the Marin Veterans’ Memorial Audi-torium, and one of them has attached directional signage. The armatures should be preserved for their historic significance, but relocated and used as pedestrian directionals, as their scale is more appropriate to this use.

There are essentially no existing wayfinding components on the southwest side of Civic Center Drive, or on Peter Behr Drive, Judge Haley Drive or Vera Schultz Drive.

The Marin Veterans’ Memorial Auditorium and Exhibit Hall com-plex is formally designated “Marin Center”. This term is easily confused with “Marin County Civic Center”, which complicates wayfinding. Improvements and the expansion of the Lagoon Park/Auditorium area present an opportunity to replace “Marin Center” with a distinctive and unambiguous term.

An updated, comprehensive site wayfinding system would sub-stantially improve visitor orientation and enhance the special character of the Marin County Civic Center campus.

Although these guidelines do not specifically include multilingual signage, it is important to note that signage in multiple languages at the Civic Center should be considered if warranted to fulfill some public service or is consistent with some other standard.

PRELIMINARY OVERALL SITE SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING CONCEPTAs described above, existing wayfinding to the northeast of Civic Center Drive is functionally adequate, but should be upgraded (and expanded as necessary to include destinations set forth in

Existing Directional

Existing Directional

Original Armarture/Sign



these guidelines). The chief wayfinding task will be to identify clear paths of travel from Civic Center Drive, and, to a lesser extent, from secondary roadways, to the Administration Building and Hall of Justice public entrances. (It is assumed that wayfinding to the County Jail is unnecessary and/or undesirable.)

Along the Civic Center Drive approach, two principal issues come into play. First, each public entrance is tucked into a vehicular “underpass,” and is therefore difficult to see from Civic Center Drive. Second, wayfinding within the Administration Building and Hall of Justice is difficult because of the relationship to grade, inconsistencies in the room numbering sequences, and limited wall space for directional signs at major decision points. For these reasons, it is important to direct visitors to the public entrance closest (or most directly linked) to their destination. Similar issues come into play at the “back” of the Administration Building and Hall of Justice, but the scale is smaller and visitors will generally be walking rather than driving.

Sightline to Building Entry

69

Future Development Sites


6.1 Possible Future County Facility NeedsOVERVIEWThe Facilities Master Plan completed by Gensler in April 2002 identified significant overcrowding in the Hall of Justice and Ad-ministration Buildings. In addition, the Administration and Hall of Justice Buildings have significant security and public safety issues that are difficult to address without severely impacting the historic structures’ architectural character. Other public agencies have also identified facility needs on the Civic Center campus.

This section outlines the possible future facility needs of the County and provides site selection guidelines for possible future develop-ment at the Civic Center that will help to reduce adverse envi-ronmental effects.

PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDINGThe County has identified a need for additional and updated facilities to house their public safety departments. In concept, a new Public Safety Building could house some combination of the following departments and programs:

Office of Emergency Services911 Dispatch/Emergency Operations CenterCommunications Prime SiteMulti-Purpose Meeting RoomsInformation Services Data CenterCoroner’s OfficeMarin County Fire Dispatch and AdministrationChildcare Facility

The County hired Beverly Prior Architects in late 2005 to conduct a feasibility study for a new public safety facility. Further program details will be addressed in that study.

SONOMA MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT (SMART)As described previously in Section 3.3 of this document, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) project plans to provide passenger train service to Sonoma and Marin County residents along the Northwestern Pacific (NWP) rail corridor that lies next to Highway 101. A transit station is proposed at the northwest corner of the Civic Center campus between Highway 101 and Civic Center Drive.

The Civic Center station design parameters were outlined by Community Design + Architecture (CD + A) in a May 21, 2004 memorandum to the SMART Board of Directors. The current plan

••••••••

SECTION 6: POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES



Marin County Fair 2003 -- photo by C. Benton

Due to the extent of the security upgrades needed within the Administration Building and the Hall of Justice, and the extent of

confines auto access to the station from Civic Center Drive. Although revised ridership estimates are not yet available, the memo states that “the station is forecast to have a limited need for park and ride capacity, with initial ridership numbers predicting a demand for just over 60 spaces.” The concept plan dated May 13, 2004 shows 130 parking stalls which represents the “maximum site potential for park-and-ride use.” Initial reports indicate that the station’s impact on the site in this regard will be minimal if any. The parking study included in this document, section 3.3, gives further analysis on the SMART station’s potential parking and traffic impacts to the Civic Center site.

It should also be noted that visual impacts of the proposed station “will likely be minimal as the station is well below the grade of the freeway” and includes “no vertical features” aside from some landscaping. The proposed station will not adversely impact views to or from the Administration Building and Hall of Justice.

MARIN CENTER RENAISSANCE PARTNERSHIPThe Marin Center Renaissance Partnership is a public and private partnership formed in 2000 to complete the vision of creating a cultural center complex on the Marin Center site. When com-plete, the Marin Cultural Center Complex will host social gather-ings, cultural and performing events, and commercial activities. The master planning process led by consultants Mark Cavagnero Associates and Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey is now under-way for the project. The following program elements are under consideration for the complex:

County LibraryConference Center & Meeting RoomsNew or Improved Exhibit HallVeteran’s Memorial Auditorium RenovationsOutdoor AmphitheaterFarmer’s Market Location and ImprovementsNew or Improved Mid-Size TheaterRestaurant

A preferred alternative was chosen by the Renaissance Partner-ship’s Steering Committee and presented to the Marin County Board of Supervisors in January 2004. The Board approved the broad concept for the master plan, and have now sent it back to the Steering Committee for phasing and financial feasibility analyses.

STATE COURTS MASTER PLANAs part of the Judicial Council of California’s Statewide Court Facilities Master Planning Project, Mark Cavagnero Associates was retained to develop a 20-year Court Facilities Master Plan for the Superior Court of California, County of Marin in July 2003. The process was overseen by the County of Marin Court Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee.

••••••••

71



Overflow Parking Lot

Temporary Dog Park

East Parking Lot

public review needed to implement those upgrades, the steering committee decided that a new courthouse on the Civic Center campus should be constructed.

The Court Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee, working with County staff, identified the site of the existing General Services Building, located between Highway 101 and Peter Behr Drive, as the preferred location for a new courthouse facility. A new building on this site would require extensive public review and voter approval.

6.2 Overview of Site Analysis Report for Civic Center ExpansionREPORT OVERVIEW AND SYNOPSISIn March 2003 Heller Manus Architects provided the County of Marin with comprehensive analysis of five potential development sites originally identified in the April 2002 Facilities Master Plan by Gensler. This site analysis report was to assist the County in site selection for future development on the Civic Center campus based on the physical limitations of possible sites such as “build-able area versus new and displaced parking, proximity to the main building and sensitivity toward Frank Lloyd Wright’s master plan.”

The five sites originally identified by Gensler are identified in the Future Development Sites diagram as follows:

Site 1 - Civic Center Parking “Pit”Site 2 - Temporary Dog ParkSite 3 - East Parking Lot and ArmorySite 4 - Overflow Parking LotSite 5 - North San Pedro Road

Of these five sites, Heller Manus suggests that sites 2 and 3 would be better suited for future development. The report states that the sites are “currently under-utilized with a more generous size” than the alternative sites and that a new government facility would be easier to accommodate at a lower cost and with greater efficiency on sites 2 and 3. In addition, the report sug-gests that these sites offer the County “the opportunity to create a pedestrian-oriented government services center along Civic Center Drive.” Therefore development on sites 2 and/or 3 would help to improve vehicular and pedestrian connections along Civic Center Drive north to the Marin Center, which is the site of the County fairgrounds.

Heller Manus surmised that sites 1, 4 and 5 would require the ad-dition of a multi-story parking structure in order to accommodate parking needs of existing programs as well as new ones making these sites less desirable for cost reasons. In addition, sites 1 and 4 would require ballot initiative voter approval to construct any structure over 250 square feet. The report recommends that site 1 remain in its current use as surface parking. It recommends that

•••••



3

5

2

1

6

4

7

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES

Site 1 - Civic Center Parking “Pit”Site 2 - Temporary Dog ParkSite 3 - East Parking Lot and ArmorySite 4 - Overflow Parking LotSite 5 - North San Pedro RoadSite 6 - General Services BuildingSite 7- Marin Center

6.3 Additional Analysis and Site Selection CriteriaTRAFFIC AND PARKING ISSUESAs described in section 3.3, Site Circulation and Parking Capacity, and the Appendices, there are two potential traffic and parking impacts associated with future development on the site. The intersection of Civic Center Drive at Peter Behr Road will oper-ate unacceptably with the development of the Marin Center project and the public safety building. The traffic consultant has suggested that the eastbound approach to Civic Center Drive

site 4 be studied for future building development as an alternate location for sites 2 and 3. Site 5 is recommended to remain in its current use.

73



on Peter Behr Drive be restriped to include a separate left-turn lane and a through/right-turn lane. The intersection should be signalized with the construction of a new Courts facility on the General Services Building site.

In addition, the parking supply on the campus is inadequate for simultaneous events at all facilities; it is recommended that the County coordinate events appropriately to ensure that the park-ing supply is not exceeded.

Neither issue outlined above greatly impacts future development on the site, nor does it suggest that one site is more appropriate for development than another.

VISUAL IMPACTSIt is recommended that care be taken to protect view corridors on the Civic Center site. The campus has a strong cultural history and significant natural setting that is central to its identity. New development must be sensitive to protecting the historic heritage and natural beauty of the site from every possible angle.

A multi-story structure on Site 3 could partially impede views from portions of the Marin Center site to the main Civic Center build-ings. It could also impact views from the Administration Building and Hall of Justice north and east toward the lagoon and bay. It appears that a structure on Site 3 would have fewer visual im-pacts on the site, but would be further removed from the other Civic Center structures. Frank Lloyd Wright was a strong propo-nent of clustering buildings on the campus in order to maximize efficiency and preserve open spaces. The County must weigh these potentially competing concerns carefully when choosing a site for development.

UTILITIESThe existing utilities capacities for the Civic Center campus, in-cluding electric power, natural gas, water, telecommunications, and sewer services, must be studied in detail prior to any new development on the site. Because of the possible costs involved, further study is recommended to ascertain which, if any, utilities would need to be upgraded, replaced or re-routed based on possible development.

Initial consultation with the Las Gallinas Sanitary District indicates that the Civic Center has adequate sanitary sewer capacity for a new public safety building. Regarding telecommunications, the County’s Information Services and Technology department has requested that all new development projects include the instal-lation of additional telecommunications facilities any time there is an opportunity to do so. More specifically, it is recommended that conduit be installed between all new buildings for data and voice telecommunications where feasible, and that redundancy in systems and networks be built-in. Any new development must also ensure that UPS (Uninterruptable Power Service) and back-up generators are in place and adequately maintained.



6.4 General RecommendationsThe 2002 Facilities Master Plan Report and the 2003 Site Analysis Report for Civic Center Expansion provide analysis and recom-mendations for future development and expansion on the Civic Center site. These serve as a baseline analysis for future devel-opment but require further study as future building needs are identified.

As detailed program information for future buildings is developed, plans and program should be evaluated for impacts to traffic, parking, views, utilities and historic character. Without detailed program information, it is difficult to determine the suitability of specific uses for specific sites. It should be noted that sites selected for specific projects will be subject to environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Site 1, the Civic Center parking “pit,” while having inherent draw-backs to development as identified in the Site Analysis Report for Civic Center Expansion, is recommended to be further evaluated for future building use. Issues such as views, access, cost, arrival and voter approval would need to be addressed in the design of the structure. A low building tucked into the hillside at the southern part of the site would probably not significantly impact views from Highway 101 to the Civic Center.

Site 2, the temporary dog park, is currently actively used by the public. Relocation of the temporary dog park and petanque court and the proximity of the site to adjacent neighborhoods may generate significant public comment and will require a public process. However, the McInnis Park Master Plan Revision, approved by the Board of Supervisors in October 2001, provides for a permanent dog park located “between the creek pathway and the soccer fields.” Relocating the temporary dog park to McInnis Park is a viable option for the County that could make Site 2 available for other purposes. The location, flat terrain, oppor-tunities for outdoor space, ease of construction, adjacent open areas and lack of requirement for ballot approval make Site 2

The Marin Municipal Water District has indicated that the County is currently exceeding its water entitlements, which means that water service will need to be addressed with the District for any new development project on the Civic Center campus. The District has suggested that redistributing current entitlements may be of benefit to the County. In addition, Pacific Gas & Electric Company has indicated that natural gas and electric-ity capacity on the site can be increased as necessary for new development.

MARIN CENTERThe County has indicated that additional cultural facilities would best be located at Marin Center to create a cohesive cultural complex for the County of Marin.

75



desirable for future building development. It is recommended that this site remain in consideration for future building use.

Site 3, the east parking lot and the Armory, has many of the advantages of Site 2. The Armory is under a long term lease through 2059 and is unlikely to be developed in the near future. It does, however, have many advantages as a building site and should be evaluated for future development. Any build-ings located in the east parking lot should consider how future development of the Armory site would integrate with their design. Locating a building on the west side of the parking lot would allow continued use of the rear parking area for the park and Marin Center complex. It could be designed as part of a building complex associated with a new building on Site 2 and provides an opportunity for integration with the Civic Center. Locating a building on the east side of the parking lot allows it to be more isolated from the character of the Civic Center and can be integrated as part of a future complex with the Armory. It is recommended that this site remain in consideration for future building use.

Site 4, the Overflow Parking lot, is used seasonally for Christmas tree sales, but is otherwise used as an overflow parking lot. The site has high visibility from highway 101. A building on the site could significantly impact views to Marin Center and requires voter approval. A portion of the site is also being considered by the Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit program for a transit station and parking area. The site is currently underutilized and could be designed sensitively to accommodate future needs while addressing the visual impacts of development. Uses such as parking, farmers’ market and multi-purpose open space should remain in consideration. In addition, should develop-ment needs require additional building space, site 4 should be further evaluated for its building potential. It is recommended that this site remain in consideration for future development.

Site 5, North San Pedro Road, is outside the limits of this re-port.

Site 6, the site of the existing General Services Building, is being considered for development of a courts building as described in the Court Facilities Master Plan, July 2003. Although not identified in earlier studies for possible redevelopment, it is an important site as it has significant visual impacts both from the freeway to the Civic Center and from the Civic Center to the surrounding areas. As this process proceeds, it is critical that the design for any building follow strict design guidelines for the campus.

Development of site 7, the Marin Center, is described in detail in section 6.1. The County is committed to the vision of Frank Lloyd Wright in creating a cohesive civic and cultural campus. As such, the Marin Center is a critical to the achievement of this goal.


Conclusion

Interior and Aerial Views of the Marin Civic Center

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION

The Marin County Civic Center Master Design Guidelines endeav-or to review and update previous studies of the Civic Center’s po-tential for possible future development. They equip Marin County with guidelines that incorporate environmental protection and land use planning considerations for future development on-site together with architectural and landscape design parameters.

New development at the Civic Center is anticipated which may include a new public safety building, a new passenger rail station, a new courthouse, and additional cultural facilities at the Marin Center. While this document does not specifically propose new development or authorize any new construction, it does provide recommendations for project proposals formulated elsewhere. Its purpose is to reevaluate and analyze potential sites for any pos-sible future projects at the Marin County Civic Center. In addition, it defines design parameters regarding architecture, landscape architecture, lighting, signage, and environmental protection.

Detailed environmental review and additional studies will be required for any proposed future projects. However, these guide-lines outline ways to reduce adverse environmental effects and provide a framework for the future development of high-quality projects. The County is committed to the enhancement of the Civic Center campus and to ensuring the protection of its natural resources and cultural assets.

77

Bibliography


BibliographyReports & Documents

Alta Transportation Consulting, Marin County Bicycle and Pedes-trian Master Plan, June 2000.

Alta Transportation Consulting, Marin County Unincorporated Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, June 2001.

Burks, Rocky, Disability Access Coordinator, County of Marin, Disability Access Compliance, email to RHAA, September 20, 2004.

City of San Rafael, General Plan 2020 Steering Committee, Draft General Plan 2020, January 9, 2004.

Community, Design + Architecture, SMART Station Planning Memorandum, Station Design Parameters: Civic Center Station, May 21, 2004.

County of Marin, Department of Public Works, Exterior Painting of Administration & Hall of Justice Buildings Specifications, October 2000.

County of Marin, Marin Countywide Plan, Public Review Draft, February 2004.

County of Marin, Real Property Lease with State of California, National Guard Armory Building, March, 1960.

DeCarlo, Lisa, Basic Program Details for a Potential Future Public Safety Building, email to RHAA, August 31, 2004.

DeCarlo, Lisa, Telecommunication & Utilities Commentary for the Master Design Guidelines, email to RHAA, September 20, 2004.

DeCarlo, Lisa, Utilities - Sewage & Water, email to RHAA, Sep-tember 20, 2004.

DeCarlo, Lisa, Marin Municipal Water District - Water Entitlements for the County, email to RHAA, October 12, 2004.

Department of Parks, Open Space & Cultural Services, Marin County, Marin County Civic Center Landscape Renovation: Inventory of Existing Plants, 1999.

EIP Associates, Marin County Correctional Facility Environmental Impact Report, Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR, Janu-ary 1990.

EIP Associates, Marin County Correctional Facility, Final Supple-mental Environmental Impact Report, Comments and Responses to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Report, January 1992.


Bibliography

Finnegan, Dennis, Undersheriff, Staffing and Vehicles for Proposed Public Safety Building, email to RHAA, August 18, 2004.

Gensler, County of Marin Facilities Master Plan, April 2002.

Heller-Manus Architects, Preliminary Site Analysis Report for Civic Center Expansion, County of Marin, March 11, 2003.

Herzog Associates, Geotechnical Investigation, Marin County Correctional Facility, San Rafael, CA, June 2, 1989.

Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, 2000

Knutson, Arthur T., Subsurface Engineering, Geotechnical Recon-naissance Report for the Site Selection of the Proposed Marin County Jail, January 31, 1985.

Lee and Praszker, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation Marin County Correctional Facility, San Rafael, CA, August 1988.

Marin County Facilities Planning, Report to the Board of Supervi-sors, May 2003.

Mark Cavagnero Associates, Superior Court of California, County of Marin Court Facilities Master Plan, July 2003.

National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, National Historic Landmark Nomination, Marin County Civic Center, pre-pared by Sally Woodbridge, 1991.

North San Rafael Vision Steering Committee, City of San Rafael, Vision North San Rafael, 1997.

Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc., Marin County Civic Center Soil Analy-sis and Amendment Recommendations, November 15, 1999.

Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Associa-tion, Aaron G. Green, Associate Architect, Marin County Admin-istration Building Specifications, 1962.

Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Founda-tion, William Wesley Peters, Architect, Aaron G. Green, Architect Associated, Marin County Hall of Justice Specifications, 1969.

Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Founda-tion, William Wesley Peters, Chief Architect, Marin County Civic Center Master Plan: 1972-1990, September 1972.

Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Founda-tion, Preliminary Swim Complex Schematic Location and Design Study, Marin County Civic Center, September 7, 1973.

79

Bibliography


Taliesin Associated Architects of the Frank Lloyd Wright Founda-tion, Grading, Utilities & Planting Schematic Master Plans, Marin County Civic Center, December 1974.

Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003

Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., Marin County Civic Center/Marin Center Event Capacity Analysis, January 8, 1996.

Whittenkeller & Associates, McInnis Park Master Plan Revision, October 2001.

Whittenkeller & Associates and Brian Powell & Associates, North San Rafael Vision Promenade Conceptual Plan, November 2002.

Woodward-Clyde-Sherard and Associates, Civil Engineers, Soil Investigation for the Proposed Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, CA, December 1959.

Drawings

Conceptual Landscape Plan for Marin County Civic Center and Marin Center, Department of Parks, Open Space & Cultural Ser-vices, Marin County, drawn by Steve Petterle, August 2000.

Marin County Civic Center Original Contours, drawn by Ed Lud-ers, date unknown.

Civic Center Lighting, AutoCAD drawing provided by Kevin Pusser, date unknown.

Exterior Signs, digital image of original drawing, #000255, provided by Steve Petterle, 1962.

Fair Entrance Treatment, digital image of original drawing, #000313, provided by Steve Petterle, 1986.

Marin Center, digital image of original drawing, #000339, pro-vided by Steve Petterle, date unknown.

Water Conserving Garden, digital image of original drawing, #000266, provided by Steve Petterle, 1974.

Security Fence, digital image of original drawing, #000300, pro-vided by Steve Petterle, 1970.

Cross-section/Elevation of Civic Center Site (showing rockline), photocopy of drawing provided by Dept. of Public Works, date unknown.

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES80

Acknowledgements

Marin County Board of Supervisors

District 1, Susan L. Adams, Vice PresidentDistrict 2, Harold C. Brown Jr., PresidentDistrict 3, Charles McGlashanDistrict 4, Steve Kinsey, 2nd PresidentDistrict 5, Cynthia L. Murray

County of Marin Staff

Master Design Guidelines Project ManagementMatthew H. Hymel, County AdministratorMark J. Riesenfeld, County Administrator (Retired)Don Hunter, Deputy County AdministratorDavid Speer, Facilities Planning & Development ManagerLisa DeCarlo, Administrative Analyst

Marin County Technical Advisory CommitteeBob Beaumont, Chief Assistant Director of Public WorksJim Farley, Director of Cultural and Visitor ServicesDennis Finnegan, UndersheriffTom Lai, Principal PlannerSteve Petterle, Principal Park Planner

Consulting Organizations

Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center ConservancyAnnette Rose, ChairMark CavagneroLynn DowneyNancy King HaydenSally HauserSupervisor Charles McGlashan Catherine H. MunsonJoan G. RobertsMark SchatzSuki Sennett

Marin Center Renaissance Partnership Steering CommitteeMaynard Willms, Committee Member

Superior Court of California, County of MarinKim Turner, Assistant Court Executive Officer

Credits & Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 81

Project Consultants

Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & AbeyLead Consultant, Landscape Architecture & Environmental Plan-ningManuela King, PrincipalLisa Orr, Associate

Mark Cavagnero AssociatesArchitectureMark Cavagnero, PrincipalRoslyn Cole, Principal

Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc.Transportation PlanningDalene J. Whitlock, P.E., PTOE, Project ManagerDebbie Dunn, GraphicsScott Rhodes, Marks Traffic Data ServiceSteve Weinberger, P.E., PTOE, Project Review

Kate Keating Associates Inc.Architectural Graphics, Signage and WayfindingKate Keating, PrincipalStanton Klose, Project Manager

Horton Lees Brogden Lighting DesignConceptual Lighting DesignAngela McDonald, PrincipalLilian Rodriguez, Associate

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTERMASTER DES IGN GU IDEL INES

R O Y S T O N H A N A M O T O A L L E Y & A B E Y

Mark Cavagnero Associates

Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc.

Horton Lees Brogden Lighting Design

Kate Keating Associates Inc.

FINAL REPORTDecember 20, 2005

Mas te r Des ign Gu ide l ines Summary Tab le

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

EG

UIDE

LIN

ESI

TE O

RGA

NIZ

ATIO

N

Th

is se

ctio

n id

entifi

es i

ssue

s tha

t rel

ate

to th

e ov

eral

l org

aniza

tion

of th

e sit

e to

incl

ude

view

co

rrid

ors;

ped

estri

an, b

icyc

le, a

nd v

ehic

ular

circ

ulat

ion;

and

par

king

cap

acity

. G

uid

elin

es

incl

ude

the

follo

win

g (S

ee S

ectio

n 3

for f

urth

er d

etai

ls):

A.

View

Cor

ridor

s1.

W

here

vie

ws f

rom

the

Civ

ic C

ente

r bui

ldin

gs to

the

east

and

sout

h ar

e ob

stru

cted

due

to

tall t

rees

, rep

laci

ng th

e tre

es w

ith sm

alle

r spe

cies

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

. (T

his m

ust b

e ha

ndle

d

with

car

e; a

thor

ough

tree

pla

ntin

g m

aste

r pla

n is

requ

ired

.)2.

U

ndes

irabl

e vi

ews o

f Hig

hway

101

from

the

Civ

ic C

ente

r bui

ldin

gs sh

ould

be

miti

gate

d

with

buf

fer a

nd sc

reen

pla

ntin

g al

ong

the

site’

s wes

tern

ed

ge.

Car

e m

ust b

e ta

ken,

how

ever

, to

pro

tect

the

view

from

the

high

way

bac

k to

war

ds t

he b

uild

ings

.B.

Ped

estri

an C

ircul

atio

n1.

S

idew

alks

alo

ng p

rimar

y an

d se

cond

ary

stre

ets a

re p

refe

rred

site

-wid

e in

ord

er to

st

reng

then

con

nect

ions

bet

wee

n bu

ildin

gs a

nd re

crea

tiona

l fea

ture

s on

the

site.

Sig

nage

and

ni

ghtti

me

light

ing

shou

ld a

lso b

e in

clud

ed.

Sid

ewal

ks w

ill im

prov

e ov

eral

l ped

estri

an sa

fety

an

d a

cces

s to

alte

rnat

ive

park

ing

lots

for e

vent

s. 2.

A

pav

ed w

alkw

ay o

f a m

inim

um 1

2’ in

wid

th th

at c

ircle

s the

lago

on e

ntire

ly sh

ould

be

com

plet

ed p

er F

rank

Llo

yd W

right

’s o

rigin

al p

lan.

Sig

nage

and

nig

httim

e lig

htin

g sh

ould

also

be

incl

uded

. W

idth

and

mat

eria

l sho

uld

be

cons

isten

t.3.

P

edes

trian

acc

ess t

o th

e un

dev

elop

ed a

rea

in th

e no

rthea

st c

orne

r of t

he si

te is

enc

our-

aged

. Pa

ths s

houl

d b

e ad

equa

tely

sign

ed fo

r way

fi nd

ing

and

form

alize

d to

the

deg

ree

nec-

essa

ry to

pro

tect

sens

itive

hab

itats

. Ha

bita

t con

trol f

ence

s will

be n

eces

sary

to p

rote

ct se

nsi-

tive

wet

land

are

as.

Path

s sho

uld

typi

cally

be

appr

oxim

atel

y 4

- 6’ w

ide.

4.

Exis

ting

trails

on

the

site

may

or m

ay n

ot b

e fo

rmal

ized

, bas

ed o

n th

e ad

jace

nt n

atur

al

cond

ition

s at t

he d

iscre

tion

of th

e C

ount

y. I

f for

mal

ized

, tra

il wid

th a

nd m

ater

ials

shou

ld b

e co

nsist

ent a

nd d

eter

min

ed o

n a

case

by

case

bas

is.C

. Bi

cycl

e C

ircul

atio

n 1.

C

ivic

Cen

ter D

rive

and

oth

er p

rimar

y st

reet

s sho

uld

hav

e st

riped

bik

e la

nes a

nd sh

ould

m

eet a

ll City

, Cou

nty

and

Sta

te st

and

ard

s.2.

B

icyc

le a

cces

s via

bik

e pa

ths o

r mul

tiuse

pat

hs th

roug

hout

the

open

spac

e ar

eas i

s en-

cour

aged

. C

are

shou

ld b

e ta

ken

in d

esig

ning

thes

e pa

ths t

o av

oid

use

r con

fl icts

and

safe

ty

prob

lem

s. C

oord

inat

ion

with

rele

vant

Cou

nty

agen

cies

, City

of S

an R

afae

l pla

ns (i

nclu

din

g th

e N

orth

gate

Pro

men

ade)

, and

inte

rest

ed c

itize

n gr

oups

is e

ncou

rage

d.

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

1

GUI

DELI

NE

D. P

ublic

Tran

spor

tatio

n1.

Th

e C

ount

y is

com

mitt

ed to

enh

anci

ng p

ublic

and

alte

rnat

ive

mod

es o

f tra

nspo

rtatio

n to

an

d fr

om th

e C

ivic

Cen

ter.

Fut

ure

trans

porta

tion

plan

ning

effo

rts sh

ould

em

phas

ize o

ptio

ns

othe

r tha

n th

e us

e of

priv

ate

vehi

cles

.2.

Bu

s she

lters

are

enc

oura

ged

on

the

Civ

ic C

ente

r cam

pus a

nd sh

ould

be

des

igne

d sp

ecifi -

cally

for t

he si

te.

3.

Ad

diti

onal

bus

serv

ice

to th

e C

ivic

Cen

ter f

or c

ultu

ral e

vent

s (ev

enin

gs a

nd w

eeke

nds)

an

d a

cces

s to

the

libra

ry is

enc

oura

ged

. C

oord

inat

ion

with

and

supp

ort o

f the

SM

ART

pro

ject

an

d st

atio

n at

the

Civ

ic C

ente

r is e

ncou

rage

d.

BUIL

DIN

GS

AN

D A

RCHI

TEC

TURE

This

sect

ion

iden

tifi e

s iss

ues t

hat r

elat

e to

the

build

ings

and

arc

hite

ctur

e of

the

site

incl

udin

g gu

idel

ines

rela

ted

to c

onte

xt, f

unct

ion,

and

visu

al im

pact

. G

uid

elin

es in

clud

e th

e fo

llow

ing

(See

Sec

tion

4 fo

r fur

ther

det

ails)

:C

onte

xtA

. Si

ting

1.

Int

egra

te th

e bu

ildin

g w

ith th

e sit

e by

wor

king

with

the

topo

grap

hy to

cre

ate

an e

nviro

n-m

ent t

hat a

llow

s the

cam

pus t

o be

seen

as a

com

posit

e w

hole

.2.

S

ite th

e bu

ildin

g to

mai

ntai

n a

sens

e of

ope

n sp

ace

thro

ugho

ut th

e ca

mpu

s whi

le p

re-

serv

ing

as m

uch

cont

iguo

us o

utd

oor s

pace

as p

ossib

le.

3.

Whe

re p

arki

ng is

nec

essa

ry, i

t sho

uld

be

sited

with

sens

itivi

ty so

as n

ot to

obs

cure

the

sens

e of

ope

n sp

ace

or d

imin

ish th

e pr

esen

ce o

f the

bui

ldin

gs.

B. O

rient

atio

n 1.

I

nteg

rate

the

build

ing

with

the

site

by w

orki

ng w

ith th

e to

pogr

aphy

to c

reat

e an

env

iron-

men

t tha

t allo

ws t

he c

ampu

s to

be se

en a

s a c

ompo

site

who

le.

2.

Site

the

build

ing

to m

aint

ain

a se

nse

of o

pen

spac

e th

roug

hout

the

cam

pus w

hile

pre

-se

rvin

g as

muc

h co

ntig

uous

out

doo

r spa

ce a

s pos

sible

.3.

O

rient

bui

ldin

gs, w

here

ver p

ossib

le, t

o co

nfor

m to

LEE

D (L

ead

ersh

ip in

Ene

rgy

and

Env

iron-

men

tal D

esig

n) st

and

ard

s to

max

imize

eco

logi

cal d

esig

n ef

fi cie

ncy

and

min

imize

ene

rgy.

C.

Scal

e1.

S

cale

bui

ldin

gs so

as n

ot to

dim

inish

the

prom

inen

ce o

f the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing

and

Ha

ll of J

ustic

e on

the

site.

2.

With

resp

ect t

o ne

ighb

orin

g st

ruct

ures

, sca

le b

uild

ings

to a

void

larg

e-sc

ale

disc

repa

ncie

s.D.

Bui

ldin

g He

ight

1.

A n

ew b

uild

ing

shou

ld n

ot b

e so

tall a

s to

over

whe

lm th

e A

dm

inist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g an

d H

all

of J

ustic

e. T

he h

eigh

t of a

new

bui

ldin

g (o

r por

tion

of a

bui

ldin

g) w

ill be

det

erm

ined

by

pro-

gram

mat

ic n

eed

s with

the

utm

ost c

are

and

sens

itivi

ty to

its s

urro

und

ings

.Fu

nctio

n A

. En

try O

rient

atio

n1.

W

here

pos

sible

, orie

nt m

ain

build

ing

entri

es to

war

d th

e ar

teria

l roa

dw

ays o

f the

site

to

prom

ote

circ

ulat

ion

effi c

ienc

y th

roug

hout

the

cam

pus.

2.

T

he si

ting

of th

e bu

ildin

g ta

kes p

rece

den

ce a

nd sh

ould

be

care

fully

con

sider

ed p

er th

e ‘c

onte

xt’ g

uid

elin

es b

efor

e un

der

taki

ng th

e pl

acem

ent o

f ent

ries.

3.

Mai

n bu

ildin

g en

tries

shou

ld b

e cl

early

dist

ingu

ished

from

the

rest

of t

he st

ruct

ure

to e

nsur

e re

cogn

ition

and

eas

e of

acc

ess.

4.

Org

anize

bui

ldin

g en

tries

to p

rom

ote

ped

estri

an c

ircul

atio

n be

twee

n bu

ildin

gs.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

2

GUI

DELI

NE

B. B

uild

ing

Usag

e1.

B

uild

ings

shou

ld p

rom

ote

publ

ic a

ctiv

ity th

roug

hout

the

site.

2.

P

ublic

use

s sho

uld

be

mai

ntai

ned

on

the

grou

nd le

vel,

whe

reve

r pos

sible

, to

prom

ote

ac-

cess

ibilit

y an

d st

reet

leve

l act

ivity

.3.

L

ess a

ctiv

e fu

nctio

ns su

ch a

s ad

min

istra

tive,

ed

ucat

iona

l, no

n-pr

ofi t,

or s

imila

r use

s sho

uld

be

pla

ced

on

the

uppe

r lev

el w

here

ver p

ossib

le.

C.

Park

ing

App

roac

h1.

P

arki

ng sh

ould

be

on si

te a

nd e

asily

acc

essib

le, b

ut sh

ould

not

obs

cure

the

site’

s sen

se o

f op

en sp

ace

or d

imin

ish th

e pr

esen

ce o

f the

bui

ldin

gs.

Furth

er d

iscus

sion

on p

arki

ng lo

ts is

in

Sect

ion

5, L

and

scap

e an

d S

ite E

lem

ents

.2.

L

ong,

low

form

s are

pre

ferre

d in

acc

ord

ance

with

Fra

nk L

loyd

Wrig

ht’s

des

ign

prin

cipl

es

and

the

visu

al q

ualit

y of

the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing

and

Hal

l of J

ustic

e.3.

I

f req

uire

d, p

arki

ng st

ruct

ures

shou

ld b

e lin

ed w

ith p

rogr

am sp

ace,

den

se la

ndsc

apin

g,

or a

des

igne

d se

ries o

f ear

th b

erm

s with

pla

ntin

gs to

con

ceal

thei

r app

eara

nce

and

use

as

a no

n-oc

cupi

ed b

uild

ing.

The

feas

ibilit

y of

und

ergr

ound

par

king

stru

ctur

es, c

over

ed b

y la

nd-

scap

ed p

ark-

like

area

s or n

ew b

uild

ings

, sho

uld

be

expl

ored

.4.

P

arki

ng fi

eld

s and

par

king

stru

ctur

es sh

ould

be

des

igne

d to

be

envi

ronm

enta

lly se

nsiti

ve,

min

imizi

ng h

ard

scap

e an

d b

uilt

stru

ctur

es w

hile

max

imizi

ng o

pen

spac

e.Vi

sual

Impa

ct

A.

Form

1.

Use

few

er fo

rms t

o pr

esen

t a si

mpl

er a

nd “

quie

ter”

effe

ct to

enh

ance

the

beau

ty o

f the

su

rroun

din

gs.

2.

Lon

g, lo

w fo

rms a

re p

refe

rred

in a

ccor

dan

ce w

ith F

rank

Llo

yd W

right

’s d

esig

n pr

inci

ples

an

d th

e vi

sual

qua

lity

of th

e A

dm

inist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g an

d H

all o

f Jus

tice.

3.

Do

not u

se fo

rms t

hat v

isual

ly c

halle

nge

the

topo

grap

hy b

ut ra

ther

allo

w th

e bu

ildin

g fo

rms t

o be

com

plem

enta

ry to

the

land

scap

e.4.

E

mph

asize

form

al c

larit

y of

the

build

ing

by m

aint

aini

ng a

sim

ple

pale

tte o

f mat

eria

ls.B.

Roo

f Tre

atm

ent

1.

Roo

f typ

es th

at a

re la

rger

, sim

pler

, visu

ally

qui

et, a

nd fo

rmal

ly c

ohes

ive

are

pref

erre

d.

2.

Avo

id ro

of ty

pes t

hat a

ppea

r sm

alle

r and

visu

ally

bus

y, a

nd m

ight

be

inte

rpre

ted

as r

esi-

den

tial in

scal

e.3.

R

oof t

ypes

shou

ld b

e d

iffer

entia

ted

from

the

exist

ing

land

mar

k bu

ildin

gs to

avo

id m

imic

ry

and

to p

rote

ct th

e hi

stor

ic in

tegr

ity o

f the

land

mar

k bu

ildin

gs.

Refe

r to

the

Secr

etar

y of

the

Inte

rior’s

Sta

ndar

ds f

or th

e Tr

eatm

ent o

f Hist

oric

Pro

perti

es.

4.

Roo

f tre

atm

ents

shou

ld b

e vi

sual

ly in

tegr

ated

into

the

over

all a

rchi

tect

ural

con

cept

.5.

I

ncor

pora

te th

e ne

ed fo

r mec

hani

cal a

nd e

lect

rical

equ

ipm

ent i

nto

the

build

ing

des

ign

to a

void

pla

cing

such

item

s ont

o th

e ro

of.

6.

Sus

tain

abilit

y iss

ues s

uch

as u

se o

f ren

ewab

le e

nerg

y an

d d

aylig

htin

g sh

ould

be

cons

id-

ered

and

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

des

ign

of th

e ro

of.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

3

GUI

DELI

NE

C.

Wal

ls an

d O

peni

ngs

1.

Tre

at e

xter

ior w

alls

as lig

ht sc

reen

s, w

here

ver p

ossib

le, t

o ta

ke a

dva

ntag

e of

nat

ural

day

-lig

ht a

nd v

iew

s to

prov

ide

build

ing

occu

pant

s a c

onne

ctio

n be

twee

n th

e in

doo

r spa

ces a

nd

the

outd

oors

.2.

H

arm

onize

all n

eces

sary

ope

ning

s – d

oors

, pas

sage

s and

win

dow

s – w

ith g

ood

hum

an-

scal

ed p

ropo

rtion

s.3.

O

rgan

ize e

xter

ior w

all o

peni

ngs t

o ac

t sin

gly

or in

a se

ries,

typi

cally

as l

ight

scre

ens i

nste

ad

of so

lid w

alls.

4.

Ext

erio

r wal

ls sh

ould

not

mim

ic th

e A

dm

inist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g an

d H

all o

f Jus

tice,

but

may

be

sym

path

etic

in it

s int

ent a

s a sc

reen

to m

odul

ate

day

light

. Re

fer t

o th

e Se

cret

ary

of th

e In

terio

r’s S

tand

ard

s for

the

Trea

tmen

t of H

istor

ic P

rope

rties

.5.

B

uild

ings

mus

t res

pect

any

priv

acy

issue

s with

rega

rd to

nea

rby

resid

entia

l stru

ctur

es.

6.

Sus

tain

abilit

y iss

ues s

uch

as o

ptim

izing

ene

rgy

effi c

ienc

y an

d u

se o

f day

light

ing

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

and

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

des

ign

of th

e ex

terio

r env

elop

e.D.

Ext

erio

r Wal

kway

s/A

rcad

es1.

E

xter

ior w

alkw

ays a

nd a

rcad

es sh

ould

be

of g

ood

hum

an-s

cale

d p

ropo

rtion

s and

inte

-gr

ated

with

the

build

ings

.2.

I

f ext

erio

r wal

kway

s/ar

cad

es se

rve

no fu

nctio

nal a

nd p

rogr

am p

urpo

se, a

s the

Civ

ic C

en-

ter a

rcad

es d

o, d

o no

t int

egra

te th

em so

as t

o m

imic

, cop

y or

deg

rad

e th

e la

ndm

ark

stru

c-tu

re.

3.

An

arca

de

doe

s not

requ

ire a

rch

form

s, w

hich

in it

self

may

be

seen

as m

imic

king

. Re

fer t

o th

e Se

cret

ary

of th

e In

terio

r’s S

tand

ard

s for

the

Trea

tmen

t of H

istor

ic P

rope

rties

.E.

Mat

eria

ls 1.

E

limin

ate

the

com

bina

tion

of d

iffer

ent m

ater

ials

in fa

vor o

f uni

form

mat

eria

ls as

muc

h as

po

ssib

le to

em

phas

ize h

iera

rchy

and

cla

rity.

2.

Cho

ose

a sim

ple

mat

eria

l pal

ette

to e

xpre

ss b

uild

ing

cont

inui

ty.

3.

Mat

eria

ls sh

ould

con

vey

a se

nse

of su

bsta

nce

and

evo

ke a

civ

ic q

ualit

y.4.

U

se n

atur

al, n

on-re

fl ect

ive

mat

eria

ls w

here

pos

sible

to c

ompl

emen

t the

land

scap

e.5.

S

usta

inab

ility

issue

s suc

h as

recy

cled

con

tent

and

mat

eria

l orig

inat

ion

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

-er

ed in

mak

ing

mat

eria

l cho

ices

.

F. C

olor

1.

Bui

ldin

g co

lors

shou

ld n

ot c

ompe

te w

ith o

r oth

erw

ise d

imin

ish th

e vi

sual

cha

ract

er o

f the

Fr

ank

Lloyd

Wrig

ht A

dm

inist

rativ

e Bu

ildin

g an

d H

all o

f Jus

tice.

2.

Bui

ldin

g co

lors

shou

ld fo

llow

Fra

nk L

loyd

Wrig

ht’s

inte

nt o

f rel

atin

g th

e bu

ildin

g to

the

land

-sc

ape.

3.

A

void

brig

ht c

olor

s so

as n

ot to

cla

sh w

ith, c

ompe

te w

ith o

r oth

erw

ise d

imin

ish th

e ex

istin

g la

ndm

ark

stru

ctur

es.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

4

GUI

DELI

NE

G.

Light

ing

1.

The

ove

rall f

eel o

f the

ope

n sp

ace,

as a

nat

ural

setti

ng sh

ould

be

resp

ecte

d, w

ith se

curit

y an

d w

ayfi n

din

g/or

ient

atio

n lig

htin

g gi

ven

prec

eden

ce.

Furth

er in

form

atio

n is

incl

uded

in S

ec-

tion

6, L

and

scap

e an

d S

ite E

lem

ents

.2.

B

uild

ings

shou

ld h

ave

visu

ally

rest

rain

ed a

nd e

lega

nt lig

htin

g, a

nd sh

ould

be

des

igne

d to

be

com

patib

le a

nd c

ompl

emen

tary

with

the

land

mar

k st

ruct

ures

.3.

E

xter

ior b

uild

ing

light

ing

shou

ld b

e d

esig

ned

and

shie

lded

as n

eces

sary

to a

void

off-

site

light

ing

and

nig

ht sk

y po

llutio

n.LA

NDS

CA

PE A

ND

SITE

ELE

MEN

TSTh

is se

ctio

n id

entifi

es i

ssue

s tha

t rel

ate

to th

e ov

eral

l land

scap

e an

d si

te e

lem

ents

, inc

lud

-in

g pl

antin

g an

d ir

rigat

ion,

pav

ing

and

surfa

ces,

site

furn

iture

, fen

ces a

nd sc

reen

ing,

ripa

rian

envi

ronm

ents

, par

k an

d re

crea

tion

area

s, st

reet

scap

es, p

arki

ng lo

ts, l

ight

ing,

sign

age

and

w

ayfi n

din

g. G

uid

elin

es in

clud

e th

e fo

llow

ing

(See

Sec

tion

5 fo

r mor

e fu

rther

det

ails)

:

A.

Plan

ting

and

Irrig

atio

n1.

T

he e

xistin

g O

ak tr

ees a

re to

be

augm

ente

d w

ith a

dd

ition

al O

aks w

hene

ver a

nd w

her-

ever

pos

sible

. O

aks w

ill se

rve

as th

e “s

igna

ture

tree

” fo

r thi

s lan

dsc

ape

as th

ey th

rive

on th

ese

hills

, are

long

-live

d, a

nd a

re a

ppro

pria

te to

the

site’

s cul

tura

l hist

ory.

2.

Non

-nat

ive

trees

and

shru

bs –

esp

ecia

lly th

ose

that

are

inva

sive,

uns

ight

ly, a

nd/o

r un-

heal

thy

– sh

ould

be

repl

aced

ove

r tim

e w

ith sp

ecie

s app

ropr

iate

to th

e O

ak w

ood

land

land

-sc

ape.

3.

Bot

h de

cidu

ous

and

ever

gree

n pl

antin

gs s

houl

d be

sel

ecte

d to

enh

ance

the

nativ

e O

ak

woo

dlan

d la

ndsc

ape

and

be a

ppro

pria

te in

size

and

sca

le w

ith re

spec

t to

any

adja

cent

his-

toric

stru

ctur

es.

For e

xam

ple,

new

pla

ntin

g sh

ould

not

inte

rfere

with

vie

ws t

o or

from

the

Civ

ic

Cen

ter b

uild

ings

whe

n th

ey re

ach

mat

urity

.4.

T

he p

rese

nt g

rass

y gr

ound

cov

er is

to b

e pr

eser

ved

and

aug

men

ted

with

ad

diti

onal

na-

tive

seed

ing

whe

n ne

cess

ary.

Stre

etsc

apes

Pla

ntin

g an

d Irr

igat

ion

1.

Prim

ary

stre

ets,

such

as C

ivic

Cen

ter D

rive,

Pet

er B

ehr D

rive

and

the

Ave

nue

of th

e Fl

ags,

shou

ld e

ach

have

a c

lear

and

con

siste

nt st

reet

scap

e pl

antin

g ap

proa

ch a

nd d

esig

n. P

lant

pa

lette

s, es

peci

ally

stre

et tr

ees,

shou

ld b

e d

evise

d fo

r eac

h pr

imar

y st

reet

. Fo

rmal

stre

et tr

ee

plan

ting

is en

cour

aged

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te. C

ohes

ion

and

cla

rity

in p

lant

ing

and

mat

eria

ls w

ill en

hanc

e th

e vi

sitor

s’ e

xper

ienc

e an

d im

prov

e w

ayfi n

din

g on

the

site.

Spe

cial

atte

ntio

n sh

ould

be

pai

d to

the

prot

ectio

n of

vie

w c

orrid

ors.

Whi

le u

nity

is d

esire

d, s

ome

brea

ks in

stre

et tr

ee

plan

tings

may

be

nece

ssar

y to

pre

serv

e vi

ews.

2.

Sec

ond

ary

stre

ets,

such

as J

udge

Hal

ey D

rive,

Arm

ory

Driv

e, a

nd V

era

Schu

ltz D

rive,

sh

ould

also

hav

e a

clea

r and

con

siste

nt st

reet

scap

e pl

antin

g ap

proa

ch a

nd d

esig

n. B

ecau

se

thes

e st

reet

s hav

e le

ss tr

affi c

and

impo

rtanc

e on

the

site,

the

stre

et tr

ee p

lant

ing

can

be le

ss

form

al th

an th

ose

for t

he p

rimar

y st

reet

s. H

owev

er, d

esig

ning

a p

lant

ing

pale

tte fo

r eac

h is

enco

urag

ed in

ord

er to

gui

de

futu

re im

prov

emen

ts.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

5

GUI

DELI

NE

Build

ing

Entri

es, C

ourty

ards

and

Pat

ios

1.

As i

s cur

rent

ly th

e pr

actic

e, h

ighl

y or

nam

enta

l pla

ntin

gs a

re a

ppro

pria

te fo

r the

bui

ldin

g-re

late

d la

ndsc

apes

of t

he M

arin

Cou

nty

Civ

ic C

ente

r bui

ldin

gs in

clud

ing

inte

rior c

ourty

ard

s su

ch a

s the

pat

io a

dja

cent

to th

e ca

fete

ria a

nd th

e fo

rmer

exe

rcise

cou

rtyar

d o

f the

orig

inal

ja

il. Th

ese

land

scap

es s

houl

d re

fere

nce

Wrig

ht’s

hist

oric

pla

ns w

hene

ver p

ossib

le a

nd a

ppro

-pr

iate

and

sho

uld

incl

ude

a ba

lanc

e of

dec

iduo

us a

nd e

verg

reen

pla

nts.

Whe

re th

e ex

terio

r of

the

build

ing

mee

ts th

e na

tura

l gro

und

pla

ne, p

lant

ings

shou

ld b

e m

atur

e an

d a

ppea

r to

be

part

of th

e na

tura

l land

scap

e.2.

T

he e

ntry

land

scap

es o

f the

Vet

eran

’s M

emor

ial A

udito

rium

and

the

Exhi

bit H

all s

houl

d

be e

nhan

ced

and

impr

oved

with

ad

diti

onal

app

ropr

iate

ly sc

aled

pla

ntin

gs.

This

wou

ld a

lso

enha

nce

way

fi nd

ing

for v

isito

rs to

thes

e ve

nues

.3.

P

lant

ing

adja

cent

to a

ny fu

ture

dev

elop

men

t - a

t ent

ries,

in c

ourty

ard

s, et

c. -

shou

ld b

e co

ntem

pora

ry in

nat

ure

and

app

ropr

iate

in sc

ale,

col

or, a

nd te

xtur

e fo

r the

new

arc

hite

ctur

e.

It sh

ould

not

atte

mpt

to m

atch

or m

imic

exis

ting

plan

tings

on

site.

Park

Are

as1.

T

he ir

rigat

ion

in th

e La

goon

Par

k ar

ea sh

ould

be

upgr

aded

for e

ffi ci

ency

and

eas

e of

m

aint

enan

ce.

2.

Per

imet

er tr

ee p

lant

ing

to d

efi n

e th

e ed

ge o

f the

site

and

to sc

reen

the

park

from

ad

ja-

cent

nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds s

houl

d b

e m

aint

aine

d a

nd e

nhan

ced

. Re

plac

emen

t tre

es in

the

law

n ar

eas m

ust b

e ab

le to

tole

rate

law

n w

ater

ing

and

shou

ld p

rovi

de

as m

uch

shad

e as

pos

sible

. Tr

ees a

long

the

site’

s per

imet

er, a

way

from

the

law

n ar

ea, m

ay b

e O

aks o

r oth

er n

ativ

es th

at

do

not r

equi

re o

r tol

erat

e irr

igat

ion

or u

nder

stor

y pl

antin

g. A

bal

ance

of d

ecid

uous

and

eve

r-gr

een

spec

ies

is de

sired

.B.

Pav

ing

and

Surfa

ces

Prim

ary

Pede

stria

n C

onne

ctio

ns1.

E

xistin

g sid

ewal

ks sh

ould

be

mad

e as

con

siste

nt a

s pos

sible

in te

rms o

f des

ign,

mat

eria

l, co

lor a

nd fi

nish

.2.

T

he p

refe

rred

mat

eria

l for

prim

ary

ped

estri

an ro

utes

is st

and

ard

gra

y co

ncre

te w

ith a

co

nsist

ent m

ediu

m b

room

fi ni

sh.

Whe

re th

e ro

ute

is d

irect

ly a

dja

cent

to h

istor

ic st

ruct

ures

and

“T

alie

sin R

ed”

pain

t col

or h

as tr

aditi

onal

ly b

een

used

on

the

pavi

ng, i

t is r

ecom

men

ded

that

in

tegr

ally

col

ored

or s

tain

ed c

oncr

ete

be u

sed

in lie

u of

surfa

ce p

aint

.Se

cond

ary

Pede

stria

n C

onne

ctio

ns1.

C

ount

y-sa

nctio

ned

ped

estri

an p

aths

shou

ld b

e fo

rmal

ized

whe

re d

oing

so w

ould

not

con

-fl i

ct w

ith a

dja

cent

use

s. T

his w

ill in

crea

se a

cces

s to

vario

us si

te a

men

ities

.2.

F

or in

form

al p

athw

ays w

here

AD

A c

ompl

ianc

e is

not r

equi

red

, the

pre

ferre

d su

rface

m

ater

ial is

dec

ompo

sed

gra

nite

(with

or w

ithou

t sta

biliz

er) o

r sm

all d

iam

eter

gra

nula

r agg

re-

gate

. W

here

con

diti

ons r

equi

re a

dd

ition

al st

abilit

y an

d d

urab

ility,

con

cret

e or

asp

halt

may

be

appr

opria

te.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

6

GUI

DELI

NE

Stre

et P

avin

g an

d Su

rface

s1.

A

spha

lt pa

ving

with

con

cret

e cu

rbs f

or p

rimar

y an

d se

cond

ary

stre

ets i

s pre

ferre

d.

2.

In p

artic

ular

, the

Ave

nue

of th

e Fl

ags s

houl

d b

e re

pave

d w

ith a

spha

lt. (

It is

und

erst

ood

th

at th

e M

arin

Cen

ter M

aste

r Pla

n w

ill ad

dre

ss fu

rther

des

ign

issue

s of t

he A

venu

e of

the

Flag

s.

Whi

le c

erta

in d

etai

ls on

the

Ave

nue

of th

e Fl

ags m

ay c

hang

e as

a re

sult

of th

e M

aste

r Pla

n, it

is

des

ired

that

the

over

all lo

ok a

nd fe

el o

f the

stre

et b

e co

nsist

ent w

ith th

at o

f oth

er st

reet

s on

the

Civ

ic C

ente

r cam

pus.)

Spec

ial L

ands

cape

Fea

ture

s1.

P

avin

g fo

r out

doo

r cou

rtyar

ds a

dja

cent

to h

istor

ic st

ruct

ures

shou

ld b

e hi

stor

ical

ly a

ppro

-pr

iate

and

of t

he h

ighe

st q

ualit

y av

aila

ble.

Pai

nted

or e

xpos

ed a

ggre

gate

con

cret

e su

rface

s sh

ould

be

repl

aced

ove

r tim

e w

ith in

tegr

ally

col

ored

con

cret

e. E

xam

ples

incl

ude

the

outd

oor

area

ad

jace

nt to

the

cafe

teria

and

the

outd

oor a

rea

at th

e so

uth

end

of t

he A

dm

inist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g.2.

P

avin

g an

d su

rface

s of n

ew sp

ecia

l land

scap

e fe

atur

es a

dja

cent

to n

ew a

rchi

tect

ure

shou

ld m

atch

in sp

irit w

ith th

e ne

w b

uild

ing

and

be

site

appr

opria

te.

Pavi

ng m

ater

ials

shou

ld

be g

ener

ally

neu

tral a

nd o

f the

hig

hest

qua

lity.

Pav

ing

and

surfa

ces i

n th

ese

case

s sho

uld

su

ppor

t a u

nifi e

d v

iew

of t

he o

vera

ll cam

pus w

hene

ver p

ossib

le, b

ut m

ay b

e co

ntem

pora

ry

mat

eria

ls an

d tr

eatm

ents

as i

s app

ropr

iate

for n

ew d

evel

opm

ent.

3.

New

bui

ldin

gs o

n th

e ca

mpu

s with

rela

ted

out

doo

r are

as su

ch a

s cou

rtyar

ds o

r pat

ios

shou

ld u

se th

e C

ivic

Cen

ter’s

stan

dar

d fu

rnish

ings

whe

neve

r pos

sible

. W

hen

this

appr

oach

is

not a

ppro

pria

te, t

he n

ew b

uild

ing

shou

ld e

stab

lish

site

furn

iture

stan

dar

ds s

peci

fi c to

the

ar-

chite

ctur

e. T

hese

pie

ces s

houl

d a

lso b

e re

spec

tful o

f the

ove

rall s

ettin

g an

d c

hara

cter

of t

he

cam

pus.

C.

Site

Fur

nitu

re

Park

Are

as a

nd L

agoo

n Pe

rimet

er1.

I

t is r

ecom

men

ded

that

all s

ite fu

rnitu

re in

Lag

oon

Park

and

the

land

scap

e su

rroun

d-

ing

the

Lago

on b

e re

plac

ed w

ith h

igh

qual

ity, e

asy

to m

aint

ain,

dur

able

pie

ces c

onsis

tent

th

roug

hout

the

cam

pus.

The

se p

iece

s sho

uld

bec

ome

cam

pus s

tand

ard

s for

par

k-lik

e se

t-tin

gs.

2.

Ben

ches

, tab

les,

trash

rece

ptac

les a

nd a

ny o

ther

des

ired

site

furn

iture

shou

ld b

e of

sim

ilar

des

ign,

col

or, a

nd m

ater

ials.

Ple

ase

see

reco

mm

end

atio

ns b

elow

.3.

T

he d

esig

n of

the

furn

iture

shou

ld b

e sit

e ap

prop

riate

and

con

sider

ate

of th

e hi

stor

ic

build

ings

on

the

site.

The

use

of t

he “

Talie

sin R

ed”

as a

n ac

cent

col

or sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed

dep

end

ing

on th

e fu

rnitu

re’s

loca

tion

but i

s not

requ

ired

.

Cou

rtyar

ds &

Pat

ios

1.

Out

doo

r fur

nitu

re fo

r spa

ces r

elat

ed to

the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing

and

the

Hall o

f Jus

tice

shou

ld b

e co

nsist

ent.

Fur

ther

stud

y on

hist

oric

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g Fr

ank

Lloyd

Wrig

ht’s

orig

i-na

l inte

nt c

ould

be

don

e in

ord

er to

cho

ose

an a

ppro

pria

te st

and

ard

for t

hese

spac

es.

Oth

er-

wise

, the

cam

pus-

wid

e st

and

ard

site

furn

iture

shou

ld b

e us

ed.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

7

GUI

DELI

NE

D. F

ence

s an

d Sc

reen

ing

1.

It

is pr

efer

red

that

per

man

ent c

hain

link

fenc

ing

be u

sed

as l

ittle

as p

ossib

le in

the

publ

ic

park

and

recr

eatio

n ar

eas o

f the

cam

pus.

Whe

n it

is ne

cess

ary,

bla

ck v

inyl

coa

ted

fenc

es a

re

pref

erre

d fo

r dur

abilit

y an

d a

esth

etic

s.2.

A

ll fen

ces s

houl

d b

e pl

ante

d w

ith sh

rubs

and

vin

es w

here

ver p

ossib

le.

3.

Pla

ntin

g ba

rrier

s inc

lud

ing

trees

may

be

appr

opria

te w

here

Civ

ic C

ente

r pro

perty

abu

ts

resid

entia

l nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds t

o pr

ovid

e a

visu

al sc

reen

(for

exa

mpl

e, a

s cur

rent

ly e

xists

alo

ng

Mad

ison

Ave

.). A

ny p

ossib

le fu

ture

dev

elop

men

t on

the

cam

pus s

houl

d c

onsid

er a

nd a

dd

ress

th

ese

issue

s.E.

Rip

aria

n En

viro

nmen

ts:

The

Cre

ek,

Wet

land

s an

d La

goon

1.

Enh

ance

, pro

tect

and

rest

ore

ripar

ian

habi

tats

on

the

Civ

ic C

ente

r site

to th

e hi

ghes

t d

egre

e po

ssib

le.

2.

Pro

vid

e as

man

y in

terp

retiv

e an

d e

duc

atio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties f

or M

arin

resid

ents

in th

ese

ripar

ian

area

s as i

s fea

sible

.3.

I

mpr

ove

wat

er q

ualit

y of

the

lago

on; e

xplo

re su

stai

nabl

e so

lutio

ns fo

r wat

er fi

ltrat

ion.

F. P

ark

and

Recr

eatio

n A

reas

1.

The

pre

ferre

d a

ppro

ach

is to

com

plet

e th

e lo

op a

roun

d th

e en

tire

lago

on w

ith p

arkl

and

as

orig

inal

ly e

nvisi

oned

. Th

e pa

th a

long

the

lago

on sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed a

prim

ary

ped

es-

trian

rout

e an

d e

nhan

ced

acc

ord

ingl

y. S

ite fu

rnish

ings

shou

ld b

e up

grad

ed p

er th

e gu

ide-

lines

abo

ve.

Light

ing

shou

ld b

e im

prov

ed fo

r saf

ety

and

nig

httim

e am

bian

ce.

Sign

age

and

w

ayfi n

din

g sh

ould

be

clea

r and

enc

oura

ge v

isito

rs.

2.

New

par

k ar

eas m

ay b

e d

evel

oped

on-

site

in th

e fu

ture

. Su

ch d

evel

opm

ent s

houl

d c

on-

nect

seam

less

ly w

ith th

e ex

istin

g pa

rk la

nds p

er W

right

’s o

rigin

al d

esig

n. W

hile

the

new

par

k ar

eas m

ay d

iffer

in c

hara

cter

from

Lag

oon

Park

, it i

s des

ired

that

new

par

ks h

ave

adeq

uate

tra

nsiti

onal

spac

e be

twee

n la

ndsc

ape

type

s in

ord

er to

enh

ance

the

cohe

sive

qual

ity o

f the

ca

mpu

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

the

open

spac

e in

the

north

east

cor

ner o

f the

site

may

be

enha

nced

w

ith im

prov

ed a

cces

s to

the

publ

ic.

The

acce

ss p

oint

s to

this

mor

e na

tura

l land

scap

e sh

ould

be

cle

arly

con

nect

ed to

the

exist

ing

park

are

as, b

ut th

ey d

o no

t nee

d to

mat

ch th

e pa

stor

al

des

ign

char

acte

r of L

agoo

n Pa

rk.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

8

GUI

DELI

NE

G.

Stre

etsc

apes

1.

Con

cret

e sid

ewal

ks a

dja

cent

to p

rimar

y an

d se

cond

ary

stre

ets a

re p

refe

rred

. In

par

-tic

ular

, Civ

ic C

ente

r Driv

e be

twee

n A

rmor

y D

rive

and

the

Ave

nue

of th

e Fl

ags s

houl

d h

ave

a co

ncre

te si

dew

alk

alon

g its

eas

tern

ed

ge o

f no

less

than

6’ i

n w

idth

. Se

e se

ctio

n 5.

3 on

pav

-in

g ab

ove

for f

urth

er d

etai

ls.2.

S

treet

s sho

uld

hav

e ad

equa

te n

ight

light

ing

for v

ehic

les a

nd p

edes

trian

s to

enha

nce

safe

-ty

and

in o

rder

to im

prov

e th

e sit

e’s a

cces

sibilit

y d

urin

g ev

enin

g ev

ents

. C

ivic

Cen

ter D

rive,

th

e A

venu

e of

the

Flag

s and

Arm

ory

Driv

e ar

e of

par

ticul

ar c

once

rn.

Light

ing

fi xtu

res a

nd

des

ign

for s

treet

s sho

uld

be

cons

isten

t site

-wid

e. S

ee s

ectio

n 5.

10 o

n lig

htin

g fo

r fur

ther

det

ails.

3.

Site

sign

age

shou

ld b

e ea

sy to

see

and

und

erst

and

in o

rder

to e

nhan

ce w

ayfi n

din

g an

d

impr

ove

acce

ssib

ility.

See

sect

ion

5.11

on

signa

ge a

nd w

ayfi n

din

g be

low

for f

urth

er d

etai

ls.4.

A

ll int

erse

ctio

ns sh

ould

be

appr

opria

tely

strip

ed fo

r ped

estri

an c

ross

ings

; cur

b-cu

ts a

nd

othe

r app

ropr

iate

mea

sure

s sho

uld

be

take

n to

ens

ure

disa

bled

acc

ess.

5.

The

Cou

nty

shou

ld c

onsid

er st

riped

bik

e la

nes o

n pr

imar

y st

reet

s, pa

rticu

larly

Civ

ic C

ente

r D

rive,

in o

rder

to e

ncou

rage

cyc

ling.

See

sect

ion

3.3

for f

urth

er in

form

atio

n on

bic

ycle

circ

ula-

tion.

6.

Stre

et tr

ees a

re e

ncou

rage

d a

s the

y d

efi n

e ed

ges a

nd b

eaut

ify th

e sit

e. H

ighl

ight

ing

the

sam

e tre

e on

a si

ngle

stre

et is

also

pre

ferre

d in

ord

er to

ad

d o

rder

and

cla

rity

to th

e ca

mpu

s. Sp

ecia

l atte

ntio

n sh

ould

be

paid

, how

ever

, not

to o

bstru

ct v

iew

cor

ridor

s with

new

stre

et tr

ee

plan

ting.

See

sect

ion

5.2

on p

lant

ing

for f

urth

er d

etai

ls.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

9

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

10

GUI

DELI

NE

H. P

arki

ng L

ots

1.

All e

xistin

g pa

rkin

g lo

ts o

n th

e C

ivic

Cen

ter c

ampu

s sho

uld

be

red

esig

ned

to in

corp

orat

e bi

osw

ales

to c

aptu

re a

nd tr

eat r

un-o

ff on

-site

whe

reve

r pos

sible

. Th

ese

swal

es sh

ould

run

in

betw

een

row

s of p

arke

d c

ars a

nd b

e pl

ante

d w

ith sp

ecie

s spe

cifi c

ally

cho

sen

for t

heir

wat

er

fi ltra

tion

abilit

ies.

2.

Exist

ing

park

ing

lots

shou

ld a

lso b

e d

ense

ly p

lant

ed w

ith sh

ade

trees

. So

il fer

tility

and

irrig

a-tio

n st

rate

gies

mus

t be

dev

ised

in o

rder

to p

rom

ote

sust

aine

d h

ealth

and

gro

wth

of t

rees

in

such

har

sh e

nviro

nmen

ts.

3.

The

terra

ced

par

king

are

as w

est o

f the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing

shou

ld b

e im

prov

ed b

y pl

antin

g vi

nes t

o co

ver t

he la

rge

expa

nses

of t

he c

oncr

ete

wal

ls.4.

P

lant

ing

for l

ots t

hat m

ay h

ost t

he fa

rmer

’s m

arke

t sho

uld

be

cont

rolle

d so

that

the

mar

ket

wou

ld n

ot b

e ne

gativ

ely

impa

cted

.5.

W

here

pos

sible

, exis

ting

lots

shou

ld b

e re

pave

d w

ith p

erm

eabl

e su

rface

s to

red

uce

stor

mw

ater

run-

off.

6.

Par

king

lot l

ight

ing

shou

ld b

e en

hanc

ed fo

r saf

ety.

See

sect

ion

5.10

on

light

ing

for f

urth

er

det

ails.

7. A

ll ne

w lo

ts o

n th

e sit

e sh

ould

stri

ctly

adh

ere

to th

e su

stai

nabl

e de

sign

prac

tices

list

ed

abov

e. T

he fe

asib

ility

of u

nder

grou

nd p

arki

ng, c

over

ed b

y la

ndsc

aped

par

k-lik

e ar

eas

or

new

bui

ldin

gs, s

houl

d be

exp

lore

d.8.

The

feas

ibili

ty o

f ins

talli

ng s

olar

pan

els

in s

hade

stru

ctur

es o

ver p

arki

ng a

reas

sho

uld

be

expl

ored

.I.

Lig

htin

g

Func

tiona

l Crit

eria

1.

Pro

vid

e ad

equa

te lig

ht fo

r saf

ety

and

secu

rity.

Tw

o m

ain

light

ing

fact

ors t

hat r

einf

orce

a

sens

e of

safe

ty a

nd se

curit

y ar

e ad

equa

te h

orizo

ntal

illum

inan

ce a

t the

gro

und

for n

avig

atio

n of

pat

hway

s, an

d a

deq

uate

ver

tical

lum

inan

ce a

t sur

face

s suc

h as

bui

ldin

g fo

rms,

build

ing

entri

es, p

eopl

e, si

gnag

e an

d p

lant

ing

to p

rovi

de

visu

al c

onte

xt.

2.

Cre

ate

a st

rong

nig

httim

e id

entit

y. E

stab

lish

a hi

erar

chy

of ill

umin

ated

site

feat

ures

, suc

h as

the

spire

on

the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing,

whe

re b

right

ness

, col

or, a

nd c

over

age

can

ind

i-ca

te d

egre

e of

sign

ifi ca

nce

and

focu

s.3.

U

se lig

htin

g to

pro

mot

e w

ayfi n

din

g. I

llum

inat

e ga

tew

ays a

nd v

ertic

al su

rface

s to

prov

ide

cont

ext f

or p

edes

trian

s and

driv

ers.

Inte

grat

e lig

htin

g sy

stem

s with

sign

age.

4.

Ad

dre

ss m

aint

enan

ce is

sues

such

as s

tand

ard

izing

lam

p ty

pes a

s muc

h as

pos

sible

, max

i-m

izing

acc

essib

ility

of fi

xtur

es fo

r eas

ier r

epai

r and

re-la

mpi

ng, o

ptim

izing

lam

p lif

e, c

ost,

and

en

ergy

effi

cien

cy, a

nd m

inim

izing

opp

ortu

nitie

s for

van

dal

ism.

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

11

GUI

DELI

NE

Desig

n C

riter

ia a

nd A

ppro

ach

1.

The

scal

e, fo

rm, c

olor

, and

spac

ing

of lig

htin

g el

emen

ts sh

ould

be

cohe

sive

cam

pus-

wid

e an

d c

ompa

tible

with

the

hist

oric

des

ign

prec

eden

ts a

nd w

ith th

e sim

ple,

and

tim

eles

s des

igns

of

oth

er si

te e

lem

ents

such

as p

lant

ing,

arc

hite

ctur

e, a

nd si

gnag

e.2.

S

ite lig

htin

g fi x

ture

s loc

ated

nea

r hist

oric

stru

ctur

es m

ust b

e re

spec

tful o

f the

hist

oric

styl

ed

des

igns

and

site

light

ing

fi xtu

res u

sed

else

whe

re sh

ould

be

simpl

e, ti

mel

ess,

and

coh

esiv

e th

roug

hout

pos

sible

futu

re d

evel

opm

ent a

reas

. Thi

s con

cept

of a

“fa

mily

of fi

xtu

res”

shou

ld b

e ap

plie

d to

the

maj

or o

pen

spac

es.

3.

The

col

or o

f lig

ht th

roug

hout

the

Mar

in C

ount

y C

ivic

Cen

ter s

houl

d b

e co

nsist

ent w

ith

only

slig

ht v

aria

tions

in th

e co

lor o

f the

light

sour

ce, w

hich

may

be

cons

ider

ed a

ppro

pria

te fo

r d

istin

guish

ing

adja

cent

are

as o

f diff

eren

t fun

ctio

ns.

To m

aint

ain

this

hist

oric

col

or v

aria

tion,

w

e re

com

men

d u

sing

war

m c

olor

ed 3

000

Kelv

in c

ompa

ct fl

uore

scen

t lig

ht so

urce

s. A

ll lig

ht

sour

ces s

houl

d h

ave

the

high

est c

olor

rend

erin

g pr

oper

ties a

vaila

ble

to e

nhan

ce th

e qu

ality

of

the

nigh

ttim

e ex

perie

nce.

4.

The

Are

a Br

ight

ness

Lig

htin

g D

iagr

am c

onta

ined

in th

is se

ctio

n su

mm

arize

s the

ove

rall d

e-sig

n ap

proa

ch.

Each

pos

sible

futu

re p

roje

ct sh

ould

pro

vid

e sm

ooth

tran

sitio

ns b

etw

een

zone

s of

diff

eren

t lig

ht in

tens

ities

. Zo

nes o

f var

ying

leve

ls of

brig

htne

ss b

ased

on

the

dia

gram

shou

ld

be im

plem

ente

d.

The

light

ing

solu

tion

shou

ld p

rovi

de

an a

ppro

pria

te b

alan

ce o

f lig

ht a

nd

leve

l of c

omfo

rt, w

ith th

e ac

tual

qua

ntity

of l

ight

(i.e

. num

ber o

f foo

tcan

dle

s) a

s a g

uid

elin

e.

Spec

ial a

ttent

ion

shou

ld b

e pa

id to

pro

vid

ing

a vi

sual

ly c

omfo

rtabl

e tra

nsiti

on fr

om o

ne a

rea

to th

e ne

xt.

5.

To

faci

litat

e se

ason

al lig

htin

g an

d sp

ecia

l eve

nts,

the

infra

stru

ctur

e of

eac

h po

ssib

le fu

ture

d

evel

opm

ent s

houl

d in

clud

e po

wer

for t

he in

stal

latio

n of

tem

pora

ry lig

htin

g.6.

T

he e

xistin

g hi

stor

ic h

at-s

hape

d fi

xtur

es, p

lace

d 6

0’ o

n ce

nter

, do

not p

rovi

de

a un

iform

co

vera

ge o

f the

pat

hway

s, w

here

ver

tical

illum

inat

ion

on p

edes

trian

s fal

ls of

f in

betw

een

light

fi x

ture

s. It

is re

com

men

ded

that

a h

ighe

r lig

ht p

ole

with

the

sam

e fi x

ture

hea

d st

yle

and

pro

-fi l

e be

con

sider

ed fo

r gre

ater

ver

tical

and

hor

izont

al ill

umin

atio

n co

vera

ge a

long

ped

estri

an

path

way

s.7.

A re

cons

truct

ed c

usto

m h

ybrid

fi xt

ure

des

ign

that

repr

esen

ts th

e or

igin

al h

istor

ic fi

xtur

e co

ncep

t and

ove

rall p

rofi l

e ye

t with

mod

erni

zed

fi xt

ure

optic

s and

lam

p te

chno

logy

is re

com

-m

end

ed.

The

use

of c

eram

ic m

etal

hal

ide

tech

nolo

gy is

pre

ferre

d fo

r roa

dw

ay a

nd st

reet

lig

htin

g.

J. S

igna

ge a

nd W

ayfi n

ding

Gat

eway

Fea

ture

1.

The

blu

e ro

of a

nd g

old

-leaf

ed sp

ire a

re so

dist

inct

ive

and

wel

l-kno

wn

that

gat

eway

en-

hanc

emen

ts a

re n

ot fu

nctio

nally

nec

essa

ry a

t the

inte

rsec

tions

of C

ivic

Cen

ter D

rive

with

San

Pe

dro

Roa

d a

nd th

e A

venu

e of

the

Flag

s.2.

G

atew

ay fe

atur

es w

ould

nev

erth

eles

s ad

d ri

chne

ss to

the

site

and

“an

noun

ce”

the

de-

sign

char

acte

r of t

he la

ndsc

ape

impr

ovem

ents

and

sign

age

that

visi

tors

will

enco

unte

r.3.

G

atew

ay fe

atur

es w

ould

likel

y co

mbi

ne si

gnag

e w

ith la

ndsc

ape

enha

ncem

ents

.

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

12

GUI

DELI

NE

Prim

ary

Vehi

cle

Dire

ctio

nal

1.

The

se sh

ould

be

sized

for r

ead

abilit

y at

the

nom

inal

25

mph

spee

d lim

it al

ong

Civ

ic C

en-

ter D

rive.

The

y w

ould

typi

cally

be

plac

ed a

t the

inte

rsec

tions

with

all p

ublic

road

way

s, an

d, i

n so

me

inst

ance

s, at

ad

vanc

e lo

catio

ns a

s wel

l.2.

U

pgra

des

to e

xistin

g d

irect

iona

l sig

ns to

the

Mar

in V

eter

ans’

Aud

itoriu

m a

nd E

xhib

it Ha

ll co

mpl

ex w

ould

ess

entia

lly re

plic

ate

exist

ing

sign

copy

.3.

N

ew d

irect

iona

l sig

ns a

t the

road

way

s to

the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing

and

Hal

l of J

ustic

e “o

verp

asse

s” w

ould

iden

tify

each

bui

ldin

g en

tranc

e an

d th

e pr

inci

pal p

ublic

des

tinat

ions

it

serv

es m

ost d

irect

ly.

Seco

ndar

y Ve

hicl

e Di

rect

iona

l1.

S

econ

dar

y d

irect

iona

ls ar

e us

ed w

here

slow

er sp

eed

s per

mit

read

abilit

y of

smal

ler c

opy.

G

ener

ally

, the

y al

so d

ispla

y fe

wer

des

tinat

ions

.2.

E

xistin

g se

cond

ary

signs

at t

he M

arin

Vet

eran

s’ M

emor

ial A

udito

rium

and

Exh

ibit

Hall c

om-

plex

shou

ld b

e up

grad

ed.

3.

New

sign

s sho

uld

be

plac

ed a

long

Pet

er B

ehr D

rive,

Jud

ge H

aley

Driv

e an

d V

era

Schu

ltz

Driv

e to

dire

ct v

isito

rs to

the

park

ing

zone

nea

rest

the

build

ing

entra

nce

that

lead

s mos

t di-

rect

ly to

thei

r des

tinat

ion.

Pede

stria

n Di

rect

iona

ls1.

P

edes

trian

-sca

le w

ayfi n

din

g sh

ould

be

prov

ided

alo

ng th

e pa

ths o

f tra

vel f

rom

the

Ad

min

-ist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g an

d H

all o

f Jus

tice

and

eas

t par

king

lot t

o ap

prop

riate

bui

ldin

g en

tries

, and

th

roug

hout

the

Mar

in C

ente

r.

Pede

stria

n O

rient

atio

n M

aps

1.

A fe

w st

rate

gica

lly p

lace

d m

aps w

ill gi

ve m

any

visit

ors a

hel

pful

ove

rvie

w o

f the

site

. (S

ome

peop

le c

anno

t mak

e th

e as

soci

atio

n be

twee

n a

scal

ed re

pres

enta

tion

and

the

phys

i-ca

l wor

ld. W

ayfi n

din

g sh

ould

ther

efor

e no

t rel

y ex

clus

ivel

y on

orie

ntat

ion

map

s.)2.

P

oten

tial m

ap lo

catio

ns in

clud

e th

e tra

nsit

stop

on

Civ

ic C

ente

r Driv

e, th

e A

dm

inist

ratio

n Bu

ildin

g an

d H

all o

f Jus

tice

park

ing

lots

, and

key

ped

estri

an n

odes

at t

he M

arin

Cen

ter.

Thes

e m

aps s

houl

d in

clud

e on

ly th

e d

estin

atio

ns a

nd in

form

atio

n ne

cess

ary

to g

uid

e m

ost v

isito

rs.

The

mor

e co

mpl

ex a

map

, the

mor

e in

timid

atin

g an

d c

onfu

sing

it ca

n be

.

Build

ing

Entry

Iden

tifi c

atio

n1.

I

t will

be c

ritic

al to

“la

bel”

eac

h pu

blic

ent

ranc

e to

the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing

and

Hal

l of

Just

ice

cons

picu

ously

(i.e

. - A

/B/C

or N

orth

/Cen

tral/S

outh

). Ea

ch la

bel s

houl

d b

e au

gmen

ted

by

a d

irect

ory

of p

rimar

y pu

blic

des

tinat

ions

(Cou

rts, J

ury

Ass

embl

y Ro

om, T

raffi

c C

itatio

ns e

t al

).2.

P

ublic

tran

sit sy

stem

s typ

ical

ly h

ave

thei

r ow

n, d

istin

ct si

gnag

e an

d g

raph

ics,

toge

ther

w

ith st

and

ard

s for

thei

r use

, and

this

may

be

the

case

for S

MA

RT. H

owev

er, b

ecau

se o

f the

C

ivic

Cen

ter’s

uni

que,

hist

oric

cha

ract

er, S

MA

RT si

gnag

e sh

ould

, if p

ossib

le, h

ave

site-

spec

ifi c

stru

ctur

al su

ppor

ts a

nd/o

r “fra

min

g.”

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

GUI

DELI

NE

Type

face

1.

The

type

face

Fut

ura

is c

urre

ntly

use

d th

roug

hout

the

Ad

min

istra

tion

Build

ing,

Hal

l of

Just

ice

and

Mar

in V

eter

ans’

Mem

oria

l Aud

itoriu

m. F

utur

a’s c

ircul

ar (o

r app

aren

tly c

ircul

ar)

lette

rform

s are

uni

quel

y ap

prop

riate

to c

ompl

emen

t Wrig

ht’s

use

of c

ircle

s and

circ

ular

arc

s as

des

ign

mot

ifs. F

utur

a is

ther

efor

e th

e re

com

men

ded

type

face

for f

utur

e sig

nage

.C

opy

Size

1.

The

cap

hei

ght (

the

size

of a

cap

ital le

tter m

easu

red

ver

tical

ly) f

or p

rimar

y d

irect

iona

l sig

ns

alon

g C

ivic

Cen

ter D

rive

shou

ld b

e 4”

to 4

.5.”

2.

The

cap

hei

ght f

or d

irect

iona

l sig

ns a

long

seco

ndar

y ro

adw

ays a

nd e

ntry

driv

es sh

ould

be

2.5

” to

3.5

”.

Beca

use

Futu

ra h

as u

nusu

ally

ext

end

ed (w

ide)

lette

rform

s, sig

ns w

ill be

cor

-re

spon

din

gly

wid

er to

acc

omm

odat

e th

e ty

pefa

ce w

ithou

t red

ucin

g ca

p he

ight

s or d

igita

lly

cond

ensin

g th

e co

py.

Am

ount

of C

opy

1.

Whe

reve

r pos

sible

, dire

ctio

nal s

igns

shou

ld h

ave

a m

axim

um o

f thr

ee lis

ted

des

tinat

ions

. D

river

s don

’t ty

pica

lly h

ave

time

to p

roce

ss m

ore

info

rmat

ion

than

that

, and

the

mor

e d

estin

a-tio

ns d

ispla

yed

on

a sig

n, th

e le

ss a

ttent

ion

each

will

get.

Ove

rall

Size

1.

Size

as n

eces

sary

to d

ispla

y th

e co

py a

t the

ind

icat

ed c

ap h

eigh

t and

to p

rovi

de

an a

d-

equa

te b

ord

er z

one

all a

roun

d.

2.

Sig

n pa

nels

shou

ld g

ener

ally

be

wid

er th

an th

ey a

re h

igh

to m

inim

ize m

ultil

ine

mes

sage

s. 4’

6” is

an

optim

al o

vera

ll hei

ght.

The

low

est c

opy

on a

sign

pan

el sh

ould

be

1’0”

to 1

’6”

abov

e fi n

ish g

rad

e to

kee

p th

e co

py w

ithin

a d

river

’s lin

e of

visi

on a

nd to

pre

vent

bei

ng b

lock

ed b

y gr

ound

cov

er.

Cha

ngea

bilit

y1.

M

ost d

estin

atio

ns a

t the

Mar

in C

ount

y C

ivic

Cen

ter c

ampu

s are

unl

ikel

y to

cha

nge

over

tim

e. W

here

cha

nge

is a

poss

ibilit

y, th

e us

e of

mod

ular

dire

ctio

nal s

igns

whi

ch si

mpl

ify c

opy

upd

ates

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

.

Plac

emen

t1.

V

ehic

ular

dire

ctio

nals

shou

ld b

e pl

aced

as c

lose

to th

e st

reet

as p

ossib

le w

ithou

t disr

upt-

ing

sight

lines

or i

nter

ferin

g w

ith u

nder

grou

nd u

tiliti

es.

2.

Pla

cem

ent s

houl

d a

lso ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt a

dja

cent

tree

s, sh

rubs

and

gro

und

cov

er.

3.

Irr

igat

ion

head

s sho

uld

be

dire

cted

aw

ay fr

om si

gn p

anel

s to

avoi

d th

e bu

ildup

of a

lka-

loid

s fro

m re

peat

ed sp

rayi

ng.

Light

ing

1.

All p

rinci

pal w

ayfi n

din

g fe

atur

es sh

ould

hav

e d

edic

ated

ext

erna

l illu

min

atio

n un

less

am

bi-

ent l

ight

leve

ls ar

e hi

gh e

noug

h to

pro

vid

e th

e ne

cess

ary

visib

ility.

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

13

MA

RIN

CIV

IC C

ENTE

R M

AST

ER D

ESIG

N G

UIDE

LIN

ES S

UMM

ARY

TABL

E

Plea

se N

ote:

Thi

s tab

le o

nly

show

s gui

del

ines

. Pl

ease

refe

r to

the

rele

vant

sect

ion

for f

ull in

form

atio

n, b

ackg

roun

d a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e sp

ecifi c

gui

del

ine.

14

GUI

DELI

NE

Desig

n C

onsid

erat

ions

1.

All c

ompo

nent

s of t

he h

iera

rchy

shou

ld e

mpl

oy th

e Fu

tura

type

face

and

util

ize th

e C

ivic

C

ente

r col

or p

alet

te –

sand

ston

e be

ige,

blu

e an

d T

alie

sin R

ed –

and

all c

ompo

nent

s sho

uld

re

fl ect

a c

omm

on d

esig

n vo

cabu

lary

.2.

T

hat d

esig

n vo

cabu

lary

, how

ever

, sho

uld

not

mim

ic th

e C

ivic

Cen

ter a

rchi

tect

ure.

In-

stea

d, i

t sho

uld

be

com

patib

le in

a g

ener

al w

ay, u

sing

curv

ed fo

rms t

o so

ften

mas

sing,

and

ho

rizon

tal r

athe

r tha

n ve

rtica

l pro

porti

ons w

hene

ver p

ossib

le.

3.

If d

esig

n m

otifs

or d

etai

ls ar

e in

corp

orat

ed in

to th

e sig

nage

, the

y sh

ould

be

plac

ed o

n th

e ed

ges o

f a si

gn p

anel

and

/or t

he su

ppor

t stru

ctur

e so

that

they

don

’t o

btru

de

on th

e “l

ive

area

” re

serv

ed fo

r cop

y.4.

B

ord

ers b

etw

een

colo

rs o

r mat

eria

ls sh

ould

be

artic

ulat

ed b

y a

reve

al, a

trim

pie

ce, a

ch

ange

in p

lane

or s

ome

simila

r dev

ice.