Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2011-05-17 #2 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: May 17, 2011
Case Numbers: ED10-079
Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 99 Montecillo Road (Kaiser Medical Center) – Follow-up review of site and architectural
details for a previously approved Environmental and Design Review Permit for the addition to the parking
structure and relocation of the Emergency Department; APN: 175-060-57; Planned Development (PD
1566) District; Kaiser Permanente, owner, Ed Walera/Kaiser Permanente, applicant; Terra Linda
Neighborhood.
SUMMARY
This project was previously reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRB and approved by the
Planning Commission. The DRB motion to approve the project included a few site and architectural
details that needed follow-up review. The Board is asked to review the revisions made in response to
the Board’s previous comments and conclude the follow-up review.
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 2011, the DRB reviewed the formal application for Design Review Permit. Minutes
from this meeting are attached (Exhibit 1). The Board unanimously recommended approval of the
project (4-0-2 with Members Summers and Lentini absent) with recommendations for follow-up review
of certain items after the Planning Commission’s review and action on the project. The follow-up items
included items details related to pedestrian access, design of the utility/boiler room next to the “ED”
and modular structure, further details on the bio-swale design and landscaping considerations in front
of the parking structure.
The applications were then reviewed and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on April
12, 2011. Condition of approval # 34 was included requiring that deferred follow-up review of the
following:
34. Based on the Design Review Board’s review and recommendation on February 23, 2011, the
applicant shall address the following items and return to the DRB for their review and approval:
a) Improve design of the boiler room/utility yard next to the Emergency Department.
o Try to relocate boiler room/utility yard to a less conspicuous location.
o If not feasible, need to improve the aesthetics of this structure as this is the first structure
that would be viewed for those driving in as well as passerby’s on the public street.
Ideas mentioned were to improve aesthetics and architectural characteristics of the
structure, make it look less utilitarian and tie in the fenced yard and the boiler room
better as one structure and also try to make it fit in with the Emergency Department
structure.
b) Improve pedestrian access on site.
o Consider improvements to pedestrian access from Montecillo Rd. up to Hospital/MOB1
to by reducing conflicts with cars and providing a more direct connection. If a separate
2
route cannot be achieved, explore use of site improvements promote pedestrian access
like raised table, differentiate paving/materials, etc.
o From Emergency Department parking lot to entrance for the Emergency Department.
Reduce the conflict of patrons who park on south side of the parking area having to walk
through parking lot to get to sidewalk on north side of the parking lot.
c) Increase number of screening trees in front of parking structure
o Revisit with the Fire Department whether additional trees can be added along the front
of the parking structure to provide additional screening while still complying with
life/safety considerations.
o Alternatively, consider carrying the use of the existing rosemary plant along the front of
the garage as that plant is existing on the site and is doing well
d) Improve design of bio-swale in front of Emergency Department. Given its location, this will
be a prominent feature and therefore, there is a need to:
o Improve design to be more attractive as this is an entry
o Prevent it from looking bad from run off and trash
o Provide details on the proposed design and planting
ANALYSIS
The applicant has provided a table (Exhibit 2) identifying each of the Board’s comments with their
response/revision. Furthermore, the applicant has prepared an addendum set of plans (11” x 17”)
depicting the proposed revisions to address each of the Board’s comments. An 11” x 17” set of the
previously reviewed (reviewed by the DRB on 2/23 and Planning Commission on 4/12) and approved
(approved by Planning Commission on 4/12) plans is also provided as a reference. The addendum
plans reference the sheets on the approved plans which the proposed revisions would occur. The
Board’s consensus items are identified below bold and followed by staff response and analysis.
1. Seek to relocated boiler room/utility yard to a less conspicuous location. If not feasible,
boiler room/utility yard structure must tie in with the design of the emergency building. Also
consider noise impacts.
Staff Response: The applicant has indicated that the relocation of the utility are is not possible due
to the needs of the Emergency Department. Revisions have been proposed, including the addition
of a variety to the stucco panels in combination of colors. In addition, a more pronounced planter
is provided along the front of the structure that would be clad with a stone veneer. Lastly, increase
landscaping is provided in the planter and along the trees.
The noise impacts of the boiler area was studied and found that the use of the boilers would be
limited and is a standard application for hospital settings. Given the separation of the utility area
from other properties, any noise would not conflict with other uses. See Addendum 1-A. Refer to
Sheet 14 on the approved plans.
2. Incorporate sidewalks into the site and must consider and work out to make sure there is
good pedestrian connectivity into the site.
Staff Response: A new sidewalk segment has been proposed to connect Montecillo Rd. to the
main hospital and MOB 1 entry at the center of the campus. With the new sidewalk segment,
pedestrians would no longer have to cross the driveway parking lot except for one location (exit
from Parking Lot C). The bus stop would be relocated to the main circular entry area at the main
entry of the campus. See Addendum 1-B.
3
In addition, enhancements are proposed to the hospital entrance next to the relocated ED
including a wood trellis above the walkway providing access from the ED parking lot to the hospital
building. See Addendums 1-C and 1-D. Refer to Sheet 10 on the approved plans.
3. Final details of bio swale must be reviewed to make sure it provides an aesthetically
pleasing feature as well as bio-swale feature since it tends to be a prominent feature of the
site.
Staff Response: The final details of the bio swale include a 6-inch curb around the entire bio-
swale, with cobbled stone around the perimeter. Inside the bio-swale, a variety of low shrubs,
stone boulders (relocated from another portion of the campus) and a specimen Valley Oak (36”
bag) would be added. See Addendum 1-E. Refer to Sheet 54 on the approved plans.
4. Two members recommended that the modular building also consider incorporating details to
tie in with the adjacent structures. Add horizontal banding or other elements to enhance the
design.
Staff Response: Further enhancements have been made to the exterior of the modular building
through the addition of building materials (EIFS with acrylic stucco finishes and trim, steel trellis,
canvas awning and aluminum decks and railing). The EIFS material would be used for a wide
cornice/parapet screen along the top of the structure as well as for the window/door trim and
window sills. The colors would integrate with those found on the adjacent MOB 2. See Addendum
1-F and 1-G. Refer to Sheet 45 on the approved plans.
5. A second look should be taken in regard to adding trees along the parking structure as done
in the downtown area and/or look at incorporating a vine to soften the structure.
Staff Response: Staff has again discussed this comment with the Fire Department. The Fire
Department does not support the addition of any more large columnar/screening trees than what
was previously shown on the approved plans. However, the Fire Department was agreeable to the
addition of three (3) upright Pear tees in the planter area. The applicant has explored the use of
hanging rosemary but was not able to provide this due to constraints inherent to the new structure.
However, the applicant has proposed to add Virginia Creeper vines in the planter area that would
be trained to climb up the face of the structure. See Addendum 1-H. Refer to Sheet 28 on the
approved plans.
6. A visual 3-D fly by Simulation should be prepared.
Staff Response: The applicant will present this simulation at the meeting.
7. Name and addresses of the design team should be provided
Staff Response: The applicant has presented the list of design team members (Exhibit 3).
CONCLUSION
Overall, staff finds that the proposed revisions have further enhanced the project design and appear
to address the Board’s comments. Staff’s main concern with the issues raised by the Board was the
design of the modular building and given the latest improvements, staff finds that the modular building
no longer appears to a modular structure, but rather a part of the campus.
4
EXHIBITS
1. DRB Meeting Minutes, February 23, 2011
2. Summary of Suggested Changes and Revisions Made to DRB Comments
3. List of Design Team Members
4. Reduced Addendum Plans for Revisions to Address DRB comments
Distributed to DRB members only.
o Addendum Plan for Revisions to Address DRB comments, 4/12/2011 (11 x 17”)
o Complete set of Approved Plans11 x 17”
cc:
Ed Walera
Kaiser Permanente
111 Smith Ranch Rd
San Rafael, CA 94903
San Rafael, CA 94903
Jennifer Jeffers
Morrison & Forester, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482