Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2016-09-07 #2CITYOF Meeting Date: September 7, 2016 Case Numbers: ED16-043 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 Community Development Department — Planning Division Aaenda Item: a REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 350 Los Ranchitos Road (Guide Dogs for the Blind) — Request for Environmental and Design Review Permit to remove and replace existing training offices, two kennels, maintenance offices, maintenance storage and puppy socialization buildings with a new "Puppy Center" consisting of a 20,055 square foot building and 8,706 square feet of exterior covered yard areas. The project would not increase the numbers of service animals, staffing or volunteer intensity on campus. The proposed new building would be located east of the new residence hall building that was approved by the Planning Commission in June 2011; APN: 175-250-03; Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) Zoning District; Guide Dogs for the Blind, Owner; Tim Brown, Dreyfuss + Blackford Architects, applicant; File No: ED16-043; Rafael Meadows (Los Ranchitos) Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions. Side/rear yard requirement is 10 feet per 14.09.030A. Site Development Summary Site Characteristics Lot Size General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Allow/Req: Proposed: NR 144,692 s .ft. 133,092 sq. ft. existing) Project Site: P/QP P/QP Guide Dogs for the Blind North: P/QP P/QP Cemetery South: LDR LDR Single-family Residences East: LI/O LI/O Storage warehouse West: HDR PD1821, PD1537 Multifamily residential Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions. Side/rear yard requirement is 10 feet per 14.09.030A. Site Development Summary Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: Proposed: No Requirement (NR) 496,148 sq. ft. 11.39 ac(existing) Allow/Req: Proposed: NR 144,692 s .ft. 133,092 sq. ft. existing) Height Density or Floor Area Allowed: Proposed: 36 ft. 24 ft. Allowed: Proposed: 1.0 (existing FAR 0.24) 0.29 FAR 144,962 sq. ft. total floor area Parking Upper Floor Area Required: Proposed: 184 (existing) 185 Allowed: Proposed: NR NIA Landscape Area Setbacks Required: 10% Landscape Area (11.3 acres, 49,614 sq. ft.) Existing: 110, 038 sf total site Proposed: Reduction in project area from 36,440 sq. ft. to 20,882 sq.ft.= 15,558 sq. ft New proposed total landscaping on site: 94,480 sq.ft Required Proposed' Front: Side(s): Rear: NR 10 ft. 10 ft. N/A 15 ft. 20 ft. Grading Tree Removal Total: N/A Existing trees to remove: 41 trees Off -Haul: Minimal site grading is anticipated. I Proposed to beplanted: 57 trees Proposed setbacks are indicated from new exterior walls of buildings or additions. Side/rear yard requirement is 10 feet per 14.09.030A. SUMMARY The proposal requires an Environmental and Design Review Permit amendment for demolition of existing structures and the construction of a new 20,055 square foot building and 8,706 square feet of covered outdoor kennels, as well as landscaping changes and additional lighting. The proposed project would not result in an expansion of the facility with respect to service animals, staff or volunteer activities as the new building would replace existing functions on campus, which includes whelping and puppy kennels, puppy socialization, and associated staff support areas. The proposed new one-story "Puppy Center" building would utilize the same building materials (cement plaster, stained wood siding and aluminum storefront) as the new residence hall building as recommended for approval by the DRB and approved by the Planning Commission in 2011 (EDI 1- 017). The project would not need excessive grading. No additional parking is required as the new building is not considered an expansion of services. There are 184 parking spaces on site and the proposed project would add 1 additional parking space. No other changes to existing buildings on the campus are being proposed. Pursuant to the current ED11-017 Condition of Approval No. 1 "Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the Planning Commission, if necessary." Staff has determined that the new 28,761 square foot new puppy center and uncovered kennels and the associated demolition of existing kennels and landscaping changes would be a significant change and, therefore, requires review by the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB's recommendations and conditions will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Staff requests that the Board review this staff report and provide a recommendation on overarching design criteria for the new building in order to ensure that the design is compatible with the adjacent existing buildings on the Guide Dog campus. Specifically, staff asks the Design Review Board (DRB) to consider the following: Site Plan • That the overall size and design of the new Puppy Center and covered outdoor kennels is appropriate. • That the design and location of the outdoor kennels will minimize noise impacts to neighbors. Landscaping • Comment on the proposed removal of 41 existing trees on site. • Comment on site landscaping in the project area in relation to the new buildings and overall site landscaping. Lighting • Comment on the number and type of proposed additional light fixtures. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The property is located at 350 Los Ranchitos Road, which exhibits a slight downsloping grade from the street to the rear of the property (see Project Vicinity Map, Exhibit 1). The property is currently developed with a facility for dogs for the blind (Guide Dogs for the Blind). The existing development is significantly screened by a large number of trees of varying types and sizes. The property is bound by 2 Mt. Olivet Cemetery to the north; single family residences and SMART Train railway to the south; Highway 101 and a storage warehouse to the east and multifamily residential development across Los Ranchitos Road to the west. History: The Guide Dogs for the Blind campus underwent site renovation in 2011, with the demolition and relocation of the existing (22,560 sf) residence hall and the construction of an expanded residence hall (26,626 sf), as well as reconstruction and expansion of landscape areas. The project was approved by the Planning Commission in 2011 (Resolution 11-04). Currently the campus includes an administration wing, volunteer center, residence hall, an extensive kennel complex on the northeast side of the project site, training offices, a maintenance office, storage containers and parking and landscaping. The property has been consistently well maintained. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The proposed project (see "project boundary area" identified by dotted line on Plan Sheet 4) entails demolition of 68 existing kennels and a puppy socialization building totaling 12,053 square feet located on the north side of the property. This area would be redeveloped with new walkways, landscaping, and three (3) outdoor exercise yards (see Plan Sheet 5 and Plan Sheet 8). The existing kennel use would be relocated into the new 20,055 Puppy Center building and 8,706 square feet of covered exterior dog kennels, with new landscaping on the south side of the site (see Plan Sheet 6 and Plan Sheet 7). The area proposed for the new puppy center would include demolition of an existing 721 square foot maintenance building, 1,796 square foot training building, and elimination of grass landscaping. Overall, the use on the site would remain the same with no increase in number of service animals or staff/volunteers. Site Plan: The changes to the buildings on the campus are located toward the interior of this large 11.39 acre site, and would not be visible from Los Ranchitos Road. Due to the location of the project site and the limited proposed building height, the proposed design would not have any impact on public views or public viewsheds visible within and around the City of San Rafael (i.e., the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills from public streets and public vantage points). The proposed plan would replace the existing landscaped area at the south east corner of the site and add a new single -story puppy center building. The main entry to the site and most of the interior walkways would remain the same. Existing unpermitted storage sheds would be removed. New landscaping would be added to screen the southern perimeter of the new puppy center building (see Sheet 7). Removal of the existing 68 kennels in this area would provide a new landscaped training area for the dogs, along with new pedestrian walkways and new lighting. Architecture: The proposed one-story puppy center building would use the same building materials already approved in 2011 for the new residence hall (cement plaster, stained wood siding and aluminum storefront- see Elevation Sheets 19 and 20, and photos of existing building materials on Sheet 21). The modern design would be consistent with the existing approved buildings on site and would be consistent with the surrounding residential building heights. The new building would be appropriately setback and screened from the neighboring single family residential development. A new 10' high wood fence would be installed along the southern property line. The proposed fence height and materials will be based on the "Style 2" fence pre -approved (ED 16-001/EX16-002) for properties along the SMART train rail line (see Exhibit 2). Landscaping: The applicant submitted a Tree Retention Suitability and Protection Plan by Arborscience, dated April 29, 2016 (see Exhibit 3). The report identifies the specific tree species that are proposed to be removed and also specifies tree protection measures to be implemented. The report identifies a total of 48 trees within the "project boundary area". A total of 41 trees will need to be removed because they are either within the building footprint or would be destabilized by adjacent excavation and would pose a safety threat. A total of 7 trees are deemed suitable for retention. A total of 57 trees are proposed to be planted. Additionally, ground cover and shrubs would be planted on site, both along the perimeter of the new puppy center, and also to the north in the area proposed for the new outdoor exercise yard area. The new puppy center building would eliminate a large landscaped grassy area on site. Despite the landscaping changes, the project would still maintain over 1 acre (64,802 square feet) of landscaped areas throughout the entire campus. Lighting: The proposed project would add lighting to the site, both wall sconce lighting, seat wall lighting and pole lights (see photos and specs on Sheet 24). The wall sconce locations are identified on the plan elevation sheets 19 and 20, and the pole light locations are identified on Plan Sheet 5. There are ten (10) total "Street Lights" in the project area: two (2) are new, six (6) are existing, and two (2) are relocated existing. There are nine (9) total new "Pedestrian Lights" proposed with the project and two (2) new "Walkway Light Fixtures". Eleven (11) total wall sconces are proposed on the building: seven (7) are shown on the elevations and four (4) more are mounted on the penthouse roof to illuminate the mechanical equipment and roof access areas. The sconces on the roof aren't visible in the elevation drawings because of the tall parapet that conceals most of the roof equipment. The following additional clarification is provided regarding identification of the lighting fixtures shown on the plans: 1. The "concrete lightpole base" shown on Sheet 5 is depicted on Sheet 24 as "street light" 2. The "concrete pedestrian lightpole base" shown on Sheet 5 is depicted as "pedestrian light" on Sheet 24. 3. The "walkway lighting fixture" noted on Sheet 5 are short, pole mounted fixtures depicted in the "wood site bench" photo on Sheet 24. Grading: The project would require minor site grading of an expected 677 cu.yds of cut and 1, 912 cu.yds of fill. The required grading is necessary to obtain the finish floor level of the new building. ANALYSIS Listed below are the relevant General Plan 2020 policies, Zoning Ordinance design criteria and San Rafael Design Guideline policies that the Board should use when evaluating the project: General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan Land Use designation for the subject site is Public/Quasi Public, which permits government or quasi -public buildings or facilities; utility facilities and similar facilities owned or operated by public/non-profit agencies; and residential uses. In terms of the intensity of development, this designation allows 1.0 FAR (floor area ratio). Lastly, the General Plan identifies that this site has a 36 -ft. height limit. As proposed, this project would be consistent with the land use designation and intensity standards of the General Plan 2020. In addition to these standards, the General Plan 2020 contains design -related policies. Applicable policies as provided below in italics, followed by staff comments: 4 • Community Design Policy CD -10a (Visual Compatibility) directs to ensure that new structures are visually compatible with the neighborhood. • Community Design Policy CD -18 (Landscaping) recognizes the unique contribution provided by landscaping and to make it a significant component of all site design • Community Design Policy CD -19 (Lighting) specifies allowance for adequate site lighting for safety purposes while controlling excessive lighting spillover and/or glare. Staff has determined that the proposed buildings would be consistent with the existing neighborhood of single story and two-story residential and commercial buildings with varied architecture and materials and colors. The project is proposing to replace trees removed with a total of 57 trees, in addition to ground cover and shrubs, as well as new pedestrian pathways. The project is not visible from any significant public vantage points, and the newly created landscaping is an integral part of the project design. As such, the project is in keeping with the goals of Policy CD -18. The proposed new lighting fixtures are the same in height and wattage as what was previously approved for the site renovations in 2011. The preliminary photometrics indicate that the lighting levels at the property line would be less than 1 Fc (see Zoning Ordinance Consistency discussion below). Staff requests comments from the DRB on any design changes or details required, which would assure compliance with the General Plan policies. Design criteria contained in the General Plan 2020 have been incorporated into the San Rafael Non -Residential Design Guidelines Manual and the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, compliance with the pertinent General Plan 2020 policies would be met if the project is found to address the pertinent criteria listed in the design guidelines and zoning ordinance. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: As noted in the Property Facts Summary on Page 1 of this report, the project meets applicable zoning standards. The pertinent design criteria are identified and discussed below: Chapter 25 - Environmental and Desiqn Review Permits The review criteria identified in Section 14.25.050 Review Criteria of the Zoning Ordinance includes the following which specifically apply to the project: • Consistency with the General Plan 2020 Design Policies. • Result in a harmonious relationship between structures within the development. • Architecture should be harmoniously integrated with the colors, materials, scale and design. • Creation of interest in the building elevation. • Equal attention given to design of all visible facades. • Use materials and colors that are selected to be in context with the area, minimizing contrast, of high quality, and appropriate for the character of the site and its surrounding development. • Light sources should provide safety for occupants but not create glare to adjacent neighbors. • Landscaping should be an integral enhancement, sensitive to site features and provide buffers where appropriate. The revised site plan and new puppy center building design propose varied roof lines, building materials and colors that would add interest to the site. The materials match the palette approved and used for the previously approved new Residence Hall building. Therefore, the project maintains design consistency and continuity on the Guide Dog campus. Staff asks for the DRB to provide further input on any refinements that would be deemed appropriate to further enhance the proposed project, in compliance with the applicable design criteria. San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines, adopted November 15, 2004, strive to improve the design of all residential and non-residential development. Applicable criteria from the San Rafael Design Guidelines are provided below in italics, followed by staff comments: Nonresidential Design Guidelines • As modifications are made to San Rafael, whether through public improvements or as private development affects neighborhoods or the Downtown, the design quality of these changes should improve the quality of life in San Rafael. These guidelines provide a framework of design principles that builds on the strength of the existing character of an area and that strives to improve the visual unity of the area. Landscaping • Landscaped areas should be planned as and integral part of the development. • Trees should be planted in a variety of locations. • Add street trees where practical. Lighting • Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and vehicular safety. • Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond boundaries of the property. • Lighting fixtures should compliment the project architecture. Pedestrian Circulation • Consider pedestrian orientation when designing building entries, windows, signage and doors. • Clearly define pedestrian movement through parking lots by using pavement treatment and landscaped walkways. • Adequate facilities for bicycle parking should be provided. Building Form • Consider the development's visual and spatial relationship to adjacent buildings and other structures in the area. • Building entrances should be defined with architectural elements • Where appropriate, provide awnings to enhance the design of the building, provide weather protection, and create a sense of human scale. The entrance to the Guide Dogs facility is directly accessible off Los Ranchitos Road and visually leads to the pedestrian complex linking the existing kennels. The puppy center and re -designed landscaped puppy exercise area would be connected to the existing pedestrian walkway network on site. Existing bike racks in this area would be relocated. The proposed new puppy center has no visibility from Los Ranchitos Road and would be designed to be compatible with existing buildings on the site. The project proposes to remove 41 trees and plant 57 trees. The project's total impact on the site is a net decrease of 15,698 sf of landscaped area, as shown on Sheet 7. This represents a reduction from 36,440 sf of existing landscaping in the project area to 20,882 sf of proposed landscaping. Based on the overall landscaped area for the entire site as approved in 2011 (80,500 sf), the project's net change in landscaping would 64,802 sf (80,500 sf - 15,698 sf) or 13%. This is in excess of the 10% minimum landscape requirement. The bulk of the loss is not visible from the street, and the new landscaping will help screen the proposed new building and will integrate with the site and new buildings. Furthermore, the existing old kennels will be replaced with a new landscaped area for dog training. This will significantly enhance the area of the site directly across from the administration and residence hall. [ei Per the preliminary photometric study, the site lighting provides 0.5 Fc or less at the property lines. The proposed 12' pole lights give off an average value of around 3 Fc in their area of coverage with the highest values at about 5 Fc. The wall sconces on the building provide an average of about 5 Fc. Staff does not anticipate that the lighting levels will have a negative impact to surrounding residences. However, per Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.227 projects are subject to a 90 -day post -installation lighting review period, during which time, staff can access the lighting levels and require any necessary adjustments. Staff finds the proposed project is consistent with the San Rafael Design Guidelines. DRB recommendations and comments are requested on any landscaping, lighting or design elements that may require further attention to assure a high quality, sustainable design is achieved that is compatible with, and sensitive to surrounding development. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE A notice of the public hearing on the project was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject site, fifteen (15) days prior to the Board's meeting. Notice was also mailed to Rafael Meadows Improvement Association, Drake Terrace, and the Hartzell HOA. Further, a notice sign was posted the Los Ranchitos Road property frontage. On August 28, 2016, staff received a comment from the property owner at 401 Merrydale, expressing concerns with existing drainage issues and potential noise from barking dogs (see Exhibit 4). The property at 401 Merrydale is zoned LI/O (Light Industrial/Office), but does have a caretaker's residence with resident manager and assistant manager living on site. Staff requested additional information from the applicant about the potential noise concerns. Chapter 8.13 establishes that property zoned "public" shall be subject to a noise threshold limit that is the "most restrictive limit applicable to adjoining private property." The project site is adjacent to residential property, and as such, this more restrictive noise threshold would apply, which has a maximum threshold of 60 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime for "intermittent" noise levels at the property line of a residential area. Dog -barking is defined in Chapter 8.13 as "intermittent" noise. No change in existing noise levels is anticipated to occur and the project is not identified as an existing source of significant noise. Therefore, no noise studies were required. Noise would remain subject to compliance with the with the Chapter 8.13 Noise Ordinance thresholds. However, in response to this concern the applicant is in the process of completing a noise investigation. The applicant plans to provide an update on this issue at the DRB meeting. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the project design is substantially consistent with the City's development standards and design -related policies. The DRB is asked to provide comments and recommendations on the proposed design details. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Standard Approved Exterior Fence Detail for SMART frontage 3. Tree Suitability and Protection Plan, Arborscience, dated April 29, 2016 4. Neighbor Comment size plans have been provided to the DRB members only. 7 cc: Tim Brown, Project Designer Dreyfuss + Blackford 3450 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95816 Scott Shannon, AIA Project Director Dreyfuss + Blackford 1500 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Mike Fryer Guide Dogs for the Blind 350 Los Ranchitos Road San Rafael, CA 94903 Scott Urquhart Rafael Meadows Improvement Association 218 EI Prado San Rafael, CA 94903 Betty Morris Hartzell HOA P.O. Box 6037 San Rafael, CA 94903 H; 1 M O N N m ro O s O A X v x t* CL N � � rn i r C` T ro F D ro CL C7 O {D Ln w o a, a,°- fD m ua —• c in ro a C? rD r co T c`•i CD Exhibit 2 LU ro m v x t* CL N � � rn i r C` T ro F D ro CL C7 O {D Ln w o a, a,°- fD m ua —• c in ro a C? rD r co T c`•i CD Exhibit 2 Fence Height Permit Plan for Properties along SMART ROW August 2015 - Fence Style Options Style 1 ➢ Good neighbor F ,k �,•"••.`;,', .-• �. "� ➢ Lattice top • • e•4hrr"�ii • '- - '�i ' Vertical planks overlap i i e x • Style 2 r t t ➢ Good neighbor "= ➢ Vertical planks (solid visual block) q ➢ Horizontal supports near top 1; Style 3 Standard vertical plank fence ➢ Option 1:, Economy version - standard fence with planks facing ,.• „ ro ,,: whatever side property owner wants ➢ Option 2: standard fence w/ planks facing the ROW o Affords opportunity for property owner to apply noise attenuation material on private property side o Building specs require posts and footings strong enough to i support a layer of planks on both sides, even though lighter material may ultimately be used for noise attenuation ° ° �- Sampling of noise attenuation materials to be optionally applied by owners: http://www.acoustiblok.com/acoustical fence.php http://www.allnoisecontrol.com/products/outdoor-noise-contro l- blankets.dm http://www.alinoisecontrol.co m/products/Industrial-Noise-Ba rriers.cfm Notes 1. Decorative details to be left to the discretion of the property owner, including post caps, lattice style, plank style, and other non-essential structural details 2. Optional steel sleeves for posts to be encased in concrete footings; Note due to a permanent berm SMART left behind and other re -contouring work, rainwater runoff seeped under fences into some residents' yards in the last significant rain storm. a. There's an opportunity -here for SMART to act as a good neighbor by paying for the cost of metal sleeves for fence post footings for any homeowners who have experienced this problem, or are likely to because of proximity to new berms and changed contours that redirect water into adjacent yards. Exhibit 2 TREE RETENTION SUITABILITY AND PROTECTION PLAN Puppy Center Project Guide Dogs for the Blind California Carpus San Rafael, California (APN; 175-250-03) Prepared for.- Michael or:Michael C. Fryer Facilities and Projects Manager Guide Dogs for the Blind 350 Los Ranchitos Road San Rafael, CA 94903 mfryer Oguidedogs.com Prepared by: Dr. Kent Julin ISA Certified Arborist California Professional Forester ARB©RSCIENCB April 29, 2016 P.O. Box 111 • Woodacre, CA 94973-0111 Office: 415.419.5197 o Field: 415.419.6960 ® PayPal: kent.julin@gmail.com Web: http://arborscientist.com Exhibit 3 ASSIGNMENT Guide Dogs for the Blind hired ARBORSCIENCE to prepare a tree retention suitability and protection plan for construction if its proposed Puppy Center in San Rafael. I conducted my site inspection on October 15, 2015. SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS Information regarding property boundaries, land and tree ownership was obtained from Marin County Assessor Parcel data. I have neither personal nor monetary interest in the outcome of this matter. All determinations reflected in this report are objective and to the best of my ability. I made observations and conclusions regarding the subject trees and site conditions, independently, based on my education, experience, and inspection of the site. Unless expressed otherwise, information contained in this report covers only those items examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. My inspection was limited to visual examination of accessible tree components from the ground without trunk dissection, coring, or root crown excavation. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question may not arise in the future. SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT The Guide Dogs for the Blind California Campus in San Rafael (APN: 175-250-03) occupies 11 acres between Los Ranchitos and Merrydale roads. - Property improvements include asphalt -paved driveways and parking lots, administrative and support buildings, training areas, and landscaping. Trees on the property include newly planted trees and mature specimens. The proposed project would involve demolition of two buildings, tree removal, excavation for a new sanitary sewer line, and construction of the new Puppy Center. SUBJECT TREE DESCRIPTION Forty-eight (48) trees are within the proposed project area. A list of these trees is presented in Table 1. Seven (7) of these trees are suitable for retention and 41 will need to be removed for the project because they are within the building footprint or would have roots destabilized by adjacent excavation and would pose a safety threat (Figure 1). 011[ e]101 r lT►Iif1 W. The following tree protection measures will protect the trees during construction: 1. Erect tree protection fencing as shown on Figure 1. Fencing should consist of 6' T - post stakes driven into the ground with wire fencing. ARBORSCIENCE — Puppy Center Tree Plan April 29, 2016 Page 2 2. The Project Arborist will install 4 signs on the fence as follows: TREE PROTECTION NON -INTRUSION ZONE NO DEMOLITION / CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ACCESS MATERIAL STORAGE OR DUMPING WITHIN THIS AREA WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST PROJECT ARBORIST: KENT JULIN (415) 419-6960 3. The Project Arborist will be present anytime work is performed within the tree protection zones. 4. The Project Arborist will be present when roots 2 inches or greater in diameter must be severed with a clean sharp saw. 5. Any damage to branches of the subject trees will be reported to the Project Arborist, who will oversee necessary repairs or proactive pruning to avoid damage. 6. The Project Arborist will conduct the following inspections. Initial Site Inspection. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the Project Arborist will inspect the site and submit a letter by email to the City of San Rafael verifying that all tree -protection measures are properly implemented and any clearance pruning of the trees has been completed. Monthly Inspections. The Project Arborist will complete regular monthly inspections during the construction period to verify that the Tree Protection Plan is properly implemented. Additional Inspections (weekly or daily) will be necessary when it is determined that construction activities may impact a protected tree. CERTIFICATION I certify that tree protection measures as described above will protect the subject trees during reconstruction of the proposed Puppy Center. ARBORSCIENCE Dr. Kent R. Julin ISA Certified Arborist #WE -8733A ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified California Registered Professional Forester #2648 ARBORSC/ENCS — Puppy Center Tree Plan April 29, 2016 Page 3 Table 1. List of trees to be protected or removed for the proposed Puppy Center. Number Common Name Species DBH (in.) Protected Removed - crabapple Malus sp. 6 x - coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 13 x - American ash Fraxinus americana 20 x 221 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 22 x 222 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 24 x 223 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 20 x 226 American ash Fraxinus americana 25 x 231 Japanese maple Acer palmatum multi. x 234 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 22 x 236 crabapple Malus sp. 6 x 237 crabapple Malus sp. 6 x 240 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 22 x 241 crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp. multi. x 242 American ash Fraxinus americana multi. x 246 deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 25 x 256 crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp. multi. x 257 crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp. multi. x 261 Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana 10 x 262 Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana 15 x 273 Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 7 x 275 Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 8 x 276 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 36 x 282 crabapple Malus sp. 4 x 285 crabapple Malus sp. 6 x 286 ma en Ma tenus boaria 13 x 287 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 13 x 291 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 14 x 295 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 34 x 296 valley oak Quercus lobata 28 x 314 California sycamore Platanus racemosa 4 x 320 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 17 x 321 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 18 x 322 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 13 x 326 Japanese maple Acer palmatum multi. x 335 oleander Nerium oleander 6 x 345 California sycamore Platanus racemosa 3 x 351 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 3 x 352 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 3 x 355 valley oak Quercus lobata 3 x 384 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 4 x 388 valley oak Quercus lobata 3 x 396 crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp. m x 397 crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp. multi. x 400 valley oak Quercus lobata 7 x 404 Christmas berry Heteromeles arbutifolia multi. x 405 crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp. multi. x 422 maidenhair tree Ginkgo biloba 1 x 441 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 3 x ARBORSC/ENCE — Puppy Center Tree Plan April 29, 2016 Page 4 mos.: ARBORSCIENCE — Puppy Center Tree Plan April 29, 2016 Page 5 m W QE E 02 Z co — W C) co cu 06 c: U) U1 = CO (a 0 CL 0U- U- CL w CD 0 00 LL a) z 0 UJ li O o etl(L LLJ W LLJ D LL ARBORSCIENCE — Puppy Center Tree Plan April 29, 2016 Page 5 m Caron Parker From: Janette <jmrjcaron@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 4:00 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: Guide Dogs for the Blind Design Review 9-7-2016 Dear Ms Parker: We are the adjacent property owners (Northgate Security Storage) to Guide Dogs for the Blind and we have several concerns about the new kennel construction. Our main concern with the GDB property is that GDB is intentionally and systematically discharging water onto our property. This discharge is neither random nor accidental. A drainage pipe which begins on the GDB property and terminates at the line that separates the two properties and disgorges a substantial volume of water onto our property on a daily basis. A cement catch basin was installed by GDB at the terminus of the drainage pipe and encroaches on our property. At our own expense we installed an underground culvert which receives the water from GDB and channels that water in a southern direction under and across our property to a drainage ditch that is on the SMART property. We cannot gain access to the ditch to keep it cleaned out now that the train is on the tracks. Smart told us that they will not make a commitment to accommodate the flow of water so that it will not back up onto our property and damage the property or our storage business. We had our attorney write GDB a letter concerning this problem in May of 2012 which did not help, they just threatened costly litigation for us. My husband and I have owned this property since 1976 and have been maintaining our property and business by ourselves. We do not have the funds to go to battle with GDB and there endless supply of free attorneys and charitable contributions. We drain all our own storm water to the front of our property out Merrydale Rd which then goes into the ditch on the SMART property. GDB could also drain the water to Merrydale or they also have another drain going to the SMART property at there adjacent property line. This expense is minimal compared to the new buildings and kennel. Please consider the drainage problem in the design review. We also have issue with the noise level of the dog kennels and request that they put up an acoustic fence between our properties. They intend to install one on the SMART property for the new kennel so that the 900 puppies per year that will be in the new kennel can have a calm atmosphere. Between the barking dogs and the SMART train horn we are experiencing an unhealthy decibel noise level at our business. We will be surrounded with dog kennels on our adjacent property to GDB. Thank you for your consideration. Ray & Janette Caron Exhibit 4