Department: Community Development, Planning Division ...cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=cityofsanrafael_23623ed47e897a51d...The business park consists of a built-out

Agenda Item No: _5_o_a __ _

Meeting Date: May 6, 2013

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Department: Community Development, Planning Division

<(p~ ()' '¥I}IIJ .t • • III A

Prepared by: l , ',' " City Manager Approval:V'_ 1'---, ,~-'-='-..:::.-....:. 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

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1, 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ordinance to print to enact revised Planned Development District standards for the Bayview Business Park to eliminate outdated Trip Generation standards and reconcile gross building areas and mix of uses.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.

BACKGROUND:

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.

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY

File No.: ____________ _

Council Meeting: ________ _

Disposition: __________ _ 1

2

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2

The current zoning standards for this complex (PO 1675 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 remain in compliance with the PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates established by the PO District (Le. 442 PM peak trips), as well as the PO District parking standard (Le., 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office 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 trip generation monitoring requirement, which was once standard practice under the policies of the former San Rafael General Plan 2000, is no longer necessary given that the park has been built-out, and 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 increased), but the total built-out gross area of the complex is less than authorized (by approximately 14,000 square feet). This discrepancy resulted from subsequent permits issued for tenant improvements, usually conversion of space from research & development into office use, and from a lapse in annual monitoring and reporting by the owners association. However, though built-out conditions differ from the areas anticipated by the current Master Plan approval, the development remains compliant with both anticipated peak trip generation rates and parking standards.

The City recommended and the Bayview Business Park owners agreed to amend the PO 1675 District and Use Permit to reflect built-out conditions, with the following changes:

a) Reconcile the built-out conditions of the park; b) Memorialize the maximum amount of office and research and development use

allowed for each building; c) Reaffirm the grandfathered parking rate for office uses and total parking amount

required for the complex; and d) Eliminate the requirement for annual tracking and reporting of trips generated by

the mix of officellight industrial uses amongst all of the buildings.

No net new development is proposed.

The PO zoning 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 of uses complies with the PO 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 Municipal Code Section 14.16.150 Floor area ratios). The parking supply includes a grandfathered allowance for five (5) spaces that were eliminated to provide wider van accessible ADA spaces. Thus, the site currently provides parking for up to 610 spaces, with a grandfathered allowance for five (5) additional spaces, for a total "grandfathered" parking supply of 615 parking spaces. The parking demand for the project as built-out is 611 parking spaces (based on use of the current historic office parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of building area). If the current parking code office rate of 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of building area were required to apply, 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 (Le., 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


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://www.citvofsanrafael. org/meetings/, and select March 26, 2013 meeting video, agenda item 2. The discussion ofthe item starts at 3:50 minutes, with motions at 31:50 minutes and item ends at 33:45 minutes.)

Property 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 Way 55,56, 57, 69 & 70·

1 Property Size: 112.9 Acres 1 Neighborhood: . 1 East San Rafael

Site Characteristics

General Plan Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Designation

Project Site: LI/O PD 1675 Business Park North: LI/O LI/O Light Industrial South: LI/O LI/O Light Industry/Office East: LI/O P/OS-WO Ponds/Bay West: LI/O P/QP 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, Pelica'n 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 P01474), 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 PO 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.

3

4


The Master Plan was amended in 1995 (PD1675) to allow 7 buildings with up to 238,900 gross building area. The parking standard remained as adopted in 1984. A table was also added to the PO district standards, which listed the allowable mix for each building, and included a trip generation rate assigned for each land use (i.e., office and light industrial), consistent with revised General Plan 2000 policies. The last building, building A, was completed in 2000. However, staff since discovered several discrepancies in the approved land use mix, including an addition to building H which exceeded the anticipated floor area allowance by 3,100 squa're feet. Staff has been working with the owner to identify discrepancies and correct building areas to conform to the adopted PD.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project would reconcile previously permitted building areas with the revised build-out, as follows (in square feet):

Current PD Build-Out Build-Out Allowance Allowance Notes (Office/R&D allowance)

Building A 40,000 31,595 31,595 Office Use (100 %)

Building B 30,000 28,135 9,680 Office Use (34%); and Up to 9,100 R&D allowance

Building C 20,000 19,900 13,305 Office (67%); and Up to 2,000 R&D allowance

Building E 28,000 28,350 13,360 Office Use (47%); and NO R&D allowance

Building F 41,400 36,000 9,000 Office Use (25%) and; Up to 7,900 R&D allowance

Building G 31,500 29,450 29,450 Office Use (100%)

Building H 48,000 51,100 18,555 Office Use; and U~ to 17,000 R&D allowance

TOTALS 238,900 224,530

The build-out results in a net building area reduction by 14,370 square feet. However, Office use has increased from 104,730 square feet to 124,945 square feet. Conversely, the Light Industrial use has been reduced to 99,585 (with no more than 36,000 square feet allowed to be used for Research and Development). Parking demand for the project is 611 spaces, which remains within the "grandfathered" supply of 615 parking spaces. The increase 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 PO amendment also allows ancillary uses that would serve the complex to be considered, and would eliminate the Trip Generation Standard contained and in the PO 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.


ANALYSIS:

General Plan Compliance The site is designated for 'light industry & office' land uses. The changes to the mix of uses remains consistent with the General Plan 2020 land use designation. The monitoring of trip generation (e.g., vehicle peak hour trips generated by the development) is no longer a required practice under the General Plan 2020 Circulation 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 on Page 21 of Attachment 5 (Negative Declaration).Page 48 of this City Council Repott.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency The PO establishes the standards for the site, to implement the General Plan 2020. The following sections have been discussed as relevant to this case:

PO Zoning The amendment would revise the mix of land uses, with a 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 Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.07.050 and Section 14.27.060 which allow zoning amendments to be considered with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the revised development plan would remain consistent with the General Plan and would serve the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff and the Planning Commission found and recommend that the PO amendment (ZC12-001) satisfies these findings, as discussed in the General Plan 2020 compliance analysis above, and additional zoning ordinance analysis provided below. The original approved Development Plan (ED85-54), which is required to implement development of the site, remains unaffected by this change.

Further, staff has recommended and supports maintaining the limitation on the amount 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 generation of office, R&D, and light industry are substantially similar, office remains the more intense use of the three. R&D has more recently been treated the same as office for traffic and building permit purposes. Therefore, enforcing this limitation is deemed appropriate as it would maintain the historic allowance and parking' rate granted to the development, reflect the current built-out conditions identified in the complex, while providing an ability to assure any further conversion of such space to an office use would not occur.

Floor Area Ratio SRMC Section 14.16.150 implements the General Plan Land Use Policy LU-9 which applies floor area ratios to the site. This requirement was enacted just prior to adoption of the PD1675 amendment. Assignment of trip generation rates also was enacted prior to and included with this amendment. The FAR tables establish a sliding scale, with smaller building sizes required for office buildings and larger building sizes allowed for light industrial uses.

The applicable FAR ranges from a 0.26 FAR allowance for 100% office use and 0.38 allowance for 100% industrial use. Staff has confirmed that the maximum potential building floor area attributable to the site remains compliant with the zoning standards and general plan policies. This is based on the fact that the Bayview Business Park FAR was developed on 21-acres (before dedication of land to the City for wetland mitigation and ponds). Thus, the current FAR tables would have accommodated development from 237,837 square feet to 347,608 square feet. The resulting building area of 224,530 square feet falls under this FAR range.

5

6


Parking SRMC Chapter 14.18 provides that a use shall not be deemed non-conforming solely due to lack of parking that meets current standards, or that has been reduced for ADA compliance (i.e. "grandfathered" parking). The current code requires 4 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of office use (outsiqe of Downtown) whereas the site maintains its historic parking rate of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office use. A total of 611 parking spaces are required to meet the demand of the complex, based on build-out (i.e., 3.3/1000 * 124,945 = 412.32 spaces + 2/1000 '* 99,585 = 199.17 spaces; for a total of 611 spaces required, rounded down at fraction of less than .5) As noted in the Background discussion, the site maintains a grandfathered parking supply of 615 spaces; including loss of five (5) spaces for new van accessible ADA parking provided adjacent to buildings E, F and G. The site has 610 spaces available (including 5 unstriped spaces required adjacent to the interior side of Building F). Thus, the 611 required spaces are provided by the existing and "grandfathered" parking supply of 615 spaces.

Given that the project would "intensify" office use on the site, above previously anticipated levels, and would utilize a grandfathered lower parking rate for the office uses, staff requested that a parking analysis be completed for the site. This was conducted as noted in the June 25, 2012 letter from Forsher & Guthrie, attached as. Source Reference 6' to the Initial Study (Attachment 5). (Page 63 of this City Council Report) The analysis has revealed a peak demand for 375 parking spaces at the complex. Staff confirmed the parking supply exceede.d demand during peak morning and evening periods. Staff conducted weekday visits on February 7, 2013 at 11 :30 am and February 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm (when employees and clients were most likely to be using the parking lots). Review of the site indicated that 60% of the parking supply was being utilized. Staff further factored in current building vacancies; i.e., 6,000 square feet of vacant office space in Building A and the un-utilized 3,100 square feet of space in Building H (proposed for office use). The parking demand generated by the current vacancies is less than 40 cars. Based on the parking analysis, over 150 parking spaces are unutilized within the complex. Thus, the amount of parking provided is more than adequate to accommodate the demand for the complex, and complies with the Municipal Code.

Use Permit The Master Use Permit is required to implement the PO zoning. Section 14.22 (Use Permit) requires that a use permit shall be in accord with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the Master Use Permit with revisions to reflect the site build-out, and it has been concluded this would be in the interest of the City and property owners.

The use permit amendment would eliminate the unnecessary and burdensome record keeping currently required to track use changes and associated vehicle trips. The original conditions have been incorporated into the revised resolution, with updated or revised conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. All prior conditions have been incorporated, as necessary, including ongoing conditions that have already been implemented for the project in order to assure 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


zoning regulations are applied in the traditional LlIO zoning districts, and would not place a burden on staff or the owners.

Public Comments Public notice of all hearings were posted on site and at the Marin County Clerk, mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site and published in the Marin IJ in compliance with SRMC Chapter 14.29 (Noticing) and the requirements of CEQA. Staff has not received any public comments on the proposed project.

Environmental Review (CEQA) Before the City can consider a zoning action, an environmental initial study must be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project proposes text amendments only, and would not permit any increased development intensity. Therefore, the environmental initial study has resulted in preparation of a Negative Declaration (concluding that the project would not have any significant environmental impacts). The Initial StudylNegative Declaration was made available and noticed for a 20 day public review period, commencing on March 6, 2013.

Almost all of the environmental impact categories result in a 'No Impact' determination based on attached and referenced source documents, which are listed on Page 23 of Negative Declaration (Attachment 5) (Page 49 of this City Council Report). The only impact categories that required discussion are the Land Use and Planning section, on Page 17 of the Negative Declaration, and TransportationlTraffic on page 20 of the Negative Declaration (Pages 44 & 47 of this City Council Report). These sections were discussed because the project would result in a change to the office and light industry floor areas and associated trips generated by the project. The effects of these changes have been found to have no impact, with one less-thansignificant impact identified because of the increase in office FAR; which is a land use that has slightly higher parking and traffic impacts above light industrial. However, no mitigation is required for the project as it would not result in any physical impacts on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT: Processing of the project zoning entitlements are subject to the City cost recovery fee based system, and would have no impact on City funds.

OPTIONS: 1.

2.

3.

4.

The City Council has the following options to consider: Pass the Ordinance to print and adopt the Resolutions approving the project as recommended by the Planning Commission; Pass the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution approving the project, with revisions to the terms of the agreement or entitlements; Refer the Ordinance and Resolution back to the Planning Commission to consider further modifications; or Deny the Ordinance and Resolution,

ACTION REQUIRED: 1. Adopt Resolution, adopting a Negative Declaration as the CEQA Environmental

Document for the Bayview Business Park Maste~ Plan Amendment project.

2. Pass Ordinance 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 of uses.

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.

7

8


ATTACHMENTS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Vicinity Map Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration Ordinance amending PD1675 (Bayview Business Park Master Plan) Resolution adopting an amended Master Use Permit Negative Declaration & Sources (Bayview Business Park Project) PC March 26, 2013 Action Minutes Notice of Public Hearing

Page No.

9 11 13 21 29 79 81

ATTACHMENT 1 - VICINITY MAP (Bayview Business Park)

w

CENTRAL

SANITATION

PLANT

M

N

SCALE 1: 6,597

A i i i i i 500 0 500 1,000 1,500

FEET

9

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:36 AM

10

Attachment 2

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL 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 (ZC12-001 & UP12-040) to amend the existing Bayview Business Park Master Plan, Planned Development District PD1675 text, to update the ordinance consistent with CUlTent 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 StudylNegative 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 sUlTounding property owners within 300 feet, pertinent agencies (including responsible and trustee agencies), organizations and spe'cial interest groups pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072; and

WHEREAS, copies ofthe 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 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 Depatiment of Community Development; and

2-1 CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 2 - Negative Declaration

11

12

Attachment 2

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.

I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby ce1iify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the 6th day of May, 2013, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmember:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

2-2

ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk

CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 2 - Negative Declaration

Attachment 3

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT (PD1675) TO REVISED PD DISTRICT (ZC12-00l) 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 PARI( 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

(ZC12-001)

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 tdp 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 oflight 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 of238,900 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 (ZC12-001 & UP12-040) to amend the existing Bayview Business Park Master Plan, Planned Development District PD1675 text to update the ordinance consistent with CU11'ent 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

3-1 CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 3 - P D Ordinance 13

14

Attachment 3

Development, and recommended to the City Council the approval of the amendments; and

WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the San Rafael City Council heid 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 Commlmity 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 thitiy (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 Joul11al, a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of Califol11ia.

Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall also post in the office of the City Clerk, a celiified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against the Ordinance.

3-2 CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 3 - P D Ordinance

Attachment 3

GARY O. PHILLIPS, Mayor ATTEST:


The foregoing Ordinance No. was read and introduced at a regular meeting 'ofthe City Council ofthe City of San Rafael on Monday, the 6 th day of May, 2013, and was ordered passed to print by the following vote, to wit:


NOES: Councilmembers:


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 _ day of __ , 2013.

3-3


CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 3 - P D Ordinance 15

16

Attachment 3

EXHIBIT" A"

BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN

INTENT

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 futiher revised through ZC 12-00 1 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 Pelmit 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 propeliy into a commercial condominium complex. The condominium business park shall managed by a common owners association.

LAND USES

Uses pelmitted in Bayview Business Park include a mix a mmdmum of 134,900 square fee+-of light industrial :as-es and 104,000 square feet of office uses for a maximum total of 238,900 224,530 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 iIndustrial 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 detelmined 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 ffities and trip allocation pm'lcing standards established in this Master Plan.

AIl '..~ses shall be consistent '.:vith Master Use Permit UP82 65(c).

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

The following development standards shall apply to all development of the Bayview Business Park.


Setbacks:

Height:

Attachment 3

Building setbacks shall be consistent with the Master Site Plan ~ Development Plan) approved with the Master Environmental and Design Review Pelmit ED85-54.

Maximum height 36'

Maximum Building Size (square feet): Building A 40,000 31,595 Building B 30,00028,135 Building C 20,000 19,900 Building E 28,00028,350 Building F 41,40036,000 Building G 31,50029,450 Building H 48,00051,100 Total 238,900 224,530

Landscaping: Landscaping shall be consistent with the approved Environmental and Design Review Pelmit (ED85-54), and any subsequent amendments.

Parking: Parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved Master Design Review Pelmit (ED85-54) or the requirements of Chapter .l.1,.18 of the City's zoning ordinance (Parking Standards) should an amendment to the Master Design Review Pelmit be requested. Parking requirements approved for Bayview Business Park are as follows:

• 3.3 parking spaces/1 ,000 gross square feet of Office space • 2 parking spaces/1,OOO 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 pelmit or parking modification

• Adjustments to parking rates may be considered by use pelmit 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.

TRIP GENERzA .. TION

l'i. maximum of 442 PM peak hoar trips m'e associated '.vith the Bayviev,' Business Parlf;Trip generation rates for the Light Industrial and Office uses m'e as follows:

Light Industrial: 1.4 tripsll,OOO gross scrdare feet of building area

3-5 CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 3 - P D Ordinance 17

Office: f ... ncillary Uses

18

Attachment 3

2.65 trips/l ,000 gross sC]:llUre feet of building area As specified in the Circulation Backgrollnd section of the General Plan for East San Rafael or as detennined by the City Traffic Engineer


Attachment 3

EXHIBIT "B"

Legal Description

Situated in the State of California, County of Marin, City of San Rafael and described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most Westerly comer 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 1865 feet; thence Southeasterly in a direct line for a distance of 906 feet, more or less, to a point on the Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 9 in Section 12, TIN, R 6 W, M.D.M., distant North 1° 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 comer of the property described in the Deed from Marin Canalways and Development Company to the State of California, recorded September 25, 1957 in Volume 1143, Official Records, at page 185, Marin County Records; thence Southerly along the Easterly lines of said Tide Land Lots 9 and 24 for a distance of 506.28 feet, more or less, to the Northeast comer of the propeliy 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 NOliherly lines of said "Parcel One", NOlih 88° 42' 42" West 660.0 feet to the Easterly line of Tide Land Lot 17 in Section 11; thence along said Easterly line NOlih 1 ° 17' 18" East 138.0 feet; thence leaving said last mentioned line, NOlih 51 ° 14' West 288.0 feet, more or less, to the most NOliherly comer of said "Parcel One"; thence along the NOlihwesterly line of said parcel, South 38° 46' West 1048.0 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning of said "Parcel One", being a point on the NOliheasterly line of "Parcel Two" in the Deed recorded in Volume 1016, Official Records, at page 24, Marin County Records, hereinabove referred to; thence NOlihwesterly along the NOliheasterly line of said "Parcel Two", for a distance of 460.0 feet, more or less, to the most Northerly comer 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 pOliion thereof lying within the boundaries of California State Highway.

AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that pOliion 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.

3-7 CC Meeting May 6,2013 Attachment 3 - P D Ordinance 19

20

Attachment 3

EXHIBIT "C"

Bayview Business Park - Site Plan

.. ..... -

3-8

-.:"

CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 3 - P D Ordinance

t North

Attachment 4

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL 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 (ZC12-001 & UP12-040) to amend the existing Bayview Business Park Master Plan, Planned Development District PD1675 text to update the ordinance consistent with current general plan and zoning provisions and remove antiquated standards, and the Master Use Permit 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 Pelmit, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written repOli of the Community Development Depmiment 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 Pelmit entitlements accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written repOli of the Community Development Depmtment 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 (ZC12-001), consisting of text amendments only, which will be published and return for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the following findings:

4-1 CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 4 - Use Permit

21

22

Attachment 4

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 comgliance 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 ofthe 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 confilmed 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 1. This Use Pelmit approval UP12-040 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 not go into effect until the PD zoning amendments (ZC12-001) are enacted.

4-2 CC Meeting May 6,2013 Attachment 4 - Use Permit

Attachment 4

3. This Master Use Permit approves development of a maximum allowable 224,530 gross square feet of building area in the Bayview Business Parle 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:

Gross Area Office S9o. Ft. Light Industrial S9o. Ft. (& Max. R&D) Building A 31,595 31,595 0 Building B 28,135 9,680 18,455 (with up to 9,100 of R&D) Building C 19,900 13,305 6,595 (with up to 2,000 of R&D) Building E 28,350 13,360 14,990 Building F 36,000 9000 27,000 (with up to 7,900 of R&D) Building G 29,450 29,450 0 Building H 51,100 18,555 32,545 (with u12 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 zonmg.

5. Ancillmy 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 parldng shall not be required for incidental retail and service uses that serve the primmy 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 01' adjustment of the existing approved parking lot configuration or landscape areas or other physical site or exterior building improvements.


23

24

Attachment 4

Building Pelmits 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 pelmits shall be forwarded to the Department of Public Works for its review and approval.

Prior Conditions and Mitigation 10. All exterior modifications to the site or 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 constmcted 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 UP12-040 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 constmcted 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 constmction, exterior alteration or additions. Each building shall cany 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.


Attachment 4

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 ofthe 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 ofthe project use. Landscape belms 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 of24" 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 ofthe 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 ently 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).

4-5 CC Meeting May 6,2013 Attachment 4 - Use Permit

25

26

Attachment 4

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 linle 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 of24" and 36" box size have been required to be planted around the parking lots to provide screening of parked vehicles.

30. The pr9ject 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 ofthe 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 emihwork for building additions shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations of an updated soils and geotechnicalrepOli 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 repOli 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


Attachment 4

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. Sanitmy sewer plans for building additions shall be subj ect to review and approval by the San

Rafael Sanitation District.

42. Modifications to sanitalY 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 Januaty 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 laboratOlY 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.


27

28

Attachment 4

I, 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 6th day of May, 2013, by the following vote, to wit:


NOES: COlillcilmember:


4-8


CC Meeting May 6, 2013 Attachment 4 - Use Permit

Attachment 5

BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARI('MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT' 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505~2597 Kerner 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 Agenoy:

City of San Rafael Community Development Department 1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)

San Rafael, CA 94915-1560

Contact: Kraig Tambornini, Senior J;lanner

Maroh 6, 2013

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI(l,IST ...................................................................................................................... 5

EXHmITS ..................................................... t ••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• " •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••• 9

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................................................................... 10

DETERMmATION ..... 11 ••••• ' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 01,,, ••••••••••••• , •••••••••••••••• 10

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS ......... : ............................................................................. 11

I. AESTIIETICS ......................................... : ..................................................................................... 11 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES .......................................................................... 11 III. AJRQUALITY ............................................................................................................................... 12 N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 13 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 14 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................... : ...................................... · ............................. 14 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 15 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................................... 15 IX. HYDROLOGY ANDWATERQUALITY ....................... : ........................................................... 16 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................................................ 17 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 18 XII. NOISE ............................................................................ ; ................................................................. 18 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................... ; ............................................................... 19 XN. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................... 19 XV. RECREATION .............................................................................................................................. 20 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................. 20

. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 21 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................ 22

'SOURCE REFERENCES ....................................................... 0.1I •••••••••• oo ••••••••• ".oe •••••• " •••••••• " ••• 0" •• o.0 ••••••••••••• "0 ••••• " ••• 23

DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT .......................................................................................................... : ...... 24

30

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

March 5, 2013

Public Agencies; Organizations and Interested Parties

Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

MAYOR ALBERT J. BORO VICE MAYOR GREG BROCKBANK

COUNCILMEMBER DAMON CONNOLLY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA HELLER

COUNCILMEMBER MARC LEVINE

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 Depatiment of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following project:

Project Name: Bayview Business Park Master Plan Planned Development Zoning District Amendment

Location: 22-100 Pelican Way; 2505-2550 & 2591 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 (3.53 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 west boundary, Pelican Way along its north boundmy, Kemer 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 (PD1675) zoning ordinance provisions for the following purposes: <ll To update the CUlTent 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 pennitting 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 Pennit that was previously established in order to regulate maximum office and light industrial square footage allowances. This standard is no longer used to regulate development within the City. .

There is no new development being proposed as part of the project and the existing project conditions shall be reviewed and incorporated into and made a part of the proposed amendment. The project was originally approved for 238,900 gross square feet of building area in 7 structures; 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

31

32

BuildingH 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 squ~re 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:

BillLDING 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 Building E 28,344 Light Ind-Warehouse/Office Builqing P 36,000 Light Industrial/R&D/Office Building G 29,450 Light Industrial Building H 51,098 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 pad<ing rates. PD1675 (adopted 3/20/95) requires 3.3 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 of4 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 P that are not cUlTently striped). The current parking supply reflects reductions made to' accommodate minor site improvements permitted by the City (including removal 'of spaces near Buildings Band 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 P, 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). Preapplicatioll consultation with otlter agencies pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060.5 was 110t needed for tlzis Project, which would 110t result ill further development of the site 01' require any otlter p'ermits from other responsible 01' trustee agencies. However, zoning amendments do not qualify 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 requir~d 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. TranspOliationiTraffic" environmental impact categories have been discuss,ed 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 Effect Determination Request to Ca Fish & Game: Given that the Project only consists of an amendme,nt to remove an obsolete development standard, and would not result in any fmiher development of the built-out site or require any additional pelmits 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 NoHcing: A twenty-day (20-day) public review period shall commence on Wednesday, March 6, 20'13. Written comments must be sent to the City of San Rafael, Community Development Department, pranning 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 tlle Initial Study/ Negative Declaration on Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 7:00 PM in the San Rafael City Council Chambers at City Hall (address listed above). Correspondence and comments can be delivered to Kraig Tambornini, project planner, phone: (415) 485-3092, email: [email protected].

Notice of Intent 4 Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project Title

2. Lead Agency Name & Address

3. Contact Person & Phone Number

4. Project Location

5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address

6. General Plan Designation

7. Zoning

8. Description of Project:

Approved and Built Out Floor Areas

Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment

City of San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560) San Rafael, California 94915-1560

Kraig Tambomini, Senior Planner Phone number: (415) 485-3092 Email: [email protected]

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"). '

,Project Sponsor:

Bayview Business Park Owners C/o Rebecca Cranford, McAvoy Mgmt ,PO Box 1269 Novato, CA 94948

Sponsor's Representative:

Same as above

Light Industry/Office

PD 1675 (Bayview Business Park Light Industrial and Office)

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 pali 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: e Update the current permitted mix of office, research & development and light industrial tenant square footage

amounts to reflect the built-out condition. e Eliminate Trip Generation monitoring required in the PD and Master Use Pelmit; which were previously

required to determine maximll;m office and light industrial square footage allowances.

Environmental Checklist Form 5 Bayview 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: '

Building A 40,000 Building B 30,000 Building C 20,000 Building E 28,000 Building F 41,400 Building G 31,500 Building H 48,000 Totals: 238,900

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 fmther 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:

Gross Area Office Sg. Ft. Light Industrial Sg. Ft. (Max. R&D) Building 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) BuildingE 28,350 13,360 14,990 BuildingF 36,000 9000 27,000 (7,900 R&D) Building G 29,450 29,450 ° Building H 51,100 18,555 ,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 pelmitted 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 nlte 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 would have been required to build out the site as originally proposed. Parking spaces have been provided for the current mix of office and light industrial spaces in accordance with the PD standards. However, the parking supply provided has been reduced to comply with ADA accessible, parking standards, and the site cUlTently provides capacity for 610 parking spaces (605 striped and 5 unstriped). This includes parking for 5 vehicles that currently are required but are not cunently 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

34 Environmental Checklist Form 6 Bayview 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 disa,bled 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 COU1).ts 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 (AP#9-290-31) in June 1983.1 According to this initial study the Project site originally encompassed 26 acres of land located along the shoreline in East San Rafael, which extended from Francisco Blvd East to the San Rafael Bay. Although once a mudflat subject to tidal action, 18 of the 26 acres had been filled some 15 to 20 years prior to elevations +7 MSL, and was fonnerly a dump site operated by San Quentin Disposal.

The City had also approved four use permits between 1981 and 1983 for stockpiling and fills on the property. The site was developed prior to adoption of General Plan 2000 (CC Resolution 7771, July 18, 1988), but in compliance with a June 1982 East San Rafael Wetlands Mitigation Plan that allowed partial filling and development of seasonal wetlands with preservation and enhancement of annual wetlands and ponds. The land area developed as the business park includes Parcell (4.461 acres) and 2 (8.482 acres) as shown on Parcel Map PM 2250 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 & PD1675) .

. J Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Bayview Business Park) prepared June 1983

Environmental Checklist Form 7 Bayview Business Park Master Plan 35

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 being 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 memQrandum, 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 pennitted 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 pennits created office space that futiher exceeded the original pennitted 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:

Master Use Pennit Amendment:

Amend Development Standards to update the allowable mix of office and light industrial land uses and delete Trip Generation rates. '

Amend the allowable mix of Office/Research & Development and Light Industrial uses and re-adopt ongoing and new conditions of approval for Bayview Business Park.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required None.

The project would not require any additional pennits from agencies other than the City of San Rafael City Councilthrough 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.

36 Environmental Checklist Form 8 Bayview' Business Park Master Plan

EXHIBIT

Vicinity Map

CENmAL

M.:\RIN

SANITATION

PLANT

P/OS

P/QP

Figure 1 - Bayview Business Park Vicinity Map

Environmental Checklist Form

w

9 Bayview Business Park Master Plan 37

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a IIPotentially Significant Impactll as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils 0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water Quality

Materials 0 Land Use / Planning 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation / Traffic .0 Utilities / Service Systems 0 MandatOlY Finding of

Significance

Discussion: No environmental factors would be potentially significant as a result of this Project.

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

[gJ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared.

o 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 NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared.

o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated ll impact on the envirOlID1ent, but at lest one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets; An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

D' 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 NEGATNE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATNE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing fmiher is required.

Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

I Date f I

38 Environmental Checklist Form 10 Bayview Business Park Master Plan

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pursuant to the general concepts found ion the CEQA Guidelines section 15002 and 15063, the checklist below has been used to detennine 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 detennination of No Impact indicates that, based on the nature of the proposed Project andlor its Project Desc.ription (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 categOly and, therefore, no further discussion is warranted or necessaly. Where the detennination of No Impact is not made or readily determined based on the Project's nature andlor its Project Description, a discussion of the environmental impact categOly has been provided.

I. AESTHETICS

Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse eff~ct on a scenic

Potentially Significant Impact

vista? 0

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a 0 state scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality' of the site and its 0 surroundings?

d Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or 0 nighttime views in the area?

H. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

Would the project: {In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in a~sessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.} In determining whether impacts to a forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to infonnation compiled by the Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventOlY of

Environmental Checklist Form 11

Less-ThanSignificant With Mitigation IncOlporation

o

o

o

o

Less-ThanSignificant Impact

o

o

o

o

No Impact

Bayview Business Park Master 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,

01' Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pj'epared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and D Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agriczrltural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? D

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public ResQurces Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources D 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? tJ

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of D Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion offorest land to non-forest use?

HI. AIR QUALITY

Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of

the applicable air quality plan? D

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or D 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 D quality standard [(including releasing emISSIOns which exceed quantitative thresholdsfor ozone precursors)?

40 Environmental Checklist Form 12

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

Bayview Business Park Master Plan

d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant cQncentrations? 0

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? 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 0 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 se,nsitive naturet! community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the 0 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 0 pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migrat01Y fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 0 impede the use of native wildlife nurselY sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 0 ordinance?

f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Nahlral Community Conservation Plan, or other 0 approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


0 0 rgJ

0 0

o o

o o

o o

o o

o o

o ·0


V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as D defined in §15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource D pursuant to §15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique D geologic feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? D

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injwy, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on D other substantial evidence of a known

, fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D iii) Seismic related ground failure,

including liquefaction? D

tv) Lands fides? ' D b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss

of topsoil? D

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in D on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?


D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D ~

D D ~

D D ~

D D ~

D D ~


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 D property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately s'upporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems D where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS

Would the project: f Generate greenhouse gas emlSSlOns, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a 0 significant impact on the environment?

g. Conflict with an applicable plan,. policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the 0 emissions of greenhouse gases?

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project a. Create a significant hazard to the public or

the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably

D

foreseeable upset and accident conditions D 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 D 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 D significant hpzard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land D


0 D

0 D

o o

o D

o

o o

o o

o o

o o


use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use. ai/port, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety, hazard for people residing or lvorking in the D project area?

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation D plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are D acijacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge reqtdrements? D

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 D' production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site oJ' area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in D substantial. erosion or siltation on- or offsite?

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through

D

D

D

D

D

D

the alteration of the course of a stream or D D river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which


D

D

D

D

D

D

D


would result in flooding on- or offsite?

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or

.planned stormwater drainage systems or D provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

j Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D

g. Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate D Map or otherflood hazard delineation map?

h. Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect D flood flows?

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the D failure of a levee or dam?

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? D

b. . Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an. agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, D local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the pUlpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community D conservation plan?

Discussion:

D D

D D ~.

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

The Site is designated Light Industry/Qffice on the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Land Use Map; prepared and referenced under General Plan Policy LU-23. The Light Industrial/Office land use category identified in Policy LU-23 & General Plan 2020 Exhibit 11 allows the following land uses:

Environmental Checklist Form 17 Bayview Business Park Master flan 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 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 NonResidential 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 pennanent 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 tO,the PD 1675 would recognize the increase in pennitted 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 PD 1675 and master use pennit, the development mix remains in compliance with the PD1675 trip generation alJ,d parking standards.

Based on this discussion, staff has detennined 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.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project: a. Result in the loss 'of availability of a known'

mineral resource that would be of value to D the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a , locally-important mineral resource recovelY site delineated on a local general plan, D specific plan or other land use plan?

XII. NOISE

Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of

noise levels in excess of standards D establisiled in the local general plan or noise


D D

D D

D D


ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e. For a project located within an ailport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ailport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing' or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an

area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (jor example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constr'uction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion: c, Displace substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of

Environmental Checklist Form

D D D

D D D [:g]

D D D [:g]

D D D

D D D

D D D [:g]

D D D

D D D

19 Bayview Business Park Master Plan 47

new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfOlmance objectives for any of the public services:

a. Fire protection?

b. Police protection?

c. Schools?

d. Parks?

e. Other public facilities?

XV. RECREATION

Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood

D

D

D

D

D

and regional parks or other recreational. facilities such that substantial physical D deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Include recreational facilities or require the . construction 01' expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse D physical effect on the environment?

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance

or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and D relevant component of the cirqtlation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit)?

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not D limited to level of service standards and


D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D


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 0 substantial safety j'isks?

"d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible 0 uses (e.g.,farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,

o

or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise 0 decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion:

o o

o o

o o

o o

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 Parle. Approximately 125,000 total square feet of office and 36,000 square feet of research & development use have been pennitted 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 CUlTent mix of office, research" and development and light industrial space. No new development is proposed as part of the project.

The Bayview Business Park PD1675 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 (8th 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.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements 0

of the applicable Regional Water Quality


o o


Control Board?

b. Require or resitlt in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of D 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 D 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 D demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

f Be served by a landfill with stifficient permitted capacity to accommodate the D project's solid waste disposal needs?

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? D

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Would the project: a. Does the project have the potential to

degrade the quality of the en'vironment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population tQ drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elindnate a plant or D animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal' or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? '

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively D considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"


D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D D


means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, , the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 0 indirectly?

'0 o

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 cunent PD1675 zoning regulations by the Project, i.e., elimination of Traffic Genenition 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 PD 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 pennits 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 ofFish and Game for this Project.

SOURCE REFERENCES

The following is a list of references used in the preparation ofthis 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 Em., certified July 1988.

2. San Rafael Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, City of San Rafael, May 1996.

3. Application Form and materials including the applicants Project Description, Revised PD Document and Site Plan

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 Eich(:)r, Forsher + Guthrie to Becky Cranford Re: Bayview Business Park dated September 4,2012

Environmental Checklist Form 2~ Bayview Business Park Master Plan 51

DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT

On the basis of this Initial Study and Environmental Checklist I find that the proposed project could not have a Potentially Significant Effect on the environment. A Nega~ive Declaration will be prepared.

!pu~- .. Date3!¢3 Kraig Tambomini Printed Name

REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS Kraig Tambomini, Senior Planner City of San Rafael, Community Development Department.


Senior Planner Title

Bayview Business Park Master Plan .

D Associates TRANSf'()IlII'.TIDN ~(Jl.UTIONS

ReCEIVED

SEP 2 {) J011

PLANNING

1970 Broadway SUite 740

September 22, 2011

Bay View Business Park Owners Association c/o Becky Cranford, Propeliy Manager P.O. Box 1269 Novato, CA 94948

Subject: Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study, San Rafael, CA

Dear Ms Cranford:

PII090-QOO

DKS 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 llecessalY 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 H is partially occupied with tenants in only 47,546 SF (of which 18,552 SF is office and 32,546 SF is light indush·ial). The remaining 3,552 square feet of office space in Building H are unoccupied.

The Bayview Business Pat'k Master Plan was approved by the City Council on December 16, 1985. The Master Plan peImitted a maximum of 134,900 SF of light indush'ial 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.

Oukland, ell [l4G 12

(510) 763-1.051 (510) 268-1'139 fax www.<JKs<ls.loGi81es.colll

SOURCE REFERENCE 4

53

54

DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIO~JS

Methodology/Analysis 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 8th Edition Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 1 shows the comparison of the Trip Generation Rates.

Table 1 Trip Gencnltion Rates

710 General Office Building 2.65 1049 110 General Light Industrial lAO 0.97

Notes: a. Per 1000 OF A (gross floor area in square feet)

Sources: City of San Rafael; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition

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 Projcd Site Observed Average Trip Ratc

l't~"'t*"m~~<-0Z-<l:O;:~?~-.1 "'<"A;r?l\~ ,~~ ~"":t'i}1'~l"il:#":"<&~""~B~~RD/'f}W" .. ~'wow.~,,,q-,~,~~,,,~~ -"'~:>!':-7.0<,V:); i"'~~"1m%~~( 'P:-"'"""'=-:ff*l"" &2';(Jj <f$t; ,,>'<'"%5?f~1 f,,,,,~ ",:1 >f>;~~>1~t£t0'<mHI! ~in 1 CI J Blm 1:.Iltim' ~ ~'" '} ~./i<%'C"",&5''1triT~"Y''ef10~ ~ ,0,,:.; /'';;'';<:,1 fi~~Q~~jztiiA:(4J;d:HcW~%\1~",W"d} ~~~~~ ~~~=, ~~ == ,<}:,_ ~:01~;Z"~~~::t:;;;:i{~~~t!:~

Project PM Peak Hour Trips at Driveways 192 On-Street Parking on Pelican Way and Kerner Blvd. 42 Total Number of Obscrved PM Peak Hour Trips 234

Max. Permitted PM Peak Hour Trips 442 Difference 208

Sources: DKS Associates, 2011

Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study 2 09/22/11

DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS

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 beaU office use.

Table .3 Trip Generation for Bayview Business Park Using City Trip Gcnt~ration Rates

A 0 0 0 0 0 B 9,676 18,453 26 26 51

C 13,301 6,593 35 9 44 E 13,357 14,987 35 21 56 F 9,000 27,000 24 38 62

G 29,450 0 78 0 78 H occupied 15,000 32,546 40 46 86

Occupied Subtotal 89,784 99,579 322 139 377 A vacant 31,594 0 84 0 84 H vacant 3,552 0 9 0 9

Unoccupied Subtotal 35,146 0 93 0 9

Total 124,930 99,579 331 139 470

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. U sing 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.


55

56


Table 4 Trip Generation Using ITE Trip Generatiot! Manual

hf~> i1-:;{7.1~"" :LYy':<'db ??'>~<~;/::1,.<;r?f?;Jit :( ~ ~,%/;,?jt j /}~ ~\t,y~~:g;:~fDD 0(1 t ~ ~ ,Jl ,*'L~':*t:" ~< .t.i'1tfit1~?~,?:{; -: aRr nu A't tins; t~'-~ "~~V %""%- ;1' f1'{~~ tr~'i' ",., ~Y":( f~>A{f.,~~l':r,*,,f;e ".,'0S~tl ";;'1i:jt1"t::g"''';7,,\L,.,iill:s;~.,,,, ~~. ~_L,,-", _ """"",:W""&",Sw"ik.$~j'e#)'tiktll;--1{,futilY}L..~,,,,, t.~ ,,= ... ~ ;:;:.,;. ",;x',.., ""'" ""~~:.6F,,.J~iil~llJ<:;wV_}' iiV ~'~" ;:1"1 * j:t:5j1::'~~:f%ir0 f,,; ;'')if :~:4';:% t)tf1. g,< ,:{> ;h2, m[ l~ir)/t;r ,! 51'" J,IiglllflJolii0 }{v<'7k"-~;:${J;'}';;{m ~~, Fi3j 1>m>cu:' ~?J;'f'tg ":;;.:}~W~H <f1tV;?ixTy !.o,2"~f~ ,4~,,~S.~A';ot''1 h~; ~~, )zij;',:;'i,;:,'nuilaing~;;t;,W'ff;~;\Y;;;:';W"", M" ',f;~~I~;:0;1 "",,,,,,\\\jb~;r;>;:f;:j;4mfnei~~ ,~~*:,~gig)lt~~'. 'i;~)21~llatal illifjl)~;~ ['>" r,' 1?"j/' 7 ,," 'l, Sd'!;j"';P ',: 'w:Bliilding'r;;Wp 'Iu«(usmiul ';","I{, "I "",l;W"1 Jm '1,"'>,* "~':"':"1l1'r;~"",2!,,,',,,' "iii'~ So ~{~~10::M":~ ;'~:~~~t~;:0~tJ:!' ,w ~ig;~;i~;/i~{~~ ~y~y~y '< ~y} \p", ;:~~~hF l<:t ~~~t ~¥- 4,~'~diw~~_ "" {~{~;Bil'iI(linrf 'IDUriSif~ihlic ~\1~jnelrkl~lff' ~~"¥i ~~1;;'::~:":~1:&F~~~~~tJ;'tif9f~~4ll¥~~~:~~~SEi~,,!;WtJ~~~ts~£IEa~~~tf~~~~i['t~~~-:~.f~~r:'.!Jtt~~Pf1tJf>rf$Jf;<'~~fi1f~~~ ri~!h~~~~I}~~:i ",~_~d"",A.~~_'t$i"'"_""'*o"'%:':~)i1<L~ !'(""")j;i,iili,4f~~,,,<.",,-g;{; j,&"~;j~%A'I",,-'t:= _, 1'f1i\,'ir!S;~ >iJ;'<d~",J,,, 2>(~_"" "~"'". ~ :&~""""'M~=~ ",~,"",,,,,,,,..s"'"'i11>",,,&!,, A~~ t..

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

Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition; DKS Associates, 2011

Assuming full occupancy of Buildings A and H (as office space), the combined total number of PM peak hour trips (observed trips + calculated trips for unoccupied space) for the project site would be 327 trips. Table 5 shows the Existing plus projected PM Peak hour trips for the full 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.


OKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SO.UTIONS

,

Table 5 PM Peak Hour Trips for Buildout <' , '~ ": ,

"~

Existing ~: Pr()jected : . .

SqulIre Fc~t , PM'Peak Hour J'rips

Byeit)" BylTE .- - - < - -= " r~~.t~ . Rnte ' 1

A ,,_ _A , ". .. ~ ,-'4,... , , . .. Existing 189,363 234a 2348

Building A (Buildout Occupancy) 31,594 84b 47c

Building H (Buildout Occupancy) 3,552 9b 5° . .. - .. ..

Total 224,509 327 286 Max. Permitted 238,900 442 442

Amount until Max. Permitted 115 156 Notes: a. Actual observed average trip rate b. Based on City trip rate for general office building (2.65 per 1,000 sq. ft.) c. Based on ITE trip rate for general office building (1.49 per 1,000 sq. ft.)

Sources: City of San Rafael; DKS Associates, 2011

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 pennitted 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

cc: Terry Klim, DKS

P;\P\ 11\11 090-000 San Rafael Bayview Trip Oen\04 Deliverables\San Rafael Bayview Trip Gen Study Finalv3.docx

Bayview Business Park Trip Generation Study 5 09/22111

57

58

BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK, SAN RAFAEL

"---------, -~

r I

BLDG A

or====i::; 1300m .. ,90'!ft

4m\ 4km ~

" q'i Ir, ,l I t' 'II :'" It I,: ,,1., 'It· ,I I;' linn! )1.'11 ': P'..! \l hI' 1\,0\ Lv. 11 ltTJ:'1" t.t!, lid" \, \dlr:d 11:. Ill, 1',.rl (' .I,d, ill" '\"" 1 ~ : ',If-,' I . t, ,Ll,d . J 'l''Ild h" .. '.: , '1 '.': I ~ .. ;~ lll)'lr.: J,. 'I', \' Ill';j't"l I",. 1'["'," I I IH,i

I-. ,I!! III j, j \11;11 ,'[1 »\'.d :' ,f,;(' ilfl ~.\ ,' •. l.! It ,r 'I i ,1:1, ,.1 t" ,1'" , ' '·r I II I I"~ I". rl' "':rll j\ 'i'" 1ft,' \!.!, ,I. r '\. 1'":\ t("] Wi" • : ,I h'li.d'liL ,-. ,\'".IP I:,i,.lll, ""',L . .1,,1'111,_' ' \ "\ h, ; ~'i' i l I," 1\ (' 1

(JI ~


Legend: Blue Markers: Potential Entry/Exit points Red Markers: Bayview Business Park Buildings Green Area: Study Area

1970 Broadway Suite 740 Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 763-2061 (510) 268-1739 fax www.dksassociates.com

~ :5 III 0:: 0 Z 0 en ~ n III ::> en ..J ;) 9 ~ ~ ~ a. ::;; 0 u b z ~ :2 en ..J ill U 0::

C': rn C\: 0 rn rn ill :n :n <>;

i 5: ::J 1: :n <1;

~

i.-:> ... ~ :> )

~ u ~ ~ ) L.

~ U

~ 0

~ g

~ 9.45Ac.

1/

14

2t.c p 1 c: .s,38 .3~' 22 46 N3.9~. E.

~ ~ r.4 rE FRAN 31'7.70 I

Pf)R. SEC'S. liB 12, T. , N. F .tJII'I'-"""""C~-..,._~':' N 51'" 7'w

panding area

@ P.B

5. (5Ac.

74(J.32.

9

POR17

ft 2.34Ac.

Ptn. P. I (1.86 Ac.)

prn. Pol

2/ ... 41

o ~ HW CISCO Y ___ N p.:

NOTE - Assessor's Block Numbers Shown in Ellipses. -----_____ . ""1G'W '~~~;96 P21-S2 Assessor's Parcel Numbers Shown in Circles. _______ . -.....~~o!/Z;>?1:i;. 4:!:RL--I..,.,..~~ __ AM~

17 ~.--.~~-.-.. --t-I-'----60

\,

\

14

.~ "

.fV '\ ~

II

\~ A«-46 "<Xl

.'!\ P,2

200

P,I

\

.fil 9.45Ac.

\ \

17

- ---------------------------

__ :..;..:;NS_'_·" __ 7W_ 740,32

ponding

@ p.e

5.IsAc .

l'"

~ " -I -:

@ ~~ 2.09Ac.

" area

Pcl. B

ft 2.34Ac .

q!

..,'"

'" .. J<\

~

~"," ~

PIn.' R I

(1.56 Ad

P21~52

9

/7

G/) ~c,

o ~

62

[ TO:

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

MEMORANDUM

RAFFI BOLOYAN PRINCIPAL PLANNER

DATE: November 5, 2012

)

FROM: KEVIN MCGOWAN ~H FILE NO: 13.02.17 ASSIST ANT PUBLIC WORI(S DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER

SUBJECT: 22 Pelican - (Reconcile Built-Out Lots - Kraig Tambol'llini - pl"o,ject Planner)

We have reviewed the attached application and find the submittal incomplete.

Parking

Greg Eicher's letter (dated June 22, 2012) indicates that the total number of parking spaces for the site is 608. A total of 714 pm'lcing 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 n()t 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 cUl'l'en~ 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 on the proposed office ancl light industrial square footages by Greg Eicher's letter (dated September 4, 2012) and ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition) rates is below 442. Therefore, no traffic mitigation fee is required.

SOURCE REFERENCE 5

63

64

June 25, 2012

Becky Cranford McAvoy Management PO Box 1269 Novato, Ca 94948

Re: Bayview Business Park

Dear Becky,

FORSi-IER+C;'UTHRIE

Planning Architecture Development

Robert Forshe1' AlA i\rehi teet Matthew C. Gll thrie Planner

Ten H Stl'eet San Rafael California 94901

Te1415 459 H45 Fax 415 459 1124

I have completed my investigation of permit activity and comparison to existing physical improvements at the seven buildings comprising Bayview Business Parle Tile 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 Ilave included an extensive review of the City's records of building permits issued, and review of associated drawings either in tile City's data base, or as provided by tile respective building owners wllere drawings do not exist at tile City. In addition, I have walked through eacll ofthe buildings to verify tile existing build-outs, and have compared that with the permit(s) issued for that building or portion of building.

There is a significant amount of permit activity for most of the buildings. In the cases where permit activity is low, it appears due to tl1e fact that little work has been done beyond the original build-out.

I am attaching a roster of building permits that have been issued for each building, with any pertinent information regarding those permits, anel have noted where we have drawings that show the work that was permitted. I also offer a brief summary of my observations for each of tile buildings below:

Building A 22 Pelican Way

Building A has just completed a major tenant improvement (B1107-106) extending throughout all but a small area in the building, which is currently vacant and will be available for a second tenant at some time in the future.

SOURCE REFERENCE 6

Forsher+Guthrie

June 25, 2012 Page: 2 Bayview Business Park

Building B 2597 Kerner Blvd.

Building B has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time, the more recent of those for the current tenant "Tissue Bank Inti". The build-out that exists today is reflected in those permits (B0303-075, B0608-018, and B0705-022).

Building C 2505 Kerner Blvd.

Building C has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time, the most recent of those for the previous and current tenants, "Eber Inti" and "TiNi Aerospace" respectively. The build-out that exists today is reflected in those permits (B0304-080, and Bl0l0-084).

Building E 100 Pelican Way

Building E has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 25 years time for a variety of tenants. Fortunately, the City's records are very good for this building in terms of the number of permit drawings that are associated with the respective permit applications. It appears that the tenant improvements currently existing in the building are consistent with the accumulation of permitted construction over time.

Building F 85 Glacier Point Rd (aka 2550 Kerner Blvd.)

Building F has very little permit activity. Only one permit has been issued since the original shell structure and tenant improvement work was completed. The existing improvements are consistent with both of those permits. '

Building G 150 Pelican Way

Building G has had very little permit activity since the original build-out, the subsequent permits having been issued for relatively minor alterations to the original office layout.

Oddly, there is no documentation in the City's records (drawings or permit application) indicating that the original interior improvements were completed with the benefit of a building permit. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that the shell building permit may have been amended at some point to include the interior bUild-out, or that some other documentation of this work has been mis-recorded. It seems doubtful that a significant TI such as this could have been completed without a permit.

65

66

Forsher+Guthrie

June 25, 2012 Page: 3 Bayview Business Park

Building H 101 Glacier Point Rd

Building H has had numerous tenant improvement permits issued over 15 years time for a small number of tenants. The City's records contain only one set of tenant improvement drawings, so it is fortunate that the property owner has record drawings that can be easily linked to the respective permits issued by the City.

The existing improvements can be shown to be permitted with two exceptions: an approximately 3500 sf area· on the lower level, and an approximately 7600 sf area on the second level both include improvements (private offices) that I am not able to link to a building permit. All other areas are consistent with drawings and permit applications, and the uses in the various tenant suites is generally consistent with the proposed uses at the time of permit issuance.

In conclusion, with the few exceptions noted, it appears that the existing improvements have been completed with the benefit of building permits.

Parking

Building management has provided me with data to help determine that the existing parking is adequate for the current uses.

Car counts have been completed on two separate occasions: one at 11:30am on Tuesday, May 15th

; the second at 2:30pm on Thursday, May 17th. The number of cars parked in the off-street parking areas on May 15th was 375; the number of cars parked in the off-street parking areas on May 17th was 345. The total number of parking stalls for the site is 608. These counts would indicate that the businesses are using only 55 - 60% of the available parking stalls.

Also attached is a site map showing the parking lots built in the business park.

If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

cordl~ Greg Eicher Forsher + Guthrie

0'\ -..,J

2597 KERNER APN 009-291-39 BLDG B TISSUE BANK ITERNATIONAL

PERMITS ISSUED PER CITY RECORDS

PERMIT # DATE

24011 Dec-85

24180 Jan-86

28470 Jul-88

34467 Nov-91

34934 Mar-92

41328 Apr-96

44098 Sep-97

44430 Dec-97

B09-109 Sep-OO

B0303-075 Feb-04

WORK DESCRIPTION VALUATION DWGS?

BLDG FOUNDATION ONLY lOOK NO

TILT-UP CONSTRUCTION 460K NO

TI (LORIC CORP) 290K NO

REMODEL TI (JANDEL SCIENTIFIC) 54K OWNER

7790 SF GROUND LEVEL TI (BONE TRANSPL 800K NO PREP; CALIF PACIIFIC MEDICAL CTR?)

"BUILD OUT OFFICE SHELL" 65K NO

"BUILD OUT. ... UNUSED STORAGE SPACES OF 7K NO 937 SF & 2187 SF .... FIRST FLOOR"

CONVERT 1342 SF OF WAREHOUSE TO 25K NO OFFICE SPACE

MINOR REMODEL ? CITY (FIRST REF. TO TISSUE BANKS ITL)

"1921 SF NEW MED SPACE PROCESSING LABS 104M SCHEM. W/I (E) WAREHOUSE; 2187 SF REMODELED SUPPORT SPACES

6/3/11 PLANS AND AREA CALCS MEMO FROM PLANNING DEPT INDICATES PROPOSED PLAN CONSISTANT WITH MSTR PLAN (EMPHASIS ON TRIPS)

'" 00

2597 KERNER 8LDG 8

(Continued)


PERMIT # DATE WORK DESCRIPTION 80608-018 Aug-06 ADD NEW FREEZER ROOMS

80705-022 Jun-07 INTERIOR REMODEL - 2ND STORY

VALUATION DWGS? 250K CITY

425K CITY

0'1 1.0

2505 KERNER BLVD BLDG C


PERMIT # DATE WORK DESCRIPTION

(PRE-2000 PERMIT ARCHIVE ACCESSIBLE ONLY AT CITY HALL)

27351 Jan-SS TI'S (NAT. SCIENTIFIC)

31170 Mar-S9 2ND FLOOR TOILET RMS

31171 Jun-S9· TI'S

31172 Sep-89 TI'S (1936 SF)

41329 Mar-96 BUILD OUT OFFICES

42363 Sep-96 INT TI'S

43145 Apr-97 2 RESTROOMS

44117 Aug-97 INT TI'S

46377 Dec-98 NEW PCS ANTENNA

BOO07-113 Oct-~O TI OFFICE REMODEL (PERMIT APPL IN PRE-2000 CITY ARCHIVES)

B0304-080 Jul-03 TI - EBER INTL (PERMIT APPL IN PRE-2000 CITY ARCHIVES)

81010-084 Dec-10 REMODEL/ADA UPGRADE

APN 009-291-42

VALUATION DWGS?

103K NO

22K NO

63K NO

32K NO

70K NO

50K NO

15K NO

50K NO.

NO

S5K NO

75K OWNER

117K O/C

-..J o

100 PELICAN WAY BLDG E



24061 Jan-85 FOUNDATION ONLY

23209 Mar-86 BUILDING SHELL

24980 Jan-87 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS

28823 Sep-88 INTERIOR TI SUITE 150 "MICROAGE"

28908 Sep-88 TENATN' IMPROVEMENTS REID CORP

29378 Dec-88 TI'S "0CLASSEN PHARMACEUTICALS"

30756 Aug-89 STORAGE RACK INSTALLATION

34824 Feb-92 MINOR TI

35911 Oct-92 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS

36070 Nov-92 INT OFFICE EXPANSION - OCLASSEN (UPPER LEVEL EXPANSION)

39815 May-95 REMODEL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (OCLASSEN REMODEL)

43512 Jun-97 DEMO INTERIOR WALL

44657 Feb-98 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (CEDCO PUBL.)

VALUATION DWGS?

lOOK

545K OWNER

85K CITY

49K OIC

48K OIC

320K OIC

5K CITY

4K CITY

158K CITY

86K CITY

37K OIC

8K CITY

60K CITY

--.J t-'

100 PELICAN WAY BLDG E

(Continued)


PERMIT # DATE B0803-081 May-08

B0805-090 ?

F0804-012 May-08

B0806-060 Jul-08

B0902-046 Feb-09

B0903-028 May-09

PROBLEM AREAS:

WORK DESCRIPTION VALUATION DWGS? ELEVATOR ADDITION

ROOF EQUIP FOR TV STUDIO (DISH PERMIT)

20K OIC

FIRE PERMIT ISSUED FOR SPRINKLER WORK IN CRESTRON TI'S. CANNOT FIND RECORD OF BUILDING PERMIT IN CITY ARCHIVES

TENANT IMPROVEMENT MEZZ FOR TV STUDIO 627K (KTLN STUDIOS)

ADA PARKING 5K

METHANE PUMP 15K

OWNER HAS TI'S; CITY HAS FIRE SPRKL DWGS

OIC

CITY

CITY

CAN NOT FIND BUILDING PERMIT FOR 08 CRESTRON TI'S (FIRE PERMIT EXISTS)

~ t\.)

85 GLACIER POINT RD (AKA 2550 KERNER BLVD) BLDG F


PERMIT # DATE WORK DESCRIPTION VALUATION DWGS?

44091 Sep-97

B0609-112 Dec-06

27000 SF WAREHOUSE; 10000 SF OFFICE 1.8M (SHELL BUILDING AND INTERIOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS)

2 ADA BATHROOMSj MACHINE SHOP TO WAREHOUSE AREA (PACIFIC LASER SYSTEMS)

lOOK

OWNER

CITY

...,J w

150 PELICAN WAY BLDG G



43190 Apr-97 NEW TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING

44653 Feb-98 TI'S PART OF SECOND FLOOR (SYCAL PROPERTIES)

46945 Apr-99 WIRELESS CELL SITE

B0612-018 Feb-07 REARRANGE EXISTING OFFICES

VALUATION DWGS?

2.25M OWNER

40K CITY

60K CITY

lOOK CITY

-...J 01::0

101 GLACIER POINT ROAD BLDG H


PERMIT # DATE WORK DESCRIPTION VALUATION DWGS?

44854 Mar-98 TILT-UP CONSTRUCTION 1.75M OWNER (PERMIT DWGS REDLINED: REDUCE UPPER FLOOR AREA BY 4000 SF)

46356 Dec-98 INTERIOR TI - 2 FLOORS, APPRX 19000 SF 400K NO (ORIG SNADER TI'S?)

47257 Jun-99 INTERIOR TI (CITY HALL RECORDS) 130K OWNER

(DRAWINGS GENERALLY CONSISTENT Wj 2011 AS-BUILTS -LOWER LEVEL ONLY)

48022 Oct-99 CITY HALL RECORDS "PHASE II" 83K OWNER

(DRAWINGS GENERALLY CONSISTENT Wj 2011 AS-BUILTS -LOWER LEVEL ONLY)

BOO01-046 Feb-OO INTERIOR TI 150K OWNER (UPPER LEVEL OFFICE TI'S)

B008-044 ? HC RESTROOMS, STAIRWAY, PARTITIONS, lOOK NO HVAC

BOO12-0lD Dec-OO HC RESTROOMS, PARTITION WALLS, HVAC 125K NO (SONHEAVY INDUSTRIES)

B0605-163 Aug-06 "CONSOLIDATE 2 FLOORS TO ONE FLOORj 180K CITY CREAT OFFICE SPACE" (SNADER)

B1106-002 Jun-ll PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS 18K NO

75

76

September 4,2012

Becl<y Cranford McAvoy Management PO Box 1269 Novato, Ca 94948

Re: Bayview Business Park

Dear Becky,

FORSHER+GUTHRIE

PI anning Architecture Developm.ent

Robert FOl'shel' AlA Architect Matthew C. Guthrie Planner

Ten H Street San Rafael California 94901

Tel 415 4591445 Fax 415 459 1124

This letter shall serve to clarify areas previously reported by the business parl<'s property management for office use, and light industrial use, in the seven buildings in the Bayview Business Parle

Summary: Two of the seven buildings were initially approved and constructed to contain 100% 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 a twostory element with offices on lower and upper levels, fronting a single-story element containing light industrial.uses.

Several anomalies are present in the previously reported square footages:

Building B: Office areas previously reported for this building were artificially low. The existing tenant's (Tissue Banks International) use of the lower level areas originally designated to be office, is not used as typical office, despite the existing compartmentalized plan typically associated with office use. Therefore the square footages approved by permit, and reported in 2003 for office use on the lower level was only 1,267sf of the 8,409sf that is available. Therefore 7,142sf should be reallocated from the light industrial category, and be made available as office area for fLlture tenants.

Building E: There is some confusion over a mezzanine area that was approved previously by the City which would have allowed additional square footage above the original approval, but was never constructed. The area of that mezzanine has never been included in the reported areas. The deed restriction that was filed in regards to the use of this mezzanine should be rescinded, as it does not exist, and there is no longer a desire for it to be constructed.

Building H: Of the reported 18,552sf of office area in this building, 3,552sf is not currently in use. Because the building was constructed to be larger than what the use permit approved, the City has previously disallowed the use of an area equal to the overage. Currently the upper level space sits empty. It Is requested that this space be allowed for occupancy of office use.

SOURCE REFERENCE 7

September 4,2012

Corrected square footages are as follows:

Building A 22 Pelican Way

Office: Lt. Industrial: Total SF:

Building B 2597 Kerner Blvd.


Building C 2505 Kerner Blvd.


Building E 100 Pelican Way


Building F

31,594 o

31,594

16,818 11,311 28,129

13,301 6,593

19,894

13,357 14,987 28,344

Page: 2

85 Glacier Point Rd (aka 2550 Kerner Blvd.)


Building G 150 Pelican Way


9,000 27,000 36,000

29.450 o

29.450

Forsher+Guthrie

Bayview Business Park

77

78

September 4, 2012

Building H 101 Glacier Point Rd


18,552 32,546 51,098

Forsher+Guthrie

Page: 3 Bayview Business Park

These figures result in the following totals for the Business Park:


132,072 92,437

224,509

If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do riot hesitate to contact me.

cordiallY~ Greg Eicher Forsher + Guthrie

Attachment 6

IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OFSAN RAFAEL, March 26, 2013

Regular Meeting San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes

\

For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT

Present: Kate Colin Larry Paul Charlie Pick ViktQriya Wise Jack Robertson Barrett Schaefer Mark Lubamersky

Absent: None

Also Present: Paul Jensen, Community Deyelopment Director Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES

URGENT COMMUNICATION

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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Mark Lubamersky None Barrett Schaefer None

PUBLIC HEARING

City Council Meeting March 6,2013 Attachment 6 - PC Minutes 79

80

Attachment 6

2. 22-150 Pelican Way, 2505.2597 Kerner Boulevard 85-101 Glacier Way (Bayview Business Park Master Plan Amendment) - Request for a Planned Development District zone change amendment and master Use Permit amendment for the Bayview Business Park light industrial and office complex located on 12.9 acres in east San Rafael; APN: 009-291-15,16,22,23,38,39,42,54,55,56,57,69&70; Planned Development (PD1675) Zone; Bayview Business Park Owners Association, Owner/Applicant; Case Number(s): ZC12-001&UP12-040. Project Planner: Kraig TaJilbornini

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:

NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky None None 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: Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky

NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

Charlie Pick moved and Viktoriya Wise seconded to adopt resolution recommending that City Council approve the amended MasterUse 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 follws

AYES: Kate Colin, Larry Paul, Charlie Pick, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky

NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Director Jensen gave the Director's Report

COMMISSION COMMUNICATION

ADJOURNMENT:

ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III

APPROVED THIS __ DAY __ OF ___ , 2013

Larry Paul, Chair

. City Council Meeting March 6,2013 Attachment 6 - PC Minutes

Attachment 7

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project:

PROJECT:

HEARING DATE:

LOCATION:

WHAT WILL HAPPEN:

IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND:

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

22-150 Pelican Way, 2505-2597 Kerner Blvd & 85-101 Glacier Point Rd. - Review of a Zone Change and Master Use Pennit to amend the approvals granted for the Bayview Business Park light industria1l0ffice 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 (pD1675) District; Bayview Business Park Owners Association, owner/applicant; File No(s).: ZC12-001 & UPI2-040.

As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff has prepared a Negative Declaration/or the project which meets the provisions o/the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A 20-day public review and comment period on the adequacy o/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.

Monday, May 6, 2013 at 7:00 P.M.

San Rafael City Hall- City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California

You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve the project applications.

You can send a letter to the Community Development Depatiment, Planning Diviskm, Gityof San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting.

Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or [email protected]. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth A venue, 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. Y,ou can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsamafael.org/meetings

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL

lsi Esther Beirne Esther Beirne 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 (Govemment 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 90th day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6)

Sign Language and intelpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies o/documents are available in accessible/ormats lIpon request.

Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 01' 23. Para-transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964.

To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meetingihearing, individuals are requested to reji'ain ji'om wearing scented products.

81 CC Meeting May 6,2013

A ttar.hmp.nt 7

Documents

Department: Community Development, Planning Division ...cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=cityofsanrafael_23623ed47e897a51d...The business park consists of a built-out