HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2013-01-29 #3CITY OF
:�74W Meeting Date: January 29, 2013
Agenda Item:
Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 009
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Katie Korzun (415) 485-3134
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 580 Franciso Blvd. West (Ulta Beauty Products) - Request for Environmental and
Design Review Permit, Use Permit and a Sign Program Modification to allow the
construction of 10,000 square foot commercial building, the addition of beauty supply
sales, a parking reduction of 43 spaces, and a 48 inch high sign in the Toys R Us
Shopping Center; APN: 018-014-043, 045, 051, 057; Francisco Blvd. West Commercial
District (FBWC) District; Seth Nobmann, owner, Chipman Design Architects, applicant;
File No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project involves the construction of a new retail building in the Toys R Us Center that would be
occupied by Ulta Beauty Products, a large scale national retailer. Architecturally, the new building would
have the same materials colors and general design of the existing building. A unanimous
recommendation for approval was given by the Design Review Board with adjustments to the site
improvements and landscaping which have been incorporated by the applicant. A determination of the
appropriate building and paving setback from a wetlands area at the rear of the site was done by a
wetlands consultant, and is reflected in the site layout and revised planting. A parking reduction of 43
spaces was evaluated by a parking consultant and found that the center would still maintain adequate
parking for all the uses, including this new building. This parking modification was accepted by the City's
Traffic Division. An increase in letter height on the main building sign to 48 inches was found to be an
appropriate design element by the Design Review Board, and was recommended for approval. Finally,
the addition of Ulta Beauty Products to the Center was found by staff to be consistent with the purpose of
the FBWC District.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving an Environmental and
Design Review Permit, Use Permit and a Sign Program Modification to allow the construction of 10,000
square foot commercial building, the,inclusion of beauty supply sales in the Center, a parking reduction
of 43 spaces, and a 48 inch high sign in the Toys R Us Shopping Center, with conditions.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location:
580 Francisco Blvd. West (new
Parcel Numbers:
APN: 018-014-043,
address for this building); 588 -
045,051,057;
600 FBW(existing addresses
Property Size: 1369,150 sq.ft. (8.47 Ac.) Nei hborhood: I Franciso Blvd. West
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 2
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Desi nation Existing Land -Use
Project Site:
General Commercial (GC)
Francisco Blvd, West
Commercial (FBWC)
Toys R Us Center
North:
General Commercial (GC)
General Commercial (GC)
Hwy 101, Toyota
dealership
South:
Industrial (1)
Industrial (1)
Industrial, SMART Line
East:
General Commercial (GC)
Francisco Boulevard West
Commercial FBWC
VW/Audi Dealership
under construction
West:
General Commercial (GC)
Francisco Boulevard West
Commercial FBWC
RAB Motors
Site Description/Setting: The Toys R Us Center is located approximately midway along the freeway
oriented development fronting Francisco Blvd. West (FBW), and is highly visible from the freeway. The
site is 8.3 acres in size, relatively flat, and has been filled and raised to an elevation at or slightly above
the level of Francisco Blvd. West. However, the newest parking area, the area adjacent to RAB Motors,
is lower than the rest of the site. Approximately one acre at the rear of the site, between the rear fence
line and the adjacent SMART right of way, has habitat value. The existing 83,495 sq. ft. building is L-
shaped, and is located behind the major parking areas which are adjacent to FBW. Existing uses include
Toys R Us, TJ Maxx, and Barbeques Galore, and there are 386 parking spaces.
BACKGROUND
The Toys R Us Center was first approved in 1990 (ED90-59 and UP09-49) as a four phase project on an
8.5 acre lot, with an 83,550 sq.ft. building and 426 parking spaces. This approval assumed there would
be a loss of lot area and parking with the Highway 101 widening project. A number of amendments were
processed for adjustments to the site plan and approval of tenants (UP90-59 (a), (b), (c), and (d)) and
resulted in a building area of 84,495 sq. ft. and 431 parking spaces. Ultimately, a slightly smaller building
of 83,495 sq. ft. was constructed. In 1993, a City wide rezoning changed the Zoning from Unclassified
(U), to Francisco Boulevard West Commercial (FBWC) as part of the implementation actions related to
General Plan 2000.
In 2006, Caltrans completed the Highway 101 widening project which removed an area 65 to 90 feet
wide along the Center's entire frontage. UP06-040, UP06-058 and UP07-058 allowed the repair and re-
landscaping of the main parking lot and the utilization of an adjacent 0.8 acre lot to the west (APN 018-
014-57) for employee parking. Finally, in 2007, ED07-088 and UP07-055 approved site, parking and
landscape plans for the post freeway widening situation. This incorporated the employee lot into the
Center and resulted in an 8.47 acre development with a 83,495 sq. ft. building and 387 parking spaces
(more parking than required). To complete the site revisions necessitated by the freeway widening, a
new freestanding sign was approved in 2009 by SR08-064.
In 2011, ED11-081 approved a facade change for TJMaxx, which resulted in new parapet entries, and
SP1 1-008 approved an amendment to the Sign Program for the TJMaxx sign.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning applications under consideration are an Environmental and Design Review Permit for the
approval of site, elevations and signs for the addition of a new 10,000 sq.ft. building to the existing Toys
R Us Center (Chapter 14.25.040.A); a Use Permit to evaluate conformance of beauty products sales to
the FBWC use criteria (Chapter 14.05.020 A 3); review of a parking modification to reduce the number of
spaces provided from 374 to 331 (Chapter 14.18.040 B); and a minor amendment to the Sign Program to
allow 48. inch high letters (Chapter 14.19.048 B).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 3
Use: The proposed use is Ulta Beauty Products, a retail tenant selling cosmetics, fragrances, haircare
and skin care as well as a salon with selected services, located in a new free standing building. This
large scale specialty product facility is anticipated to provide complementary sales items to the clothing,
toys and other retail specialty purveyors in the Center. Hours -of operation would be 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.,
Mondays through Fridays, and noon to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
Site Plan: This new 10,000 sq. ft. retail building is in the parking area to the west of TJMaxx and
occupies a portion of the large triangular landscape area at the rear of the lot. It is separated from the
main building by the existing two way drive aisle and has a 5 foot setback from the existing wood fence
separating the habitat area from the site activity areas. A 25 foot setback is provided between the
building and the wetlands. The main pedestrian entrance faces Francisco Blvd West and a pedestrian
walkway extends along the building front to provide access to the main building and the westerly parking
lot as directed by the Design Review Board. A trash enclosure is located at the rear of the building. A
short flight of stairs are needed at the building front as the finish floor level of the building is elevated
above the parking lot level to comply with flood plain requirements. ADA compliant access to the front
entrance and accessible parking is provided from both sides of the front entrance. The parking lot
revisions result in 331 proposed spaces where 374 are required by Code, a modification of 43 spaces.
Basic circulation in the lot remains unchanged; the existing two way driveway access to the rear of the
main building, the front parking lot and the parking to the west of the new building remain. Landscape
areas are provided on all sides of the building, and a replacement planter is provided at the end of the
shortened row of parking spaces.
Architecture: Overall, the design intent is to repeat the materials, colors, details and appearance of the
main building. The EIFS facade, reveals, cornice, metal panels, split face masonry are the same as the
existing building. The round column support elements at the corners and entries of the main building are
not used on the new building; square elements are proposed.
Landscaping: Landscaping is provided on all sides of the building and new finger planters are added to
the shortened row of parking. New trees would be provided in the parking lot, and the landscape
materials would be the same as those currently used in the lot. A new planter was added in front of the
building as directed by the Design Review Board. Overall, the landscape area is reduced from 18.4% of
the developed lot to 17.5% which is more than the 15% required by Code. The habitat area at the rear of
the lot is not included in these calculations. Revisions are proposed to the habitat area planting.
Grading/Drainage: In order to comply with flood standards, the finished floor level must be elevated
above the level of the parking lot by approximately 4 feet. This elevation change would be achieved
through the import of 1,000 cu/yds of material that would be placed directly under the slab and contained
by the building foundations, thus increasing the height of the building. Sections A and B on the site plan
show how this is accomplished. A ramp and stairs provide access to the main building entry from the
unchanged elevation and grade of the parking lot.
Signage: Two signs are proposed. Individually illuminated white letters would be used in a 41.9 sq.ft.
sign with a maximum height of 4 feet over the front entry. The letters are 32 inches high, but the
combination of letters and the "Swoosh" element have an overall height of 48 inches. A non -illuminated
projecting sign, 4.95 sq. ft. in area, is proposed on the left side of the entry element. It would have white
letters on a Persian Melon colored background.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
Staff has reviewed the project and found it to -be consistent with the relevant General Plan Policies.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 4
LU -23 Land Use
The site has a land use designation of General Commercial. Specialty retail uses such as the proposed
beauty supply sales are listed as appropriate in the General Commercial designation.
LU -9 Intensity of Non -Residential Development
The addition of 10,000 sq. ft. building area to the site increases the FAR from 0.23 to 0.25 which is less
that the 0.32 allowed. .
CD -10 Non -Residential Design Guidelines
As proposed, the design of the building is similar to and consistent with the existing building, and
appears as an integral part of the development. All materials, colors, finishes match those on the
existing building, and the cornice element is the same. The change from rounded to square corner
elements is a minor adjustment and is complimentary to the overall building design. A unanimous
recommendation for approval was made by the DRB.
CD -18 Landscaping
Additional trees, shrubs and groundcover from the existing plant palette would be installed to replace the
plant material removed. New planters are proposed that enhance and compliment the building's
appearance.
NH -103 Specialty Retail Uses
Upgrade and redevelop portions of Franciso Blvd West area visible from Highway 101 with specialty
retail uses that can capitalize on the Highways 101 frontage and visibility, while minimizing traffic
impacts. Specialty retail uses include automobile sales, bulk retail sales, region serving retail uses and
hotels.
A large scale, nation brand retailer is a region serving use and is consistent with this policy. This is
discussed in more detail in the Use Permit analysis.
Conservation Element
A low lying area at the back of the site, adjacent to the SMART right of way, was identified in the initial
1990 approval to be a seasonal wetland, and a setback waiver for the building was granted.
Subsequently, General Plan 2020 Exhibit 37 Watershed and Creeks, designated both the seasonal
wetland at the back of the site and the open drainage channel along the northwestern boundary as
reaches of Irwin Creek. Because there are different policies and setbacks for wetlands and creeks, an
analysis by a qualified biologist was required (Exhibit 3) to first determine whether the areas in question
were wetland, creek or drainageway; and secondly, to determine the appropriate setback.
CON -6. Creek and Drainageway Setbacks. Require development -free setbacks, except for specific
access points as approved per policy CON -7 (Public Access to Creeks), from existing creeks and
drainageways that would maintain the functions and resulting values of these habitats. Appropriate
erosion control and roadway crossings may encroach into the development setback. In the absence
of vegetation, promote new growth of natural habitat.
a. Creek Setback. Maintain a minimum 25 -foot development -free setback from the top of creek
banks for all new development (including, but not limited to, paving and structures)
b. Drainageway Setbacks. Drainageway setbacks shall be established through individual
development review, taking into account existing habitat functions and resulting values.
The analysis concluded that the open drainage channel to the northwest should be characterized as a
drainageway rather than a creek as it is clearly an improved drainage channel in a developed setting. Its
banks lack riparian vegetation and it does not support any significant habitat values that would merit 25 -
foot setbacks as per CON 6 creek standards. The appropriate setback from this channel is provided by
the CON -6 drainageway standards. Paving and drainage improvements already exist along the top of
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 5
bank and would not change substantially as a result of the project; and surface runoff is currently
directed away from the channel into central inlets in the parking lot. Consequently, minimum setbacks
and other measures sufficient to protect water quality are already in place. Based on this analysis, staff
recommends that the area be considered a drainageway. The proposed building does not change the
existing setback, and is consistent with this recommendation.
The analysis also concluded that designating the area at the rear of the site as a creek is inappropriate
because it does not meet the basic definition of a creek. This is a wetland that is an isolated remnant of
a once more extensive tidal marsh system, with no flow line, incised channel bed, obvious scour or other
indications that surface water regularly flows through the area. The wetland is elevated above, and not
clearly connected hydrologically to the open channel at its northwest end. Shallow groundwater rather
than surface water appears to be the main support for the hydrophytes in this area. The analysis
determined that if the City continues to consider this wetland area a creek based on Exhibit 37, a creek
setback waiver for a minor encroachments should be granted.
Based on this analysis, staff recommends that the area at the back of the site continue to be assessed
as a seasonal wetland, which is consistent with the 1990 determination, and the project evaluated under
CON -4 Wetlands.
CON -4. Wetland Setbacks. Maintain a minimum 50 -foot development -free setback from wetlands,
including, but not limited to, paving or structures. The City may waive this requirement for minor
encroachments if it can be demonstrated that the proposed setback adequately protects the functions
of the wetland to the maximum extent feasible and resulting values to the satisfaction of the City after
review by the appropriate regulatory agencies.
The original approval for the Center was granted under General Plan 2000 which had a policy for a 50
foot setback for structures, but no paving setback. A waiver was granted to reduce the setback to 20 ft.
for a corner of the building (Exhibit 4). Paving came up to the edge of the wetland in the southeastern
portion of the site (against a retaining wall) and averaged 15-20 feet from the wetland edge for the rest of
the site. This situation was determined adequate to protect the wetland, provided that the fill slope
adjacent to the wetland was landscaped with native materials, primarily oaks, willows and coyote bush,
and a screen fence installed at the top of the slope. This landscaping and fence was installed and
remains in place.
The habitat analysis (Exhibit 3) then determined the appropriate setback for any building and pavement.
The analysis determined that development following the standards already established on the site (i.e.
portions of buildings or structures within 20 feet of the wetland and pavement up to the existing screen
fence) would not further compromise the functions and values of the seasonal wetland. Its relatively low
habitat quality, isolation and surrounding uses do not justify establishment of large setbacks or buffers for
the relatively minor new encroachment proposed. The analysis recommends maintaining at a minimum,
the existing setback adjacent to the wetland for any new buildings or paved area, and that the setback be
considered the existing fence. It concludes that instead of a 50 -foot development free zone following the
CON -4 standard, wetland preservation goals would be better served through directed maintenance and
restoration activities in the wetland and adjacent fill slope including trash removal, non-native species
control, additional plantings and other measures.
All proposed improvements meet the recommended setback. At least a 5 foot setback is maintained
between any portion of the building, trash enclosure, walkway and paving from the existing screen fence.
The vegetative cover required by the City and installed by the property owner has attracted homeless
encampments and the accumulation of related debris and has been a persistent issue for the Fire
Department and property owner. Additional input was requested from the habitat consultant as to what
the "directed maintenance and restoration activities in the wetland and adjacent fill slope including trash
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 6
removal, non-native species control, additional plantings and other measures" referenced in their
October 2012 report (Exhibit 3) would entail. The conclusion (Exhibit 4) was that the periodic trimming
and maintenance of the existing trees, removal of non -natives and trash, as was done in October, was
appropriate. This would provide clear line of sight and safe fire conditions. If trees die or are otherwise
removed, they should be replaced and gaps in the shrub cover replanted. Condition #11 of the
Environmental and Design Review permit has been added to require ongoing maintenance.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 5 Commercial and Office Districts
The project is located in the Francisco Blvd. West Commercial (FBWC) District which is intended to
provide specialty retail uses with regional area appeal. New uses must demonstrate consistency with
specific use criteria through the evaluation of a use permit, which is done in the use permit section below.
As proposed, the new building would have a maximum height of 25 feet from finished floor and 27 feet
from the adjacent ground. This is less than the 36 feet allowed. No setbacks are required. A total of
15% of the lot is required to be landscaped, and 17.5% is proposed. The landscape area is dispersed
throughout the site.
Chapter 16 — Site and Use Regulations
The allowed FAR for the site is 0.32 for specialty retail uses. The existing FAR for the 83,495 sq.ft.
building is 0.23. With the addition of 10,000 sq.ft. Ulta building, the FAR would be 0.25 and is within the
allowable limit.
Chapter 18 — Parking Standards
Currently, the site has more parking than is required. Constructing the new building would both remove
parking and increase the amount of parking required. The changes in parking are shown in the following
table.
Building
Area
Required
Parking
Parking
Provided
Spaces
Over/ Under
Existing 83,497
334
368
34
Proposed 93,497
374
331
(43)
As proposed, the site would have 43 fewer spaces than required by Code at 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of
building area for a shopping center land use, and a parking modification has been requested. A parking
demand analysis (Exhibit 5) was prepared under the specific direction of the City's Traffic Division.
Parking counts were conducted in the fall and in December, to assess the holiday and non -holiday
parking demand for the Center. Parking demand was also estimated by using the demand factors in the
ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) manual. Both methodologies determined that 331 spaces would be
adequate for the Center. The analysis also identified that the parking areas in front of the existing
building were the areas most heavily used and that the parking in the proposed building location was the
area with the lightest parking usage. The analysis concluded that proposed parking reduction of 43
spaces, leaving a total parking count of 331 spaces, provided adequate parking for the Center. This
conclusion was supported by the City's Traffic Division.
Chapter 19 — Signs
The initial approval of the development in 1990 (ED90-59) included sign design standards that were later
incorporated into a Sign Program (SR08-64) which allowed 48 inch high signs for the main tenant and 30
inch high signs for other tenants. Blade signs are not included in the approved Sign Program. Sign
modifications for increases over the 30 inches have been requested and approved for several tenants;
the most recent was the TJMaxx sign increase to 48 inches.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 7
Two signs are proposed for the new building. Individually illuminated white letters would be used in a
41.9 sq. ft. sign with a maximum height of 4 feet over the front entry. A non -illuminated projecting sign,
4.95 sq. ft. in area, is proposed on the left side of the entry element. It would have white letters on a
Persian Melon colored background. The sign area is consistent with the sign program, but the 48 inch
high sign and the blade sign would require a minor amendment.
Sign Program amendments must demonstrate consistency with the overall sign program criteria as
shown below.
Common Design Element: All of the signs in the program must have one or more common design
element. The building sign has several elements shared with the other signs, including individually
illuminated letters, mounting on the parapet, and centrally located over the entrance door. The blade
sign does not share these characteristics, but the lettering is consistent with the building sign.
Harmony and Scale: All of the signs must be in harmony and scale with the materials, architecture
and other design features of the building. The building sign at 48 inches fits within the 9 foot high
blue panel portion of the building parapet and is balanced on the overall front facade. The blade sign
at just under 5 sq. ft. in area, is small, and is logically located to identify the front door to pedestrians
in the parking lot.
Scale with the Property: The total sign area at 46.8 sq. ft. is less than the 100 sq. ft. area allowed by
the size provision of the Sign Ordinance and the Sign Program. The height increase to 48 inches is
in scale with the property and would not be overly apparent. With a setback of 295 feet from the
street, a larger letter size is needed. The blade sign would not be visible from the street and is
oriented towards pedestrians, and is therefore in scale with the property and the sign's function.
Chapter 22 — Use Permit
In order to grant a Use Permit, three specific findings must be made as well as the use evaluation criteria
contained in Francisco Boulevard West Commercial Zoning District.
That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Ulta Beauty Products is consistent with the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as demonstrated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
sections of this staff report. It is also consistent with the use criteria and purposes of the Francisco Blvd
West Commercial District as The Toys Center was approved as a multi tenant center with shops that
provide related services or types of goods and which had regional market bases. All uses in the Center
must demonstrate consistency with this approved character. Ultra Beauty Products is consistent in that it
is conceivable that shoppers at one or more of the other tenants would also shop at Ulta, particularly
those at TJMaxx. The proposed tenant is a national franchise which, due to the large 10,000 sq.ft.
building format, must rely on a regional market base rather than a local base.
That the proposed use, 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. The new building and Ulta as a tenant, would not be not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the surrounding area or City as the
building would expand a shopping center that has development capacity and would add a use similar to
those already in the Center. No letters of opposition were received from the public during the project
review process or in response to the public notice. In addition, the proposed plans have been reviewed
by the City's Building Division/Fire Prevention Bureau.
That the proposed use complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The project
complies with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that all required site standards and
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 8
met, the building area is within the allowable FAR and the proposed parking reduction has been
evaluated by a licensed traffic engineer and also accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
There are specific design review criteria that should be considered for this project.
Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and
between the structures and the site. Proposed structures and site development should be related
accordant to existing development in the vicinity. There must be a consistent organization of materials
and a balanced relationship of major elements.
The new building location has a harmonious relationship with the existing building as the location
supports the character of a unified shopping center rather than appearing as an independent facility on a
separate lot. Pedestrian access between the two buildings would be easy, and would encourage multi
purpose shopping trips.
Access, Circulation and Parking. The development should provide good vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
circulation and access, on-site and in relation to the surrounding area, including public streets,
waterways, shorelines and open space areas. Safe and convenient parking areas should be designed to
provide easy access to building entrances. Parking facilities should detract as little as possible from the
design of proposed or neighboring structures.
The proposed building location maintains the good vehicular access through the site. Drivers would
have clear views of the parking lots. Parking is also located is close proximity to the building entrance to
the parking areas located to the front and side of the building. Pedestrian circulation between the new
building and the existing structure would be safe and convenient.
Design Elements and Approaches. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include:
Creation of interest in the building elevation;
Provision of a sense of entry,
Variation in building placement and height,
Equal attention to design of all facades in sensitive locations.
The building elevations continue the design features of the rest of the Center, and the cornice element
adds interest to the building. The element over the entry door marks and identifies the entrance, and the
change in height between this element and the main cornice line provides variation. All sides of the
building have the parapet element and the same building materials and receive the same design
attention.
Landscape Design. The landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site, sensitive
to natural site features.
Landscaping is located against the building to add interest and compliment the building architecture.
Overall, the landscaping is located evenly through the site.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Design Review Board (Commissioner Colin liaison) reviewed the project on December 4, 2012, and
unanimously recommended that the Commission approve the project with the following adjustments:
1. Revise the entry sequence and pedestrian access ramp location which is not the best route. The
pedestrian access and ADA parking needs to provide better access to the north parking lot.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED12-062; UP12-032; SP12-009 Page 9
2. The roof access ladder needs to be relocated inside the building.
3. Add landscaping and trees to frame the front entrance and soften the front of the building.
4. Mimicking the design of the rest of the center is fine provided it is done completely with all
materials and accent colors selected to match the existing building finishes.
A video of the actual DRB meeting proceedings can be viewed at www.,citvofsanrafael.orq/meetings and
clicking on the December 4, 2012 DRB meeting date. The plans presented to the Commission have been
revised to respond to each of these items. A new sidewalk and ADA access were added to lead directly
to the northerly parking lot and ADA parking spaces were added to the north side of the building. With
this change, pedestrian access, ADA access and ADA parking are provided on both sides'of the front
entry. The roof access ladder was relocated inside the building and the change is reflected in the rear
building elevation. A landscape planter is provided adjacent to the front entrance; it also separates the
pedestrian access from the driveway. The plans submitted to the Board showed materials that matched
the existing finishes and colors.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301(e).1) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts additions to existing
structures less than 10,000 square feet.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 1 CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property
owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site and all other interested parties, 15
calendar days prior to this hearing and the Design Review Board meeting. Public notice was also posted
on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to both meetings.
No neighborhood meeting was held and no correspondence has been received. Robin Bacci, owner of
the adjacent RAB Motors, attended the Design Review Board meeting and voiced her concern to the
Board that parking at the Center may not be adequate. The Board noted her concern and advised that it
was a Planning Commission issue.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the application by adopting the draft resolution (Staff recommendation); or
2. Approve the application with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval;
or
3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or
concerns; or
4. Deny the project and direct to return with a revised Resolution.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity/Location Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Zander Associates October 31, 2012 Setback Assessment
4. Zander Associates January 12, 2013 Planting Plan
5. Abrams Associates March 2, 2012 Parking Review
6. Plans (11" x 17" distributed to the Planning Commission only)
V a 11 U
I I I c• p = 580 Frandsco
y:' r
• � {,f'� ahs 1 �. �i � �.. ;�... �
..�� '� �'rl 1 r-•'�•'�' ' "1 ��'t .` .r�,�'•: 'r��9`•r, - yam,. -
1�1 14• � . '�, ���. - '`tib �• ,, . {ti'. -i
• 435. y _ Y ra•....:.1 , t ..;;�
INS
r^_ �'f���. - ��.•' 'h ,Sy/���r'���.,`' ,,'�. �a •�� r3' Jrr •r-,F..i'!�.��'�p t�
ml
�.Y '•1YG +w ' 9-h.l}_ !�• . 4•��:• /�',L �y "1 • ���'�} ,. �' h', i� � 1' I ,�
� 330' �i��0~_Y7h �[.�� � T'i15� '^''. '1'��e .:kr. ..'t•�• r. L S,� f� "�.,, ,\'.•�',�•
N
SCALE 1 : 3,456
i
200 0 200 400 600 /
FEET
G'
el'-Albl-f I
Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:26 AM
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED12-062)A USE PERMIT
(UP12-032)AND SIGN PROGRAM MODIFICATION (SP12-009) TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, THE. ADDITION OF
BEAUTY SUPPLY SALES, A PARKING REDUCTION OF 43 SPACES, AND A 48 INCH HIGH
SIGN IN THE TOYS R US SHOPPING CENTER, 580 FRANCISCO BLVD. WEST;
(APNS: APN: 018-014-043, 045, 051, 057)
WHEREAS, on September, 2012, Christine Morrison, project applicant, submitted applications for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit, a Use Permit and a Sign Program Modification to allow the
construction of a 10,000 square foot commercial building, the addition of beauty supply sales, a parking reduction
of 43 spaces, and a 48 inch high sign in the Toys R Us Shopping Center, 580 Francisco Blvd. West. The addition
would add a new free standing building to the Center, to be occupied by Ulta Beauty Supply;
WHEREAS, the proposed Environmental and Design Review application, Use Permit application and
Sign program modification applications were reviewed by the City's Building Division/Fire Prevention Bureau
and Public Works Department and were recommended for approval with certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, upon staff review of the application, the project was determined to be exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301(e).1) which exempts additions to existing structures less than 10,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, on December 4 2012, San Rafael Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing
on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, accepting all oral and written testimony and the
written report of the Community Development Department staff, and unanimously recommended approval
subject to revisions to the project design including revising the entry sequence and pedestrian access ramp
location to provide better access to the north parking lot; relocating the roof access ladder inside the building;
adding landscaping and trees to frame the front entrance and soften the front of the building; and requiring all
materials and accent colors match the existing building finishes; and
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2013, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Sign Program Modification
applications, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community
Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date;
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this
decision is based is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael
hereby approves the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Sign Program Amendment to
allow the construction of 10,000 square foot commercial building, the addition of beauty supply sales, a parking
reduction of 43 spaces, and a 48 inch high sign in the Toys R Us Shopping Center; based on the following
findings:
EXHIBIT 2
Environmental and Design Review Findings
(ED12-062)
1) The proposed 10,000 square foot building addition to the Toys R Us Center and associated landscaping and
parking lot improvements is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the
purposes of this Chapter given that:
a. As discussed on Pages 3-6 of the January 29, 2013 Planning Commission staff report, the proposed
project (as conditioned) is consistent with General Plan Policy LU -9 (Intensity of Non -Residential
Development), Policy LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), Policy CD -10 (Non -Residential Design
Guidelines — Visual Compatibility), Policy CD -18 (Landscaping), NH -1 03 (Specialty Retail Uses), CON
-6 (Creek and Drainageway Setbacks, and CON -4 (Wetland Setback)
b. As discussed on Pages 6-8 of the January 29, 2013 Planning Commission staff report, the proposed
project (as conditioned) conforms to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 (Land Use
Regulations), Chapter 16 (Site and Use Regulations), Chapter 18 (Parking), Chapter 19 (Signs), Chapter
22 (Use Permits) and Chapter 25 (Environmental Design Review Permits). The proposed building meets
all setback and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, provides adequate parking as determined by a
parking analysis and the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department, the addition of beauty
products sales constitute a national retail use compatible with the toys, clothing and other specialty retail
uses in the Center, the sign has a common design elements with the sign program of individually
mounted letters, mounting on the parapet and location over the main entrance door; and
c. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the applicable design criteria established in Chapter
14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Review Board and Planning staff determined that the
proposed new building and site improvements, as conditioned, would continue and complement the
architecture, color and materials of the existing building; and
d. The proposed use of retail sales of beauty products is also consistent with the use criteria and purposes of
the Francisco Blvd West Commercial District as the Toys Center was approved as a multi tenant center
with shops that provide related services or types of goods and which had regional market bases. All uses
in the Center must demonstrate consistency with this approved character. Ultra Beauty Products is
consistent in that it is conceivable that shoppers at one or more of the other tenants would also shop at
Ulta, particularly those at TJMaxx. The proposed tenant is a national franchise which, due to the large
10,000 sq.ft. building format, must rely on a regional market base rather than a local base; and
2) The project design, as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design
criteria and guidelines for the Francisco Blvd West Zoning District in which the site is located given that:
a. The proposed additional square footage is within the maximum 0.32 FAR allowed; and
b. The proposed building materials, finishes and colors will match those on the existing; and
c. The overall landscaping area (Exclusive of the wetland area) will be 17.5 % of the site which exceeds the
15% required. In addition, the new building will have landscaping on all four sides of the building as
directed by the Design Review Board, and has been conditioned to appropriately maintain the vegetation
in the buffer area around the wetlands area.
3) The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts given that:
a. The proposed project was reviewed by applicable City departments and no adverse environmental
impacts were identified; and
b. The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal
building codes; and
c. The habitat area at the rear and side of the site were evaluated by a qualified biologist who determined
that the rear area was a wetlands and the area to the side was a drainageway; they further determined that
the setbacks for the wetlands area was the existing screen fence and the drainageway setback was the
existing pavement location. The proposed building is set back 5 feet from the screen fence and does not
change the pavement area near the drainageway; and
d. The maintenance and enhancement of the wetlands buffer area was evaluated by the biologic consultant
who determined that the retention of the existing trees and their periodic trimming as has been the
practice of the property owner is appropriate and should be continued with the periodic removal of trash
and debris, and that replanting of coyote bush as it deteriorates is necessary, and these maintenance items
are included as a condition of approval; and
e. The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301(e).l) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts additions to existing
structures less than 10,000 square feet.
4) The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity in that:
a. The proposed addition would not add square footage in excess of what is allowed or substantially
intensify the retail uses on the project site and as such, would not interfere with the daily operations of
the existing uses on the site or the uses in the surrounding area; and
b. The parking modification reducing the number of required on site spaces by 43 (From 374 to 331) has
been reviewed by a qualified traffic consultant and the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department
and was found to be adequate for the parking demand generated by the site development; and
c. No letters of opposition to the proposed project have been filed to date.
Use Permit (UP12-032)
Findings
1) The proposed 10,000 square foot addition to the Toys R Us Center and associated landscaping and parking lot
improvements is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of
this Chapter based on discussions in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and
1(d) listed above.
2) The proposed use, 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 based on discussions in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #4
listed above.
3) That the addition of 10,000 square feet of building area and landscape modifications to the site and parking
lot, as conditioned, complies with the following applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance: Chapter 5
(Land Use Regulations), Chapter 16 (Site and Use Regulations), Chapter 18 (Parking), Chapter 19 (Signs),
Chapter 22 (Use Permits) and Chapter 25 (Environmental Design Review Permits) as discussed on Pages 4-7
of the September 11, 2012 Planning Commission staff report. The proposed project is an addition to an
existing shopping center that meets all setback and FAR requirements and maintains the existing circulation
patterns. The parking modification was found to provide adequate parking for the unified center.
4) The proposed addition of retail sales of beauty products is consistent with the use criteria and purposes of the
Francisco Blvd West Commercial District as The Toys Center was approved as a multi tenant center with
shops that provide related services or types of goods and which had regional market bases. All uses in the
Center must demonstrate consistency with this approved character. Ultra Beauty Products is consistent in
that it is conceivable that shoppers at one or more of the other tenants would also shop at Ulta, particularly
those at TJMaxx. The proposed tenant is a national franchise which, due to the large 10,000 sq.ft. building
format, must rely on a regional market base rather than a local base.
5) A modification to the parking requirements to allow a 43 parking space reduction per Section 14.18.080 is
warranted for this site given that a parking analysis was done by a qualified traffic engineer. The analysis
included a survey of actual parking usage and projected parking demand of the proposed use which indicated
that adequate parking was provided. In addition, the projected parking demand was calculated by using
industry standard (Institute of Traffic Engineers) for parking, and it also determined that adequate parking
was provided. The use limitations of the property owner, which prohibit large parking demand uses also
indicate that future uses will not be introduced to the Center that would impact the parking situation. The
sale of beauty products is consistent with the other products offered in the Center, and it is conceivable that
shoppers at one or more of the other tenants would also shop at Ulta, particularly those at TJMaxx, thus
reducing the parking demand.
Sign Program Amendment (SP12-009)
Findings
1) The proposed signs are consistent with the provision of the existing Sign Program with the exception of the
blade sign and the 48 inch height of the overall Ulta sign. These elements are consistent with the overall sign
program criteria in that all of the signs in the program must have one or more common design element. The
building sign has several elements shared with the other signs, including individually illuminated letters,
mounting on the parapet, and centrally located over the entrance door. The blade sign does not share these
characteristics, but the lettering is consistent with the building sign; and
2) All of the signs must be in harmony and scale with the materials, architecture and other design features of the
building. The building sign at 48 inches fits within the 9 foot high blue panel portion of the building parapet
and is balanced on the overall front fagade. The blade sign at just under 5 sq. ft. in area, is small, and is
logically located to identify the front door to pedestrians in the parking lot.
3) The total sign area at 46.8 sq. ft. is less than the 100 sq. ft. area allowed by the size provision of the Sign
Ordinance and the Sign Program. The height increase to 48 inches is in scale with the property and would
not be overly apparent. With a setback of 295 feet from the street, a larger letter size is needed. The blade
sign would not be visible from the street and is oriented towards pedestrians, and is therefore in scale with
the property and the sign's function.
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-062)
Conditions of Approval
Communi1y Development Department - Planning Division
1. The proposed 10,000 square foot building addition, landscaping, signs and site improvements to the Toys R
us Center shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the proposed site plan and elevations as
presented for approval on plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Chipman Design Architecture Inc., Kiefer &
Co. and Balcerak Design, date stamped Approved, January 29, 2013, and shall be the same as required for
issuance of a building permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions
to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning
Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director may require review and
approval by the Design Review Board and/or the original decision making body.
2. The landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Preliminary Plan Sheet L1.2 as presented to the Planning
Commission on January 29, 2013. The existing trees in the wetlands buffer area as shown on Sheet L1.1
shall be maintained and replaced if removed or substantially damaged. Any changes to the landscaping plan
shall require a revised landscape plan and review and approval by the Planning Division and MMWD.
Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director may require review and approval
by the Design Review Board and/or the original decision making body.
4
3. A copy of the Conditions of Approval for ED12-062 shall be included as a plan sheet with the building
permit plan submittal.
4. Approved colors are as shown on the approved Color and Material board. The approved colors shall match
the existing building colors, materials and finishes. Any future modification to colors shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to painting the building.
5. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-062) shall be valid for two years from the date of
Planning Commission approval, or until January 29, 2015, and shall become null and void if building
permits are not issued, or a time extension is not granted before that time. Once a building permit for the
proposed site improvements is issued within the two-year period, the Environmental and Design Review
Permit shall become valid and run with the land and will not have an expiration date. On-going compliance
with all conditions of approval shall be required to keep the Environmental and Design Review Permit valid.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit written documentation from Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD) indicating that MMWD has reviewed and approved the proposed
landscaping and irrigation plans for the project site (Plan Sheet L1.2).
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter from MMWD stating that they have
reviewed and approve or conditionally approved the proposed landscape plan (Plan Sheet L1.1).
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter from the San Rafael Sanitation
District, stating that they have reviewed the project plans and approve or conditionally approve the proposed
project plans.
9. All new and existing landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and
debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size
compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement.
10. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior
lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and Planning Division to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.
11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the
final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of
48-hour advance notice. All approved landscaping shall be installed prior to the Planning final
inspection.
12. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the applicable requirements
set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
13. The existing trees in the wetlands buffer area as shown on Sheet L1.1 shall be maintained and replaced if
removed or substantially damaged. Annual trimming of the trees in the lower story area to provide line of
sight and discourage camping in the area shall be done by the property owner in accordance with the
provisions stated in the Zander Report, dated December 4, 2012. Annual removal of debris shall be done by
the property owner.
Community Development Department - Building Division/Fire Prevention Bureau
14. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2010 California Building Code, 2010
Plumbing Code, 2010 Electrical Code, 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Fire Code, 2010
California Energy Code, 2008 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2010 California Green
Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
15. A building, permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4)
complete sets of construction drawings to include:
a. Architectural plans
b. Structural plans
c. Electrical plans
d. Plumbing plans
e. Mechanical plans
f. Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
g. Fire underground plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
h. Fire alarm plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
i. Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building)
j. Structural Calculations
k. Truss Calculations
1. Soils reports
in. Green Building documentation
n. Title -24 energy documentation
14. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the
street or road fronting the property. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be
internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be
contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20.
15. Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently near
the top of the monument sign.
16. You must apply for a new address for this building from the Building Division. The address for structures is
determined by the Chief Building Official. The address for the new building will be legalized upon
completion of its construction. Each page of the plan's title block and all permit application documents must
show the proposed building's address identification information.
17. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for commercial space is computed at $0.33 per
square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are
paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit.
18. With regard to, any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils
report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular the report should address
the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an
assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of
Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be
required for the above-mentioned work.
19. All site signage as well as wall signs require a separate permit and application (Excluding address
numbering).
20. Each building shall be provided with sanitary facilities per CPC Sec 412 and Table 4-1 (including provisions
for persons with disabilities). Separate facilities shall be required for each sex.
21. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the
requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations. For existing buildings and facilities when
alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities
may be required. Improvements shall be made, but are not limited to, the following accessible features:
a. Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival
b. Routes of travel between buildings
c. Accessible parking
d. Ramps
e. Primary entrances
f. Sanitary facilities (restrooms)
g. Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided)
h. Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements
i. Accessible special features, ie., ATM's point of sale machines, etc.
22. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based
on the valuation of the remodel or addition project. Renovations to existing non-residential buildings must
comply with the LEED for Commercial interiors or Operations and Maintenance rating systems. Upon
submittal of a building permit application, based on project valuation incremental energy efficiency tools will
need to be included as part of the application such as documentation that LEED Prerequisites WE P1 and EA
P3 and Credit EA C1.3 have been addressed in project plans, and waste management.
23. A licensed C-16 Contractor shall submit automatic fire sprinkler system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for approval and permitting prior to installation of the system.
24. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building.
25. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A
sign shall be posted in accordance with the CFC Section 503.3.
26. Hazardous Materials Placard shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704.
Department of Public Works- Land Development
27. Show all drainage facilities on the plan including roof grains and how they connect to the existing system.
28. Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet noted "Pollution Prevention— Its part of the plan."
Copies are available on the City of San Rafael website www.cityofsanrafael.org.
29. A grading permit is required from the City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works, 111 Morphew Street,
San Rafael.
Marin Municipal Water District
30. The references parcels are currently being served. The purpose and intent of these services are to provide
water for commercial purposes and landscape irrigation. The proposed new 10,000 square foot commercial
building does not meet the conditions for service as set forth by the District which state in part: "the property
must be fronted by a water main, the structure must be within 125 feet of the water main." Under these
conditions, water service to the new structure will require a pipeline extension from the end of the District's
existing facilities. The applicant must enter a pipeline extension agreement for the installation of the
necessary facilities and said agreement must be approved by the District's Board of Directors. The applicant
may apply for a variance to these requirements. This variance must be submitted to the District's Board of
Directors for their review and action. All costs associated with a pipeline extension are borne by the
applicant. Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities, or approval of the variance request, this
property will be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below.
a. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application.
7
b. Submit a copy of the building permit.
c. Pay appropriate fess and charges.
d. Complete the buildings foundation within 120 days of the application.
e. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested.
f. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation.
Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following are required:
i. Verification of indoor fixtures compliance
ii. Landscape Plan
iii. Irrigation plan
iv. Grading plan
g. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 — Water conservation should be directed to Water
Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. You can also find information about the District's
water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.or .
h. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow
protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding
backflow requirements should be directed to the backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415)
945-1559.
San Rafael Sanitation District
31. Provide estimated wastewater flow that will be entering the San Rafael Sanitation District sewer main.
32. In reference to the sheet titles "existing Conditions Exhibit," it shows a 6 -inch sanitary sewer pipe on the
south side of the existing building. According to our records, there was a 10 foot wide sewer easement at the
same location as the 6 inch sewer pipe, which was abandoned in July 1996. Therefore, this 6 inch pipe
would be a private line. Please submit a copy of the property's title report for verification.
33. Please submit plumbing and architectural plans showing plumbing fixtures prior to issuance of a building
permit.
34. Sewer connection fees will be required prior to start of sewer construction.
Use Permit (UP12-032)
Conditions of Approval
This Use Permit authorizes a 10,000 new building addition to the Toys R Us Center, the inclusion of Ulta
Beauty Products as a retail beauty sales facility and the reduction in on site parking for the entire center by 43
spaces, from 374 to 331 spaces.
2. This Use Permit (UP12-032) shall have no expiration date and shall run with the land and remain valid
regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a building
permit is obtained or a time extension request is submitted to the City's Community Development
Department within two (2) years of this approval or until January 29, 2015.
3. On-going compliance with all conditions of approval shall be required to keep the Use Permit Amendment
valid. This Use Permit (UP12-032) may be called to hearing at any time by the Planning Division in order to
review compliance with the Conditions of Approval.
4. The modification to the parking requirements allows a 43 space parking reduction for the addition of 10,000
sq. ft. of retail sales of products that are compatible with other uses in the Center and are likely to result in
shoppers visiting more than one store in a single shopping trip. A change in use to a similar, compatible
retail sales use that are also likely to have multiple stops in one are acceptable. Changes in use to uses which
have a high parking demand, or are not likely to have multiple shopping stops, an amendment to the Use
Permit for the parking reduction may be required and be subject to review and approval of the appropriate
hearing body for such a modification.
Sign Program Modification (SP12-009)
Conditions of Approval
I. This Sign program modification allows two signs for Ulta Beauty Products; one with individually illuminated
white letters in a 41.9 sq.ft. sign with a maximum height of 4 feet over the front entry where the letters are 32
inches high, but the combination of letters and the "Swoosh" element have an overall height of 48 inches.
The second is a non -illuminated projecting sign, 4.95 sq. ft. in area, on the left side of the entry element.
2. The building techniques, materials and appearance of the signs, as presented for approval on the plans
prepared by Kiefer & Co, date stamped Approved, January 29, 2013, and shall be the same as required for
issuance of a building permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions
to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning
Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director may require review and
approval by the Design Review Board and/or the original decision making body.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission held on the 29�h day of January 2013.
Moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary
Larry Paul, Chair
ZANDGR ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
October 31, 2012
Seth Nobtrialm
Advance Building Solutions
855 Lakeville St. #200
Petaluma, CA 94952
Ulta Building Setback Assessment
Toys R its Center
San Mirk,], California
Dear Seth.
At your requosi, Zander Associates evaluated crook and wetland setback issues related the
proposed (.11ta Beauty Products building at the Toys R Us Center in San Rafael, California. We
obtained and reviewed €t site plan 11or the proposed project dated October 2012, prepared by BKF
E-ngineer& We also reviewed previous assessinents conducted ror tile site and for nearby
properties, including our Own rCPOCI Prepared in 2000, and relevant scetions of the City ol'San
Rarhol Geneml Plan 2020. We visited thesi(c oil October 25. 2012,atid considered tliQ proposed
layout orthe Ulut buildingand parking improvenicti(s in the contcxt ol'exisung site conditions,
General 111 -an policies, past procedenig, and our background reviov. 'I'lliS lQUCI-SU111maries our
findings.
Site, Location and General Characterislic-4
The Toys RUs Center is an apl)roximately 8 -acre parcel located at 600 Francisco Boulevard
West in the City o1' San 11alluel. It is bordered to thenorilicast by Francisco Boulevard West, to
the southwest by the North%vestcri Pacific Mailroad (NMIRR) right-of=way, to the southeast.by
Sonnen Motorcars, Inc., and (o tile northwest by R.A.13. Motors, Inc. Situ lopogralihy is
relatively flat with sonic gradual sloping towards the front (I"rancisco BOLIlevard Wes -1) find the
side,; ol'the parcel. Elevations average about 7 feet above meati sea level (MSL),
Approxinialuly 7 acres ol'the site are occupiud by retail coturnercial buildings (Toys R Us' T.J.
Maxx, and Barbcques Galorc) and associated paved parking and landscaping areas while it
relatively small strip of hand (roughly 0.9 -acre) tit, tile back (soutbwcsicni boundary) ol'the site
remains undeveloped, A low drainage swale, deliticatud as aseasmial wetland during the
environmental review process for site iinprovenient% in .199 0, runs along the southwe's(ern
property boundary parallel to the railroad right-ol-way. This area issoparated Kirit the
developed part ol'the property hya slit ficriceand vegetated fill slope along its length. Anope.n
drainage chantiel flows northeasterly along the northwestern property line supamthig the Toys R
Center parcel fi-oni the It. A.B. 'Molors, lac, parcel.
150 1�'ord WaY, Butte 101, Novato, C11 94943 telephoner- (415) 897-8781
fax: (415) 897-0422
EXHIBIT 3
PAr. Sedi Nobinann
October 31, 2012
PaLe.2,,,..
7, a n der Av6 c id tes
Current Conditions
During Zander Associates site visit onOcober 25, - 2012, we confirmed that the extent of the low
swale at the back, of the Toys R Us Center Ouildings more. or loss oonfornis to the previous
delineation. However, si gni ficit tit wctla tid vegetation and hydrological indicators were not
readily observable during our visit. A dativiged chitin litik ['en" separates the edge oftheSwale
(presumably the boundary o fa previously dod ica ted consma ( io n casenient) 6x1111 the adjacent
fill slope. The wooden slat Fence that separaics the Toy R Us parking lot from the conservation
casement area is located at the top of this slope. The area M ween the slat fence at the top n N1 ic
fill slope and the remn"'Int Chain link fence M the toe of sh.ipc supports various trees and
shrulis (appaivntly planted as per PMViOLIS I'eC0n1J11C11d111i011S) 410111ding 11TTOY0 MUM (Sali-V
la'Violeply), Coast live oak (Quercus agrilbfia), and toyon (.11eivronsvle.y arbutifiWa. We noted
relatively recent cleziring, ))rushing and linibing in this area, presumably to discourage homeless
encampniLnis and reduce the risk elf fire.
The open channel along the northwesterly property line is armored withriprap tilong the hanks
and clearly serves as a storm drain for the surrounding commercial and light industrial
properties. No trees orshnihs dia(could be considcrud riparizin vegetation were growing on the
banks, A parl froni (lie sj)o radi c occ ti ri-cm:c 0 C noti- nat i ve grassQs an(] ruderal plants such as
prickly ox -longue (Piuri.v echioidqv.v), lentict (Fueniculum vulgfire) atid prickly lettuce (Lacluca
serriola) growing Ili rough the rip rap, the banks o ['the channol were un vogeta tud. The prox hit it y
of the fi-ceway and surrounding commercial development and associated activity on n I I sides
probahly limits wildlific use offfic channel.
Proposed Project
The proposed prqiect would remove about 37 parking stalls :Car the development of an
approximately 10,000 square fool new commercial building to house a retail outlet for Ulta
Beauty Products. 'The configuration of the existing lmrking lot would be redesigned to
accommodate the new Wilding tend to provide adeqn-we parking and circulation. 'Flie site plan
we rcyiewed I'm (his assessment Shows as new, Stand-alone building Jacated toward the back of
the parking arca,just westerly oftliC CXiS1 i[Ig C0111111CI'Lia I IRI i [d ing C0111I)ICX On the LS40.
Reconfigured parking would be limits d tel c.x isting paved or landscaped areas.
Relevant General Plait Policies
The Cotiwi-vation Element ell (lie City o Ban Rafael General Plan 2020 contains goals, policies,
and prograins IM p1`01ccting wetlands and other waters, special -status species, and native and
sensitive Iiiihitats. The iblimVing l)0JiUiUS 11nd pro rams would pertain to the proposed project.
0 CON -4. WedaisdSetbacks.
Maintain a minimum 50 -foot development-fi-ee selbackftom vvvdandv, including, but not
limited to, paving or structures. Selback.y qj'greawr than 50 fie may he required (in lots
oft`a o or more ueres my deformined through development review. The' City ina), ivalve this
Mfr. Seib Nuhn ann
00obvi• .1 I, 2012
Page 3
.7,ander Assnciatex
requirementfin• minor enc•ruachniews ij''it can be t emonstratGd Ihrat the proposed setback
cadegnu lvc v prrrlucts the.liure:tions of ihe• tvetlemd to the ►n(►viruum e xtent fimtsible and
resulthig t-ulates to the sratisJitction gl'the Citi, afier reviatt> by the alrlrrclpriule regutatnty
agerne •ie s.
Strict adherence to this policy would require a niinitnum 50 -foot setback from [lie edge of the
previonsly delincatted seasonal wetland for any new paving, ;structures or other development
ilssocialcd wtlh paU'khig area cmpr'ovenlcnis. [ lowcvcr, the policy allows for a setback waiver
pro iced that the !'tinction~ .ntcl valtrc; oI'[lie wetland Cal 11 be laroLee teel ref the satisfaction of the
City and appropriate regulatory agencies (in this case, probably lir O).
Original approval for the'roys R Us Center was granted under an vadior version or the General
Ater that had a Similar policy for we.11cmel setbacks (50 lt. for stxucture:s) anul a waiver was
granted to reduce Ihv setback For• some portions of the building. Pavement wars ullrrwed tip to the
edge. of the we:tltrnd in the soutlicastern portion orthe site (against a retaining wall) and averaged
15-20 feet frons the wetland edge; for the rest. Willi guidance !miln t"11'Ci, the City determined
that this setback was adequate to protect the wetland, provided that the It'll slope atdjaccnt to the
wetland was landscaped ant[ ,r screen Pence was installed. Ids noted above, those ntensures were
impleinentutl.
Vire dna neat helieve that development lollowing the stanularrcis already established on the site (i.e.
allowance for ponions Oil bUildiLIgN Or 1.11'1,10LIe:S within 20 fbut of the wuthRid and pavement up
to the cxisling Slat fence] will farther compromise the funclumti rind vathres of the scatsonatl
wetland. its relatively low habitat cinalily, isolation rind Surrounding USCS (r.0. CX is. ting
development) do not justify c;slahlishntcnt of latrge sutbac:ks Or hUriers flor the relatively minor
new encroachment r•cprcss:rttcd by the proposed Iwoject. Instead of a 50 -row development tics;
zone fallowing tlu: CON -4 standard, weth+nil lareservnitlon goals would lie inticli better served
tha wsli directed nwinlenance and re:storalimi atAlvitics in the wclland and adjaccnt fill slope
including trash remtwal, non-native species conlrol, additional pintttings and other, measures.
r CON -6. Creek and Drairrairrnptay Setbacks.
.Require developmentfrM., .sc'thactk:i, except,fin- sines fic acr ess points as approvedper
policy CON 7 (Public Aooess to C're ckv), !feria existing creeks and (trainag wed ):s that trill
intainttain the firnations and resulting values of ihrse habitats. rI pproprietle erasion control
and roadie -ay erus.virngs nnt{t, encroach irnto the derve•lrynnvi a se•tbuck. Iu the absence of
vegetation, prc►mole� rides' L re)1%1 ! (}f +►sailind lac1hirtrt.
a. C're elf .10bar.k. Alaintain a minimurn 27 fi)ut rlevviol»nont-lJ eer ae?tback from the trap of
creek heinks,/irr till nest- development elope►tent (lrnclueling, bier errsl limbed to, paving and
str uctierea), a+rce: pt,lbs- A illvr Creek and iax trihularies, vNivre a nnininuun 50 -foot setback
.shall he maintained. Setbacks up to 100,lcet ►ural+ he retptiredfi r tires car development
projects two or inure acres in size whe�rt• de�vGlopinent roview deternnines a wider sell ack
is needed to maintain facnctions and resulting habitent values and in areas where lathh
quality riparian habitat exists.
Mr. Seib NobMann
October.11.201 ?
Zander Associates
Ae City may waive this requirementfir minor encroachments fit can be demonstrated
that the In opusu(I setback ae1equately proteca the finations ofereek, to the maximum
extent.fi-axi,le unrl rvsulthq� values to the satisfaclion qf1he City afier revielt- by the
appropriate regulatory agenciay.
b. Driangeway Selbackv. Drainageivuy sethacks shall be established through individual
developmeni review, taking hirr) eiccotipa (,xisflng habilatfinctions and resulting values.
Exhibit 37 in the City of Son Rafael General 111,,1n 2020 indicates that both the seasonal wetland
at the back of the site tino the open drainage channel along the northwestern boundary are
reaches of Irwin Creek. Fol I owing Ili i % llus i gna i ion, any new pawing, structures or other
developinciit associated with parking arun inoprovements would need to he setback a minimum
of 23 feet from the top of the batik ol'both (he wellall(i *.wade (approximately the slat fence line)
and the open chminel. A waiver provision, silijilit- to the ones leer %vetlati d sotimcks nested above
(CON 4) is also provided in this policy.
We believe that the designation of the both the seasonal wetland and the open drainage channol
as creeks is inappropriate. 'J'he wodand is an imfla(e(i reins ant on, once more extensive tidal
marsh sysicill; although it may ColleCt 10CLIUMINUITUCU I -1111017f rr0t11adjft=It. properties, there is
no flow line, incised climmel bed, obvious SCOUr or other indications that surl'aVO water regularly
flow~ through [tic area. The wethilid is elevated above, an(I not clearly connected hydrologically
to the open charincl. at its northwest clul.Sh k
allow groundwater rather than sufface water appears
to be the main Supp I'm (lic hydrophytes in this area. Although the aroa, was previously
delineated as a weilatid, it (Joes iiol meet the basic (definition ol'a creek in our opiniom'
However, the General Plan setback requiremeriLs, associated with wetlands would result in is
wider Zone in this area than tlicsobaek i-equiroments associated with creeks.
For the smile raisons disCUSsed above, wo believe that, evcii il'tlle City Continue'; to COTISider this
wetland area it creek base(I on the General Plan mapping (Exhibit 37), the creek setback waiver
for minor encroachn ients. should apply.
We ffirther believe (hat the open di-tihinge channel to the northwest should be characterized as a
drainageway rather than a creek. It. is clearly an improved drainage channel in a deve1qped
set ling, collecting and chatineling stirlace runorr trom surroundhig areas and dircefing it
eventually iilt(l San Pablo Bity. Its banks lack riparian vegetation and it does not support any
significall t fial) i till Vill ties that would tile ri 1 2S- loot setback s its per CCN 6 creek standaids,.
Instead,appiopriate setbacks f'rom this channel. Imsed oil tins: -:specific assessirlent, ilre allowed
by the CON -6 dra-itingeway standards. Paving mitl daiinage improvements already exist along
the top ofliank cif this chwinel and will not cluinge substarit4illy asa result of the 11R)jW;
according to the pro * ject engineer, surface nno
ilf is Currently directed away from the channel into
central inlets in the parking lot (.GreolfColcrnan, telephone conversation, 10/29/12).
Consequently, min I Lit tj it I sethat; ks ',111(1 Other JIMISLires sall-ic ici it to protect water quality (e.g.,
prevent unfiltered rUtl(llTfr0111 entering the climmul) are (prestiniably) already in place,
"rlle Ocire ralPhm definw; creeks as waterroursw that have defined bed and batik, i.e..
the, channel bfulishricised into the substrate—."
W. Seth Nobinann
October 31, 2012
Paas 5
Zander Associates
Conclusions and Recommendations
We believe that Genenal Plan 2020 development -free setback standards can justifiably be waived
for llic soasonil I wetland alnci open channel along the borders of the Toys R Us Center to
aceoniniodale (IAQ limposed project, While both of these features tare inkipped as reaches of Irwin
Crock in (].,'xliil)it 37), we conclude Ifial this designation is inappropriate based on our site
assessment and the assessiniunts Of previous investigators (see our 2000 report). EXisiing habitat
values (or lack thcrcol) associated with (Ile open cliannel, especially considering its context of
surrounding devviopmoni, do not warrant creck sulbacks.
We recommend maintaining, at a mininitini, the existing su iback adjacent to the wetland for any
new buildings or,{ aveci areas (the setback (lei i nea led by the existing stet( fence). All proposed
improiremunts, including the now bu ild ing a nd it I t:. recon 681LI-Cd pi I rk i ng stalls shown on the
October 2012 phare ((tact this standard, Encroachment into the Jizived area would compromise
the previous mitigatiou arrangements and niay require agency consultation. Additional
Milipilion would probably also be requiTrd.
Since the pt iposed new building will actually reduce the square footage or impervious asphalt
paving, the potential I -M, pollutants typically associated with parking areas (oil and grease) would
be rc(Iticed proportionnicly. With no change in grading, development, paving or drainage
patterns adj�ncelii to 1110 opull ullannol, there ShOUld be no elf ect on existing futbitat functions and
values assoclillud with that drainagoway..
We trust that this assessment wl I] issist you with your plans and application -materials to be
submitted to the City liar the proposed project. We rellut ill availahl e to disc LISS (itis assessment
with yoti and City representativesas necessary. Please contact mo by telephone at (415) 897-
8781 or en ni i I I il tos-co ni) if you ]lawn any quest it) ns or coin inen I s oil Otis
MPOrt.
Sincerely,
Michael Zander
Principal
2 We aN,-tl ,Ile 11U I,
age plan will not be qubstaitl ial ly changed w that runoff will not be redirected as result
or the project.
ZANDER ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
January 11, 2013
Seth Nobmann
Advance Building Solutions
855 Lakeville St. #200
Petaluma, CA 94952
Conservation Area Management and Maintenance
Toys R Us Center
San Rafael, California
Dear Seth:
In response to your request regarding appropriate management and maintenance of the
conservation area .at the back (southwesterly) of the Toys R Us Center in San Rafael, I offer the
following comments.
The approximately 0.9 -acre conservation area was originally established as a condition of
approval for the Toys R Us Center in 1990. Part of the area (approximately 0.57 -ac) had been
delineated and characterized as a seasonal wetland swale that was considered an altered remnant
of a once larger salt marsh area now fragmented by development and fill. At the time, various
salt marsh and freshwater wetland plants were identified including cattail (Typha domingensis),
cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), red willow (Salix laevigata), salt bush (Atriplex patula var.
hastata), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Since the site was no longer tidally -influenced, high
groundwater and local surface runoff presumably provided the hydrological characteristics
sufficient to support these wetland species. Conditions of approval for the Toys R Us Center
required wetlands management and protection measures, including setbacks, slope revegetation
and fence installation.
In conformance with those conditions, a slat fence was installed at the top of the fill slope
adjacent to the delineated wetland and (apparently) the slope was planted with a variety of native
plants including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), toyon (Heteromeles californica), arroyo
willow (Salix lasiolepis) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Over time, as the plantings
grew, non-native (weedy) plants also became established in the conservation area. When I
visited the site in 2006, I observed a thick understory of invasive non-native species including
French broom (Genista monspessulanus), pampas grass (Cortaderia sellowiana), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor) and giant reed (Arundo donax) in the slope area and also
encroaching into the adjacent wetland swale. I also observed a large amount of trash and debris
(probably remnants of a homeless encampment). When I returned to the site in October of 2012,
I noted relatively recent clearing, brushing and limbing in this area, presumably to discourage
homeless encampments and reduce the risk of fire.
150 Ford Way, Suite 101, Novato, CA 94945 telephone: (415) 897-8781
fax: (415) 897-0425
EXHIBIT 4
Mr. Seth Nobmann
January 11, 2013
Page 2
Zander Associates
Management and maintenance of the conservation area presents a challenge because of the need
to balance public health and safety with mitigation objectives stemming from the original
conditions of approval. Those objectives assumed a protected resource (seasonal wetland)
buffered by an open space area with some enhanced natural habitat values (revegetated fill
slope). The concept can work well in less -intensively developed commercial and light industrial
areas with connectivity to other open space or linear corridors. However, in this context, an
isolated conservation area, especially one that is overgrown as a result of colonization by non-
native plants, can become a potential fire risk and an attractive nuisance with negligible habitat
values.
Against this background, the most appropriate management program for the subject conservation
area is probably maintenance of the existing planted trees and periodic clearing, especially of
non -natives, in the understory. This appears to be the protocol I observed in October 2012.
Occasional replacement plantings with native trees and some low growing shrubs (e.g. coyote
brush) could be considered to fill in gaps, but the understory should probably be left open to
provide clear line of sight and fire safe conditions. With appropriate management, the
conservation area can continue to provide an aesthetic buffer for the Toy R Us Center that fulfills
the original conditions of approval without compromising public health and safety.
Please contact me by telephone at (415) 897-8781 or email (mzandergzanderassociates.com) if
you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Michael Zander
Principal
AGA Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINrERING, INC.
March 2, 2012
Mr. Seth Nobmann
Advanced Building Solutions, Inc.
855 Lakeville Street, Suite 200
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Review of Parking for it Proposed New Retail Building at 600 Francisco Blvd. West in
the City of Son Rafael
Dear Mr. Nobirizi n i i,
In response to your request we have prepared plyfor600Franciscosu
p 1, P
Boulevard West as part of our review of your proposed commercial IM i Itting ill tile City of San
Rafael. The existing conditions ill the: shopping center are shown in Figure 1. The project
would involve construction of a 10,000 square root retail building withi it an existing commercial
site that currently has 83,497 square feet ofbuildhigspace with 370 parking spaces. The
proposed plan is pru%ontcd in Eigure 2.
According to the City of Sail Rafael Municipal Code this type of retail project would typically
require 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area (or one space per every 250 square feet).
The proposed projeet would remove 39 parking spaces (fior a new total of'331 spaces) but the
additional square footuge would inerease the required parking 11or the site under the: current
zoning it) 374 spaces. Therefore, the resulting parking supply indieatc% that variance for43
spaces may be recinired. A summary of the parking analysis is presented in the attached Table I
and the cst i nia ted 1) ruicet [rip generation hats been summariv.ed in the; attached Table 2.
City of San Rafael Zoning - The number of spaces required by the City of San Rafael
Municipal Code for retail uses is I space per every 250 ficet. The shopping center currently has a
total of abOUt 83,497 square feet ofteasable space, of which tibOffl 50,000 square feet is currently
occupied. Adding, another.10,000 square fe=et of gencral retail wouid increase the parking
requirernentsfor the shopping center,,ts follows..
General Retail = 83,497 sq. ft. / I space per 250 feet = 334 parking spaces
Proposed New Commercial Building — 10,000 sq, ft. I I space per 250 feet - 40 panting spaces
New City of Still Ralluel Parking RC(IL]ircnient for the Shopping Center = 374 parking spaces
Parking Survey Results for the Shopping Center (Non-l)eceinber) — There is only limited
information that can be obtained from parking surveys ol'the existing center due to the fact that
the vacancy rate is about 40%, However, to determine the existing conditions at the center
Abrams Associates conducted surveys of parking occupancy on several dit'llerm Occasions
during the weeks of October 16'tand October 23"', 2011. During this this time there were only
two sp.tces occupied at the center. These included 'foys R Us with 45,067 sq. ft. and BBQ',,
Galore with 4,500 square 1ect..
1875 Olympic Roolevard, Suite 210 - Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - 925.945M01 - Fax: 925.945,7966
EXHIBIT 5
Abrams Associates
Page 2 91`5 — 600 Francisco Blvd. West Parking Review TIWTIC ENCINCERING, IN< :.
Although there are vacancies at die center it possible to estimate the demand at full Occupancy
using information crow the parking surveys. The maximum number of cars recorded during arty
of the surveys was 72 vehicles, During the surveys the shopping center was 60% occupied and
the parking lot was never more than about 20% occupied during any of our surveys. With
49,567 square feet occupied this equates to a demand of about I Space per 700 square feet of
leased space (or about 1.5 spaces per 1000 square feet).
The survey results were then adjusted based oil information on the monthly variation in parking
at shopping centers which indicates that tho average month is typically ablaut two thirds of the
pc,-(tk montli (Dccctnbci),1 In a(Idition, [TE Parking Generation Manual specifies that the peak
December parking demand is 143% offlic average month,2 Willi this adjustment the parking
generation oftlie existing tenants was still only aboul I spar -o per every 450 square feet of leased
space (or about 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet), It should also be noted that there do not appear
to be any parking overflow problems front adjacent properties.
December Parking Survey Results for the Shopping Center In response to comments from
City staffudditional parking surveys were conducted during the holiday season to get a sample
of the number ol'occupied spaces on what are typically some ofthu bu%icsa retail days of the
year. The parking Survey,, were conducted every hour on Wednesday, December 2 1 from 11:00
AIM to 9:00 JIM, on ThUrSdily, December 22 Ilium 11:00 AM to 9:00 PM, all(] also on Sriturduy,
December 24 (Chi-istnias Eve) rroin 11:00 AM to 9.00 I'M.
To aid in this parking Survey, the parking lot was broken down into three sections. For this
reason, it was possible to UIIHIYZC al)[)R)x iniately where the: majority ol'the cars were parking,
The three sections fliat were used in the survey arc shown on lt'4i:ury 3, attached at the end of this
review, Also included is Table 3, which show,.- the Bala rrotil the SUIVCY COl1dUCLCd Oil
Wedne,sduy, December 21 broke ii down by bine ittid section. Table 4 and 'fable 5 show the data
from -Thursday, December 22 and Saturday. Doccinber 24, respectively,
They results of the, December surveys con finned the f parking demand calculations art,
accurate~. In general the surveys verified the existing tenants have higher parking demand during
the holiday season in December. used oil the surveys the parking generation or existing
tenants was about I space per every 300 square;feet o r leascd space (or about 3.3 spaces per
1,000 square feet). For the surveys the parking lot was broken in to three areas as shown on the
attached Figure 3, The resulting parking Calculations using the rates determined from the
surveys are shown in Table 6. As seen in this table the proposed project would have a maximum
December parking demand o1'309 parking shaves. A chat-( presenting (lie results of die surveys
is sho%N,,n in Figure 4.
Other References on marking Generation — The Institute o r Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Parking Generation Manual2 provides data on the peak parking requirements for shopping
centers based on. surveys of shopping centers throughout [lie U.S. and Cunada. This relerence
provides the average parking demand for various land uses. 1-lowever, shopping Conte l's typically
have a larger seasonal variation than other land uses so the higher 85th percentile deni and is
Shared Parking, Second Fififlan — 74ble 10, Urban Land Institute, Washington D,C, 2005.
1,)orkiq&, GenerUdon, 4"' A,11tion -- Page 229, Institute ofTninspor(ation Engineers, Wsshington.MC, 7x01.0.
Page 3 of 5 - 600 Francisco Blvd. West Parking Review Abrams Associates
TRARIC ENCINCTAINC, INC.
typically used to provide a higher confidence level in the parking estimates. According to. ITE
the peak demand -for design (the 85 percentile) at a shopping center for a typical weekday is
about 3.16 vehicles per 1000 square 'feet. However, ITI: also specifies that the peak demand oil, a
Saturday is 3.4 vehicles per 1000 sq, fl, and that the inaximurn typically occurs on Friday
evenings when it can be as high as 3.9 vcNeles per 1000 sq. ft.
It is important to note that the ITT3 design values are based on surveys of shopping centers that
included re.4tatirant.% bars, and other enlertainnient uses (like movie theaters). These uses would
typically generate the majority of the parking demand on a Friday evening and the shopping
center in question does not include any of these uses. There are also certain existing regulations
and/or lease restrictions that would preclude development of resLaurunt find entertainment uses at
the center. These include specific restrictions related to the current lease with Toys R Us and
also some regulatimis as%ociated with the Francisco Boulevard West C oniniercial District. These
are discussed in more detail below,
Land Use Regulations and Lease Restrictions Affecting the,potential Parking Demand -
The project is located in (lie Francisco Boulevard West Commercial District (IF13WC) which has
detaik:d regulation or development, Theseregulations specify that permits are
is in place I'
required for multi -tenant shopping center developments an(] that these permits specify die types
of uses which III'Lly go into the CCTIICT'. T -hu regulations specify that Ilicplanning commission
ultimately determines which uses are consistent with the Francisco lioulcvard West commercial
district. It is our understanding that previous direction firmn the City indicates that restaurants,
bars or other entertainment uses would not be consistent with the 1,'l I WC.
The lease for the Toys R Us include 4 numerous rest ricl i a ns on the types of tenants allowed in the
center. Wewere provided a copy of the liaise avid We noted it included the following restrictions:
"Latif flo i -d - v h a I I meet Itei -eafle r le ase, rent; or lw?i -n i i I any other pmwl i. v ev ire Ilt e LVI opp ing Center to
be used or occ-upied as a theater. - .. restaurani, provided Mal Landlord motel, so lease, rail, (il.
permil ul) to (3) three restauranis serving ineeds pritnarily.for on pre mlSev con.yumption so long
aS no rest await! excccdy (1,! 00) septareftel qj'Gross Leavablefi'loor At-va ... bo wfing idler, a
billiard parlor.— (in vstablishinent se) -ring -ing elcoholic Bever ages Oil peendsev Consuniplion, a
funeral parlor, a tnassage pip-lor, a discoMeque or dance hall, to health spry or similar 1),17e
business, askwh{i; rink, to veer wash, ail oJI-'frac-k belfing all alpluseinvolt Or gunle
room, a 'flea inarkel ". ()I-fiol- moleOtotel m- offic-e purposay". It is our
understanding that the current lease 1101-Turys It Us would continue these restrictions for at least
another 5 years Mid that similar restrictions would likely be required as part of any lease
extensions.
ITE Parking Generation Based on the Specific Tenants - For comparison we have also
provided an alternate calculation of the park i ng demand using the ITE parking rates for each
individual use. A summary of that analysis is presented in the attached Table 1, As seen in
Table 1, Using the INW-king rates for individual use results in as peak park itig demand for the
center of about 203 parking SI)ILCC.1; (about I space per every 500 1'ect or about 2 spaces per 1000
square feet). When this is converted to the peak month (December) (lie resulting parking
demand is 307 spaces or approximately I s.paceper 300 square lett (or about 3.3 spaces per
1,000 square feet). The parking supply after iniplenictilation oCthe project Would exceed (his
Page 4 of* 5 — 600 Francisco Blvd. West Parki I% Review Abrams Associates
TRAHIC CNIGINCERING, IN .
esl iniatud parking demand with a resulting supply of I space per every 280 square foot or about
3.5 spaces per 1000 square flect.
Project Trip Generation — It was also requested that we provided estimates of the project trip
generation. The estimated trip generation has been suirimarized in the attached Tahlci 2. As seen
in this table the proposed .10,000 square foot comi-nercial building is forecast to generate about
10 trips during the AM peak hour and abotit 38 trips during; the PM peak hour, After reductions
to account for pass -by traffic the resultitig traffic added to the surrounding street system is
estimated to be about 7 trips during the AIM peak hour and about 25 trips during the PM peak
hour.-�
If the fitted curve equal iotis arc, used the resulting trip generation would be about 26 trips during
the; AM peak hour and about 90 trips during the PM peak hour. However, our review of the data
indicates there may not he the desired correlation between ilic trips generated and the
independent'variable (sqLl',I]'V IlCcl). An R2
vititic or ka ieasi vMid a standard deviation less
than or equal to 110 percent syr the average rite are prel'erred rand 11 iese criteria are not met with.
the shopping center trip rate surveys. In add it i 011, the Use of the filed curve equations appears to
overstate the trip geiieratioil because tile resulting PM peak hour trip 1,11te coljjes out even higher
than the average rate. icor a high t 0 )'[love 1- sit down restaurant (La tial Use Code 9327. In general,
the use of iiia: fined curve equations appears it, sig iiificantly overstate the project trip generation
but the results have been included for coinparison.
Recommendations — Based oil our review of" the proposed parking supply the City of San Rafael
should be able to make the findings to approve the proposed 10,000 square foot retail building
based on the City's zoning code and the standard relbreiices oil parking getieratiom Our review
ofthe site's access. parking demand, anti use restrictions indicates that this slioppliig ecilter will
always have slightly lower parkiiig demand and trip generation.
.Information from ITE indicates that the resulting parking supply of 331 parkingspaces would
continue to be more than sufficient for a 93,497 square foot shopping center (given the tnix of
uses). Based on. our review of access til is sll(ipping canter's location s I ightly reduces the demand
and indicates that a design demand of IS spaces per 1,000 square fect is appropriitie, As
described previously, this conclusion is also supported by the December parking surveys that
were conducted for this analysis, 13-ased oil those surveys the shopping center is forecast to have
amaximum demand or309 spaces in .l if the prop project 'ect were implemented,
In summary, our analysis and park ingsurveys indicate that the proposed parking plan for the
shopping center would be sufficient it) accoininodate the additional demmid from the 10,000
square foot building (even with the loss ol'39 parking spaces). Tile overall parking supply tut the
shopping censer would continue to be suffivient during all peak parking periods and there should
be no significant impacts oil surrounding properties or to on -street parking in the area.
3 73°iP Gonen-Vion 1 -landbook, 2" E.,611011, Instituto 017MISPOrtatioll Eilsineers, Washington D.C., June, 2004.
Abrams Associates
Page$ of S-600 Frourtwo Blvd. West flikrking Review TRAFFIC ENCINLL RIMG, INC
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions,
Stephen C. Abranis
.President, Abrams Associates
T.E. License No. 1852
TFIL
(fT]l fn I ITTF11rrlll� QI,'�FFIO+I I I10 � �'li-IID �.....� II IJllll �'I
two
I- i
og
E
2
14
1-1 T-.1.
0
0 w
z �Uh
v
CL Z
a
w
CLo
cvi t c
w w
0
- (L
LI.-!_�I_I. CLW
� �
�:
CD
•-
�J
f FF t k i I
(J
1 I 1 ! 1.1_l l ILJ_i �U-1 .11
-
—UILLLiJ
0
0 w
z �Uh
v
CL Z
a
w
CLo
cvi t c
w w
0
- (L
CD
Ito
rL
(J
0
0 w
z �Uh
v
CL Z
a
w
CLo
cvi t c
w w
0
- (L
Nook
ly�
0 0 0 0
0 00 w
saes polied jo jaqwnN
CL
0
C6 CL
0
02
CL
E
13.
CL
9
�j CL
0
(P 5;
tH <
-r-A
, Nam
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENO N�. I HIND. INC.
Noles. 1 "his spacesivis viscaur tit the thue of the surveys beet as of 112012012.810Q Gatoro has signed anew lease tit expand
"fable .l.
ITE Parking Generation Calculations
600 Francisco Boulevard WkvYhopping Center
Land Use
HE Land IT Peak Demantl Rates ITE. Average Pvak
Ilse Code Leasable Space (vehieloq t 1601) sq. ft.) ParkIng Demand
VIT Peak Park1rig,
Dernand (Deevni,her)
To vs R (is
864 4.1.067 vq
�1, 1.94 87
131
HB '.+'
820 4,500 V 2.194 1.1
20
TJ Nfa t. t
876 31.510 sr • 2. 1' 1 47
101
Yaf wn 1
820 2.420 sq. j?, 2,94 7
11
Beaut'vSup ph, Orst. Buffifiotg)
820 10.1NO sq. ft, 2-911 29
44
93,0 7 xy. ft. 203
J07
Noles. 1 "his spacesivis viscaur tit the thue of the surveys beet as of 112012012.810Q Gatoro has signed anew lease tit expand
Abrams Associates
7RAPFIC ENCINEEKINC, INC,
Tattle 2
.Net New Prtrjeet Tralr Generation on'the Surroun ing Street Network
600 Francisco Boulevard West Shopping Center
Land Use
t")'1sC'ncic
AM Peak Hour
Site r1,TJt`I' 1n i5ttt fatal
F -M Peak ifour
!n 6.— Total
Retail S ac•e
Pass 1i Reductiurt (34",,,)
Results C?Sit ITL' �rei�Hled Average Rates
820 10,000 Sc . ft. 429 6r 4 16
146 2 1 4
1H
6
_ �1?
7
38
13
Net Nvw Prn'ect'i'ri , Generatiuu
283 4 3 7
tletireltti I sin 177, bitted Osrtw 7: uadeif"
12
13
25
Rt t �i15 11 ice820
1'tts, 13 Itrduwlitsn :ia' ,)
i" et tY : E! ect'1`r1 C:Oueratian
10,000 so. 11, 1.520 24 1� 40
517 13
1,pt'):') 16 it) 267::4:3:::[—d7
65
22
71
24
136
A1C+
go
Abrams Associates
TRAF11. MON1 ERIN[:, INf.
Table 3
Holiday Parking Survey — Wednesday, December 22, 2011
Time
Section
Total
1
2
3
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2!00 PM
3:00 PM
.1.06
136
124
133
135
is
3
3
5
.2
3
4
6
7
13
124
143
133
145
ISO
4;00 PM
142
0
5
— — -- - - ----
147
5:00 PM
110
— —
0
- — - -------
6116
164
6:00 PM
3,18
0
5
123
7.00 PM
103
0
3
. .... . ......... . —
106
8100 PM
73
0
2
75
9:00 I'M
Go
0
2
62
Table 4
Holiday Parking Survey — Thursday, December 23, 2011
Time
1
2
11:00 Am
115
1
1
1.17
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
111
124
143
0
0
2
2
7
9
113
131
154
3:00 PM
146
2
16
164
4:00 PM
137
.1
10
148
5;00 PM
6,00 PM
7:00 PM
115
125
124
..
1
0
0
. .... ... ---,
10
7
6
126
132
130
8:00 PM
113
0
5
118
9:00 PM
70
0
1
71
Abrams Associates
I RAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC
Table 5
Holiday Parking Survey - Saturday, December 24, 2011
Tillie
11.00 AM
'nf) tj
F12:00 PM
Seedoll
Total
113
130
—
90
'n
93
-- ------
23
25
----
0
2—
12
1:00 Pm
89
32
18
139
2:00 PM
89
38
19
146
100 Pm90
:9
35
9
134
4:00 PM
79
16
7
102
5:00 PM
7546
7
...........
88
6100 PM
59
— -
2
2
63
7:00 PM
36
—
2
------ --
2
40
8:00 PM
29
1
1
31
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINCERINC, INC.,
fable 6
December Parking Generation Calculations
600,Frandveo Boole rd We.vj Siloppilig Ccnter
I 17'E LIJ Ild I Decepubur Peak Ocround f-916tinird 1'eak Parkimi
list. —Ilse Oide lixasuble Splij kqL!es ! iU0[I Parking DeMMILI MUCTkIlit
20 1 'z -/v
Nam: 1 Als space jeag vrtcartt it, gle flute (t(the surs,e)w but as of 1l20012 ft8Q Galore has signed a neyv loays to arpand
their store into the vacant 2,420.vq. f). 7'/10 HOUNJOW 1048e total of 6,920sq. JY,