HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Master Use Permit Amendments; Bayview Business ParkAgenda Item No: 5. a
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development, Planning Division
"A
-6Dduzz 47W
Prepared by: City Manager Approvalatdi&
Paul A. Jensen (KT
SUBJECT: Request for Planned Development District zone change and master Use Permit
amendments for Bayview Business Park light industrial and office complex located on 12.9
acres in east San Rafael, at 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Boulevard 85-101 Glacier
Way; Planned Development (PD1675) Zone; Bayview Business Park Owners Association,
Owner/Applicant; Case Number(s): ZC12-001&UP12-040
NX0001 mil
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration as the CEQA Environmental
Document for the subject Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment project.
2. Pass an ordinance to print to enact revised Planned Development District standards for
the Bayview Business Park to eliminate outdated Trip Generation standards and
reconcile gross building areas and mix of uses.
3. Adopt a resolution to approve an amended Master Use Permit for the Bayview Business
Park to memorialize the built -out mix of office, light industrial and research &
development square footages.
Rezoning and Use Permit planning applications have been filed to amend the current Bayview
Business Park Master Plan development, located in East San Rafael, between the Shoreline
Center and the City of San Rafael Corporation Yard, East Francisco Blvd and San Rafael Bay.
The business park consists of a built -out light industrial, office and research and development
complex comprised of seven (7) buildings totaling 224,509 gross square feet, on 12.9 acres.
The buildings are individually owned, as a commercial condominium complex. The buildings
and common lot areas are managed by the Bayview Business Park Owners Association.
File No.: 10 -.2- IC -3 A 10 -
Council Meeting: 6
Disposition: /3GS1
SAN0AFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
The current zoning standards for this complex /P[) 1875 District) require that the City of San
Rafael and Bayview Business Park Owners Association monitor and annually report the total
building usage. This is required to assure that the complex would n3n08in in C0nlpli8ODe with the
PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates established by the PD District (i.e. 442 PM peak
trips), as well as the PD District parking standard (i.e., 3.3 spaces per 1,ODOsquare feet Ofoffice
use and 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of light industrial / research and development use; with
615 parking spaces required for the approved mix of uses allowed by the development plan).
The [rip generation monitoring requirement, which was once standard practice under the
policies of the former 88D Rafael General Plan 2000. is DO |ODgeF necessary given that the park
has been built -out, and the City no longer monitors development based on trip generation rates.
Furthermore, staff found that the business park was built with more office space than previously
authorized (approximately 20.000 square feet inoreaaed\, but the total built -out gross area of the
CORlp|8X is |eae than authorized (by approximately 14.000 square feet). This discrepancy
resulted from subsequent permits issued for tenant iDlprVVe0eOtS. USVa|(y CODV8rsiDD of space
from research & development into OffiD8 use, and from @ lapse in annual monitoring and
reporting by the OvvOerG association. However, though built -out COndidOOS differ from the areas
anticipated by the current Master Fz|@n @ppnmv3|, the deVe|0p[D8Ot r8nl3iDS compliant with both
anticipated peak trip generation rates and parking standards.
The City recommended and the Bayview Business Park owners agreed [oamend the PD 1075
District and Use Permit to reflect built -out conditions, with the following changes:
8) Reconcile the built -out conditions Ofthe park;
b) Memorialize the 08Xi0U[n GmOUOi of office and research and development use
allowed for each bUi|diDg�
C) Reaffirm the grandfathered parking rate for office US8S and total parking @[DQU[d
required for the complex; and
d\ Eliminate the requirement for annual tracking and reporting of trips generated by
the [UiX of office/light industrial UGeS 8[ODDggt all of the buildings.
No net new development is proposed.
The POzoning and use permit amendment requests were reviewed and recommended by the
City Engineering Division (Traffic) and Planning Division. Staff has confirmed that the revised
mix Ofuses complies with the P[} parking requirements and maximum trip generation rateS, as
well as the City's adopted floor area ratio tables (General Plan 2020 Policy LU -9 Intensity of
Nonresidential Development and San Rafael K8uOiCip8) Code Section 14.16.150 Floor area
r8d0S). The parking supply iDC|UdeS @ grandfathered 8||OVY@nce for five (5) spaces that were
eliminated to provide wider van accessible ADA spaces. -[huS. the site currently provides
parking for uptQG10spaces, with agrandfathered allowance for five (5)additional spaces, for 8
total "grandfathered" parking supply of 615 parking spaces. The parking demand for the project
asbuilt-out isO11 parking spaces (based Onuse Ofthe current historic office parking rate of 3.3
spaces per 1000 Sq ft. Of building area), If the current parking code office rate of Sp@C8s per
1000 Sq. ft, of building area were required to 3pp|y, the parking demand would be significantly
increased.
On March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project
(Agenda Item 2 — Public Hearing), The Commission, by unanimous vote, adopted all three
resolutions required to move the project forward to the City Council for approval (i.e., PC
Resolution 13-04 (Negative Declaration), PC Resolution 13-05 (PD Rezoning), and PC
Resolution 13-06 (Use Permit Amendment), with a couple minor corrections made to the use
PA
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
permit resolution. The resolutions attached to this City Council report reflect the
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
(The PC meeting can be viewed at http.11www.citvofsanrafael.oLgImeetinqsl, and select March
26, 2013 meeting video, agenda item 2. The discussion of the item starts at 3:50 minutes, with
motions at 31:50 minutes and item ends at 33:45 minutes.)
Iroperty Facts
Address/Location: 22-150 Pelican Way, Parcel Number(s): 009-251-15, 16, 22,
2507-2597 Kerner Blvd 23, 38, 39, 42, 54,
& 85/101 Glacier Wav 55, 56, 57, 69 & 70
( Property Size: 12.9 Acres Neighborhood: � East San Rafael
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is a 12.9 acre site comprised of three (3) common parcels developed with
nine (9) commercial condominium units in seven (7) buildings. The site is a level parcel
comprised of fill placed over former tidelands located in east San Rafael. The common parcels
from Francisco Boulevard moving east are Parcel A (3.53 acres) which contains 3 buildings and
5 total condominium units, Parcel B (1.26 acres) with 1 condominium building, and Parcel C
(4.83 acres) with 3 condominium buildings.
The property has been built -out as a light industrial and office complex. The project is bound by
E Francisco Boulevard along its westerly boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundary,
Kerner Boulevard which crosses through the project generally running north and south, City of
San Rafael detention ponds (aka Bayview Lagoon) along the east and northeast and San
Rafael Bay directly east.
Initial Zoning and Use Approvals
The Bayview Business Park was originally approved in 1984 (under PD1474), which allowed
construction of up to 11 buildings with 244,922 gross building area; including 104,730 square
feet of office use and 140,192 square feet of light industrial use, Up to 36,000 square feet of the
light industrial space was permitted for use as research and development, The project site area
contained 21 gross acres of land capable of development (plus, an additional five acres that
extended within the bay). Approximately eight acres were dedicated for the shoreline path,
detention ponds and wetland buffers; consistent with City policies and programs in effect at that
time. These development entitlements were granted before the City adopted floor area ratio and
trip generation standards. In addition, the PD incorporated the then applicable office parking
rate of 3.3 spaces per 1 000 square feet of office use, The net land area resulted in 12.9 acres
after dedication of wetland/pond and buffer lands,
Site Characteristics
General Plan
la
Desi n�
gntion
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Project Site:
LI/O
PD 1675
Business Par
North:
LI/O
LI/O
Li ht Industrial
South:
LI/O
LI/O
Light Industry/Office
East:
LI/O
P/OS_WO
Ponds/Bav
West:
LI/O
I
P/QP
I
1-580/Sanitation
Plant
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is a 12.9 acre site comprised of three (3) common parcels developed with
nine (9) commercial condominium units in seven (7) buildings. The site is a level parcel
comprised of fill placed over former tidelands located in east San Rafael. The common parcels
from Francisco Boulevard moving east are Parcel A (3.53 acres) which contains 3 buildings and
5 total condominium units, Parcel B (1.26 acres) with 1 condominium building, and Parcel C
(4.83 acres) with 3 condominium buildings.
The property has been built -out as a light industrial and office complex. The project is bound by
E Francisco Boulevard along its westerly boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundary,
Kerner Boulevard which crosses through the project generally running north and south, City of
San Rafael detention ponds (aka Bayview Lagoon) along the east and northeast and San
Rafael Bay directly east.
Initial Zoning and Use Approvals
The Bayview Business Park was originally approved in 1984 (under PD1474), which allowed
construction of up to 11 buildings with 244,922 gross building area; including 104,730 square
feet of office use and 140,192 square feet of light industrial use, Up to 36,000 square feet of the
light industrial space was permitted for use as research and development, The project site area
contained 21 gross acres of land capable of development (plus, an additional five acres that
extended within the bay). Approximately eight acres were dedicated for the shoreline path,
detention ponds and wetland buffers; consistent with City policies and programs in effect at that
time. These development entitlements were granted before the City adopted floor area ratio and
trip generation standards. In addition, the PD incorporated the then applicable office parking
rate of 3.3 spaces per 1 000 square feet of office use, The net land area resulted in 12.9 acres
after dedication of wetland/pond and buffer lands,
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
The Master Plan was amended in 1995 (PD1675) to allow buildings with up to 338.900 gross
building area. The parking standard remained as adopted in 1984. Atable was also added to
the PD district standards, which listed the aUOvv8b|e mix for each building, and included B trip
generation rate assigned for each land use (i.e., office and light iOdUGiha|\, DOOSisheDt with
revised General P|8D 2000 policies. The last building, building A. VVGS completed in 2000.
However, staff since discovered several discrepancies in the approved |8Od use DliX. including
an addition to building H which exceeded the anticipated floor area a||oxV8Dc9 by 3,100 square
feet. Staff has been working with the owner to identify discrepancies and correct building 8[8gs
toconform tVthe adopted PD.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project would [8m}noi|e previously pSnnbhed building areas with the revised build -out, as
follows (in square feet):
Current PD Build -Out Build -Out
Allowance Allowance Notes(Office/R&D allo
Building 40.000 31.595 31,595 Office Use (1O096)
Building B
30'000
28.135
9,680 Office Use (34%); and
Upbl9.1O0R&D allowance
Building
20'000
19.900
13.3O5Office (5796);and
UptO3.0OOR&D allowance
Building
30.000
28.350
13.3OOOffice Use /47%\;and
NOR&D allowance
Building
41.400
38.000
8.00OOffice Use (25%)and;
Up to 7.900 R&D 8||OvvanC8
Building G
31.500
29.450
29,450 Office Use (100%)
Building
48.000
51,100
18.555Office Use; and
Up tQ17OOOR&D allowance
TOTALS
238,900
224,530
The build -out results in a net building area reduction by 14.370 square feet. However, [)KiCe use
has increased from 104,730 square feet hJ 124.945 square feet. Conversely, the Light Industrial
use has been reduced to 98.585 (with DQ more than 30.000 square feet allowed tO be used for
Research and Development). P8[NnQ demand for the project is 611 spaces, vvh1Ch remains
within the "grandfathered" supply of 615 parking spaces, The iDCre@S8 in Office Use is reflected
within buildings B. C' E and H (including the request to utilize the 3.100 square feet of vacant
space built within building H\, while the decrease in building area is reflected in a reduction in
total light industry space.
The PD amendment also allows ancillary uses that would serve the complex to be considered,
and would eliminate the Trip Generation Standard contained and in the PD and monitoring
requirement in the current Master Use permit (UP82-65(c)), Resolution 9316, as this is no
longer considered a relevant and useful requirement.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
ANALYSIS:
General Plan Compliance
The Site is designated for 'light industry & office' land uses. The changes to the mix of uses
r8O1aiOS consistent with the GeOS[8\ P|3D 2020 land use designation. The OlDOib}hnQ of trip
generation (e.g., vehicle peak hour trips generated by the development) is no |VO08[ 8 required
practice under the GBDe[8| Plan 2020 CirCU|8bOn Element Policies. HOweVer, staff notes that
the revised built -out mix of office and light industrial land uses would generate 115-156 fewer
trips than the previously anticipated 442 PM peak hour trips, as discussed OO Page 21 Of
Attachment 5(Negative [}eC|8[atiOD).Page 480fthis City Council Report.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The PD establishes the standards for the Site, to implement the General P|@D 2020. The
following sections have been discussed aarelevant tpthis case:
PD Zoning
The amendment would revise the mix of land uses, with 8 net reduction in building area, and
eliminate an outdated trip generation standard that no longer is considered pertinent. This has
been reviewed for consistency with the San FlGfa8| PWUninip8| Code /GRW1C\ Section 14.07.050
and Section 14.27.060 which allow zoning amendments to be considered with the P|8OOiDg
Commission's recommendation that the revised development plan vVOU|d [8[D3iR oVDSiSt8nt with
the General P|GD and vVDU|d Serve the public he8|th, safety and general welfare. Staff and the
Planning Commission found and n3cn00eDd that the PD @noeDd[DeDt (ZC12-001) satisfies
these findiDgS. as discussed in the General P|@O 2020 CUOlpiigOCe 8n8|ySiS above, and
additional zoning ordinance analysis provided below. The original approved Development Plan
(E[}85-54), which is required to implement development of the site, remains unaffected by this
change.
FUrthe[. staff has recommended and supports maintaining the limitation OD the aOlOUOt Of
research and development (R&D) use that can occur within light industrial space (i.e. the current
36.000 square foot cap). The reason being that R&D typically is partitioned like office space.
While the traffic geOe[@bOD Of office, R&D, and light industry are substantially similar, office
nB[D8iDs the more intense use of the three. R&D has more recently been treated the S@0e as
office for traffic and building permit pU[p0S8S. ThBrefOr8. enforcing this |iDlit8doO is deemed
appropriate as it vvOU)d 08iDt3iO the historic 8||UxvaOCe and parking rate granted to the
development, reflect the current built -out conditions identified in the complex, while providing an
ability tOassure any further conversion ofsuch space tOaOoffice use would not occur,
Floor Area Ratio
8R&4C Section 14.10.150 implements the G8Oe[8| Plan Land Use Policy LU -9 which applies
floor area ratios to the site. This requirement was enacted just prior to adoption of the PD1875
amendment. Assignment of trip generation rates also was enacted prior to and included with
this amendment. The F4F< tables establish @ sliding sC@ie. with GD18}|er building sizes required
for office buildings and larger building sizes @||Ovved for light industrial Uses,
The applicable FAR ranges from aO.26FAR allowance for 1OO96office use and O.38allowance
for 10096 industrial use. Staff has confirmed that the maximum potential building floor area
attributable to the site remains CODlpli@Dt with the Z0niDA standards and general p|QO policies.
This is based 0Othe fact that the Bayview Business Park FAR was developed On 21 -acres
(before dedication Of |GOd to the City for wetland mitigation and ponds), Thus, the CU[[eDt FAR
tables would have aCCoDlnlOd8ted development from 237,837 square feet tO 347.808 square
feet. The resulting building area Of224.53Osquare feet falls under this FAR range.
2
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Parking
8pl&0C Chapter 14.18 provides that @ use shall not b8deemed non -conforming solely due tO
lack of parking that meets current standards, or that has been reduced for ADA compliance (i.e.
"gr@ndf@theR3d" parking). The current code requires parking SpaC33 per 1'000 square feet Of
Office Use (Outside of UOvvDt0vvn) VVh8neGS the site Dl@iO[8inG its historic parking rate Of 3.3
Sp8c8S per 1.000 square feet of office use. A[0tG| of 611 p8d{iDy Sp@CeS are required to Ol88t
the demand of the complex, based OO build -out (i.e., 3.3/1000 * 124.845 = 412.32 Sp8C8S +
2/1OOO°S8.585=1SS.17spaces; for atotal VfO11 spaces required, rounded down @tfraction
Of |eSS than .5\ As noted in the Background diSCUSSiOn. the Site maintains 8 grandfathered
parking supply 0f615 spaces; including |OSS of five (5) Sp8Ceg for new van accessible ADA
p8dh)nQ provided adjacent to buildings E, F and G. The site has 610 Sp@CeS available (including
5 unStriped Sp8CeS required adjacent to the interior side of Building F}, Thus, the 011 required
spaces are provided bythe existing and "0raOdf@thePed"parking supply of015spaces.
Given that the project would "intensify" office Use on the site. above previously anticipated
levels, and VV0Uld utilize 8 grandfathered lower parking rate for the office uses, staff requested
that 8 parking 8O8!ySiS be completed for the site. This was CODdUCt9d as noted in the June 25.
2012 letter from FDrSher 8^ Guthrie, attached as Source Reference 8 to the |Dbi@| Study
(Attachment 5).(Page O30fthis City Council Report) The analysis has revealed 8peak demand
for 375 parking Sp@C8S at the oOnlp{8x. Staff confirmed the parking supply exceeded demand
during p8@h morning and evening periods. Staff conducted weekday visits on February 7. 2013
@t11:3O8nland February 21.2O138t 2:3OpDl(when employees and clients were most likely t0
be using the parking |OLS)Review of the site indicated that 8096 of the parking supply was being
utilized. Staff further factored in current building v8C8OCieS; i.e.. S`OOO Gqu8[8 feet of vacant
office space inBuilding Aand the un -utilized 3.1OOsquare feet Qfspace iOBuilding H(proposed
for office use). The parking d8DlGDd generated by the current vacancies is less than 40 C8nG.
Based on the parking analysis, Over 150 parking Sp8CeS are unutilized within the CQQQp|eX.
Thus, the amount 0fparking provided is more than adequate to 8CCO00OdGte the demand for
the COD1p|ex. and CD0p|ieS with the &quDiCip8| Code.
Use Permit
The W18StB[ Use Permit is required to implement the PD zoning. 8eCbOD 14.22 (Use Permit)
requires that o use permit shall be in accord with the general p|8D and zoning OndiO8DCe. and
VvOU|d not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff and the Planning
Commission have recommended approval ofthe Master Use Permit with revisions tOreflect the
site build -out, and it has been concluded this xvVu}d be in the interest of the City and property
The use permit amendment would eliminate the unnecessary and burdensome [8COrd keeping
currently required t0track Use Changes and associated vehicle trips. The QhgiD@| CODdhiODS
have been incorporated into the revised nB8O|UdOD, with updated or revised conditions as
recommended by the Planning ConnnliSSi0O. All ph0[ conditions have been inC0npO[8[ed. as
DeC8Bs8ry, including ongoing conditions that have already been implemented for the project in
order to 8sauns all conditions are referenced in a single document for future reference and
enforcement.
The Master Use permit has been revised to require staff review of any further floor area
changes within the building, including allowance of incidental uses or transfer through issuance
of an administrative use permit (Attachment 4, Conditions 4 & 5). This would address request to
add an incidental support service use or to transfer allowable floor areas from one building to
another. The administrative review would provide an opportunity for staff to confirm that parking
and floor area standards would remain compliant, This would be in keeping with how standard
r*1
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
zoning regulations are applied iDthe traditional L|/O zoning districts, and would not place G
burden UOstaff 0rthe owners.
Public Comments
Public D[tiD8 of all hearings were posted On site and at the K88hO County Chedh. mailed to
residents and property VVVD8rS within 300 feet of the Site and published in the K8@hD U in
compliance with GRK8C Chapter 14.29 /NOUCiDg\ and the requirements Of{}EQA. Staff has not
received any public comments 0Othe proposed project.
Environmental Review (CEQA)
Before the City can consider @zoning action, an enviroDnn8D[@| initial study must be prepared
puFSU8O[ to the requirements of the California EDVi[OOnOeDt8| Quality Act (CE(]A). The project
proposes text amendments only, and would not permit any increased development intensity.
Therefore, the 8DVir000eOta( initial Study has resulted in preparation of Negative D8C|@r8tiOO
(concluding that the project would D0i have any significant eDvi[OD[Dent@| impacts). The |nid8|
Study/Negative Declaration was made available and noticed for 8 20 day public review period,
commencing OOMarch O,2O13.
Almost all Ofthe environmental impact categories result iD8'No Impact' determination based on
attached and referenced SOUnCe documents, which are listed On Page 23 of Negative
DeC|8[8bDn (Attachment 5) (Page 49 of this City Council Report). The only impact categories
that required diSCUGSiOD are the Land Use and Planning section, on Page 17 of the Negative
Oed8[8tiOD, and Transportation/Traffic on page 20 of the Negative Oec|GngUOO /PaQ0G 44 & 47
Ofthis City Council Reo0rM.These sections were discussed because the project vvOU)dR3SUUiO
8 change to the office and light industry floor areas and associated trips generated by the
project. The effects ofthese changes have been found LO have nVimpact, with one |eSS-th8O-
GiQnifiCaOt impact identified because of the inCna8Se in office FAR: which is G land use that has
slightly higher parking and traffic innp@CtS above light iOdUSi[i@|. HVvveV8[. no mitigation is
required for the project gsi[vvUU|dOOt[eSu|tiO3DyphySica|iDlp3CtSDO[he environment.
FISCAL IMPACT: Processing of the project zoning entitlements are subject to the City cost
recovery fee based system, and would have nOimpact OOCity funds.
OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options toconsider:
1. Pass the Ordinance to print8Ddedootbhe Resolutions approving the project 88
recommended bvthe Planning Commission;
2, Pass the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution approving the project, with revisions tothe
terms ofthe agreement orentibleonents'
1 Refer the Ordinance and Resolution back to the Planning Commission to consider further
modifications; or
4. Deny the Ordinance and Resolution,
1 Adopt Resolution, adopting a Negative Declaration as the CEQA Environmentai
Document for the Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment project.
2. P@SS (][diDGnCe to print to enact revised Planned Development District standards
for the Bayview Business Park to eliminate the outdated Trip Generation standards
and reconcile the gross building areas and mix ofuses.
3. Adopt Resolution to approve an amended Master Use Permit for the Bayview
Business Park to memorialize the built -out mix of office, light industrial and
research & development square footages.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
ATTACHMENTS Page No.
1. Vicinity Map 9
2. Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration 11
3. Ordinance amending PD1675 (Bayview Business Park Master Plan) 13
4. Resolution adopting an amended Master Use Permit 21
5. Negative Declaration & Sources (Bayview Business Park Project) 29
6. PC March 26, 2013 Action Minutes 79
7. Notice of Public Hearing 81
ATTACHMENT 1 - VICINITY MAP (Bayview Business Park)
500 0 500 1,040 1,500
FEET
Z3
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:36 AM
IM
RESOLUTION NO. 13531
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
LOCATED AT 22-150 PELICAN WAY, 2505-2597 KERNER BOULEVARD AND 85-101
GLACIER WAY
APN 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2012, Bayview Business Park Owners filed zoning and use
permit applications (ZC 12-001 & UP 12-040) to amend the existing Bayview Business Park Master
Plan, Planned Development District PD 1675 text, to update the ordinance consistent with current
general plan and zoning provisions and remove antiquated standards, and the Master Use Permit
UP82-65(c) conditions of approval to reflect the updated standards and built -out conditions of the
project; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the City of San Rafael Environmental
Assessment Procedures Manual and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, which found
that the project would not result in a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, a public notice regarding the Negative Declaration prepared
for this project was posted at the Marin County Clerk's office, posted on-site in two locations,
published in a local newspaper of general circulation in the area and mailed to surrounding
property owners within 300 feet, pertinent agencies (including responsible and trustee agencies),
organizations and special interest groups pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Negative Declaration were made available for a 20 -day review
period by pertinent agencies and interested members of the public, commencing on March 6, 2013;
and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the proposed project and the Negative Declaration, accepting all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development; and
WHEREAS, at its March 26, 2013 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 13-
04
04 unanimously recommending to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
project and the Negative Declaration, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the
written report of the Department of Community Development.- and
2-1
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 City Council of the City of San Rafael
does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the Bayview Business Park Master Plan
amendments to the use permit and PD zoning ordinance (text amendments) based on the findings
that:
a) The City Council has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the Negative
Declaration and the Negative Declaration has been considered in conjunction with
comments received during the public review period and at the public hearings.
b) Based on review of the whole record before it, including staff s report, the initial study
and any comments received, the City Council has determined that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment.
1, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of
said City on the 6`h day of May, 2013, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Colin, Connolly, Heller & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmember: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: McCullough
eff ,
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
2-2
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1910
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REZONING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD1675) TO REVISED PD
DISTRICT (ZC12-001) AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14—
ZONING, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK
MASTER PLAN.
RE: ZC12-001,22-150 PELICAN WAY, 2505-2597 KERNER BOULEVARD AND 85-101
GLACIER WAY; AP NOS. 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
This Summary concerns a proposed ordinance of the City Council of the City of San
Rafael, designated as Ordinance No 1910 that will amend the City of San Rafael Zoning Map,
adopted by reference in section 14.01.020 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, as detailed in the
complete text and accompanying map of Ordinance No. 1910. Ordinance No. 1910 was
introduced at a public hearing by the City Council on May 6, 2013, and is scheduled for adoption
by the San Rafael City Council at its regular meeting of May 20, 2013. The City Clerk has been
directed to publish this Summary pursuant to City Charter and California Government Code
section 36933(c)(1).
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Ordinance amends the Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael to reclassify certain
property located at 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Boulevard, and 85-101 Glacier Way,
San Rafael (APN's: 009-291-15, 16, 22, 23, 38, 39, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69 & 70), as more
particularly described in the Ordinance, amending the existing Planned Development (PD 1675)
District zoning standards in order to allow a revised mix of office and light industrial
development totaling 224,530 square feet in gross building area in 7 buildings on 12.9 acres,
which reflects the built -out conditions of the site, and to eliminate an outdated trip generation
development standard, and continue to allow the business park development subject to parking
standards and a master use permit.
For a copy of the complete text of Ordinance No. 1910, please contact the City Clerk at
(415) 485-3066 or the Planning Department at (415) 485-3085. Copies of Ordinance No. 1910
are also available for public review at the San Rafael Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue, 3`a
Floor, or City Clerk's Office, 1400 Fifth Avenue, 2°d Floor, Room 209 during regular business
hours, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ESTHER C. BEIRNE
San Rafael City Clerk
Dated: May 15, 2013
ORDINANCE NO. 1910
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REZONING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD 1675) TO REVISED
PD DISTRICT (ZC 12-00 1) AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE
14 — ZONING, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM
PD1675 TO REVISED PD AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE BAYVIEW BUSINESS
PARK MASTER PLAN 22-150 PELICAN WAY, 2505-2597 KERNER BOULEVARD
AND 85-101 GLACIER WAY
(APN 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
(ZC 12-001)
WHEREAS, on January 16, 1984, the Bayview Business Park Master Plan was
originally approved (file number Z82-16) by adoption of Ordinance 1474, before the City
had adopted floor area ratio and traffic trip generation rate policies, which granted
development for a mitigated site plan dated September 16, 1983 for 11 buildings with
104,730 square feet of office use and 140,192 square feet of light industrial use (to
include 104,192 square feet of general light industrial and 36,000 square feet of research
and development use) for a total of 244,922 square feet, with development standards
addressing parking, circulation, trip management, design and other requirements; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 1995, the Bayview Business Park Master Plan was
amended (file number Z94-6) by adoption of Ordinance 1675, to establish maximum
building sizes within 7 buildings, including 134,900 square feet of light industrial uses
and 104,000 square feet of office uses for a maximum total of 238,900 square feet,
consistent with the Master Use Permit UP82-65(c) and adoption of trip generation rates
allowing a maximum of 442 vehicle trips associated with the development, consistent
with the applicable General Plan 2000 policies; and
WHEREAS, October 19, 2012, Bayview Business Park Owners filed zoning and
use permit applications (ZC 12-001 & UP 12-040) to amend the existing Bayview
Business Park Master Plan, Planned Development District PD 1675 text to update the
ordinance consistent with current General Plan 2020 and San Rafael Municipal Code
zoning provisions by deleting an out -dated Trip Generation development standard, and to
concurrently amend the Master Use Permit UP82-65(c) conditions of approval to reflect
the updated standards and the built -out conditions of the complex; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of a separate resolution, the San Rafael Planning
Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the negative declaration
prepared for the current Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment Project as the
CEQA environmental document for the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed
public hearing on the proposed amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code, Title 14,
accepting all public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community
Development, and recommended to the City Council the approval of the amendments;
and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed
public hearing on the proposed Rezoning, as required by State law, accepting all oral and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development
Department staff reports relevant to the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by separate resolution has adopted the Negative
Declaration for the Bayview Business Park Master Plan amendment project; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of San Rafael
is the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this
decision is based.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
DIVISION 1. Findings.
The City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby determines and finds that all of the
facts and statements contained in the recitals herein and findings of the Planning
Commission Resolution 13-05 recommending to the Council adoption of this ordinance,
are true and correct.
DIVISION 2. Approval.
The City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby adopts the ordinance approving the
Bayview Business Park Master Plan development standards and property 'Legal
Description' as presented in Attachments "A" through "C" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
DIVISION 3. Publication.
A summary of this Ordinance shall be published and a certified copy of the full text of
this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to
the Council meeting at which it is adopted.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage, and
the summary of this Ordinance shall be published within fifteen (15) days after the
adoption, together with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against same,
in the Marin Independent Journal, a newspaper of general circulation published and
circulated in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California.
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall also post in the office
of the City Clerk, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names
of those Councilmembers voting for or against the Ordinance.
I
t I
GARY O. PHILLIPS, Mayor
ATTEST:
e--
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
The foregoing Ordinance No. 1910 was read and introduced at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of San Rafael on Monday, the 6th day of May, 2013, and
was ordered passed to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Colin, Connolly, Heller & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: McCullough
and will come up for adoption as an Ordinance of the City of San Rafael at a Regular
Meeting of the Council to be held on the 20th day of May, 2013.
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN
INTENT
s
The Bayview Business Park Master Plan is based on the plans presented and approved for
the Master Use Permit UP82-65(b) and Master Environmental and Design Review
Permit, ED85-54 which were approved by the City Council on December 16, 1985. The
Master Plan has been developed to reflect the amended Master Use Permit (UP 82-65(c))
and Master Design Review Permit (ED85-54) and incorporate the entitlements approved
with the original Planned Development District, PD (1474).
The Master Plan has been further revised through ZC 12-001 to reflect the built out
condition and eliminate antiquated trip generation development standards and monitoring
requirements contained in the prior amendment to the Planned Development District, PD
(1675) as adopted by the City Council on March 20, 1995. The amended Master Plan PD
shall continue to be implemented through an updated Master Use Permit approval granted
for use and occupancy of the entire Bayview Business Park complex.
The Bayview Business Park shall be managed and considered as whole irrespective of
subdivision of the property into a commercial condominium complex. The condominium
business park shall managed by a common owners association.
LAND USES
Uses permitted in Bayview Business Park include a mix of light industrial and office uses
for a maximum total of 224,530 gross square feet of building area. The mix of uses
allowed for each building shall be implemented through a Master Use Permit. Office uses
may occupy a maximum of 124,945 gross square feet of the total allowable building area.
The remaining 99,585 gross square feet of the allowable building area shall be used for
Light }industrial uses; which may include research and development facilities (up to a
maximum of 36,000 gross square feet), warehousing, wholesale distribution and other
uses of similar nature as determined by the Planning Director. Incidental employee
serving retail and services uses and retail uses supportive of and related to industrial uses
may be permitted, consistent with the applicable maximum building floor area and
parking standards established in this Master Plan.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following development standards shall apply to all development of the Bayview
Business Park.
Setbacks: Building setbacks shall be consistent with the Master Site Plan (e.g.,
Development Plan) approved with the Master Environmental and Design
Review Permit ED85-54.
4
Height: Maximum height 36'
Maximum Building Size (square feet):
Building A -
31,595
Building B -
28,135
Building C -
19,900
Building E -
28,350
Building F -
36,000
Building G -
29,450
Building H -
51,100
Total
224,530
Landscaping: Landscaping shall be consistent with the approved Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED85-54), and any subsequent amendments.
Parking: Parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved Master Design
Review Permit (ED85-54) or the requirements of Chapter 14.18 of the
City's zoning ordinance (Parking Standards) should an amendment to the
Master Design Review Permit be requested. Parking requirements
approved for Bayview Business Park are as follows:
• 3.3 parking spacesl1,000 gross square feet of Office space
• 2 parking spaces11,000 gross square feet of Light Industrial space
• Ancillary use parking shall be provided using the Chapter 14.18
parking table, or as otherwise determined through grant of a use permit
or parking modification
• Adjustments to parking rates may be considered by use permit
consistent with the provisions of Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards)
DESIGN STANDARDS
All buildings shall be consistent with the Project Design standards contained in the
conditions of approval for the Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED85-
54), and any subsequent amendments.
I
FoUt"103UR0
Legal Description
Situated in the State of California, County of Marin, City of San Rafael and described as
follows:
BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of the property described as "Parcel Two" in
the Deed from Marin Canalways and Development Company, a corporation to Marin
Development Company, a limited partnership, recorded March 26, 1956 in Volume 1016
of Official Records, at page 24, Marin County Records, being the intersection of the two
courses "North 38' 32' 42" West 360.71 feet and North 51' 27' 18" East 210.0 feet" in
said Deed-, running thence on meridian of said "Parcel Two", North 38' 32' 42" West
266.67 feet; thence North 51 ' 27' 18" East 1965 feet; thence Southeasterly in a direct line
for a distance of 906 feet, more or less, to a point on the Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 9
in Section 12, T I N, R 6 W, M.D.M., distant North 10 17' 18" East 2007.28 feet
(measured along the Easterly lines of Tide Land Lots 25, 24 and 9 in said Section 12)
from the Northeast corner of the property described in the Deed from Marin Canalways
and Development Company to the State of California, recorded September 25, 1957 in
Volume 1143, Official Records, at page 185, Marin County Records; thence Southerly
along the Easterly lines of said Tide Land Lots 9 and 24 for a distance of 506.28 feet,
more or less, to the Northeast corner of the property described in "Parcel One" in the
Deed from Marin Canalways and Development Company, a corporation to Equitable
Development Company recorded in Volume 1160, Official Records; at page 382, Marin
County Records; thence along the Northerly lines of said "Parcel One", North 88' 42'
42" West 660.0 feet to the Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 17 in Section 11; thence along
said Easterly line North 1' 17' 18" East 138.0 feet; thence leaving said last mentioned
line, North 51' 14' West 288.0 feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner of said
"Parcel One"; thence along the Northwesterly line of said parcel, South 380 46' West
1048.0 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning of said "Parcel One", being a
point on the Northeasterly line of "Parcel Two" in the Deed recorded in Volume 1016,
Official Records, at page 24, Marin County Records, hereinabove referred to; thence
Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said "Parcel Two", for a distance of 460.0
feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner thereof, thence along the Northwesterly
line of said parcel, South 51 ' 27' 18" West 210.0 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof lying within the boundaries of
California State Highway.
AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion conveyed to the Nature Conservancy,
a non-profit District of Columbia corporation by deed recorded December 30, 1969,
Book 2347, Official Records, page 512, Marin County Records.
0
EXHIBIT "C"
Bayview Business Park — Site Plan
7
North
a
Attachment 3
M. •
Bayview Business Park — Site Plan
3-8 CC Meeting _Vlay 6. 2013
Attachment 3 -- PD Ordinance
T
North
RESOLUTION NO. 13532
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING A MASTER USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK LOCATED AT 22-150
PELICAN WAY, 2505-2597 KERNER BOULEVARD AND 85-101 GLACIER WAY
APN: 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
WHEREAS, On October 19, 2012, Bayview Business Park Owners filed zoning and use
permit applications (ZC 12-001 & UPI 2-040) to amend the existing Bayview Business Park
Master Plan, Planned Development District PD 1675 text to update the ordinance consistent with
current general plan and zoning provisions and remove antiquated standards, and the Master Use
Permit UP82-65(c) conditions of approval to reflect the updated standards and built -out
conditions of the project; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the applications, an Initial Study was prepared consistent
with the requirements of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, finding that the proposed
development would not result in significant environmental effects. As a result, a Negative
Declaration was prepared and noticed for a 20 -day public review period beginning on March 6,
2013 and ending on March 26, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the proposed Zone Change and Use Permit, accepting all oral and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department
staff, and
WHEREAS, by adoption of a resolution 13-06 the San Rafael Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the Master Use Permit amendment for the Bayview
Business Park; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the San Rafael City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed Zone Change and Use Permit entitlements accepting all oral and written
public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of a separate resolution the San Rafael City Council adopted the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of a separate resolution the San Rafael City Council passed an
ordinance to print amending the Bayview Business Park Planned Development District (ZC 12-
001). consisting of text amendments only, which will be published and returned for adoption at
the next regular meeting of the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the following findings:
Findings (UP05-004)
A. The proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance,
and the purposes of the light industrial and office general plan designation and Planned
Development district in which the site is located given that it would implement the permitted
light industrial and office uses allowed within the Bayview Business Park pursuant to the
Planned Development District standards, as amended to reflect reduced gross building areas
and increased allowable office areas, in compliance with the existing and grandfathered
parking rates and with elimination of an outdated trip generation standard, with no new
development proposed.
B. 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 given that the project does not propose any
new or additional development, would reconcile existing built -out conditions, re -adopts
previously adopted conditions applicable to the project, and imposes new conditions to
assure that the development would remain in compliance with all applicable zoning
standards and requirements of the City of San Rafael.
C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance
given that the building areas have been reconciled to match built -out conditions, adequate
parking supply has been provided in compliance with applicable PD standards and
confirmed as adequate, and no new development would result.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael grants
approval of the Use Permit subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval (UP12-040)
Community Development Department, Planning Division
Permitted Land Uses & Building Areas
This Use Permit approval UPI 2-040 serves as the current Master Use Permit for the Bayview
Business Park light industrial and office development, and supersedes the prior, amended,
Master Use Permit UP82-65.
2. This Master Use Permit approval shall serve to update the allowable mix of office and light
industrial square footage and gross building area based on the built -out conditions of the
project, as stipulated by amendments to the sites PD zoning district and condition 3 below,
and eliminate trip counting and annual tenant mix monitoring requirements for the project.
This use permit shall notyo into effect until the PD zoning amendments (ZC12-001) are
enacted.
3. This Master Use Permit approves development of a maximum allowable 224,530 gross
square feet of building area in the Bayview Business Park. A maximum of 124,945 square
feet of space may be developed for Office use. The remaining 99,585 may be developed for
Light Industrial space. However, no more than 36,000 square feet of the Light Industrial
space may be utilized for Research and Development (R&D) uses, with the remainder of
space limited to lower intensity storage, warehouse, wholesale distribution and similar uses.
The approved building areas and uses shall be divided among seven (7) buildings on the 12.9
acre developable site area, with the maximum areas for each use established at the following
limits:
Office Sq. Ft. Light Industrial Sq. Ft. & Max. R&D
31,595
Gross Area
Building A
31,595
Building B
28,135
Building C
19,900
Building E
28,350
Building F
36,000
Building G
29,450
Office Sq. Ft. Light Industrial Sq. Ft. & Max. R&D
31,595
0
9,680
18,455 (with up to 9,100 of R&D)
13,305
6,595 (with up to 2,000 of R&D)
13,360
14,990
9000
27,000 (with up to 7,900 of R&D)
29,450
0
Building H 51,100 18,555 32,545 (with up of 17,000 of R&D)
Totals 224,530 124,945 99,585 (with up to 36,000 of R&D)
4. All buildings within the complex may be utilized entirely for light industrial uses. However,
maximum Office and Research and Development gross square footages shall not exceed the
limits specified in Condition 3 above. The maximum allowable Research & Development
and/or Office square footage may be adjusted to transfer the allowable building intensity from
one building to another through grant of an administrative use permit approval. This shall be
required to amend the gross building area table above, and confirm that gross maximum
allowable floor areas and parking are maintained in compliance with the standards of the PD
zoning.
Ancillary uses permitted under the PD District may be established within the permitted
building areas through grant of an administrative use permit approval, which shall be
required to confirm that the use complies with the established floor area ratios and that
parking provided on-site would be adequate for the use. Additional parking shall not be
required for incidental retail and service uses that serve the primary uses on the site, as
determined by the City Engineer and/or Community Development Director.
6. The applicant may submit documentation to the City of San Rafael Planning Division and
request a rescission of a deed restriction that was filed for a mezzanine level that was
permitted but not built for Building E.
7. Administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit approval shall be required for any
proposed reconfiguration or adjustment of the existing approved parking lot configuration or
landscape areas or other physical site or exterior building improvements.
Building Permits Required
8. Building permit(s) shall be obtained for any building and tenant improvements, as required
by the California Building Code.
9. Plans submitted for building permits shall be forwarded to the Department of Public Works
for its review and approval.
Prior Conditions and Mitigatio
10. All exterior modifications to the site or buildings shall comply with the approved design
standards specified in the adopted PD district Development Standards and the Environmental
and Design Review Permit ED85-54 site plan approval (e.g., Development Plan).
11. Changes that would significantly alter the approved Development Plan (i.e., site plan adopted
September 16, 1983) such as building placement and setback from wetland areas shall require
a major Environmental and Design Review Permit amendment.
12. The project has been constructed in substantial compliance with the conditions of approval
established for ED85-54, UP85-64(c) and prior zoning amendment Z82-16. Ongoing
conditions of approval have been updated, amended and incorporated herein, as applicable,
and this approval UPI 2-040 shall supersede all prior conditions of project approval.
13. All applicable environmental mitigation measures adopted for the project by the initial
environmental study mitigated negative declaration for Bayview Business Park, June 1983,
have been incorporated herein.
14. The project shall maintain a four -foot high vinyl clad cyclone fence within the inner boundary
of the five foot wide landscape buffer/upland habitat to discourage encroachment into pond
areas.
Project Design
15. Design approval has been granted for all 7 buildings constructed for build -out of the project.
Subsequent design review approval shall be required for any additions and modifications to
assure it would result in a design that is compatible with the project approvals.
16. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to shine downward, away from the highway and street
traffic as well as away from the pond areas, yet provide for the maximum security necessary
to the satisfaction of the Police and Fire Departments.
17. Each building shall be subject to environmental and design review, prior to issuance of
permits for construction, exterior alteration or additions. Each building shall carry a common
architectural theme with use of similar colors and building materials. Each building may be
subject to minor design alterations approved by the Design Review Board and staff.
18. No steel overhead doors for the light industrial buildings shall face Francisco Boulevard or
Kerner Boulevard. All overhead doors shall be painted the same color as the building siding.
19. The proposed decorative posts shall be masonry, wood or stucco to match the other building
materials.
20. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be enclosed within an architecturally compatible
screen that would match the appearance of the main building. Details of equipment screens
shall be submitted for review and approval by the City.
21. Trash enclosures shall be provided and maintained with a common design, constructed of
masonry, stucco, wood trim and trellis top to match building elevations. Trash enclosures
shall be located away from driveway entrances, the pond areas and other visually prominent
locations. Trash enclosure details shall be submitted for prior review and approval by the
City.
22. Landscaping that has been required and installed for the project, shoreline band and public
access pursuant to approved landscape plans shall be maintained in good repair and condition
for the duration of the project use. Landscape berms required and provided along the public
right of way in compliance with approved landscape plans shall be maintained to a height not
exceeding 3 feet to provide sight distance at driveways and intersections. Box trees of 24"
and 36" shall be utilized in these islands (for any replacement trees).
23. Decorative paving is encouraged at building entrance driveways and parking lot areas
connecting the office buildings.
24. A sign program for the entire project shall be maintained for the Bayview Business Park. The
program shall have a common design theme throughout the project.
25. The Bayview Business Park Master Use Permit and Development Plan approvals shall be
valid for the duration of the project use. All existing and approved site and building
improvements shall be maintained in good repair and condition for the duration of the use,
and any changes shall be subject to prior review and approval by the Planning Division.
Parking & Circulation (Existing & Ongoing Conditions)
26. The project, as proposed. generates demand for up to 611 parking spaces based on the
applicable PD zoning rates of 3.3 spaces for office use and 2 spaces for light industrial use;
whereas capacity for parking of 610 vehicles is currently provided (due to reduction in total
spaces required to meet handicap accessibility parking requirements; and includes capacity
for 5 parking spaces adjacent to the interior side of Building F — between loading and rear
entry doors). The 610 parking spaces shall be determined as adequate to meet peak demand
for the current mix of office and industrial development; pursuant to the San Rafael
Municipal Code Chapter 14.18 (Grandfathered Parking).
27. The public may use the parking lot at the northeast end of the site on weekends or after hours
for access to the shoreline band.
28. Public access to the shoreline band at the end of Pelican Way shall be maintained with an
inviting entrance, minimum 8 -foot wide asphaltic -concrete paved path, and with landscaping
that would screen parking yet not obstruct views to the bay. Additionally, a chain link fence
has been required and installed north of the access path between the access entrance at the
Pelican Way cul-de-sac and the connection to the Shoreline band to secure the Marin
Municipal Water District storage yard and protect the pond north of the access path.
29. Parking along the peninsulas adjacent to the ponds, northeast and southeast of the buildings,
shall be reserved for employee parking for the office buildings. Heavy landscaping to include
trees of 24" and 36" box size have been required to be planted around the parking lots to
provide screening of parked vehicles.
30. The project has paid its fair share of traffic mitigation fees for development constructed to
date. Additional traffic mitigation fees would be required, as determined by the City
Engineer, for any further project additions.
Public Works Department (Existing & Ongoing Conditions of Approval)
Site, Grading & Building Design
31. Final finish floor elevations of building additions shall be subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
32. Handicap access requirements shall be complied with at time of building permit issuance for
additions and modifications.
33. Any new grading and earthwork for building additions shall be prepared in accordance with
the recommendations of an updated soils and geotechnical report prepared for the site.
34. Grading, drainage and foundation plans shall be reviewed and signed by a soils engineer. All
work shall be done under the direction of a soils engineer and a final report shall be
submitted prior to the acceptance of the work
35. Methane mitigation measures that have been required to be incorporated into the building
designs shall be maintained for the duration of the project, as deemed necessary for the health
and safety of the building and occupants. Any new buildings/additions shall be reviewed by a
qualified environmental health professional to ensure that proper methane measures are
incorporated into the design.
36. Disturbance of any debris fill material as a result of grading, paving, or building construction
shall require proper capping or covering of the area with clean fill material, or removal of
contaminated material with disposal at an approved site to the satisfaction of the State
Department of Health Services.
37. Development shall meet finished flood elevations and other requirements of the San Rafael
Municipal Code to protect structures from flooding.
Storm Drainage
38. Any alterations to the approved storm drainage systems shall be as recommended by a soils
engineer and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer to assure gradient and
design of storm drain improvements adequately accounts for settlement and preclude
methane intrusion.
39. Runoff from improved areas shall be collected and conveyed to the street by underground
conduit and/or sidewalk drains. Drainage shall not be diverted or concentrated onto adjoining
properties, or over sidewalks or driveways. Design of drainage running through landscape
areas is encouraged, to filter out contaminants.
40. All final drainage configurations shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Sanitary Sewer
41. Sanitary sewer plans for building additions shall be subject to review and approval by the San
Rafael Sanitation District.
42. Modifications to sanitary sewer facilities shall be accommodate settlement and preclude
methane intrusion, as recommended by the soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
Agreements & Securities
43. Bayview Business Park shall remain subject to any existing agreements and securities made
by the applicant with the City of San Rafael.
Environmental Health
44. Five monitoring wells have been required along the perimeter of the ponds for the purpose of
measuring water levels within the fill. The water within the wells is required to be tested
twice a year (starting from January 1, 1984), to ensure that no toxic ground water from the fill
migrates or leaches into the pond areas. The test results are required to be prepared by a
reputable laboratory and submitted to the County Environmental Health and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board for review. If leaching occurs, additional mitigation measures
shall be required of the developer with bonding or other security provided (as determined by
the City) to assure implementation.
1, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of
said City on the 6t' day of May, 2013, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Colin, Connolly, Heller & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmember: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: McCullough
�
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
Attachment 5
BAY, VIEW BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Ferner Blvd, & 85-101 Glacier Pt. Road,
San Rafael, (Marin County) CA
Assessor's Parcel No. 009-291-15,16)22,23,38)39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
Lead Ageucy-
Citv of San Rafael
Coiiiinunity Developnictit Departineiit
1400 Fifth Avejiue (P.O. Box 151560)
Sail Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Cwitaet: Kra"- Tambomii-ii, Scaior Plailner
Marcli 6, 2013
1
1k
3
o" idr
Lead Ageucy-
Citv of San Rafael
Coiiiinunity Developnictit Departineiit
1400 Fifth Avejiue (P.O. Box 151560)
Sail Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Cwitaet: Kra"- Tambomii-ii, Scaior Plailner
Marcli 6, 2013
ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST ......................................................................................................................5
EXHIBITS................................................................................................................................................................
9
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .....................................................................10
DETERMINATION..............................................................................................................................................10
EVALUATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................................................11
I.
AESTHETICS...............................................................................................................................
I l
II.
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...........................:..............................................11
III.
AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................................12
IV.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................13
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................14
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS...............................................................................................................14
VII.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS...........................................................................................15
VIII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS NIATERIALS..........................................................................15
IX.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................16
X.
LAND USE AND PLANNING .....................................................................................................17
XI.
MfNERAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................18
XII.
NOISE..........................................................................:.................................................................18
XII1.
POPULATION AND HOUSING...................................—........,....,,......,...............,........,..............19
XIV.
PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................19
XV.
RECREATION..............................................................................................................................20
XVI.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..................................................................................................20
XVII.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................................................21
XVIII.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................22
SOURCEREFERENCES... ....................... ...................................... -- .......... — ................................. — ..............
23
DETERMINATION
FOR PROJECT ... ......................a...............,...,.,,.....,.................a....._................... .......... ...24
Wil
DATE: March 5, 2013
TO: Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties
FROM: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
MAYOR ALBERT J. BoRo
VICE MAYOR GREG BROCKBAINK
NCILMEMBER DAMON CONNOLLY
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA HELLER
COUNCILMEMBER MARC LEvNE
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department
of Community Development of the Cit;-, of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following
project:
Project Name: Bayview Business Park Master Plan Planned Development Zoning District Amendment
Location: 22-100 Pelican Way; 2505-2550 & 2591 Kerner Blvd, and 85-101 Glacier Way, San Rafael, Marin
County, California, APNs: 009-291-15,16,22,23,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70.
Property Description: The subject property is a 12.9 acre site comprised of three (3) common parcels developed with
nine (9) commercial condominium units in seven (7) buildings. The site is a level parcel comprised of fill placed over former
tidelands located in east San Rafael. The common parcels, from Francisco Boulevard moving east, are Parcel A (3.533 acres)
which contains 3 buildings and 5 total condominium units, Parcel B (1.26 acres) with I condominium building, and Parcel C
(4.831 acres) with 3 condominium buildings. The property has been built -out as a light industrial and office complex. The
project is bound by E Francisco Boulevard along its west boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundary, Kerner Boulevard
which crosses through the project generally running north and south, City of San Rafael detention ponds (aka Bayview
Lagoon) and San Rafael Bay to the east.
Project Description: The project consists of a minor amendment to existing planned development (PD) zoning and use
permit approvals granted for a developed and built -out property; Bayview Business Park. The project proposes to modify the
existing Planned Development (PD] 675) zoning ordinance provisions for the following purposes:
* To update the current gross building areas and the mix of office, research & development and light industrial, tenant
square footage amounts to reflect the built -out condition of the business park. This would include an increase in
permitted office square footage by approximately 21,000 square feet including permitting occupancy of 3,552 square
feet of unutilized vacant space located within Building H and reducing the total gross building area for the entire 7
building complex by 14,391 square feet in order to reflect the as -built conditions.
* To eliminate the Trip Generation development standard and monitoring requirements of the PD and Master Use Permit
that was previously established in order to regulate maximum office and light industrial square footage allowances. This
standard is no longer used to regulate development within the City.
Z�
There is no new development being proposed as part of the project and the existing project conditions shall be reviewed and
incorporated into and made a part of the proposed amendment. The project was originally approved for 238,900 gross square
feet of building area in 7 structures; with a mix of 135,900 square feet of light industrial (including 36,000 square feet of
research & development) and 104,000 square feet of office space, with the mix of office and light industrial area based on the
trip generation rates adopted as part of the PD district. Maximum areas for each building have been established as follows:
Building A - 40,000
Building B - 30,000
Building C - 20,000
Building E - 28,000
Building F - 41,400
Building G - 31,500
M
32
Building H 48.000
Totals: 238,900
Construction commenced in 1985 and was predominately completed in the 1990's with the construction of Building A. The
last building addition was completed in 2004. The project has been built out at 224,509 square feet; with a 99,759 square feet
of light industrial (including 36,000 square feet of research & development) and 124,930 square feet of office use. The mix
of office and light industrial uses that have been permitted for the project are consistent with the trip generation and parking
rates established by the PD 1675 to regulate development. The as -built building areas are as follows:
BUILDING AREA LAND USE
Building A 31,594 Office
Building B 28,129 Light Industrial/R&D/Office
Building C 19,894 Light Industrial/R&D"Office
Buildina, E 28,344 Light Ind-Warehouse/Office
Building F 36,000 Light IndustriaYR&D"Office
Building G 29,450 Light Industrial
Building H 5L098 Light Industrial/R&D/Office
TOTAL 224,509
Parking Demand
The current mix of office and light industrial development triggers a demand for 611 parking spaces based on the PD 1675
parking rates. PD1675 (adopted 3/20/95) requires 33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space and 2 spaces per 1,000
square feet of industrial space. If the current parking rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space were applied to the
project, 700 parking spaces would be required by the current standards. All parking is currently considered to be shared
throughout the entire complex. Based on field verification of total parking spaces provided on site, staff has identified that
parking spaces for 610 vehicles is currently provided (this includes an additional 5 parking spaces called for behind Building
F that are not currently striped). The current parking supply reflects reductions made to accommodate minor site
improvements permitted by the City (including removal of spaces near Buildings B and E for placement of equipment) and to
provide additional handicap parking spaces that resulted in total loss of 5 spaces for the ADA upgrades at Buildings F, G and
E. Thus, the "grandfathered" parking supply established for the project is for 615 parking spaces- consistent with the
provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.18.240 which recognizes existing parking supply provided in
compliance with prior zoning regulations as adequate, and allows for reduction in on-site parking to meet ADA requirements.
Environmental Issues: The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document prepared for this Project (consisting of an
amendment to an the text of an existing Planned Development zoning ordinance adopted for a developed and built -out site)
has been prepared in consultation with local agencies and in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Preapplication consultation with other agencies pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060.5 was
not needed for this Project, which would not result in further development of the site or require any other permits from
other responsible or trustee agencies. However, zoning amendments do not quality as exempt under the CEQA Guidelines
and must require preparation of an Initial Study and Negative Declaration to proceed.. The General -Rule under CEQA
Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) has not been deemed to apply to this matter. Thus, the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration will
serve as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for the project, any subsequent phases of the project
and for permits/approvals required by a responsible agency.
Discussion of Impacts: The proposed Project described herein would not result in any potentially significant impacts.
Less -than -significant impacts in sections 'X Land Use and Planning" and "XVI. Transportation/Traffic" environmental
impact categories have been discussed relative to scope of changes proposed to the current PD1675 zoning regulations by the
Project, i.e., elimination of Traffic Generation rates standard and as -built mix of office and light industrial uses.
No L(Lect Determination Request to Ca Fish & Game: Given that the Project only consists of an amendment to remove an
obsolete development standard, and would not result in any further development of the built -out site or require any additional
permits from agencies other than the City of San Rafael City Council through grant of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, a
No Effect Determination request shall be submitted to the State Department of Fish and Game for this Project.
Public Noticln�: A twenty -day 20 -day) -public review period shall commence on Nk'ednesday March 6, 2013. NVritten
comments must be sent to the City of San Rafael, Community Development Department, Planning Division. 1400 Fifth
Avenue, San Rafael CA 94901 by Tuesday. March 26, 2013. ). The City of San Rafael Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration on Tuesday, March 26 '2013. 7:00 PM in the San Rafael City
Council Chambers at City, Halt (address listed above). Correspondence and comments can be delivered to Kraig Tambornini,
project planner, phone- (415) 485-3092, email: kLaie.iambominia�,c.it�ofsanrafael.ora.
Motice of Intent 4 Bayview Business Park easter Plan Amendment
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title
2. Lead Agency Name & Address
3. Contact Person & Phone Number
Bay -view Business Park Master Plan Amendment
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)
San Rafael, California 94915-1560
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
Phone number: (415) 485-3092
Email: kraig.tambornini('ii,,citvofsanrafael.ors4
4. Project Location The site is located in the City of San Rafael, Marin County,
California in east San Rafael, east of US 101, west of
Richardson/San Pablo Bay at the intersection of Pelican Way and
Kerner Boulevard, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 009-291-15, 16, 22, 23,
38, 39, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69 & 70 (Refer to Exhibit A, "Vicinity
Map").
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address
6. General Plan Designation
Project Sponsor:
Bayview Business Park Owners
c/o Rebecca Cranford, McAsvoy Mgmt
PO Box 1269
Novato, CA 94948
Sponsor's Representative:
Same as above
Light Industry/Office
PD 1675 (Bayview Business Park Light Industrial and Office)
Light
and Built Out Floor Areas
The project consists of a minor amendment to the existing Planned Development District zoning and use permit
approvals for a developed and built -out property. No net new development is proposed as part of the project, and
all ongoing conditions of the original approvals which are not being amended shall be incorporated into and made
a part of the proposed amendment. The existing Planned Development (PD1675) zoning ordinance provisions are
proposed to be modified for the following purposes:
* Update the current permitted mix of office, research & development and light industrial tenant square footage
amounts to reflect the built -out condition.
* Eliminate Trip Generation monitoring required in the PD and Master Use Permit; which were previously
required to determine maximum office and light industrial square footage allowances.
Environmental Checklist Foryn 5 Bayviezzv Business Park Master Plan 33
The project was approved for 238,900 gross square feet of building area in 7 structures; with a mix of 135,900
square feet of light industrial (including 36,000 square feet of research & development) and 104,000 square feet
of office space. The current PD 1675 regulates the mix of office and light industrial area based on trip generation
rates that have been adopted as part of the PD district, with maximum areas for each building established as
follows:
Buildina, A -
40,000
Building B -
30,000
Building C -
20,000
Building E -
28,000
Building F -
41,400
Building G -
31,500
Building, H -
48 OQO
Totals:
238,900
Construction commenced in 1985 and was predominately completed in the 1990's with construction of Building
A. The last building addition was completed in 2004. The project proposes to eliminate the trip generation rates,
which are out of date and no longer used to regulate development. The project approvals required that the
business park provide an annual report of its mix of office and light industrial usage. The mix of uses allowed for
each building would be established through the amended use permit to maintain ongoing compliance with parking
demand and supply, which is discussed further below.
The project has been built out at 224,509 square feet; with a 99,759 square feet of light industrial (including
36,000 square feet of research & development -R&D) and 124,930 square feet of office use. The mix of office and
light industrial uses that have been pennitted for the project remain consistent with the trip generation rates and
parking standards that were established by the PD 1675 to regulate development. The as -built building areas are
as follows:
The built -out condition has resulted in a reduction in the total allowable gross building square footage by 14,391
square feet previously permitted and an increase in maximum permitted office area by approximately 21,000
square feet. The amendment would memorialize the increase in office are, reduction in gross building area, and
permit occupancy of existing built and vacant space in Building H. No additional development is proposed.
Parking
The current PD 1675 district establishes a parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space and 2
spaces per 1,000 square feet of industrial space. This rate is consistent with the parking ordinance that was in
effect when the original PD zoning was established for the site. The parking is shared throughout the entire
complex. A total of 615 parking spaces Nvould have been required to build out the site as originally proposed.
C� originally
Parking spaces have been provided for the current mix of office and light industrial spaces in accordance with the
PD standards. Ho,,vever, the park-iticr supply provided has been reduced to comply with ADA accessible parking
standards, and the site currently provides capacity for 610 parking spaces (605 striped and 5 unstriped). This
includes parking for 5 vehicles that currently are required but are not currently striped adjacent to, the interior side
of Building F. The "grandfathered" parking amount for the complex is 615 parking spaces; based on a total net
1� ZIn
34 Environniental Checklist Forul 6 Ba�r'_Iiezv Business Park Master Plan
Gross Area
Office Sq. Ft.
Light Industrial Sq. Ft. (Max. R&D)
Buildinc, A
31,595
31,595
0
Building B
28,135
9,680
18,455
(9,100 R&D)
Building C
19,900
13,305
6,595
(2,000 R&D)
Building E
28,350
13,360
14,990
Building F
36,000
9000
27,000
(7,900 R&D)
Building G
29,450
29,450
0
Building
32,545
(17,000 R&D)
Totals
224,530
124,945
99,585
(36,000 R&D)
The built -out condition has resulted in a reduction in the total allowable gross building square footage by 14,391
square feet previously permitted and an increase in maximum permitted office area by approximately 21,000
square feet. The amendment would memorialize the increase in office are, reduction in gross building area, and
permit occupancy of existing built and vacant space in Building H. No additional development is proposed.
Parking
The current PD 1675 district establishes a parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space and 2
spaces per 1,000 square feet of industrial space. This rate is consistent with the parking ordinance that was in
effect when the original PD zoning was established for the site. The parking is shared throughout the entire
complex. A total of 615 parking spaces Nvould have been required to build out the site as originally proposed.
C� originally
Parking spaces have been provided for the current mix of office and light industrial spaces in accordance with the
PD standards. Ho,,vever, the park-iticr supply provided has been reduced to comply with ADA accessible parking
standards, and the site currently provides capacity for 610 parking spaces (605 striped and 5 unstriped). This
includes parking for 5 vehicles that currently are required but are not currently striped adjacent to, the interior side
of Building F. The "grandfathered" parking amount for the complex is 615 parking spaces; based on a total net
1� ZIn
34 Environniental Checklist Forul 6 Ba�r'_Iiezv Business Park Master Plan
reduction by 5 parking spaces that occurred adjacent to Building's E, F and G in order to provide compliant ADA
accessible spaces.
If the current San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Chapter 14.18 parking standards were applied to the built -out
project, the parking demand would be increased to 700 spaces (based on the higher office parking rate of 4 spaces
per 1,000 square feet). However, use of the historic parking rate established by the PD 1675 standards is
compliant with the San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.18.240 (Grandfathered parking) provisions which state;
A) a legal use of land shall not be considered nonconforming solely because of lack of off-street parking
prescribed in Chapter 14.18, and B) the number of existing spaces may be reduced to achieve compliance with
disabled parking requirements. Additional parking in compliance with current standards may be required for
expansions and enlargements. The disabled parking current standard required increase in several spaces from 14
feet to 17 feet in width (to allow for a 9 foot standard space and 8 foot unloading zone). As mentioned above, this
change in the disabled parking standards accounts for the current reduction in the amount of parking required for
the site by 5 parking spaces.
The project does not propose an expansion of building area, and staff has determined that the parking provided
on-site would be in compliance with the provisions of the current PD 1675 Zone District and SRMC Section
14.18.240 discussed above. Therefore, the project would not require a parking modification in order to continue
using the historic parking rate for its built -out condition. Nevertheless, staff requested that parking counts be
taken for the project to determine whether there were any parking constraints realized on-site. Forsher + Guthrie
were hired to conduct this study, and conducted counts on two occasions: at 11:30 am, Tuesday May 15, 2012 and
2:30 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012. These counts documented that 375 spaces of the 605 striped available
spaces were being utilized. Staff visited the site at 11:30 am on Thursday, February 7, 2013 and again on
Thursday February 21, 2013. The site visit confirmed the amount of parking provided on the site and that the
counts presented by Forsher + Guthrie appear to reflect actual usage and accommodates the demand of the
complex. It should be noted that at the time the counts were taken, Building A reported vacancy of 6,000 square
feet of office space and Building H maintains 3,552 square feet of unused office space; equating to demand for 33
parking spaces. Given the available unused parking spaces observed on the site, the supply appears adequate for
demand of the multi -tenant business park even with the current vacancy amounts considered.
Review of Prior Development and Environmental Review
An Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Bayview Business Park
Development, at Francisco Blvd & Pelican Way (AP49-290311) in June 1983.1 According to this initial study the
Project site originally encompassed 26 acres of land located along the shoreline in East San Rafael, which
extended from Francisco Blvd East to the San Rafael Bay. Although once a mudflat subject to tidal action, 18 of
the 26 acres had been filled sorrie I' ) to 20 years prior to elevations -7 MSL,, and was fon-nerly a dump site
operated by San Quentin Disposal.
The City had also approved four use permits between 1981 and 1983 for stock -piling and fills on the property. The
site was developed prior to adoption of General Plan 2000 (CC Resolution 7771, July 18, 1988), but in
compliance with a June 1982 East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan that allowed partial filling and
development of seasonal wetlands with preservation and enhancement of annual wetlands and ponds. The land
area developed as the business park includes Parcel 1 (4.461 acres) and 2 (8.482 acres) as shown on Parcel Map
PM 22 50 dated December 1984. Another 7.8 acres of land consist of marsh and seasonal wetland subject to US
Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and the shoreline levee. These lands are identified on PM 22 50 as Parcel
A (2.089 acres), Parcel B (6.270 acres) and Parcel C (0.194 acres) ponding areas that were dedicated the City of
San Rafael in 1984, and Parcel D which was to be deeded to the nature conservancy (levee and shoreline path
Parcel). The development has been subject to use permits and amendments to the ordinance primarily monitoring
the amount of office development built within the business park (reference to project file's ZC94-6, PD1474 &
PD 1675).
1,t'i7itiai'Eizvii,oiinienta!S,'uiti,,,,','vf,;tic,,atediVegative Deciaration (Bayview Business Park) prepared Zine 1983
Environmental Checklist Forni 7 Bayview Business Park Master Plan 35
M
A Memorandum to the file dated December 19, 1999 from Bob Brown, Community Development Director, noted
that the current PD 1675 (as amended 3/20/95) allows 104,000 square feet of office space with the remainder
beino, light industrial uses and total building area of 238,900 square feet; so- as not to exceed the 442 peak hour
trips allocated to the property. The business park ownership maintains responsibility for tracking and submitting
the annual review of total office space development. During the two years prior to this memorandum the
ownership of buildings was transferred to individual owners, and reporting to the City of total office space
developed in the project ceased. Entitlements were also granted for the Quadra-med Building A to be developed
on the remaining undeveloped portion of the site, as a 30,236 square foot office building; which exceeded the
original split assumed for this building but which remained under the 104,000 square foot cumulative cap for
office space. Office space allocation was granted on a first-come basis assuming that the ownership management
was monitoring the land use split (required pursuant to Article XIV of the CC&R's recorded for the lots within
the commercial condominium development). However, this resulted in Building H not being able to realize its
original allocation for up to 15,000 square feet of office space, with only 6,783 square feet of office allocation
remaining for the development. To rectify this inequity, it was determined that Building H would be permitted to
build -out its original 15,000 square foot office allowance given that, a) 25% office is allowed as part of a light
industrial use and b) the traffic generated by the Bayview Business Park was less than the 442 peak hour trips.
Subsequent to this Memorandum, due to lack of proper reporting by the ownership and monitoring by the City,
the individual tenants have secured permits created office space that further exceeded the original permitted land
use mix allowed by the PD (as modified by the December 1999 memorandum). However, the increase in office
remained compliant with the Trip Generation and Parking standards of the PD. In order to address the modified
land use mix an amendment to the PD is necessary. Staff has worked with the business park association to address
this by eliminating the out of date Trip Generation standard and monitoring requirement and memorializing the
current FAR as a reasonable and appropriate land use mix.
Zoning Entitlements Required
PD Rezoning Amendment: Amend Development Standards to update the allowable mix of office
and light industrial land uses and delete Trip Generation rates.
Master Use Permit Amendment: Amend the allowable mix of Office/Research & Development and Light
Industrial uses and re -adopt ongoing and new conditions of approval for
Bayv,iew Business Park.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
The project would not require any additional permits from agencies other than the City of San Rafael City
Council through grant of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
A No Effect Determination reauest shall be submitted to the StateDepartmentof Fish and Game for this
Pmiect.
Environmental Checklist Form 8 Bayviezv Business Parr, Waster Plan
Vicinity Map
Kim
PD(1895)
CEENTRAL
NIARLN
SANITAT[ON P/Qp
PLANT
P/os
Figure I - Bayview Business Park Vicinity Alap
Environmentrd Checklist Form 9 BaY-11,. iezo Business PerkAlcister Pian 37
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
El
Aesthetics
F-1
Agriculture Resources
F-1
Air Quality
F-1
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
Materials
E]
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation / Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
F]
Mandatory Finding of
Significance
Discussion: No environmental factors would be potentially significant as a result of this Project.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
El I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has been
Z71
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets; An ENVIRONMENTAL IN-VIPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER
EIR or NEGATWE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
ig Tambomini, Senior Planner
Date
38 Environmental Checklist l=oan 10 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
Pursuant to the general concepts found ion the CEQA Guidelines section 15002 and 15063, the checklist below
has been used to determine whether the activities related to this Project, which is subject to CEQA, would have
potential, significant environmental effects and to identify ways to avoid, prevent or significantly reduce any
environmental damage. Further, in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, including Appendix G — Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts, a determination of No Impact indicates that, based on the nature of the proposed Project
and/or its Project Description (including all referenced plans and materials), it is clearly evident that the Project
would not have any significant physical effect on environment in the subject impact category and, therefore, no
further discussion is warranted or necessary. Where the determination of No Impact is not made or readily
determined based on the Project's nature and/or its Project Description, a discussion of the environmental impact
category has been provided.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its El El
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or E] El
nighttime views in the area?
If. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project: {In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland./ In determining whether impacts
to a forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state's inventory of
Environmental Checklist Form 11 Bayview Business Park I'Vas ter Plan 39
Potentially
Less -Than-
Less -Than-
NO
Significant
Significant With
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
El
El
El
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
El
El
❑
state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its El El
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or E] El
nighttime views in the area?
If. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project: {In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland./ In determining whether impacts
to a forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state's inventory of
Environmental Checklist Form 11 Bayview Business Park I'Vas ter Plan 39
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
assessment Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource
Board,
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and El
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? F]
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources ❑
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511104(g))
d. Result in the loss offorest land or conversion
offorest land to non -forest use? D
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of F,
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion offorest land to non forest use?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality) plan? F-1
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or ❑
projected air quality violation
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non — attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air El
quality standard (including releasing
emissions ssi . ons which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
F1
El
Z
E-1
El
Z
40 Environmental Checklist Form 12 Baymie-U7 Business Park Niaster Plan
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? El
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number ofpeople? 1:1 El El 0
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or E] F] El
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the El El El
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal F] F1 El N
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wiidii/c species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or El
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
,such as a tree preservation policy or El 0
ordinance?
f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, AT'atural
Coinmuni4, Conservation Plan, or other El F-1 ❑
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Environmental Checklist Form 13 Bauview. Business Park- Nfasiler Plan 41
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
F]
defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
E]
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
E]
❑
El
❑
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside offormal cemeteries?
El
E]
El
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning 1111ap issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
El
0
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of,,111ines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
El
El
iii) Seismic related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
El
El
F-1
❑
iv) Landslides?
F1
E]
El
b, Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
Qf'topsoil?
El
❑
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result ql'the project, and potentially result in
❑
El
on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
42 Environmental Checklist Form 14 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or El ❑ El
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the El
disposal of wastewater?
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS
Would the project:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ssions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑❑F1
significant impact on the environment?
g. Conflict with an applicable plan,, policy or
regulation for the purpose of reducing the E] F1
❑
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ❑ El El
materials?
b. Create a signcant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
,foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
El
El
0
M
of an existing or proposed school?
d, Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result would it create a
El
❑
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. F, or a project located within an airport land
❑
El
El
N
Environmental Checklist Form 15 Bayview Business Park ik,laster Plan 43
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard far people residing
or working in the project area?
f For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or -working in the F -I
project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ El El 0
plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildlandfires, including where wildlands are F -I F1 ❑
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
I wl� on MA U till
Would the project:
a Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? El El El
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there -would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g... the F -I n El
production rate of pre-existing nearby i,;efls
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which -would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
Pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or 17 El
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
44 EnvironnientalChecklist Form 16 Bayviezv Business Park- Master Plan
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
would result in flooding on- or off- site?
El
M
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
e.
Create or contribute runoff water which
policy, or regulation of an agency with
would exceed the capacity of existing or
Pirisdicfr>on ove7 the p,oject (inch!di,g blit
planned storinwater drainage systems or
❑
El
❑0
F1
provide substantial additional sources of
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
polluted runoff?
mitigating an environmental effect?
f
Otherwise substantially degrade -water
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
quality?
F1
conservation plan or natural community
❑
M
g.
Place housing within a 100 year flood
conservation plan?
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
El
El
❑
Afap or other flood hazard delineation map?
h.
Place within a 100 year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i.
Expose people or structures to a signcant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
❑
El
❑
failure of a levee or dam?
j.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
El
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
E]
El
M
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
Pirisdicfr>on ove7 the p,oject (inch!di,g blit
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
E:]
El
F1
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
❑
El
EJ
conservation plan?
Discussion:
The Site is desi-nated Light Industry/Office on the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Land Use Map;
L� - -
prepared and referenced under General Plan Policy LU -23. The Light Industrialloffice land use category
identified in Policy LU -23 & General Plan 2020 Exhibit I I allows the following land uses:
Environmental Checklist Form 17 Bayview Business Park Master Plait 45
"Motor vehicle service, contractor uses and yards, light manufacturing, distribution, warehousing
and storage, incidental employee serving retail/ service, and office use. Specialty retail uses may
M
be allowed to occupy minor portions of the Light Industrial/Office districts provided that intensity
and traffic standards are met and the integrity of the district is not threatened."
The Trip Generation rate standard that has been established in the PD 1675 which is being used to regulate the
mix of office and light industrial land uses in the business park development is no longer required under the
General Plan 2020 circulation element policies. Further, the standard is out of date and does not reflect current
trip generation rates. Maximum building areas are regulated under General Plan Policy LU -9 — Intensity of Non -
Residential Development, which establish floor area ratio limits for specific land use categories. General Plan
2020 Exhibit 4 establishes a sliding floor area ratio for light industrial and office development in this area;
ranging from 0.26 to 0.38 FAR for light industrial/office development. The gross building areas were established
based on the original 1985 PD zoning enacted for the site and prior to adoption of prior General 2000 which
adopted the current floor area ratios applied within the City. The property had been subdivided from an original
land area of 26 acres, including land that extended to the San Rafael Bay and subject to BCDC jurisdiction. An
estimated 21 acres of land were located inboard of the bay. As part of the project, portions of the site were
dedicated for use as permanent ponding areas and wetland buffers, with a net developable land area of 12.9 acres.
The current PD results in a 0.425 floor area ratio for office and light industry development based on 238,900 gross
square feet of building area and net 12.9 -acres of developable site area remaining (following dedication of
ponding area and shoreline band parcels). The floor area ratio would be 0.26 if calculated based on the original 21
acres of land that are located inboard of the bay (prior to dedication of land for ponds and levee trail
improvements). The amendment proposed tothe PD 1675 would recognize the increase in permitted office area
(by approximately 21,000 square feet) and the net reduction in gross building area by approximately 14,390
square feet (from 238,900 gross square feet to approximately 224,510 square feet). Although the build -out
exceeded the mix of uses discussed under the amended PD1675 and master use permit, the development mix
remains in compliance with the PD 1675 trip generation and parking standards.
Based on this discussion, staff has determined that the amendment would not result in an intensification of land
use, parking or traffic generation based on its built -out condition and would not conflict with the applicable City
of San Rafael General Plan 2020 land use plan, or any policy or regulation governing the project site.
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would he of value to E] ❑ El 0
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource recovery
J
site delineated on a local general plan, El 0
specc plan or other land use plan?
XII. NOISE
Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards 17 El Z
established in the local general plan or noise
46 Environmental Checklist Forth 18 Bayview Business Park Master Plan
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project above a
vicinity
levels existing without the project? I n 1:1 F1 N
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project -vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, -would the project
expose people residing or -working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to El
excessive noise levels?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or E] El
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other iafrasiructui-e)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ El
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement El El
❑
housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
Env,'ronmental Checklist Form 19 BayvieZv Business Park master Man 47
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a. Fire protection?
F1
n
n
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
❑
d Parks?
El
El
❑
e. Other public facilities?
❑❑F1
M
XV, RECREATION
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility vvould occur or
he accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV1. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non -motorized travel and El 0
relevant component of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highit°e�vs, and fteeivoys, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit)?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
monagementprograin, including. but not El 0
limited to level of service standards and
48 Environmental Checklist t=erm 20 Bayview Business Park Nfaster Plan
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible ❑ F] ❑
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? F] El 1:1
f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise E] ❑El
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion:
As discussed in Section X "Land Use and Planning" above, 104,000 square feet of office and 36,000 square feet
of research and development space was approved for the Bayview Business Park. Approximately 125,000 total
square feet of office and 36,000 square feet of research & development use have been permitted within the
project, with the total build -out of 224,509 gross square feet in the project. Although the permitted mix of office
has exceeded the amount specified in the prior 1985 PD amendment, the intensity of development complies with
the PD 1675 Trip Generation and Parking development standards. The amendment would memorialize the current
mix of office, research and development and light industrial space. No new development is proposed as part of the
project.
The Bayview Business Park PD 1675 assigned a trip generation rate with a maximum of 442 trips allocated to the
site. DKS Associates, September 22, 2011 - Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA has
concluded that the currently proposed and built -out condition would generate 327 PM peak hour trips based on
City trip rates (and 286 by the ITE rate); thus, 115-156 fewer than projected. The November 5, 2012
Memorandum from Kevin McGowan, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer confirms that the ITE Trip
Generation (81h Edition) rates are below the 442 trips anticipated for the site. No additional mitigation fee would
be required for the project given that it does not result in any increased development intensity.
Mitigation fees are the primary means for collecting fair share contribution of anticipated development.
Anticipated build out for the area have been accounted for in General Plan 2020, adopted in 2004, and includes
the project site. Thus, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional T,,Vater Quality
Environmental Checklist Form 21 Bay-cyew Business Park Master Plall 49
Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the ❑❑El 0
construction of which could cause signcant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded El El El
entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected El M
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the E] El
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ El ❑
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community., reduce the number or El
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively El ❑ El
considerable? ("Cianula, ively considerable
50 Environmental Checklist Form 22 Bayview Business Park 1A.4faster Plan
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects ofprobable future projects)?
e. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
As indicated by the answers provided in the above checklist, the proposed project would not result in any
potentially significant impacts. Less -than -significant impacts in sections X. Land Use and Planning and XVI.
Transportation/Traffic environmental impact categories have been discussed as this relates to scope of changes
proposed to the current PD1675 zoning regulations by the Project, i.e., elimination of Traffic Generation rates
standard and as -built mix of office and light industrial uses. As proposed and discussed herein, the project would
not change the existing setting or characteristics of the Project, therefore, it would not have any individually
limited impacts on the environment. Further, the impacts of the change in the PI) development standards would
not have any reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts either individually or in combination with other projects
that have been approved or being considered for the area, given that the Project would not result in any additional
development that could increase existing environmental factors in the area.
Given that the Project only consists of an amendment to. remove an out-of-date development standard, and would
not result in any further development of the built -out site or require any additional permits from agencies other
than the City of San Rafael City Council through grant of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, a No Effect
Determination request shall be submitted to the State Department of Fish and Game for this Project.
The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Unless attached herein, copies of all
reference reports, memorandums and letters are on file with the City of San Rafael Department of Community
Development. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State agencies may be found with the agency
responsible for providing such information.
1. City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, City of San Rafael, adopted July 1988, and Final EIR, certified July
1988.
2. San Rafael Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, City of San Rafael, May 1996.
C, -
3. Application Form and materials including the applicants Project Description, Revised PD Document and Site
Plan
4. DKS Associates September 22, 2011 Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA
5. City of San Rafael Department of Public Works Memorandum November 5, 2012
6. Letter from Greg Eicher, Forsher + Guthrie to Becky Cranford Re: Bayview Business Park dated June 25,
2012.
7. Letter from Greg Eicher, Forsher -f- Guthrie to Becky Cranford Re: BaN,�iew Business Park dated SeP tembei
4, 2012
Environmental Checklist Form 23 Bayviezay Business Park NI'aster Plan 51
On the basis of this Initial Study and Environmental Checklist I find that the proposed project could not have a
Potentially Significant Effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
i ture Date
ture
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS
Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
City of San Rafael, Community Development Department.
52 Enviyonniental Checklist Form 24 Bayvie7o Business Park Master 'Zan
I
RrCFJV
DKS Associates
SEp
0 ?011
September 22, 2011 PLANN/NG
Bay View Business Park Owners Association
c/o Becky Cranford, Property Manager
P.O. Box 1269
Novato, CA 94948
Subject: Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA P21090.000
Dear Ms Cranford:
DIES Associates has performed a PM peak hour trip generation analysis for the Bayview
Business Park in the City of San Rafael. The objective of this study was to determine how
many PM peak hour trips are currently being generated by the Bayview Business Park and
how many new PM peak hour trips can be allocated for added uses of the project site,
without exceeding the limit of 442 PM hour trips as agreed in the Master Plan approved in
1985.
Based on our collection of the necessary vehicle trip information at the project site, we
estimate that only approximately 234 vehicle trips are currently generated during the PM
peak hour (442 PM peak hour trips are allowed). Details of our results as well as a
discussion of the methodology used in our analysis are provided below.
Project Description
The Bayview Business Park consists of eight buildings, which are a mixture of light
industrial and office uses. All the buildings are fully occupied with the exception of
Buildings A and H. Building A is a 31,594 square feet (SF) office building that is
currently unoccupied. Building If is partially occupied with tenants in only 47,546 SF (of
which 18,552 SF is office and 32,546 SF is light industrial). The remaining 3,552 square
feet of office space in Building H are unoccupied.
The Bayview Business Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council on December
16, 1985. The Master Plan permitted a maximum of 134,900 SF of light industrial uses
and 104,000 SF of office uses for a maximum total of 238,900 SF of building area. The
number of PM peak hour trips associated with the business park was limited to 442 total
trips.
Sulle "40,
SOURCE REFERENCE 4
53
DKS Associates
T R AN S PO R TAT [ON SO _UT ION S
MethodologyMnalysis
The actual observed number of project site-specific trips was compared to the total number
of PM peak hour trips allowed for the project to see how many new vehicle trips are
available to be allocated to the project site. Ingress/egress counts were taken at all the
driveways and adjacent streets (Pelican Way and Kerner Blvd) for the Bayview Business
Park on July 11, 2011 during the PM peak period from 4-6 PM. Vehicles using these
driveways or streets to access the bayfront recreational facilities but not accessing any of
the buildings were not included in the PM peak total. A detailed summary of observed trips
are included at the end of this report.
The observed trips were compared to expected/estimated trips using rates from both the
City of San Rafael and the 2008 81h Edition Trip Generation manual published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I shows the comparison of the Trip
Generation Rates.
Table I Trill GwIleration Rates
Table 2 shows the observed PM peak count at the project site including the on -street
parking counts on Kerner Blvd and Pelican Way. The combined total of the project -site
trips and on -street parking trips (234) is less than the maximum allowable trips (442) for
the business park.
Table 2 llroieet Site Obs,crN ed -'-vcraae Trip Rate
Project PM Peak Hour Trips at Driveways 192
On -Street Parking on Pelican Way and Kerner Blvd. 42
Total Number of Observed PM Peak Hour Trips 234
Max. Permitted PM Peak Hour Trips 442
F
Difference 208
I Sources: DKS Associates, 2011 1
Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study
9111
09,'22/11
DKS Associates
rRANSPORTATION SOvUTfONS
The number of trips calculated for the occupied existing uses in the Bayview Business
Park using the City of San Rafael trip rates and the remaining square feet for future office
and light industrial uses in the business park are presented in Table 3. The trip rates for
general office are greater than those for light industrial. To ensure a conservative estimate,
the vacant square feet in Building H and the Building A square feet were assumed to be all
office use.
`i'<al)le 3 Trip C;eanerati€ n for B ay�,ie8v 13a►si►cess Park Csing City Trip Ceracration
Rates
�S' -7
yV"
�` .m_�K�x _" .5 ''m�"
s
ain �'y�+�(-.i3"tjl{�y}Yyd■.��j�♦♦ �
} By;�, A�#��•,Vtildt�b ����
���'4
Liz'""sr/=K
F�'��yyv�.��Y�x�y�gi��Y{�y]4 y(����
�i
��'e`"�~x�,�����
b `�'' "'r+``.�'.H,c„:+i.t`.,.^`.-'�e"v=,.,......'y;��s�5y}^£,
*��
A�`S
��� ��t^'
53..1
„1,�;.
1 �
}
���'114.3)!
♦!F♦
"axis
##s ♦♦':�y!sr<
�� � �
ac`s i'@�' j
���'fr� ai€i9 '
$n.y++�� y�. {.`64",f 4£`s�
.�'w�e'.fi�.:wzeri.S
ru�� W ��av sx �£a�.-�`?,� °"'v-",.Kwrww`"s•`�z``
•
.a:.ti��3`z�c..e'�3'.°Lnso
,
t
0
0
0
..3�x+�`'.2
9,676
♦
•
•
51
C
13,301
•3
35
•
44
E
13,357
14,987
•
•
27,000
♦
•
•
'
78
0
78
occupied1
32,546
40
46
:•
ce �ied Subtotal
89,784
99,579
322
139
377
A vacant
31,594
0
:4
r
84
H vacant
3,552
i
Unoccupied► .
i
93
0
'
Total
124,930
99,579
331
139
470
i Total Permitted
442
Source: City of San Rafael; DKS Associates, 2011
The PM peak hour trips generated (for both occupied and unoccupied spaces) using the
ITE trip generation rates for general office and light industrial uses are listed in Table 4.
Using the ITE rates, the PM peak hour trips for the currently occupied spaces are estimated
to be 223 trips less than the maximum 442 allowable trips for the business park.
Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Stun y 3 09122/11
55
DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SO-UTfONS
rabic 4 Trip G'encration Using ITE Tril) Generation'Witnuul
Assuming full occupancy of Buildings A and H (as office space), the combined total
number of PM peak hour trips (observed trips + calculated trips for unoccupied space) for
the project site would be 327 trips. Table 5 shows the Existing plus projected PM Peak
hour trips for the full occupancy condition. This assumes the unoccupied space would all
be general office and is calculated rates from both the City of San Rafael and ITE trip rates
for general office.
Bayvieiv Business Park Trip Generation Study 4 09122111
RE.,
All
A
0
0
0
0
0
B
9,676
18,453
14
18
32
C
13,301
6,593
20
6
26
E
13,357
14,987
20
15
35
F
9,000
27,000
13
26
39
G
29,450
0
44
0
44
H occupied
15,000
32,546
15
32
47
Occupied Subtotal
89,784
99,579
126
97
223
A vacant
31,594
0
47
0
47
H vacant
3,552
0
13
0
3
Unoccupied Subtotal
35,146
0
60
0
60
Total
124,930
99,579
186
97
283
Assuming full occupancy of Buildings A and H (as office space), the combined total
number of PM peak hour trips (observed trips + calculated trips for unoccupied space) for
the project site would be 327 trips. Table 5 shows the Existing plus projected PM Peak
hour trips for the full occupancy condition. This assumes the unoccupied space would all
be general office and is calculated rates from both the City of San Rafael and ITE trip rates
for general office.
Bayvieiv Business Park Trip Generation Study 4 09122111
RE.,
DKS Associates
TRANSPORTATION SO-UTIONS
Table 5 PM Peak Hour Trips for Buildout
Conclusion
Based on observed trip data and projected trips resulting from full occupancy of the project
site as office space, the project will have between 115-156 fewer PM peak hour trips being
used than are permitted in the City's project approval (442 PM peak hour trips approved
minus 327 or 286 PM peak hour trips projected with full occupancy).
If you have any questions, feel free to call me 510-267-6612 or Terry Klim at 510-267-
6615.
Sincerely,
DKS Associates
A California Corporation
KennethKeongg
Project Manager
cc: Terry Klim, DKS
PAP+ I N 1090-M San Rafael Bayview Trip Gen�04 Defiverables\San Rafael Bayview Trip Gen Study FinalO.docx
Bayview Business Park Tript. Generation Study 5 09,122111
M
BAYVIEW BUSINESS/AAK,SAN L
W.
I
Q—
U-1
I
WC
WE
POR. SECS. I la 12 � T. I N. f
N 5/'d 7W
740.32
ponding area
(R PS
5.15 Ac.
am
3:28Ac.
P. D
208
69 A
9.45 Ac.
4.
45>2' 21 1g
MMON
Y co
70
Msee
.4 POR 17
Detail 1 23 '4
2.34Ac.
Fft A&
PCI 5 PCI.6
IWFltn.
D 990�
4? 04
A,14
106 2.09AC.
U
E p Z-46 FtL 3 22 A A
AREA
ponding
P2 18 @7 2ad
/a
Lot 8 PcI. 4 area
15
6 Ac. --- �6Z.79 P21-41
iz /
V P.
I'E6 1 -A
14 :1 35�'44' P-2
:,"1 4) p 1 3!) * -sn�a: fo N (0.53 A
0.611 Ac.
cl. 2 47
P 1%47
-98 13 4 11
/pG;"
i -V 38
PF
tV ju
V.
31 '306 75
P& I
L AAC
f, P21-52
�t— — ' 3.53Ac
1 ire O'A 42
PcL A
Pd 2
PC/. I '�z ;? -2ptft. P I
,
k) -99-
0.86 Ac
zed
0,3;r
-7,6 3Z.-55
56
A� 14 'Yo. 44 41
4L* 41
"PZ7
1,78
r4 7'eFR4 �VC/SCO PCI, B
Ptn. P I
HWYfl,86 Acj
NOTE
Assessor's Block Numbers Shown in Ellipse---__ P 21,32
s.
60 Assessor's Parcel Numbers Shown in Circles. Niz 15G.4, 8
LM
3
ponding
P. a
X A5. 15Ac.
34.9
20
4.85Ac. 2 Ac,
15 9.45 Ac. lq
COMMON
SO 6 -'7 452' 2 Tw
%p
/.0 A 32
p
W ,(4ro
JA r z* 2.34Ac..
tu P0Oct
.6
PC/. C
Is
4
31
@6 2,09Ac.
453Ac.
P, A 0
202 1� N
�
P ' 2 L B, 4 AREpcndin g 17
1@7 , z ;�
eo
/8.20 1 �! Pcl. 4 oreo
Lot B , 1
cg 1�
14
V
Sq. – Q15 4150
117 1,2 6 Ac. lry,$b2.36 P21-
04 C\j tr) 14 �L 12 IVQ
931 'IN
P®A P-2
14 Q: CL: (0,53 A��'
o
Z3-(;6 47 a
Pa 2 10.47 3
\/0
ea. $
38
p I Z4, vel?
36 Ir
1j P
V- 14
Pot. I Is P2f-52
1.9tC /,� /
.
4T PC/.3.53AcA 42
PCI. 2
Pct. I ptn , R I
0) V, IA6 Ac:)
cy C,4
307 14
xvg� q 55) '31
41 (a 56 190. 4,3 0
tv�yJz� C.- 'tzs 41 13. 4 �l
L78Aa
PCk a
CPtn, P I
ISC,
0 (1,66 At
PR 23;98 P21-52
.147.3?T.42IYWYE3 L V D
61 C —Z/
740.32
Im
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
RAFFI BOLOYAN DATE: November 5,2012
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
KEVIN MCGOWAN VER FILE NO: 13.02.17
ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: 22 Pelican — (Reconcile Built -Out Lots -® Kraig Tambornini — project
Planner)
We have reviewed the attached application and rind the submittal incomplete.
Parking
Greg Eicher's letter (dated June 22, 2012) indicates that the total number of
parking spaces for the site is 608. A total of 714 parking spaces are required for
the proposed project based on Municipal Code.
The letter also indicates that a maximum of 375 spaces are occupied (only about
62%) based on the field counts. However, the letter did not quantify square
footage and type of occupancy of the buildings, at the time of the field counts.
Therefore, it can not be used to determine if the parking is adequate for the
current, and the proposed uses. The applicant shall provide a projected total
parking count based on the having full Occupancy.
Additional Comments
The total number of PM trips calculated based oa the proposed office and light
Z7-
industrial square footages I by Greg Eichcr's letter (dd
(elated September 4, 2012) an
ITE Trip Generation (8" Edition) rates is below 442. Therefore, no traffic
mitigation fee is required.
W4
m
FORSAERG IE
I'|anniog
Arc[liteCtare
Development
�znen
Robert Forsh rAk\Archikect
Muttben/[.Guthrie Planner
Ten BStreet
SmRafael California 949Ol
Tel 4I5459I445
Fax 4I54597124
June 25,2UD
Becky Cranford
McAvoy Management
PO Box 1269
Novato, Cay404O
Re: Bayview Business Park
Dear Becky,
I have completed my investigation of permit activity and comparison to existing physical
improvements aLthe seven buildings comprising Bayview Business Park. The development was
approved under a master use permit in 1985 to include a combination of office, research &
development, light industrial, and warehouse uses.
My activities have included an extensive review of the City's records of building permits issued,
and review of associated drawings either in the City's data base, oras provided by the respective
building owners where drawings do not exist otthe Oh/. In addition, I havemm|hed through
each of the buildings to verify the existing build -outs, and have compared that with the permit(s)
issued for that building orportion ofbuilding.
There is o significant amount of permit activity for most of the buiNings. In the cases where
permit activity is low., it appears due to the bmc± that |iNc work has been done beyond the
ohgina|buUd'ouL
Iam atbaching a roster of building permits that have been |ssued for each building, with any
pertinent information regarding those permits, and have noted where we have drawings that
Show the work that was permitted. I also offer brief summary of my observations for each of
the buildings below:
Sui0ditig A
22 Pelican Way
Building Ahas just completed amajor tenant i0pr0vef -nent(B11O7-1U6)extending throughout
all but small area in the building, which is currently vacant and will be available for a second
tenant 8tsome time in the future.
MI
June 25, 2012 Page: 2
Building B
Bayview Business Park
Building B has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time, the
more recent ofthose for the current tenant "Tissue Bank Int". The build -out that exists today
isreflected inthose permits (BO303-Q75, BD6O8-018,and BO7D5-O22).
2505 Kerner Blvd.
Building C has had numerous tenant improvement permits
most recent of those for the previous and current tenants
respectively. The build -out that exists today is reflected in
81010-084).
Building E has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time fora
variety of tenants. Fortunately, the City's records are very good for this building in terms of
the number mfpermit drawings that are associated with the respective permit applications. DL
appears that the tenant improvements currently existing in the building are consistent with
the accumulation ofpermitted construction over time,
Building F
85 Glacier Point Rd (aka 2550 Kerner Blvd.)
Building Fhas very little permit activity. Only one permit has been issued since the original
shell structure and tenant improvement work was completed. The existing improvements are
consistent with both of those permits.
Building G
150 Pelican Way
Building G has had very little permit activity since the original build -out, the subsequent
permits having been issued for relatively minor alterations tothe original office layout,
Oddly, there is no documentation in the City's records (drawings or permit application)
indicating that the original interior improvements were completed with the benefit of a
building permit. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that the shell building permit may
have been amended at some point to include the interior build -out, or that some other
documentation of this work has been mis-recorded. It seems doubtful that a significant TI
such as this could have been completed without a permit.
M
June 25,2U12 Page: 3 Bayview Business Park
Building H
101 Glacier Point Rd
Building H has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 15years time fora
small number of tenants. The City's records contain only one set of tenant improvement
drawings, so it is fortunate that the property owner has record drawings that can be easily
linked to the respective permits issued by the City.
The existing improvements can be shown to be permitted with two exceptions: an
approximately 3500 sfarea on the lower level, and an approximately 7600 sfanse on the
second level both include improvements (private offices) that I am not able to link to a
building permit. All other areas are consistent with drawings and permit applications, and the
uses in the various tenant suites is generally consistent with the proposed uses atthe time of
permit issuance.
In conclusion, with the few exceptions noted, itappears that the existing improvements have
been completed with the benefit of building permits.
Parking
Building management has provided ma with data to help determine that the existing parking is
adequate for the current uses.
Car counts have been completed on two separate occasions: one at 11:30ann on Tuesday, May
�
15th; the second at 2:30 n Thursday, May 17« . The number of cars parked in the off-street
parking areas on May 15p' was 375; the number of cars parked in the off-street parking areas on
May 17m was 345. The total number ofparking stalls for the site is 608. These counts vvnu|d
indicate that the businesses are using only 55 — 60% of the available parking stalls.
Also attached isasite map showing the parking lots built inthe business park.
If you have any questions, or if can be offurther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
ma.
CDnd|
Greg Eicher
Forsher + Guthrie
W
III
M
V
z
O
ry
< U)
ry
z 0
U O
U
V
�^ H
U
U
Z) ceU
U)
cn
0
U
ry D
U
z Lf)
uiui Lf)
CO
ui -€ ui
N co CL
m
U
5
U)
z
uJ
w ,
O
O
O
a
O
O
O
O
U
n
z
z
z
O
z
z
z
z
cn
u
ty0
N N
N
m
m
�t
It
co
Co
zz
O
M
U H
0 U)
Lt
z 0-
d
N
Ln
07
to
t�
N
H 2:
z
U
z .....
,�z
U-
m
a
57a
-i
a
O
LU
O�
z
w
C7 , j
Ce
"'- c~n
.-
U
O
z0
O2:
H
z u
U O
UC�
z
H H
-
0
U
�
z
<
rl
U
Q<
U
J
z
H
U
U)
_j U
U
�
U
U9
Lr) W
H
`>>�
>
m
U
W
U
Q N
Q H
U
z
O
®
J
W u
Ln
Lij Is"
U_.
0
(pajj
Q z
0
ui
0
J H
ui
U
Lf)
J U-
®
H
W Z)
H
$
z
® U
D
U®
0
z Ua
0®
U!
-� F-
O
O
W U
z z
0
z
O
-
0U-
O
III
Im
}��
r\j
�U
J
Lu
O
U
H
�
0
LL Y
U
O
O VJ
�d
U
66 LL
i�
U
0
0
O
M
o c�
0
0 U
U)
U
>
C� F
O to
N U O
.-� O
a
-j
H
H
�
U
m w�/
i.l..
H
0
co
H
O N
f
pzp°'�� LL
0 LL
z W
H
N n'
\r �
"e. ®//
\ CL.
m
r
i—
N�
_
_ CY)
UO
2:
U)
�D0-
Ul
0co
m
N
CJ
(!
m
r"
m
0
(1)
75
O
B
CL
C)
Cil
0
-,
In
z
<
U1
0
Ui
LL
m
00
00
C:)
{
N N
N
m
m
�t
It
co
Co
m
N.
U)
M u tJ
z
O
Q
D
-J
o
Ln
>
r
O
u)n
U)
0
o
z
O
,
O
cr-
w
�W0
W
�
a
�U-
in
nw
c®
tyr)
uj
u
o
�<
F-
u
cl�
u
�o
r�
o
�C)
<
n
n
d
r,
cr_l0
LU
u)
z
'
00
LLI
�n
OD
Ln
0�io
0�
0�-
�o
LPI .j
uj
fit
o
0
m
0-
0-
CD
cn
a
U)
U)
W
W
W
z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
O
Z -r
Z
®
V
O
�
N
tQ
m
h
Ln
GO
�
a
U)
U)
W
W
Z -r
Z
u
V
<L
Q
Z
H�,
}
F
U
u
0
0
0
0
cL
<
H
N
<y
®
U)
W
W
W
W
z
® CL
a
0u
O
W
m
V
-i-
V)
V)��q.
�y
ui
z
0U
-)U)
m
spay
O
<
� n.
,0-
<t
®
Q
�
<�r
"'
J
o�
O
LI
�
tlt
U
U, F-
ry
Wn (—
W
ry
S
W
G.
Li-
-4
F—i
F
U)
H
CL
� �'
W N
M
®
�
®
u
U)
G1
U)
to
d
F-
W
F-
�
U -'y
i d
W
i
O
w
£y
<�
W
i—
�%
N
-
E—
Z
CCi
N
-
W
z
r w
{— as
4
j— v
W
C✓_
U
u
0-1
W
W
C�
<
co0111
co
Go
0
Qc
til
M
tCx
M
y.
(71
ie
cy�
0
tai
0
m
0
ra
dQ
i
'
C1
i
GL
(V_
s'w
co
�
C}
U)
U)
<
Q
0
O
0
Ztit
W
U')
Cy
CD
0
m
1-4
C
00
ItQ
00
u
H
*�
O
0
s r� ci
E�
N
�!
Ln
r
a
ie
N
N
rT
N
io
t
Ci
0
4-+
O
m _!
W
CL'
W
Ct�
{ 7
f`>
4-4
:-t
1-4
4-t
r I
qa
(11
1-4
m
N
tv"J
t
tp
G
0
m
0
0
It
N 02
CL
CL
N
i 3
t i
C l
It
It
I-
Co
Cid
CQ
O
0 uj
0
ry
O
U 0
O
uj
h�
H
u
O�
a.
Lli /� �..
L I
D
V
V -j LLJ
~
w H
0 CL/ r
0-
ry
0
W
J
w
w
rn
z
U
U
td)
~
v,
v
u
Z
U
w
O O
O
O
O
O
U
O v
V
�,/ �.Ie �e o W
O d' Ln 01 00 N v �1/ Ln tD
4-4 u) W It It m ua It 1-+ OO
O
0 U U
0
ni 00 tD
011 9 m co 00 tD d" 1.4 d Cfi N N
0 00 N c ice. Ul N 1-4 N li .--r i ri
C3 N (31 CC) lT ro N co m (D 00 LI) LC?
m It 00 00 0) O Ln tD m m d
N N N (N N N m tea Ms m m It ct
0
W
J
w
rn
0
U
U
td)
~
Z
U
w
O
7
_U
ui
Q
�-
0h�
I
� O
u
u
Q
w
®
w
w
LLI
F-
�
a_
z
w
z �
�
57
O
O
>w
O
cX
CL U-1
�O
w0'>w
w
�—J
i
H
Ul
�
ui J
z
®
2:J
U�
u
LU
En
w
a
�
z
vi
O
z
z
® Q
u
z w
Q rn
�
1 w
I
H
z u
/®
C)
Lr) 110
00 03
r.,
00
Co
OD
00
011
op
N
0',
N
m
N
T
Ln
T
r`
00
D1
L
Q
Q)
t1)
u
Q)
:3
Q3
u
O
to
m
to
a
<
LL
O
z
2:
rn
Dti
011 9 m co 00 tD d" 1.4 d Cfi N N
0 00 N c ice. Ul N 1-4 N li .--r i ri
C3 N (31 CC) lT ro N co m (D 00 LI) LC?
m It 00 00 0) O Ln tD m m d
N N N (N N N m tea Ms m m It ct
I
im
U��
z.
<L�
3: Ur) 3:
w
0
U)
w�J
O
U
z
to
ry
C)
O Ucin
O
U
u
W
0 -
LU W
�
z
O
LLz
Q
r
H
J
z
n
Ln
z
>
�
®
H
F-
L
Ln
O
U
F-
z w
V)
CL
�
(9
C)
O
O z
H
00
5' p
U)Lij
o
L J
0
CO
r
O
O
0
N
LU
O
Z)
0 0
W
!7
d
CD
�
o�
z
0
Z
0
LUCif
J
_
u
LLJ
>'`
m
�O
U-
F'I®ul
00_
Gl
�
r
C'
z =
W
LL
0
r)®
UM
UJ Ury
{— U
d
z
41
p
®
0w
Q
0 �
a
z
z
zFJ
<
`�
=
h
z
U
W
J
O
�Cn�
z
W
tY_
ti F- U
F-
O
u
Q -1O
W
W
00
00
GD
Go
�
m
0
r
w
U-
D
W
w
t1
u
U)
lCi
T
N
�
0
H
cn
00
V�
c
4�{
p
�)
W
O
-I-i
o
I
V
O
i—
F-
I
I
W
W (w
1,.d
�
N
J
c�
00
00
00
OD
(31
0)
0
W
W
O
o
,- r CO
II_
r
co
m
LL
m
ro
cc
CL
im
72
cn
W
3:
Z
C)
O
u
z
O
I-
U)
O
i
c W
*-+ Z
CD
W
O
W F-
uLLz
LQ
zLLJ
LL
O h
U
<
U) ®
W
to
CD
o C�
:D
o W
C)
-+ z
O
1:
cn
W
ry2:
ui®
��
¢W
�
J
z
a
O
O U)
Q
� z
t
oo C)
W
�
<Q
LU
C �U)
U)
cn
LU
ul
0
W
0
U�u
U) �
co z
LL
Ln
U
Ocl�
<
lr
u
z
O
<
u
o
W
0-
:D
LU
LO
N
U-
�-
0
Lf) ®i
r
alt
W
o
It
�.o
O
as m
a.
CL
tet-
in
72
M1 C�
f-
cn LL1
to �
O
U
73
f-
Ln
N
o
> N
C)
o
t�
z
U)
Lu
U
co
0
LL
LL1
U
LL
O
U-
C](D
U--
O0,
z V)
Lu
®
ui
f�
u
U)
t)
Gt
O
LU
Ln w
as
w
®
®U
<
h
J
D- Q
ui
_I
O rl
®
�
u
>-
N i-
LJ
or,
rl
W
Ln
uiu
cl�
N
00
LU LLS
C S
m
m
C.)
F-
L
L
St
�
U-
<
U-
D
U)
H
U
N
Co
CLC
Ln
73
rl•
cl�
cl�
lo�
cy-
U)
L!1
W
z
W
z
W
z
0
0LL
oz
o
®
®
®.
o
Cl
o
0
0
¢
m
cn
cn
�¢
I
J
�
o
o
S!
Z)
o
o
awn
o
>
0
�r
d)
0
�
0,10
o
Q
<t
o,a4
-i
�
,-1
r-4
0
0
0�
W
Il
N
`�
N
Ui
Q
Q-
o
O
>
0
�-
r
D
W
r.
U')F
W
z
r~e
L�
LLL
:D
.-i
X
�
-
i--
®J
J
ui . ,
z -
o
�
p
Ui
^�
<
o ui
c1
CL
<_
w
®
LU
z
z
o <L
a
w
�
v
<C
®^
�L
va U')
H
pz
-i
-i
a
?i
f
�`"
z
u
=
��
U')
u
d
Qh
o ui
-iu
®
ry ry �
,U)
LL ""
LL!
�
UJ -J
LCL
d
-i
U)
"'
c�
Lzu o
®
w� o
0
cri
ui
v)
uj
0-
Q-1
'�
Lid
®h/.
(D -j
�
Wy
L3-
id J
-j
>
� z
� ui
C)
U)
VL�..t
[0
VV
��-,/-
>
U
(Ln� >
bJ
��
�
>
—
LL
o
���yy
6l 11
0
[0�
CL r_
LL ��y�
v t
Ap�L�
0
Uj
Sad �
�
w
/-i �
yL'yL �
0 �
goy
66
[--
„off
C6
U
W
0 V
�� ggyy
V
(�
�i �2:
_®
Q° C7
W r-
W
w
�L
ui
Q
� ui
ui
LL!
z
®
Cl3
z Q
o
j- c b
}
w a
z CL
CL'
u
C'
o
�Lu
�-+ Q
z o
z
00
//���
00
D
^>Y
V Ln
(4®d, t[��'
0.q^
'tel
t°'d
o
u
cy-
Q�
Lp�_L_J_
90
00
9
ONi71
m
cn
0
o
C}
0
c{�
0
r-4LLJ
z
H
[.i
i
Q
L
u
Q)
I
C:
i
41
I
'0
I
u
I
S
o
U-
e*•
G5
Q
-,
L*)
LLt
u
+
d
d
�
LO
o
(D
L.✓✓
Lo
Ln
Ln
N
o
0
co
.-t
o
0
r i 0
o
GL
LU
��
a. f
w
Gi
It
rl)
t0
N
Prl
00
0
00
0
4®1
,--iC
iCO5
CL
a_
It
V
V
co
ca
Ln y s
co
ro
75
FORSHER+GUTHRIE
PlGnoio
g
Arc}}iLecLnrc
De v e l opDneu t
Robert FosherAIA Architect
Matthew C. Guthrie Planner
Ten HStre,
San Rafael California 9490l
Tel 4l]459l445
Fax 415459l124
Becky Cranford
MoAvoyK8anoQement
P[)Box 1289
Novato, CaA4048
Re Bayview Business Park
Dear Becky,
This letter shall serve to clarify areas previously reported by the business park's property
management for office use, and light industrial use, in the seven buildings in the Bayview
Business Park.
Summary:
Two of the semen buildings were inhie|k/ approved and constructed to contain 100Y6 office use
(Buildings A & G) The remaining 5 buildings were approved and constructed to contain a
combination of office and light industrial uses. These buildings are typically comprised of two-
story element with offices on lower and upper ieve|e, fronting a single -story element containing
light industrial uses,
Several anomalies are present |nthe previously reported square fnohages:
Building B: Office areas previously reported for this building were artificially |mw. The existing
tenant's (Tissue Banks International) use of the |mme/ level anaee originally designated to be
office, is not used as typical office, despite the existing compartmentalized plan typically
associated with uffioeuse. Therefore the square GrobmQemapproved bypermit, and reported in
2003 for office use on the lower level was only 1.267of of the 8.408sf that is available.
Therefons7.142mf should be reallocated from the light industrial category, and be made available
as office area for future tenants.
Building E: There is some confusion over mezzanine area that was approved previously by the
City which would have allowed additional square footage above the original approva|, but was
never constructed. The area of that mezzanine has never been included in the reported areas,
The deed mweidotion that was filed in regards to the use of this mezzanine should be nemcinded,
as it does not exist, and there is no longer desire for it to be constructed,
Building H: Of the reported 18.552sfnfoffice area in this building, 3.552sfim not currently in use.
Because the building was constructed to be larger than what the use permit approved. the City
has previously disallowed the use ofmn area equal tothe overage. Currently the upper level
space sits empty. |tiarequested that this space beallowed for occupancy ofoffice use.
0 N.
September 4, 2012 Page: 2 Bayview Business Park
Corrected square footages are as follows
Building A
22 Pelican Way
Office:
31,594
Lt. Industrial:
0
Total SF
31,594
Building B
2597 Kerner Blvd.
Office:
16,818
Lt. Industrial:
11,311
Total SF
28,129
Building C
2505 Kerner Blvd.
Office:
13,301
Lt. Industrial.-
6,593
Total SF
19,894
Building E
100 Pelican Way
Office:
13,357
Lt. Industrial:
14,987
Total SF:
28,344
Building F
85 Glacier Point Rd
(aka 2650 Kerner Blvd.)
Office:
9,000
Lt. Industrial.,
27,000
Total SF
36,000
Building G
150 Pelican Way
Office:
29,450
Lt. Industrial:
0
Total SF:
29,450
M
September 4, 2012
hPlIMMU411111 =#1 COG
Office: 18.552
LL Industrial: 32.546
Total SF 51,098
Office.- 132.072
Lt. Industrial: 92,437
Total SF: 224,509
Page: 3 Bayview Business Park
If you have any queedone, or if | can be of further aoaistanoe, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
w
Attachment
|NTHE COUNCIL CHAMBER OFTHE CITY OF SAN RAFA�March 26,2013
Regular Meeting
San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes
`
For acomplete video ofthis meeting, 0otm ngs
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
Present: Kate Colin
Larry Paul
Charlie Pick
ViNohyoVVise
Jack Robertson
Barrett Schaefer
KAerkLubamemky
Absent: None
Also Present: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director
KnaigTombonnini. Senior Planner
APPROVAL ORREVISION {}FORDER OFAGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION {}FMEETING PROCEDURES
URGENT COMMUNICATION
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes, February 2G'2013
Mark Lubamersky moved and Charlie Pick seconded to approve minutes as presented. Commissioner
Schaefer abstains, The vote is as follows:
AYES: Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, VlNoriyaWise, Jack Robertson, Mark Lubameraky
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Barrett Schaefer
ABSENT: None
C6y Council ,1/arch 6 201.3
Attachment
2. 22-1S0Pelican Way, 2505-2SS7Kerner Boulevard D54O1Glacier Way (Bayview Business
Park Master Plan Amendment) ' Request for aPlanned Development District zone change
amendment and master Use Permit amendment for the Bayview Business Park light
industrial and office complex located on12.Sacres ineast San Rafael; APN:0U9-2H1-
19'1G`22'23,38'3S.42`54,5S'SG'S7,G9&7O;Planned Development (PD1G7S)Zone; Bayview
Business Park Owners Association, Ownmr/8pp|icomt|Case Mumnb*r(e): ZC12-001D.UP12-
040. Project Planner: 0nsiQTomburnini
Charlie Pick moved and Jack Robertson seconded to adopt resolution recommending City Council
approve modifications huthe Negative Declaration. The vote ioaofollows:
AYES: Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer,
K8arkLubamemky
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Charlie Pick moved and Barrett Schaefer seconded toadopt resolution recommending that City Council
approve revising the Planned Development district standards. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer,
MorkLubamersky
NOES: Nums
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Charlie Pick moved and Viktoriya Wise seconded to adopt resolution recommending that City Council
approve the amended Master Use Permit with minor change to square footage as recommended by
Commissioner Barrett and change to typo on Condition of Approval #6 page 3, change the word "on" to
'to" Planning Commission. The vote is oufoUwm
AYES: Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer,
MarkLubomersky
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Jensen gave the Director's Report
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III
APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2013
Larry Paul, Chair
DO ���d
�/��xnuee/inm&yarch 6 2073
Attachment 6—PC,11inntex
Attachment 7
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project:
PROJECT: 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Blvd & 85-101 Glacier Point Rd. — Review of a
Zone Change and Master Use Permit to amend the approvals granted for the Bayview
Business Park light industrial/office complex, which consists of 7 commercial buildings at up
to 224,530 gross square feet on 12.9 acres, in order to: a) eliminate the Trip Generation
development standard requirement, and b) reconcile the maximum building area and allowable
mix of office and light industrial development to reflect built -out conditions of the complex;
APN: 009-291-15, 16, 22, 23, 39, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69 & 70; Planned Development (PD 1675)
District; Bayview Business Park Owners Association, owner,/applicant; File No(s).: ZC 12-001
& UP 12-040.
As required by state law, the projects potential environmental impacts have been assessed Planning staff
has prepared a Legative Declaration for the project which meets the provisions of the California
Environmental QualityAct (CEQA). A 20 -day public review and comment period on the adequacy of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was initiated on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 and concluded on Tuesday.
March 26, 2013. Public comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were also accepted at the
Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, March 26, 2013.
HEARING DATE: Monday, May 6, 2013 at 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION:
San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street
San Rafael, California
WHAT WILL
You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and
HAPPEN:
decide whether to approve the project applications.
IF YOU CANNOT
You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of
ATTEND:
San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior
to the meeting.
FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or
INFORMATION: kraig.tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office,
located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the
Friday before the meeting at hU.,,/vvww citvofsanrafael.org,Imeetin�z),s
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Esther Beirne
Esther Beitne
CITY CLERK
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter
described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b)
(2)).
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90" day following the
date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1(194.6)
Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may, be requested by calling (415) 485-3055 (voice) or (415) 483-3198
(TDD) at least .72 hours in advance. Copies q, dog uments are available in accessible formats upon request.
Public transportation to City Nall is available through Golden Gate Transit„ Line 22 or 23. Para -transit isvailable by calling
IThistlestup If heels at (415) 454-0964.
To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing. individuals are requested
to refrain from wearing scentedproducts.
ts.
81
CC Jlfeetingli4 6, 2013
Attorhme,"t 7
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER 0pTHE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL~March 2@,20l3
Regular Meeting
San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes
For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.citypfsaniafael.org/meetings
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Larry Paul
Charlie Pick
Viktoriya Wise (arrived 1 b minutes late)
Jack Robertson
Barrett Schaefer
Mark Lubamersky—
Absent: None
Also Present: Paul Jensen, Community Develop
CONSENT CALENDAR''
1. Minutes, February 26, 2013
Mark Lubamersky moved and Charlie Pick seconded to approve minutes as presented. Commissioner
Schaefer abstains. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, ViktoriyaWise, Jack Robertson, Mark LubaGerald
Be|letto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Barrett Schaefer
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING
22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Boulevard 85-101 Glacier Way (Bayview Business
Park Master Plan Amendment) - Request for a Planned Development District zone change
amendment and master Use Permit amendment for the Bayview Business Park light
industrial and office complex located on 12.9 acres in east San Rafael; APN: 009-291-
15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,67,69&70; Planned Development (PD1675) Zone; Bayview
Business Park Owners Association, Owner/Applicant; Case Number(s): ZC12-001&UP12-
040. Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini
Charlie Pick moved and Jack Robertson seconded to adopt resolution recommending City Council
approve modifications to the Negative Declaration. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark
Lubamersky, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Charlie Pick moved and Barrett Schaefer seconded to, adopt resolution recommending that City Council
approve revising the Planned Development district standards. The Vote is as follows:,
AYES: Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark
Lubamersky, Gerald Belle
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Charlie Pick moved and Viktoriya Wise sec
)pt resolution recommending that City Council
approve the amended Master Use Permit with minor change to square footage as recommended by
Commissioner Barrett and change to typo on Condition of Approval #6 page 3, change the word "on" to
"to" Planning Commission. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark
Lubamersky, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Jensen gave the Director's Report
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III
APPROVED THIS DAY—OF—
Larry Paul, Chair
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT,
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL / AGENCY.
SRRA / SRCC AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.a
DATE OF MEETING: May 6, 2013
FROM: Kraig Tamborni?i
DEPARTMENT: CDD
DATE: April 29, 2013
TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment
Department Head (signature)
(LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR APPROVALS ONLY)
APPROVED AS COUNCIL / AGENCY
AGENDA ITEM:
City Manager (sign ture)
ii "'"'• i
IVa84Y-Arj .`31
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
V f
City Attorney (signature)