HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 7724 (Bayview Business Park)RESOLUTION NO. 7724
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY
WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS
FOR BUILDINGS A, F AND G OF THE BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK, 20
PELICAN WAY, 2550 KERNER BOULEVARD, 140 PELICAN WAY (ED86-113,
ED86-114, ED86-115)
WHEREAS, on October 15, 1986, environmental and design
review applications were filed for buildings A, F and G of the
Bayview Business Park. The applications were deemed consistent
with the recommended land use designation and floor area ratio
limits of the draft General Plan 2000 and thus accepted for
processing per City Council adopted Resolution No. 7427; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the applications, City staff
completed environmental review consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act and concurrent with the Planning
Commission's review of the draft General Plan 2000; and
WHEREAS, in February 1987 the City informed all affected
property owners in East San Rafael of major draft General Plan
2000 traffic policies and programs for the East San Rafael
area. It was disclosed that the critical Bellam intersections
had improved to Level of Service "C" conditions and that
ultimate level of service standards were being recommended for
change in the East San Rafael area. Property owners were also
informed that individual development projects could not be
adequately reviewed in relation to CEQA because there is no
certified EIR which assesses cumulative traffic impacts for the
East San Rafael area; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 1987, per State Government Code
65950, the Planning Commission approved a 90 day extension for
processing the subject applications. The purpose of the
extension was to extend the processing time beyond the one year
limits so as to avoid an automatic approval action; and
WHEREAS, the additional 90 days for processing had been
exhausted and that City action on these permits was to occur
prior to February 15, 1988. Staff found that it is premature
to take action to approve this project at this time given the
ORIGINAL -/ 7z -/-
outstanding status of the draft General Plan 2000 and
accompanying EIR. An action to approve this project at this
time would prejudice the outcome of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 1988, the Planning Commission
reviewed the applications, the staff report and accepted
testimony from the applicant. The Planning Commission voted
(5-0) to adopted Resolution 88-5 denying (without prejudice)
the applications; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1988, the City Council held a public
hearing on the appeal reviewing the reports and accepting
public testimony. The City Council concluded that the Planning
Commission's decision should be upheld voting to deny the
appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's action
to deny (without prejudice) the three subject environmental and
design review permits based upon the following findings:
1. The design review permit entitlement that are
requested are discretionary permits per Chapter 14.11
of the San Rafael Municipal Code. Furthermore,
building permits for these buildings in this case are
discretionary given that condition (a)(4) of UP82-
65(b) requires that the City determine that there is
sufficient traffic capacity available to maintain
acceptable levels of service, prior to issuance of
building permits.
2. An environmental assessment must be completed under
the provisions of Sections 15300.2(b) and (c) of the
California Environmental Quality Act in that the
proposal involves cumulative traffic impacts which
could result in significant environmental effects.
The environmental assessment of the project concludes
that the proposal would aggravate cumulative traffic
impacts in the East San Rafael Area. The draft
General Plan 2000 Environmental Impact Report
concludes that adverse cumulative traffic impacts in
traffic sensitive areas such as East San Rafael
cannot be mitigated on a project by project basis,
but through implementation of a project approval
procedure (mitigation policy C-7) which would
allocate limited traffic capacity to "priority"
development projects. At this time, this proposal is
not considered a "priority" development because it
does not involve development of affordable housing,
high tax generating or neighborhood serving
commercial uses as specified in draft General Plan
policy C-7. Cumulative traffic impacts can be
mitigated only through the establishment of timing of
development policies so as to ensure that critical
intersections continue to operate at acceptable
operating levels of service. Approval of this
project should not in Staff's opinion be granted
until appropriate CEQA findings can be made.
3. Since the 1985 City Council adoption of Resolution
#7229 granting use permit (UP82-65b) and master
environmental and design review (ED85-54) permit
approvals for this project circumstances have
changed, which dramatically affect how and when
development projects are approved and are allowed to
proceed with construction . Although Resolution
#7229 establishes "phasing" guidelines based upon a
Level of Service "D" "goal", the changes in
circumstances make it impossible for the City to
consider this project independent of other pending
development projects in the area. Specifically, the
changes in circumstances that have occurred include
a) a better knowledge of the ultimate development
potential of the community, b) a greater number of
pending development projects which would aggravate
the existing circulation network, c) community demand
for better traffic conditions on local streets and at
critical intersections and d) community demands for
more sensible growth consistent with the timing of
transportation improvements.
4. The City is unable to make the findings required in
City Council Resolution 7427. It is not possible to
conclude that the project is consistent with the Plan
to be adopted as well as the revised zoning and
subdivision ordinances pursuant thereto. Although
the proposal is consistent with many of the
recommended land use and circulation policies of the
draft General Plan 2000, approval of the project at
this time would significantly interfere with the
General Plan process and the City's ability to
establish policies and procedures for maintaining
acceptable traffic levels. Furthermore, an action to
allow construction of this project at this time would
be premature, would severely impact and significantly
limit the City's abilities to establish fair and
equitable measures for permitting development to
proceed with construction, while consistently
maintaining acceptable traffic levels.
5. Approval of this project at this time would prejudice
the City's action on and the outcome of major draft
circulation policies C-1, C-2, C-3, C-7 and program
C -b, in that it would impact the City's ability to
adopt a "midpoint" Level of Service "D" standard for
the operation of the Bellam Intersections, would set
a precedent to continue to approve development on a
project by project basis and would interfere with the
City's ability to implement measures for a fair and
equitable way of allowing development to proceed with
construction. The project would utilize most of the
remaining traffic capacity to maintain a midpoint
Level of Service "D" condition. Consequently,
approval of this project at this time would be unfair
to and precedent setting for other pending and
possible development project in the East San Rafael
area.
6. The project would result in traffic and circulation
impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively significant. Although there is
available traffic capacity in approving this project
alone to maintain midpoint Level of Service "D"
conditions, the cumulative effects of all pending and
anticipated development in the East San Rafael area
would result in level of service of "E" and "F"
respectively. Given the cumulative impacts
associated with this proposal, Section 15065 of CEQA
states that such impacts are considered significant
and thus warrant preparation of an environmental
impact report. Given that previous environmental
documents prepared for this project do not include an
assessment of cumulative impacts, the draft General
Plan 2000 EIR is essential in the review and
consideration of this project.
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael,
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and
regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Council of said City on Monday , the 18th day of
April, 1988 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES• COUNCILMEMBERS•Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:Frugoli
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:None
JE E M. LEONCINI, City Clerk