HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2015-10-06 #3Meeting Date: October 6,2015
Case Number~: ED15-040
Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
Community Development Department -Planning Division
SUBJECT:
REPORT TO DeSIGN REVIEW BOARD
4000 Civic Center Drive -Environmental and Design Review Permit for a complete exterior
fa<;(ade renovation, including removal of the existing mansard copper roofing, renovation of
the existing central parking lot, addition of a canopy feature to the building entryway, and
enhancement to the pedestrian employee paths. No change in 'building square footage or
number of parking stalls is proposed; APN: 180-124-13; Office (0) Zoning District; Martin
Ward, PSAI Realty partners, owner; Joel Karr, WK Design Group, applicant.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Office (0) Office (0) Office and Residential
North Office· Office Office and parking
South: Office Office Office
East: Open Space, Hillside Residential PD(1712)-WO-H Residential
West: N/A N/A Hwv 101
SUMMARY
The project site consists of a 4-story V-shaped office building on the hillside east of CiVic Center Drive
and Scettrini Drive (see Exhibit 1 -:Vicinity Map). The project proposes an exterior modification to the
existing building at 4000 Civic Center Drive. Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code Chapter
14.25.040C.5, an administrative design review permit is required. Given the prominence of the
structure, staff determined tht;lt the proposed design should be brought before the Design Review
Board for recommendations prior to staff administrative review.
The existing building exterior materials and mansard copper roof was conditionally approved by the
Planning Commission (ED82-46) on March 15, 1983. No approved landscape plan was found in the
project file. The project applicant has indicated that the existing copper mansard roof is currently
concealed by a second layer of galvanized sheet metal, which was painted at some point and there is
no remaining copper patina. A summary of the proposed changes to the site are Osted below (no
changes to the building square footage or number of parking spaces is proposed):
1. Removing of the existing mansard copper roof and spandrel panels and replacing them with a
warm colored bonded aluminum panel and painted "louvered" sunshading device.
2. Installation of a steel trellis canopy atlhe front building entryway.
3. Addition of new granite pavers across the driveway leading' to the eastern parking area.
·4. Enhancement of the pedestrian access pathway to provide a "garage transition" from the lower
level of the building to the parking lot on the northeast side of the building.
5. Installation of a circular-opening with railing on the upper entry walkway (see Plan Sheet A2.3)
to provide light to the lower level pedestrian area.
6. Installation of fiv~ new benches, two picnic tables.
7: Removal of 4 'Crepe Myrtle' trees and addition of 29 new trees to the site.'
Staff is generally supportive of the project, but is seeking the Board's recommendations on the design
concept's ability to comply with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff is requesting that the
Board consider the following:
Architecture
• Design. of the proposed steel trellis canopy entry
• Proposed re-design of the mansard copper roof
• Overall look of the new exterior fac;ade and materials
Landscaping
• Whether the proposed trees/shrubs chosen for the landscape upgrades are appropriate and/or
adequate, especially the use of 'Date Palm' trees for the "garage transition" area on the northeast
side of the building.
• The project site has a rugged hilly terrain and several of the old tree boxes installed are bare.
Landscaping needs to be upgraded on parts of the site and staff is seeking the Board's input on
potential landscape choices. .
• proposal to remove the existing 'Crepe Myrtle' trees.
• Use of granite block boulders as accent for the parking lot planter area.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project site is part of an area originally known as Northgate Ea~t, which is located on the east side
of the Highway 1 Q1 and the Manuel T. Freitas ParkwaylTerra Linda off-ramp (see Exhibit 1: Project
Vicinity Map). The site is very prominent, visible from most of the North San Rafael area and is located
on a graded ridge. 4000 Civic Center Drive is "located to the south of 4040 Civic Center Drive; there is a
one-story office building located on a parcel between the two office buildings, at 4020 Civic Center
Drive. To the north of the project site are medical and general office buildings and the Unitarian
Church of Marin. To the south of the project site is the Vista Marin subdivision, the Autodesk office
buildings and the Marin County Civic Center. .
4000 Civic Center Drive is currently developed with a 133,319-square-foot office building (shared by
Sutter Health and Marin Executive Center) with a central surface parking lot and a 2-story parking
structure on the east side of the site. Access to the site is either via a one-way access off Civic Center
Drive or two-way access via Scettrini Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan: The project site is part of a 3 building complex with shared driveways and parking lots. The
subject building at 4000 Civic Center Drive is occupied by two tenants, Sutter Health and Marin
Executive Center. Changes to the site focus on redesigning the central parking lot island in the main
parking lot with the addition of 5 picnic benches, 2 picnic tables, 6 new shade trees, a pedestrian path
and decorative boulders. The building entryway would be re-designed to include a new steel trellis
canopy and a circular opening in the entry walkway to provide light to the lower level (see Sheet A2.7).
The project also proposes a new "garage transition" to the pedestrian path from the northeast parking
lot to the lower floor level. New landscaping, retaining walls (see image in Exhibit 3)'and granite
pavers would be added along the northeast side of the building near the pedestrian walkway .from the
parking lot. There is no change proposed to the site with respect to driveway access from Civic Center
or Scettrini Drive. .
Architecture: The existing building exterior (mansard roof and vertical columns) would be completely
removed and replaced with aluminum panels and metal louvered "sunshades" (see Sheet A2.1 and
2
elevations, as well as extenor A2.2 for
architect
is proposed as canopy
heet A render
(see 2). In a new open span trellis
Plan
chang
entrance Plan A2 3 details
dows buildin Id rem
windo de ele erior i orm of ered p and a
(details on Sheet proposed changes are on Sheets
through 2.7. Color presented hearing.
andsc : A to 29 tree propo be ad the si ded be the c
arking and in in surf arking d also red at st side e site,
to the level (see Landscape sheet L 1 and plan
renderings shown on Plan A2.8 A2.9). A of 4 Crape trees are
roposed be rem d nd repl d with -2 A b t s Mar' flowerin tree").
pplica agree staff r endat remo xisting y dilap wood
oxes f e hillsi Man e tree ed in t oxes ailed to As a
alternative, the is to be planted with a California wildflower seed In
there are also a of shrubs groundcover proposed to be to the the
ast sid e site, . opose 'ect wo Id' tall gra't avers d anite b d' 9 with
ggreg ving to e a "ga ransiti yfindin estrian ay to i e the 9
ntranc een on Sheet New r 9 wall d also ded in ea (se
L 1.0). pathway tie the lot across the driveway to the level
building. Additional flowering groundcover be added along the pedestrian pathway
see PI et A2. total 0 w benc d two ' 'tables roposed t be added t
he site cente newly aped parkin sland i main p lot (se
heetA
No lighting information was provided, but the has indicated order to
inimiz ntial i due t , no si nt cha the e buildin ting Ie e
ropos e appli as indi that th osed nopy most Ii e desi
ith so ghting under f the c Addi ballard oft gro hting
to lighting security at Any lighting subject design
pursuant Zoning Ordinance 14.1 Also, 14.1 all
ew lig hall be ct to a y post' ation i ion to or adj nt and
omplia ith this n, Th cant p d the f 9 stat about otenti
e
s
or light site: part of neral g and aping de pro] der re
not developed a formalized strategy. in general, the intent be that
majority new will be ballard) and landscape
ounte ing. T king /0 rrently ed wit ral are ing, al we 'v
ad the rtunity confir ther th candle um re ments the cu
ode a g met. e addi area Ii may b ired. A ally, s inor
improvements done parking create a common amenity space tenants,
involve some low area
S e: No ge to t ting a d sign opose stime project subje
t pprove Prog P13-0 taff ha sed th cantt nor ch to the
existing can reviewed a staff level as a minor Program Amendment. However,
major in the number of would ORB and by
P gCom on. Th signa nge b . onside amino ge to 'sting
ntry m nts, a t to the door e Wayfin or the s a bit sing as
t retwo ces fo differe nts -S Health arin E ve Cen
3
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site i,s Office. No changes to the existing office
uses on site are proposed and as such, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
policies with regard to LU-23 (Land Use). Other General Plan Policies applicable are listed below:
• CD-10 (Non-Residential Design Guidelines): Recognize, preserve and enhance the design
elements that contribute to the economic vitality of commercial areas
};> CD-10a: Visual Compatibility. Ensure that new structure is visually compatible with the
neighborhood and encourage neighborhood gathering places
};> CD-10b: Compatibility of Patterns. !;nl?ure compatibility of non-residential buildings
patterns. Also non-residential issues to consider include parking lots; landscaping,
pedestrian circulation, building form, entryways, material and colors.
• CD-18 (Landscaping): Recognize the unique constitution provided by landscaping, and make it
a significant component of all site design.
The proposed project entails exterior changes and landscaping enhancements. Staff has worked with
the applicant and is generally supportive of the proposed project and determined that the changes are
generally consistent with the General Plan 2020 policies. However, staff does recognize that the
proposed exterior change to the fac;ade is a major departure from the existing approved design. Also,
there remain some questions regarding the proposed landscaping on the steep hillside. Staff analysis
of the proposed changes will be discussed below as part of the Chapter 25 Design Review Criteria.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The proposed changes are focused on exterior architectural design and landscape changes, lJIIith no
change to the building square footage or number of parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project
remains consistent with the Chapter 14.05 Base District regulations for the Office (0) Zoning District
and Chapter 18 (Parking Standards). No changes are proposed at this time to ligh,ting or signage on
the project site. Future changes to lighting or signage may be subject to Design Review andlor a Sign
Program Amendment, as discussed on Page 3 of this staff report .
.chapter 25 -Environmental and Design RevIew Permit
The proposed new building design seeks to update the building architecture, bringing it more in line
. with the modern design elements and architecture of the adjacent building at 4040 Civic Center Drive.
In addition, the project proposes to create a new sense of entry by adding a "canopy" element and to
the main building entrance (see Plan Sheet A2.3). The existing mansard copper roof would be
replaced with a more streamline flat metal panel design and the heavy round columns would be
replaced metal louvers (see Plan Sheets A2.1 and A2.2). The existing window glaze would remain the
same.
Due to the steep slope on the site, there is very little space dedicated to outdoor seating. Also"the
pedestrian walkway connecting the lower level of 4000 Civic Center to the parking garage structure is a
dark tunnel-like environment and not pedestrian friendly. The project proposes to enhance this
pathway by adding granite pavers, new landscaping and retaining walls, creating a "garage transition"
between the parking structure and the building. In addition, wood panels would be installed on the
walls along the pedestrian walkway leading to the parking structure across the driveway to the east,
4
and a skylight would be installed above a new seating area at the employee entrance to the ground
floor (see Plan Sheet A2.7). In addition, the project proposes to install more outdoor seating area
throughout the site (see Sheet A2.7 and A2.8) creating outdoor gathering ar~as for employees. Staff
has worked with the applicant and is generally supportive of the proposed project. However, staff does
recognize that the proposed exterior change to the fqc;ade is a major depart,ure from the previously
approved design per ED82-46. Also, there remain some challenges regarding landscaping on the
steep hillside. As such, staff analysis has focused on the project's conformance with the design criteria
established in Chapter 1'4.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance and the San Rafael Non-Residential Design
Guidelines. Chapter 25 states that development should be harmoniously integrated in relation to both
the specific site design and the architecture in the vicinity in terms of <iolors and materials, scale and
building design.
Specific architectural design considerations include, but are not limited to the following:
}> Creation of interest in the building elevation
}> Pedestrian-oriented design in appropriate locations
}> Landscape design
}> Energy-efficient design
}> Provision of a sense of entry
}> Materials and colors should be consistent with the surrounding area
The project is generally consistent with the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning
Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with the
architectural design of the adjacent buildings near the proJect site; 2) the proposed materials and
colors are compatible with the existing surroundings; 3) the architecture for the development is a
mixture of several materials to add interest to all building elevations; 4) a steel trellis canopy would be
added to the front of the building to create a better'sense of entry; 5) landscaping would be added to
the site, including 29 new trees;, and 6) the proposed sun shade feature (see Sheet A2.4) would help
reduce heat in the building.
San Rafael Design Guidelines
The San Rafael Design Guidelines are discretionary and intended to assist projects in achieving high
quality design. Staff has determined the following Design Guidelines should be discussed as part of
the proposed project design: '
» Building Form: Consider the pedestrian experience when designing the ground floor; a'
continuity of design, materials, color, form and architectural details is encouraged for all
portions of a building and between buildings on the site. '
}> Landscaping: Pedestrian areas should be made visually attractive with special planting and
flowering trees "-
}> Parking lots: Auto and pedestrian entrances into the development should be easy to find, for
example, special entry treatments like colored concrete, special planting and signage should be
encouraged at entry sites; shade trees should be provided in parking lots.
}> Pedestrian Circulation: Include a well-defined pedestrian walkway between the street and
building entries; clearly define pedestrian movement through the parking lot, example: using
changes in pavement or separate landscaped walkways; include outdoor gathering places and
seating for the public
}> Entrvwavs: A defined sense of entry with pedestrian orientation, building entrances should be
defined with architectural elements such as roof'form changes, awnings or other architectural
elements.
}> Materials and Colors: exterior materials should minimize reflectivity; use color: to provide
appropriate accents on a building.
The applicant has taken time to consider the above listed design criteria in the proposed exterior
design. The building architecture would be re-designed as a modern exterior, which is in keeping with
5
the adjacent building faced at 4040 Civic Center. The architecture is more streamlined, with sun
shades and louvered windows replacing the mansard roof. The project also proposes to add a new
st~el trellis design canopy above the main entrance. In terms of landscaping, the proposed project will
add a total of 29 trees as well as other landscaping in several areas of the site. Four 'Crepe Myrtle'
trees at the building entrance would be removed and replaced with two 'Date Palm' Trees. The
southern slope fronting on Civic Center Drive will be re-planted with California native wildflower plants.
~xisting empty decaying tree wells will be removed, also helping to improve the overall site aesthetics.
On the east side of the site, the addition of granite pavers in the roadway leading to the east parking lot
help cre'ate a "garage transition" linking the parking lot to the pedestrian path on the lower level of the
building .. New landscaping, including retaining walls (see Exhibit 3) would improve pedestrian
circulation and access to the eastern parking structure and create a sense of entry from the parking lot
to the entrance to the lower level of the building. New picnic benches would provide new seating areas
in the central parking lot island. The existing lower level walkway would be completely transformed
with the proposed addition of wood paneling and plants, and also the light from the new opening in the
ground of the upper entryway.
Staff is generally support of th.e project design chorces, and has determined that the project is
consistent with the intent of the Non-Residential Design Guidelines. However, staff requests that the
Board's comment on the following: .
• Proposal to remove the existing 'Crepe. Myrtle' trees
• Choice of a 'Date Palm' trees at building entry
• Use of granite block boulders as accent for the parking lot planter area
• Overall look of the new exterior fa<;ade and materials .
• Design of the proposed new steel trellis entry canopy
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Staff received no phone calls or comments in response to the Notice of Public hearing mailed to.
owners and occupants on September 18,2015.
CONCLUSION
Staff support~ the overall design of the project. Staff requests that the Board provide comments on the
points specified in the Summary section of this staff report. .
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Architect's Design Statement
3. Retaining wall rendering
Full-sized plans, 11" x 17" plans/cdlor renderings provided to the ORB members only.
cc: .
Joel Karr, Architect, WK Design Group, 351 California Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA 94104
Martin Ward, PSAI Realty' Partners, 15!;) Montgomery Street, Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94104
6
Project Vicinity Map -4000 Civic Center
--
::=...;:: ~= --=.
= -"
. 3900
3950
N
EXHIBIT 1
\y (
ARCHITECT'S DESIGN STATEMENT
4000 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL
BUILDING EXTERIOR RENOVATION
June 30, 2015
We are proposing a renovation/face 11ft to the building mentioned above,
affectionately known in the area as the "Copper top". We are requesting your design
consideration for our proposal
Several long term deferred maintenance issues have rendered many of the building'S
elements either non-functional, or in need of repair. The "copper" mansard roof
features have been painted over several times, and are chipping and peeling. The
original copper lies beneath and has corroded in places.
We recognize and respect the affection that many people have for the appearance of
this building, as well as the basis upon which it was originally approved by San
Rafael Planning back when it was built in 1984. At that time, the objective was to
make the building "melt into the hill", and its coloration to relate to the vegetation
surrounding it. Those objectives remain laudable, but we feel a different approach is
worthy of consideration.
The nature of architectural design has always been understood by our society to
change and evolve over time, and to some extent, respond to market conditions and
current tastes. "Timelessness" is something every architect strives to create, while
also making a building elegant and beautiful. The design we are proposing is a
response to the changing nature of the marketplace for office space in the Bay Area
and Nationally, as well as rectifying what we feel to be a dated looking approach to
building design . "Tech" companies, and younger employees are looking for a newer
design paradigm, in which the originally approved design no longer applies. The
influx of major new tenants to Marin County has resulted in demand for "high design"
and more contemporary solutions. This building in particular has a major anchor
tenant, a young gaming software design co ·mpany, which represents the nature and
taste of needs for office space today . As Marin County continues to attract 21 st
century businesses, we, as part of a global and local Marin community, and as
designers ought to respond in thoughtful, but fresh ways. Our work for the primary,
and growing , anchor tenant in the building, a young "tech" game design company, is
an example of the growing interest in anew, fresher approach to design. The
building appearance, and that company's desire to inhabit a building that is "of Its
time" as well as "timeless", have helped to inform our design thinking as well.
EXHIBIT 2
We would like to propose, for your consideration, a freshened approach to the design
of the building, using "Champagne" colored bonded aluminum panels, and louvered
elements, to give it an updated, and still warm feel, one that responds to the more
recently constructed office building adjacent. With the vertical and horizontal
. pattern, we hope to break up the "stack of pancakes" feel of the building, and give it
texture and scale more appropriate to the image desires of today.
We have made efforts to keep the building an iconic landmark, while still updating its
look. With the Title 24 considerations of shading, we have designed sun shading
louvered canopy elements that wrap the building, and make subtle reference to the
original architecture. The requirements for "free air" needed for HVAC intake results
in the need for vertical louvered elements that replace the intakes under the existing
mansard roofs. But we feel that they also provide an element of interest in their own
rite.
We hope that you will agree that, while respecting the needs of the community, the
iconic nature of the building in that community, and the desire of the owners to give
back a building worthy of its site and history, you can approve the design proposed.
Thank you.
M. Karr, RA, NCARB, Principal
WK design group Architects
l. 4 15.537.9400
, 415.863.4209
lnfo@wkdesigflgroup.com
351 California Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94104
ww\v.v designgroup.com
W design group
, '. !
i
Landscape Stone Image 1
EXHIBIT 3
" .~.
,.
Landscape Stone Image 2