.
Feedback

Encinitas Fire Station #2 Unveiled, Will Attain LEED Certification

The new facility replaces one built in 1960 and will receive a US Green Building Council’s LEED Silver certification.

A group of Encinitas residents pushed a fire engine into the new Fire Station #2 in Cardiff Friday, right after a fire hose was ceremoniously uncoupled—officially opening the facility to the public.

The new building has been in use since Jan. 7 and replaced the original Fire Station #2, which was built in 1960, Mayor Teresa Barth told a crowd at the station’s unveiling.

“For more than 50 years, there’s been a lot of wear and tear and it was an antiquated facility,” she said. “This new facility is built to not only better serve the safety needs of the community, but to accommodate our modern safety vehicles, equipment and personnel.”

The facility will receive a US Green Building Council’s LEED Silver certification, she added. Construction costs were $4.6 million.

The building at 618 Birminhamd Dr. can be seen from Interstate-5.

Domusstudio architect Wayne Holtan, who oversaw the project, explains its environmental features:

The single-story, 6,330 square-foot building—with sloping sawtooth rooflines and clearstory windows—was designed to emulate the city’s history of flower fields and greenhouses. He added, “To further project the city’s historic identity, the Poinsettia flower is represented graphically on the masonry wall.”

The fire station serving approximately 60,000 Encinitas residents while providing mutual aid to surrounding communities incorporates sustainable design elements that align with the US Green Building Council’s LEED Silver certification. Such elements include the use of regional building materials, a storm water quality-control bioswale that removes silt and pollution from surface runoff water, and drought tolerant landscaping. The design also allows for the future installation of photovoltaic panels.

According to Holtan, the building was designed to mitigate freeway noise with the use of a continuous decorative concrete masonry wall fronting Interstate 5, with incorporated elements that respond to freeway visibility. The colors are shades of gray and the masonry incorporates offsetting faces with heavy textures.

The roofs are sloped, with standing seam metal facing south to allow optimal sun orientation and efficient solar collecting by the future photovoltaic panels. Between the masonry wall and sloping roof, clerestory windows are formed that allow for effective interior day lighting.

Other features include a freestanding hose-drying tower. The tower is cylindrical in plan and covered with perforated metal panels to enclose the hose drying lift.

The new fire station complements Encinitas Fire Station #5 and Encinitas Fire Station #3, also part of domusstudio’s portfolio. Construction of Fire Station #2 was completed by Balfour Beatty. 

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter

Editor's note: I added the construction cost. 

Al Ein February 23, 2013 at 12:15 pm
How much did it cost and what is the true value to the community. My understanding is firehouses are for down times for on the clock firefighter (3 per shift), plus storing equipment. We don't need all the luxury items and top level soundproofing that is spent on Ritz Hotels. I heard the cost was over $6,000,000 (not including the land). That is a lot of money for housing 3 fire fighters and storage equipment, and I think that money could have been better served on other projects needed in Encinitas. Again, the fire employees score big and and the taxpayers lose....... Sigh.
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) February 23, 2013 at 02:43 pm
Hi Al, the cost was $4.6 million. I added it to the story.
Jay Berman February 23, 2013 at 04:18 pm
I don't get this .... Cardiff has been built out for years, decades ... mostly 1 and 2 story houses, no industry ... the old 1800 SqF station 2 was fine all these years ... why did we have to spend almost $5m on this station 3 times larger ? Look at the place ! Encinitas isn't the only city that builds palatial firestations, you should see what Vista built ... OK, the old station needed a remodel ... I just see this as waste of taxpayer money ...
Lynn Marr February 23, 2013 at 08:59 pm
I agree, costs could have been cut. In fact, the previous fire station from the 60's could have been upgraded. This expense to taxpayers was part of the reason we needed another Lease Revenue Bond, with the Library, sitting on County ground, as "collateral." Out City is not being wise in its expenditures; we don't have to compete with San Marcos to try to out-do that city's fire stations!
Al Ein February 24, 2013 at 02:07 am
Daniel,
Does that cost include everything, Like planning, predesign, design, permiting, Staff time, Advertising and bids, Construction Managment and inspection, Permits. Etc..... I bet its higher than $6 million.
Daniel Woolfolk (Editor) March 5, 2013 at 02:26 pm
I see a huge consensus with commenters on the cost. If anybody has a letter to the editor regarding cost, email me at daniel.woolfolk@patch.com. Please include your name and the community in which you live.
Thanks!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.