HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2013-03-26 #2Q1YOF Meeting Date: March 26, 2013
400W ,A4 2.Agenda Item:
Community Development Department- Planning Division Case Numbers: ZC12-001�Ll,P12-040
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 -�/ �
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Kraig Ta .� ornini (415) 485-3092
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Boulevard 85-101 Glacier Way (Bayview
Business Park Master Plan Amendment) - Request for a Planned Development
District zone change amendment and master Use Permit amendment for the Bayview
Business Park light industrial and office complex located on 12.9 acres in east San
Rafael; APN: 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70; Planned Development
(PD1675) Zone; Bayview Business Park Owners Association, Owner/Applicant; Case
Number(s): ZC12-001&UP12-040
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning applications have been filed to amend the current Bayview Business Park Master Plan
development, which is located in East San Rafael, between the Shoreline Center and the City of San
Rafael Corporation Yard, East Francisco Blvd and San Rafael Bay. The business park consists of a fully
built -out light industrial, office and research and development complex comprised of seven (7) buildings
on 12.9 acres, totaling 224,509 gross square feet. The buildings are individually owned and common
areas are managed by the Bayview Business Park Owners Association. The current zoning standards for
this complex (PD 1675 District) require that the City of San Rafael and the Bayview Business Park
Owners monitor the total usage of all buildings to ensure compliance with PM peak hour vehicle trip
generation rates.
This monitoring requirement, which was once standard practice under the policies of the former San
Rafael General Plan 2000, is no longer necessary given that the park has been built -out and that the City
no longer maintains development based on trip generation rates. Therefore, the City has recommended
and th? RRyviPw Buoines- Park owners have agreed to amend the PD 1675 Distrint and Use Permit to
memorialize built -out conditions of the park and eliminate the need nor annual tracking and repo,'Ling of
trips generated by the mix of office/light industrial uses. The amendment would also reconcile the built -
out condition of the business park, which has been built with more office square footage than originally
granted under the PD District standards but with a gross building area less than the amount authorized
by the PD District. The amendment would memorialize the maximum office square footage allotment for
each building, and moving forward the amendment would eliminate the need to track combined usage
amongst all of the buildings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration as the
CEQA Environmental Document for the subject Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment
project.
9. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt revised Planned Development
District standards for the Bayview Business Park to eliminate the outdated Trip Generation
standards and reconcile the gross building areas and mix of uses.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ZC12-001, UP12-040
Page 2
3. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve an amended Master Use Permit
for the Bayview Business Park to memorialize the built -out mix of office, light industrial and
research & development square footages.
PROPERTYFACTS
7Addess/Location:
Property Size:
22-150 Pelican Way, 2507-
2597 Kerner Blvd & 85/101
Glacier Way
12.9 Acres
Site Description/Setting:
Parcel Number(s):
hborhood:
Site Characteristics
nation Zoning Designation
PD 1675
LI/O
LI/O
P/OS-WO
P/QP
009-251-15, 16, 22, 23,
38, 39, 42, 54, 55, 56,
57, 69 & 70
East San Rafael
Existing Land -Use
Business Park
Light Industrial
Light Industry/Office
Ponds/Bay
1-580/Sanitation Plant
The subject property is a 12.9 acre site comprised of three (3) common parcels developed with nine (9)
commercial condominium units in seven (7) buildings. The site is a level parcel comprised of fill placed
over former tidelands located in east San Rafael. The common parcels from Francisco Boulevard moving
east are Parcel A (3.53 acres) which contains 3 buildings and 5 total condominium units, Parcel B (1.26
acres) with 1 condominium building, and Parcel C (4.83 acres) with 3 condominium buildings.
The property has been built -out as a light industrial and office complex. The project is boundE
Francisco Boulevard along its westerly boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundary, Ke
Boulevard which crosses throughthe
proaloe the eastct aalndrunning north and south, City of San northea t and San Rafael Bay directly eastael
detention ponds (aka Bayview Lagoon) g
BACKGROUND
The original Master Plan approval for the Bayview Business Park development (Ordinance PD1474
adopted 1/16/84) approved the following:
of
Development of 11 in6 000 of gs with research and development); fora total of 244,922 grosssquare feet of office use and 140,192 square square t
industrial use (including
3g ,
feet of building area.
These gross building areas were established before floor area ratio tables and trip generation limits were
established by the prior San Rafael General 2000. The development permitted by the PD zoning was
implemented through grant of related zoning entitlements, ED85-54 & UP 85-65(b). The parking standard
at this time was established at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office area and 2 spaces per 1,000
square feet of light industrial area.
The site had been subdivided from an original land area of 26 acres, which included approximately five -
acres of land that extended into the San Rafael Bay. Thus, approximately 21 -acres of land remained
inboard of the bay waters; therefore, maintaining development potential. Portions of the site wero further
dedicated for use as permanent ponding areas and wetland buffers, resulting in a net developable land
area of 12.9 acres.
General Plan
Project Site: LI/O
North:
LI/O
South:
LI/O
East:
LI/O
West:
LI/O
Site Description/Setting:
Parcel Number(s):
hborhood:
Site Characteristics
nation Zoning Designation
PD 1675
LI/O
LI/O
P/OS-WO
P/QP
009-251-15, 16, 22, 23,
38, 39, 42, 54, 55, 56,
57, 69 & 70
East San Rafael
Existing Land -Use
Business Park
Light Industrial
Light Industry/Office
Ponds/Bay
1-580/Sanitation Plant
The subject property is a 12.9 acre site comprised of three (3) common parcels developed with nine (9)
commercial condominium units in seven (7) buildings. The site is a level parcel comprised of fill placed
over former tidelands located in east San Rafael. The common parcels from Francisco Boulevard moving
east are Parcel A (3.53 acres) which contains 3 buildings and 5 total condominium units, Parcel B (1.26
acres) with 1 condominium building, and Parcel C (4.83 acres) with 3 condominium buildings.
The property has been built -out as a light industrial and office complex. The project is boundE
Francisco Boulevard along its westerly boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundary, Ke
Boulevard which crosses throughthe
proaloe the eastct aalndrunning north and south, City of San northea t and San Rafael Bay directly eastael
detention ponds (aka Bayview Lagoon) g
BACKGROUND
The original Master Plan approval for the Bayview Business Park development (Ordinance PD1474
adopted 1/16/84) approved the following:
of
Development of 11 in6 000 of gs with research and development); fora total of 244,922 grosssquare feet of office use and 140,192 square square t
industrial use (including
3g ,
feet of building area.
These gross building areas were established before floor area ratio tables and trip generation limits were
established by the prior San Rafael General 2000. The development permitted by the PD zoning was
implemented through grant of related zoning entitlements, ED85-54 & UP 85-65(b). The parking standard
at this time was established at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office area and 2 spaces per 1,000
square feet of light industrial area.
The site had been subdivided from an original land area of 26 acres, which included approximately five -
acres of land that extended into the San Rafael Bay. Thus, approximately 21 -acres of land remained
inboard of the bay waters; therefore, maintaining development potential. Portions of the site wero further
dedicated for use as permanent ponding areas and wetland buffers, resulting in a net developable land
area of 12.9 acres.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ZC12-001, UP12-040
Page 3
Construction of the business park started in 1985 and was mostly completed in the 1990's.
An
amendment to the Master Plan was pursued in 1995 (PD1675 adopted 3/20/95 & UP85-65(c)). This
amendment reflected revisions to the build -out and incorporated the Trip Generation standard, to permit
104,000 square feet of office space and 134,000 square feet of light industrial uses in seven (7)
buildings, totaling 238,900 square feet. The revised and reduced gross square footage was allocated as
follows:
Building A - 40,000
Building B - 30,000
Building C - 20,000
Building E - 28,000
Building F - 41,400
Building G - 31,500
Building H - 48,000
Totals: 238,900
The last building addition was completed in 2004. The current PD 1675 (Exhibit 6) included assignment
of Trip Generation Rates for the office and light industrial land uses, with a maximum of 442 trips
allocated to the site. This trip allocation limit was used to regulate and maintain the mix of uses that
would be permissible to achieve the gross Iindustrial duildingarea
building area and with
2.65 trips generated per 11000
rips
generated per 1,000 gross square feet o g
gross square feet of office building area.
The currently reported built -out condition for this project is 92,437 square feet light industrial and 132,072
square feet office/research & development, for a total area of 224,509 square feet. The built -out usage
mix is as follows:
BUILDING LIGHT IND SF OFFICE SF TOTAL SF LAND USE
Building A 0 31,594 31,594 Office
Building B 18,453 9,676 28,129 Light Ind/Office/R&D
Building C 6,593 13,301 19,894 Light Industrial/Office
Building E 14,987 13,357 28,344 Warehouse/Office
Buildinq F 27,000 9,000 36,000 Light Ind/Office/R&D
p ?9,450 29,450 1)ffice
BuildingH 32,546 uilding G 18 552 51,098 Light Ind/UTTice/k&D TOTAL 99,579 124,930 224,509
The as -built areas comply with the 442 trip generation limit set by the PD 1675 District Trip Generation
standard. However, the total office use building area has increased by over 20,000 square feet, while the
total gross building area built in the complex is 14,391 square feet less than the initially approved
maximum building area. While the trip generation limit method of regulating development is no longer
applied within the City, staff has required the applicant to provide updated trip generation calculations to
confirm that traffic impacts related to this development remain within parameters set and studied at the
time of adoption of the PD. DKS Associates September 22, 2011 Bayview Business Park Trip
Generation Study shows that the built -out project falls 115-156 trips below the original Trip Generation
Threshold (see Exhibit 5 - Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Page 21 & Reference Source 4). The
trip generation analysis has been reviewed and confirmed by the City Engineer.
PD1675 (adopted 3/20/95) also establishes parking rates of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office
space and 2 spac3s per 1,000 square feet of industrial space. All parking is currently considered to be
shared throughout the entire complex. The demand generated from the as -built mix of office and
industrial uses is 611 parking spaces. The site currently provides parking for 610 vehicles (which
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ZC12-001, UP12-040
Page 4
includes five parking spaces that are required but currently are not striped adjacent to the interior side of
Building F). The original parking supply has also been reduced by 5 spaces due to revised handicap
striping at Buildings E, F & G required to meet current handicap accessible parking standards. Thus the
current parking supply for the Bayview Business Park is "grandfathered" at 615 parking spaces, pursuant
to Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code. The current parking rate established for office use under the
current PD 1675 is also grandfathered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14.18.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a minor amendment to the existing Master Plan approval for the built -out Bayview
Business Park. The applicant requests modification of the existing Planned Development (PD1675)
zoning ordinance standards and master use permit to achieve the following:
➢ Update the maximum permitted gross building area and mix of office and light industrial tenant
building areas to reflect the current, built -out condition.
➢ Eliminate the Trip Generation monitoring requirement in the current PD and Master Use Permit;
which was previously required to control the maximum office and light industrial square footage
allowances; and
➢ Memorialize the current Parking Standard for office use.
The revision to the current PD1675 development standards has been encouraged by the City Planning
Division in order to reconcile built -out conditions, eliminate the need for annual use monitoring (reducing
administrative burden on City and BVBP staff), and eliminate the outdated trip generation standard in the
PD. No net new development is proposed as part of the project, and all ongoing conditions of the original
approvals which are not being amended shall be incorporated into and made a part of the proposed
amendment. However, following further discussion with the applicant, staff agreed to round -up the
maximum allowable built -out building areas slightly in order to provide a measure of flexibility within the
revised building area tables. This change remains consistent with the anticipated development intensity
and parking requirements applicable to the site. See Exhibit 3-A (PD Ordinance Attachment) and Exhibit
4 (Master Use Permit, Condition 3) for the maximum gross building areas, with minor adjustment
rounded up to intervals of five square feet.
ANALYSIS
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The Light Industry/Office San Rafael General Plan 2020 Land Use designation which is identified in
Policy LU -23 and General Plan 2020 Exhibit 11 allows the following land uses; which accommodate the
current light industrial, office and research use mix:
"Motor vehicle service, contractor uses and yards, light manufacturing, distribution, warehousing
and storage, incidental employee serving retail/service, and office use. Specialty retail uses may
be allowed to occupy minor portions of the Light Industrial/Office districts provided that intensity
and traffic standards are met and the integrity of the district is not threatened."
The proposed rezoning and use permit amendments to the Bayview Business Park Master Plan remain
consistent with the underlying Light Industry/Office general plan land use classification, and all applicable
policies given that there would be no change in the permitted types of uses or intensity of development.
14u change in total building area is proposPri.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ZC12-001, UP12-040
Page 5
The PD Zoning Standards were adopted in 1985, before floor area ratio limits c ere esGenished P within
in the
City. FAR policies were in place when PD 1675 was amended in 1991. T
20,
Policy LU -9, regulates the intensity of nonresiAscaedevelopment
ranges from 026 to1o038or r(withtloweFAnensty
light industrial and office development, the FR
industrial uses allowed to occupy more building area). Typic wasf an iistingfor development
e with x oeds floor
area ratio limits established by the General Plan 2020, y royal
and regulations, the project would bes
wo Id subject gt to a 0.30 building AR ual non -conforming, The p der theriginal
Plan
General
allowed up to 43.5 /o office use which
Plan 2020. The as -built amount of office
28 exceeds 50% office use, thus would require the maximum
allowable building size to be reduced to
to
The increase in office usage mix must be considered
ectal Plan 2020 Given thatghe site based on
assure it remains consistent with the current Ge
gross developable land area, the increase in office area would remain consistent with thject et floor area ratio dedication of
limits; based on the 21 improvements).
pro ementof gross s . Staff has area cconcludedted with tthat ithe gis apprinal opriate ate to use the original
lands for ponds and levee imp )
land area as the benchmark in considering this an determining to tsitePFAR, and the net 12.9 acres were
uses. If this original land area were not included i
deemed as the new benchmark, neither this cubrrtheap application
General Plan 2000 and included he current
amen
could comply with the FAR tables established y prior
General Plan 2020.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Amendment to the PD zoning district standards and
& 14.22.150).master permit Zo ng be
amendments
with the Zoning Code processed consistent
(Sections 14.07.150/14.27.090
require Planning Commission recommple with the Geneto the ral Plan, and serve he pity Council, and may ublic heath, safety and
amendment remains consistent in principle with
general welfare (SRMC 14.27.060 Findings). m de d rinci sally that the seto the use rwou dmit aremai grantedy be inaccco d with
original hearing body if current findings can be , principally
the General Plan and applicable zoning ordinance provisions (SRMC 14.22.080 Findings).
istrict
udes
In the Background section above, it is noted approval
for Bayview
niness dustrialark usage as oSinDcluded a clap of
approval for 104,000 square feet of office. The
00,u00 scaUa,c feet Tor r-ceorch and r+PvPlopment space. The project has been fully built -out with a net
reduction in total building area (by approximately 14,000 sf), but with an increase ii total amount OT
office space (by approximately 20,000 sf). The amount of research and development space complies
with limits anticipated as a part of the PD. No new development is proposed. The amendment would
achieve the following:
ial
a) Memorialize the current mix of office, re 1675 Tand development and Generation and ParkngtStandardsspace that
has been built -out consistent with the PD P
withinmix of uses and
t; and
b) Eliminate a requirement to monitor trip g a nationwancfor he project, with3 3 spaces per 1n000 sf of
c) Memorialize the "grandfathered parking
office use.
The amendment would not conflict with the applicable City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 land use
plan, or any policy or regulation governing the project site, as discussed herein
Trip Generation Rate and Floor Area Ratios
The Trip Generation rate standard contained in PD
business 5 Thisrugulasenon o gerita rrequi eid
of office and light industrial land uses in the bu park development.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ZC12-001, UP12-040
Page 6
practice under the General Plan 2020 Circulation Element policies. All maximum building areas are now
strictly regulated through the floor area ratio limit tables established by the General Plan 2020 land use
element and Zoning Ordinance Chapter 14.16. The amendment would not conflict with current floor area
ratio tables given that the project is built -out and the amendment to the current PD 1675 district
standards would not change the originally permitted mix of office, research and development and light
industrial land uses (that allowed 104,000 square feet of office and 36,000 square feet of research and
development). Gross building area has been consistently reduced through each successive amendment
to the PD.
"Grandfathered" Parking Demand vs. Supply
As discussed in the background section, the project as approved required 615 parking f of light b dusty sed n
the parking rates of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sf of office area and 2 spaces per 1,
0ooarea. The as -built demand is 611 parking spaces; based on 124,945 square feet of office use parked at
3.3 spaces per 1,000 square dfatt2 sbuilding
aces perarea,
1 OOOrequiring
requ�ing .32 p99 1 gspacesspaces,
forand
a total of 6,585 11 49
uare
of light industrial uses park p
(rounded down to 611) parking spaces.
The project was built -out with 615 parking spaces provided. A total of five of the required parking spaces
were lost due to ADA upgrades made adjacent to several buildings (i.e., at the entrances to Buildings6 E5
F & G). This has resulted in an actual parking supply of 610 spaces and a "grandfathered" supply o
spaces; pursuant to the provision of Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code. The original 3.3 / 1,000 sf
office use parking rate also is grandfathered under the provisions of Chapter 14.18. Thus, the amount of
parking provided within the complex has been provided in compliance with PD1675 standard including
"grandfathered" parking rights.
As noted in the June 25, 2012 letter from Forsher & Guthrie, (included with Exhibit 5 - Initial Study,
Source Reference 6) parking counts conducted at the facility indicated that the complex uses up to 375
of the available parking spaces. This was based on car counts taken on two occasions: 11:30 am on
Tuesday May 15, 2012, and 2:30 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012. A total of 375 parked cars were
counted on May 15, and 345 parked cars were counted on May 17. These parking countsindica indicate
/o
the businesses within the complex are using less than 60 of the available supply.
Works staff pointed out that the counts did not identify the vacancy rate within the complex at the time
the rnunts were taken.
Staff visited the site on Thursday February 7, 2013 at 11:30 and Thursday February 21, 201,J at Z:30 to
review and confirm the parking count data provided by the applicant. These visits confirmed that the site
maintained 605 striped parking spaces, availability for 5 spaces that currently are not striped by Building
F, and spaces lost due to ADA upgrades adjacent to Building E, F and G. The site visits revealed that
parking was available near each building, and that entire parking rows were not being used within the
lots south of Building A, Building B, Building C, and in the parking lot at the end of Pelican Way, east of
Building G. See Exhibit 3A — PD District/Site Plan for locations of buildings and parking areas.
At the time of staff's site visits the owners association reported that Building A maintained a 6,000 square
foot vacancy, with another 3,552 square feet of unused space — proposed for office use - within Building
H. The associated parking demand for the vacant/unutilized space is under 40 cars. Based on staff
estimates, more than 150 spaces within nevacant. concluded
amount of parking provided and the parking complex
for this project adequately accommodate the
demand, and comply with the Municipal Code.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ZC12-001, UP12-040
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Page 7
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning amendments (including minor text amendments)
do not qualify for any exemption under the CEQA Guidelines and must require preparation of an Initial
Study. Thus, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration will serve as the environmental compliance document
required under CEQA for the project, any subsequent phases of the project and for permits/approvals
required by a responsible agency. The project consists solely of an amendment to remove an antiquated
development standard, thus it would not result in further development of the site or require any other
permits from other responsible or trustee agencies.
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration concludes that the proposed project would not result in any
potentially significant impacts. Less -than -significant impacts have been identified in sections "X. Land
Use and Planning" and "XVI. Transportation/Traffic" environmental impact categories. The potential
impacts have been discussed as related to the proposed changes to the current PD1675 zoning
regulations (i.e., the elimination of Traffic Generation rates standard and reconciling of the as -built mix of
office and light industrial building areas).
CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning. Ordinance.A Notlen theof ublic Marin IJ,ring was 20 calendarled to all days prior theydate of th sowners d
occupants within a 300 -foot radius published
hearing (Exhibit 9).
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the applicants as presented
2.
3.
4.
A rove the application with certain modifications,
changes or additional conditions of approval.
PH
Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or
concerns
Deny the project
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution Recommending Adoption of Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment Initial
Study/Negative Declaration & Errata Page
3. Draft Ordinance amending Bayview Business Park PD District
4. Draft Resolution amending Bayview Business Park Master Use Permit
5. Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment, March 6, 2013
6. PD Ordinance 1675
7. Master Use Permit UP 82-65 (c) Conditions of Approval
8. Prior PD Ordinance 1474 & Conditions of Approval (UP 82-65 & ED 85-54)
9. Notice of Public Hearing, March 6, 2013
y p 1 Vicinity ilia (Bayview -Business- Park)
�,XF�I�I�
fee
l
44r'
{ i
r � ,
u
r �J
CENTRAL
MAIUN
SANITATION
PLANT
15
I
SCALE 1 :6,657
500 0 500 1,000 1,500
FEET
N
Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:40 PM
EXHIBIT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CICOUNCILUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
EL PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
DECLARATION FOR BAT 22 0 PELICAN WAESS Y, MASTER
KERNER
AMENDMENT LOCATED PLANA
BOULEVARD AND 85-101 GLACIER WAY
(APN 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2012, Bayview Business Park Owners filed zoning
and use permit applications (ZC12-001 & UP 12-040) to amend the existing Bayview
Business Park Master Plan, Planned Development District PD1675 text to update the
ordinance consistent with current general plan and zoning provisions and remove
antiquated standards, and the Master Use Permit B85 -65(c) conditions of approval to
reflect the updated standards and built -out conditions of the project; and
WHEREAS, consistent with therements of the City of San a d the provisions of the CalRornaia
m
Environental Assessment Procedures Manual
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared
for the proposed project, which found that the project would not result in a significant
effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013 a public notice regarding the Negative Declaration
prepared for this project was posted at the Marin County Clerk's office, posted on-site in
two locations, published in a local newspaper of general circulation in the area and
mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet, pertinent agencies (including
responsible and trustee agencies), organizations and special interest groups pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15072; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Negative Declaration were made available for a 20 -day
review period by pertinent agencies and interested members of the public, commencing
on March 6, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on the proposed project and the Negative Declaration, accepting all oral
and written public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community
Development; and.
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which the Community the
Developm t
proceedings upon which this decision is based i
Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of San Rafael does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the Negative
Declaration, and Attachment A — Errata (consisting of a minor correction to the IS/MND
Page 4), based on the findings that:
Exhibit 2 — Adopt Neg Dec
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXH� 2
a The Planning Commission exercised its independent judg
hast ent been conin luatin dthe
Negative Declaration and the Negative Declaration
conjunction with comments received during the public review period and at the
planning Commission hearing.
the
b Based on review of the whole record before tri, including
staff
C ff s repot, has
initial study and any comments received, project will have a
determined that there is no substantial evidence that the p roj
significant impact on the enviromne
The foregoing resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the San Rafael Planning
Commission held on the 2e day of March 2013.
Moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner
AYES: COMMISSIONER:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary
Attachment A — Errata
BY:
Chair
2 Exhibit 2 — Adopt Neg Dec
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
Attachment A - Errata
Building, H - 48 000
Totals: 238,900 leted in
90's with the
ction of Building A. The
Construction commenced in 1985 and was predominate y compect has been builttout ahe t 224,509 square feet; with 99,759 quare feet
last building addition was completed in 2004. The prodce use. The mix
of light industrial (including 36,000 square feet of res for the p ojecteveloment) and e consistent with the tr,930 square ip generation and parking
et of offi,
of office and light industrial uses that have been permitted
rates established by the PD 1675 tAREAte development. The as -built LAND USE building areas are as follows:
BUILDING Office
Building A 31,594 g
Building B 28,129 Li ht Industrial/R&D/Office
Building C 19,894 Light, Industrial/R&D/Office
Building E 28,344 Light Ind-Warehouse/Office
Building F 36,000 Light Industrial/R&D/Office
Building G 29,450 LightIn��ce
Buildin H 51 098 Light Industrial/R&D/Office
TOTAL 224,509
Parking Demand
167 5
The current mix of office and light industrial development spaces triggers
for
feet of office space and 2 pacesthe
penr 1,000
parking rates. PD1675 (adopted 3/20/95) requires p per 1,000 square to the
square feet of industrial space. If the current red b gthe currente of 4 t standards.
t ndardsaces per , All parkinsquare feet
is currently sconsidered tpbedshared
project, 700 parking spaces would be required er spaces on
that
throughout the entire complex. Based on field verse c �h sn includes an addiof total gtional 5 parking dspacestcalledf for behind Building
parking spaces for 610 vehicles is currently proved
F that are not currently striped). The current parking supply reflects reductions made to accommodate minand to
or site
improvements permitted by the City (including removal of spaces near Buildings B and E for placementr the ADA upgrades Buildings Fof ) G and
provide additional handicap parking spaces that resulestablishedd in tforl t es � prof 5 ject for 615 parking paces; consistent with the
p Thus, he "gr
andfathered" parking supplyp J parking supply provided in
provisions of San Rafael Municipal
as adequate, and ae Section llowss for reduction .240 which orlzes on -s to parking tong meet requirements.
compliance with prior zoningregulations
repared for
oject
Environmental Issues: The Initial Study/NegativePlanndDevelopment zoning ordinance adopted fortaideveloped (consisting of an
and built -out site)
amendment to an the text of an existing Planned D p
has been prepared in consultation with local agencies s an with nd i r accordance
ordaagencesepursuant to CEQA Guidelinewith Section 15063 of the s Sectio 15060.5 was
Quality Act (CEQA). Preapplication consult" of the site or
ire any other permits from
not needed for this Project, which would not
ever, result zoning amendments do notin further tqual qualify as exempt under the CEQA Guidelines
CEQA
A
other responsible or trustee agencies. How g
and must require preparation of an Initial Study deemed dNegative a ply to thisnmattertlThus, he initial Study/ NegativveRule
Declaration will
Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) has not been p an subsequent phases of the project
serve as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for the project, Y
and for permits/approvals required by a responsible agency,
descibecant impacts.
nicnvccinn of jynpacts: The proposed Projectanddand Planningherein " r
and not ,XVIsult . potentiallyn any
Trransportat on/Trafficlftenvironmental
Less -than -significant impacts in sections "X Land
osed to the current
75 zoning
to scope of changes
impact categories have been discussed relative rate standard and as -built mix of off ce and lghtindustria usesulations by the
Project, i.e., elimination of Traffic Generation
to
emove an
No E ect Determination Re nest to Auld n It & swift in any further development of the built -out site or require ven that the Project only consists of an anyradditional
obsolete development standard, and City
Y g ant of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, a
permits from agencies other than the Ci of San Rafael Cit Council through gr
No Effect Determination request shall be submitted to the State Department of Fish and Game for this Project.
1400 Fifth
Public Noticing: A twenty -day (20 -day) puRafaely shall commence on
Development Department, sdU,Planning Division,March 3 Written
comments must be sent to the City of San
Avenue, San Rafael CA 94901 by Tuesday March
eclarat no13. The city of San on Tu sda , March 26 22013Planning
PM n theCommission
S n Rafaelhold
City
public hearing on the Initial Study/ Negative D
ie)tamborninondcencofsanrafae orn can be delivered to Kraig Tambornini,
Council Chambers at City Hall (address listed abo
project planner, phone: (415) 485-3092, email: k
g.
4 Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment
Notice of Intent
EXHIBIT 3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
TITLE 14 — ZONING, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
FROM PD1675 TO REVISED PD AMENDING ASTER PLAN OF THE BAYVIEW
BUSINESS
22-150 PELICAN WAY, 2505-2597 KERNER BOULEVARD AND 85-101 GLACIER WAY
(APN 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
(ZC 12-001)
WHEREAS, on January 16, 1984, the Bayview Business Park Master Plan was
originally approved (file number Z82-16) by adoption of Ordinance 1474, before the City
had adopted floor area ratio and traffic trip generation rate policies, which granted
development for a mitigated site plan dated September 16, 1983 for 11 buildings with
104,730 square feet of office use and 140,192 square feet of light industrial use (to
include 104,192 square feet of general light industrial and 36,000 square feet of research
and development use) for a total of 244,922 square feet, with development standards
addressing parking, circulation, trip management, design and other requirements; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 1995, the Bayview Business Park Master Plan was
amended (file number Z94-6) by adoption of Ordinance 1675, to establish maximum
building sizes within 7 buildings, including 134,900 square feet of light industrial uses
and 104,000 square feet of office uses for a maximum total of 238,900 square feet,
consistent with the Master Use Permit UP82-65(c) and adoption of trip generation rates
allowing a maximum of 442 vehicle trips associated with the development, consistent
with the applicable General Plan 2000 policies; and
WHEREAS, October 19, 2012, Bayview 40 Bo amend the eusiness Park xisting Bayviewers filed
and
use permit applications (ZC 12-001 & UP 1 )
Business Park Master Plan, Planned Development District PD 1675 text to update the
ordinance consistent with current General Plan 2020 and San Rafael Municipal Code
zoning provisions by deleting an out -dated Trip Generation development standard, and to
concurrently amend the Master Use Permit B85 -65(c) conditions of approval to reflect
the updated standards and the built -out conditions of the complex; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of a separate resolution, the San Rafael Planning
Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the negative declaration
prepared for the current Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment Project as the
CEQA environmental document for the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed
public hearing on the proposed amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code, Title 14,
accepting all public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community
bevelopment, and recommended to the City Council the approval of the amendments;
and
1 Exhibit 3 — PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXH, IB_
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council adoption of t e amendments to the "Exhibit N',based o the
San Rafael
Municipal Code Title 14, Zoning, as outlined in the attachment
following findings as required under Zoning Code Section 14.27.060:
1, The amendments to San Rafael Municipal Code
confirm the parking proposing
and
eliminate an outdated Trip Generation Standard
reconcile the built out mix of office and light industrial
the Santhin the Bayview Rafael General PBans2020
Park are consistent with the policies and programs
in that:
a. The Light Industry/Office Sanan� and Plan 2020 Exhibit l Iafael General Plan 2020 n allows
Use
designation which is identified in Policy LU-23fce and
the following land uses that are consistent with thk cu�r/r"Motor
g hide serv. e,t industrial,ocofntra for
research use mix found at the Bayview Business Par
uses and yards, light manufacturing, distribution, warehousing and storage, incidental
employee serving retail/service, and office use. �p e°districts provided thaialty retail uses may t intenswety and
d to
occupy minor portions of the Light Industrial/Of
traffic standards are met and the ini gg rand relatety of the d use strict is not threatened."
b. The proposed rezouse permit amendments to the Bayview
ith
Light
Business Park Master Plan remain consistent we olciesygigen that theretwouOldlbe
ce
general plan land use classification, and all applicable p
no change in the permitted types of uses or intensity of development. No change in total
building area is proposed.
C. The PD Zoning Standards were adopted all,1985,
f an existingodevelopment
(FAR) limits were established within the City. Typically, et was built in
exceeds floor area ratio limits established by the General Plan 2020, y
conformance with prior policies and regulations, t rowhen PD 1 675be deemwase am e ded m
l non-
conforming. The current FAR policies wereplace
1995 and incorporated into the current General Plan2020,
wou0ld subject it o a 0.30 building
/o
project approval allowed up to 43.5 office use which
FAR. The increase in office usage mix must 5 %red as part of of the gross bui ding area,
zoning
amendment. The as -built amount of office area exceeds
thus would potentially be subject to a lower, land e ased on as ssociatedhe original gross
with the original
developable land area (i.e., the 21 -acres of gross
project prior to dedication of lands for pt al FAR subsegs and levee pently established by the
rovements), the current
building mix would remain within the poten
prior General Plan 2000 and current Generaelated to traffic trip generation r t swith
expectations because the FAR tables are closely r
2. The public health, safety and general welfare would reconce served ile exssting as -built
tion of the
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, in thaty
conditions, eliminate administrative burden of trackingexisting monitoring an outdated Trip
complex in compliance with
Generation standard and allow re -tenanting of the g
City policies and standards.
2 Exhibit 3 — PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXHIBIT 3
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the alar City of San Rafael Planning
Commission meeting held on the 26 day of March,
Moved by Commissioner
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary
ATTACHMENT:
and seconded by Commissioner
Chair
Exhibit A — Amendments to San Rafael Municipal Code Title 14 (Bayview Business
Park Master Plan)
3 Exhibit 3 — PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXH=B_
EXHIBIT "A"
BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN
INTENT
oved for
The Bayview Business Pak Master Plan is based on the aster Eplonmental plans nted and and Design Review
the Master Use Permit UP82-65(b) and M
permit, ED85-54 which were approved by the City Council on December 16, 1985. The
Master Plan has been developed to reflect the amende oMorate the entiter Use t Permit
82-65(approviced
and Master Design Review Permit (ED85-54) and 1
with the original Planned Development District, PD (1474).
Gel
LAND USES
Uses permitted in Bayview Business £k include
-e4 office uses for a maximum total of
feet -of light industrial andu)0 ss
,
22 Q 224 530 gross square feet of�buildagaTmix
usesso aed�
fe–u—e ocuby a
e.Tie Permit
remaining 99,585 ross scluare reel of L11G allvvvu.,--
ilndustrial uses, which may include researehousnn ,dwholesalendistriblut on and other
maxi mum of 36 000 ross square feet), war g
uses of similar nature as determined by the Plao ind
g Direectr.
e of and°elated incidental
o industrial uses
serving retail and services uses and retail uses supp
may be permitted., consistent with the applicable in ime P anildin floor area rat s., and
...�,}-oeatien parkingstandards established m this MaA41 llqpq shall beeeftsiqt-fft
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following development standards shall apply to all development of the Bayview
Business Park.
4 Exhibit 3 – PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXH_ I_ B_ 3
Setbacks: Building setbacks shall be consistenttt Mas Master Enith the v ronmental and Deaster site Plan esign
Development Plan) approved with th
Review Permit ED85-54.
Height: Maximum height 36'
Maximum Building Size (square feet)gg_gg8 31,595
Building A - .-88&-2-8,,_135
Building B - 3.8
Building C - X088-19 900
Building E - 2 ,OW28 350
Building F - 4", W36,000
Building G - 38-29 450
Building H - 49-889-51 100
Total X88-224.530
Landscaping: Landscaping
shall be consistent with the approved Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED85-54) and Iny subse uent amendments.
Parkin: Parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved Master Design
g
Review Permit (ED85-54) or the requa dsshould an
e shnts of aamendmepter nt to the
City's zoning ordinance TgAii Stanof the
d — Parking requirements
Master Design Review Permit be requested.
a roved for BaLyview Business Park are as follows:
3.3 parking spaces/1 000 ¢rvas sq tare
feet of Office space
• 2 parking spaces/ 1 000 gross square feet of Light Industrials ace
AncillarY use parking shall be rovided rusg the Ch ter 14.1
Rh ¢rent of a use permi
or par mk � modification
o Adjustments to arkin rates m� „+b� 14 18 Parkinconsidered b Standardslt
DESIGN STANDARDS
All buildings shall be consistent with the Project Design esi n Review Permitd(ED85in e
conditions of approval for the Master Environmental an g
54), and an subse uent amendments.
Exhibit 3 – PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXHIBIT 3
Exhibit 3 — PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXHIBIT "B"
Legal Description
Situated in the State of California, County of Marin, City of San Rafael and described as
follows:
GINNING at the most Westerly corner of the property described as "Parcel Two" in
BE a corporation to Marin
the Deed from Marin Canalways and Development Company, in Volume
Company, a limited partnership, recorded Man h h6'intersection of the two
Developmente 24, Marin County Records, being
of Official Records, at page510 East
courses "North 38° 32' 42" West 360.71 feet and Not Two?,1North 380 320 42" We t
said Deed; running thence on meridian of said Par
7 feet; thence North
266.6h 51° 27' 18" East 1865 feet;
thence Southeasterly in a direct line
point on the Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 9
for a distance of 906 feet, more or less, t o a East
Section 12, T 1 N, R 6 W, M.D.M., distant LotNors
25, 2 ' i
et
4 and 9in said Section 1
m 2)
(measured along the Easterly lines of Tide Land Lots
from the Northeast corner of the property describe
nis recorded September 25, 1957 in
in the Deed from Marin Cana ways
f Cal
and Development Company to the State o
Volume 1143, Official Records, at page 185, Marin County Records; thence Southerly
alongthe Easterly lines of said Tide Land Lots 9 anddescribed24 for a ant"Parcel Oneance of " the
property more or less, to the Northeast corner of the p p y a corporation to Equitable
Deed from Marin Canalways and Development Company, 382, Marin
Development Company recorded in Volume 1160, Official Records; at "page
orth 880 42'
County Records; thence along the Norterly lines o
Tide Land Lot dl "Parceln Seco n 11; thence along
42" West 660.0 feet to the Easterly line leaving
Easterl line North 1° 17' 18" East 138.0 feet; thencmost Northery lcorner of said
iond
said Y d
line, North 51' 14' West 288.0 feet, more or less, to the
"Parcel One"; thence along the Northwesterly line o inalof said parcel, `Parrcel One', being a
1048.0 feet, more or less, to the true point of beglnn g
d in
point on the Northeasterly line of "Parcel Two" in the Deed
eed nabo eerefer ed to;ethance
Official Records, at page 24, Marin County Records,
Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said "Parce ri n e"along the Northwesterly, 460x.0
feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner thereof; point of beginning.
line of said parcel, South 51 27 18 West 210.0 feet to the p g
EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof lying within the boundaries of
California State Highway.
nse
AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion conveyed to Nature eo 30,1969,
anon -profit District of Columbia corporation by deed recorded
Book 2347, Official Records, page 512, Marin County Records.
7 Exhibit 3 — PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT "C"
Bayview Business Park — Site Plan
ti
tj
i t1I11ifiil�� � x
I.tiui+i4�iiliitii':�I
ri�, :P• Point Rd.
Borth
8 Exhibit 3 — PD Ordinance
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
EXHIBIT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -
RESOLUTION SOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT EDING O
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MASTER USE
BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK LOCATED AT 22-150 PE I ARNUAY , 2505-2597 KERNER
BOULEVARD AND 85-101 GLA
CIE
009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
WHEREAS, October 19, 2012, Bayview Business Park Owners filed zoning and use
't applications (ZC 12-001 & UP 12-040) to amend the existing Bayview Business with
ark
Master Plan, Planned Developme
perms ppnt District PD1675 text to update e ordinance consistent
currentg eneral plan and zoning provisions and remove antited standards and buquated standards, d t out conditions
the Master Use
Permit B85 -65(c) conditions of approval to reflect the upda
of the project; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the applications, an Initial Study was prepared consistent
the requirements of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment
that the proposed
ures Manual
with q
and the California Environmental Quality Act environmental
Gus
would not result in significant environmenteviewfeceriod beginni g� on Mach 6,
a Negative
development
Declaration was prepare 26 no
2013e andfor
a 20 -day public r P
2013 and ending on March
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, the San RafaelPlannse ing
Permit,macissiocepting elloraluand
noticed public hearing on the proposed Zone Change and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department
staff; and
b ado tion of a separate resolution, the San Rafael Planning Commission
WHEREAS, y pdecration prepared for the
has recommended that the City Council adopt the negative
A environmental document for the
Business Park Master Plan Amendment Project as theCEQA
project; and
p
WHEREAS, by
adoption of a separate resolution, the San Rafael Planning Commission
has recommended adoption of the PD zoning amendment to the Bayview Business Park.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
Findings (UP05-004)
A. The proposed use is in accord with the general planeneral objectives
des gnat on and Plannednce,
and the purposes of the light industrial and office g P
Development district in which the site is located given that it u mess Pa k pursuant pto thetted
light industrial and office uses allowed within the Bayview Exhibit 4 —Merits
March 26, 2013 PC Hearing
ct reduced gross building
Planned Development District standards, as amended ith th eex ng and grandfatheredareas
and increased allowable office areas, in compliance �'�' eneration standard, with no new
parking rates and with elimination of an outdated trip g
development proposed.
B. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to
theP ublic health, safety or welfare, or materially injuriousen that the project doeslnot propose rovemenany
in
the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city ex
new or additional development, would reconcile project, and sting limposes new conditionspto
previously adopted conditions applicable to the prP p licable zoning
assure that the development would remain
San compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements of the y
The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance
ro
C. p p
given that the building areas have been reconciled to match
ppat 1 able PD standards sand adequate
parking supply has been provided in compliance with
confirmed as adequate, and no new development would result. Rafael
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San
recommends approval of the Use Permit subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval (UP12-040)
Community Development Department, Planning Division
permitted and Uses & Buildip Areas Master Use Permit for the
1. This Use Permit approval UP12 040 serves as the ent eand supersedes the riori, amended,
lew
Business Park light industrial and office developm ,
Master Use Permit UP82-65.
all
wable
x of
ce
2. This Mbased on aster Use Permit approval shall serve to update the thebuilt-outu lconditions lofdthe ht
industrial square footage and gross building are and condition 3 below, and eliminate trip
project, as stipulated by the PD zoning app
roval counting and annual tenant mix monitoring requirements for the project.
3. This Master Use Permit approves development of a maximum allowable 224,530 gross
945 square
square feet of building area in the Bayview BusThenee remaining 92,585 may be developed for
ss Park. A maximum of 124,
feet of space maybe developed for Office use.
Light Industrial space. However, no more than 36,000 Rsquare) uses with the remainder of
Lig
space may be utilized for Research and Development (R&
space limited to lower intensity storage, warehouse, wholesale among distribution and similar even (7) buildings on the 12.9
es
P
The approved building areas and uses shall be dividedg
develo able site area, with the maximum areas for each use established at the following
acre p
limits:
Cross Area Office Sq. Ft. Li ht Industrial Sg Ft (& Max R�
-2-
31,595 031,595
Building A 9,680 18,455 (with up to 9,100 of R&D)
Building B 28,135 6,595 (with up to 2,000 of R&D)
Building C 19,900 13,305
13,360 14,990
28,350
Building E 9000 27,000 (with up to 7,900 of R&D)
Building F 36,000 0
Building G 29,450 29,450
51,100 18,555 32,545 (with up of 17,000 of R&D)
Building H
Totals 224,530 124,945 99,585 (with up to 36,000 of R&D)
4. All buildings within the complex maybe utilized
entirely square foot ges shall not ex�eed the
maximum Office and Research and Developm gross
limits specified in Condition 3 above. The maximum allowable Research & transfer the allowable building intens Development
from
and/or Office square footage maybe adjusted royal. This shall be
building one building to another throughtarea table above, and confirm thapgross maximum
required to amend the gross bu g
allowable floor areas and parking are maintained in compliance with the standards of the PD
zoning.
in the
5. Ancillary uses permitted under the PD District mayb e establishedapproval, which shall be
building areas through grant of an administrative u p
l
required to confirm that the use complies with rhe use.
he e
Additional parking shall not be
parking provided on-site would be adequate fo
required for incidental retail and service uses that
the
rimary uses on the site, as
determined by the City Engineer and/or CommunityDevelopment
6. The applicant may submit documentation the City of
for a mael ez ana elle Division that was d
request a rescission of a deed restriction that was f
permitted but nofor Building E.
any
7. Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit
lt approval
parking lot configuration or
proposed reconfiguration or adjustment of the existing approved
landscape areas or other physical site or exterior building improvements.
Building Permits Required
8. Building permit(s) shall be obtained for any building and tenant improvements, as require
by the California Building Code.
9. Plans submitted for building permits shall be forwarded to the Department of Public Works
for its review and approval.
Prior Conditions and Mitigation
10. All exterior modifications to the site or b trio Development Standards and s shall comply with the the Envdironmental
standards specified in the adopted PD district ro alDevelopment Plan).
and Design Review Permit ED85-54 site plan app e •g•�
P
-3-
that would significantly alter the approved Development Plan (i.e., site plan adopted
11. Changes
September 16, 1983) such as building placement and setback wetland areas shall require
a major Environmental and Design Review Permit a
12. The project has been constructed in substantial compliance with the conditions of approval
16.
oing
established for ED85-54, UP85-64(c) and prior zoning
d ag d incorporatedendment 8hereinOagapplicable,
conditions of approval have been updated, amen royal.
and this approval UP12-040 shall supersede all prior conditions of project app
13. All applicable environmental mitigation measures adopfor
Bproject
onest Parke June 1983,
initial
environmental study mitigated negative declarationBayview
have been incorporated herein.
he
er boundary
4. The roject shall maintain a four -foot high vinyl clad cyclone discourage e encroacce within thmen into pond
1 P J
of the five foot wide landscape buffer/upland habitat to g
areas.
Project Design -out of the project.nstrud
15. Design approval has been granted for all 7 buildings f r anycte additions build and modifications to
Subsequent design review approval shall be required royals.
assure it would result in a design that is compatible with the project app
16. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to shine down a dor them m the highsecuay ty ndCe street
traffic as well as away from the pond areas, yet prow
ide to the satisfaction of the Police and Fire Departments.
17. Each building shall be subject to environmental and design review, prior to issuance of
carry
a common
permits for construction, exterior alteratlolo on s and building materials. Each additions. Each building building may be
architectural theme with use of similar c
subject to minor design alterations approved by the Design Review Board and staff.
evard
18. No steel overhead doors for the light industrial buildings
e aline colorace as the bucisco ild ng siding.
Kerner Boulevard. All overhead doors shall be painted
19. TheP roposed decorative posts shall be masonry, wood or stucco to match the other building
materials.
le
20. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be enclosed w
chitecturally
screen that wouldappearance hi nanar
g Details of equ pmenp scbeens
shall be submitted for review andapproval by the City.
21. Trash enclosures shall be provided and maintained witha common deselevations. Trash constructed
sures
masonry, stucco, wood trim and trellis top to match building
the pond areas and other visually prominent
shall be located away from driveway entrances,
locations. Trash enclosure details shall be submitted for prior review and approval b the
Y
City.
-4-
reline
and public
22. Landscaping that has been required and installed for the in good repair and condition
access pursuant to approved landscape plans shall be maintained
for the duration of the project use. Landscape berms regshall be maintuir a ned to aed and provided along hheight not
right of way in compliance with approved landscape plans
exceeding 3 feet to provide sight distance at driveways nintersections.
tersest ions. Box trees of 24"
and 36" shall be utilized in these islands (for any replacement
23. Decorative paving is encouraged at building entrance driveways and parking lot areas
connecting the office buildings.
4. A si n rogram for the entire project shall be maintained for the Bayview Business Park. The
2g p
program shall have a common design theme throughout t project.
25. The Bayview Business Park Master Use Permit and Development
P its d building lan approvals all be
valid for the duration of the project use. All existing aapproved
improvements shall be maintained in good repair and a
condition
by the Planning D vishon.se,
and any changes shall be subject to prior review anpp
t,liVuiu
Parking pG
o Circulation (Rxistin& ongoing Conditions)
for up
26. The project, as proposed, generates demand office use and 2 space spaces
light industrial use;
applicable PD zoning rates of 3.3 spaces forin
whereas capacity for parking of 610 vehicles is currently provident duet and in dudes capacity
spaces required to meet handicap accessibility parking req
for 5 parking spaces adjacent to the interior side of munedl as adequate t meet peak demand
and rear
entry doors). The 610 parking spaces shall be este ursuant to the San Rafael
for the current mix of office and industrial development; p
Municipal Code Chapter 14.18 (Grandfathered Parking).
27. TheP ublic may use the parking lot at the northeast end of the site on weekends or after hours
for access to the shoreline band.
28. Public access to the shoreline band at the end of
It Pelican oncre eay shall be maintained with an
paved path, d with landscaping
inviting entrance, minimum 8 -foot wide asphaltic P
that would screen parking yet not obstruct views to the bay. Additionally, a chain link fence
has been required and installed north of the access path Shoreline band to secure b ess entrance
n rancin t the
Pelican Way cul-de-sac and the connection to the
Municipal Water District storage yard and protect the pond north of the access path.
he bui
29. Parking along the peninsulas adjacent to the ponds, northeast
and so y la st of t ng toldi u de
shall be reserved for employee parking for the officebuildings.
trees of 24" and 36" box size have been required to be planted around the parking lots to
provide screening of parked vehicles.
-5-
fee
fr development
30. The project has paid its fair share of traffic mitigation reds as determined by the constructed
u ted to
date. Additional traffic mitigation fees would be req
Engineer, for any further project additions.
Public Works Department (Existing & Ongoing Conditions of Approval)
Site Grading & Building Design
31. Final finish floor elevations of building additions shall be subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
lied with at time of building permit issuance for
32. Handicap access requirements shall be comp
additions and modifications.
33. An new grading and earthwork for building additions hilreport
beo prepared i for the accordance
with
Y
the recommendations of an updated soils and geotechnical p
34. Grading, drainage and foundation plans shall be reviewed and fined by rt shall be neer. All
work shall be done under the direction of a soils engineer and a
submitted prior to the acceptance of the work
orated into the building
35. Methane mitigation measures that have been f the tas deemed necessary for he health
designs shall be maintained for the duration of the project,
and safety of the building and occupants. Any new bh tproper
g�oa edlri°e have measures are all be reviewed by a
qualified environmental health professional to ensurep p
incorporated into the design.
36. Disturbance of any debris fill material as a result of grading, paving, or building construction
shall require proper capping or covering of the area �'te to the satisfaction of the State
ith clean fill material, or l of
contaminated material with disposal at an approved s
Department of Health Services.
37. Development shall meet finished flood elevations and other requirements of the San Rafael
Municipal Code to protect structures from flooding.
Storm Drainage shall be as recommended by a
3 8. Any alterations to the approved storm drainage the s Engineer to assure gradient and soils
bCit
engineer and subject to review and approval y Y
design of storm drain improvements adequately accounts for settlement and preclude
methane intrusion.
39. Runoff from improved areas shall be collected and conveyedhe street
etrat d onto adjoining
by underground
conduit and/or sidewalk drains. Drainage shall not be diverted or
properties, or over sidewalks or driveways. Design of drainage running through landscape
areas is encouraged, to filter out contaminants.
40. All final drainage configurations shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
-6-
Sanitary Sewer
41. Sanitary sewer plans for building additions shall be subject to review and approval by the S an
Rafael Sanitation District.
42. Modifications to sanitary sewer facilities shall be accommodateand approved by the City Engineer.
methane intrusion, as recommended by the soils engineer
Agreements & Securities existing agreements and securities made
43. Bayview Business Park shall remain subject to any g g
by the applicant with the City of San Rafael.
Environmental Health perimeter pondspurpose of
44. Five monitoring wells have been required mater wng ithin in he wells is required to be tested
measuring water levels within the fill. The
twice a year (starting from January 1, 1984), to ensure that otoxic ground
to be prepared by the fill
migrates or leaches into the pond areas. The test results arerequired
reputable laboratory and submitted to the County Environmentaladditional mitigation in egional
Water Quality Control Board for review. If leaching
occurs,shall be required of the developer with bonding or other security provided (as determined by
the City) to assure implementation.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 26th day of March 2013.
Moved by Commissioner
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
and seconded by Commissioner
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary
-7
Chair
EXHIBIT 5
flA,yVjF,W, BUSINESS PARSMASTERPLAN AMENDMENT
22-156 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Blvd, &- 85-101 Glacier Pt. Road,
San Rafael, (Marin County) CA 9&70
Assessor's Parcel No. 009-291.-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,6
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
1400 Fifth Avenue, (P.O. Box 151560)
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Contact: 1,:i*aig Tambornini, Scnior planner
March 6, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................ ...................................................:..................................
........................................................................
9
EXHIBITS
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ....................................................
DETERMINATION.............................................................................................................................
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.......................................................................................11..................11
I. AESTHETICS.........................................:......................................................................11
..
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.....................................................................
III. AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................................12
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
................................14
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS..................................................................I................
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS.................................................
........15
""".
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................'•
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................... ..................................
........................16
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................
:.........................17
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................
..............18
XII. NOISE ............... ,........................................................... :..............................................
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................
................19
20
XV. RECREATION................................................................................................................
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..................................................................................................20
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................................................21
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................
SOURCEREFERENCES................................................................................................
24
DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT..................................................................................................I.......:......
n
MAYOR ALBERT J. BORO
VICE MAYOR GREG BROCKBANK
COUNCILMEMBER DAMON CONNOLLY
COUNCiLMEMBER BARBARA HELLER
COUNCILMEMBER MARC LEVINE
DATE: March 5, 2013
TO: Public Agencies; Organizations and Interested Parties
FROM: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
`Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the
_ California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department
of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following
project:
Project Name: Bayview Business Park Master Plan Planned Development Zoning District Amendment
Location: 22-100 Pelican Way; 2505-2550 & 2591 Kemer
and 85-101 Glacier Way, San Rafael, Marin
County, California, APNs: 009-291-15,16,22,23,39,42,54,55,56,57,e9&7
0.
on parcels
ed with
Property Description: The subject tsrin even is
a 12.9 acre site 7 buildings. The site 'prised of three is a level parcel comprised of fill placed over former
nine (9) commercial condominium un ( )
tidelands located in east San Rafael. The common parcels, from Francisco Boulevard moving east, are Parcel A and
P acres)
nits, Parcel B (been built -out ) a light ndom luand office gcomplexc
which contains 3 buildings and 5 total condominium uh I condominium
The
(4.83 acres) with 3 condominium buildings. The property has
est boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundary, Kerner Boulevard
project is bound by E Francisco Boulevard along its w
which crosses through the project generally running north and south, City of San Rafael detention ponds (aka Bayview
Lagoon) and San Rafael Bay to the east.
Project Description: The project consists of a minor amendment to existing planned development (PD) zoning and use
permit approvals granted for a developed and built -out property; Bayview Business Park. The project proposes to modify the
existing Planned Development (PD1675) zoning ordinance provisions for the following purposes:
® To update the current gross building areas and the mix of office, research & development and light industrial. tenant
-out condition of the business park. This would include an increase in
square footage amounts to reflect the built
permitted office square footage by approximately 21,000 square feet including permitting occupancy of 3,552
H and reducing the total gross building area for the entire 7
feet of unutilized vacant space located within Building
building complex by 14,391 square feet in order to reflect the as -built conditions.
• To eliminate the Trip Generation development standard and monitoring requirements of the PD and Master Use Permit
that was previously established in order to regulate maximum office and light industrial square footage allowances. This
standard is no longer used to regulate development within the City.
There is no new development being proposed as part of the project and the existing project conditions shall be reviewed and
incorporated into and made a part of the proposed amendment. The project was originally approved for 238,900 gross square
feet of building area in 7 structures; square feet of officeh a mix of 0 square feet of light industrial (including with the mix of office and light industrial area square feet of
d 104,000 q a babased on the
research &development) an
as part of the PD district. Maximum areas for each building have been established as follows:
tip generation rates adopted
Building A - 40,000
Building B - 30,000
Building C - 20,000
Building E - 28,000
Building F - 41,400
Building G - 31,500
Buildin H -
48,000
Totals:
238,900
the 990,s with the ction of Building A. The
Construction commenced in 1985 and was predominat
was.completed in 2004, The project has been built out a224,509 ssquare feet;iwith a 99,759 square feet
feet of
last building addition
of light industrial (including
research & de pro ect are and
he trip geerare
36,000 square feetnt on squ and parking
that have been permitted for
of office and light industrial
by the PD 1675
uses
to regulate
development. The as -built building areas are as follows:
rates established
AREA
LAND USE
Office
Building A
31,594
28 129
Light Industrial/R&D/Office
Building B
19,894
Light Industrial/R&D/Office
g
Building. C
28,344
Light Ind-Warehouse/Office
Building E
36 000
Light Industrial/R&D/Office
Building F
Building G
29,450
Light Industrial
Li ht Industrial/R&D/Office
Buildin H
51 098
TOTAL
224,509
Parking Demand spaces based on the PD 1675
The current mix of office and light industrial development triggers a demand fo'feet of r 611 parking p
parking rates. PD1675 (adopted 3/20/95) requires 3.3 ate spaces 4 spec 1,000
,0 0square
1 000 square feet oif office space wece space. and 2 pe applied to the
square feet of industrial space. If the current parking to be shared
project, 700 parking spaces would be required verification of total parking spaces provided on site, by the current standards. All parking is currently considered
has ident identified that
throughout the entire complex. Based on field
ti� spaces behind.
parking spaces for 610 vehicles is currently pede siradeto a ommodat mior Building
F that are not currently striped). The current parking supply efeseduct ins m
emoval'of spaces near
B and E for
of equipment) and to
improvements permitted by the City (including rresulted in total loss of 5 spaces or he ADA upgradestat Buildings F, G and
provide additional handicap parking spaces thatspaces; consistent with the
E. Thus, the "grandfathered" parking supply established for the project is for 615 parking p
provided in
provisions of San Rafael Municipals ,0 which ginsupplyir
compliance with prior zoning regulations as allows for rductioninon on-site parking o meet ADA requements.
tive
repared for
roject
Environmental Issues: The Initial Study/NeaDevelDeclaration
ment zoning document
ordinance adopted forts developed and built -out site)
g of an
amendment to an the text of an existing PlannedP
ntal
has been prepared in consultation with localconsultation ionles and in accordance with Section 15063 of the with other agencies pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 1Se tion 15060.5 was
Quality Act (CEQA). Preapplication cons
not needed for this Project, which would notresult zonng amendments do notin further tqual qualify as exempt f the site ander he CEQA Guidelines
other responsible or trustee agencies. However,e General e under
and must require preparation of an Initial Study
Negative
g stion to proceed.Thus, the Init 1Sudy/ NegatiRvelDeclatation wQill
Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) has not been deemed toapply to himatter.
serve as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for the project, any subsequent phases of the protect
and for permits/approvals required by a responsible agency.
lly significant impacts
Discussion ofjmpacts: The proposed Project described herein would are result
1XVII Transportation/Traffic?'n any environmental
Less -than -significant impacts in sections X. Land Use and Planning" "
impact categories have been discussed relative ate standard and as bto scope of changesrupt ma off office and lightindustrial usegulations by the
Project, i.e., elimination of Traffic Generation r
to remove an
No E ect Determination lte acest to Ca Fish & result ui an Given further development of the built out site or require ny additional
obsolete development standard, and would not res Y
permits from agencies other than the City of baited to hafael ity e St t Department of Fish and Gameun . il through grant of a Zoning forhis Project. a
No Effect Determination request shall be
Public Noticing: A twenty -day (20 -da public review period shall commence on Wednesday,- March 6, 2013.anning Division, 1400 Fifth
comments must be sent to the City of MarcRafaeh 26 013. Communityhe City of Saevelopment n Rafael ePlanning commission will hold a
Avenue, San Rafael CA 94901 byesday March 26, in the San Rafael City
public hearing on the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration en Tuesdgy, Correspondence and comment Ocan be delPM
ered to Kraig Tambornini,
Council Chambers at City Hall (address listed abov) p
project planner, phone: (415) 485-3092, email: kraig.t Lmbomini@ctofs afael.org.
4 Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title
2. Lead Agency Name & Address
Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560.)
San Rafael, California 94915-1560
3. Contact Person & Phone Number Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
Phone member: (415) 485-3092
Email: krait tambornini@cityofsanrafael.or9
4. Project Location The site is located in the City of San Rafael, Marin County,
California in east San Rafael, east of US 101, west of
Richardson/San Pablo Bay at the intersection of Pelican Way and
Kerner Boulevard, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 009-291-15, 16, 22, 23,
38, 39, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69 & 70 (Refer to Exhibit A, "Vicinity
Map").
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address
6. General Plan Designation
7. Zoning
S. Description of Project:
Project Sponsor:
Bayview Business Park Owners
o/o Rebecca Cranford, McAvoy Mgmt
PO Box 1269
Novato, CA 94948
Sponsor's Representative:
Same as above
Light Industry/Office
PD 1675 (Bayview Business Park Light Industrial and Office)
Approved and Built Out Floor Areas
The project consists. of a minor amendment to the existing Planned Development District zoning and use permit
approvals for a developed and built -out property. No net new development is proposed as part of the project, and
all ongoing conditions of the original approvals which are not being amended shall be incorporated into and made
a part of the proposed amendment. The existing Planned Development (PD 1675) zoning ordinance provisions are
proposed to be modified for the following purposes:
o Update the current permitted mix of office, research & development and light industrial tenant square footage
amounts to reflect the built -out condition.
A Eliminate Trip Generation monitoring required in the PD and Master Use Permit; which were previously
required to determine maximum office and light industrial square footage allowances.
Environmental Checklist Form 5 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
of
The project was approved for 238,900 gross square feet of building
area
& development) witnd h
a mix square35,fe00
P J
squet
are feet of light industrial (including 36,000 square feet o research generation
of offices ace. The current PD 1675 regulates the mix of office maxind mum areastfor each building established as
P
rates that have been adopted as part of the PD district, with m
follows: 40,000
Building A -
Building - 30,000
Building C - 20,000
Building E - 28,000
Building F - 41,400
Building G - 31,500
Building H - 48 000
Totals: 238,900
's with
Construction commenced in 1985 and was predominately correct ero the proposes to elmnate the trip gene ation ratesion of g,
A. The last building addition was completed in 2004. The prof p P
which are out of date and no longer used to regulatedevelopment.
that the,
industrial usage. The mix of usesroject approvals a required
wowed for
business park provide an annual report of its mix of office andand light
d use permit to maintain ongoing compliance with parking
each building would be established through the amende
demand and supply, which is discussed further below.
ht
al
ing
The project has been built. out at 224,509 square feet; with a09s7uare59 gfe t of office usuare feet of ge. The mix lof(office and
P J
q p generation rates and
3.6,000 square feet of research &development -R&D) and 124,93
light industrial uses that have been permitted he r the 1675 tproject
regulate developmentsistent ) The remain con as -built building areas are
parking standards that were established by
as follows: Office Sg. Ft. Light Industrial Sa Ft (Max R&D)
Gros -31,595 0
Building 31,595 18,455 (9,100 R&D)
Building B 28,135 9,680
19,900 13,305 6,595 (2,000 R&D)
Building C 13,360 14,990
Building E 28,350 27,000 (7,900 R&D)
Building F 36,000 4 29,
29,450 29,450 0
Building G 18,555 32,545 (17,000 R&D)
Buildin H 51,100 99,585 (36,000 R&D)
Totals 224,530 124,945
are footage by 14,391
The re feet
condition has resulted in a reduction in the total allowable gross buildingea bqua proximately 21,000
square feet previously permittedmand an would memorialize the incase in rease n offimi ce are, itted office
in gross building area, and
square feet. The amendment w
pen -nit occupancy of existing built and vacant space in Building H. No additional development is proposed.
Parkinspaces per
The current PD 1675 district establishes a parking rate of 3.3 ons stent withOhe parking square tof ordinance ce that was pace and
spaces per 1,000 square feet of industrial space. This rate is is shared
effect when the original PD zoning was established for the i ed t te. Thebuild�oparknu hes to as origi
nally proposhout the ed.
complex. A total of 615 parking spaces would have been required
Parking spaces have been provided for the current mix of office ed d to light comply with ustrial eADA accessible. parking
s in accordance with the
P g P 1 provided has been
PD standards. However, the currently
pig supply p
standards,and the site currently provides capacity for 610 Pae not currently sOtriped adjacent t , he inted 5 rior side
includes parking for 5 vehicles that currently are required ut ar
of Buildin F. The "grandfathered" parking amount for the complex is 615 parking spaces; based on a total net
g
Bayview Business Park Master Plan
Environmental Checklist Form
reduction by 5 parking spaces that occurred adjacent to Building's E, F and G in order to provide compliant ADA
accessible spaces.
If the current San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Chapter 14.18 parking standards were applied to the built -out
project, the parking demand would'be increased to 700 spaces (based on the higher office parking rate of 4 spaces
per 1,000 square feet). However, use of the historic parking rate established by the PD 1675 standards is
compliant with the -San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.18.240 (Grandfathered parking) provisions which state;
A) a legal use of land shall not be considered nonconforming solely because of lack of off-street parking
prescribed in Chapter 14.18, and B) the number of existing spaces may be reduced to achieve compliance with
disabled parking requirements. Additional parking in compliance with current standards may be required for
expansions and enlargements. The disabled parking current standardquire increase
zone). n s mentioned above, several spaces this
14
feet to 17 feet in width (to allow for a 9 foot standard space and 8 foot g
change in the disabled parking standards accounts for the current reduction in the amount of parking required for
the site by 5 parking spaces.
The project does not propose an expansion of building area, and staff hasdetermined
District and SRMC Sece parking t n
ed
on-site would be in compliance with the provisions of the current PD 16
75 14.18.240 discussed above. Therefore, the project would not require a parking modification in order to continue
using the historic parking rate for its built -out condition. Nevertheless, staff requested that parking counts be
taken for the project to determine whether there were any parking constraints realized on-site. Forsher + Guthrie
were hired to conduct this study, and conducted counts on two occasions: at 11:30 am, Tuesday May 15,.2012 and
2:30 pm 6n Thursday, May 17, 2012. These counts documented that 375 spaces of the 605 striped available
spaces were being utilized. Staff visited the site at 11:30 am on Thursday, February 7, 2013 and again on
Thursday February 21, 2013. The site visit confirmed the amount of parking provided on the site and that the
counts presented by Forsher + Guthrie appear to reflect actual usage and accommodates the demand of the
complex. It should be noted that at the time the counts were taken, Building A reported vacancy of 6,000 square
et of office space and Building
feH maintains 3,552 square feet of unused office space; equating to demand for 33
ed parking spaces observed on the site, the supply appears adequate for
parking spaces. Given the available unus
even with the current vacancy amounts considered.
demand of the multi -tenant business park
Review of Prior Develo ment and Environmental Review
An Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Bayview Business Park
Development, at Francisco Blvd & Pelican Way (AP#9-290-31) in June 1983.1 According to this initial study the
Project site originally encompassed 26 acres of land located along the shoreline in East San Rafael, which
extended from Francisco Blvd East to the San Rafael Bay. Although once a mudflat subject to tidal action, 18 of
the 26 acres had been filled some 15 to 20 years prior to elevations +7 MSL, and was formerly a dump site
operated by San Quentin Disposal.
The City had also approved four use permits between 1981 and 1983 for stockpiling and fills on the property. The
site was developed prior to adoption of General Plan 2000 (CC Resolution 7771, July 18, 1988), but in
compliance with a June 1982 East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan that allowed partial filling and
development of seasonal wetlands with preservation and enhancement of annual wetlands and ponds. The land
area developed as the business park includes Parcel 1 (4.461 acres) and 2 (8.482 acres) as shown on Parcel Map
PM 22 50 dated December 1984. Another 7.8 acres of land consist of marsh and seasonal wetland subject to US
Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and the shoreline levee. These lands are identified on PM 22 50 as Parcel
A (2.089 acres), Parcel B (6.270 acres) and Parcel C (0.194 acres) ponding areas that were dedicated the City of
San Rafael in 1984, and Parcel D which was to be deeded to the nature conservancy (levee and shoreline path
parcel). The development has been subject to use permits and amendments to the ordinance primarily monitoring
the amount of office development built within the business park (reference to project file's ZC94-6, PD1474 &
PD 1675).
1 Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Bayview Business Park) prepared June 1983
Environmental Checklist Form 7 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
Memorandum to the file dated December 19, 1999 from Bob Brown, Community Development Director, noted
A 000 square feet of office space with the remainder
that the current PD 1675 (as amended 3/20/95) allows 104,E 10
so as not to exceed the 442-ppak -hour
beinli ht industrial uses and total building area of 238,900 square
feeesponsibih'ty for tracking and
trips allocated to tsubmitting g
he proper The business park ownership maintains
the annual review of total office space development. During and reporting to the cityofttalooffice pace
ownership of buildings was transferred e individual owners, p
developed in the project ceased. Entitlements were also granted0,236s square foot office building; which exceededuadra-med Building A to be the
p
on the remaining undeveloped portion of the site, as a 30,23 q
original split assumed for this building but which remained under
basis assuming104,000
that thefownership management
g p
office space. Office space allocation was granted on a first-come
in
was monitoring the land use split (required pursuant to Articlesul d intBu a ng H not be g able t realize its
the commercial condominium development). However, this rare feet of
original allocation for up to 15,000 square feet of office spaced, e s� ri d t6, Building H would be permitted to
783 squ
g
remaining for the development. To rectify this inequity, it was given that, a) 25% office is allowed as part of a light
build -out its original 15,000 square foot office allowance
industrial use and b) the traffic generated by the Bayview Business Park was less than the 442 peak hour trips.
dum, due to lack of per reporting by the ownership and monitoring by the City,
Subsequent to this Memoran
the individual tenants have secured permits created office spacethat emorandum) However, original
h nn permitted
office
use mix allowed by the PD (as modified by the December 199
f the PD. in
er to
dress the
ds o
remained compliant with the Trip Generation and Parking standared with the business park asso iation to address
land use mix an amendment to the PD is necessary. Staff has worked
this .b eliminating the out of date Trip Generation standard and monitoring requirement and memorializing the
Y
current FAR as a reasonable and appropriate land use mix.
Zoning Entitlements Required
e allowable PD Rezoning Amendment: Amend Development
ndSuan saand delete Trip Generation ratesix of Office
and light industrial 1
it Amendment: Amend the allowable mix of office/Re conditions of approvalpment and sght for
Master Use Perm Industrial uses and re -adopt ongoing and new
Bayview Business Park.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
Thero'ect would not require any additional permits from agencies other than the City of San Rafael City
P J
Council -through grant of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. ry
Project.
Bayview- Business Park Master Plan
Environmental Checklist Form
ExHIBIT
Vicinity Map
FAPD-1
s�o
CENTRAL
MARIN P/QP
SAMA'TION
PLANT
P/OS
Figure I - Bayview Business Park Vicinity Map
(1895)
NX
cA4 (1895)
LI/O
i
W
1i
Environmental Checklist Form
9 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
❑
Biological Resources
❑
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
❑
Population / Housing
❑
❑
Transportation / Traffic
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
Materials
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
Public Services
❑
Recreation
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Finding of
Significance
Discussion: No environmental factors would be potentially significant as a result of this Project.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets: An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
ig Tambornini, Senior Planner
Sign re
Environmental Checklist Form 10
3- 4 c
Date
Bayview Business Park Master Plan
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ist below
Pursuant to the general concepts found ion the CEQA Guidelines isPro Prion oject, which is s s bje and 06t , the CEQA, would uld have
has been used to determine whether the activities related J
potential, significant environmental effects and to the CEQA Guidelines, ify ways to dentdinoluding Appendix revent or l G t1Eva1 ation of
environmental damage. Further, in compliance with Q on
Environmental Impacts, a determination of No Impact indicate that, material) ittise learly evident that the Pr nature of the proposed Projject
and/or its Project Description (including all referenced plans
would not have any significant physical effect on environment
viro the of No act cImpact igonot minry an ade or readily
further discussion is warranted or necessary. Where
determined based on the Project's nature and/or its. Project Description, a discussion of the environmental impact
category has been provided.
Less -Than- Less -Than- No
Potentially Impact
Significant Significant With Significant p
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality ' of the site and its 0
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or El
nighttime views in the areae
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project: {In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland.} In determining whether impacts
to a forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state's inventory of
Fol
F
U
❑a
L
E
�4
►/
W1
�J
Environmental Checklist Form
11 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
forest carbon
assessment Project; and
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource
Board.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
a.'
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
❑
❑ ❑
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
of the California
Monitoring Program
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
❑
❑ ❑
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 122200),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
❑ ❑
Code section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511104(g))
d. Result in the loss offorest land or conversion
❑
❑ ❑
of forest land to non forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
❑
nature, could result in conversion of ❑
❑
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
El El
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or
substantially to an existing or El
El
projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
for which the
increase any criteria pollutant
project region is non — attainment under an
❑
applicable federal or state ambient air
❑
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Environmental Checklist Form
12 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
El
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ❑
IV, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regithe onal
policies, regulations or by
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ❑
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Inteifere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or El
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or El
ordinance?
f.conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Environmental Checklist Form
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ • ❑
13 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
a.
significance .of a historical resource as
❑
defined in x'15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
significance of an archaeological resource
❑
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
❑
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
❑
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
❑
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
❑
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
❑
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
El
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
iii) Seismic related ground failure,
❑
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?'
❑
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
❑
of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Environmental Checklist Form
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
[�to
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
14 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of tic adequately
tankat l y
septic supporting the use of ❑
alternative . wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS
Would the project:
f. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a F]
significant impact on the environment?
g. Conflict with an applicable plan,. policy or
regulation for the purpose of reducing the ❑
emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:_
Create a significant hazard to the public or
EJ
a.
the environment through the routine
❑
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
hazardous materials
❑
involving the release of
into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials,
hazardous or acutely
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
❑
of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
compiled
list of hazardous materials sites
Government Code ,Section
pursuant to
65962.5 and, as a result, would itcreate
❑
Significant hazard to the public o the
environment?
For located within an airport land
❑
e. a project
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
EJ
❑
❑
0' ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑
�]
❑
❑
Environmental Checklist Form
15 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety. FJhazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g. -Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency ❑
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., E]
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in F]
substantial. erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through ❑
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
❑O
❑M
N
FNI
NO
ul
INK
IK
ED
X
8
0
1
4
►1
ON
16 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
Environmental Checklist Form
would result in flooding on- or off- site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
or
❑
.planned stormwater drainage systems
of
❑
provide substantial additional sources
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
❑
❑
❑
quality?
g. Place housing within a 100 year flood
on a federal Flood
El
area as mapped
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
EJ
El
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area
❑
❑
structures which would impede or redirect
❑
flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
including flooding as a result of the
❑
ElEl
flooding,
failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
[]
❑
j.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: F1 El Ela. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an. agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but ® El
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
Disc_ u
The Site is designated Light Industry/Office on the City
of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Land Use Map;
LU -23.
Off
prepared and referenced under General Plan Policy lows the folllowing land userGe land use category
identified in Policy LU -23 &General Plan 2020 Exhibit 1
Environmental Checklist Form
17 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
sing
"Motor vehicle service, contractor uses and yards,light
and officeruse� Specialty retail uses unray
and storage, incidental employee serving retail/service,
be allowed to occupy minor portions of the Lighth dustrict o not thre ce rias provided that intensity
and traffic standards are met and the integrity of
is
ulate the
The Tri Generation rate standard that has been established ipark
a the Delo m development isnobeing ger requi ed under the
P
mix of office and light industrial land uses in the business p
the standard is out of date and does not reflect cui rent
General Plan 2020 circulation element policies. Further, _ Intensity
f Non
tri generation rates. Maximum building areas are regulatedlimtsrfor seecifiral c landluse categories. General Plan
p
Residential Development, which establish floor area ratioffice
2020 Exhibit 4 establishes a sliding floor area ratio for fight menta The gross building areas were established
ranging from 0.26 to 0.38 FAR for light industrial/office pwhich
based on the original 1985 PD zoning enacted for the site and eprioor eto adopdt�ioe �of ubdivided from an original
adopted the current floor area ratios applied within the City. Th p p m' .
land area of 26 acres, including land that extended to the San Rafael Bof the proay and ject, port oDns of the lsite were
estimated 21 acres of land were located inboard e the bay. P
dedicated for use as permanent ponding areas and wetland buffers, with a net developable land area of 12.9 acres.
The current PD results in a 0.425 floor area ratio for office and light industry development based on Zd38d,900 0 oso£
square feet of building area and net 12 T acres of develarea ratio would lte area remaining (following be 0.26 f calculated based on the original 21
ponding area and shoreline band parcels). The floor a
acres of land that are located inboard of the bay (prior to dedication of land for ponds and levee trail
in permitted
improvements). The amendmce area
ent proposed to.the PD 1675 would in recognize ose building areaby approximately 114,390
P
(by approximately 21,000 square feet) and the net reductionggh the
d
square feet (from 238,900 gross square feet to approximately 224,510 s q r oee feet).
Althe developmentmix
thou
exceeded the mix of uses discussed under the amended PD
1675 remains in compliance with the PD1675 trip generation and parking standards.
in an. intensification of land
Based on this discussion, staff has determined that the amendme and would not conflic with the apt pl cable C
ty
use, parking or traffic generation based on its built -out condition
of San Rafael General Plan 2020 land use plan, or any policy or regulation governing the project site.
XI. AIINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
XII. NOISE
Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
Environmental Checklist Form
❑ ❑ Z
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
18 Bayviezo Business Park Master Plan
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above F1
levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑
above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project ❑
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f.For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people ❑
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of E]
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion'
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
Environmental Checklist Form
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ . ❑
19 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
XV. RECREATION
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational .
facilities such that substantial physical ❑
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an .adverse El
physical effect on the environment?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and
relevant component of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit)?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
❑o
FNI
'1
En
I
/1'
ON
20 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
Environmental Checklist Form
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
in
❑
❑
❑
or a change in location that results
substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or❑
intersections) or incompatible
El
Eldangerous
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
❑
❑
❑
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion:
As discussed in Section X "Land Use and Planning,, above, 104;000 square feet of office and 36,000 square feet
of research and development space was approved for the Bayview Business Park. Approximately 125,000 total
square feet of office and 36,000 square feet of research & development use have been permitted within the
project, with the total build -out of 224,509 gross square feet in the project. Although the permitted mix of office
has exceeded the amount specified in the prior 1985 PD amendment, the intensity of development complies with
the PD 1675 Trip Generation and Parking development standards. The amendment would memorialize the current
mix of office, research and development and light industrial space. No new development is proposed as part of the
project.
The Bayview Business Park PD 1675 assigned a trip generation rate with a maximum of 442 trips allocated to the
site. DKS Associates, September 22, 2011 - Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA has
concluded that the currently proposed and built -out condition would generate 327 PM peak hour trips based on
City trip rates (and 286 by the ITE rate); thus, 115-156 fewer than projected. The November 5, 2012
Memorandum from Kevin McGowan, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer confirms that the ITE Trip
Generation (8"' Edition) rates are below the 442 trips anticipated for the site. No additional mitigation fee would
be required for the project given that it does not result in any increased development intensity.
Mitigation fees are the primary means for collecting fair share contribution of anticipated development.
es
Anticipated build out for the area have been
notaccounted
conflict with an applicable plant ordinance in or policyaestablish�ng
the project site. Thus, the Project would
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ❑ ❑
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Environmental Checklist Form 21
❑ .
Bayview Business Park Master Plan
Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of ❑ ❑
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded ❑ ❑
entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination, by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected ❑ ❑
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively ❑
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
1-1
701
C
0
701
0
a
1/
1
/1
04l
N
GO
//
Environmental Checklist Form 22 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, .
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑
on human beings, either directly or ❑
indirectly?
lt in any
As indicated by the answers provided in the above acts in sect onthe s Xe Land JUse, and Planning ect would not uand XVI.
potentially significant impacts. Less -than -significant i p
Transportation/Traffic environmental impact categorieshave roject,een li.e., eh m nassed as tilon of TrafficsGeneration arates
proposed to the current PD1675 zoning regulations by J
d herein, the project would
standard and as mix of office and
a charactht erisrial tics thees. AsProject, there ooposed re,ditlscusse
would not have any individually
not change the existing setting or h
limited impacts on the environment. Further, the impacts of the change in the PD development standards would
th
ative impacts either
othprojects
not have any reasonably foreseeable cumulivenithat the Project would not combination
lm any additional
that have been approved or being considered for the area, g
development that could increase existing environmental factors in the area.
Given that the Project only consists of amendment to, removeorrequire udevelopment would
any additional from agencies other
not result in any further development off
than the City of San Rafael City Council through gr the built out sitet orrof a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, a No Effect
Determination request shall be submitted to the State Department of Fish and Game for this Project.
SOURCE REFERENCES
copies f all
The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document.
afael Department herein,
n ty
reference reports, memorandums and letters are on file with the City San R
Development. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State agencies may be found with the agency
responsible for providing such information.
1. City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, City of San Rafael, adopted July 1988, and Final EIR, certified July
1988.
2. San Rafael Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, City of San Rafael, May 1996,
3. Application Form and materials including the applicants Project Description, Revised PD Document and Site
Plan
Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA
4. DKS Associates September 22, 2011
5. City of San Rafael Department of Public Works Memorandum November 5, 2012
6.
Letter from Greg Eicher, Forsher + Guthrie to Becky Cranford Re: Bayview Business Park dated June 25,
2012.
7. Letter from Greg Eicher, Forsher + Guthrie to Becky Cranford Re: Bayview Business Park dated September
4, 2012
Environmental Checklist Form
23 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT
On the basis of this Initial Study and Environmental Checklist I find that the proposed project could not have a
Potentially Significant Effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
i ture Date
Kraig Tambornini Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development Department.
Environmental Checklist Form 24 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
DKS Associates
TRAIWO RIA110N SULl.171bPJS
September 22, 2011
SEP �a11
PLANNING
Bay View Business Park ownersAssociation
c/o Becky Cranford, Property
P.O. Box 1269
Novato, CA 94945 P►1o�o•000
Subject: Bayview Bus'
ness Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA
Dear Ms Cranford:
DKS Associates has performed a PM peak hour trip generation analysis for the Bayview
l. The
Business Park in the City of San Rafaeoenerat d bythis
she Bayview Business Park anto determine d
many PM peak hour trips are currently being g
how many new PM peak hour trips can be allocate dreed ifor n the LMaster Plan approved in
without exceeding the limit of 442 PM hour trip g
1985.
Based on our collection of the necessary vehicle
triestap re information r leneraltedproject du ng they we
PM
estimate that only approximately 234 vehicle p
peak hour (442 PM Peak hour trips are allowed). Details of our results as well as a
discussion of the methodology used in our analysis are provided below.
Project Description
The Bayview Business Park consists of eight buildings, which are a mixture of light
square feet (SF) office building that is
industrial and office uses. All the buildings re fully occupied with the exception o
Buildings A and H• Building A is a 31, q
industrial). The remaining 3,552 square
currently ,unoccupied. Building 1.1 is partially occupied with tenants in only 47,546 5F (o
•.vi7icb 1�.��'' ��' Eq ,1)��co and 32,546 SF is hg
unoccupied,
feet of ot'ttce space in Building H are
City
on December
The Bayview Business Park Master Plan was appy o 13��900 SF of light
1985.
uses
16, 1985. The Maser Plan Permitted a maxin area. The
and 104,000 SF of office uses for a maximum total
h a business pa S was limited lgto 442 total
number of PM peak hour trips associat, d with
trips.
1<J,10 Broadway
Suite 740
Cal2ano, :... �.
(510) 763-2061
(510) 268.1739 tax
vnvw.dksassociales.crro
SOURCE REFERENCE 4
,DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
Methodology/Analysis
The actual observed number of project site-spftotsee how manyps was
availablenew
vehicle tripsare
of PM peak hour trips allowed for the project
available to be allocated to the project site. ingress/egress Kerner B
eets (Pelican Way and for the Bayview Business
driveways and adjacent str
ng the PM peak period from 4-6 PM. Vehicles using these
Park on July 11, 2011 duri
ss the bayfront recreational
driveways or streets to accepeak total. A detailed summary of observed trips
the buildings were not included in the PM
are included at the end of this report.
m both the
The observed trips were compared to expected/esti Gene Generation manual trips t
ublies shed by the
City of San Rafael and the 2008 8t" Edition Trip
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 1 shows the comparison of the Trip
Generation Rates.
i`able 1 Trip €3,enerati.on Wit"
710 General Office Burldmn_
110 General Light Industrial
Notes:
a. Per 1000 GFA (gross floor area in square feet)
2.651.49
1.40 0.97
Sources: Cit of San Rafael; ITE Tri Generation Manual, 81h edition
Table 2 shows the observed PM peak count at the project site including the on -street
The parking counts on Kerner Blvd and Pelican W�a the maximbum ined total of allowablettrips (442) for
trips and on -street parking trips (234) is less
the business park.
Table 2 Project Site Obs
erve€1 Avg rage `t'r'ip Rate
Project PM Peak Hour Trips at Driveways
192
On -Street Parking on Pelican Way and Kerner Blvd. 42
Total Number of Observed PM Peak Hour Tris 234
442
Max. Permitted PM Peak Hour Tris 208
Difference
Sources: DKS Associates, 2011
Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study
Z 09/22/11
DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SQOTIONS
ew Business
The number of trips calculated for the occupied
he remaining square feeet for future office
Park using the City of San Rafael trip rates triprates for
and light industrial uses in the business park
industrial. are To ensure Tableesented in conservative estimate,
general office are greater than those for light
the vacant square feet in Building H and the Building A square feet were assumed to be all
office use.
1 aide 3 '1"► il� i::e ie1'atifi r forIlar'r'it 8e' 13less Park using Gty Trip Cene'lltion
Rates
:.
0
0
A
B
0
9,676
0
18,453
26
26
51
C
13,301
6,593
35
9
44
56
E
13,357
14,987
35
21
62
F
9,000
27,000
24
38
78
G
29,450
0
78
0
46
86
H occupied
15,000
32,546
40
322
139
377
occupied Subtotal
89,784
99,579
0
84
0
84
A vacant
31,594
9
0
9
H vacant
3,552
0
U
9
Unoccupied Subtotal
35,146
0
3
93
139
470
Total
1249930
99,579
3
442
Total Permitted
Source: Cit of San Rafael; DKS Associates, 2011
The PM peak hour trips generated (for both occupied light industrial uses are spaces) listed in Table 4.
ITE trip generation rates for general office an g
Using the ITE rates, the PM peak hour trips for the currently occupied spaces are estimated
to be 223 trips less than the maximum 442 allowable trips for the business park.
Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study
3 r 09/22/11
DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
Table 4 Trip C>eneration ilsing ITE Trip Generation-41"n"r11
A
0
0
0
0
0
B
9,676
18,453
14
18
32
C
13,301
6,593
20
6
26
E
13,357
14,987
20
15
35
F
9,000
27,000
13
26
39
G
29,450
0
44
0
44
H occupied
15,000
32,546
15
32
9 7
47
22 2 3
occupied Subtotal
89,784
99,579
4
0
47
A vacant
31,594
0
6
3
H vacant
3,552
0
13
0
Unoccupied Subtotal
35,146
0
60
0
60
Total
124,930
99,579
186
97
283
Source: ITE Tri Generation Manual, 8'� edition; DKS Associates, 2011
Assuming full occupancy of Buildings A and H (as office space), the combined total
number of PM peak hour trips (observed trips + calculated trips for unoccupied space) for
the project site would be 327 trips. Table 5 shows the Existing plus projected PM Peak
hour trips for the full occupancycalculated rates from l
s assumes from both the City the unoccupied space of San Rafael and ITE tripd all
rates general office and is
for general office.
Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study
4 09/22/11
DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SO.UTIONS
Table 5 PM Peak Hour Trips for Buildout
Existing
189,363 234"
84b
234"
47`
Building Affiffi (Buildout Occupancy)
31,594
9b
Se
Building H (Buildout Occupancy)
3,552 __
286
Total
224 509 327
442
Permitted
238 900
�441Max.
156
Amount until Max. Permitted
Notes:
a. Actual observed average trip rate
b. Based on City trip rate for general office
er 1,000 s ft.)
building (2.65 p q
building (1.49 per 1,000 sq. ft.)
c. Based on ITE trip rate for general office
of San Rafael; DKS Associates, 201
conclusionn Y of the ject
Based on observed trip data and pro11t5-g56 fewer PM peak hour tripsbeing
site as office space, the project will have between
used than are permitted in the City's project approval (442 PM peak hour trips approved
minus 327 or 286 PM peak hour trips projected with full occupancy)-
lf you have any questions, feel free to call me 510-267-6612 or Terry Klim at 510-267-
6615.
Sincerely,
DKS Associates
A California Corporation
Kennetheong
Project Manager
cc: Terry Klim) DKS
p.\p\l 1\1 1090-000 San Rafael Bayview Trip Gen\04 Deliverables\San Rafael Bayview Trip Gen Study FinalO.docx
Bayview Business 1ark Trip Generation Study
s o9�zznr
BLDG A
BA IEW BUSINESS PARKS SAN IZAFAEEL
z
a
x
R fael
�t}ewelf ,
nre sc K nalls.o--L5 an :Gtr
itre eruoks raitfi
San Ani
�! a
d6dk - anal Glkfage r, ��. 1
p+ Y tL+jn
`•"'1 ar ezt9eight
Witt selYyv Sps,Ia
"dvo' bl4 rlinur
mg Ylncent
Fr�lindv htltrob o qle O a
Santa Y00 et[A ¢y.•�f�
Sen flninel 6Pr® ..Pablo ... -I
s
t R hmund
moo
lnt FiLc
r , nt�� ^S• e � . EI.Carrilu
1 a: t.
A _ . '- a ll VaIIRY
'ef. Stln¢Rn.geac r'- Y AIbrtT1 0. za ,-
.��, tpnfs unto ilnet'ttssleY' �'- .,�-
- I`o '& . eY Jetta
�Q� �dSgdsnl a-`Tlutlrnn i
'.
�} ~A ttn EmRrYs'I 13�,�:hlorega
•.i.a , L : 1611..
• 11 . ,.'Mort eaen+- . '".
Andersen br y=•�` {'r:=,tr i�r•• 1 _
atQ •v Llttle .Saha
sc
Fran [is.co-_anteda
a
/J� m`� pTanel9�BWdE �" I"�' - ayvietr ❑Istrict
fd d
C Y - - Mulford Garden$R ,
rr1 ` rr waste
r 3s
yea° olma -
--_ �a,n'Quencin
4 oulh Snn F1v.ncists nussen Cityp
pa Sharphan or un erunv
Sharp rir
i
b.1+,.1 .i,n d.l lt:u .•r.lk-rt.:;! dont rir •i..::>.<la-n t•t. in. ��
v,l t:nlio.dlt: �.N+ r•al,-------------
wrn ltn•krr� la:+ ir,,nlpr•.r,nl�,+•+tr6r..,:u,
r•:4ulrt•+*rt hien, <•l.r•r,ibn�b, et or}cq,lrn•ravrt••„+ct.u:.,1 hn:::1,a:: rrntr!ii Got. `•••le
ri a�anr,r, h. u�nt ,•. ..1:•,u.,:,i k•nn lL,r,: lv,t,r•'� dnn ,f r. a••+:: •.r., L:;i �;t+cn•v.'rtp r.�l•r
,. .r-ri :,. ,ni, .rr.;:tt,,,v 's?r it :•.rdb ltn .rs r•. an �
EnA
0 N
�
C
N
�
o
U
V1
N Cd
N
co
y
%
ti
O N
�j CCi
-o U
N
c"ocCos
N '6
_'
� �o
W
U
z
0
0
A
14
N
I� POR. SEC*S. 11812 , •T. t N.1
J
/06.66 740.32
s340�z cw� 9N
hQ
ooh 4r
328 Ac.
�N a
ponding area P.D
4Q �7a A
ro.
P. B
t y�� 5.15Ac.
19
t5 d 9.45 Ac.
.46 SJB•3z'
400
P. 2 18 17 200 pM
a _
35
A
h� t` ?dam ISO 34-y
n
k �7
a b
" 4.83 Ac.
Comm N "
y�
POR 17
S8870
Detail 123
23 q
29
P W h
2.34Ac.
Ada
h - PcLS Pcr.6 ti
ti
%I W �phti �4
w
w Pcl. C
N 461W %
iSl 99
a.
.3
4
N
a �ir;L'r �
� 30 r a
m
a
��•
n yp
2•09Ac.
u
a
P.A
a
Pct. 3 ° AREA
W q N ponding
\'N
aP5
Po
tel. 'B
PCL4 area W
K&25'�
.
ls.t7 1.26 AcCM
6Z.76
LO
14
0j
s b y
gd t
Z7 a89d,E i9o•s30;d Z N
P -A N
(0.53 Ac
I N390 4l 0
:.iml 13SIN c
p'��
1. a Not
�; of : ,,ti•� m v � �°'4� s _ .
.`'I PCL( W V.
"
q SJ
p2 i 37N 55 56
saez 4s 4 a;q
Gv 3ZE ,!c
/Sa.O Jq•Z7 5
HWy
3i7.7o
FRANCISCO
NOTE — Assessor's Block Numbers Shown in Ellipses
Assessor's Parcel Numbers Shown in Circles.
17
28
1.12 Ac.6j�
_ 551°c4E
21-
l2
P'2
(a. 60 A0.)
BLVD_
7717, 10
Q S...A
•• 25
f r-v,7y 46 w� h
GC1.y se°az F s
400 ti�QN
ponding
0
° 24
5.15Ac.
o tid rc ape a4.9'
�M x.20 1,56`e
19q
° 4.85AC. ��� U X14 ho '� ` 1.12 Ac.
15 0 9.45Ac. /� CommON a r.� x,56 y�,^gra , _ � 0 210.64- cp
X 62' 2T w -�
N P a � i ^ • �'s�,ti
r^1+
y+ a � f C S39•f6 �^N M.• 1
/43 E �Fp 1t. 4•
19 W 23 a a ;v 29 AV 32
2.34Ac.41zr N. 291
�.
h° % y Pcl. C *" R •A c )
N51'07W
746.32
1
I d
0
3 f
16 r �� 90 �w 2.o9Ac. "
.53 c.
N
Pa2.96 sig• �.z, ` �A:L 3,µ 22 M N o P. A
P2 4020 AREA PC 0' 1 17
Q0 P n 1t1. B� Bo
1$ 17 M .
20re.36 2 h° Pcl.4 area s<
LotB. ,,.4
243 4
ab dq � 15 'vJ�•f6ly� r.� Of y • ,50 c S 51' 14'f
1.26Ac.. I1,. W ,� N z 6z.76 pal -
73
14 J2 7
�i N N P -A N' P -PI
14 Iq) 1. ;v� H P 39�g1o•� ®�
a: CL Z N a (0.53 Ac a nQ� O.B0AC.1 Ln 1
CC
Pcl.2 zs 23-98 '390 A' 13 ^y 11 a
IV f 38 G3 ��,V 6.6 43 75.4
cv P 1 a4'
dN . 36 39 ;� •lo- b -..� f I PlyaS-431tq• +3sr.>s n N47•d7'ib
�j5// 't'3 . y� ^ CU 1 - Cy 18
/7s 6
1.9 Ac 0 o'v A ; g i•tu b J / ti. SB aq '.71 P21-52 '
r N rza ^ 3.53Ac. @42,
a' 4cC, _� i PCL A / / C1. 2 a
PCLI a
1 t �/ �^ Ptn.'.P.1
I N rn ` 7 3-99 14 I�y 43 (1.86 Ac'1.
37 6 tiN
p 1—.213 _~�. la m
fv3B• zF p�z 96 / a V 55 56 /a"/N�`+� �I 2c31 (� rga,to 1 z/c.at
3gk, r,`,A,i/;+. y. xxe• ea 5 /t� 41 3 QR•l2c3 a 551.'141'
27 5�} /� 1.78 Ac. 49
'7 PCI. B a O o
RgNC 3`7 7� Ptn: P 1 "
�BCO 9" n
as
(1.66 Ac) 45
a
c' �-•-VG,w P.11 Z3- B P21-52 0
J re/56.41
Hey 1473 N32•
Y / T BLVD,
c
LVD.�
C
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IVIORANDUM
1VIE \�
TO; RAFFI BOLOYAN
DATE: November 5, 2012
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
FROM: KEVIN MCGOWAN
FILE NO: 13.02.17
ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORDS DIRE'CTOR/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: 22 Pelican — (Reconcile Built -Out Lots — Kraig Tambornini — project
Planner)
We have reviewed the attached application and Find the submittal incomplete.
Parking
Greg Eicher's letter (dated June 22, 2012) indicates that the total number of
parking spaces for the site is 608. A total of 714 parking spaces are required for
the proposed project based on Municipal Code.
about
The letter also indicates that a maximum of 375 the letter did aces are occupied
ntifyysy are
62%) based on the field counts. However, the field counts.
footage and type of occupancy of the ebrxiinen�sthe the
is time adequate for the
Therefore, it can not be used t
current and the proposed uses. The applicant shall provide a projected total
parking count based on the having full occupancy.
Additional Comments
The total number of PM trips calculated based letter Septemberp4,c2012)lie-ht
and
industrial square footages by Greg Eichi
ITE Trip Generation (8"' Edition) rates is below 442. Therefore, no traffic
mitigation fee is required.
SOURCE REFERENCE 5
June 25, 2012
Becky Cranford
McAvoy Management
Po Box 1269
Novato, Ca 94948
Re: Bayview Business Park
Dear Becky,
Planning
Architecture
Development
Robert Forsher AIA Architect
Matthew C. Guthrie Planner
Ten H Street
San Rafael California 9490.1
Tel 415 4591445
Fax 415 4591124
I have completed my investigation of permit activity and comparison to existing physical
improvements at the seven buildings comprising Bayview Business Park. The development was
approved under a master use permit in 1985 to include a combination of office, research &
development, light industrial, and warehouse uses.
My activities have included an extensive review of the City's records of building permits issued,
and review of associated drawings either in the City's data base, or as provided by the respective
building owners where drawings do not exist at the City. In addition, I have walked through
each of the buildings to verify the existing build -outs, and have compared that with the permit(s)
issued for that building or portion of building.
There is a significant amount of permit activity for most of the buildings. In the cases where
permit activity is low, it appears due to the fact that little work has been done beyond the
original buildout.
I rim attaching a roster of building permits thal: leave been isSM-1 i for each building, with any
pertinent information reg0l'ding 1ilose hermits, and have doted where we have drawings that
show the work that was permitted. I also offer a brief summary of my observations for each of
the buildings below:
Building A
?2 Pelican Ml,"V
Building A has juste in the building, which islt iprovement (B1107-106) curren ly vacant and will be available forl
roughout
all but a small area a second
tenant at some time in the future.
SOURCE REFERENCE 6
Forsher+Guthrie
June 25, 2012 Page: 2 Bayview Business Park
Building B
2597 Kerner Blvd.
Building B has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time, the
more recent of those for the current tenant "Tissue Bank Intl". The build -out that exists today
is reflected in those permits (80303-075, B0608-018, and B0705-022).
Building C
2505 Kerner Blvd.
Building C has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time, the
most recent of those for the previous and current tenants, "Eber Intl" and "TiNi Aerospace"
respectively. The build -out that exists today is reflected in those permits (B0304-080, and
81010-084).
Building E
100 Pelican Way
Building E has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time for a
variety of tenants. Fortunately, the City's records are very good for this building in terms of
the number of permit drawings that are associated with the respective permit applications. It
appears that the tenant improvements currently existing in the building are consistent with
the accumulation of permitted construction over time.
Building F
85 Glacier Point ad (aka 2550 Kerner divd.)
Building F has very little permit activity. Only one permit has been issued since the original
shell structure and tenant improvement work was completed. The existing improvements are
consistent with both of those permits.
Building G
150 Pelican Way
Building G has had very little permit activity since the original build -out, the subsequent
permits having been issued for relatively minor alterations to the original office layout.
Oddly, there is no documentation in the City's records (drawings or permit application)
indicating that the original interior improvements were completed with the benefit of a
building permit. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that the shell building permit may
have been amended at some point to include the interior build -out, or that some other
documentation of this work has been mis-recorded. It seems doubtful that a significant TI
such as this could have been completed without a permit.
June 25, 2012 Page: 3
Building H
101 Glacier Point Rd
Forsher+Guthrie
Bayview Business Park
Building H has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 15 years time for a
small number of tenants. The City's records contain only one set of tenant improvement
drawings, so it is fortunate that the property owner has record drawings that can be easily
linked to the respective permits issued by the City.
The existing improvements can be shown to be permitted with two exceptions: an
approximately 3500 sf area on the lower level, and an approximately 7600 sf area on the
second level both include improvements (private offices) that I am not able to link to a
building permit. All other areas are consistent with drawings and permit applications, and the
uses in the various tenant suites is generally consistent with the proposed uses at the time of
permit issuance.
In conclusion, with the few exceptions noted, it appears that the existing improvements have
been completed with the benefit of building permits.
Parking
Building management has provided me with data to help determine that the existing parking is
adequate for the current uses.
Car counts have been completed on two separate occasions: one at 11:30am on Tuesday, May
15th; the second at 2:30pm on Thursday, May 17th. The number of cars parked in the off-street
parking areas on May 15th was 375; the number of cars parked in the off-street parking areas on
May 17th was 345. The total
only parking
60%of the available parking stalls.
nlOkcounts would
re
indicate that the businesses 9 Y 55
Also attached is a site map showing the parking lots built in the business park.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Cordia I
Greg Eicher
Forsher + Guthrie
r•
W
}
W
U)
� ..
O
OZ
z
Z
0O
O
p
Z
O
Z
O
Z
H
O
U
U)
Ua
z
Z
�
HLL Z
f 0
Z
O
W H
U)
a
D
YY
Y
Y
O
Y
Ln
ze
Y
Ln
dam.
Z
O0
N
df
O
r-
N
M1
Z W
Z ..
Z
Na
n g
a
U-
ca
:5
°�
J
w U)
Ul
Za
r
w
<
O
Z 0
U)
O
W �
a
W
U) C.
w
,�
Ln
W W
U DC
� H
U
H
U
O
w 0
O
::)
0
H
� U)
U)
� Z
Q
�u"
Y
0'r-
QQ
z
,u
H
O I-
W
Z
Q
w 00
U f
}
U
J
J
W
U)
W
Q N
W�
U)
w
2
p u.
aLL
LLi
Z
0
w
W �,'_j LL
W
�
0
Lnn
O N
0 O
0
0
DLLJ
_
z
p H
H
Z U)
(A
-� 1-
g O W
Q
0-It
00
U
0~
W SIL
Zd
o
z
z
0
i-
F- N
,-i a
z Q U)
g❑
I-
u
w
OU
U
.LL-.
Q
O
O dS
U)
W W
a! �
uj
° U)
Z
O
O
�nn
�L
00
cwi) ULr)
? U
,-i u; 00„
M
W
0
V
F-
O
G
Ol W
LL
Z LL
OU
H
H
w
0
n
m
Co
p
U%
I
m
I
-
Y
wa
uN
�
00
m
01,0)
Od
O
O
Ln)
W
W
co
1
1
o
0
L
L
a.
o
u
a
a)I-
o
°
z
Q
in
cn
u-
F--
w
W
�H
U
#
Ile m
U)
r~-i
r~i
,-i
O
O
r,
d'
N
00
O
M
O
O
It
It
m
M
0
It
d
C)
0
w
a
N
It
N
00
N
M
M
-4
d
d
m
m
N m
CL
Y
N
d
O
I-
U)
U)
Y-
0
O
z
N
O
,
Z �
J
O
Q
N
O
LU
Lu
�
N w
U)
w
Ow
�
H
cl�
Y Z
a
H
U
Q
H
U
�
LU
�
0
n
0
Q
0
oa
w
ce
D
V)
w
Z
�
.V)
00
#
N
O
Co
U)
H
O
i
i
H co
Ln
(>
O
O
rl
a
o
m
Nm
nw.m
re Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
O- N l0 M r� Lf1 -1 Ln 00 I�
U
0
r"
n
�
M
LU
w
w
z
O z
z zz
O
z
z
z
z
z
0
re Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
O- N l0 M r� Lf1 -1 Ln 00 I�
U
0
n
�
M
w
w
�
H
rl
J
J
�
}
{-
2
U
U
O
O
0
0
LU
U
.-.
N
N
cV
a
�
a
�a
a
a
z
}
LL
w
a(
w 0
a
C7
CL
U
'-'
J
z
F-
z
w
i
U
z
D
z
z
OJ
LU
H
t ..
LL
U)
w
J
Lu
J J
U
U
~
Lf)®
O
Q
()' a
, n°
d
U)
m
F
O
m
O
U)
Ud
�d
w
O
aCY
w
U
z
LL
®
-j
U)
�
E-
w
LL.ry-
w
pe
w
U
LUw
Ln
L0
to
to
F-
F-
� a
,�, a
F-
Lace
yy--
�
H
r
DC
00
01
O)
m
00
l0
Ol
�
R
01
O
Ol
O
0
Muj
O
rl
'
Q
LU
F"
d
O
'L
00
00
'
a
L
Q
L
i
071u
i
O
0 Dn
in
in
Q
Q
0
n
0
m
w
r/
LU
V
w
a
mr-I
0
�
w
N
o
Y U
� �~+
N
.-i
N0)
M
Ln
I�
h
h
I`
O
d
O
O
�
Ln
w
Ln
I�
N
l0
It
rf
N co
M d a
N
M
M
M
d
d
It
c1
d
m
CO
m
M1•
r,
0
J
U)
W
QUO
U
z
U)
z
U
u
u
uu
LU
w
0
O
U
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
O
U U
Z
1-4
z>Q
�
O
g
°o z
Q
H
I -
Q
Q
w
a
.
w
z
LU
uj
M Y
Y
aO1
X
`
Y
Z
J o
Ln
Y
Y
Y
o
>
00
Y
Y
Y
Q o
IT
Ln
M
00
N
Y
Y
Ln
0
n
Y o
> r -I
Ln
O
It
Cr
M
Ln
It
ri
00
co
00 lD
0
J
W
U
QUO
U
U)
z
U
p
O
LU
w
wui
1-4
z>Q
�
g
°o z
Q
Q
Q
w
°w
.
w
z
LU
uj
U)
aO1
`
Z
LU
Lu
D_
>
O
wLUQQCi-J_:
=
U
LU
WZ
LU
0
nJ
O
I—
IW L
00
H.
H
H
�
H
W >
f Z
J w
LU
H n.
Q
Q
Z
I—
O
z
J
U
w
V
~
�..�
j:e
LU (n
Z
0
O
Y
Z
O
Z
�
�-
O
�
O
za
LL
O W
O�
U
O
z u
°w
0O
z
LU
z
cn
O
Z
Z
F- a
Z
LL
m
o
®
d/
H
U
Q�
LU
LU
Ln
00
lD
00
rN
00
00
00
00
T
00
00
m
00
N
m
N
0)
N
111
Ln
0)
N
0)
00
0)
Q0
Q
C:
0)
0)
a)
:3
U
O
N
LU
(n
(n
0
Q
LL
O
LL
D
Z
(n
Q
(n
u
LU
D" U`
�~+ri
Cl)
0
M
00
Q0
lD
d
r -I
O
Ln
N
r
O D
GLS
Lr
0C
lD
O
O
N
00
m
N
00
O
0)
N
M
Ln
N
N
00
.-I
0)
r,
O
ri
00
ri
Ln
Ln
lD
O J
LU
LU
d
M
Ch
00
00
0)
O
d'
Ln
lD
0)
M
It
,-1 00
OL
CL
N
N
N
04
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
It
It
I
\2
/
/r
(D
U)
IER
X
c
.
u
Lf)
//a
L
U
\ /
U
\
/
o
\\%
o
C
U
w
a.
2
�
2
z
L
2
Ln
=
e2
L
%
\
\
\
/ \
\
\
2
2
q
£/
\
I
O
u
/e
O
\
00
R
=
\
I
o
.A
w
/
6
C�
\_
L
/LL 0
2
\
LU
\C)
z
g
.
LL
I /
F-
$
�
00
0/
/
\/
�
R
/�
/LL
w
»@
@co
D
cc
EG
@I
F
22
g
a
ƒ
c
f
U.<
b�
\/
2 I
I O
\ 2
2
2
V)
� �
uLL
<
\
\
/
/
�I
M <
2
\ /
<
=
2
o
U
ƒ
O
��
w
o".\-/
2
2 U
� R
/
<
<
p
\
2
\
E
/
U
w�
/
I
E
//
a
%
\
/
w
0/
rl.//
k
2
/
Z)
I
r,
q
%
/
/
q
2
$
\
w W
\
L
G
?
g
c
o
w
a.
?
3
3
m
/
k
/
/
\
\
a
/
\ CO
ƒ
ƒ
/
2
E
2
%
i
ƒ
n• I r",
(n W
D O
U
z
O
�z
Y
CC) LU
o
o
2
w
O
ce
a
Lu I-
U z
H Q
LL
z
LL-
`L
® 1�
V/�
1i
LL
OLU
O "
O ry,
Lf)
D
o Lw
O
Un
z
w
N o
¢:
0
0 DQ
��r
o
3: � �
�- U)
LU
Q 0
O Lu
zin�
W
u
g
W
Y0
Ln
o
U-coaw
U)
mz�
®
o
J
=
=
0 U
N
W
IN"
N
Q Q Q
a
Q
N
Y
Q
H
U
w w
z
CL
0
CL
O
w
(�
a
U)
0�
LU
#
N
g"-
N W
/
v
0�
d
to
Ln m
00
a a Nt
m
2
/ / /
/
/ /
O
/
U U
2
/ / /
0
_2
U)
/
/
u
DO
0
\
/
/
O
Z U
z
LL LL
R/
LLJ
�
z
\
\R
�
Um
/
/ /
LU
m
0 0
U
u
/
I
E
/
0
2
<u
R
\
\/
\
g
E
/
\
ui
ƒ
J
2
/
\
$
�
U
w
N
I
e
N
ƒ
�
$
$
<Q
\
/
<
<
2
u
$
#
_
e
uj
L
L
?
\
$
\
\ /
\
/
ƒ
m
3
e 00
m
CL
#
7
$
S
LU
LL
/
/
/L9
\
Lf)
e
/
O
O
O
O
O
0
2
?
\
/
<
\
<
\
\
\
2
</
Ln u
<
y
/
2
/
®
/
�
o
o
m
y
o
OD
>
e w
#
U)
/
\
\
\
/
\
\
O
<
<
i
/
q
6
E
0
w
0
w
/
/
R
/
/
0
=
o
@
p
_O
ƒ
R
/
/
U)
LU
�
@
R
®
/
�
_
ƒ
}
/
CL
O
q
q
ui
m
/
\
o q
\
/
/
<
/
<
/
/
"
»
I
y
'
k
1-1
2@
LU
eq
p
I
2
n
qd
0
/�
<
�
/�
�
/
2
-
/ lu
E
/
cl
ce
LU
/
\
ƒ\
LL/
ui
%®
�$
N/
22
$/
u
22
L
\
ƒ
Z)
qI
k
<
$0
�2
&®
/
\
/
� \
/
/ /
/
/
o \
/ /
O
\
@
2
O
�.p
2
O I
®
O
_/ u
/
2 -
/ a
/
/ /
S
\
e
E
/
/
/ /
/
Lu
/R
�
\$
/ /
/ G
Lu ƒ
/ <
y
LU
e±
O�
ce
�
%
/
/
\
U
\
3
U\
I =
U0
I
. U
a
O
\
/
O
R
LU w
/
�
$
/
/
c
2
I
e
yL
6
®
/
t
/
§
/
/
u
O
e
O
E
.
o
<
/
re, .
/
S
4
3
o
m
m
/
\ I
U Q
/
3
L
7
ƒ
\
7
/
/
\
%
0
0 q
/
E
$
/
N
/
o
0
0
/
\
/
\
ƒ
1-4
e=
a
a
#
It
It
It
_
00
m
c
=
FORSHER+GUTHRIE
Planning
Ar chi tecttire
Develop in ent
Robert Forsher AIA Architect
Matthew C. Guthrie Planner
"fen H Street
San Rafael California 94901
Tel 4"15 459 1445
Fax 415 4591124
September 4, 2012
Becky Cranford
McAvoy Management
PO Box 1269
Novato, Ca 94948
Re: Bayview Business Park
Dear Becky,
This letter shall serve to clarify areas previously reported by the business park's property
management for office use, and light industrial use, in the seven buildings in the Bayview
Business Park,
Summary: contain
Two of the seven buildings were initially approved and constructed d constructed % office
use
(Buildings A & G). The remaining 5 buildings were app
roved combination of office and light industrial uses. These
buildings
uildin frare onting single -story allyce emrentdcontai ng
story element with offices on lower and upper
light industrial uses.
Several anomalies are present in the previously reported square footages:
ally low. The
Building ( Office areas previously reported
use of thethis lower building
level areas originally designatedtoexisting
be
tenant's (Tissue Banks Int p i` artmentalized plan typically
office, is not used as typica; office, despit. 1e existing ro vpC rn�ii, a,xJ �epe�;�d i„
�,v..;aibu vvilil v iw. uS :i1 dwiC trio :iqu.iiv fuutage� �^l/p Y pJ
2003 for office use on ther alf
located from the light industrial category, athe nd be made available
Therefore 7,142sf should be
as office area for future tenants.
the
Building E: There is some wed cion onal ser a quar mezzaninearea
above Nthe oas p ginal approval, but proved previously ywas
pity which would have alio
never ed restriction
that was filed in he area of that mezzanine
tote usever of hes mezzanine should reported
The deed restrict
as it does not exist, and there is no longer a desire for it to be constructed.
Building H: Of the reported 18,552sf of office area in this building, 3,552sf is not currently in use.
Because the building was constructed to be larger than
h t the use
permit approvedurrently uppee levelCity
has previously disallowed the use of an areaequal
space sits empty. It is requested that this space be allowed for occupancy of office use.
SOURCE REFERENCE 7
September 4, 2012
Corrected square footages are as follows:
Building A
22 Pelican Way
Office: 31,594
Lt. Industrial: 0
Total SF: 31,594
Building B
2597 Kerner Blvd.
Office: 16,818
Lt. Industrial: 11,311
Total SF: 28,129
Building C
2505 Kerner Blvd.
Office: 13,301
Lt. Industrial: 6,593
Total SF: 19,894
Building E
100 Pelican Way
Office: 13,357
Lt. Industrial: 14,987
Total SF: 28,344
Forsher+Guthrie
Page: 2 Bayview Business Park
Building F
85 Glacier Point Rd (aka 2550 Kerner Blvd.)
Office: 9,000
Lt, Industrial: 27,000
Total SF: 36,000
Building G
150 Pelican Way
Office: 29,450
Lt. Industrial: 0
Total SF: 29,450
September 4, 2012
Building H
101 Glacier Point Rd
Office: 18,552
Lt. Industrial: 32,546
Total SF: 51,098
Forsher+Guthrie
Page: 3 Bayview Business Park
These figures result in, the following totals for the Business Park:
Office: 132,072
Lt. Industrial: 92,437
Total SF: 224,509
If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Cord
Greg
Forsher + Guthrie
A. 1,
EXHIBIT 6
SRCC Agenda Item N4
3/20/95
ORDINANCE NO.1675
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE 1474) DISTRICT TO THE PD (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) $ SRK. M
DISTRICT
FOR
END AMENDMENT
THE BAYVIEW
(RE: Z94-6, BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK, FRANCISCO
BOULEVARD WAY, AP NOS. 09-291-15,16 ,1E 0
20, 21, 22, 3,39, 42, D 3
52, and PELICAN
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
DIVISION 1. The Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael, California, adopted by reference by
s amended by reclassifying the following real
Section 14.01.020 of the Municipal Code i
property from the PD (1474) (Planned Developmentna dr Pr Pe tyl474) so reclassstrict ified iso the PD
slocated
(Planned Development Ordinance 1675 )
at East Francisco Boulevard, Kerner Boulevard and PelicanWay, San Rafael, as shown
County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 09-291-15, n
16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 39, 42, 52, and 53, plegal
description attached as Exhibit "B".
DIVISION 2. Any development of this property shall be subject to the conditions outlined
in Exhibit "A", Bayview Business Park Master Plan, which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
DIVISION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared
invalid.
pIVI IvN 4. iitis oraui ance snau ue p"&'a&uulistict, once in tuh uerore It- ,aa, passas_ I—
lied and circulated in the City of San Rafael, and
newspaper of general circulation, publis
shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
Attest:
JE NE M. LEONCI I, City Clerk
pp J, BO Mayor
CO 0"
The foregoing Charter Ordinance No. 1675 was read and introduced at a Regular Meeting of
the City Council of the City of San Rafael on Monday, March 6, 1995, and ordered passed to
print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
and will come up for adoption as an ordinance of the City of San Rafael at a regular meeting
of the Council to be held on the 20th day of MARCH 1995.
JUNNE M. LEON IM, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARI{ MASTER PLAN
INTENT ns presented and proved for the
The Bayview Business Park Master y Nlasteb Environmental n is ased on the aand Design Rev ew1985. The Master Permit, ED85-
lan has been
Master Use Permit, UP82 65(b) an
54 which were approved by the City Council on December 16,
' ments approved with the original Planned
developed to reflect the amended Master Use UP82-65(c) and Master Design Review
Permit (ED85-54) and incorporate the e
Development District, PD (1474).
LAND USES
4 VIA 00
quare
eet of
s permitted in Bayview Business Park include a maxi for a maximum totalsof 238,900 square
Use
industrial uses and 104,000 square feet of office
ch and
elopment
ud
feet of building area. Light industrial uses mayses) ofesimilarr nature asvdetterm determined by
ytithe
warehousing, wholesale distributing lonee°serving retail and services uses and retail us
es
Planning Director. Incidental employee may be permitted consistent with floor area ratios
supportive of and related to industrial uses
tri all be consistent with Master Use Permit UP82-
and p allocation standards. All uses sh
65(c).
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following development shall apply to all development of the Bayview Business Park.
Setbacks: Building setbacks shall be consistent with the Master Site Plan approved with the
Master Environmental and Design Review Permit ED85-5 .
Height: Maximum height 36'
Maximum Building Size:
(square Feet)
Building A -
40,000
Building B -
30,000
Building C
- 20,000
Building E
- 28,000
Building F
- 41,400
Building u
- 31,500
Building H
- 48 000
Total
238,900
sistent with the approved Environmental and Design
Landscaping: Landscaping shall be con
Review Permit (ED85-54).
with the approved Master Design Review
Parkin Parking shall be provided in accordance
Parking: 18 of the City's zoning'
Permit (ED85-54) or the requirements of Chap
ordinance should an amendment to the Master Design Review Permit be requested.
DESIGN STANDARDS
All buildings shall be consistent with the Project Design s anwdardsPerto(ED85 54).ntained in the conditions of
approval for the Master Environmental and Design
Revie
EXHIBIT "A"
TRIP GENERATION
A maximum of 442 PM peak
trips
and Office uses are with
as follows:
the
Bayview Business Park. Trip
generation rates for the Light Industrial
Light Industrial 1.4 trips/1,000 gross square feet of building area
Office 2.65 trips/1,000 gross square feet of building area
Ancillary Uses As specified in the Circulation Background section of the General Plan for
East San Rafael or as determined by the City Traffic Engineer
- 2 -
EXHIBIT "B"
Situated in the State of CBiifornia, County of Marin, City of
San Rafael and described as follows:
BEGIN—NTING at the most Westerly corner of the property
described as "Parcel Two" in the Deed from Marin
Canalways and Development Company, a corporation to
Marin Development Company, a limited partnership, record-
ed March 26, 1956 in Volume 1016 of Official Records, at
page 24, Marin County Records, being the intersection of the
two courses "North 38' 32' 42' West 360.71 feet and North
51' 27' 18' East 210.0 feet" in said Deed; running thence on
meridian of said "Parcel 71'wo", North 38' 32' 42' Rest 266.67
feet; thence North 5I' 27' 18' East 1865 feet; thence
Southeasterly in a direct line for a distance of 906 feet, more
or less, to a pint on the Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 9 in
Section 12, T 1 N, R 6 W, NLD..NL, distant North 1' 17' 18'
East 2007.28 feet (measured along the Easterly lines of Tide
Land Lr)ts 25, 24 and 9 in said Section 12) from the Northeast
comer of the property described in the Deed from Marin
Canalways and Development Company to the State of
California, recorded September 25, 1957 in Volume 1143,
Official Records, at page 185, Marin County Records, thence
Southerly along the Easterly lines of said Tide Land Lots 9
and 24 for a distance of 506.28 fret, more or less, to the
Northeast comer of the property described in "Parcel One"
in the Deed from Marin Canalways and Development
Company, a corporation to Equitable Development Company
recorded in Volume 1160, Official Records; at page 382,
Marin County Records; thence along the Northerly lines of
said "Parcel One", North 88' 42' 42' West 660.0 feet to the
Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 17 in Section 11; thence along
said Easterly line North 1' 17' 18' East 138.0 feet; thence
leaving said last mentioned line. North 51' 14' West 288.0
feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner of said
"Parcel One"; thence along the Northwesterly line of said
parcel, South 38' 46' West 1043.0 feet, more or less, to the
true point of beginning of said "Parcel One", being a point on
the Northeasterly line of "Parcel Two" in the Deed recorded
in Volume 1016. Official Records, at page 24, _Barin County
Records, hereinabove referred to; thence Northwesterly
along the Northeasterly line of said "Parcel Two", for a
distanc_ of _60.0 feet. more or less, t^ the most _l'orherly
corner thereof; thence along the Northwesterly line of said
parcel, South 51' 27' 18' Rest 210.0 feet to the point of
beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFR0;11 any portion. thereof lying within
'the boundaries of California State Highway.
AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion conveyed
to the Nature Conservancy, a non-profit District of Columbia
corporation by deed recorded December 30, 1969, Boo: 2347,
Official Records, page 512, Marin County Records.
No. 69 January 12, 1981
EXHIBIT i
RESOLUTION 9316
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER USE
PERMIT FOR BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK
(UP82-65(c))
WHEREAS, notification of the proposed UP82-65(c) amendments occurred as specified by
law; and,
WHEREAS, staff identified the amendments, with corresponding background analysis in
the hebrijary 14, 1995 staff Report to Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the master use pernut is categorically exempt
fro n the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 5(f)(i)
of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 14,
1995 and accepted the staff report and public testimony on the proposed amendments at that
time and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the San Rafael City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the San Rafael City Council held a public hearing on March 6, 1995 and
accepted the staff report and public testimony on the proposed amendments at that time;
and,
WHEREAS, the San Rafael City Council finds the recommended amendment to the master
use permit to be in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance,
and the purpose of the district in which it is located because the project, as conditioned, is
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan 2000 including: the light
industrial/office land use designation; and,
WHEREAS, the San Rafael City Council finds the recommunded amendment to the master
use permit together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City because the use is consistent with and does
not intensify the previously approved master use permit; and,
WHEREAS, the San Rafael City Council finds that the recommended amendment to the
master use permit complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Planned District
Zoning Ordinance as the light industrial and office uses are not proposed to change.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council approves the
amendment to the Master Use Permit outlined in Exhibit "A".
The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting of the San Rafael City Council held on the 61h day of March, 1995, by thr, fnllowinl;
vote, to wit:
nCOY .
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS : Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini. &
Mayor soro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : None
n we /1 �2
jean rYe M. Leoncini, City Clerk
-2-
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
UP82-65(c):
Public Works Department:
(a) Streets and Roads
1) Right-of-way for the construction of Kerner Boulevard and Pelican Way shall be
dedicated to the City in fee.
(b) Frontage Improvements
1) New curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed along the entire Kerner
Boulevard, Pelican Way and Francisco Boulevard frontages.
(c) Levees and Seawalls
1) The existing levee shall be reconstructed to conform to current City and U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers standards, as approved in the "Wetlands Mitigation
Plan."
2) The improvement plans shall show all proposed and waterfront improvements.
(d) Agreements and Securities
1) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall formally agree not to
protest the formation of an assessment district to construct Kerner Boulevard and
Pelican Way and to implement the approved "Wetlands Mitigation Plan". This
agreement shall be prepared by the applicant's counsel in a form agreeable to the
City Attorney.
2) Construction of proposed public improvements may be deferred for one (1) year
from project approval dates pending the formation of the proposed assessment
district.
Planning Department:
(e) The Master Use Permit approves a total of 238,900 square feet of gross building area to
be divided among the seven (7) buildings described and identified on the following
drawings:
Site Plan, Vickerman-Zachery-Miller (VZM), Sheet 1 of 9, dated 9-4-85
Tree Planting Plan, Speer & Associates, Sheet 2 of 9, dated •9-5-85
Landscaping Sections, Speer & Associates, Sheet 3 of 9, dated 9-5-85
Entry Plan/Section, Speer & Associates, Sheet 4 of 9, dated 9-5-85
Building B Elevations, VZM, Sheet 5 of 9, dated 9-5-85
Building C Elevations, VZM, Sheet 6 of 9, dated 9-5-85
Building A Elevations, VZM, Sheet 7 of 9, dated 9-5-85
Signage/Floor Plan/Section, VZM, Sheet 8 of 9, dated 9-5-85
(f) The maximum gross square footage for each building is approved as follows:
Building A 40,000 square feet
Building B 30,000 square feet
Building C 20,000 square feet
Building E 28,000 square feet
Building F 41,400 square feet
Building G 31,500 square feet
Building H 48,000 square feet
Building D is not approved.
-1-
The Business Park shall be limited to a maximum of 104,000 square feet of Office use
and 134,900 square feet of light industrial use. The distribution of office and light
industrial use square footage among the seven buildings can be flexible provided that
the maximum allotments presented herein are not exceeded for the entire Park. It
shall be the responsibility of the Bayview Business Park Owner's Association to
manage and monitor the use allotment. The Owner's Association shall be responsible
for maintaining a use inventory of tenants for the entire Park. This inventory must
identify all building tenants, square footages and use allotments. This inventory shall
be made available to all building owners and tenants.
(g) A City of San Rafael business license shall be required for each tenant. Each tenant
filing for a business license must submit, to the Planning Department, a current use
inventory of the Bayview Business Park, containing all building tenants, square
footages and use allotments.
(h) This use permit shall be reviewed annually by the City of San Rafael. The Bayview
Business Park Owner's Association shall be responsible for filing the appropriate
application for annual review. This application must include the submittal of a
current use inventory of all buildings in the Park. The inventory shall identify tenant
location and square footage, type of use and any changes in tenants within the past
year. In addition, the inventory of uses shall identify the number of P. M. peak hour
trips projected for each use/tenant, based on trip generation rates of 2.65 trips/1,000
square feet of office ad 1.4 trips/1,000 square feet of light industrial use. Ancillary uses
permitted shall identify the number of P. M. peak hour trips bases on the trip
generation rates specified in the Circulation Background section of the General Plan
for East San Rafael or as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The Owner's
Association shall also demonstrate compliance with the maximum use mix allotment
for the Park, specified in Condition (k). Approval of the use permit shall be subject to
the City's finding that the office and light industrial use allotment for the complex has
not been exceeded and that the Business Park will not contribute to traffic generation
in excess of 442 P. M. peak hour trips.
(i) Geology/Soils
1) Site filling shall be to elevation +10 MSL for ultimate grades of +6.5 to +8 MSL
after 30 years of settlement.
he 2) Prior to placement of final fill onn a site d and loose
surficiated.l fills currently existing
on the site should be scarified, co
3) Imported fill should be free of organic material, and contain less than 5% rock or
cobbles. thwest end f the site, filled
4) The seasonal marshland, Rafael Wetlands sou Mitigation Plant shall be drained and
Policies of the East San
pumped dry prior to filling.
nt Condition (b) 1 through 5 for grading and
5) See Public Works Departme
earthwork requirements.
(j) Air Quality
1) Disturbance of any debris fill material as a result of grading, paving, or building
construction shall require proper cappino
covering of the area with clean fill
material, or removal of contaminated material with dis osal at an approved site
to the satisfaction of the State Department of Health Services.
(k) Plant/Animal Life - Wetland Mitigation Plan
The project shall comply with all of the requirements and mitigation measures
established in the East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan, approved U. S. Army
-2-
Corps and BCDC permits. These requirements include but are not limited to the
Following:
1) Dedication in fee or establishment of easements over the pond areas and the
tidelands east of the levee that are to be preserved as well as restoration to the tidal
action and .enhancement. Enhancement shall mean grading and landscaping of
all transitional slopes around the pond area in compliance with the Wetlands
Mitigation Plan. A four foot high vinyl clad cyclone fence -shall be installed
within the inner boundary of the five foot s1dClimbinavin vines 11 be plantedatnd habitat to discourage encroachment into pond ar g
the base to encourage fence screening.
2) Dedication and improvement of the 100 foot wide shoreline band and levee with
improvement of public access and parking from Pelican Way to the Shoreline to
the satisfaction of Bay. Conservationa MMWDIopment and the developer for shoreline
ce
access easement shall be granted from
band access from Pelican Way.
3) The applicant shall not protest the formation of an assessment district to
implement the East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan. If the assessment
district is not formed to implement the plan, the applicants shall be responsible
for their fair share of implementation.
(1)
Traffic/ Circulation
1) The applicant shall not protest the formation of an assessment district to
implement the East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan. If the assessment
district is not formed to implement the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for
their fair share of implementation.
2) Public access to the shoreline band from the end of Pelican Way shall be to design
pproved
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) prior
review approval of the first building. The access design shall include an inviting
entrance from the end of Pelican Way with an access width to the satisfaction of
BCDC and the Planning Director. The actual paved path shall be eight feet wide
and asphalt concrete material. landscaping along the path shall screen the parking
lot yet not obstruct views to the bay. Additionally, a change link fence shall be
installed north of the access path between the access entrance at the Pelican Way
cul-de-sac and the connection to the shoreline access nd to secure the Marin Municipal
the
Water District storage yard and protect path.
3) The Bayview Business Park's traffic mitigation fee obligation, as per City Council
Resolution 7229 dated November 18, 1985, is not to exceed $350,000.00 (as adjusted
by the Lee Saylor Index since January 1984). Each of the seven buildings is
obligated to pay 1/7 (one seventh) of the total traffic mitigation fee for the project.
�) In accordance with the I'erejiiptcsr � ��t 19 Mandate �m�a �3�#�sst,�eydv�ywth�nes
County Superior Court on January
Parte, conaL%ter►t wig this approved Master Use Permit including the maximum
square footages of light industrial and office uses an maximiun i}. M. peak how
trips, shall not be suhipct to further environmental review or the City's Priority
Projects Procedures.
(m) Project Design
1) Each building shall be subject to environmental and design review prior to the
issuance of building permits. Each building shall carry a common architec be
theme with use of similar colors and building materials. Each buildingmay
-3-
subject to minor design alterations approved by the Design Review Board and
staff.
2) Boxing of all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be required in addition to the
roof parapet. The boxing shall be constructed of the same material used for
building siding; Details of equipment storage boxing shall be submitted with the
design review application for each building.
3) A sign program for the entire project shall be submitted with the first design
review application for. a building. Like the building elevations and trash
enclosures, the sign program shall have a common design theme throughout the
project.
(n) The final Master Plan shall be reviewed by the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement
District for any recommended ' mitigation measures regarding mosquito abatement.
This shall be completed prior to -the design review application of the first building.
-4-
E�0 I PJIT 6 1
Gonditions of Approval
ED85-54 —VE,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
51No/;P N
(a) Plans and Permits
1) Engineered improvement plans
shall bermissi(due
with the applications for building p
to phasing of construction).
2) The final finish floor elevations shall be subject
to approval by the City Engineer.
3) Unless overturned by appeal to the City Council,
"handicapped access" requirements mmit issuanst be pled
ce.
with as a condition of building pe
(b) Grading and Earthwork
plans shall be prepared in accordance
1.) The final grading
with the recommendations of the report prepared
by Don Herzog and Associates, dated May 6, 1983.
2) Grading, drainage and foundation plans shall be
reviewed and signed by the soils engineer.
3)
The final site and building plans shall be reviewed
by a Waste MaemnConsultant
measuresohaveinsure
been incorpotht rated
proper methanemitigation
into the designs. A written report shall be submitted
with the application for building permits -
to
4)
Prior issuance of building permits, the final
shall be
plans and reports licantuseh
shall adepositchnrca
Review Board. The app
with the City Engineer to cover the cost of this
review.
5) All earth and foundation work shall be
done
o a under
the direction of a soils engineer, a
inal report shall be submitted prior to acceptance of
the work.
- 17 -
6—I
i
(c) Storm Drainage
l) The improvement plans shall show all existing
and proposed drainage facilities.
2) The gradient of all storm drain systems shall
be designed to accommodate predicted settlements
The el
ans shall show profiles
gradesbefore
and grades after settlement.
3) Storm drainage erti htematerialsies shall etooaccommodate
tructed
of flexible, watg
predicted settlemeand
hallpbecasdrecommended
intrusion. The System
by the soils engineer and approved by the
City Engineer.
4) Runoff from improved meet byall be undergroundcted
and conveyed to the s
conduit and/or under sidewalk drains. Drainage
shall not be diverted or concentrated onto
aor over sidewalks and
adjoining properties,
driveways.
5) The proposed drainage system is approved in
concept only. The final configuration shall
be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
(d) Sanitary Sewers
1) The improvement plansshall show the locations
p
of all existing and proposed sanitary
ewer
facilities.
2) Each of the proposed buildings shall be served
with an individual 4 -inch sewer lateral and/or
a commonly maintained private lateral of not
less than 6 -inches in diameter.
gradient of all gravity sewers shall be
3) The
designed to accommodatepredicted settlements.
The improvement plans shall show profiles
and grades before and after settlement.
4) On-site sanitary sewer facilities
aciliti s shallbe als
constructed of flexible,
to accommodate predicted settlement and to
preclude methane intrusion. The system shall
be as recommended the soilEngineers engineer and
approved by ey
- 18 -
G -A
pr ANNTNG DEPEN-1—
Air
N- -
Air Quality
1) A gas ventilation system shall be indicated
on the final building and grading plans.
This system shall be placedover
directed laway
ll
vt material with discharge pip
from all pedestrian aemployment
Stateactivities.
Department
The plans must be approved
of Health Services.
(j) Water Quality Hydrology
1) The proposed development shall meet finished
flood elevations and other requirements of
Title 18 of the San Rafael Municipal Code
to insure against flooding.
2) A comprehensive erosion and sediment control
plan shall be submitted priortoance of any grading or building permits.
roved through
all graded slopes have eeawaapfrom pond areas
grading permits to slop Y
that are to be preserved, specific measures
such as silt fences and straw bales may be
necessary to provide additional protection
for the ponds.
3)
Five monitoringwells installed for the purpose
of measuring water levels within the fill
shall be required along the perimeter of the
ponds. The water within the wells
sJshall be
tested twice a year starting round water
1, 1986 to insure ates ohat � leachetoxic s into the
from the fill migr
pond areas. The testresults
shall be prepared
by a reputable laboratory and submitted to
the City of San Rafael and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board for review. if leaching
- 20 - 6_+
occurs, additional mitigation measures shall
be required of the developer with conding
to insure implementation.
4) The closed drainage system servicing the surface
runoff shall be designed with impermeable
pipe material and tight joints as required
under Public Works Department conditions (c)
1-5. The final details regarding the drainage
system shall be approved by. the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the City prior to
issuance of a building permit.
(k) Traffic/Circulation
l.) Public parking signs shall be posted on the
parking lot northeast of building "G". -The
signs shall stipulate that the public may
use the parking lot on weekends or after hours
for access to the shoreline band.
2) Parking along the peninsulas northeast of
building "G" and southeast of building "H"
shall be reserved for employee parking for
the office buildings. Heavy landscaping to
include .trees of 24" and 36" box size shall
be planted around the parking lots to provide
screening of parked vehicles.
(1) Project Design
1) Master site plan approval is granted for the
whole 1.2.9 acne site.
2) Design Review approval is granted for buildings
B and C excepting therefrom the design of
facade projections at entryways, which shall
be subject to final approval by the Design
Review Board prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
3) Subsequent design review approval for buildi
A shall be secured from the Design Review
Board_ rp for to issuance of building permits
for building A.
4) Subsequent design review approval for build*
r
F, G and H shall be secured prior to issuance
_of building permits for said buildings. Desi
Review approval may be granted by the Plannin
Director if the architectural elevations are
found to be consistent with the elevations
_approved for buildings B and C.
- 21 - C"Is
5) Prior to issuance of building permits for
buildings B and C, the applicant shall acquire
from the owner the adjoining 2.4 acre parcel,
access easements for Bayview Drive and the
driveway lying westerly of building C. Construction
of these off-site accessways shall be completed
prior to occupancy of buildings B and C. Construction
shall include the landscape planters lying
adjacent to Bayview Drive.
6) All parking lot lighting shall be designed
to shine downward, away from the highway and
street traffic as well as away from the pond
areas, yet provide for the maximum security
necessary to the satisfaction of the Police
and Fire Departments.
7) No steel overhead doors for the light indust
uildings shall face Francisco Boulevard or
Kerner Boulevard.
8) All trash enclosures shall have a common design
and shall be constructed of materials matching
the building walls.
9) Turf or lawn area shall be provided along
landscape islands fronting the public streets.
These areas shall be mounded to a height not
to exceed three feet to provide sigh distance
at driveways and intersections. Box trees
of 24" and 36': size shall be utilized in these
islands. Low maintenance ground cover shall be
used in lieu of the lawn proposed in the area
between Dayview Drive and the lagoon.
10) Design details of the decorative stamped pavinp,_
shall be reviewed bz the Planning Department
prior to issuance of any b5_17 -1 -ring permits.
Deleted.
- 22 -
C ��p
EXHIBIT 8 flit eco: `o �
ORDINANCE NO, 1.474
AN ORDINANCE ZF TM CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA.
DOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.15
A .020 OF THEkUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, $O AS TO
REC LASSIFX CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM "U" AND INDUSTRIAL)
(UNCLASSIFIED AND PLANNED COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDURICT )
DISTRICTS TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPl+�NI?I9TRI�_
(Francisco Blvd., south of Pelican Way)
(BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RA"AEL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
DIVISION I. The Zoning Map 0Y the City of San Rafael,
California, adopted by reference by BeatIO0 14.1$.020 of the Muni-
cipal Code ie amended by reclassify£ng the 80110wing real property
from "U" and P -C -M (Unclassified and 'Planned Commercial Light
Industrial) pi®tricta to P -D (Planned Urvolopment) Di®triet. Said
property Sao reclassified is located on Franaieco 8au1evard eouth of
Pelican Way, San Rafael, County Assessor's Parcels 9-290-31 and 34
described in Exhibit "B"-
DIVI� SIGN 2. Any development of this property nhnll be
subject to the conditions outlin-d in Vxhibit ".t" -hich i- attached
hereto and made a part heroof.
DIVISrON J, This Ordinance shall be nublishe6 once in full
before its final Passage in a newspaper of general circulation,
publisbed and circulated in the City of Ban Rafael, and shall be in
''l^� days atter its final passage
a
At --11+:
ORDINANCE NG 474
The foregoing Ordinance No. 1474 was read and intro-
duced at a _ regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
San Rafael, held on the 3rd day of January , 1984, and
ordered passed to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYF.S: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Rusaom L Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNC ILME14DERS : None
ABSENT: COUNCILMSUERS: None
and will come up for adoption as as Ordinance of the City of San
Rafael at a regular meeting of the Council to be held oh the
18th day of January-' 1984.
28.2 A/i
1 i ♦ '�
077`"ami
- 2 -
(g)
(C )
(d )
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions which were included as part of the zoning
(Z82-16) action by the Planning Commission on October 25, 1983.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Plans and Permits
1 Engineered -r—mprovement plans shall be submitted with the applications for
building permits (due to phasing of construction).
2) The final finish floor elevations shall be subject to approval by the
City Engineer,
3) Unless overturned by appeal to the City Council, "handicapped access"
requirements must be complied with as a condition of building permit
Issuance,
-Grading and Earthwork
IT The Tinal grading pians shall be prepared in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the report prepared by Don Herzog and Associates, dated
May 6, 1983,
2) Grading, drainage and foundation plans shall be reviewed and signed by
the soils engineer.
3) The final site and building plans shall be reviewed by a Waste Management
Consultant to insure that proper methane mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the designs. A written report shall be submitted with
the application for building permits. -
4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the final plans and reports shall
be submitted to the Geotechnical Review Board. The applicant shall make
a deposit with the City Engineer to cover the cost of this review.
5) All earth and foundation work shall be done under the direction of a soils
engineer; and a final report shall be submitted prior to acceptance of
the work,
Storm Drainage
1 F The improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed drainage facil-
ities.
2) The gradient of all storm drain systems shall be designed to accommodate
predicted settlements. The improvement plans shall show profiles and grades
before and after settlement.
3) 5Iorm drainage facilities shall be cons,,ruC O -d of flexible, watertight
materials to accommodate predicted settlement and to preclude methane
intrusion, The system shall be as recommended by the soils engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
4) Runoff from improved areas shall be collected and conveyed to the street
by underground conduit and/or under sidewalk drains. Drainage shall not
be diverted or concentrated onto adjoining properties; or over sidewalks
and driveways,
5) The proposed drainage system is approved in concept only. The final con-
figuration shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer,
Sanitary Sewers
The Improvement plans shall show the location of all existing and proposed
sanitary sewer facilities.
2) Each of the proposed buildings shall be served with an individual 4 -inch
searer lateral and/or a commonly maintained private lateral of not less than
6 -inches in diameter.
3) The gradient of all gravity sanitary sewers shall be designed to accommodate
predicted settlements- The improvement plans shall show profiles and grades
before and after settlement.
4) On-site sanitary sewer facilities shall be constructed of flexible, water-
tight materials to accommodate predicted settlement and to preclude methane
intrusion. The system shall as recommended by the soils engineer and
approved by the City Enginee•
(e) Streets and Roa
1 The improvement plans shall show the horizontal and vertical alignment of
roadways. This shall be subject to the approval of the dire Department and
the City Traffic Engineer.
2) Right-of-way for the construction of Kerner Boulevard and Pelican 14ay
shall be dedicated to the City in fee• roved street widths identified
3) The roadways shall be constructed to the app
in the Redevelopment Plan.
4) All roadways shall have structural sections .based upon a Traffic Index
determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
5) The final roadway design shall be reviewed by the soils engineer and shall
be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
(f) Fronta a Improvements
The improvement plans shall show all proposed and existing frontage improve
Ments.
2) New curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed along the entire Kerner
Boulevard, Pelican Way and Francisco Boulevard frontages.
(g) Utilities
e improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed utilities.
2) All utility services shall be underground.
3) Street lights shall be installed. The number, location and type of lights
shall be subject to approval by the Police, Planning and Public Works
Departments.
(h) Levees and Seawalls
he existing evee shall be reconstructed to conform
current
tlaCity-and Mgation
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers standards, as approved in the
Plan."
2) The improvement plans shall show all proposed and existing waterfront
improvements.
(i) A regiments and Securities
1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall formally
agree not to protest the formation of an assessment district to construct
Kerner Boulevard and Pelican Way and to implement the approved "Wetlands
Mitigation Plan." This agreement shall be prepared by the applicant's eounseT
in a form agreeable to the City Attorney.
2) Construction of proposed public improvements ma.Y be deferred for one (1)
year from project approvals dates pending the formation of the proposed
assessment. districts PLANNING nEPARTMENT
(J) gaster Plan approval shall be grant for , - .�,�ti.ated site pi_n date gepteta-
ber 16, 1983. This master plan includes 11 buildings with 104,730 sq. ft.
of office use and light
40f�tgindustrial®and136t000dsgtrft� ofuse
researchto land'develop�
192
sq, 'Ft. of general g
ment use).
(k) Geolo /Soils
Site filling shall be to elevation +10 MSL for ultimate grades of +6.5 t4
+8 MSL after 30 years of settlement.
2) Prior to placement
of on theasitell on shouldhbesite, te loose scarified, fills
currently axis com-
pacted,
3) Imported fill should be free of organic material, and contain less than
5% rock or cobbles.
4) The seasonal marshland, southwest end of the site, permitted to be filled
under the policies of the East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan, shall
be drained and pumped dry prior to filling.
r,} ',ee Public Works Department condition (b) 1-5 for grading and earthwork
requi rements .
Voicvr'vvc• vu o4 nr.
(1) Air ualit
1 A gas ventilationh}�55(stemshall
shall be instalindicated
led beneathfinal
thebuilding
foundatand
ion of
grading plans-
the structures. The system shall be placed over the old fill material
with discharge pipes directed away from all pedestrian and employment
activities. The plans must be approved by the State Department of
Health Services.
2) Disturbance of any debris fill material as a result ofgradingr,pavin ,
or building construction shall require proper capping o
the
area with clean fill material, or removal of contaminated material with
disposal at an approved site to the satisfaction of the State Department
of Health Services.
jm) water Qual7drolo,
Th@ proposed development shall meet finished flood elevations and other
requirements de Title 18 of the San Rafael Municipal Code to insure against
flooding.
2) A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits. Although all graded
slopes have been approved through grading permits to slope away from
pond areas silt
d strawabales mayre to be pbesnecessaryetof provideic additional res such s
that additionalprotection
fences an
for the ponds.
3) Five monitoring wells installed for the purpose of measuring water levels
within the fill shall be required along the perimeter of the ponds. The
water within the wells shall be tested twice a year starting from
January 1, 1984, to insure that no toxic ground water from the fill
migrates or leaches into the pond areas. The test results shall be
prepared by a reputable laboratory and submitted to the City of San
Rafael and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review. if
leaching occurs, additional mitigation measures shall be required of the
developer with bonding to insure implementation.
4) The closed drainage system servicing' the surface runoff shall be designed
with impermeable pipe material and tight joints asrequiredunder Public
Works Department conditions (c)1d the Regional The final tWater ails rQuality Control
drainage system shall be approvarding the
ed by
Board and the City prior to issuance of a building permit.
(n) Plant/Animal Life o Wetlands hliti ation Plan
Th- proj2ct� sha com IV wit, ;,A of the requirements and mitigation measures
established in th®Ctast San Rafael Wrequiaementsgincludelbut arernot6li'mited
Army Corps and DC P
to the following:
1) Dedication in feeorf'e
the tidelands east otheblevee ethat nt fare sto@besp�eserved asver the nwelieas and
as
restoration to tidal action and enhancement. Enhancement shall mean
grading and landscaping of all transitional slopes around the pond area
in compliance with the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. A four foot high
vinyl clad cyclone fence shalt be installed within the inner boundary of
the five foot wide landscape buffer/upland habitat to discourage
encroachment into pond areas.
Climbing vines shall be planted at the
base to encourage
(p) Project Desi n
} parking lot lighting shall be designed to shine downward, away from
the highway and street traffic as well as away from the pond areas, yet
provide for the maximum security necessary to the satisfaction of the
Police and Fire Departments. prior to
2) Each building shall be subject to environmental design review, p
issuance of building permits, Each building shall carry a common
architectural theme with use of similar colors and building materials,
Each building may be subject to minor design alterations approved by the
Design Review Board and staff.
3) No steel overhead doors for the light industrial buildings shall face
Francisco Boulevard or Kerner Boulevard. All overhead doors shall be
painted the same calor as the building siding.
4) The stucco stone material proposed for decorative posts shall be
replaced with masonry, wood or stucco, to match other building materials.
5) Boxing of all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be required in addition
to the roof parapet. The boxing shall be constructed of the same material
used for building siding. Details of equipment storage boxing shall be
submitted with the design review application for each building.
6) All trash enclosures shall have a common design. Each enclosure shall
be constructed of masonry material, with stucco, wood trim and trellis
top to match the building elevations. Trash enclosures shall be located
away from driveway entranceways, the pond areas and other visually
prominent areas. Details of each trash enclosure shall be submitted' with
the design.review application for each building.
7) Building elevations for buildings I, J, & K shall be redesigned to the
satisfaction of the Design Review Board and staff. E.arger roof overhangs
and a different roof hip pitch should be considered in the redesign.
8) The three 3 -story office buildings as proposed shall be permitted provided
that the elevations comply with previous condition 6), the plaza area of
building K is better oriented toward the central plaza area, and the
third story is setback or otherwise designed to reduce building bulk.
9) A comprehensive landscape plan for the project hall accompany the first
design review application. Turf or lawn area s all be provided along
landscape islands fronting the public streets. These areas shall be
mounded to a height not to exceed three feet toiprovide sight distance at
ariveways and infprsections. Bo:: tree -z nf 24" end 36" size shall be
utilized in these islands. The landscape plan shah include improvemenLs
for the shoreline band and public access connecirion from Pelican Way.
The landscaping irrigation, public access and directional signage, paving,
and furniture for the shoreline band and public access shall be equivalent
to that approved for Spinnaker Point 4 and 5,
10) decorative stamped concrete or bomanite type paiing shall be required at
all entrance driveways and the parking lot areas connecting the office
buildings with the central plaza area.
11) A sign program for the entire project shall be submitted with the first
design enclosures, the sign w application for aprogram nshall g. ,have ha commonndesigna
tions
and trashsh ctheme
throughout the project.
(q) The final master plan shall be reviewed by the. Marin4SOnoma Mosquito Atatement
District for any recommended mitigation measures regarding mosquito abatement.
This shall be completed prior to the design review application of the first
building.
Specific Police and Fire, Department development standards shall be imposed at
the time of each individual design review.
(s) This zone change and conceptual design review approva�l is valid for 18 months
from the effective date cf the City Council approved i zone change.
2) Dedication .„d improvement of the 100 foot wide shoreline band and levee
with improvement of public access and parking from Pelican way to the
shoreline to the satisfaction of Bay Conservation and Development Com-
mission. A public access easement shall be granted from MMWD and the
developer for shoreline band access from Pelican Way.
3) The applicant shall not protest the formation of an assessment district
to implement the East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan. If the
assessment district is not formed to implement the plan, the applicants
shall be responsible for their fair share of implementation.
(o) Traffic/Circulation
11 The applicant shall not protest the formation of an assessment district
for improvement of Kerner Boulevard and Pelican Way. The applicant may be
responsible for full improvement of Pelican Way if MMWD chooses not to
participate in the assessment district. A payback provision for
improvement of MM;•!D"s one-half of the street right-of-way shall be required.. -
Z} Public parking signs shall be posted on the parking lot northeast of
building "K". The signs shall stipulate that the public may use the
parking lot on weekends or after hours for access to the shoreline band.
3) Public access to the shoreline band from the end of Pelican Way shall
be approved by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
prior to design review approval of the first building. The access
design shall include an inviting entrance from the end of Pelican Way
with an access width to the satisfaction of BCDC and the Planning
Director. The actual paved path shall be eight feet wide and a h It
concrete ma r an scaping along the path shall screen the parking
yet not ab5t_r-ucc _jewS--to--th"ay-. Additionally, a chain link fence
spa Tl be installed north of the access path between the access entrance
at the Pelican Way cul-de-sac and the connection to the Shoreline band to,
secure the �9arin i1u��iei _�1 �:a�er DiS�rict Stor4 q__y_drd_a_nd_protect the
0-Ona
4) Pare ng along the peninsulas northeast of building "K" and southeast of
building "J" shall be reserved for erployee parking for the office buildings.
Heavy landscaping t� include gees of 24" and 36" box size shallbepl-anted
around the parking lots to provide screening of parked vehicles,
5) The applicant shall pay an amount not to exceed $350,000 (1983) as the
project's fair share of _traffi_g.. mi_t gation_fees—far deyelopment in East
San Rafael.
,) T;it project is phased and located in a traffic Censitive area, and the
City Council wili take all reasonable steps and use all reasonable resources
to see that the project will not result, at the time of occupancy, in
el be
Service Levw D at the critical Bellam Sou.ersections.
7) The project shall' be phased in the following order;
Phase 1, It, industrial/research and development - first 18 to 24 months.
Phase II, office - second 18 to 24 months.
Phase III, 1t. industrial - third 18 to 24 months.
An adjustment in the project phasing :-,ay be proposed by the applicant and
approved by the Planning Commission provided that any change in phasing
does not intensify traffic approved under that phase.
6) Prior to issuance of building permits for office buildings I, J, and K,
the developer shall-submit a Transportation Systems Management program
prepared bj!a qualified eo"nSuTtant. Such a program may include staggered
worms hours, carpoo s vanpoois�and employee incentives for participation.
Such employee incentives may include cash, preferential parkin , etc. A
reduction in the anount of required parking may be considered if additional
setuacks ?re provided around the yearround ronds, Tf the hiildings are occu-
pied by multiple tenants, a TSM progran may be required of the property manage-
ment, The buiiding�leases could require that individual tenants participate
in a TSM program,
EXHIBIT "6"
Situated in the State of California, County of Marin, City of San Rafael and
described as follows.
BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of the property described
as "Parcel Two" in the Deed from Marin Canalways and Development
Company, a corporation to t4arin Development Company, a limited
partnership, recorded March 26, 2956 in Volume 1016 of Official
Records, at page 24, Marin County Records, being the intersection
of the two courses "North 38® 321 42" West 360,71 feet and -North
510 27' 18" East 210.0 feet" in said Deed; running thence on meridian
of said "Parcel Two", North 380 321 $2" West 266,67 feet; thence
Nort.11 51.0 27' 1,8" East 1865 feet; thence Southeasterly in a direct
line for a distance of 906 feet, more or less, to a point on the
Easterly line of Fide Land Lot 9 in Section 12, T 1 N, R 6.W,
m. D.m. , distant North 1" 17' 181° East 2007.28 feet (measured along
the Easterly Imes of Tide Land Lots 25.24 and 9 in said Section.
12) from the Northeast corner of the property described in the
Deed from Marin Canalways and Development Company to the State bf
California, recorded September 25, 1957 in Volume 1143, official
Records, at page 185, Marin County Records; thence Southerly along
the Easterly lines of said Tide Land Lots 9 and 24 for a distance
of 506.28 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of the property
described in "Parcel one" in the Deed from Marin Canalways
and development Company, a corporation to Equitable Development
company recorded in Volume 1160, Official Records; at page 382,
I4arin County Records; thence along the Northerly lines of said
"Parcel, one", North 88° 42° 42" West 660.0 feet to the Easterly line
of Fide Land Lot 17 in Section ll_; thence along said Easterly
line North la 17' 18" East 138.0 feet; thence leaving said last
mentioned line, North 51' 14' West 288.0 feet, more or less, to the
most Northerly corner of said "Parcel One"; thence along the
Northwesterly line of said parcel, South 380 46' West 1048.0 feet,
more or less, to the true point of beginning of said "Parcel
one", being a point on the Norgheaster.iy line of "Parcel -1wo'° in
the Deed recorded in Volume 1016, Official Records, at page 24,
Marin County Records, hereinabove referred to; thence Northwesterly
along the Northeasterly live of said "Parcel Two", for a distance
of 460.0 feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner thereof;
thence along the Northwesterly line of said parcel, South 510 271
18" West 210.0feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEP`1'ING THEREFROM any portion thereof lying within the
boundaries of California State Highway.
AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion conveyed to the Nature
Conservancy, a non-profit District of Columbia corporation by
deed recorded December 30, 1969, Book 2347, official Records, Page
512, Marin County Records.
EXHIBIT 9
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are invited to attend the Planning Commission hearing on the following project:
PROJECT: 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Blvd & 85-101 Glacier Point Rd. — Review of a Zone
Change and Master Use Permit to amend the approvals granted for the Bayview Business Park light
mdustrial/office complex, which consists of 7 commercial buildings totaling 224,509 gross square
feet on 12.9 acres, in order to: a) eliminate the Trip Generation development standard requirement,
and b) reconcile the maximum building area and allowable mix of office and light industrial
development to match the built -out conditions of the complex; APN: 009-291-15, 16, 22, 23, 39,
421 54, 55, 56, 57, 69 & 70; Planned Development (PD 1675) District; Bayview Business Park
Owners Association, owner/applicant; File No(s).: ZC 12-001 & UP 12-040.
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed Planning staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration for the project which meets the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). A 20 -day public review and comment period on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration
was initiated on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 and shall conclude on Tuesday, ,i, —1ch 26, 2013. Public comments
on the Negative Declaration shall also accepted at the Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, March 26.
2013.
HEARING DATE: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street
San Rafael, California
WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The Planning Commission will consider all public testimony and
HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the project applications.
IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San
ATTEND: Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the
meeting.
FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or
INFORMATION: kraig.tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office,
located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 am. to 12:45 p.m. on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday
before the meeting at ft://www.cLtyofsanrafael.org/meetin
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
/s/ Paul A Jensen
Paul A Jensen
Community Development Director
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter
described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b)
(2))•
Appeals of decisions by the Planning Commission to the City Council shall be made by filing a notice thereof in writing with the
required fee to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department within 5 working days of a decision involving Title
14 (Zoning) (SRMC Section 14.28.030) or within 10 calendar days of a decision involving Title 15 (Subdivisions) (SRMC 15.56.010).
Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198
(TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request.
Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling
Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964.
To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested
to refrain from wearing scented products.